CCAR RESPONSA COMMITTEE
5776.1
Taharah When the Family Chooses Cremation
Sh’elah.
Is it permissible to perform taharah on a body that will be cremated? One of my congregants feels that a number of people would make this choice if given the opportunity. (Rabbi Karen Bodney-Halasz, Dayton, OH)
T’shuvah.
Taharah, the ritual cleansing of the corpse prior to burial, is understood as an expression of k’vod hamet, the desire to render honor to the dead.[1] Cremation, on the other hand, is condemned by much traditional opinion as a transgression against Jewish law and an act of nivul hamet or bizayon hamet, disrespect and disgrace to the dead. Accordingly, the combination of these two practices – that is, to perform taharah upon a body that will be cremated – might strike us, at first glance, as inappropriate or even contradictory.[2]
Our sh’elah asks us to test that impression. To do so, we will address each of its three principal elements: first, the nature and function of the taharah ritual; second, the practice of cremation in Jewish tradition and in our specifically Reform Jewish tradition; and third, the definition and meaning of k’vod hamet.
1. Taharah. The word taharah means “purification.” It is therefore a euphemism in our context, since a human corpse, which classical halakhah defines as the chief source of tum’ah (ritual defilement), cannot be “purified.” The ritual, rather, is based in the ancient minhag (custom) of “anointing and washing” the body upon death,[3] a ritual of cleansing that medieval authorities understood as an act of k’vod hamet.[4] The first source that refers to this practice as “taharah” is Rashi (11th century),[5] and later writers adopt the language of purification when describing it.[6] As our sh’elah indicates, the practice of taharah has become established in Reform Judaism, and as we have written, it is praiseworthy for a Reform Jewish community to establish its own ḥevra kadisha (burial society) to supervise this ritual.[7] Still, taharah does not enjoy the status of an absolute requirement; even within Orthodox communities, if taharah for some reason is not performed, the body of a Jew is nonetheless buried in a Jewish cemetery.[8] The mitzvah of burial[9] remains in effect even when the mourners do not observe this particular ritual of kavod.
We might learn from this that these two acts are not a “package” but must be considered separately. Just as burial is obligatory even in the absence of taharah, then taharah is permissible as a sign of respect for the dead even if the mourners have decided to depart from traditional practice and choose cremation. To put this differently, there is no contradiction; we do not object to a person’s performance of one mitzvah simply because she or he does not intend to perform another mitzvah.[10]
2. Cremation. There is, of course, another reason why we might think to prohibit taharah in this case. If we were to accept the “traditional opinion,” as noted above, that cremation is a sin and “an act of nivul hamet,” we might conclude that to allow taharah would be tantamount to endorsing that transgression. As we know, however, North American Reform Judaism views cremation differently. Please consult our responsum no. 5766.2, “When a Parent Requests Cremation,”[11] for a detailed discussion of the issue; for now, though, let us point to several conclusions that we draw there.
a. It is not altogether obvious that cremation is forbidden by Jewish law. No explicit prohibition exists in the classical sources, and the nineteenth-century poskim (halakhic authorities) who do prohibit it base their rulings upon arguments that some, including our own R. Solomon B. Freehof, consider forced.
b. The CCAR has been on record since 1892 as allowing rabbis to officiate at cremations, and subsequent statements of the Conference have affirmed cremation as an entirely proper procedure.
c. More recent statements of the Conference have tended to prefer traditional burial and to discourage cremation, but all of these statements emphasize that cremation remains a permitted practice in Reform Judaism.
It’s vital that we keep these conclusions in mind when we think about this question. Our movement is deeply divided as to the appropriateness of cremation. Indeed, members of this Committee are of differing views. Now the fact that this maḥloket (dispute) exists within the Reform rabbinate does not mean that we think both views are equally correct and that we are not entitled to discourage the practice of cremation. On the contrary: as rabbis and teachers of Torah, it’s our job to discourage it should we see fit on Jewish grounds to do so. But we cannot say in the name of the CCAR or of the Reform movement that cremation is a “sin.” Therefore, we also cannot say in the name of Reform Judaism that the combination of taharah and cremation is an endorsement transgressive behavior. Each of these practices, undertaken separately or together, remains a legitimate choice for Reform Jews.
3. K’vod Hamet. As we said at the outset of this t’shuvah, “much traditional opinion” holds that cremation is an act of contempt and disgrace to the dead, of nivul/bizayon hamet. This raises the question of how we determine that a particular act is one of nivul or, for that matter, of kavod? Not long ago, we addressed this question as follows:[12]
Values like k’vod hamet and nivul/bizayon hamet are not given to objective definition. It is tradition, the collected wisdom and experience of a particular historical culture or community, which fills these lofty but vague concepts with specific meaning. This, quite simply, is why these universal values, relevant and applicable to all cultures, are observed differently in each of them… We Reform Jews, active participants in both [the Jewish and the liberal Western] cultural traditions, cannot escape the fact that they differ on this issue [cremation]. Ultimately, we must choose between them, for we can give substance and specificity to terms like k’vod hamet and bizayon hamet, the honorable or disgraceful treatment of the dead, only when we work within the boundaries of some particular cultural framework.
