Responsa

NARR 281-282

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

170. The Burial of Human Organs

QUESTION: Is it necessary to bury organs which have been replaced through a transplant operation? How would Jewish tradition dispose of these portions of the human body? (Rabbi Norman Cohen, Hopkins MN)ANSWER: Organ transplants are a very modern medical remedy. However, the problems of disposal of amputated limbs is ancient. Traditionally they were interred and that was required for two reasons. It was considered important to show respect for all parts of the human body and so limbs could not simply be discarded. In addition the ritual uncleanliness, which a corpse or an amputated limb caused priests (kohanim), presented an important consideration. Any priest who came in contact with a dead body or a portion of such a body would be considered defiled (Ket 20b; Yad Hil Tumat Okhlin 16.8; Shevut Yaaqov II #10). Limbs were buried without formal ritual and simply interred in a portion of the cemetery (Tur Yoreh Deah 266; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 266; Moses Feinstein Igrot Mosheh Yoreh Deah I 231). We would suggest that major organs be similarly buried or treated in some other respectful manner as incineration. We, of course, face not only the disposition of major organs as heart, kidney, liver, etc., but also with the disposition of innumerable smaller fragments as pieces of bone, arteries, veins, skin, etc. It is the normal procedure of hospitals to dispose of these fragments in a sanitary and safe manner, frequently through incineration at high temperatures. This reduces the segments to virtually nothing and assures no misuse of these fragments. We would agree that this method of disposition is appropriate and does not dishonor these fragments of the human body nor does it present other problems to us.May 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 163-164

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

102. Burial of Ashes in a Mausoleum

QUESTION: What does halakhah say about the burial of a body or ashes in a mausoleum? (Rabbi I. Neuman, Champaign, IL)ANSWER: In this instance we are not concerned with the question of cremation but with burial of either a body or ashes in a mausoleum. Cremation itself has been discussed elsewhere (W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa #100). There is good precedent for burying the dead in a mausoleum and not in direct contact with the soil, as in the cave of Makhpelah (Gen. 23.8), chosen by Abraham for his wife, Sarah. Subsequently, some Israelite kings were buried in cave tombs, as that traditionally associated with David. Later, in Tanaitic times, cave tombs became common and have been mentioned in the Mishnah (B. B. 5.8; Erub. 5.1; Shek. 2.5). Numerous such tombs have been discovered and described at great length (see particularly E. R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period). The Talmud also mentioned a built up tomb (kever-binyan – see San. 47b), which may have been a mausoleum. In later periods, burial directly in the soil was preferred. This was influenced by the thought that the decay of the body acted as atonement for sin (M. San 6.6, 46b; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 362). In order to speed the decomposition, coffins were made of loose boards so that the body would be in close contact with the soil (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 362). If that was not possible, then some earth was deposited within the coffin. There has been considerable discussion among Orthodox authorities whether it was permissible to bury in a closed coffin altogether (J. Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelut, pp. 183 ff). Isaac Elhanan Spector of Kovno was the only authority who permitted a temporary interment in a mausoleum during a time when it was too dangerous to bury the body in the ground (Ein Yitzoq Yoreh Deah #33). Mosheh Feinstein rejected burial in a mausoleum completely as there would be no contact of the body with soil (Igrot Mosheh Yoreh Deah #143). We conclude that at the present time tradition emphasizes burial in the ground. However, at an earlier time, burial in a mausoleum or cave was certainly permissible. Furthermore, traditional Judaism has changed its attitude toward the utilization of completely closed coffins and now permits them. So, direct contact with the soil seems less important. There is nothing in Reform Judaism which would preclude burial in a mausoleum.December 1981

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 152-153

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

92. Burial of a Young Child

QUESTION: A-

four-year-old-child, daughter of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother, died, and they wish her

buried in the congregational cemetery, which restricts burial to Jews. The child was named in the

synagogue, and it was the clear intent of the parents to raise this girl and all subsequent children

as Jews. Both parents had brought the little girl to some pre-school holiday activities and to

various services intended for young children. Is this child to be considered Jewish? Would a

somewhat older child not enrolled in our school be considered Jewish? (D. F., Baltimore,

MD)ANSWER: We base our decision on the resolution of the Central Conference of

American Rabbis, March, 1983, and on the responsum “Patrilineal and Matrilineal Descent”

(November 1983). The Resolution reads: “The Central Conference of American

Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent.

