Huqqat ha-goyim (Imitation of Non-Jewish Religious Practices)

5775.2

CCAR RESPONSA COMMITTEE

5775.2

St. Valentine’s Day and Other “Secular” Holidays

Sh’elah.

Is it acceptable for Jews to participate in the customs and celebrations of St. Valentine’s Day and other non-Jewish holidays that are currently regarded as “secular” but that originated as religious observances? (Rabbi David Vaisberg, New York, NY)

T’shuvah.

The quick and easy way to answer our sh’elah would be to say: “Go and see what the people are doing,” i.e., let the minhag, the widespread custom, indicate the correct standard of practice.[1] In this case, we would discover that Jews in our communities take full part in the activities of such non-Jewish holidays as St. Valentine’s Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, New Year’s, and Mardi Gras, and we would therefore conclude that the answer to our sh’elah is “yes.” But it is the task of rabbis not simply to accept the existence of a custom as a fait accompli but, at times, to submit that custom to careful Judaic scrutiny. Even if our people participate in these non-Jewish holidays, we should inquire as to whether our sources raise any objections to that participation. We should ask, as well, as to the line that we must draw between those non-Jewish holidays that are acceptable to us and those which we feel Jews ought not to observe.

1. The Prohibition of Ḥukot Hagoyim. This most obvious potential objection to Jews’ participation in non-Jewish holidays is rooted in the Biblical injunction (Leviticus 18:3) uv’ḥukoteihem lo teleichu, “you shall not follow their laws.” While the verse refers explicitly to the “laws” of the Egyptians and the Canaanites, the Rabbis interpret it as a prohibition against the imitation and adoption of the customs of all Gentiles.[2] Jews realized early on that the forbidden “laws” could not encompass every existing behavior of the surrounding society, since it was impossible not to adopt at least some of those behaviors. As the Midrash explains, the verse cannot mean that we are forbidden to build buildings and to engage in agriculture merely because the Gentiles do the same! Rather, the prohibition applies only to the sorts of religious[3] and social practices (nimusot)[4] that distinguish one culture from another.[5] As Maimonides codifies the rule:[6]

We are not to follow the laws of the Gentiles[7] or seek to resemble them in their manner of dress, haircut, and the like… Rather, the Jew should remain separate from them, recognizable (as a Jew) by his manner of dress and by his other deeds, just as he is recognizable by his philosophy and his beliefs.

Over time, halakhah came to permit significant exceptions to the prohibition of ḥukot hagoyim. An early example is the Tanaitic statement that the rule does not apply to those who are k’rovim l’malchut, Jews who are “close to the government,” who must deal constantly with the authorities and who therefore must follow the latter’s expectations of appropriate grooming and dress.[8] More to the point here, despite the prohibition medieval Jewish communities adopted any number of the cultural practices of their neighbors – even some that were specifically religious in nature – and adapted them to their own needs. If some rabbis sought to protest against such borrowing, others were supportive. Addressing the custom in one community for mourners to visit the cemetery every morning during the seven days following the funeral, the eminent 14^th-century posek R. Yitzḥak bar Sheshet urged his correspondent not to interfere with the practice, even though the Jews had apparently learned it from their Muslim neighbors. If we wish to forbid the custom for that reason, he wrote, “we might as well prohibit the eulogy, since the Gentiles, too, eulogize their dead.”[9] R. Yosef Colon (Maharik; 15^th-century Italy) permitted Jewish physicians to don the distinctive robes worn by their Gentile colleagues. The prohibition against adopting “Gentile laws,” he argued, covers only two categories of “laws”: 1) customs that offend the rules of modest behavior; and 2) cultural practices that are unique to the Gentiles and serve no other rational and acceptable purpose (taam), so that the Jew would adopt them only because they wish to imitate the non-Jewish culture.[10] Maharik’s approach, though not accepted by all,[11] was codified by R. Moshe Isserles in the Shulchan Aruch[12] and is followed by many in the halakhic community today. Thus, leading Israeli Orthodox authorities have approved the sounding of a siren on Yom HaZikaron and Yom HaShoah, even though this custom was “borrowed” from the memorial practices of other nations, because it serves the acceptable purpose of rendering honor to the dead.[13]

2. “Secular” Versus “Religious” Celebrations. Our Reform Jewish approach to Leviticus 18:3 is based upon the conviction that the prohibition of ḥukot hagoyim does not apply to aspects of our contemporary surrounding culture that we experience as secular. Since the term “secular” is a broad one, difficult at times to define with precision, we will explain what we mean in detail.

