Tombstone

5773.4

CCAR RESPONSA COMMITTEE

5773.4

Quick Response Codes Embedded in Tombstone

Sh’elah.

Congregational leaders are considering a new service offered by a monument maker that embeds Quick Response (QR) codes into cemetery markers and gravestones. In addition to name, date and other familiar information, a QR code would be embedded into the stone from which users of smartphones and other devices could scan the code to reach a website that displays pictures, audio and video of the deceased. Are QR codes an acceptable new integration of technology in the cemetery or is it a violation of the way we are guided to remember the deceased through the blessing of cherished memories? (Rabbi David Lyon, Houston, TX

T’shuvah.

We live in a time when new electronic and digital technologies are rapidly altering the ways in which we conduct our professional and personal lives. These changes have dramatically impacted our religious communities, both in the ways we administer our affairs and in the realm of actual religious practice.[1] As has been true throughout the history of technology, these new innovations tend to be both exciting and troubling. They are exciting in that they offer interesting, more efficient, and possibly even more meaningful ways to achieve the goals and purposes for which we come together as Jewish religious communities. They are troubling in that they challenge the accepted ways of observing our faith and the traditional standards of social propriety. Our sh’elah is a perfect case in point. It reminds us that a question concerning new technology is not merely about technology. Rather, it calls upon us to balance our openness to the exciting prospects of change with our reverence for forms of observance that we have come to regard as sacred.

1. The Tombstone in Jewish Tradition. The Jewish custom of placing a marker at the gravesite is first mentioned in the Mishnah.[2] The practice of marking a burial site[3] was initially undertaken to warn passersby, particularly kohanim, that a body was buried under the spot, so that they could avoid coming into contact with that major source of ritual impurity.[4] Soon afterwards, however, the minhag was widely accepted as a means of memorializing the deceased,[5] and it became an integral part of burial practice.[6]

Our tradition offers little in the way of firm guidance as to what may or may not be carved upon the tombstone. In his comprehensive compendium on the halakhot of mourning and burial, Rabbi Yekutiel Greenwald writes that “originally, no words were carved upon the matzeivah (tombstone). It was placed at the grave simply so that the kohanim might avoid defilement. I have no way of determining just when people began to carve the praises of the deceased upon the tombstone.” He goes on, however, to cite the evidence of tombstones dating back at least one thousand years that bear inscriptions including names, dates of death, assorted encomia, and prayers that the deceased should rest eternally in paradise or in the heavenly academy (yeshivah shel ma`alah).[7] Over the years, rabbis have expressed reservations concerning some sorts of inscriptions. Rabbi Moshe Sofer, for example, condemns the practice of carving the image of the deceased upon the tombstone in bas-relief, lest those who pray in the vicinity of the stone appear to be worshiping a graven image.[8] Greenwald himself urges us to refrain from inscribing excessive praises and exaggerated language upon the matzeivah, and he encourages communities to supervise these matters.[9] Yet the story he tells is of a minhag that has developed over the centuries in accordance with changing tastes. Each Jewish community in each generation has determined its own standards for what is proper and improper to inscribe upon a tombstone.

2. The Tombstone and Community Standards. Thus, there is no one fixed, permanent standard in the halakhah for determining what is proper or improper to inscribe upon a matzeivah. For this reason, we cannot say that either the letter or the spirit of our tradition would prohibit QR codes. Does this mean that QR codes are permitted, to use the language of our sh’elah, as “an acceptable new integration of technology in the cemetery”? Not necessarily. If there is nothing “sacred” – permanent and unchanging – about precisely what appears upon our tombstones, there is something sacred about the reverence with which we should conduct ourselves in the cemetery.[10] This reverence partakes of the value of k’vod hameitim, the honor we are required to show toward the dead. This reverence is defined not so much by individual preference as by the standards of behavior and decorum set by the community, for while the gravesite itself is considered the property of the deceased and his or her heirs,[11] “the cemetery is like a jointly-owned courtyard (chatzar hashutafim), and nothing can be done therein without the consent of the other owners.”[12] Those who administer the cemetery, acting in the name of the community whose loved ones lie buried there, are charged with the duty of enunciating and enforcing the standards of proper conduct within its boundaries.

