Responsa

ARR 75-76

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

27. Building a Chapel on a Cemetery

(1979)

QUESTION: The congregation plans to build a chapel on the cemetery. Could provisions be made for an Ark and a Torah? May that chapel eventually be used for other kinds of services as well? (Rabbi Roy A. Walter, Congregation Emanu-El, Houston, Texas)

ANSWER: In order to answer this inquiry properly, we must briefly discuss the possibility of erecting a synagogue on the cemetery. No synagogues have been intentionally built on a cemetery, but occasionally graves were found after the process of building a synagogue or converting an existing building had begun, and so the matter is discussed in the literature. For example, David Oppenheimer of Prague has a responsum (published at the end of Chavat Yair) which dealt with the problem of bones being found in land purchased for the construction of a synagogue. Suddenly, the congregation realized that it was building above a former Gentile cemetery. He stated that if the ground was dug and it was assured that four feet under the building were free of any human bones, one would then be allowed to build a synagogue upon it. At the beginning of this century, a congregation in the English city of Hull bought a chapel and intended to convert it into a synagogue, but then discovered that hundreds of bodies were buried in crypts beneath the basement. Rabbi Israel Daiches of Leeds permitted the building to be used as a synagogue if the vaults were cemented over. There were, however, some subsequent discussions which disagreed with his decision. These discussions show that there has been great reluctance to build a synagogue anywhere where it might be in contact with graves, even of non-Jews. For that matter, the Mishna already tried to regulate the location of cemeteries, and insisted that they be at least two hundred feet from the city and so, of course, at a distance from any synagogue (B.B. II.9; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 155.23).

As far as a Torah is concerned, it is prohibited to bring a Torah into the cemetery (Ber. 18a). For that matter, an individual is not allowed to wear Tefilin or Tsitsit into the cemetery, and these stipulations are contained in the later codes (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 367.2, etc.). It was considered mocking the dead to bring these sacred objects into the cemetery, as the dead could no longer benefit from them. Naturally, such prohibition would mean that no formal services would be held on the cemetery. This would, of course, not keep anyone from saying prayers in the cemetery as an individual, as has been done throughout the ages (Ta-anit 16a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 579.30), or occasionally holding a special congregational memorial service in the cemetery. Yet, traditionally we have been reluctant to hold any kind of service there. The chapel at the cemetery, therefore, should be constructed without an Ark and have no provisions for the inclusion of a Torah.

Walter Jacob

See also:

S.B. Freehof, “Synagogue Near a Cemetery,” Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 41ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 317-319

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

199. A Section Added to a Jewish Cemetery

QUESTION: The congregation owns a cemetery which has been used for several generations. Burial has been restricted to Jews. Now the congregation has purchased an adjacent section and wishes to change the bylaws of the cemetery so that the non-Jewish spouse of a congregational member may also be buried in the cemetery. They will restrict that right to the new section as they do not wish to impose on the more traditional members of the congregation. Need that section be divided from the rest of the cemetery? Would a walkway or set of plantings suffice? (Rabbi Gary Klein, Palm Harbor FL)ANSWER: It is surprising that despite a good bit of discussion about burial customs relatively little appears in the literature about cemeteries aside from the mandate that every community should setup its own cemetery and thus honor its dead (Meg 29a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 34). As a result in many communities the first act of the Jewish settler was the purchase of a piece of ground for a cemetery. That was true here in Pittsburgh as well and antedated my congregation by more than a decade. Once an area had been designated as a cemetery it was considered holy and the land could not be sold or rented out for other use as for example for grazing (Meg 29a; San 46a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 368.1). Those who visited the cemetery were to behave in a dignified manner. In some European countries it was not possible to obtain a separate Jewish cemetery so a section of the general cemetery was specifically set aside for Jewish burial (Dudaeh Hasadeh #66 and #89). This has also occurred in smaller American communities as for example in Springfield, Missouri, where I grew up. If the government imposed restrictions or condemned the land or if circumstances made it impossible for the community to properly look after a cemetery then it was possible to vacate it, move the graves and let the government have the site (Moses Sofer Hatam Sofer Yoreh Deah #353; Moshe Feinstein Igrot Mosheh Yoreh Deah 246 f). It was, then, possible according to tradition to abandon a cemetery for these reasons it was not, according to Orthodox practice, possible to set aside a section for non-Jewish burial. Although in Mishnaic and Talmudic times the command to bury gentile dead undoubtedly sometimes meant interment in a Jewish cemetery. Furthermore general Reform Jewish practice would permit the burial of a non-Jewish spouse in our cemetery (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa #98 ff3. We have done so throughout this century. The solution which you have described is appropriate both for the traditional members of your community and the others. By enlarging your cemetery and changing the rules for the new section you will be able to satisfy both the groups. A walkway or a series of plantings would be quite sufficient even between a Jewish and a Christian cemetery so that would certainly suffice for your purposes.June 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5751.8 117-118

