27 Jun DISINHERITING DISAPPOINTING CHILDREN

It is possible at some
point in your life you
might have wondered
who would come to
your funeral and how
many people would
show up. A Belgian
man took his curiosity to find out the
answers to these questions to a new, and
frankly disturbing, level. David Baerten,
a 45-year-old Belgian man, faked his
own death and showed up to his funeral
by stepping off a helicopter instead of
being carried out of a hearse. Along with
his wife and children, he orchestrated the
prank to see “who actually cared about
him.”
To spread the news of Baerten’s “death”
one of his children took to social media
and wrote a tribute to her father. “Rest in
peace, Daddy. I will never stop thinking
about you…I love you! We love you! We
will never forget you.”
The fake funeral was attended by
dozens of friends and family members
dressed in black, waiting for the
ceremony to begin until they were met
with a landing helicopter. The “dead
man” hopped out of the chopper as he
greeted his mourners with “Cheers to
you all, welcome to my funeral.” Several
of those attending were less than pleased
with Baerten’s stunt.
He explained, “What I see in my family
often hurts me, I never get invited to
anything. Nobody sees me. We all grew
apart. I felt unappreciated. That’s why I
wanted to give them a life lesson and
show them that you shouldn’t wait until
someone is dead to meet up with them.”
Baerten’s stunt was unkind to those
who care about him and it should never
be repeated. It was outrageous, but the
drive to know what others will say about
us after we are gone, and the anxiety
over the decisions our progeny will
make in our absence and whether their
lives and lifestyles will reflect our core
values and beliefs, is certainly real.
There is good reason to be concerned.
Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the
Union for Reform Judaism, has said
repeatedly, “Interfaith families are now
the majority of the movement.” That
isn’t surprising considering that the
intermarriage rate among non-Orthodox
is alarmingly north of 70 percent.
But intermarriage is not only a Reform,
Conservative, or unaffiliated problem.

Every Orthodox rabbi will tell you they
are having more meetings than ever with
parents who worked and sacrificed
significantly to provide their children
with a Jewish education and raise them
in an observant home, only to be told
they have fallen in love with a non-Jew
and plan to marry them. One shudders to
think that these incidents will increase as
the world around us gets increasingly
both open, inviting and welcoming on
one hand, while also getting more
complicated and confusing on the other.
How do we respond? What can we do
to ensure the outcome we desperately
dream of? Certainly, we should—and
must—teach, educate, inspire, motivate,
and model the choices we want to see
our children and grandchildren make.
What about using our finances to
incentivize?
The New York Times Magazine
publishes a weekly column called “The
Ethicist,” which it says is designed to
provide “advice on life’s trickiest
situations and moral dilemmas.” A recent
column addressed the following
question:
Around a decade ago, my mom
informed each of her children that she
and my stepfather put a codicil in their
wills disinheriting any of their children
married to someone not recognized as
Jewish by her local Orthodox Rabbinate.
I believe a will is not just about money;
it’s also an expression of values and
love. I have strongly objected to this
codicil, or more specifically, to her
having informed us about it: The two are
thereby using their wealth as an implicit
weapon in service of their religious
views.
She says I’m reading too much into it.
She claims she informed us in the name
of “transparency,” so we wouldn’t be
surprised later, and that it’s her money to
do with as she pleases, anyway —
though she concedes that she also
informed us in case it may influence
decisions we make.
I’ve since married someone who fits
her definition of a Jew, so the codicil
doesn’t apply to me. Still, I have three
middle-aged siblings who are all not
religious and unmarried, and I think they
remain so at least partially because
they’re stuck, unable to both follow their
hearts and avoid betraying my mother’s
love — and its most powerful signifier,

her will. Is she right to have the codicil?
And to have told us about it?
The columnist answered:
The real question is whether the scheme
is wise or decent. I fear that it is neither.
That your siblings now have an incentive
to postpone marriage until your parents
are dead raises doubts about its wisdom.
That your siblings might marry someone
acceptable to the Orthodox rabbinate in
order to secure this inheritance raises
doubts about its decency. Whom we
marry is properly up to us. Parents may
express their views; coercion, though, is
wrong. Does threatening to deprive
someone of a substantial inheritance
amount to coercion? Different
understandings of coercion will come
out differently on this. But it’s too close
for comfort.
Hypocritically, a year earlier the same
columnist responded to a question from
a self-described liberal, progressive
woman whose children had become ultra
conservative, refused the Covid vaccine,
and questioned the results of the election.
She asked if it was appropriate to
consider leaving them out of her will.
The same Ethicist concluded it is not
only reasonable, it would be irresponsible
to let them inherit as they could use the
resources to advance dangerous agendas.
Baruch Hashem, we don’t rely on the
New York Times to dictate our ethics.
Hashem, His Torah, and His
representatives in each generation are
our “Ethicists.” So what do they say?
The Mishna in Bava Basra (8:5) states
that if one gives his assets to others and
leaves nothing for his sons to inherit,
what he has done is Halachically
legitimate but, he has violated the spirit
of the law and so the ruach Chachamim,
the “spirit of the sages,” is not pleased by
him. However, Rabban Shimon ben
Gamliel says that if one’s children were
not acting properly, and as a result he
transferred all of his assets to others, he
should in fact be remembered for the
good.
The Gemara (Bava Basra 133b)
concludes that the Halacha follows the
first opinion, which is codified by the
Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 282).
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe C.M.
2:50) says that the Gemara was
discussing a disrespectful son and
concluded such a son shouldn’t be cut
out of the will. However, says Rav

Moshe, if a son has completely
abandoned a Torah lifestyle, he may be
disinherited.
Some suggest that when Rav Moshe
penned that responsum in 1965, it was
unlikely that a child who had abandoned
Torah would return or would have
descendants who were observant. Today,
by comparison, there is a teshuva
movement, people’s stories are not fully
written, we have no idea who may
convert, who might return to observance,
who might have children and
grandchildren that will make us most
proud. Disinheriting, some argue, may
in fact not influence the decision to
intermarry but will make a journey
towards conversion or observance less
likely. They therefore suggest, in an
effort to preserve peace and harmony in
the family, to always divide the estate
equally (employing halachic guidance).
Others suggest that in case of concern
where the money will go, how it will be
used, and whether it will advance values,
choices, and efforts inconsistent with our
wishes, the estate be left in trusts that
support choices we encourage such as to
pay for Jewish education, Jewish camps,
trips to Israel, etc.
These issues are complicated and
difficult and there isn’t one clear or
correct answer. Our ethicists have much
to say but ultimately it is our hard-earned
money and we are responsible to be
thoughtful, strategic, and even prescient
in how it is left and where it is going.
Most importantly, don’t wait to rely on
finances being the factor that will trigger
the choices we want. Use resources
while you are here to provide, support,
enable, reward, and empower a
passionate, vibrant, dynamic Yiddishkeit
that our descendants will want to cling to
and carry on.