This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established

through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and

people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in

them, both parents and child, to Jewish life. “Depending on circumstances,

mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the

covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and

Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity,

other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their

rabbi.” The Resolution indicates that acts of identification after birth are necessary to

establish the Jewishness of the individual involved. In this instance, all acts of identification

appropriate to the age have been observed, and the child has had no identification or affiliation

with any Christian observances. We, therefore, consider this youngster as Jewish, and she is to

be treated as a Jew in every way. In other words, although the cemetery has some restrictions on

the burial of non-Jews, they would not apply to this youngster, who may be buried as any other

Jew.October 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 154-155

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

94. Burial of a Woman Twice

Married

QUESTION: A woman was married to her first husband for

twenty-three years, and had children by him. She subsequently became widowed, moved across

the country, and now has been married to her second husband for more than twenty years.

When she dies, should she be buried together with her first or her second husband? (L. B.,

Pittsburgh., PA)ANSWER: There is custom (minhag), but no clear law on

this matter. The general custom is that an individual is buried with that spouse with whom she

had children, especially if that has been requested by the children (J. Greenwald, Kol Bo Al

Avelut, p. 188 f). Some traditional authorities have felt that some special ties with that

spouse continue even after her death. For example, according to them, it would be her duty to

commemorate the yahrzeit, although in a fashion which will not sadden the second

spouse (W. Leiter, Bet David, #134). On the other hand, the Hungarian Moses Sofer

(Hatam Sofer Yoreh Deah #55) has stated that no further relationship exists with the first

husband and there is no need to commemorate the yahrzeit (see also M. K. 21b and

Rashi; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 385.2; Menuhat Mosheh #114). If

there are no children by either marriage, then generally burial is recommended with her first

husband, as in that marriage she became “one flesh” with her husband (Lev. 21.2; Yeb. 55b;

(Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 300). In most discussions of this problem, it is assumed that

the graves are in the same city or at least in close proximity. Here the two burial sites are quite

distant from each other. Greenwald, under those circumstances, feels that burial should take

place in the city in which she died and has lived for the last years (J. Greenwald, op. cit.,

p. 188). We would add that in our highly mobile society, it is important that burial take place

close to some relatives who may be able to visit the grave (W. Jacob, American Reform

Responsa #102). Tradition, in this instance, gives preference to burial with the first

husband, but it is clear that other options may be followed. This woman who would like to plan in

advance should consult her children, and be buried wherever her grave can be visited by some

surviving family members.March 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 156-157

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

96. Burial of a Teenager of Doubtful

Descent

QUESTION: A couple has recently joined a congregation. The

man is Jewish; the wife is Christian. They had two children, one sixteen and one eleven. Both

have been raised in “a vaguely religious small town atmosphere” with attendance at various

Protestant Sunday schools. Neither child has been baptized or formally entered into a Christian

church. Now, as the parents live in a large city with a Jewish community, they wished to raise

their children as Jews. Unfortunately, the older daughter was killed in an automobile accident.

May she be buried in the congregation’s cemetery? (D. M., Los Angeles,

CA)ANSWER: Most of our congregations have been lenient about the burial of an

unconverted spouse of a Jew. They have done so by considering each individual plot in the

cemetery as a separate family section, akin to the caves or small plots of land which were

originally used for burial in the land of Israel (B. B. 102a). This meant that although the entire

cemetery is considered as holy, sanctity actually lies with each section of graves. A non-Jewish

burial in one section would, therefore, not impinge on the sanctity of any other grave. It is also

clear that occasionally non-Jews have been buried in Jewish cemeteries throughout our history

beginning with the Mishnaic period (M. Git. 5.8, 61a). For both of these reasons, most Reform

Congregations have granted permission for the burial of a non-Jewish spouse or any other non-

