MRR 175-179

THE RED CROSS IDENTIFICATION CARD

QUESTION:

Our American chaplains in the Pacific areas are given identification cards indicating that they are non-combatants and protected under the Geneva Convention. The reverse of the card carries a Red Cross. A Jewish chaplain has raised the question whether as a Jew he may carry such a card bearing a Red Cross. (Asked by Aryeh Lev, Director of the Commission on Jewish Chaplaincy.)

ANSWER:

ALL THE LAWS dealing with this question stem from the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, III, 3, and the Talmud, p. 42 ff. But we should mention first the general consideration that in the eyes of Jewish law Christians are not considered to be idolators. Nearly every important authority is careful to explain when discussing this Talmudic tractate or the laws derived from it or analogous to it that these laws refer only to the ancient pagan idolators and not to the Christians, since the latter believe in the Scriptures and in the Creator of Heaven and earth (this is their phraseology).

Nevertheless, the Catholic Christianity which they saw around them in Spain, in the Rhineland, and in Poland made constant use of statues, crucifixes, etc. The use of these symbols was considered by them to be idolatrous even if the religion itself was not in essence idolatrous. Therefore, because of these statues and crucifixes, etc., the laws of the Talmud in tractate Avodah Zarah were carried over into all the later codes.

Definite decisions had to be made with regard to these symbols, for they impinged on Jewish life in many ways. For example, may a Jewish embroiderer embroider the cross on the garment of a priest? May a Jew buy (or sell) the candles used in the church which burn before a statue of Mary or a crucifix? May a Jewish moneylender take a crucifix as a pledge for a debt? If the debt is not redeemed, may he sell the pledge and thus profit from what may be considered an idolatrous object? I cite all these questions in order to indicate that there is plenty of material in the legal literature for deciding the question raised by the chaplain.

In a sense the whole legal discussion that bears on the chaplain’s question can be considered summed up in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 141:1, in the note of Isserles, who says: “Those ‘forms’ ( tsurot: earlier editions have the correct text: sheti-va’erev, i.e., “crosses”‘ which are bowed down to, are forbidden [for a Jew to possess]. But those crosses which are merely hung on the neck as a memento (or decoration) are not deemed idolatrous and are permitted [for a Jew to possess].”

In other words, it is not a question of what the object may look like but for what purpose the object was intended. If the object itself was not meant to be worshiped, but was merely a memento, a symbol, or a decoration, then that object is not forbidden to a Jew to possess. Certainly, then, the cross printed on the chaplain’s card was not in itself meant as an object of worship. It was not dedicated to church purposes and a Jew may therefore possess it.

It may be of interest to see the origin of this distinction, between an object meant as sacred and an object not intended to have religious sanctity or in any sense to be worshiped. This goes back to the Mishnah, Avodah Zardh, III, 3, in which Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel makes this distinction, that those objects which are honored (mechubadim) may be considered idolatrous and therefore forbidden for a Jew. Those objects which are considered unhonored (mevuzim, which literally means “despised”) are not sacred. Rashi explains that the word “despised” here does not necessarily mean “held in contempt,” but simply means considered to be a non-sacred, everyday object, as an engraving on a cup or a spoon which is used for food. And so Rabbenu Nisim, in a long, three-page discussion to the parallel passage in the Rif, explains other ways in which an object can be considered commonplace. He speaks of it being on clothes; and the Mordecai to the passage #841 speaks of objects that are merely painted, i.e., not sculptured. The Rif himself mentions coins, i.e., if the coins, as so often happened, had a cross on them, a Jew could possess them because they were not meant for worshipful use, but for everyday handling. Many authorities consider that unless the object is bolet (i.e., three dimensional) it cannot be considered as idolatrous and forbidden. (Cf. Rabbenu Yerucham, Path, #17:4). All of these examples were more or less summed up in the law mentioned by Isserles.

There are two discussions on this very matter by an authority about a century ago, J. L. Margolis, in his responsa Pri Tevu’ah, #51 and #52, who discusses the crosses on the spoons in a well-to-do Jewish household where he was invited to dinner. He and the Rabbi of Cracow (in the next responsum) who agrees with him, decided on the basis of all the arguments mentioned above, that there is no objection to the use of these utensils.

The cross on the chaplain’s identification card has none of the qualities of sanctity which is the test of what is prohibited for a Jew to possess. It is not mechubad, i.e., revered. It is meant for everyday handling, which is Rashi’s definition of mevuzah. It is not bolet, three-dimensional. It is printed, which is the same as the paint mentioned by Rabbenu Nisim. In other words, it possesses no sanctity at all and there is no objection for a Jewish chaplain, who in any event is under military orders, to carry this card.