visiting another grave after

RRT 187-190

VISITING ANOTHER GRAVE AFTER A FUNERAL

QUESTION:

A number of people told me that they were told that it is improper to visit another grave after attending a funeral. Is there any basis in Jewish law or established custom for such a prohibition? (Asked by Rabbi Kenneth I. Segel, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

ON THE FACE OF IT, it seems unlikely that such a rule should be well founded in Jewish law or custom. The reason is that the tendency in Jewish law is in the reverse direction, namely, not to put restrictions on the visiting of graves, but, on the contrary, to encourage frequent visits to the graves in order to pray at the graveside. The custom is recorded in the Talmud. Especially on fast days, people would go to the cemetery to pray (Taanis 16a), and we are also given a classic example of prayer at the grave, namely, that Caleb prayed at the grave of his ancestors to be saved from the scheming of the ten spies, who wanted to bring a derogatory report about the land of Canaan (Sotah 34b). Of course the rules developed that there were certain days that were preferable for visiting the graves, such as fast days, the eve of New Year and Yom Kippur; and contrariwise, to avoid going to the cemetery on happy days, such as Sabbath and holidays. Nevertheless, the Mishmeres Shalom, quoted by Greenwald in his Kol Bo (p. 166), says that if someone has a sick person in the house in whose behalf he wants to pray, he may go to the cemetery even on a Sabbath or half-holiday (chol ha-moed). In spite of this general permission to visit the graves for prayer, the people on their own accord have developed certain curious restrictions.

It so happens that I have answered this question before. It is found in Reform Responsa, p. 176. The following is the essence of that response:

There are a number of popular ideas about visiting graves. Many of them have no validity in the law, and the scholars who discuss them, when a question is asked, usually brush them aside as without justification. For example, there is the popular belief that after the burial the grave must not be visited within a period of twelve months. This is not so. The Tur (#344) speaks of visits made on the seventh and the thirtieth days after burial, etc. Another idea is that if one has not visited a grave for twenty years (as could easily happen when a man emigrates to another country), it is wrong for him ever to visit that grave again. Some popular opinions hold that if one has not visited a grave for ten years, he should never visit it again. These popular opinions are brushed aside as invalid (see Dudoye Ha-Sodeh, 38, where other references are found).

Where such ideas come from is hard to say. The one you ask about is not even referred to in any questions that I have seen in the literature. There may be some scholar who has dignified this popular notion with a question, but I doubt it. Therefore it is not even widespread. I have a theory as to how this particular idea arose. First, at a funeral you may not step on another grave {Yore Deah 364, to the Shach, at the end of # 2 ) . Hence, it may be that the people were discouraged from wandering away from the grave lest they tread on other graves. Second, there is a law (Orah Hayyim 224:12) that he who sees graves must pronounce a blessing, but that blessing must not be pronounced again if he sees other graves within a period of thirty days. This would seem to the people to be a discouragement from seeing too many graves in too short a time. Also, much folklore is involved. People were afraid of “the spirit of uncleanness,” “evil spirits”; therefore they rushed from the cemetery, pulling up grass, throwing it over their shoulders, and washing their hands of uncleanness when they got home. So they hurried out after a funeral.

To that responsum I might add the following source as a possible reason not to visit other graves. In some editions of the Sefer Chassidim by Judah He-Hasid, there are appended two pages known as the will of Judah He-Hasid. This is a collection of folkloristic beliefs; for example, never to build a house on land on which no house had ever stood before; not to marry a woman whose name is the same as your mother’s name, etc. This booklet had a very wide influence, even though some scholars said that the “will” was meant to apply to Judah’s own descendants, not to the rest of Jewry. Nevertheless, this folkloristic collection of customs appealed, and the booklet has had a very wide influence on Jewish folk customs. One of the regulations in this booklet is that one should not visit the same grave twice in one day. This regulation was perhaps extended to mean that one should not visit another grave after having been to an interment.