Jewish family member. On these grounds alone, we may readily grant permission for

burial in the sad case of this young woman. The specific rules of the local cemetery should, of

course, be consulted.March 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 153-154

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

93. Burial of a Divorced Wife

QUESTION:

A man was married, had a child by his wife; he was then divorced. He remarried and the

second marriage led to no further children. Subsequently he died after a considerable number of

years of marriage to his second wife. Both the first wife and second wife are elderly women. The

question of their burial sites has now arisen. The only child of the family wishes to have his

mother, in other words the first wife, buried alongside his father. On the other hand, the second

wife feels that it is her prerogative to be buried there. Which woman should be buried next to this

man? (Rabbi R. Benjamin, Davenport, IA)ANSWER: All formal relationships

between this man and his first wife were broken by the divorce as you indicated. The two may

even have been enemies for some time. The Shulhan Arukh states that two individuals

who are enemies should not be buried alongside each other (Yoreh Deah 362.6; Ezekiel Landau,

Nodah Biyehudah II Even Haezer 79). This general statement has been applied to a

husband and wife who continually quarrel with each other and never bothered to get a divorce.

They, too, should not be buried next to each other (Aaron Meir Gordon, Shaarei Daat, p.

95, #5). Some confusion may have arisen in the mind of the child who may remember

some discussion about a similar question when dealing with a widow. In that case, in contrast to

divorce, there is some discussion as to whether a second marriage completely annuls any

relationship which existed previously. Moses Sofer certainly thought so (Hatam Sofer

Yoreh Deah #355). However, there are other authorities who disagree (J. Greenwald, Okh

Letzarah, p. 145 ff). As this question deals with divorce, it is completely

different. According to the spirit of tradition, the second wife should be buried with her

husband, and the first wife should be buried somewhere else. However, there is nothing which

would prevent burial in the same cemetery so that the child of these two individuals may readily

visit their graves.August 1982

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 164-165

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

103. Burial in the Garden

QUESTION: A family who lost a child has made the request that the burial take place in their garden rather than a congregational cemetery. Is this permissible? (O. F., Atlanta, GA)ANSWER: Communal cemeteries have been used since Mishnaic times and perhaps even earlier. It seems that our people already used them in the days of Jeremiah (Jer. 26.23; II Kings 23.6). The Talmud, of course, takes such community cemeteries for granted and discusses them as if they had always existed (Hag. 3b; Nid. 17a; Sem. 49b). During the Middle Ages when Jewish communities lived in restricted ghettos, the community cemeteries either were part of the ghetto or just outside the city walls. Often they were small, and so the custom arose of burying individuals in rows as they died rather than in individual family plots or even on top of each other, separated only by six hand breadths (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 362.4). However, special provisions were made for rabbis and communal leaders who were buried together in a separate location of the cemetery. In our time, we have returned to family plots, and these are now used in virtually all American cemeteries. The Mishnaic and Talmudic periods also knew of interment in such family plots, crypts or mausoleums (M. B. B. 6.8, 100a, b; San. 476; M. Erub. 6; Shek. 2.5). A number of regulations about such family plots appeared. For example, the family was obliged to care for them (B. B. 100b; Bekh. 52b), and upon the death of the individual who originally arranged for them, these lots were not divided among the heirs (M. Sem. 14). It is not clear whether the Talmudic family lots were part of larger burial sites or whether they simply existed on family estates. We do know from earlier Biblical times that the kings of Israel had burial sites of their own (II Kings 10.35, 13.9, 15.5) and, of course, we have the much earlier story of Abraham selecting a grave for Sarah in the cave of Makhpelah in which other members of the family were buried later (Gen. 23, 25.9, 49.31, 50.13). Therefore, it would seem appropriate for a family to establish a private gravesite on part of their own property. If this is done, the family should, however, be aware of the fact that such a gravesite must receive permanent care; it places some perpetual restrictions upon the use of the property. That segment of the property must remain as a family possession into the future. It must also not be used for any joyful purposes. One may not eat, drink or be festive on or near it (Meg. 29a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 364.1, 368) . These restrictions, which are difficult in our mobile society, may make it hard to consider such an individual gravesite as practical. In addition, consideration of local and zoning laws will have to be investigated. We should, of course, consider the psychological implications of a family living perpetually near its beloved dead. Jewish custom has tried to limit visitation to the cemetery in order to enable the family to overcome its grief. There is, for example, no visitation among us until the seventh day after the funeral, and again after thirty days (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 344.20), in addition to penitential days and yahrzeit (Yeb. 122a); among Sephardic Jews more frequent visiting is customary. It would be difficult to fulfill this period of healing under the circumstances described. So, for these reasons, and for the problems associated with perpetual care of this gravesite, such individual burial on the family property near their home should be discouraged, although it is not prohibited.May 1977