First, in the negative sense, that which is secular is “non-religious” or, perhaps better, “non-sectarian” in nature. This helps us determine just how far we may go in adopting non-Jewish modes of expression to serve our own specifically religious needs. For example, it is well known that the style of our public worship – the architecture of our prayer spaces, our modes of liturgical music, our approaches to the leadership of communal prayer – are heavily influenced and have been so throughout history by the styles we have encountered in the surrounding culture. With respect to the content of our public worship, however, we have drawn the line. Thus, this Committee has cautioned against borrowing non-Jewish prayers and hymns, both because they are identified with other religions and because our own Jewish liturgical tradition is sufficiently rich to afford us abundant resources for worship.[14] Since we regard it a mitzvah to preserve the distinctly Jewish elements of our identity, particularly as this touches upon our religious practice, inappropriate borrowing from other religions runs afoul of the prohibition against the imitation of non-Jewish customs and ceremonies.

Second, in the positive sense, that which is secular in our culture is that which all citizens of the community can share in common and in which they can participate on an equal footing with all their fellow citizens. To put this in traditional Jewish terminology, in a liberal democracy all of us should be considered k’rovim l’malckhut, for we are the malchut; the government and the culture belong to us, they are of us, and we do not regard them as alien entities. Secular customs, as the common space in which all of us can meet, serve the “rational and acceptable purpose” (to use Maharik’s terminology) of uniting the members of a disparate and multicultural society into a common bond.

For these reasons, we have no objections to Jews’ participation in national patriotic holidays. These special days are secular in both the senses we have described: they are non-religious, and they speak equally to all the citizens of the state. True, these holidays are major events in the calendar of what has been called the “civil religion,” the set of beliefs, texts, rites, and ceremonies by which the citizens express their collective national identity.[15] The civil religion, one could argue, is a religion, a sort of non-sectarian “faith” (the “cult of the nation,” of “God and country”) and is therefore not secular at all. We, however, resist this conclusion; as we have written elsewhere, participation by Jews in their nation’s civil religion “is a proper expression of their full participation in the life of the general community.”[16] Although patriotism can be and all too often has been twisted into the form of a quasi-religion,[17] we see national holidays as occasions that, in Maharik’s words serve the “rational and acceptable purpose” of uniting the citizens of the state and of reminding them of their social and ethical duties toward each other. They are secular observances precisely because they belong to us all, and for that reason they cannot be dismissed as ḥukot hagoyim.

For these reasons, too, we see no reason why Jews should be prohibited from participating in holidays we deal with here: Valentine’s Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, New Year’s, Mardi Gras. Although these holidays originate in Christian practice,[18] they are now secular observances; neither we nor the vast majority of our fellow citizens perceive them as religious festivals. They are in this regard easily distinguishable from Christmas, Easter, and other obviously religious holidays which it is clearly inappropriate for Jews to celebrate.[19] And here is where we depart from the stance taken by some of our Orthodox colleagues. For example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the leading American Orthodox halakhic authority of the twentieth century, has famously ruled that Jews are forbidden to take part in the festivities” (שמחות) and “feasting (סעודות) of American Thanksgiving, not, to be sure, because he thinks of Thanksgiving as a religious holiday – he doesn’t – but because he defines it as the sort of “Gentile custom” that Leviticus 18:3 forbids Jews to observe.[20] The wording of his argument suggests that Rabbi Feinstein does not recognize the existence of the cultural realm that we have defined as “secular.” We, by contrast, do recognize the existence of the secular; Thanksgiving and these other holidays pertain to the culture that we share with all others in the society and in which we participate as full and equal members. As such, they are not “Gentile” festivals, and we would not prohibit them on that basis.