Another possible source for this folk notion is the rule, dating back to the Mishnah {Berachos 3:2) and recorded in the Shulchan Aruch {Yore Deah 354:1; see also Baer, Totz’os Chayim, p. 75), that after the interment the people present should stand in rows to comfort the mourners as they walk away from the grave. Perhaps people came to feel that if they left immediately after the interment to visit other graves, they would not be staying at the graveside of the person just buried and thus would be failing in their duty to comfort the mourners. In other words, the regulation evolved to keep the people from scattering to visit the graves of their own relatives immediately after the funeral just concluded.

Any or all of these may explain this custom, which, after all, seems to have no foundation in Jewish law or even established minhag. Even Mishmeres Shalom (Shalom Schachne Tcherniak), who gives all the latest laws and customs as to mourning, etc., makes no mention of this supposed prohibition (as far as I can find) where he discusses in great detail the laws and customs of visiting the cemetery (V, 26-32).

TFN no.5750.4 187-190

CCAR RESPONSA

Gossip between Husband and Wife

5750.4

She’elah
When husband and wife discuss a third person, does this constitute a permissible aspect of

marital relations or does it fall under the prohibition of lashon ha-ra’ (talking badly about

someone)? Would the closeness and privacy of marriage make a difference? (Elizabeth Resnick

Levine)

Teshuvah
1. The nature of lashon hara.

Tradition repeatedly stresses the power of the spoken word, and the Midrash calls it the primary

source of good and evil.1 The biblical prohibition is found in Lev. 19:16: “You shall not go

about as a talebearer.”2 The Rambam divides this law into three

categories:3

a. Holekh rakhil, going about gossiping even when not aimed at the degradation of another

person; it is the least serious offense, but is still prohibited;

b. Lashon ha-ra (more properly, leshon ha-ra’4 ), improper

speech; though true, it potentially damages another person;

c. Motsi shem ra, giving someone a bad name, the severest violation of the law, refers to

spreading false information and slandering. The classic passage interpreting this prohibition, ascribed to

the second century sage Eleazar ben Parta, relates to the report of the ten spies (Num. 13:32). They

misrepresented the condition of the land, that is, its trees and stones, and for this they died and caused the

entire generation who believed them to perish in the desert. If this punishment was exacted from them

because they maligned inanimate objects, how much more severe is the prohibition not to malign

persons.5

In the following we shall deal with all three categories as a unit, and do so under the general name of

lashon ha-ra.

R. Israel Meir Ha-Kohen6 suggested that engaging in lashon ha-ra

violates additional commandments, such as the negative “Do not hate your brother in your heart”

(Lev. 19:17) and the positive “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).7

Especially must one not speak of another as lacking in virtue or possessing character

faults.8 Similarly the Rambam prohibits talk that might, even though it be true, cause

financial loss, physical pain, mental anguish or similar damage to the person spoken

about.9 And of course, the person listening to lashon ha-ra is also

culpable.10

The importance of this subject is highlighted by its place in our prayer services. At the conclusion

of the central prayer, the Amidah , a final meditation takes note of our pervasive penchant for

gossip and slander and begins with the words: “O God, keep my tongue from evil and my lips from

speaking guile.”

2. Is lashon ha-ra permitted in the context of a marital

relationship?

Such relationship does not of itself negate the commandment, and the Hafets Hayyim makes it

abundantly clear:

There is no distinction made with regard to this prohibition, whether it is done of one’s own or

because of someone else’s urging; in either case it is forbidden. Even if one’s parent or teacher, whom one

is required to honor and revere…were to request that one tell about so-and-so, if one knows that such

telling would inevitably lead to lashon ha-ra or even to one of its by-products (avak lashon

ha-ra) is forbidden to obey them.11

This prohibition stands even if the commandment is rabbinical and not Torahitic (derabbanan),

12 or if a king of Israel requests that it be disregarded.13

There is a passage in the Pirkei Avot which, while it reflects a male perspective,

nonetheless speaks to the question before us: “Don’t indulge in idle talk with your wife.”14