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 166-167

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

105. Burial in a Christian Cemetery

QUESTION: A Jewish family, living in a small isolated rural community, feels a strong attachment to that community and would like to be buried there. It is likely that the children will live in that community, and so, their family will be located there in the foreseeable future. Is it permissible to Jews to be buried in a general cemetery? (Rabbi A. Task, Greensboro, NC)ANSWER: The custom of establishing a separate Jewish cemetery has deep roots. It has always been felt as an obligation even for very small communities (Ein Yitzhoq Yoreh Deah 34). This practice has meant that cemeteries have often antedated congregations. That was so here in Pittsburgh where a cemetery plot was purchased in the Troy Hill section of the city more than a dozen years before the chartering of the Rodef Shalom Congregation. Your question, however, deals with a place so small that there is no congregation. The oldest Jewish burial traditions, going back to Talmudic times in the land of Israel, simply indicated that the dead were buried in their own property – betokh shelo (B. B. 112a). Frequently these were family caves, some of which have been discovered by archaeologists in modern times, or small family gravesites on local farms. In more recent times, military interments have been permitted in National Cemeteries, but of course, these are not specifically Christian. There has never been any problem about the burial of Jewish dead in a general cemetery near a battlefield. Even subsequently, when the emergency was over, burial in a non-denominational cemetery has been sanctioned by the chaplaincy commission consisting of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis (Burial in National Cemeteries, Responsa in Wartime, 1947, p. 83). We should also note that in places where it was impossible for the community to acquire a separate Jewish cemetery, a situation which arose frequently in Europe, a section of the general cemetery was set aside for Jewish burial. If possible, it was separated from the rest of the cemetery by a wall. In any case, a distance of four feet was left between the Jewish graves and non-Jewish graves (Tov Taam Vadaat III, #150; Haderet Qodesh, p. 34; Ein Yitzhoq Yoreh Deah 34). In our instance, it would be possible to create a small separate section, even if it is only for a single family. They should purchase a lot sufficiently large to separate the graves completely from their non-Jewish neighbors. They should also clearly indicate that it is a Jewish burial site through the use of a Hebrew inscription tombstone. As this would create a small Jewish burial site in a larger general cemetery, this would be in keeping with the authorities cited above. It would, of course, be preferable to continue the long standing custom of burial in a Jewish cemetery. If members of the immediate family have permanently settled in a large Jewish community, burial there would be preferable. In the circumstances indicated by your question, burial in a general cemetery in the way described would be in keeping with tradition, and nothing should preclude any rabbi from officiating at such a burial.July 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 299-302

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

88. Burial from the Temple, also with Reference to Burial of Suicides

(Vol. XXXIII, 1923, pp. 61-63)

