Burial

NARR 284

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

173. Burial with a Kippah

QUESTION: Is it necessary to provide a kippah for a more traditional deceased? Should this be added to the shrouds? (Esther Leibowitz, Miami FL)ANSWER: Tradition has emphasized simplicity for funerals. Rabban Gamliel, who was wealthy, insisted that he be buried in only a linen shroud in order to set an example (M K 27b). Another scholar R. Hezkiah asked that the shrouds used for his burial be limited in number (J Kelaim 9.4). Linen shrouds, often eight in number came to be used (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 352; Tekushinsky Gesher Hayim Vol 1 p 102f). The number may have arisen under kabbalistic influence. Nothing was mentioned in these sources about a kippah. It was probably assumed that the entire body was wrapped in the shrouds and so the head was not left uncovered or visible. If the family feels more at ease by providing a kippah it should be done. It is, however, not necessary.February 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 155-156

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

95. Burial with First or Second Husband

QUESTION: A Jewish woman in her seventies recently married a non-Jew. She advised me that she asked to be buried next to her first husband, a Jew, in a Jewish cemetery. The rabbi said she could not do so out of respect for her present husband. Is there any basis for this? (Rabbi H. Gelfman, Jacksonville, FL)

ANSWER: The classical discussion of whether a wife should be buried with her first or second husband is based upon the statement in the Talmud which understood husband and wife to “kin” even after the wife’s death, (Lev. 21.2; Yeb. 55b). The general conclusion of rabbinic authorities is that the wife should be buried with her first husband unless she had children by her second husband (Wolf Leiter, Bet David, #134; J. Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelut, p. 188 f). However, the Hungarian authority Moses Sofer came to a completely different conclusion. He felt that the death of a woman’s first husband, and her subsequent remarriage, broke those initial bonds entirely. He based his conclusion upon the a fortiori argument that if marriage can break the bond of brother-sister relationship (Lev. 21.3), in the case a priest who may mourn an unmarried but not a married sister, then surely remarriage would break the lesser relationships of husband and wife (Hatam SoferYoreh Deah 355).

In both of these instances, we are dealing with cases in which both husbands are deceased and the wife has survived them. In this case, the second husband is alive and she may predecease him.

A somewhat similar question was asked of Dr. Freehof some years ago. In that instance, the second wife wished to be buried alongside her deceased husband who was buried alongside his first wife. In that responsum he gave permission for such a burial provided that there was sufficient space for the interment (Responsa for Our Time, pp. 172 ff). This question is, of course, somewhat different, as the second husband is alive and as he is a non-Jew and may wish to be buried alongside his second wife.

If it is agreeable with the second husband that the wife be buried alongside her first husband, then there is no problem. Nor does the fact that he is a Christian present a problem if he wishes to be buried in the same cemetery as this woman as in most Reform Jewish cemeteries the burial of a Christian spouse is permitted (W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa, #99). If the second husband wishes to be buried in the Jewish cemetery, would we permit this woman to be buried between her two husbands? We would answer positively as such a burial reflects the reality of their lives.

We may proceed along the lines suggested above if it is agreeable with her present husband, both under the circumstances in which he may wish to be buried with his first wife (in their Christian cemetery) and if he wishes to be buried alongside his present Jewish wife in the Jewish cemetery if the cemetery permits this. Local cemetery rules, must, of course, be observed.

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 161-162

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

97. Non-Jewish Burials

QUESTION: The

Congregation owns a cemetery which is managed according to halakhah; no non-Jews

are permitted to be buried in it. Recently the congregation had a number of mixed-married

families join. One of the privileges of membership is the entitlement to two graves in the

cemetery. This now leads to a problem. Is it possible to declare a segment of the cemetery “non-

sectarian?” There is a section on the other side of the road which could be separated by a hedge.

(Rabbi B. Lefkowitz, Taunton, MA)ANSWER: Although there is a great amount of

discussion of burial law, there is very little on the nature of the cemetery itself. It is mandated

that every community should set up its own cemetery in order to honor the dead (Meg. 29a;

Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 34). If it is not possible to establish a separate cemetery, then

a distinctive section is to be set aside in a general cemetery (Dudaeh Hasadeh, #66 and

89.) The cemetery in its entirety has always been considered as holy and deserving the respect

and protection of the Jewish community. So, for example, unused sections may not be rented

out for grazing (Meg. 29a; San 46a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 368.1). Anyone who

visits the cemetery, even the unused section, must behave in a dignified fashion (Shulhan

