(((nataluna)))

There is a Jewish law regarding visiting a house of mourning which requires the visitor to remain silent until the mourner begins the conversation. This ostensibly minor regulation encompasses so many basic principles in the Jewish view of mourning.

First, it emphasizes that the primary goal of the visit is not what you say to the mourner, but the mere fact that you are there. You are there to express empathy, not “to explain the ways of God to man.” Even if the mourner never says a word to you, and the two of you sit in silence for the duration of the visit, you have fulfilled the mitzvah of consoling the mourner. The Rabbinic warning, “Do not try to comfort a mourner at the time that his deceased relative (still) lies before him,” is relevant in a house of mourning too. By his or her silence, the mourner indicates that this is not the time for words, but simply for validation and solidarity.

Second, waiting for the mourner to speak reminds you that your job is to follow, not to lead. The mourner will take you into his or her world, as far as you are allowed to go. Once you see where the mourner is comfortable going, you may, if you are close enough, and empathetic enough, be able to steer the conversation to topics that would be therapeutic. But none of that can happen unless you allow the mourner to first reveal the edge of the landscape of grief. Unless you are admitted to that world, you cannot help. You must operate within the mourner’s world, accepting it as reality, and not try to impose your own world upon another.

All of this can be reduced to the single word: empathy. True empathy means being there for someone and experiencing that person’s struggles as he or she does, without trying to superimpose your own reality on theirs.

(…) Our African-American brothers and sisters are now, in rabbinic terms, in a state of “a mourner whose deceased relative lies before him.” The murder of George Floyd has produced a sense of personal bereavement. But that is not all. Each such event evokes, as Ta-Nehisi Coates lists them, “Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.” At this moment, they are both the mourners and the widows and orphans of our tradition. What they need is our empathy.

What does this mean in practice? It means that if those of us in the Jewish community and beyond temper that empathy with caveats, we are ignoring the example of God and the obligations imposed upon us by Jewish law. Asking at this moment for reciprocity in the form of combating anti-Semitism, for instance, is like visiting a house of shiva and saying, “Oh so sorry for your loss, and about the $100 you owe me…” Alluding to George Floyd’s priors means that you are not seeing through the eyes of the mourner. Condemning the entirety of the Black Lives Matter movement at this time for some of its affiliates’ excoriation of Israel or other political stances is, to the ear of the mourning members of the community, the opposite of empathy. When God appeared in the burning bush, He did not condemn the Hebrews of the day who were bearing tales or worshiping foreign gods. Responding to the phrase “Black Lives Matter” with the rejoinder “All Lives Matter” should evoke the memory of Holocaust Memorial Day statements where Jews were listed as just another group persecuted by the Nazis or omitted entirely, and shows utter indifference.

By its very definition, empathy doesn’t come with conditions. I am with him at a time of distress. God performed the ultimate act of empathy to live in the realities of an endangered baby and a nation of slaves. His example inspired an Egyptian princess to unprecedented empathy for her father’s dehumanized Hebrews, an empathy that bred Moses, who led the people to freedom and received the law that binds us all in empathy…

[Subscribe to Ketoret, Rabbi Moshe Rosenberg’s newsletter, here!]

This is my rabbi. I was going to ask him if I could post this to tumblr after it went out in newsletter form; I’m very glad someone already has.

If anyone ever wants to know who I am, just show them this screenshot.

So is that saying that ghosts can’t be part of the minyan or say Kaddish for themselves then?

Yup. Certainly the dead aren’t obligated in mitzvot and as such probably cannot be counted in a minyan. However, if there is a minyan present, halachically speaking, I can’t think of a reason why they couldn’t be allowed to say kaddish for someone else (as one’s self is not one of the people one can mourn for). Save, of course, for the reasoning above - לא המיתים יהללו יה (”The dead cannot praise God” Ps. 115:17″). 

I admitted though that that is a conceptual argument and probably not a halacha. And while the Yerushalmi does give that reasoning for why a lulav should not be dry and withered, the Bavli say something different - a lulav should not be withered because that is not beautiful. And who’s to say ghosts cannot be beautiful?

TLDLR: ghosts cannot count in a minyan and they cannot say kaddish for themselves. 

