TITLES IN MEMORIAL LIST

QUESTION:

It has been the practice in the congregation that when reading the Yahrzeit lists, the titles of the deceased, such as “doctor,” “rabbi,” have been used. Some objection has been raised to this on the ground that it is contrary to the Jewish spirit of equality in death. What is Jewish tradition in this matter? (Asked by Rabbi Judea B. Miller, Rochester, New York.)

ANSWER:

THERE IS no doubt that the tendency of our tradition has been to increase equality in all matters relating to death, burial, etc. A famous Chassidic rabbi of the last generation, Eliezer Spiro (Der Muncaczer), objects to flowers at the funerals precisely on the ground that richer people would have more flowers and poorer people would have fewer flowers or none at all, and therefore that the use of flowers at funerals is for this reason (among other reasons) not to be permitted at Jewish funerals. We, in modern congregations, permit the use of flowers even though we know that what Rabbi Spiro objected to will actually take place. Rich or prominent people will have a much more ostentatious and beautiful flower display at the funeral than would poor or humble people. Nevertheless, in spite of our permitting this difference, our motivation in general is in accord with Jewish tradition that we do try to achieve a sense of equality in these matters.

We in liberal congregations would not be as absolute in such matters as are the Orthodox, who, for example, use a plain wooden coffin for everybody, whereas we would permit a family to have a more expensive casket than another. With us, therefore, the question is not an absolute one. We would ask, how much equality should there be, and how much latitude should we permit in the direction of differences between one funeral and another?

I was recently asked whether or not at all funerals a plain blanket should be used to conceal the coffin during the services. In this way the differences between expensive and inexpensive caskets would not be observed by the congregation. The conclusion we came to on that question will have some bearing on the problem before us. It was to this effect: We should not be too strict about such matters and such observances which are transient or which disappear from permanent view. The expensive coffin is buried and becomes as invisible as the plain wooden one. The flowers fade away. However, the tombstone remains visible permanently. Therefore the congregation should not permit too much ornateness in this permanent type of memorial. As a matter of fact, many historic Orthodox congregations supervise the tombstones to prevent certain ones being overelaborate or conspicuous (cf. Greenwald, Kol Bo, p. 380).

Nevertheless, it is to be noted that as far as the names on the tombstones are concerned, certain distinctions were permitted and, in fact, were in general practice. A rabbi was certainly given his rabbinical title. Every Kohen’s tombstone was marked by the hands open in priestly blessing. And even the Levites had their graves marked by an incised pitcher of water, because the Levites poured water on the hands of the priests before they blessed the people. So we see that even with such a permanent object as a tombstone, a certain amount of distinction was permitted and, indeed, customary in Orthodox cemeteries.

The situation, then, in Jewish tradition is as follows: The general attitude toward equality is mitigated by latitude toward certain reasonable distinctions. In other words, the ideal of equality is, in practice, far from absolute. In the light of the above, what rule should govern the reading of the names in the memorial list? Should it be just the name or should it be the name with its customary title? The question really is, are these titles a public declaration of special honor given to certain individuals? As a matter of fact, these titles are not at all a mark of publicly announced privilege. They represent merely a special function in the community, and the title has become a part of the name. We do not assume by our use of the term that we declare that a doctor is more to be honored than a businessman. We are simply describing a social function.

However, since the question has arisen, there must be some feeling in the congregation that the title is a mark of special honor and therefore should not be used. How, then, should we proceed in this matter in the face of these objections? We must decide it as many problems have been decided in the law, namely by analogy. An analogous discussion has arisen in the responsa of the last generation with regard to memorial lists. The question with regard to the lists was whether the names of the deceased should be read, each one separately, and the Mi Sheberach or the prayer El Mole Rachamim should be recited separately in behalf of each person, or should the whole list be read in sequence and one prayer be uttered for them all? (This is more or less our custom.) The question is discussed, for example, by Eliezer Deutsch in Pri Hasedy, Vol. I, #79; by Shrage Tennenbaum in his Neta Shorek, Orach Chayim 8; and by Jacob Tennenbaum in his Naharey Afarsimon, Choshen Mishpot, #5.

The conclusion reached by Jacob Tennenbaum is based on the question of the special honor due to a rabbi (Yore Deah 242:2, in Isserles) namely, that if the local rabbi has not yet been consulted on a certain question, then another rabbi may be consulted. But if the local rabbi has already been consulted, it is not permitted to offend the local rabbi by consulting another rabbi. On the basis of this analogy, Tennenbaum concludes as to the listing of the memorial names as follows: If there is already an established custom in the community to have a separate prayer for each name, this custom should not be changed, because to change it now would be dishonor to the departed. But if there is no such established custom, then the names may be read in one consecutive list.

This, then, may well be our conclusion here. We should follow the established custom in the community. If hitherto the names were used with the title and now the custom would be changed and the titles omitted from now on, this could be deemed a deprecation of those honored dead who in past years were named with their titles. If, however, there is no such established custom, the congregation need not change and from now on add the title. In other words, if the custom of using the titles has been followed until now, this custom need not be changed because it cannot be considered objectionable to Jewish tradition, in spite of the general Jewish tendency for equality in all such matters.