JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Masha on June 15, 2010, 01:27:22 PM
-
This is a hypothetical question. I hope it will not become of immediate concern. Suppose a loved one has some ideas about his/her funeral that you disagree with. For example, the idea of cremation and/or organ donation does not sit well with you at all. Do you respect your loved one's wishes or do you do what you feel is right?
-
Personally, I would respect their wishes. But death is VERY emotional and if most of you are in agreement on what to do, then that person would never know, would they? ;D
-
If it is really in my control to do either way, I would not respect the wishes. However, take that with a grain of salt because I want to consult a rav first to ask if "last wishes" or "will" of the deceased has any place in the halacha and whether that would impact this to allow one to override restrictions for the burial of the dead. I tend to think it wouldn't be relevant (how can a person "wish" to make other relatives violate God by burying them in a manner against the Torah and why would those wishes override halachic obligations on the people doing the burying?). So you raise an interesting question, I will hopefully look into it.
-
Do you what you feel is right. But ask yourself this question: "Will I continue to feel it's right as time passes? Or will I late regret not following the wishes of your loved one?" My feeling is that if you feel that you'll never regret it, then do what you feel is right. You'll have to live with the decision, not the deceased. Besides, the person may not have been of sound mind before dying -- due to pain killers, etc.
-
of course i would respect her last wish.guys what are you thinking? to cheat your loved one? i realy can't understand your definition of love.
-
of course i would respect her last wish.guys what are you thinking? to cheat your loved one? i realy can't understand your definition of love.
If your "loved one" requested you to commit suicide, would you do it?
In what way does this classify as "cheating" a person?
-
of course i would respect her last wish.guys what are you thinking? to cheat your loved one? i realy can't understand your definition of love.
If your "loved one" requested you to commit suicide, would you do it?
In what way does this classify as "cheating" a person?
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
2) my definition of cheating is to betray his trust
-
of course i would respect her last wish.guys what are you thinking? to cheat your loved one? i realy can't understand your definition of love.
If your "loved one" requested you to commit suicide, would you do it?
In what way does this classify as "cheating" a person?
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
Then why would you commit a sin because your wife asked you to? You are hurting yourself and going against God.
2) my definition of cheating is to betray his trust
How does this involve trust? I don't think a promise was ever made. Then again, even if there was a promise, the trust is never violated if the person is already deceased. They passed away trusting you. Once dead, do they now lose trust upon "seeing" what you do? If so, you believe in something supernatural afterall.
-
If it is really in my control to do either way, I would not respect the wishes. However, take that with a grain of salt because I want to consult a rav first to ask if "last wishes" or "will" of the deceased has any place in the halacha and whether that would impact this to allow one to override restrictions for the burial of the dead. I tend to think it wouldn't be relevant (how can a person "wish" to make other relatives violate G-d by burying them in a manner against the Torah and why would those wishes override halachic obligations on the people doing the burying?). So you raise an interesting question, I will hopefully look into it.
Yes, that's my concern. What if cremating a loved one would prevent the resurrection of the body when the Messiah comes? Can I disregard what is right and jeopardise their life after death? On the other hand, can I disregard a person's last will?
-
Depends on the wish. My Mom told me as the oldest son that I will need to see to the details of her funeral one day, and that she wants to be cremated. I told her I would not comply because Jews do not cremate themselves, it is against our way [Jews are buried in no-frills inexpensive pine boxes]. She agreed with my view and changed her wishes. She said she wants a few carnations at her funeral because that is her favorite flower. Flowers are against tradition but I said, "yes, of course", because that's what she wants and there is no real harm or law against flowers [donations in the name of the deceased are more traditional because their benevolence continues to live on, while flowers die and add death to the death.].
There are different views on the halakcha of organ donation, or donating one's body for science. Some Rabbis say yes [if the idea is to save a life as one's last act], others no. I would ask your family member's Rabbi, or your Rabbi, for the halakcha on this if you need an answer. It's a good question to raise.
I think it's better, and more moral, to disappoint a family member than break halakcha [especially at the end of life, why attach sin to a departing soul?].