CCAR RESPONSA

Two caskets in one grave

5751.8

She’elah
Recently I was asked by the management of a local Jewish cemetery if double-depth lawn crypt-burials are

permitted under Jewish law. In this method of burial, a casket is lowered into a concrete lined grave several feet

deeper than normal. The casket, however, is completely surrounded by earth which has been inserted into the

vault. Subsequently, a second casket is buried over the first, with a layer of earth between them.

We are interested in three aspects of this method of burial.

1. Are double-depth burials (one casket over another) permissible?

2. Is crypt-burial surrounded by earth permissible?

3. Are there significant differences of opinion among the major branches of Judaism on this

subject? (This particular cemetery presently serves all three branches of Judaism.)

A sketch of the proposed burial method is enclosed. (Rabbi Allan C. Tuffs, Allentown, PA)

Teshuvah
The Halakhah of burial in the earth is derived from Deut. 21:23, which prescribes interment for executed

criminals, and from this the Talmud derives the obligation to bury every dead person.1

We will deal first with the question of burying caskets on top of each other.

The traditional literature deals with bodies which are placed one above the other. The relevant passage is

found in the Shulchan Arukh and reads: “Two caskets are not buried one over the other, but when six

handbreadths of earth separate them it is allowed.”2 The Hoop Lane cemetery in London, England, which serves

both a Reform and an Orthodox Sefardi constituency, permits double and triple depth burials.

What if these bodies and caskets are placed for burial in a vault (here called “crypt”)3, a custom which is

widespread in North America? Does such a vault present a problem? R. Jekuthiel Greenwald says it does and

forbids it, because the vault compares to a mausoleum which is seen to delay or possibly prevent decay and thus be

unmindful of the implications of the Deuteronomic passage which says, “You shall surely bury him (kavor

tikberenu).4 But R. Moshe Feinstein (who forbids mausoleum burial5) would allow the vault, because it is not

designed to, nor does it, interfere with the process of decomposition, especially when the body is surrounded by

earth.6

We hold with the latter opinion. The use of cement casings does not interfere with the purpose of interring

the body, that is, returning it to the earth. It is merely the way by which many cemetery authorities prevent the

ground from sinking, so that the appearance of the burial grounds is not marred and the honor paid to the dead

(kevod ha-met) is not diminished. However, as indicated, the use of the vault might be contested by some

halakhic authorities.

The sketch submitted to us reveals an additional feature, in that two caskets are buried in the same casing,

one on top of the other, with layers of earth surrounding each casket. This too does not represent any

obstacle in our view or in the traditional Halakhah.

Are there additional considerations which we might bring to bear on these issues? With cemetery space

becoming scarce in many, especially larger communities, we would consider burials in a single plot, with

due separation of the caskets, an acceptable alternative. Also, this would better enable survivors to carry

out the mitzvah of visiting the graves of their dear ones.7

Notes

  • BT Sanhedrin 46 b.
  • Yoreh De’ah, #262:4. Similarly Tur , Yoreh De’ah, # 262. Rambam, Yad, Hilkhot Avel14:16, discourages the practice, apparently because of the danger that the earth

    separating the two bodies might not prevent the upper body from sinking and coming too

    close to the other; see the commentary of the Radbaz on the passage, and R. Moshe

    Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe, Y.D. # 233/234. See also R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform

    Jewish Practice, vol I, pp. 123 ff.; Current Reform Responsa, p.148.

  • Usually a cement casing.
  • Kol Bo al Avelut, vol. 2, pp. 47 ff.
  • Iggerot Moshe, Y.D. # 143. On this issue see R. Walter Jacob, American ReformResponsa , # 102.
  • Iggerot Moshe, Y.D., # 142.
  • On mausoleum burials, see Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa, no. 38.If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 151-152

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

91. Open Casket

QUESTION: What is the

attitude of Reform Judaism to an open casket prior to the funeral service? The casket is closed

during the service. Would this attitude change if the entire funeral were held at a chapel located

in the cemetery? (Rabbi R. Walter, Houston, TX)ANSWER: We have become

accustomed to closed caskets, and that has become a uniform practice throughout the country,

at least after the funeral service has begun. The coffin is always closed when funeral services

are held in the synagogue. In most cities, the casket also remains closed during the time before

the service. Visiting before the service has been discouraged. Some modern Orthodox rabbis

have objected very strongly to the open casket as an imitation of Gentile practices (J.

Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelut, p. 36 and W. Leiter, Bet David 198b). There are

also some earlier traditional objections, so the Talmud (M. K. 72a) stated that the faces of

the poor should be covered because they would display their poverty and the surviving relatives

would be put to shame, a reason also given by the Shulhan Arukh (Yoreh Deah 353.1).

The Talmud (Hor. 13b) also stated that a man may forget all that he has learned if he

looks upon the face of the dead. Similarly, the Sefer Hassidim (Margolis, ed., p. 103)

prohibited kissing the dead. We must, of course, remember that most dead in ancient times were

simply buried in shrouds and not in a coffin. In fact, there is a considerable discussion among the

authorities whether closing a coffin is not the equivalent of burial, and therefore, may lead to the

beginning of official mourning. This discussion hinges on the interpretation of a phrase

yisasem hagolel (M. K. 27a; Shab. 152b). Rabbenu Tam insisted that this meant the

grave had to be covered, while Rashi thought it referred to the closing of the coffin. Various later

authorities have quoted one or the other in their opinions. It is clearly our custom to

have the coffin closed at the cemetery and generally at the funeral home in accordance with

tradition. We insist on it when services are conducted in the synagogue itself and at the

cemetery chapel. The coffin should be closed before and during the service.August 1979

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 71

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

25. Carillion Music

(Vol. LXIII, 1953, pp. 155-56)QUESTION: I would be very grateful if you would advise me concerning the use of carillon music in a proposed Temple tower. Those who have it in mind are thinking in terms of a Memorial Tower from which would be played at festival times hymns out of the Jewish background.ANSWER: The carillon is but a mechanical device to draw elaborate tones from the play on bells. Some interesting and extensive studies have been done on the origin and use of bells (A. Gattey, The Bell: Its Origin, History and Uses; G.S. Tyack, A Book About Bells). Some students of the subject are inclined to trace the origin of the use of bells to sheer superstition. It was thought, they hold, that the sound of bells had the magic power to safeguard against demons and other evil influences. They further claim that we may discern vestiges of that superstition in the use and treatment of bells all through the Middle Ages. But whatever the origin and early use of bells, it is certain that from the sixth century to the present day, bells have been closely associated with the Church and its worship. Even the Protestant Reformation, which put an end to many things it regarded as unneeded appendages to Christian worship, carefully avoided laying hands on the popular church bells. Today the ringing of bells is a preliminary to prayer in Protestant as in Roman Catholic churches. In the Church of England, the clergy is required by canon law to toll a bell before the daily service. Bells are as indigenous to worship in the church as the Shofar to the service in the synagogue. Richly equipped as the synagogue is with adequate and satisfying symbols of its own, it stands to profit little from this glaring imitation of the church.Israel Bettan

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 531-532

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

168. Card Playing in the Social Hall of the Temple

(Vol. LXV, 1955, pp. 91-92)QUESTION: Some members of my congregation feel that there is nothing improper in playing a sociable game of cards, such as bridge or canasta, in the social hall of the Temple. Does the traditional law uphold their view?ANSWER: The ancient rabbis, although they frowned upon any kind of unearned gain, were rather chary in the use of violent epithets. They branded a man as a gambler and barred his testimony from a court of law, if he derived his livelihood from a game of chance such as dice (Sanhedrin 24b). All other forms of play, insofar as they crowded out more serious employments, the Rabbis did little to encourage, but resorted to no ill-tempered language to condemn them. In our time, there are rabbis who are inclined to dub a man gambler if he plays a game of cards. Yet, should the laity prevail over the clergy in this matter, would the impact of the triumph be felt in our moral life. Not at all! Some congregations, it should be noted, encourage their members to play games at social gatherings, and impose no restrictions on those who choose to play cards. We have yet to hear that the officers of any such congregation have found it necessary to curtail the privilege because of abuse.Israel Bettan