Given that the definition of k’vod hamet is culturally determined, how then do we negotiate that choice when our two cultures pull us in opposite directions? We confess – and proudly – that we are not neutral on this issue. We think that, as a general rule, Reform Jews ought to honor their dead in Jewish ways. Other cultures, to be sure, have different approaches, but since we are Jews, we should prefer to find meaning and purpose in Jewish modes of expression. But precisely because we are cultural citizens of the liberal West as well as of the world of Jewish tradition, we recognize that the tension between these traditions will cause the specific boundaries of k’vod hamet and of nivul hamet to shift over time. Practices once regarded as “disgraceful” may now seem to us entirely coherent with our conception of kavod. If this is the case with cremation – and the record of our discussion of and experience with the subject suggests that for much of the Reform community it is the case – then we cannot say that the mourners’ choice of cremation is an act of nivul that negates their determination to honor to their dead by way of taharah.
Conclusion. While there is deep division in our movement over the appropriateness of cremation, that practice is a legitimate one for Reform Jews. Thus, there is no objection to the performance of taharah upon a body that will be cremated. Indeed, the desire of Reform Jews to adopt the practice of taharah is a trend that ought to be encouraged. We should do everything we can to support them in their desire to honor their dead through this ritual.
NOTES
1. See R. Yekutiel Greenwald, Kol Bo al Aveilut (New York: Moria, 1947), 6:14, p. 89. The following sh’elah was submitted to him: the family of the deceased has refused to allow the ḥevra kadisha to perform the ritual of taharah on the body. In such a case, is it permitted to bury the deceased in a Jewish cemetery? Greenwald responded that yes, the burial is permitted. “Even though we must protest against” the family’s action, “given that taharah is performed only as a sign of honor to the dead (כבודו של מת), it is not our obligation to bestow honor upon him against the wishes of the mourners.”
2. By “contradictory” we have in mind the metaphor of the tovel v’sheretz b’yado, one who immerses for the sake of ritual purification while holding a creature that is tamei, a source of ritual defilement. “Even should that person immerse in all the water in the world, the immersion is not successful” (B. Ta`anit 16a, and see Tosefta Ta`anit 1:5). Does that logic apply to our case? Does the cremation somehow nullify the good intentions of the taharah? See below in the text at note 10.
3. M. Shabbat 23:5. “Anointing” involved oil or spices; see B. Mo`ed Katan 27b and Mishneh Torah, Hil. Avel 4:1 (וסכין אותו במיני בשמים). For a good overview of the development of the taharah ritual see Greenwald (note 1, above), pp. 85ff.
4. Naḥmanides, Torat Ha’adam, inyan hak’vurah, s.v. v’im tishal (p. 125, Chavel ed.). The Rokeaḥ (12th-century Ashkenaz) describes the practice as one of ḥesed shel emet, “true lovingkindness” toward the deceased.
5. “Rashi” to B. Nazir 51b, s.v. us’khayei nasa. Scholars agree that Rashi himself did not author this commentary, which apparently originated in the academies of the Rhineland during the 11th-12th centuries.
6. See, for example, Resp. Binyamin Ze’ev (Greece, 16th century), no. 204 (cited by Isserles, Shulḥan Arukh Yore De`ah 392:4), who quotes from the testament of a certain R. Eliezer Halevy: “I beseech you to purify me (שיטהרוני) upon death… so that I go to my eternal rest in purity (טהור) just as I walked to the synagogue every Shabbat.”
7. Teshuvot for the Nineties, no. 5754.8, pp. 87-90, http://www.ccarnet.org/responsa/tfn-no-5754-8-87-90.
8. See note 1.
9. B. Sanhedrin 46b (based on Deut. 21:23); Mishneh Torah, Hil. Avel 12:1; Shulḥan Arukh Yore De`ah 362:1. For the Reform position see Shimeon Maslin, Gates of Mitzvah (New York: CCAR Press, 1979), p. 54.
10. Rather than invoke the metaphor of the tovel v’sheretz b’yado (see note 2), we would make a different comparison: if a Jew decides to go to work on Saturday, why would we object to her welcoming Shabbat with kiddush on Friday night?
11. Reform Responsa for the Twenty-First Century, vol. 2, pp. 193-207, http://www.ccarnet.org/responsa/nyp-no-5766-2.
12. “’Resomation’: The Liquid Disposal of Remains,” CCAR Responsum no. 5774.6, http://www.ccarnet.org/57746/.