-
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
I hope you never get married with that attitude.
-
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
I hope you never get married with that attitude.
i am sorry but i love myself more than any person on earth.
-
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
I hope you never get married with that attitude.
i am sorry but i love myself more than any person on earth.
So, if you ever got married and you and your wife were confronted by a knife wielding maniac, you would point to her, yell out "kill her but don't hurt me", and run away like a little girl?
-
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
I hope you never get married with that attitude.
i am sorry but i love myself more than any person on earth.
So, if you ever got married and you and your wife were confronted by a knife wielding maniac, you would point to her, yell out "kill her but don't hurt me", and run away like a little girl?
no.but i don't see how any knife wielding maniac can enter my house.
-
Hi Warp that was basically the image I had in my head too but you said it so well. :::D
-
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
I hope you never get married with that attitude.
i am sorry but i love myself more than any person on earth.
So, if you ever got married and you and your wife were confronted by a knife wielding maniac, you would point to her, yell out "kill her but don't hurt me", and run away like a little girl?
no.but i don't see how any knife wielding maniac can enter my house.
Uh hum. So you and your wife never plan on leaving your house together and possibly being confronted by the maniac in the street?
-
World conquest is the smallest thing I would do for my wife.
-
1) no.in any case i will still love myself much more than i would love my wife.
I hope you never get married with that attitude.
i am sorry but i love myself more than any person on earth.
So, if you ever got married and you and your wife were confronted by a knife wielding maniac, you would point to her, yell out "kill her but don't hurt me", and run away like a little girl?
no.but i don't see how any knife wielding maniac can enter my house.
Uh hum. So you and your wife never plan on leaving your house together and possibly being confronted by the maniac in the street?
dude.israel is the only country where you can walk in the streets in 2 am and still feel safe.
-
dude.israel is the only country where you can walk in the streets in 2 am and still feel safe.
You have an interesting way of avoiding an answer to my initial question. Okay, I'll play along. Israel has a low crime rate but it DOES have crime. Say, just for kicks, that you and your wife are unlucky enough to be victims of the attack that I've described. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
-
dude.israel is the only country where you can walk in the streets in 2 am and still feel safe.
You have an interesting way of avoiding an answer to my initial question. Okay, I'll play along. Israel has a low crime rate but it DOES have crime. Say, just for kicks, that you and your wife are unlucky enough to be victims of the attack that I've described. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
i would call the police and run away with my wife.
-
dude.israel is the only country where you can walk in the streets in 2 am and still feel safe.
You have an interesting way of avoiding an answer to my initial question. Okay, I'll play along. Israel has a low crime rate but it DOES have crime. Say, just for kicks, that you and your wife are unlucky enough to be victims of the attack that I've described. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
i would call the police and run away with my wife.
You're in an alley. There is only one way out and it is being blocked by the maniac. There are no police around. Your options are throw your wife at the maniac to distract him while you escape OR confront the maniac yourself to let your wife escape. Let's be clear, one of you will get hurt or be killed so the other can survive. Now, what do you do?
-
dude.israel is the only country where you can walk in the streets in 2 am and still feel safe.
You have an interesting way of avoiding an answer to my initial question. Okay, I'll play along. Israel has a low crime rate but it DOES have crime. Say, just for kicks, that you and your wife are unlucky enough to be victims of the attack that I've described. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
i would call the police and run away with my wife.
You're in an alley. There is only one way out and it is being blocked by the maniac. There are no police around. Your options are throw your wife at the maniac to distract him while you escape OR confront the maniac yourself to let your wife escape. Let's be clear, one of you will get hurt or be killed so the other can survive. Now, what do you do?
don't know
-
Ben,
When you truly love someone, you put their safety first. This is especially true in positions of danger Presumably in that moment you love them more. This may be difficult at 16 y/o to understand. Selfishness does enter our thoughts. I would understand it if you said to yourself, "but I want to see my children grow up." However, this would likely be counterbalanced by your desire to have your children continue to have a mother. Maybe this seems very odd to you, but you dont strike me as a thoughtless person. If your wife was an expertmarksman and was a trained Black belt, perhaps your behavior might differ, but likely not your considerations.
