NAMING A CHILD AFTER A GENTILE GRANDPARENT

QUESTION:

A convert expecting a baby is planning to name the child after her recently deceased (Gentile) parent. The husband’s parents have objected. Is there ground in Jewish tradition for such an objection? (From Rabbi Joel S. Goor, San Diego, California.)

ANSWER:

THE OBJECTION of the parents-in-law is based upon two presumptions: First, that a convert has no right to honor her parents in this characteristically Jewish manner, since her parents are not Jewish. The second presumption is that a Jewish child may not bear what may be considered a Gentile name.

The first presumption that a convert may not give a typical Jewish honor to a Gentile parent does have some sort of theoretical justification in Jewish law. A Gentile who converts to Judaism is considered to be like a newborn child, without any relatives (Yevamot 22a). In spite of that theoretical idea, the convert is expected nevertheless to honor her parents. Rabbi Aaron Walkin, in a responsum written in 1933, calls attention to the fact that the Talmud says that we must not let the convert come to the conclusion that he or she left a more moral religion to enter a less moral religion. If, as a Gentile, the convert was expected to honor his father and his mother, so certainly in Judaism he is expected to do so. Since in Judaism the Kaddish is a way of honoring one’s departed father, so Rabbi Walkin declares the convert may say Kaddish for his departed Gentile father. Rabbi Walkin does not mean to contravene the statement in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 374:5) which says that a proselyte does not need to mourn for his parents. He would take the Shulchan Aruch to mean that he is not in duty bound to follow the regular system of Jewish mourning (seven days, thirty days, etc.), but that surely he may if he wishes say Kaddish for his parent. Thus, too, Rabbi Abraham Zvi Klein of Hungary (Be’erot Avraham 11) says that even if a Gentile (with no Jewish relatives) gives a gift to the synagogue, he or she may be honored by being put on the regular Kaddish list (see Recent Reform Responsa, pp. 132-138 and CCAR Report of the Responsa Committee, Vol. LXVII, 1957).

The next question would be whether the naming of a child after a deceased Gentile is a more solemnly reli gious rite than saying Kaddish for a Gentile. Again on the surface, it would appear that it is. After all, Kaddish may be said once or twice, or at best once a year for a number of years; but a name lasts through the child’s whole lifetime and is constantly invoked when the child is addressed. Nevertheless the fact is that the naming of a child after a deceased person has almost no standing at all in Jewish law, but only a limited one in Jewish custom. For example, in all of the Bible, not one single person was named after a parent or close relative. It was only after the Biblical times (as, for example, in the family of Hillel, where the names Simon and Gamliel alternated) that we find people named after parents. Nor was there any hesitation in naming children after living parents or other living people. In fact, the practice not to name for the living is described clearly as only a custom. Thus the Sefer Chasidim #377, says merely: “There are places where they do not name the child after the names of the living, but only after those who are already dead.” So the whole habit of naming after relatives is not to be considered a Jewish law, but only a partial custom.

But of course if she does name the child after her parent, the name might well be a typical Christian name or a typical nonJewish name. Yet that in itself is not unusual today. In fact it was not unusual in Mishnaic times. The Tosefta (Gitin 6:6) says definitely that if a bill of divorce (a get) comes from overseas and the names of the people mentioned in it are Gentile names, the get is acceptable because most Jews outside of Palestine have names resembling the pagan names. This statement is cited also in the Talmud (b. Gitin 1 1b). This is certainly true today. Most names borne by Jewish children are not the names of the Biblical patriarchs or matriarchs, but are names just like those of Gentile people anywhere. Of course, if the woman’s deceased father’s name was Christopher or Christian, there might be some feeling about giving a Jew such a name which is so definitely Christological, but even that is not too serious. Nowadays most young Jewish parents, in giving a child a name after a deceased relative, are content merely with using the initial of the name, and the name actually given is more in consonance with the changing fashion or taste of the generation.

Certainly no one would object if this young mother used the initial of her deceased parent, which is about all that most Jewishborn young parents do nowadays. But even if she used the full name, she is acting in accordance with the spirit of Judaism; she is honoring her father and not violating Jewish custom, since it has been a long established custom since ancient times for Jews to have non-Jewish names.