3. Secular vs. Religious Holidays. We have stated that secular non-Jewish holidays are “easily distinguishable” from “Christmas, Easter, and other obviously religious holidays.” An obvious objection to this is the claim that for many non-Jews in our society these holidays have become non-religious celebrations, so that by the logic of this t’shuvah Jews should be permitted to participate in their observance. We acknowledge that the line separating “religious” from “secular” is not a hard and fast one. As the examples of St. Valentine’s Day and Halloween demonstrate, and as the Rabbis of the Talmud were aware, holidays with religious origins can lose their religious connotations over time.[21] But other holidays are and remain essentially religious in nature. By this we do not mean that everyone in the non-Jewish population celebrates them as religious festivals but rather that they retain their central role in the doctrine and practice of non-Jewish faiths. It is our task to distinguish between these two categories. That requires a careful act of judgment, and judgments, of course, can be controversial. Still, we fill quite confident in saying that, despite all the tinsel and reindeer and Santa Claus and bunny-and-egg displays, Christmas and Easter retain a status in Christian thought and practice that is quite different from that enjoyed by Halloween and St. Valentine’s Day. The religious meaning of those days is still central in the eyes of many of our Christian neighbors, who would rightly feel insulted were we to declare those days – wrongly – to be “secular” observances.

4. A Final Note. We do find it sadly ironic that we are talking about Jews taking part in secular non-Jewish holidays while the level of our community’s observance of many of our own holidays leaves much to be desired. We state therefore for the record: there is a difference between permission and encouragement. Jews are certainly permitted to participate in secular and national holidays, but they ought as well to take part in the full range of observances that mark our Jewish calendar. Our communities should never ignore the task of strengthening the specifically Jewish nature of our Reform Jewish life.

Conclusion. It is permissible for Jews to take part in the celebration of St. Valentine’s Day and other secular holidays, even if these originated in other religious traditions. As part of the common culture in which we all participate, these days are not to be thought of us “alien” and “foreign” – much less “Christian” – so as to fall under the terms of Leviticus 18:3.

NOTES

1. The Talmudic phrase is פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר, which occurs in B. B’rachot 45a and B. Eruvin 14b as the answer to the question: What is the halachah?

2. And not only those of the Egyptians and the Canaanites to whom the verse explicitly refers; Sifra, Aḥarei Mot, parashah 9, ch. 12.

3. This insight flows from the word that the verse uses for “law” – ḥok, חוק- which the Rabbis tend to interpret or translate as ritual obligations (e.g., rules covering forbidden foods, manner of dress, and the Temple service) that cannot be derived by human reason; they are obligatory solely because God has enjoined them upon Israel. By contrast, an obligation that is derivable through human reason is indicated by the word משפט, mishpat. See Rashi to Lev. 18:4.

4. Sifra, Aḥarei Mot, parashah 9, ch. 13, and see Onkelos and Rashi to Lev. 18:3. The word nimusot is the Rabbinic Hebrew translation of the Greek nomos.

5. This definition allows for some useful distinctions. See, for example, B. Avodah Zarah 11a: when a king of Israel dies, it is permissible as part of the funeral ritual to burn his bed and his personal property, even though Gentiles mourn their kings in the same way. Why? The burning is not a “law” (ḥukah), the sort of religious practice we are not permitted to copy, but simply a sign of respect.

6. Yad, Hil. Avodat Kochavim 11:1. See also Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvot, negative commandment no. 30.

7. We adopt the reading הגוים, “Gentiles,” preserved in the edition of the Mishneh Torah edited by R. Yosef Kafiḥ (Jerusalem, 1983), in place of the printed version’s העובדי כוכבים, “idolaters.” Kafiḥ based his edition upon Yemenite manuscripts widely considered to be more faithful to Rambam’s original text than is the printed version.

8. B. Bava Kama 83a; Yad, Hil. Avodah Zarah 11:3.

9. Resp. Rivash, no. 158.

10. Resp. Maharik, no. 88. The wearing of a uniform identifying one as a physician is clearly a rational and purposeful act, and it is certainly not an immodest one.