-
Ben,
When you truly love someone, you put their safety first. This is especially true in positions of danger Presumably in that moment you love them more. This may be difficult at 16 y/o to understand. Selfishness does enter our thoughts. I would understand it if you said to yourself, "but I want to see my children grow up." However, this would likely be counterbalanced by your desire to have your children continue to have a mother. Maybe this seems very odd to you, but you dont strike me as a thoughtless person. If your wife was an expertmarksman and was a trained Black belt, perhaps your behavior might differ, but likely not your considerations.
JTFenthusiast2 i think you are right in the case of emotional love.however in young age you mostly have hormonal love.in that case one should think first and foremost on his own survival.
-
Love is shown in how you behave not just how you feel.
-
Love is shown in how you behave not just how you feel.
Who do you love Rubystars?
-
Love is shown in how you behave not just how you feel.
Who do you love Rubystars?
My family. I'm single right now.
-
Love is shown in how you behave not just how you feel.
Who do you love Rubystars?
My family. I'm single right now.
Take this line as an advice: The only person I promise to love is myself
-
Love is shown in how you behave not just how you feel.
Who do you love Rubystars?
My family. I'm single right now.
Take this line as an advice: The only person I promise to love is myself
If you have a child...you love them more then life itself.
How does your advice apply then?
-
And how about loving your neighbor as yourself?
-
If you have a child...you love them more then life itself.
How does your advice apply then?
First you should what understand what love means.
Love in Hebrew is Ahava. A is the first letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, and it symbolizes the word "Ani" which means "me" or "I" (First person singular).
Hava means "giving", just like "Le'Havi" (to give) or "Hevi" (he gave). What I'm saying is that love means giving. When you do something, anything, you do that because of inner will you're trying to fulfill. It doesn't matter what your will is, the fact that you want something means that you think that it's something positive. Every will of yours that you fulfill is a will of self-love, self-concern, something you want for youserlf to be done and not the will of others. If someone wants something and you don't want it and won't have reason to want it, you wouldn't want it and wouldn't view it positively. While doing someting you want (=something positive), you're doing it for yourself and only for yourself, and that is self-love. Anything you do in the world comes from self-love, comes from will to do something you view as right, and from understanding that this is good for you (as an individual system, not necessarily your body or any other physical feature of yours), therefore, the only person we can really love no matter what, is ourselves.
That's what I mean by love. You can love someone else because you desire too, but when you really love someone you do for him what you want to be done for yourself.
Sorry if I gave bad explanation, you know the level of my English.
-
You're supposed to care about other people not just yourself. How is that advice? And no your explanation didn't make much sense.
-
The level of your English is fine.
I can understand what you are trying to say.
I can't say that I agree with you though.
I can, and do, put the wants and needs of my child before my own. Every day. Out of love for her and, thus, for myself.
I wouldn't desire to do half the things I do in a day - if I only loved myself.
I think maybe your feelings might change when you become responsible to, or love, someone other then yourself.
That is not a dig at you. I just know that you are still young.
Another thing - now that my parents are older and not in the best of health...I realize just how much I love them.
-
I dont know if this discussion of the Pirkie Avot {Ethics of the Fathers} helps explain this situation any better, but I will post it in the hopes that it does answer some questions. Although it is not related specifically to 'love' it is concerned with how we relate to others..
http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter5-13.html?print=1
Chapter 5, Mishna 13
"There are four character types among people. One who says, 'What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours' is of average character, and some say, this is the character of Sodom. [One who says] 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine' is unlearned (lit., [of] the people of the land). [One who says] 'What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours' is pious. [One who says] 'What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine' is wicked."
This mishna compares four types of individuals in their attitude towards others. The most straightforward of the two are the pious and wicked ones. Whereas the pious one gives to others asking for nothing in return, the wicked one tries to get what he can with no reciprocation on his part.
