Grave(s)

TRR 52-54

WALKING ON THE GRAVES

QUESTION:

An Orthodox rabbi told the congregation that it is forbidden to walk on the graves in the cemetery. Is this prohibition based upon law? (Asked by Mrs. Florence Freehof, San Francisco, California.)

ANSWER:

The prohibition to walk on the graves in the cemetery is not a definite prohibition, but there is reason enough in the law and the custom for pious people to avoid doing so. The basis for the prohibition is as follows:

There is a general rule that the living may not take any material advantage of the body of the dead or of the grave in which it is buried. Of course this does not refer to the property of the deceased which he can give away by gift or by will. The prohibition refers to his body, to the coffin and to the grave in which he lies. For example, there is a responsum by David ben Zimri in Egypt (Vol. 3, #548) that concerned an Egyptian custom of using fragments of old mummies as a sort of medicine, and the question was as to whether it is permitted. Furthermore, there was another question as to the habit of certain people to take a handful of earth from the grave of an honored, saintly rabbi (Ray), the earth to be used as a sort of amulet or remedy (Sanhedrin 47b). These actions are, of course, forbidden on the ground of the prohibition of using the body or the grave of the dead for the benefit of the living, although some authorities permit this use of earth on the ground that it is karka olom, earth in general and not specifically belonging to the grave.

Of course this prohibition, to the extent that it holds, now becomes an especially important one in the new surgical practice of removing organs from the dead and using them in the bodies of the living. However, if a patient is dangerously ill, such ritual prohibitions do not apply. Any remedy is permitted if life can be saved by it.

The general prohibition against using the body of the dead or the grave for the benefit of the living is given in Yoreh Deah 364:1, to which Isserles comments that there are some scholars who prohibit people even from sitting upon the tombstone (and getting the minor benefit of the momentary rest). But, he adds, some other scholars disagree and permit it. The classic commentator Taz repeats the prohibition of sitting on the tombstone and says that from that basis, it is forbidden to tread on the grave. But, he says, quoting some authorities (Samuel b. Meir to B.B. 101a) that walking on the grave is not prohibited if it is just a temporary or a necessary errand. For example, if the body is being carried for burial and the grave cannot be reached except by walking over other graves, then of course that is permitted and, in general, the Taz indicates that even a chance walking over the graves is not prohibited.

A balanced opinion is arrived at by Naphtali Z’vi Berlin of Volozhin (Mashiv Davar Vol. 2, last paragraph). He also goes into the general question as to whether the earth on the grave may not be used for the benefit of the living, and then says that it is disrespectful to the dead to walk on the graves but that chance or incidental walking is permitted.

Solomon Ganzfried in his Kitzur Shulhan Arukh (199:14) declares outright that it is forbidden to tread upon graves but immediately weakens the firmness of the prohibition by explaining it as follows: “It is because somesay that it is forbidden to have any benefit from the grave.” But then he adds that if it is necessary to walk on graves to get to the grave that is needed, then the walking is permitted.

So, too, Greenwald in his Kol Bo (p. 179 bottom) says definitely that there is no actual prohibition against walking on the graves except that since it would be disrespectful to the dead, it should be avoided.

But it is noteworthy that Jehiel Epstein in Arukh Ha-Shulhan, Yoreh Deah 346:11, says plainly: “I am astonished at those who prohibit a ‘benefit’.”

From all this tentative prohibition, we may draw the following conclusion: Walking on the graves is permitted if it is for a worthwhile errand or even if it is a temporary, chance crossing of the grave. What would be prohibited (according to the spirit of the law) would be regularly using the cemetery as a shortcut and walking across the graves simply to save ourselves a little walking distance.