It follows that we, the members of the Responsa Committee, cannot impose our own standards of taste and propriety upon those of the local community. We can point out, simply, that there are good arguments for allowing the QR codes. The information to which they link, the website devoted to the deceased’s memory, might well be of solace and comfort to the mourners. We can imagine that they will be especially helpful to grandchildren and great-grandchildren, allowing them to see the face, to hear the voice, and to read stories about one for whom they retain few if any strong personal memories. In this sense, the QR code can be viewed as the modern technological version of the tombstone itself, which our people have used for centuries as a means of perpetuating the memory of the loved ones they have lost. New technology, precisely because it is new, may strike us at first as strange, foreign, and out of place. Eventually, though, we come to accept its presence and to appreciate the advantages it brings.

At the same time, there can be problems with QR codes in the cemetery. The codes may link to audio and video content that many would find offensive or disturbing. Then, too, there is the possibility of hacking. someone with the requisite technical skill could post content on the website that would be embarrassing to the memory of the deceased. These are unsettling possibilities, and they call upon the cemetery authorities to exercise their supervisory power. They, as we have seen, are charged with the duty to enforce the community’s standards of conduct, decorum, and respect within the cemetery; standards relating to QR codes are no exception. The authorities can set rules concerning the context to be available via the electronic links, the volume level of any audio material, and all other relevant matters. And they would have the right and the responsibility to check periodically to insure that no content deemed inappropriate is publicly available via the QR codes.

So long as these provisions are observed, we think that QR codes can be permitted in a Jewish cemetery as a way of enhancing the memory of the deceased for those who visit the grave.

NOTES

1. We cite, by way of example, two of our recent responsa: “A Minyan Via the Internet?”, no. 5772.1, and “Conversion Beit Din Via Videoconference,” no. 5773.3.

2. M. Sh’kalim 2:5. The term used is nefesh al kivro, which is explained as the matzeivah, or grave marker (Bartenura ad loc.).

3. M. Sh’kalim 1:1; M. Mo`ed Katan 1:2.

4. B. Mo`ed Katan 5a and B. Nidah 57a, derived from Ezekiel 37:15; Yad, Tumat Meit 8:9.

5. See tractate S’machot (Evel Rabati) 4:12: “We do not place a nefesh on the gravesites of the righteous, for their words are their memorials (shedivreihem heim zikhronam).” This is not to say that the presence of a tombstone today indicates that the deceased was not a righteous person! It indicates, rather, that the term nefesh in this context refers to a “memorial” for the deceased.

6. See Tur, Yoreh De`ah 348 (and Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De`ah 348:2), based upon Resp. Harosh (R. Asher b. Yechiel), k’lal 13, no. 19: the tombstone is one of the regular elements (mah sher’gilin la`asot) of burial.

7. R. Yekutiel Greenwald, Kol Bo al Aveilut (New York, 1947), pp. 380-382.

8. Resp. Chatam Sofer 6:4.

9. Greenwald (note 7, above), p. 380, par. 3.

10. The cemetery is to be treated with the reverence normally accorded the synagogue. See R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time, no. 26, B. Megilah 29a, Yad, Aveil 14:13, and Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De`ah 368:1.

11. B. Bava Batra 120a. On the significance of this, see R. Solomon B. Freehof, American Reform Responsa, no. 99, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/arr-335-341 (accessed June 5, 2013).

12. Resp. Chatam Sofer (note 8, above).

CARR 175-176

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

114. Setting of a Tombstone

QUESTION: Is there a specific time after the funeral when the tombstone should be set? Must one wait twelve months, or may this be done sooner?

ANSWER: There is no fixed time period which must elapse before the tombstone may be set. It has become customary among some modern Orthodox Jews to wait twelve months (Akiva Eger, Hidushei to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 376.4). However, there are many opinions which state that the tombstone may be set as early as the conclusion of the shivah period (Tos. to Ket. 5a). In fact, a mournermay interrupt the period of mourning to concern himself with the tombstone (Sifsei Kohen to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 375, note 12). In Israel tombstones are often erected at the end of the thirty days of mourning (sh’loshim).

Greenwald, after citing all the customs which have been followed in both ancient and modern times, quite properly declares that the tombstone itself is erected to honor the dead. As we feel that we honor our dead more (kibud hamet) by waiting a year, that should be done. It would, however, be within the framework of tradition to erect a stone earlier. Both ways agree with custom and tradition (J.Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelut, p. 370). For guidance on a consecration service for the stone, see Gates of Mitzvah (p. 64). As waiting twelve months has become a wide-spread custom among us in America, we should generally wait until that period has elapsed.

