The following story from the Chicago Tribune, 'Jewish clause' divides a family, state courts weigh in on a man's will that disinherited any descendant who married a gentile, is proof not only of God's existence, but that God must love the Jewish people very much, because nothing else explains the ongoing existence of people behaving this badly! Okay, that's an exaggeration, but this story of greed, family fighting, and identity politics is truly sad. But because it raises so many issues that touch so many families, Jewish and otherwise, and the fights that they have, I share it with you. But where to begin the sordid tale?
Let's start with the deceased grandfather, Max Feinberg and his desire to see his grandchildren marry Jews. Okay, I get that. But holding money over them as an incentive? I actually get that too, it's the last redoubt of a desperate man, so I feel sorry for him, but don't endorse it his actions. He went so far as to describe such progeny who made a life with with a non-Jew as "deceased"! And that is beyond the pale.
Neither parents, nor grand-parents are obligated to prove their love by rewarding their kids equally when they have not all behaved equally. But to imagine that someone you love is dead because of a theological disagreement is pretty dangerous territory to stake out.
It's not that it is surprising for a man of his age, but that doesn't make it okay either. Which is why his son's claim that "he has no choice but to honor his father's wishes" is so troubling. Of course he has a choice! But I imagine that it's easier for this father to deal with his own frustration with his children's choices by hiding behind the fifth commandment (honor your father and mother), than it is to figure out how to keep the enforcement of the "Jewish clause" from shattering his family.
In fact, if he read a little further in the Bible, he would come upon the words of Leviticus 19:3 which are understood to provide a limit to how far the obligation to honor parents extends. We are told that if honoring parents requires the violation of Divine will, then there is no obligation. So given that maintaining peace in the family is also a Jewish legal requirement, either dad has to admit that he is acting against his kids because of his own resentment, or stop hiding behind his father's will and re-inherit his own children.
But let's not forget the grandchildren. Despite their attorney's claim that this case is about the children's greed - their desire to keep the grandchildren from grandpa's bucks. Of course, it is about greed, but it's the grandchildren's! If they did not want the money, there would be no case. So once again we have lawyers making a bad situation worse by dragging everyone into court and trying to project their clients' worst failings onto those against whom they brought suit. Well, you know what they call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean....
To be fair though, I understand how the hurt these grandchildren feel is being funneled through their pursuit of the money. Even if they don't realize it, what they almost certainly want most is to be acknowledged as members of the family who are continuing their grandfather's legacy, even if they are not doing it exactly his way. And it's heartbreaking that nobody has stepped in to address this issue.
Finally there are the judges who have behaved in decidedly un-Solomonic fashion. There is the Jew, Judge Alan Greiman of the Illinois Appellate Court, who defended Dr. Feinberg's "Jewish clause" with the words: "Max and Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream." Misappropriating Theodore Herzl's words about the dream of a Jewish state and summoning the will to create it, Judge Greiman injects his own Jewish identity politics into both his decision and into other people's lives. There may well be a reason to uphold the clause, but that is not it!
But Judge Patrick Quinn, writing for the majority, which struck down the clause, fared no better. Claiming that this clause was a slippery slope which could not be tolerated, and comparing it to a white person's desire to penalize his grandchildren for marrying someone black, he creating his own slippery slope - and one far more dangerous than the one he claims to fear. First, the law should give us the tools to navigate such slippery slopes, not become an excuse for avoiding them before they exist. And second, unlike the faith line, the color line holds no intrinsic distinctions of importance. That is why one can easily find members of a single faith in every color of the rainbow. And if one can not, there may well be a problem with that faith.
So let's harvest some principles that might help us to navigate through such inter-generational conflicts when we encounter them in our own families. First, never use money to coerce conscience or faith. Second, if you feel hurt by something a child or grandchild has done, talk about it. Actually ask them what their actions mean to them. you might discover that they are honoring one part of your legacy to them even as you experience them violating another. Third, don't confuse disagreement about an issue within a relationship with the death of that relationship. Fourth, you have more power in any relationship than you initially imagine - don't hide behind the desires of others. Fifth, don't use God as an excuse. There is probably a religious counter-argument to whatever religious argument you are making, and it's probably just as valid. Sixth, stay out of court! Once it becomes adversarial, someone has to lose and in a family dispute, that means that everybody loses. Seventh, be careful about how you seek redress for legitimate hurt. The fact that your cause is just and hurt is genuine, does mean that all forms of redress are healthy or will even get you what you really want most. And finally, beware of others, who with the best of motivations, will happily play out their own dramas in the midst of your life, instead of in their own.
These rules will not end all family squabbles, but they will help you to keep from burying those you love, either before their time, or under mountains of legal paperwork from which neither of you is likely to recover any time soon.