Slightly more complex is the "unlearned" person. He is generous towards others yet hopes to receive in return. He is basically a good-hearted person who cares about others. The commentator Rabbeinu Yonah observes that our mishna calls him an "am ha'aretz," which literally means one of the "nation of the land." This expression is often translated as an ignoramus (it's tossed around quite freely nowadays), but more precisely, it means someone who is a full-fledged member of society --- and generally a productive and contributing one. He realizes people must do favors for one another and cannot live as islands. And he does his part to make life more livable for all he comes in contact with. Yet he is not entirely selfless. He hopes to receive as well as give. His interest in himself -- equally strong as his interest in others -- indicates that he does not see giving as a virtue in its own right but weighs relationships in terms of his own bottom line. He displays an ignoranc e as to the true value of giving. Nevertheless, he has a true Jewish heart -- he's one of us -- and through his acts of generosity he may one day become a person of truly giving spirit.
The final person (actually the first one listed) is one who neither gives nor takes. He is the subject of dispute in our mishna. The first opinion is that he is average, neither good nor evil. We may see him as the secular concept of a good person, crudely -- but accurately -- do whatever you want so long it doesn't hurt anyone else. Neither hurting nor helping others cannot be characterized as good nor evil. I do not wish the harm of others, neither do I care to help them. This is certainly secular: it lacks the religious sense of duty towards mankind, yet neither can it truly be considered evil. Perhaps it is the highest form of morality the secular world has to offer. And at least in a sense, it wouldn't seem that bad a way to go.
The second opinion takes a much harsher stance, comparing such a person to the wicked people of Sodom. Now certainly this fellow could stand to improve and ought to have a stronger sense of obligation towards mankind. Yet how does his evil even approximate the depravity of Sodom -- which G-d deemed so vile as to destroy the very land upon which it rested?
There's a fascinating passage in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 109a) which describes the mentality of the Sodomites. (In fact we see parallels to it in some of the strict immigration laws of more recent times.) What brought the Sodomites to such repugnant evil? The answer in a word was that they saw the lushness of their own land and desired it for themselves. And so, they banned all travelers and visitors. (Today, after its destruction (Genesis 19), it is the area of the Dead Sea, one of the most barren and uninhabitable places in the world.) Why share our richness with anyone else? As soon as you "make it," the shnorers (more respectfully: "fund-raisers") line up at your door. Who needs it? Not of course that they intended anyone else *harm* to be sure. They just wanted the comfortable life for themselves. "No Solicitors" figured prominently at the gates of their city (a rather common sight nowadays -- although most of the time the newly-arrived Israeli "solicitor" has no idea what the word means...). We wish you all the best, but keep your suffering and misery to yourselves!
Step two, continues the Talmud, the Sodomites enacted all sorts of cruel as well as absurd laws banning hospitality and charity, and doing away with all semblance of fair play. No one had any form of obligation towards others or was required to pay for any infraction. The Talmud lists such laws as that if one would hit his fellow, his fellow would owe *him* medical expenses for the service of blood-letting. Other choice rulings were that if A would cut off the ear of B's donkey, A would keep the donkey till it grew back, or if A would injure B's wife causing her to miscarry, A would take her till she again became pregnant.
The people of Sodom likewise decreed punishments for acts of charity. The Talmud records that when a young girl gave some bread to a poor person, they punished her by smearing her flesh with honey and tying her up on a roof, leaving her to die a horrific death at the hands of the bees. (The Sages state that it was this final breach of humanity which sealed the fate of these G-dless and despicable people.)
How did simple selfishness transform itself into such vicious as well as asinine cruelty? Simple -- it was not a transformation at all. They simply lived out their own selfishness to its logical conclusion. They didn't want to share, they wanted to live for themselves -- and so naturally they went to any and all extremes to free themselves of the burdens of hospitality and humanity -- as well as all moral accountability.