June 1979

CARR 178

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

**117. The Sh’ma as a Tombstone**

Inscription

QUESTION: Would it be permissible to inscribe the verse

Sh’ma Yisrael on a tombstone? (R. W., Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER:

Inscriptions on Jewish tombstones may be found as early as Greek and Roman times.

Usually they were confined to the name of the deceased and a brief description of his life. This

practice was continued in subsequent centuries. Only rarely were any quotations from Biblical or

later literature found on stones until modern times. There would be no problem with such

inscriptions, even with those intimately connected with the synagogue service. In fact, the more

familiar synagogue psalms are used most frequently for such statements. Tradition has, of

course, prohibited the conducting of a formal service on a cemetery and the building of a

synagogue with a Torah on a cemetery. The general statement made in connection with

these prohibitions was that we do not mock the inability of the dead to praise God (Ber. 18a;

Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 367.2). Everything is done to help overcome sorrow and not

to reemphasize it. Nothing would prohibit the use of this verse which has become so central to

Judaism on a tombstone inscription.June 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 296

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

183. A Wooden Grave Marker

QUESTION: The deceased has requested that the grave marker used for her grave be a simple wooden one. This is in keeping with the simplicity of her life. She would like the fund normally used for a tombstone be spent charitably? What is the attitude of tradition to this request? (Mark Greenbaum, Dallas TX)ANSWER: The first mention of marking a grave was with Rachel as the patriarch Jacob set up a pillar in her honor (Gen 35.20); similarly the graves of the ancient Israelite and Judean kings were provided with monuments. In the later period graves were marked so that the priests could avoid contact with the dead (M M K 1.2). Generally these gravemarker were made of stone as this is a durable material (Greenwald Kol Bo al Avelut), but there is no absolute requirement. We should also remember that the tombstones in many older cemeteries decay despite the effort at permanence. Furthermore wooden markers were used in various European countries when stone could not be afforded. A wooden marker may be used if it is in keeping with the rule of the congregation. The congregation must be concerned with maintenance and the general appearance of the cemetery. There is nothing in the tradition which would object to this request.November 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 179-180

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

118. Tombstone with Christian

Markings

QUESTION: The Christian spouse has placed a tombstone with

crosses upon it on the tomb of her Jewish husband, who is buried in the Jewish cemetery. Should this tombstone be permitted to stand in the Jewish cemetery? (Rabbi K. White, Lincoln, NE)

ANSWER: We should begin by looking briefly at the historical background of

tombstones. Some Biblical graves were marked, so Jacob placed a pillar on the tomb of his beloved wife, Rachel, (Gen. 35.20). Similarly we find various Biblical and post-Biblical kings marking their graves (Il Kings 23.17; Mac. 13.27). Tombstones were, of course, also used to warn priests (kohen) so that they would not become ritually unclean (Tos. Ohalot 17.4). Tombstones were also mentioned in the Talmudic period, but nothing indicated that their erection was a universal custom (M. Shek. 2.5; Hor. 13b; Er. 55b). Some of the medieval authorities considered a tombstone as customary on every grave (Solomon ben Aderet, Responsa #375). He also felt its erection was an obligation to be met by the family (Responsa, Part 7, #57). Joseph Caro followed this thought (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 89.1; Yoreh Deah 348.2) and stated that a husband is duty bound to provide a stone along with burial for his wife. The commentaries continue that emphasis. It is clear, therefore, that the grave must be marked.

We must now ask whether it is permissible to use a

stone with a Christian symbol in a Jewish cemetery. There is, of course, no discussion of this in the traditional literature, for such a stone would have been unthinkable in the past and the question would not have arisen. We can, however, be guided by it in a lengthy discussion of Moses Schick of the nineteenth century (Responsa Yoreh Deah #171) which dealt with inscriptions of the date from the Christian calendar on the tombstone. He was outraged and felt that this violated the commandment of Deuteronomy (18.20), “The name of other Gods shall not be mentioned.” Others, however, felt that this system of dating had become completely secular, and therefore, could be used on a Jewish tomb along with the Hebrew date. I cite this instance simply to indicate sensitivity on a the matter which is peripherally Christian.

The cross,

however, is the central symbol of Christianity. It is sacred and universally recognized. It would, therefore, be absolutely wrong to have this or any other Christian symbol in the Jewish cemetery. In our instance it is also misleading as the individual buried there was a Jew.