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 1-3

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

1. Qualifications for a Cantor*

QUESTION: A young man has shown an interest in the cantorial position of the congregation. He has a good voice, fine character and knows Jewish music. His general Jewish knowledge is limited and he knows no Hebrew. Our services contain a fair amount of Hebrew and, of course, he would represent Judaism in the general community. Is it appropriate to engage him with the title of cantor? (Rabbi Robert A. Seigel, Charlotte NC)ANSWER: The term hazan was used in the Talmud to designate a number of different positions not all related to the service. The synagogue hazan looked after the lights of the synagogues, cared for the Torah scrolls, sounded a horn or trumpet to announce the beginning of shabbat and holidays, and guided visitors in the synagogues of Jerusalem (J Maaseh Sheni 56a; M Sotah 7.7 f; J Meg IV 15b, 75b; M Sotah VII 21d; Tos Bik 2.10). At times the hazan seems to have also been a teacher, a sheliah tzibur and a darshan especially in smaller congregations (J Yeb 13a; Midrash Rabbah Gen 81). In the Saboraic or Gaonic period when services presumably became more complex, the hazan became the permanent sheliah tzibur (Sofrim 10.7 11.3), so it was possible for Amram Gaon to state that a congregation should find a qualified sheliah tzibur for itself (Theshu-vot Hagaonim (ed) Blick #84; Solomon ben Aderet Responsa I #450, 691). In later centuries hazanim frequently led services especially in the larger congregations. The qualifications for those who lead the prayers whether paid or voluntary are basically the same. They were originally outlined by the Mishnah which demanded maturity, knowledge of the Hebrew prayers, a family with children and enough need to be able to pray sincerely (M Taanit 2.1). In the Talmudic discussion of this verse, Judah Ben Ilai added a number of other stipulations which required good character from youth onward, a pleasant voice and that he be a farmer dependent upon the rain for which he would, among other things, pray. He was also to possess a thorough knowledge of the entire Bible which included the Torah, the prophets and writings, along with mastery of the midrashic and legal literature and, of course, the liturgy (M Taanit 16a). Some of the medieval authors emphasized other characteristics so, for example, Maimonides stressed modesty, probity, good deeds within and outside the city and if possible good lineage (Responsa (ed) Freiman #86). On the other hand, Meir of Rothenburg argued for life experiences which would enable him to pray with real feelings (Responsa #137), while Solomon ben Aderet emphasized a feeling of the reverence and awe in the presence of God (Responsa 1 215). These and other sources both ancient and modern as summarized in the Tur and Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayim 53) dealt with the spiritual, moral and educational qualifications of a hazan. Although scholarship was desirable, personal character was more important. Naturally a pleasing voice and the ability to give meaning to the prayers was always considered important (Ibid). However, even those who felt that the cantor need not be excessively learned or an expert in the Bible and the later legal literature, insisted on sufficient knowledge of Hebrew to understand all the prayers and to chant the Torah without difficulty (Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 53 and commentaries). The main problem connected with hazanim in the halakhic literature dealt with moral issues, styles of music and liturgical innovations. The qualifications mentioned above were accepted in all periods of Jewish history. Although many of our prayers are in English, a large number are recited in Hebrew and these are increasing. Furthermore, as a representative of the congregation in the larger community, an adequate knowledge of Hebrew and of all areas of Jewish studies is necessary. It may be possible to engage the individual in question as a cantorial soloist and encourage him to acquire sufficient knowledge to become a hazan and to enter that honored profession. We should remember that in modern times professional education which meets certain standards has become required. There are also professional associations which have established standards. Congregations should be encouraged to seek such standards in a candidate. The congregation may wish to provide some scholarship incentives to this able young man.February 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 3-4

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

2. A Cantor Married to a Convert

QUESTION: A congregation has asked whether it is appropriate for a cantor, who leads the congregation regularly in worship, to be married to a convert? (Mary Greenwald, New York NY)ANSWER: When a person has been converted to Judaism and has joined us, then there is no difference between that individual and a person born as a Jew. Neither the cantor nor the rabbi are prohibited from marrying a convert. Only kohanim in the Orthodox tradition are prohibited from marrying someone who has converted (M Kid 4.5; Kid 77b ff; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 7.21). Although if such a marriage occurs, the couple is not forced to separate. These prohibitions are not valid for us as Reform Jews. There are no other restrictions on marrying a convert.June 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 263-265

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

175. Lighting the Candles and the Qiddush ­ Man’s or

Woman’s Prerogative

QUESTION: It has thus far been customary for a

woman to light the candles at the Friday evening service and for a man to recite the qiddush.