What is this “idle talk”? One interpretation holds that it refers to gossip a man shares with his wife and

that he, by doing so, disgraces himself. Which is to say that the marital context does not exempt a person

from the prohibition of lashon ha-ra.15

Would it be different if the communication contributed to marital peace, shelom bayit ,

which is a valued tradition as well? Even God shaded the truth when speaking to Abraham about his

wife,16 and the Divine Name may be erased in the biblical “ordeal” in order to clear up

marital suspicion.17 And, significantly, Aaron’s lasting fame rested to no small degree on

his ability to establish shelom bayit among Israel’s families.18

Therefore it might be argued that, since total confidence between husband and wife helps to

cement the foundations of their marriage, lashon ha-ra could could be seen as serving a

wholesome end, especially when they agree not to reveal the information to anyone.19 But

such an argument offends against the basic rule that one should not try to accomplish a mitsvah

by committing an averah. There are exceptions, of course, but they deal with situations in which

alternatives are impossible or severely restricted, as when there is danger to life (pikkuach nefesh

). No such exigency exists with regard to lashon ha-ra. There are better and more positive

ways of achieving shelom bayit than the practice of gossip and slander which court the

possibility of harming another person. The pledge of secrecy is irrelevant since gossip and slander as such

constitute an offense.

To sum up: Even in special relationships which are founded on respect and bonding (parent and

child, teacher and pupil, husband and wife) lashon ha-ra is not permitted. There are no

principles in Reform Judaism that would disagree with this tradition; on the contrary, our ethics-oriented

emphasis would strongly endorse it.

We are of course not unaware that that this position is likely to be disregarded in the marital setting. But

by stating it nonetheless we are stressing the ideal, as a value in itself. We would also stress t hat, if people

regularly engage in lashon ha-ra in private, they are likely to do it elsewhere as well.. In

practical terms, therefore, our responsum may be seen as a caution.

Notes

  • Lev. R. 33:1; see also 16:2.
  • This is the popular understanding of the verse. But others (e.g. the translation by theJewish Publication Society) render it: “Do not deal basely…”
  • Yad,, Hilkhot De’ot, 7:1-2.
  • Because of its grammatical oddity, lashon ha-ra’ was at times considered anabbreviation, perhaps of leshon hanachash ha-ra an interpretation based on Psalm 140:4:

    “They sharpen their tongues like serpents/ Spiders’ poison is on their lips.”

  • See Tosefta Arakhin 2:11; B. T. Ar. 15a, which equated this sin with the combinedtransgression of murder, idolatry and illicit sexual behavior.
  • Often also cited as R. Israel Meir Kagan, and known by his chief work as the HafetsHayyim, he laid special emphasis on pure and decent speech, shemirat ha-lashon (which

    can also be rendered “watching one’s tongue”).

  • See Hafets Hayyim, Introduction.
  • Ibid., 8:10.
  • Yad, Hilkh. De’ot 7:5. Such speech is allowed only when used for constructivepurposes, such as warning someone who stands in danger of being cheated.
  • Ibid., 7:1-2; based on Exod. 23:1, Pes. 118a.
  • Hilkh. Lashon ha-ra’ 1:5. See also the sayign of R. Amram in BT Baba Batra 164b.
  • Ibid., no.8, footnote; see Sh. A. , Yoreh De’ah 240:15, after Lev. 19:2 and B.T. , BabaMetsi’a 32a.
  • Sanh. 49a; Rambam, Yad , Melakhim 3:9.
  • M. ‘Avot 1:5: ve’al tarbeh sihah im ha-ishah. The word ishah may of course refer towomen in general, and not to one’s wife.
  • ‘Avot de-R. Natan 7:3.
  • Gen. 18:12-13, and Baba Metsi’a 87a.
  • Num. 5:23.
  • Avot de-R. Natan 50.
  • Speaking kindly about another person is of course encouraged and not at issue.If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.