11. See R. Eliyahu, the Gaon of Vilna, Bi-ur HaGra, Yoreh De-ah 178, no. 7.

12. Isserles, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De-ah 178:1. See also R. Mordechai Yaffe, L’vush, Yoreh De-ah 178:1.

13. R. Hayyim David Halevy, Resp. Aseh L’cha Rav 1:44 and 4:4; R. Zvi Y’hudah Kook, T’ḥumin 3 (1982), p. 388; R. Y’hudah Henkin, T’ḥumin 4 (1983), pp. 125-129.

14. See “The Lord’s Prayer,” Contemporary American Reform Responsa (CARR; New York, CCAR, 1987), no. 171, pp. 256-257, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/carr-256-257, and “Amazing Grace,” Teshuvot for the Nineties (TFN; New York, CCAR, 1997), no. 5752.11, pp. 21-22, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/ccarj-fall-1992-65-66-tfn-no-5752-11-21-22.

15. Although the term “civil religion” originates with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract, chapter 8, book 4), the concept as presently understood by sociologists traces back to a famous article by Robert Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Daedalus 96:1 (1967), pp. 1-21, http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm (accessed March 27, 2015). Bellah speaks to the experience of the United States, and it is controversial whether his observations extend past its borders; see, for example, Andrew E. Kim, “The Absence of Pan-Canadian Civil Religion: Plurality, Duality, and Conflict in Symbols of Canadian Culture,” Sociology of Religion 54 (1993), pp. 257-275, and John von Heyking, “The Persistence of Civil Religion in Modern Canada,” Cardus, October 21, 2010 http://www.cardus.ca/policy/article/2273 (accessed March 27, 2015).

16. CCAR Responsum no. 5751.3, “Blessing the Fleet,” TFN, pp. 159-164, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/tfn-no-5751-3-159-164 .

17. We must be vigilant to maintain the lines that distinguish religion from patriotism; otherwise, religion will inevitably be drafted into the service of the cult of state power. As we have written elsewhere: “We are properly suspicious of rhetoric equating ‘God and King’ or ‘God and Country’ While… such language may not be, strictly speaking, a case of idolatry, it connotes for many of us today some of the most disturbing historical tendencies of our time: chauvinism, racism, and ethnic intolerance. If it is true that God alone is worthy of our religious worship, we ought to avoid language which, rightly or wrongly, suggests otherwise”; TFN, no. 5753.8, “Flags on the Bimah,” p. 31, http://ccarnet.org/responsa/tfn-no-5753-8-29-32 .

18. We will not enter the controversy over the source of Halloween: did it originate as a Celtic and probably pagan festival that was subsequently adapted into the Christian calendar, or was it a Christian festival to begin with? Suffice it to say that in its present form, as “the eve of All Hallows’ / All Saints Day,” its Christian associations are obvious.

19. See below, section 3. We leave aside here the often vexing question of whether and to what extent Jews may take part in the apparently non-religious aspects of Christmas and Easter: office parties, gift exchanges, watching parades, etc. Clearly, as members of a religious minority that does not seal itself off from its environment, we will participate in at least some of these. When we say that it is “inappropriate” for Jews to celebrate these days, we have in mind the introduction of holiday observances, decorations and the like into our own homes. We do not think it unreasonable to insist that the Jewish home be a “Christmas-free zone” during the holiday season.

20. Resp. Ig’rot Moshe, Oraḥ Ḥayim 5:20 (1981), section 6.

21. See B. Avodah Zarah 11b: the Babylonian sage Rav Y’hudah permits his students to engage in commerce with pagans on one of the latter’s festival days. Although this contradicts the prohibition set forth in M. Avodah Zarah 1:1, Rav Y’hudah permits the activity on the grounds that the festival in question is not permanently fixed on the calendar and is therefore not a truly serious pagan observance (see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 11b, s.v. d’la k’vi-a).

TFN no.5752.11 21-22)

CCAR RESPONSA

“Amazing Grace”

5752.11

She’elah

A Jewish woman would like to have the song “Amazing Grace” sung at her funeral. She also wonders whether it would be appropriate in general Jewish worship, or whether it is so christological that it should not be used in a Jewish ritual setting.