NARR 285

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

174. Jerusalem Soil into the Grave

QUESTION: A relative of the deceased has brought some soil from Jerusalem which he wishes the family to place into the coffin. The burial took place some months earlier; should the grave be opened in order to do this? What is the origin of the custom of burying with a vial of such soil? (Hannah Smith, Seattle, WA)ANSWER: Burial in the land of Israel has been sought by the pious through the ages. Jacob, the patriarch, and later his son Joseph were taken from Egypt to be buried in Israel (Gen 49.31; 50.13). When this was not possible, some pious individuals travelled to Israel in their old age, so that they might die and be buried there. As resurrection of the dead will begin with the land of Israel according to some speculations, burial there would assure earlier resurrection. In our century burials may be arranged in Israel and some Orthodox families have done so. Others have sought to emphasize their ties with Israel by including a vial of soil from Jerusalem in their coffin. I have not found any traditional sources which mention this custom. A body may be exhumed for a variety of reasons, including reburial in Israel (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 363.1 ff), but this would not include the placement of a vial of Israeli soil into the coffin. It would be appropriate to sprinkle that soil onto the existing grave, without disturbing it, and thereby satisfying the wishes of the visiting relative.June 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 303-304

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

190. Reuse of a Grave

QUESTION: An individual was recently buried on our cemetery in the wrong grave. The person will soon be interred in the proper grave, but the question arose whether the grave in which the individual was briefly interred may be used or must it remain vacant. (Rabbi Thomas Liebchutz, Winston Salem NC)ANSWER: There is a broad and sweeping general rule which indicates that no benefit must be received from the deceased. This referred, for example, to grazing animals near graves, etc. This principle of hanaah (Meg 29a; San 47b) would seem to prohibit such a reuse along with the statement of the Talmud (San 47a b; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 364.7), which declared that if a man prepared a grave for his father he, the son, may not be buried in it even though the grave was never used for the father. However, the discussion indicated that other matters were at issue; this referred to a kever shel binyan (in other words a grave that had been constructed of stone or possibly a grave built in a cave, and not a grave simply dug in the soil). The Talmud also indicated that its prohibition was limited to father and son because of the respect and devotion due from a son to a father, but that the grave could have been used for someone else. Furthermore, the Talmudic section also indicated that although no benefit of any kind may be received from a grave, i.e., it could not be sold, but it could be used for burying another individual. This whole matter was developed further in a responsum by Moses Sofer (Ketav Sofer Yeah Deah 177) who indicated that although one may not benefit from the dead, for example by using an empty grave as a storage site, one may bury another body in it. The same decision was reached by Abraham Glick (Yad Yitzhaq Vol III #295). It would therefore be perfectly permissible in this instance to rectify the error, and rebury the body in the proper location. Then the individual who originally owned the grave or to whom it had been assigned may utilize it at the appropriate time. May that time be distant.October 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 355-358