I like how many Jewish SFF posts I am finding this morning yes yes

“Can I say kaddish for myself if I’m a ghost” I love this.

Well the whole story of Kaddish is that a ghost needed OTHER people to say prayers to put him to rest. QED ghosts cannot say Kaddish for themselves.

that does not follow, ten people are needed for a minyan, so clearly as single ghost cannot say the kaddish alone.

well they also can’t say kaddish IN a minyan either. 

Premise: story of the origin of Kaddish is about a ghost whose soul is restless. A rabbi discovers the ghost and then tracks down the ghost’s son (who is alive) in order to teach him Jewishly and prepare him to pray on behalf of the his father’s spirit *because* the ghost cannot do so. This also illustrates why a group or community is needed for a restless spirit to move on.

SO:

A.) the Kaddish is said to put spirits to rest B.) the restlessness of a spirit is because of a lack of resolution with relationships the living community C.) resolution of issues with relationships cannot happen one-sided (i.e. atonement/reconciliation cannot be solved by just the individual alone) as illustrated by the fact that the ghost could not move on without assistance  D.) a minyan is a representation of the community

Therefore: 1.) a minyan is required to say Kaddish

E.) a minyan requires living adults F.) a ghost, by nature, is not alive

Therefore: 2.) a ghost cannot be in a minyan

1 and 2 are both true statements.

QED: a ghost cannot say Kaddish for themselves alone, nor can they count in a minyan saying kaddish on their behalf. 

Premise E is the whole discussion, though, you slipped your conclusion in as a premise. The core of the matter is “does a minyan require living adult Jews or just adult Jews?”

Can’t mourn yourself, from above is also a questionable premise in a word of ghosts.

The fact that I’m sitting here working prepositional logic to find these things is one of my favorite things about being Jewish.

New question, if a child dies before bar mitzvah (**me stringing up hamsa to ward off the evil eye on that statement**) when the ghost has ‘aged’ the appropriate number of years, can he be counted? (If we are taking, yes a ghost can be counted in a minyan, of course) 

Age of majority is based on physical displays of puberty (body hair and secondary sexual characteristics) so I’m going to go with no. The ghost doesn’t age.

well… technically all ghosts won’t have physical displays of puberty? since they’re incorporeal?  (also what is the source for that, not that I’m doubting you, just I haven’t heard of that before.) 

Gonna split my response in two because you bring up two good points.

1. Exactly - no ghosts will manifest signs of aging or puberty, so if they are in their own category of types of beings (as I assumed they were), they are not eligible to become bnei mitzvah. 

It’s true that nowadays we don’t wait for certain physical signs to manifest for someone to reach their age of majority. We’ve set a certain age instead. But since it’s based on that rubric, with the assumptions that twelve year old girls and thirteen year old boys will manifest certain traits (there are considerations taken if they don’t), it would seem that ghosts wouldn’t be counted in such circumstances. 

2. Yes, always ask me for sources! I hate that people seem to assume that a request for sources is a challenge. I should have provided them from the get go.

See Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 2. Itself based on passages in the Gemara in Ketubot, Yevamot, and Kiddushin, depending on which particular halacha he’s codifying.

That is part of why I don’t feel my “E” statement is slipping my conclusion as a premise @janothar. We know a minyan can be formed by adults. We must conclude that a minyan is formed by the living. 

Berakhot 47b 19. 

This is referenced in a book, apparently: 

(Emphasis mine.) Apparently from a book called Mornings at the Stanton Street Shul: A Summer on the Lower East Side. I feel being alive is a fair requirement for being in a minyan. 

It is probably more reasonable to have the ghost rely on a Torah scroll to count as the tenth person in a minyan anyways. Also because the Talmud says someone who is “crazed” cannot count in a minyan, all nine other people must have first agreed that there even is a ghost to count or not, and agree that no one is hallucinating or under mental distress for any reason. 

I see your argument, and now concede that you’ve backed up E, at least on the issue of a minyan must consist of living adults, though I will take issue with statement 1, because adulthood may be a stage of life, but there is absolutely folklore (which I can’t cite at the moment, at work) which mentions child ghosts, therefore there must also be adult ghosts.