When

we permit a non-Jewish spouse to be buried in our cemeteries, it is a courtesy to the family. This can not be extended to non-Jewish services in our cemeteries or to Christian symbols on any grave. Anyone who is uncomfortable with these conditions should be buried in a Christian cemetery.

Many of those buried in the cemetery already, and their survivors, would

feel that their religious status had been violated by such a stone.

In our instance, it

seems quite likely that the widow simply ordered the stone without giving the matter any thought, and would be willing to alter it or replace it. If, for some reason, the widow is adamant and insists upon having her husband’s grave marked with a cross, then her husband should be be reinterred in the general cemetery where she can mark the grave in any way that she wishes.

May 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 298-299

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

186. Unmarked Tombstone

QUESTION: The deceased has requested that the tombstone set upon his grave be a large piece of granite, uncut and without any markings. No name or date is to be placed upon it. What is the attitude of tradition to this request? (Dora Nelkoff, Philadelphia PA)ANSWER: The first mention of marking a grave was with Rachel as the patriarch Jacob set up a pillar in her honor (Gen 35.20); similarly the graves of the ancient Israelite and Judean kings were provided with monuments, but nothing was said about inscriptions. In the later period graves were marked so that the priests could avoid contact with the dead (M M K 1.2). Generally tombstones were marked with the name of the deceased and there was some discussion of inscriptions (Greenwald Kol Bo al Avelut pp 380 ff), but there is no absolute requirement. We should also remember that the tombstones in many older cemeteries have become illegible, but the graves are nevertheless honored. The request for marking the burial site with a simple natural marker should be honored.June 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 359-360

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

109. The Setting of aTombstone

(1979)QUESTION: Is there a specific time after the funeral when the tombstone should be set? Must one wait twelve months or may this be done sooner?ANSWER: There is no fixed time period which must elapse before the tombstone can be set. It has become customary among the modern Orthodox Jews to wait twelve months (Chidushei Akiva Eiger to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 376.4). However, there are many opinions which state that the tombstone can be set as early as the conclusion of the Shiv-a period (Tosafot to Ket. 5a). In fact, it was even possible for a mourner to interrupt the period of mourning to concern himself with the tombstone (Siftei Kohen to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 375, note 12). In Israel, it is often the practice to erect the tombstone at the end of thirty days of mourning (Sheloshim). Greenwald, after citing all the customs which have been followed in both ancient and modern times, quite properly declared that the tombstone itself was erected to honor the dead. As we feel that we honor our dead more (kibud hamet) by waiting a year, that should be done; it would, however, be within the framework of tradition to erect a stone earlier. Both ways are agreeable with custom and tradition (Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelut, p. 370). For guidance on a consecration service for the stone, see Gates of Mitzvah, p. 64. As waiting a year has become a widespread custom among us in America, we should generally wait till a year has elapsed.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzEugene LipmanW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 177-178

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

116. Names on a Tombstone

QUESTION:

A woman who has been married twice recently died. Her second husband is unwilling to pay for a tombstone to be erected on her grave. Her children, born of her first husband, are willing to erect such a stone but do not want to put the second husband’s name on it. Is it appropriate for them to omit any recognition of the second marriage? (Rabbi P. Knobel, Evanston, IL)

ANSWER:

Let us begin by dealing with the entire matter of tombstones. From the fourteenth century on it was considered a husband’s obligation to provide a tombstone for his wife (Asher ben Yehiel, Responsa #13, 19; Solomon ben Aderet, Responsa #375; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 89.1; Joel Sirkes to Tur Yoreh Deah 348). The Shulhan Arukh went even further and states that the heirs of a man are compelled to provide a tombstone (Yoreh Deah 348.2). All of this indicates that it is the absolute duty of the husband to provide such a stone.

It seems that the children do not want to pursue the matter

further and force the second husband to erect such a stone. They want to erect the stone themselves. Can they now omit the name of the second husband?

The traditional

literature on this subject deals primarily with the Hebrew names inscribed on the tombstone. Some inscriptions in case of both men and women simply list their names and their descent with a reference to the father only (S. E. Blogg, Sefer Hahayim, pp. 258 ff). They sometimes mention the name of the husband, but on other occasions, do not (Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelut, pp. 381 ff). In our communities, of course, the individual is known by her English first name and surname. If the woman who died used the last name of her second husband during her lifetime, then that name should also be mentioned on the tombstone. Tradition even goes so far as to indicate that a name be changed to “avoid the angel of death,” in other words, during the last illness as was folk custom in medieval times, must be inscribed on the stone if used for more than thirty days (Greenwald, op. cit., p. 382). Of course the old name was given as well. There would be nothing wrong with indicating the other family name as well or to indicate the second marriage through a hyphen or parentheses .

