MRR 24-31

MEMORIAL LIST ON THE SABBATH

QUESTION:

The memorial list read before the Kaddish in the Sabbath service is composed of those who have died during the week and the Yahrzeits. The list has grown lengthy. Would it be in accordance with Jewish tradition to shorten the list by omitting the names of those who no longer have relatives in the city, or perhaps abolish completely the list of names on the Sabbath? (By Rabbi Philip Bernstein, Rochester, New York.)

ANSWER:

THE PRACTICAL question of whether to shorten or omit the Sabbath memorial list depends upon a basic ques-tion of tradition. Is this reading of the list of the Yahrzeits and the names of the recently deceased an innovation of Reform, or is it deeply rooted in older Jewish traditions? If it is an innovation of Reform, then we can change it or abolish it as we wish. If, however, it is deeply rooted in tradition, then it is incumbent upon us to be more cautious in changing the custom. As to the origin of mentioning the names of the dead in the service, I have written an article, “Hazkarath Neshamoth,” which appeared in the last issue of the Hebrew Union College Annual. The subject is complex, since a large variety of memorial observances has grown up in various lands of Jewish settlement. These observances are not always mutually consistent. Be that as it may, those data in the article which are relevant to the question here asked are briefly as follows: The custom of reading the names of the deceased began during the Crusades and listed primarily the names of the martyrs of that series of tragedies in the Rhineland. Later, after the Black Death, lists of those who died during that holocaust were read in the synagogues. There then developed the custom of giving gifts to the congregation in memory of the dead of one’s family, and these names were added to the lists of the martyrs of the Crusades and the victims of the Black Death. This is how the memorial list, which was read primarily on Yom Kippur, arose.

Now, because on the last days of the three festivals the portion from Deuteronomy 15-16 was read, which ends with the verse 16:17, “. . . each shall give according to the gift of his hand,” the custom spread of memorializing those who left money to the congregation or whose relatives gave money in their behalf. Thus the Yizkor prayer developed on the three festivals. The German congregations had long memorial lists of Yahrzeits and kept them recorded in a “Memor Buch, in addition to the older martyr lists, but in Eastern Europe there were no (or few) such lists; each person said Yizkor for his own relatives and then, if he wished, made a donation in addition and the reader would say a, Mi Sheberach for their departed dear ones.

The custom of making a donation and saying Mi Sheberach for the individual departed spread (from the festivals) to the Sabbath. These individual memorials were recited (by the reader) either when the man was called up to the Torah or after the Torah reading. Then followed the congregational Av Horachamim prayer, which was a general prayer for all the dead (and which originated in the Rhineland in memory of the martyrs). So, Isserles, in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 284:6, in the section discussing the Prophetical reading on the Sabbath, says: “And there is the custom after reading of the Torah to mention the souls of the departed and to bless those who support the congregation.” The “Ba’er Hetev” (Judah Ashkenazi of Tiktin) says that the custom is to read the names only of those who died during the week (though it is not clear whether or not this restriction applies only to the special Sabbaths in which the new moon is blessed or to every Sabbath).

Although this Sabbath-memorializing was not by way of a combined list but of each person arranging for a prayer for his own departed ones, there is occasional mention of a list of those who left money to the Chevrah Kadisha (we might say to the “cemetery com mittee” for the maintenance of the cemetery) and these were read as a list in some cases on the seventh of Adar, the birthday and death date of Moses, since this was the date dedicated especially to the Chevrah Kadisha (Neta Shorek, Orach Chayim #8). In some communities this memorializing of the dead on the Sabbath coalesced into a united list. The subject is discussed in considerable detail in Sha’ar Ephraim by Ephraim Zalman Margolis, the classic handbook on the Torah reading, and in the commentary Gates of Mercy by Samuel Lipschitz. Lipschitz refers to the problem which arose when there were so many names to read that it became a burden to the congregation. It is obvious how this could happen since each name had its own separate blessing, the Mi Sheberach and sometimes E1 Mole Rachamim. Hence, the demand arose to merge all these separate devotions, to read all the names in one list, and recite the prayer at the end for them all. Three authorities in the last century were asked whether it was permissible to have a combined list. They are Jacob Tennenbaum (in “Nahare Afarsemon,” Choshen Mishpat, #5), Shraga Tennenbaum (in his “Neta Shorek,” in Orach Chayim #8), and Eliezer Deutsch