Rabbi Henry Berkowitz has given the following opinion on two questions which are likely to come up in every congregation and at any time. “You ask my opinion on the proposition now under consideration by your congregation, viz.: To permit burials from the Temple at the request of the surviving members of the family, barring suicides. In order to make my reply as clear and concise as possible, permit me to answer the two parts of this proposition separately. First: Shall burials from the Temple be held simply at the request of the surviving members of the family, or shall the congregation, through its rabbi and officials, decide the matter? At present, as you state, the latter condition prevails. When the congregation desires it for any reason, funerals are held from the synagogue–always, of course, with the consent of the family. I believe it should be a reciprocal rule, namely: when the family desires it, the privilege should be accorded–always, of course, with the consent of the congregation. In such cases the President or Board shall determine the practical questions (e.g., time, expense, etc.), and the rabbi shall determine the religious questions (e.g., the nature of the service and the eligibility–as, for instance in the case of a Christian wife of an Israelite, in the case of a suicide, and the like). As burial is a religious service as much as public worship or marriage, the use of the synagogue cannot be inappropriate. As the family may have the Temple for marriage solemnities by complying with the conditions which the rabbi and the congregation require, so in the case of funerals should they have the same right, subject to the proper conditions. Inasmuch as funerals from the Temple have been limited everywhere hitherto to such persons of special merit or distinction as the congregation desired to honor, it would no doubt be deemed a token of arrogance and a presumption of and yearning for the vanities of ostentation, for a family to make such a request. Nevertheless–you will agree with me, I believe–in recognizing that if the old Jewish sentiment in favor of equality and the leveling of all distinctions of death were carried out by having all funerals from the Temple, great, very great, good might be accomplished. The narrow, crowded quarters of private houses are rarely adequate for the decorous conduct of the services. The crowded conditions are often a menace to health and create such a state of discord and indelicacy as to harrow up the feelings of the suffering in a dangerous way and undo all the possibilities of that reverence which is essential to a religious service. Every minister has keenly felt this and should certainly welcome such a common sense innovation. Temple Emanuel, New York, adopted such a law many years ago as was imperatively demanded by the impossibility of holding funerals respectably in the flats and narrow houses of that crowded city. Second: As to the burial of suicides from the Temple or the prohibition thereof. We now know about mental diseases and the inducing causes of suicide more than was ever known before. As a consequence, we have more compassion in our hearts for the victim than was held in the days of old. While sometimes–and perhaps most times–the act is execrable and cowardly, and amounts to the denial of religion, we know that it is not always so. The old Jewish law recognized the nobility of suicide in some cases, e.g., that of martyr. Shall not the new Jewish law of congregational usage be as humane? True, deception may be practiced, and the glamour of concealment may be thrown over an ignoble suicide by the publicity of the funeral. There is, therefore, a danger of condoning such dishonesty in permitting Temple burial. On the other hand, an irremediable wrong would be done if, by the enforcement of such a sweeping prohibition, one worthy person were ever branded and the family unjustly disgraced. I should say: Do not legislate on the subject of suicides at all. Let each case stand on its individual merits. Do not prejudge. We had a case here in Philadelphia of a woman whose eulogy will be pronounced by future ages. She discovered that the mute could be taught to speak and to understand all speech without hearing. In her effort to establish her system she threatened the old systems. She was harassed and persecuted, ridiculed and abused. The frail woman could not endure it and ended her life. Her death was the triumph of her system. Should she, whose life was so full of honor, be desecrated at death? Trusting that these replies may be of some service to you and hoping that you will inform me of the final action of your congregation.”(Signed) Henry Berkowitz To this I would add that, according to Jewish law, one is considered a suicide only when there is absolute certainty that he premeditated and committed the act with a clear mind not troubled by some great fear or worry which might have beset him for the moment and caused him to lose his mind temporarily. In the absence of such certain evidence, he is given the benefit of the doubt: we assume that some intense grief, fear, or worry caused him to lose his mental equilibrium, and that he committed the act in a state of mind when he could not realize what he was doing. Furthermore, consideration for his surviving relatives should, according to the Rabbis, not be ignored. And, whenever possible, we should try to spare them the disgrace which would come to them by having their relative declared a suicide. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 345.1-3, and responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De-a 326.)Henry Berkowitz(Opinion confirmed by Jacob Z. Lauterbach and Committee)See alsoS.B. Freehof, “Funerals from the Temple,” Reform Responsa for Our Time, pp. 95ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 148-150