Arukh Yoreh Deah 368.1). Respect given to a cemetery is akin to that extended to a

synagogue (Azariah Fano, Responsa #56). Once the land has been

consecrated as a cemetery, it may not be sold or used for any other purpose. So, Moses Sofer

asked a community to resist the government’s request for a new wall around a cemetery, as the

plans also called for a diminution of its grounds (Hatam Sofer Yoreh Deah #335). A

similar opinion was provided by David Hoffman (Melamed Lehoil Yoreh Deah

#125). The only circumstances under which it is permissible to sell or dispose of a

cemetery are: (1) if it is condemned by the government and the graves are moved; (2) if it is no

longer possible to guard against vandalism. Then the dead may be disinterred and moved to

another cemetery (Mosheh Feinstein, Igrot Mosheh Yoreh Deah 246 and 247; Moses

Sofer, Hatam Sofer, Yoreh Deah #353). According to traditional halakhah, it would

not be possible to simply set aside a portion of the existing cemetery for the burial of non-

Jews. There are two other paths which may be followed. Some adjacent land can be

purchased. There would be no objection to utilizing it for Gentile burials as this ground has not

been dedicated as a cemetery yet. It would also be possible to change the by-laws of the

cemetery to agree with Reform practice. This would permit the burial of non-Jews in accordance

with general Reform Jewish practice, as described in W. Jacob’s American Reform

Responsa (#98 ff). If the interments of Gentiles are permitted only in a separate section, then

those who own plots in the old section have no reason to object.January 1985

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.

ARR 349-350

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

102. Preferred Burial Site

(1978)

QUESTION: One parent is buried in New York; the other is about to die in Houston. One son lives in Houston, and the second in California. Should the burial of the mother take place in Houston, where one son can from time to time visit the grave, or should the burial take place by her husband’s side in New York? (Rabbi Samuel E. Karff, Houston, Texas)

ANSWER: In this question, we have a clash of two Mitzvot: one is concerned with burial, the other with visitation of the grave in subsequent years. In the case where a family plot has been established, tradition would clearly state that the wife should be buried alongside her husband, and it is the duty of the husband to provide for the burial of his wife, and not vice versa (Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 89; 118.18). Furthermore, our tradition sought to establish family burial sites similar to the Cave of Machpela, in which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as most of their wives, were buried. The Talmud, in a legend, speaks of a rabbi who died, and whose friends, upon seeking to bury him, found a snake obstructing the way into the cave. The snake was told to move so that the son could be buried with his father (Talmud, Bava Metsi-a 85a). The only discussions in the halachic literature which dealt with the burial site of husband and wife in two cities treated the question of disinterment for the sake of instituting a family plot. This has been discussed by Isaac Glick (Yad Yitschak, vol. II, #249), as well as by Saul Schwadron (Maharsham, vol. III, #343). Glick decided that the husband may not be disinterred to be buried with his wife unless other members of the family were already buried in the same plot as his wife. In the case of Schwadron, it was a question of whether the wife might be disinterred. He decided positively because a number of other burials had already taken place in the husband’s plot. Both of these decisions are based on Sh.A.,Yoreh De-a #363, which listed reasons for disinterment, and among them is “burial with his fathers.” In the case cited in our question, no family plot has yet been established, and at first glance it would seem preferable to bury her in New York, as the husband is buried there. If, however, the children intend the Houston plot to become a family plot, and will later inter other members of their family there, then–even according to the tradition–this would be permissible.

The other matter which enters the discussion is the future visitation of graves. It is a mitzvah to visit graves on the Yahrzeit (Rashi to Yevamot 122a, who has cited the responsa of the Geonim; Ketav Sofer, Yoreh De-a #178). This custom was established in the days of the Geonim for scholars, but subsequently applied to all Jews: if it was possible to visit the grave it was done; if not, then the family might send someone else to visit the grave as Chatam Sofer stated. Visiting the grave on Yahrzeit is clearly a well-established custom. It does not have the same weight as statements connected with burial which are law, in this case mide-oraita,yet for us this custom may be at least as important as the law. It will be comforting to the family to be able to visit the grave. This reason, and the fact that the family intends the Houston plot to become the family plot, would lead me to decide in favor of burial in Houston.

Walter Jacob

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.

NARR 288-289

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

177. Vertical Burial

QUESTION: My father has expressed a desire to be burial vertically rather than horizontally. We have discussed this a number of times but he insists and I would like to carry out his wishes if that is in keeping with Jewish practices (Norma Weigel, Berkeley CA).ANSWER: Jewish tradition assumes that burial will be horizontal. This is true both for burial in the ground which is our customary practice and the ancient burial in caves as we find at Bet Shan and in other sites in Israel. My search through the halakhic literature has not come across any statements about vertical burial. It is unlikely that this would have been discussed in an earlier age, as horizontal burial is much easier and requires less digging into the ground. Vertical burial would demand a considerable excavation. That is readily possible for us with our mechanized equipment, but as my cemetery superintendent has told me may cause practical problems as well with neighboring graves which might cave in. Furthermore, the coffin because of its construction may collapse if placed vertically. As long as there is no damage to nearby graves or other technical difficulty, the vertical burial which this individual has requested should be considered appropriate. The grave marker should be placed in the usual position and nothing connected with the grave need indicate that this burial was somewhat different.August 1991

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 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.