And the lesson for us is that there is simply no such thing as a person who focuses wholly on himself yet is still an "average" individual. If we accept that all humans are created in G-d's image, we will naturally feel obligated to help them and will share in their suffering. We might even see our wealth and talents as a responsibility: as gifts from G-d to be used in the manner He wishes. Once humans are in G-d's image, they are all equal, significant, and deserving of our love and respect.
If, however, a person feels others' problems are not his problems, his life will be one of selfishness and unlimited cruelty. He will sleep easily at night, blissfully unconcerned with the suffering of others; in fact he will go to any extreme to see that their plight does not interfere with his personal comfort and equanimity. On a national level, it is difficult for the isolationist mentality of "It's not our problem" to avoid spilling over into the national character of a country's citizens. (Such an attitude could not be more UN-Jewish, incidentally -- even if no one has the means of saving the entire world.) On a personal level, someone who thinks exclusively about himself has not reached the maturity of character required for friendship, marriage, or any type of serious relationship. Such a person will begin to see others as objects -- pawns to be used for his own selfish ends, then to be discarded when no longer useful.
(This also explains why among other things Sodom was known for sodomy. Relationships are one-way. Love is not giving: creating and becoming responsible for a family. It is taking: getting whatever sick pleasure I fancy.)
The sad but realistic conclusion is that one cannot "basically be a good person" if his raison d'etre is selfish. If we're really generous, neither hurting nor helping others can be considered "average." But average people -- if they do nothing to elevate their souls -- will not long remain so. You either grow or you fortify yourself in your mediocrity -- going to every cruel excess to remain oblivious to the rest of mankind. Without a sense of love of and appreciation for others, refusal to help will turn into a lack of concern and eventually an icy callousness towards the needs and suffering of others. Goodness cannot be defined in a vacuum. If you care about and sympathize with others, you are a human being yourself. If you are a person who at best chooses not to hurt others (because -- well, otherwise they might hurt you), your life is one of survival and self-preservation -- and ultimately of pathetic emptiness.
-
I disagree about what the article has to say about being selfish on a national level being wrong. Would you let your own children starve to feed a stranger? Would you let your own nation die so that another might prosper? That is not love, that is self-hatred.
I believe it's good to help other nations, but not if it destroys your own people.
Case in point, it would be immoral to give aid and help to the "Palestinians" when all they do is use it to murder Jews.
I believe that it's wrong to send millions of dollars to other countries while there are still hungry children in America that could use the help.
It's not for lack of caring or lack of love, but knowing where help is rightfully applied in that case.
-
I disagree about what the article has to say about being selfish on a national level being wrong. Would you let your own children starve to feed a stranger? Would you let your own nation die so that another might prosper? That is not love, that is self-hatred.
I believe it's good to help other nations, but not if it destroys your own people.
Case in point, it would be immoral to give aid and help to the "Palestinians" when all they do is use it to murder Jews.
I believe that it's wrong to send millions of dollars to other countries while there are still hungry children in America that could use the help.
It's not for lack of caring or lack of love, but knowing where help is rightfully applied in that case.
I dont think it implied that one must help a stranger before helping your own family. The Jewish way considers several things when it comes to giving charity. The most important charity must be given to the immediate family, then to local neighbors, then to the poor of the state, then to the poor of the nation, then to the poor of the world... Of course the immediate family is always the most important.
-
Ok Muman that makes sense now. That's also how I see it.
-
And how about loving your neighbor as yourself?
how can i love a person i don't even know?
-
And how about loving your neighbor as yourself?
how can i love a person i don't even know?
You need to get out more.
-
And how about loving your neighbor as yourself?
how can i love a person i don't even know?
You need to get out more.
?
-
And how about loving your neighbor as yourself?
how can i love a person i don't even know?
You need to get out more.
?
You need to get out of your house and get to know your neighbors, make some friends, meet a nice girl, etc.
-
And how about loving your neighbor as yourself?
how can i love a person i don't even know?
You need to get out more.
?
You need to get out of your house and get to know your neighbors, make some friends, meet a nice girl, etc.
i amde a lot of friend but they all live in herzliya and not in my city,bat yam.