(in his Pri Hasadeh, I:79). All three agreed that for the sake of lessening the burden on the congregation, it was quite permissible to read these names in one combined list and to have the one prayer for them all. Thus, also, in certain parts of Eastern Europe, the cus-tom of reading a memorial list on the Sabbath became fairly well established. Reform Judaism changed this custom in one significant way. It removed the reading of the list from the Torah reading, where Mi Sheberachs were made, to the Kaddish. So we can say that the Sabbath memorial lists have a fairly long evolution in Judaism and the Reform congregations simply changed its location in the service from the Torah reading to the Kaddish.

Now in Reform congregations it has become evident for some time that the list has developed the same fault mentioned by the earlier authorities in reference to the individual Mi Sheberachs. The list, in its turn, has become tirchat hatsibur, a burden to the congregation. The lists have grown long, and many of the people whose relatives’ names are read are either themselves dead or removed from the city. What shall be done?

Some large congregations, including my own, have simply abolished the reading of the names in the Sab-bath service. This relieved the congregation of the burden of listening to a lengthy list and, perhaps, tended to make the once-a-year list on Yom Kippur all the more meaningful. Nevertheless, if I had it to do over again, I would not now advocate the abolition of the Sabbath memorial list. It is true that many of the relatives are no longer present in the city, and many to whom mentioning or not mentioning the name has lost its importance. Yet there are still many who would or who might, if encouraged, observe the Yahrzeit. With regard to the latter group, we have done harm, unin tentionally of course, in abolishing the list. We have assisted in suppressing the traditional observance of Yahrzeit. This, I think, is a distinct loss for Jewish piety.

Since, as Isserles says, the custom of mentioning the deceased on the Sabbath is only a minhag (not a law) which varies from place to place, we should feel free to change the custom. In fact we ought now to encourage some new experimentation.

Which names, then, may and which may not be omitted? In origin, all this reading of names (other than that on Yom Kippur) was accompanied by matnat yad, a gift to the congregation, and the memorializing of individual names, as we have noticed, was accompanied by a statement of a gift to the congregation (mi sheberach . . . ba’avur shenador) . Therefore, in trimming the list we have no right to omit the name of any person who, in his will or through his family, has provided by special gift to the congregation for perpetual reading of his name. This is a debt which must be honored. Yet such gifts are few. The names of those who no longer have close relatives in the congregation and have not provided for perpetual memorializing may be omitted without hesitation. As for those who died during the week, their names should certainly be read as we assume the presence of the mourning relatives at the service.

What about those whose relatives, though still members of the community, do not care particularly whether the names are read or not, the people to whom Yahrzeit has ceased to have meaning? Shall that fact be ascertained and the names of their relatives be omitted? Or shall we instead make an attempt to encourage the observance of Yahrzeit? In this regard some congregations have experimented as follows: They inform the members of the congregation as to the date of their relatives’ Yahrzeit. If that member in turn informs the congregation that he or she will attend the service and thus observe the Yahrzeit, the name will be read in the service. The obvious value of this method (though it may have some drawbacks) is that it helps preserve the Yahrzeits and encourages people to come to the service in honor of their departed. This might well be worth trying. In order to avoid any resentment, the complete list of each week’s Yahrzeits might be published in the bulletin, whether the people come to services or not; but those who do come and so inform the congregation, will in addition to having the name published, hear the name read in the service.

To sum up: According to custom, the Yom Kippur list is the oldest and the most basic. The threefestival Yizkor followed, and the individual mentioning of the dead in a Mi Sheberach in connection with the Sabbath Torah reading was the next stage. Then, in certain congregations, the names were combined into a list which, with the Reform change, was moved from after the Torah reading to the Kaddish. Now that the lists have grown large and burdensome, the following changes are suggested: Those who have left funds to the congre-gation for perpetual reading should continue to have the names read. The names of those who have no rela-tives left and who have not provided for perpetual memorial, should be dropped from the list. The names of those who died during the week should surely be read. The names of all the Yahrzeits should be published in the bulletin, and the names of those whose relatives inform the congregation of their intention to come and observe the Yahrzeit should also be read at the service.