Now, here’s a fun bit I had forgotten earlier (I again can’t cite exactly, but it’s references in Jewish Magic and Superstition by Tractenberg) ghosts CAN have a minyan…and likely it must be entirely ghosts. There are traditional (Ashkenazi, at least) stories of ghosts annoying the living because they were buried with improper shrouds and specifically complaining that they are embarrassed to go to services with the other ghosts. (who presumably are not bothering the living, just hanging around.)

So, yeah, either there can be 100% ghostly minyans, or ghosts really couldn’t give a shit what the rules are, they’re going to go to services either way…which is itself a properly Jewish response to dying.

@ameliarating why am I not already following you

*goes to fix that*

during the night as i was stuck in that hallucinatory state where you’re not asleep but you’re not not asleep, i became convinced that because cats have nine lives, you only need one cat and one person to make up a minyan, provided the cat is healthy and has experienced no near-death incidents

kuzu this has brightened not only my evening but also my entire life

Are all cats Jewish then? Or would they have to either come from a Jewish family or convert?

if a cat comes to a jewish community and declares “i am a jew”, it is believed (babylonian talmud, pesachim 3b)

I liek this

so would doctor who be a minyan all by themself??? (if doctor who were jewish. the fact that a jew was among the team that invented the show probably isn't enough, and i don't imagine the character converting to any religion of any planet) also, according to the cat example, it would have to have been the first doctor...

so…jews argue so much there’s something WRONG if we agree?

When someone’s life or liberty is on the line, then, yes, that is exactly the logic behind this, and that’s it’s better to err on the side of caution rather than condemn an innocent.

….this is why we need more detective novels written by jews

ooh can anybody who happens to see this rec some existing detective novels written by jews?

So, if a Robot is programmed by a Jewish woman, to be a sort of child for her, and the robot views herself as the woman’s daughter, would the robot be Jewish? 

http://www.jta.org/2014/06/12/life-religion/should-robots-count-in-a-minyan-rabbi-talks-turing-test

rabbis have literally discussed everything.

I love Judaism

One thing I love about Judaism is that long involved conversations about things like “can a zombie attend shul?” or “can i use my pet dragon to light candles on shabbat?” or “is meat from a replicator kosher?” are seen as completely normal.

Yes, but it should avoid contact with a Cohen if it can, and if the dragon is a Gentile sure, why not, a pet dragon is an ideal Shabbos goy, since it probably lives with you, and will get a kick out of helping. If it’s a Jewish dragon, though, no, it’s better for you to do it yourself rather than cause another Jew to violate Shabbat.

Wait wait… if a jew owned the dragon as a pet wouldn’t using the beast’s labor to light candles be pretty explicitly prohibited?

Good point. Is the dragon property, or is it a roommate?

I think it was ruled that one may allow a dragon to ignite a fire if (a) the dragon is non-sapient, and preventing them from lighting the fire would be animal cruelty, or (b) the dragon is sapient, non-Jewish and not in indentured service.

I love that a discussion that started with “I love Jews because they’ll have arguments about theoretical Shabbat dragons” ignited an argument about a theoretical Shabbat dragon

But is replicator meat kosher?

Depends.  There’s a nice big passage about what you are and aren’t allowed to eat (Leviticus 11), but it only addresses “living things”, and on top of that, it’s pretty clear that it means “animate things” specifically–plants are all parve.  So the real question becomes: do you consider replicator meat to be alive?

Well, if it’s made via cell divisions, tissue cloning, &cetera, one could argue that yes, it is alive, in which case either a) none of it is kosher, because it is a living thing of the land that doesn’t chew its cud or have cloven hooves (being, you know, sludge in a vat) OR b) it is kosher only if the original DNA belongs to a kosher animal.  I’d justify the latter by arguing that the cloned tissue is ~part~ of the animal or that it’s an animal by-product of a sort, which means if you can eat the animal you can eat the replicator meat.  (And, bonus, don’t have to worry about kosher butchering and draining all the blood.) 

That said, you could also argue that vat meat is /obviously/ not a “beast that is on the earth”, much less a sea creature, bird, or “swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth.”  This is a particularly compelling argument if your replicator meat is just a bunch of synthesized proteins, closer to a dietary supplement than a partially cloned organism.  If it was never a living (animate) thing at all, it’s all kosher, and maybe even parve to boot.