Add to Newsvine
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 



The only valid argument that there is a G-d; and it is just an argument not proof, is this: Man will never be able to prove the existence.............it is beyond his ability to do so because G-d would have created man in such a manner that man would never be able to prove his existence...........If man could prove the exixtence of Hashem, all our rabbis would be out of a job..............All religion is the opiate of the people. Without faith ther is no religion.
Rabbi, respectfully I disagree and I suggest that you have missed the point here. First, the rules a person follows in the exercise of his or her religion neither proves not disproves the existence of G-d; it proves only the person's belief or faith in G-d. Secondly, while I don't agree with the wisdom of the grandfather writing his will in this fashion, at the same time you are certainly aware of the old Eastern-European tradition and Orthodox view that a person who married a non-Jew is indeed, dead to his or her family. That being the case, and that being Max's heritage, why should he not state his position in his Will, and give his fortune, large or small, in the manner in which he wants? And why, when he does so, does he have to be compared to a racist bigot?
You know this story sounds SO familiar.....now let me think....Oh yes i rememeber now. Harry Potter. remember the Blacks? That family was very comparable. they were all pure-bloods. Anyone who married a mud-blood or non-believer got "disinherited" too. They were considered "deceased" My oh my how life loves to immitate art sometimes.
and Susan H,
"And why, when he does so, does he have to be compared to a racist bigot?
Because thats more-or-less comparable to what he was tbh. And he showed that in his will.
Yeah, a person is free to put whatever he or she wants in his will, but that is no excuse for them to be racist/religionist, and for the family to even consider executing the will and keep the clause in, that shows those family member's true values does it not? Greed. Thats all it is. Greed. and i dont blame the "disinherited" for fighting for their share.
THE GREATEST PROOFS OF THE SHADAI'S EXISTANCE ARE THE MEMBERS OF YISRAEL AND YEHUDA SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND THEIR HISTORY.
BECAUSE HE SALTED THEM, BY THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION, THEY HAVE NOT
BEEN COMPLETELY ABSORBED INTO THE BABYLONIAN SYSTEM OF THIS WORLD.
HE DID THIS SO THEY COULD BE OF USE TO HIM IN THE FUTURE. IS IT NOT
TRUE THAT THEIR FATE HAS RESTED IN THEIR OWN HANDS. THEIR OBEDIENCE
WAS ALWAYS MET WITH BLESSINGS. DID NOT THE SHADAI TELL THEM WHAT
THEIR FUTURE WOULD BE LIKE IF THEY TURNED THEIR BACK ON HIM AND REFUSED TO REPENT. WILL HE NOT CAUSE THEM TO REMEMBER THESE THINGS IN
THE NEAR FUTURE. IT IS THE CONGREGATION OF ALE (THOSE WHO ARE SICKENED BY THEIR REBELLION AND SINCEREY REPENT AND TURN BACK TO OBEYING THE ALMIGHTY SPIRIT). RETURN TO THE TORAH AS IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE
ALMIGHTY SPIRIT.
I am not going to address the Rabbi's initial comments about the existence of G-d being proven by the existence badly behaving people, because I believe those statement were made tongue-in-cheek. I do, however wish to address some other comments.
Rabbi - You stated, "So once again we have lawyers making a bad situation worse by dragging everyone into court and trying to project their clients' worst failings onto those against whom they brought suit." Did the attorneys on either side of this case make it up? Are they not merely the hirelings of their clients (albeit well educated hirelings)? Isn't blaming the attorneys for this legal fracas somewhat like blaming the generals for the war?
Which bring me to Susan - You stated that ". . . this is a new low for the courts." Isn't that a little like blaming the rabbi when the marriage fails?
The courts and the attorneys are not to blame for a litigious society. That blame lies squarely and solely on the people. People who refuse to do the right thing and instead cross their arms and say, "So, sue me." People who think that they have a right to what someone else has without having gone through what the other person did to get it. People who cannot, or will not, compromise for the sake of peace.
Okay, enough in defense of the legal system. Let's talk about Grandpa. Danny - You stated, "Yeah, a person is free to put whatever he or she wants in his will, but that is no excuse for them to be racist/religionist, and for the family to even consider executing the will and keep the clause in." The family had nothing to do with it. It was Grandpa's will he alone executed it, and he alone is responsible for its contents. As for Grandpa being a "racist/religionist," how do you interpret the commandments of Adonai in the 7th chapter of D'varim where intermarriage was forbidden, or how do you read the warnings of Adonai against intermarriage in the 23rd chapter of Y'housua, or what meaning do you apply to last two chapters of Ezra when the cohanim and L'vi'im sent all the foreign wives (and their children) away to ensure that G-d's wrath would not come? Wasn't Grandpa simply following Scripture?
Just to be clear, I am not say what Grandpa put in his will is right, nor am I saying that it was wrong. I am only saying that it was his choice, based on his interpretation of Scripture, to do so.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.