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

107. Two Coffins in One Grave

(Vol. LXXXV, 1975, pp. 85-87)QUESTION: Space in the cemetery is becoming scarcer every year. The question has, therefore, arisen whether or not we may bury one coffin above another in the same grave. (Sidney Kluger, Executive Director, Temple Sherith Israel, San Francisco, California)ANSWER: It is obvious that to open a grave and to put another coffin above the one already there is not desirable, and so most of the scholars who deal with the question say that this should not be done, nevertheless find a reason to permit it after all. For example, the great Chasidic scholar of the last century, Chaim Halberstam in his Divrei Chayim (Yoreh De-a 136), says simply that it should not be done; but then he adds that if it is an established custom in the community to do so, then it should be permitted to continue. Similarly, other scholars dealing with the question indicate that whatever the strict letter of the law may be in that matter, it is a widespread custom in many communities to do so. Thus, for example, see the responsum of Jacob Reischer (died in Metz, 1733) in his Shevut Ya-akov, II:95. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the Shulchan Aruch states the law, it also exhibits this same double attitude. In Yoreh De-a 362.4, the law is given at first bluntly as follows: “We may not bury one coffin above another.” But then the law continues “But if there is six handbreadths of earth between the coffins, it is permitted.” Thus we might say, the general attitude of the law is ambivalent, namely, that such superimposed burial is not desirable, but it is not forbidden. It would be desirable to trace the development of the law, especially this ambivalent attitude in it, since the various elements involved may help each congregation to make its decision on the matter. Basically the law involving the distance between one buried body and another is based upon the mishna in Bava Batra VI.8. The discussion there revolves around a cave and how many burial inches may be dug in it, in what direction, and how close to each other. The mishna then is discussed in Bava Batra 101ff, and most later discussions base themselves upon this passage. The Gaon Hai is cited in the Tur, Yoreh De-a 363, to the effect that each grave is entitled to three handbreadths of earth around it (Tefisat Hakever). Joel Sirkes (Bach to the Tur) explains the fact that some authorities say that there ought to be six handbreadths and some authorities say only three handbreadths intervening as follows: each coffin is entitled to three handbreadths of its own. Hence, between the lower coffin and the upper coffin, there should be six handbreadths (three for each coffin). Even this amount of space is not insisted upon by all authorities. The fullest discussion of the whole matter is by Abraham Danzig in his Chochmat Adam in the section Matzevat Mosheh, #10. He says (on the basis of some text variation) that it may be possible to have the width of only six fingers of earth between the coffins. The justification for such a small intervening amount of earth came up in connection with the question which arose in the city of Paris in the 17th century. At that time, the Jews of Paris were not permitted to have a cemetery of their own. They buried in some city lots and the question, therefore, of coffin above coffin immediately arose. They asked a question of Aryeh Lev of Metz (18th century). (See the second volume of his Sha-agat Aryeh, Wilna edition, 1873, p. 120, Responsum #17.) He told them that they may bury in this way, but to be sure to have six handbreadths between coffins. Those who would permit superimposed burial with less than six handbreadths (as Danzig does, requiring only six fingers) base themselves generally upon the statement of Simon ben Gamliel in the mishna cited above, who ends the discussion in the mishna by saying that it all depends on the rockiness of the soil. This is understood to mean that if the soil is firm and would not disperse easily, even less than six handbreadths would be sufficient. So, for example, Zvi Ashkenazi (Chacham Tsevi) in his Responsum #149, is dealing with a situation in the cemetery of Amsterdam where the soil is loose and thin. There he would require even more than six handbreadths. However, Isaac Schmelkes of Lemberg, in his Beit Yitschak, Yoreh De-a 153, says that in Paris they put a slab of stone between the graves and that even if it were only an inch wide, it is sufficient to separate coffins. In fact, Abraham Danzig cites Torat Chesed, in which the statement is made that all these laws as to how much intervening earth there must be, were based upon the earlier custom of burying the bodies without coffins; but that nowadays when we bury in coffins, we do not need to consider the necessity for intervening earth at all. In fact we may say that if–as is frequently the custom nowadays in some cemeteries–the coffin itself is enclosed in a cement casing, then the top of the casing of the lower coffin and the bottom of the casing of the upper coffin could fulfill completely the requirement of even the strictest opinion. Moses Feinstein (Igerot Mosheh, Yoreh De-a 234) believes that even with cement intervening, there should be an interval of three to six handbreadths. Frequently in his discussion of the question, the authority will say that all these laws of intervening earth were meant for the time when we had plenty of room and therefore we could leave sufficient earth between each coffin; but nowadays our land is crowded and so the customto bury closely side by side and one above the other has become widespread and must be deemed permissible. See especially the statement of Jacob Reischer of Metz cited heretofore. To sum up, then: Nowadays cemetery space is becoming scarce. We bury in coffins and sometimes even with cement casing around the coffins. This is to be considered sufficient to fulfill the requirement of the strictest authorities. Yet it must be stated in explaining the double attitude of the law that it would be preferable if we had the space for each coffin to have its own grave.Solomon B. FreehofNOTE:Cemeteries generally are run according to laws and regulations enacted by more than one governing body. These laws and regulations in State codes and association charters, bylaws, or official minutes must be respected.Responsa Committee (1980)