Does the woman have a primary responsibility for lighting candles, or is this only a matter of

custom? Is there value in the current synagogue practice which encourages a woman to light

candles and a man to lead the qiddush, or is there a middle ground which would permit a

man on rare occasion to light the candles and the woman to lead the qiddush? (N. Hirsh,

Seattle, WA)ANSWER: It is certainly clear to all that both these segments of the

service have been moved from the home to the synagogue. Orthodox Judaism moved the

qiddush, and Reform Judaism moved the lighting of the shabbat candles. The

Orthodox rational was clearly stated by Joseph Caro, who specified that the qiddush

should be recited wherever a meal was eaten. It was moved to a synagogue for the sake of

strangers who ate in the synagogue (Pes. 10a; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 269). He felt

that the practice should have been halted in his day, as meals were no longer taken in the

synagogue. However, Isserles added that it was Ashkenazic custom to continue the recital of the

qiddush in the synagogue. This followed Natronai Gaon (Siddur Rav Amram, ed.,

Jerusalem, p. 65). As no woman participated in any public portion of the Orthodox service, the

question of a woman reciting qiddush was never raised. The Reform

innovation of lighting the candles in the synagogue may have been intended as a revival of an

ancient custom of lighting shabbat candles following the afternoon service in the

synagogue (Siddur Rav Amram, ed. Jerusalem, 1971, p. 61). It came as an addition to

the late Friday evening service, which had its origin with Isaac Mayer Wise. His first

congregation was not enthusiastic about such a service, but permitted him to establish it in 1869

(G. Plaut, “The Sabbath in the Reform Movement,” C.C.A.R. Yearbook, Vol. 75, p. 177).

This service did not contain the ritual lighting of candles in the synagogue, nor did the early

editions of the Union Prayer Book. It was introduced in the newly revised edition of 1940,

and has become an accepted part of liturgy. Lighting the shabbat candles at

home is a mitzvah which was primarily assigned to women, but not exclusively

(M. Shab. 2.6). It is one of the three mitzvot specifically commanded to women as

also stressed by the Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayim 263.3), yet the duty of executing this

commandment rests upon both men and women. If a male is traveling alone, he is responsible

for lighting the shabbat candles (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 263.2,

6). It is not clear why this commandment, which must be carried out before a specified

time on Friday evening, was recommended to women, as women are free from all positive

mitzvot which were dependent upon time. Some authorities felt that the execution of such

commandments might interfere with family responsibilities (Simon Duran, Magen Avot

2.6). This explanation did not deal with women without family responsibility. The commandments

from which they are exempt may, of course, be performed by women, although these are not

incumbent upon them. As they are not obligated to execute these mitzvot, they can not

discharge the obligation for others (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 106.1). This would

preclude their recital of the qiddush. Naturally, this conclusion has been rejected by

Reform Judaism in keeping with its emphasis on the equality of men and women. Either

mitzvah, lighting the candles or qiddush, may be performed by women both at

home and at a public service. Although it has become customary for women to light

the candles and for men to recite the qiddush, there is absolutely nothing within Reform

tradition which would preclude a reversal of these roles. This would be appropriate both at home

and in the synagogue. In keeping with the current emphasis on equality, it would be good to vary

the practice in the synagogue.December 1981

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 263-264

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

159. Nutrition and Incurable Cancer

QUESTION: Should nutrition in contrast to medicine be continued for a comatose patient who is suffering from incurable cancer? (Stanley Landman, San Antonio IX)ANSWER: We need to make some distinctions immediately between a terminal cancer patient and a victim of stroke or an accident. In the latter cases, the prognosis is not at all certain and death may not be indicated in the foreseeable future. In the case of the incurable cancer patient, a time is reached when medicine can no longer be considered as healing and when the suffering patient is being kept alive artificially with no potential of improvement. When we have reached this point and nothing more can be done, then we may justifiably state that we are dealing with goses and should remove obstacles which may lead to an easier death (Ket 104a; Ned 40a; Sefer Hassidim #723; Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 339.1; Even Haezer 121.7; Hoshen Mishpat 221.2 and commentaries). We are willing to utilize modern medical criteria to determine when this stage has been reached (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa #79 etc). We realize that these criteria will be refined as medicine is making rapid strides. Medical and technical means need not be continued when the patient is dying and is only being kept alive through these means. Now let us look at nutrition specifically. We should not think of it in terms of the meals which we normally eat but rather of nutrition provided intravenously or through a stomach tube. Both of these methods are certainly appropriate when they are part of the healing process and help the patient toward a cure. They should, however, be discontinued, just as medication when only they and medicine are artificially keeping the patient who is dying (goses) alive. Such feeding does not help the patient and at best must be debilitating, uncomfortable, if not painful. We should also realize that diminished interest by those patients normally capable of eating is another sign that life is ebbing and that the last stages have been reached. Our main goal should be the patient’s comfort. Nutrition artificially introduced at the last stage of life should be seen as a hindrance to death and may be stopped, along with medication. At the appropriate time, the family should be able in clear conscience, in line with Jewish tradition, to make this decision together with their physician.August 1991

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