October 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 181-182

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

120. Name of the Deceased on Two

Tombstones

QUESTION: A family would like the ashes of a recently

deceased member interred in one family plot in our cemetery; they have also requested that her

name be engraved on stones in two family plots. This represents an effort to keep peace within

the family. The plots are only a few feet apart, and there is no animosity between the two

families. Would this be permitted? (V. Kavaler, Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: We

should look briefly to the history of tombstones in Judaism, which began when Jacob set up a

pillar upon the grave of his beloved wife, Rachel (Gen. 35.20). Tombs were similarly marked by

the kings of Israel (II K 23.17), by some of the Maccabees (I Mac. 13.27 ff), and in the Mishnaic

and Talmudic periods (San. 96b; Shek. 47a). Tombstones were generally erected, but they were

not absolutely obligatory, so some graves in cemeteries remained unmarked (Shulhan

Arukh Yoreh Deah 364). If the precise place of burial is not known, as has happened recently

in the cases of cemeteries destroyed by the Nazis during the Second World War, then one may

erect a tombstone on a site which is not the actual grave (Memaa-makim 1.28). It is permissible

to memorialize the deceased on a general memorial plaque in another location, as on a

monument for those who died in wartime or on a plaque in the synagogue. However, on the

cemetery itself, there should be only one tombstone for a specific individual, and the name