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 301-303

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

189. Unmarked Graves

QUESTION: At the Jewish community cemetery in Winston Salem, Mt. Sinai Cemetery, a new grave was being dug this past spring in an area in which the maps, in the possession of the Cemetery Committee, indicated that no one was buried. However, an old unmarked grave existed there. How should this old grave be marked and what should be done with that grave and the area around it? (Rabbi Thomas P. Liebschutz, Winston-Salem NC)ANSWER: We know from Scriptural sources that markers were erected over graves even when the specific person buried there was not known (Gen 38.20; II K 23.17; Ez 39.15). The reference in Ezekiel was taken by the Mishnah (M K 5a) to indicate that grave markers represented a continuous tradition since Biblical times. Yet some doubt about this was shown by the statement in Sheqalim which stated that graves were marked with a white plaster like substance on the first of Elul annually. This was done so that priests would not inadvertently come in contact with the grave and defile themselves (M Sheqalim 1.1). However, another section of the Mishnah stated that sums of money which remained after a funeral could be used for a permanent grave marker (2.5). We also have a statement about the earlier Simon, the Maccabee, who built a rather elaborate tomb (I Mac 13.27 ff). This may have been done because of his position as a ruler. Whatever uncertainties exist about the earlier period by Talmudic times, grave markers were commonly used (Hor 13b; San 96b; J Sheq 47a). These tombstones undoubtedly served a dual purpose: they honored the deceased and warned the priests away from this site of potential uncleanliness (M K 1.2, etc). In the later tradition tombstones became mandatory (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 348.2; Even Haezer 89.1; Greenwald Kol Bo al Avelut 370 ff). By the nineteenth century this minhag had become universal and was considered an essential part of each funeral (Abraham Benjamin Sofer Ketav Sofer Yoreh Deah 178). In this instance there has been an interment, but the deceased is now unknown, therefore, a simple tombstone should be erected with a traditional inscription. This would be appropriate even though we do not know whether the grave is that of a Jew or a Christian. The fact that the individual is unknown should not disturb us. After all, names on many older tombstones have become illegible. The stone, itself, reminds us that someone is buried there and that we should treat this area with respect.September 1987

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 351-352

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

103. Direction of Graves in the Cemetery

(Vol. XXXIII, 1923, p. 58)QUESTION: Our congregation has just purchased adjoining territory to its burial grounds. The plot runs north and south. It runs from street to street and our plans are to make an entrance by the north side and the exit on the south side. This would mean that the graves and lots, when laid out, would either be facing north or south, and not east, as is customary. The question, therefore, which I desire to ask, is this: Is there anything in traditional Judaism concerning this matter? Is there any prohibition concerning the burying in graves that run north and south or vice versa?ANSWER: There is, to my knowledge, no prohibition of this kind in Rabbinic Judaism. Neither the Talmud nor the Shulchan Aruch has any definite ruling about the direction in which the graves should run. On the contrary, from the Mishna, Bava Batra VI.8, and the discussion of the Gemara (ibid., 101b), it is evident that they would have graves in every direction. Lest it be argued that this was only in Palestine, we have now the evidence from the Jewish catacombs in Rome, Italy, that some of the graves were arranged so that the head was in the direction of northwest and the feet towards the southeast, and others again in the opposite direction, i.e., head southeast and feet northwest (see Nikolaus Mueller, Die Juedische Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, Leipzig, 1912, pp. 48-49). And R. Moses Sofer, in his Responsum, Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De-a, no. 332, expresses his surprise at certain people who would fix the direction in which graves should run. In Pressburg, where he was rabbi, the cemetery was so laid out that the graves ran west-east, that is, the head was placed towards the north, and the feet towards the south. It would seem that certain people, believing that at the time of the resurrection the dead will get up and march to Palestine, would be careful to place the body in the grave with the feet toward Palestine, so that when the time comes the dead would be able to get up and walk right ahead without having to turn around. But, argues R. Moses Sofer, there are many roads toward Palestine, since from European countries one can go first south to a Mediterranean harbor and then by ship east, or one can go east by land to Constantinople first, and thence to Palestine; therefore, he concludes that there is absolutely no difference in what direction the graves run.Jacob Z. Lauterbach and Committee