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

89. Extending the Privilege of Burial from the

Synagogue

QUESTION: The congregation, which has already permitted

funerals of members and their children to use the synagogue, wishes to discuss an extension of that permission to parents and other close relatives of members. Is this in keeping with Jewish tradition? What is the underlying principle through which the Talmud distinguishes between “public and private funerals?” What is the basic objection to any funeral in the synagogue? How has tradition and Reform Judaism treated this subject? (Rabbi N. Hirsh, Seattle, WA)

ANSWER: Your letter has mentioned Solomon B. Freehof’s

responsum on the subject (Reform Responsa for Our Time pp. 95 ff). This responsum favors the restriction of funerals in the main synagogue to leaders of the congregation and important communal figures, while small chapels or assembly halls usually connected with the synagogue may be utilized for other funerals. The appropriate references in post Talmudic codes and Talmudic literature are cited for this decision.

As we look at the notions behind the

Talmudic restrictions, we can see that the scholars considered death as the ultimate separation from God, for the dead are unable to serve God or to carry out his mitzvot (Shab. 30a, 151b). For that reason, no person should discuss any Biblical verses on a cemetery or near a corpse, nor should one wear tefilin or carry a Torah in the cemetery (Sem. 13; Ber. 3b, 18a; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 96; Midrash Qohelet Rabbah 7, 2.5). The Torah, after all, is designated as etz hayim, the tree of life. The Bible also constantly deals with the theme of lifeless idols in contrast to the living God (Is. 42.19 21, 44.12- 21, etc.). These thoughts have been given practical expression through the exemption of mourners before burial (onen) from most acts of prayer. They do not wear tefilin, recite the sh’ma, the blessing before or after meals, nor do they respond with amen after any benediction. The Talmud also exempts them from the need to execute any positive commandments (Ber. 17b; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 341.1).

As we proceed further, we will see that the question of ritual defilement is also

involved. A human corpse represents the highest category of defilement (tumah) (B. K. 2b; Pes. 14b) and is the source of the ritual uncleanliness. It defiles for seven days (M. Oh. 1.14). One authority claimed that even distress upon hearing about the death of a relative without any contact with the corpse produced defilement (J. Pes. 8.7). Clearly there were strong negative feelings about death, and the dead were kept as far from anything sacred as possible. The only exception lay in the rabbinic treatment of a met mitzvah, a corpse without relatives. The high priest, who could not defile himself even for his own mother and father, was obligated to participate in the burial of the met mitzvah (Meg. 3b; Yad Hil. Ovel 3.8). A full treatment of the Biblical and rabbinic concepts of death, mourning and defilement maybe found in Emanuel Feldman’s Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning.

This long standing aversion to any contact between the dead and the

sacred has influenced the use of the synagogue for funerals. When this was discussed in the Talmud (Meg. 28b), there was a division of opinion between the Babylonian and Palestinian authorities, with the former more permissive than the latter. Later, Rashi stated that any funeral which involved the entire community, in other words communal leaders, was permitted from the synagogue. His decision was made on practical grounds as no other facility in the Jewish community could accommodate the crowd.

By the time of Maimonides

(12th century), communal leaders were regularly buried from the synagogue (Yad Hil. Tefilah 11.7). The Shulhan Arukh (16th century) extended the privilege to scholars and their wives (Yoreh Deah 344.19). Sixteenth century Poland was more democratic and permitted others to be buried from the synagogue (Ohalei Yaaqov, p. 74). The centuries have witnessed a gradual relaxation of the ancient restrictions as the apprehension over the “separation” between God of the dead diminished. I should, however, add that some modern Orthodox authorities strongly oppose funerals for women in the synagogue (W. Leiter, Bet David #198; Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelut pp.96 ff; A. Yudelewitz, Bet Av 357.4).

The American Reform movement has gradually relaxed the restrictions on the

use of the synagogue for funerals as indicated by the patterns set within your congregation. My congregation has followed the same pattern and has permitted funerals of members and their dependent children. We have not gone further as all other adults should and can join the congregation. This path is open to all as we regularly waive dues in instances of financial hardships and welcome all to affiliate.

In summary, there is no reason to restrict the

use of the synagogue for funerals from the point of view of the development of Jewish tradition. A congregation may, however, limit the use of its facilities to members as in all other matters.

October 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