should not be inscribed on the stones of two different families.September 1982

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 367-371

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

114. Mother’s Name on Son’s Tombstone

(Vol. LXXXVI, 1976, pp. 91-94)QUESTION: A young chaplain-rabbi was killed in Thailand. His family belong to the Hartford Reform Congregation, Beth Israel. His mother is an active National Sisterhood Board member. She asked that the Hebrew inscription on her son’s tombstone should include her name as mother of the deceased. The local funeral director said that this request is improper, that only the father’s name be used with that of the deceased. Is this correct? What traditional law is involved in this matter? (Rabbi Harold S. Silver, Hartford, Connecticut) ANSWER: There is very little firm law governing tombstones. Even the latest works that specialize in these matters have comparatively little to say. Greenwald in his Kol Bo has only a few pages, beginning with page 379, and Shalom Schachne Cherniak, in his Minsheret Shalom, has only a few columns. The reason for the paucity of the law on the matter has some bearing on this discussion. The main purpose of having a tombstone has changed in the passing years. Originally the stone was meant merely to mark a grave as a warning to Kohanim to know what spot to avoid, a warning which would be especially necessary if the grave were in some open field. Later, this purpose of the tombstone changed, since cemeteries (and not scattered graves or caves) developed, and the Kohen could simply avoid the cemetery. Now the purpose of the tombstone is not so much to be a warning to the Kohanim to keep away, but as a guide to the family, to tell them where to come to honor the dead or to pray. In other words, the tombstone is now for the benefit of the family. See, for example, the responsum by Isaac Glick (Yad Yitschak III, #38) who says that the tombstone is for the benefit of the living to know where to come and pray. This change of mood as to the purpose of the tombstone should indicate to us in our specific discussion that the feelings of the bereaved family deserve sympathetic consideration in all the discussions about the tombstone. The discussions that have arisen in recent law about the tombstone usually involve three questions: First, whether it is permitted (as is the custom in certain Orthodox cemeteries) to have a photograph of the deceased on the tombstone (cf. Greenwald, p. 380, note 1). The second discussion is whether the secular date may be used on the tombstone. The third question is whether the tombstone may be used for the benefit of the living (for example, to sit down and rest upon it). This third question has more meaning in the Orient, where the tombstones are not vertical as with us, but are laid horizontally, somewhat elevated, like a bench over the grave. As for the answers to these questions: (1) The photograph on the tombstone is generally frowned upon as a practice; (2) The secular date is reluctantly permitted, if it is at least accompanied by the Hebrew date; (3) As for sitting on the tombstone, that question has some bearing on our question, because what is involved is the question of whether or not the tombstone is not also for the benefit of the living, as mentioned above. Generally that is answered in the affirmative. So, as mentioned above, the desires of the living should have consideration in the discussion of the tombstone. Now as to the specific question: May the tombstone bearing the name of the deceased give the name as the son of his mother, rather than–as is generally the usage–giving his name as the son of his father? Of course, the funeral director (or the rabbi who advised him) would be quite correct if he had merely said that the general custom is to cite a man’s name with his father’s name, e.g., as “Moses, the son of Amram.” This is the way a man is called up to the Torah and thus is his name used in the Get and other formal documents. Nevertheless, the question must be raised–as it is raised here in this comparatively rare question–whether this general custom of using the father’s name is more than custom but is actual law. Is it wrong to use the mother’s name describing the man as “Moses, the son of Yocheved,” instead of “Moses, the son of Amram”? the answer goes to the heart of our question. The Bible records the name of a well-known Biblical character as the son of his mother, and never as the son of his father. King David’s chief general (and his nephew) was Jacob ben Zeruyah. Zeruyah was David’s sister (I Chronicles 2:16). Also in the Talmud there is an Amora whose name was Rav Mari ben Rachel (Yevamot 92b). In fact, the great authority of two centuries ago, Ezekiel Landau, in his commentary to the Shulchan Aruch (Dagul Merevava to Even Ha-ezer 129.9), speaking of the divorce document in which the proper rendering of each name is vital, says that, in the case of a proselyte, we should use his mother’s name instead of his father’s name, and he cites the precedent of the rabbi mentioned in the Talmud, Mari, the son of Rachel. As a matter of fact, the Pischei Teshuvah, at the end of paragraph 26 to the same divorce section, says that if a man’s name is better known by his mother’s name than by his father’s name, that should be used in the Get, and he says that it is obvious that if it is written thus, the Get is kasher. This permissibility with regard to the divorce document in which the names have to be precise is crucial in all discussion of the specific matter involved here. As a matter of fact, there were communities which actually had an established custom of using the mother’s instead of the father’s name on the tombstone. One such community (and it could hardly have been the only one) wrote to David Hoffman telling of their established custom and wanting to know whether it is correct. He answers (Melamed Leho-il, Orach Chayim 23) and says that the tombstones which he had seen of all the great Rabbis give the father’s name and not the mother’s. Nevertheless, if it is an established custom in the community to use the mother’s name, the custom should be continued, or at least not be objected to. Now, why should such an Orthodox authority as David Hoffman permit the custom of using the mother’s name, when he himself says that the tombstones of the great Rabbis that he saw had the father’s name? The answer clearly must be that although most tombstones have the father’s name, that is because this is the usual way of referring to a man, but that does not mean that the mother’s name may not be used. In fact, in his responsum, he gives some examples in which the mother’s name is used exclusively. In the prayer before the taking out of the Torah on holidays (“Ribbono Shel Olam”), the suppliant refers to himself by his mother’s name. Also in the regular text of the Yizkor on holidays, the deceased is referred to as the child of the mother. (In our Union Prayer Book, we merely say “father” or “mother” or “brother,” and do not use the personal name at all, but in all the Machzorim where the personal name of the deceased is used in the Yizkor, it is always as the child of the mother.) Also, as he correctly points out, it is a well-established custom when we pray for the sick to refer to the sick person by the mother’s name only. This custom is based upon the verse in Psalms 116:16, where the suppliant says, “I am Thy servant, the son of Thy handmaiden.” Because of all these reasons and established precedents, and in spite of the fact that most of the tombstones that he had seen used the father’s name, David Hoffman nevertheless was unwilling, in those communities where the custom was established to use the mother’s name on the tombstone, to recommend that the custom be no longer followed. To sum up: The tombstone was not a matter of strict detailed law, but largely of custom. When legal disputes have occurred, they emphasized the benefit that the custom might bring to the living. Hence their feelings must be consulted and considered. The devotional literature has many examples in which the mother’s name is used to the exclusion of the father’s name, and there are communities (or there were in Europe) in which the mother’s names were used regularly on the tombstones. In this specific case, therefore, we can say that there is no real objection to the son’s being called the son of his mother. In fact, we might follow the decision of Greenwald (pp. 380-381) with regard to the use of the secular date on the tombstone, namely, if the secular date is used together with the Hebrew date, the use of both dates would be permissible. So here, too, we might say that if the mother would consent to having the name of both parents–hers and her husband’s–there could be no objection at all. But if with her husband’s consent (as the inquirer states), her name alone is used as the parent, there is no real ground for objection.Solomon B. Freehof

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.