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 352-353

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

104. Direction of Graves in a Cemetery

(1980)QUESTION: Must the graves in the cemetery all face in one direction?ANSWER: My honored predecessor, Jacob Z. Lauterbach, has provided most of the traditional material on this matter. It is clear that neither the Mishna, nor the Talmud, nor the later codes established any regulations about the direction of graves. The Talmud (B.B. 101b) was concerned with graves in a cavern and established that all walls of the cavern could be used for graves regardless of the direction in which they faced. Greenwald (Kol Bo Al Avelut, pp. 177ff) has provided the more recent material on the subject. It is clear that Jewish cemeteries generally faced all graves in one direction, east-west or north-south. This was cited as a hallmark of a Jewish cemetery (Oppenheimer responsum, as an addendum to Bachrach’s Chavat Ya-ir). Some felt that graves should face east-west so that at the beginning of the Messianic age the dead could rise and march toward the Land of Israel. Moses Sofer suggested that if this were not possible, then the graves should face a gate for the same purpose. A new gate might be erected just for this reason (Responsa, Yoreh De-a, #332). All authorities, however, agreed that it was possible to arrange graves differently in various sections of the cemetery in order to conform with the contours of the land. So, Abraham Glick (Yad Yitschak III, 83) felt that the continuous alignment of graves might only be changed for a famous person. In order to produce uniformity, he suggested that an offending gravestone might be moved to conform with the others, even if it then no longer stood precisely at the head of the grave. We may then conclude that it would be equally possible to align graves east-west, north-south, or in conformity with the contour of the land. It would, however, be within the power of a local cemetery association to insist on uniformity of direction of graves within that cemetery or a portion thereof.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard ZlotowitzSee also:S.B. Freehof, “The Alignment of Graves,” Current Reform Responsa, pp. 132ff; “Position of the Body in the Grave,” Contemporary Reform Responsa, pp. 172ff.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 289-290

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

178. Filling the Grave in Hot Weather

QUESTION: In this congregation with its mixture of more traditional and more liberal minded families, the bereaved family at the funeral often wishes the grave to be filled or partially filled after interment. As the temperature in the summer may reach as high as 118, the minyan which normally gathers at the graveside resists doing this in such excessive heat. What is the traditional response to filling in the grave under these circumstances? (Rabbi Albert Michels, Sun City AZ)ANSWER: As you quite properly state it is not our custom to fill the grave at all while the mourners are present, as this is especially difficult for them and at least in our present mood does not help them recover from their grief. The general feeling of tradition, of course, is that mourning begins once the grave has been filled (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 371). I do not know of any question which arose akin to yours in which burial was difficult because of excessive heat. In ancient Israel a fair number of burials took place in caves and so, of course, the problem did not arise as the site was cooler and as rolling a stone completed the burial (M K 27a; Matt 28.2). Of course, under your circumstances this could be done in the evening by individuals working in the cemetery, or even in the daytime after the mourners had left, using machinery. Under special circumstances when it was not possible to bury, as for example when there was a grave diggers strike and graves could not be prepared for burial, then mourning began once the coffin was sealed and placed in storage rather than waiting for the strike to be over (Solomon B. Freehof Reform Responsa #36). The other occasion when burial was not possible incurred in Russia and Poland with its harsh winters which sometimes froze the ground so that it was not possible to bury anyone, and the deceased were placed in a coffin and stored until weather conditions had changed. In both of these instances we are dealing with the entire burial not simply with the filling in of the grave. Although it has become customary in traditional circles for relatives and friends to fill in the grave, this is not required. The custom stems from a time when all such work was done on a voluntary basis. The presence of a large number of individuals at the graveside assured that the task would be shared and be done rather quickly. These are not considerations for us, and under the circumstances you describe it would be perfectly proper and within the bounds of tradition to have the same people who dug the grave fill it with their mechanical equipment after the mourners had left. Those present at the interment could throw a few handfuls of dirt onto the coffin (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah, 375.1). In any case because of pikuah nefesh (Deut 4.0; 4.15; Ber 32b; B K 91b; Yad Hil Rotzeah Ushemmirat Hanefesh 11.4; Hil Shavuot 5.57; Hil Hovel Umaziq 5.1), it would be wrong to impose the obligation of filling the grave upon the minyan which attends the graveside services.August 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.