Further, is the word “grace” so distinctly Christian that it in itself disqualifies the song? The author of the hymn in question was a certain John Newton, a slave trader who had a “born again” experience, repented of his evil, and found in religion a new way of life.

Teshuvah

Let us turn first of all to the meaning of “grace”. In Christian theology, it represents the freely offered, and often undeserving, gift of God to an individual or to a people. Two Hebrew terms are the model for this concept: chen and chesed. In the Septuagint, chen is rendered as charis (whence “charity”, this is the word most commonly translated as grace); and chesed as eleos (“mercy”). The idea that God does not forget the undeserving is usually expressed by the divine quality of chesed; for instance, in II Sam. 7:15 (God’s mercy will not depart from David’s offspring even if they commit iniquity) and in other places like Isaiah 54:8. Since Christianity adopted the Pauline emphasis on grace and considered Jesus Christ its main vehicle, the English term grace has been avoided by Jewish writers, even though its antecedents in the Hebrew Bible are firm and formidable.

Thus the English word itself has assumed a christological coloring and its liturgical use would lead us into a consideration of the biblical warning not to walk on the custom of other nations chukkat ha- goyim.¹

The avoidance of chukkat ha-goyim in all expressions of living, from ritual practices to daily dress, was enunciated by Maimonides,² as well as the Shulchan Arukh.³ These texts have been interpreted more stringently at some times and more leniently at others. However, there can be no question that whenever a custom reminded one of other religions and tempted to lessen the distinctiveness of the Jewish heritage, it was considered to fall under the prohibition of chukkat ha-goyim.⁴

Thus the so called “Lord’s Prayer” which contains traditional Jewish teachings has become firmly connected with Christian worship and therefore, though its individual components are unobjectionable, would not be acceptable in any Jewish setting.

A similar situation obtains for “Amazing Grace”. None of the individual words or concepts of the song “Amazing Grace” in and of itself contradicts Jewish teachings. But its author, John Newton, had been converted under the influence of George Whitefield and John Wesley, became an Angelican priest and a pillar of the emerging Methodist movement. His hymn is a textbook description of a conversion experience in the evangelical Protestant tradition and therefore unsuitable for us.

There are some who believe that a song like “Amazing Grace” has become an expression of contemporary folklore, and therefore the melody at least could be deemed acceptable. We disagree. By analogy, some Christmas and Easter customs have become highly secularized and denuded of specific Christian content, yet they too also fall under the prohibition of chukkat ha-goyim.

Surely there are worthy Jewish melodies fit to sanctify a funeral service, and as for the words one might recall the observation of Solomon Schechter: “A people that has produced the Psalmist, a Rabbi Judah Halevi, and other hymnologists and liturgists counted by hundreds, has no need to pass around the hat to all possible denominations begging for a prayer or a hymn”.⁵

Notes

Lev.20:23 and 18:3, Ezek. 5:7 and 11:12.

Yad, Hilkhot Akkum 11:1-3; 12:1.

Sh. A., Y.D. 178 and commentaries thereto.

See also our responsa on “Blessing the Fleet” and “Flags on the Bimah” in this volume, pp. and .

Studies in Judaism (New York, 1938), p.136f. One member of the Committee dissented, holding that

on the whole, Reform Judaism has attempted to accommodate such poetry and music, and that its strength has been its ability to incorporate secular material into its liturgy in a way that is consistent with tradition. “At a funeral, I take it, this song would express the woman’s faith that God’s presence had influenced her life and aided her in time of trouble. If the Rabbi is uncomfortable with the words “Amazing Grace”, s/he might have the tune played on a musical instrument and incorporate other more traditional Jewish texts expressing these things, thereby satisfying the woman’s intent”.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5751.5 97-100

CCAR RESPONSA

Annual Meeting on Shabbat

5751.5

She’elah

We have been unable to attract enough members to our annual congregational meeting and are wondering whether it would be appropriate to hold such a meeting on a Friday evening.

Teshuvah

The question requires us to explore a number of issues. They concern the nature of Shabbat, the way we observe it as Jews, and especially as Reform Jews, and the nature of an annual congregational meeting.

Tradition, which is generally very strict about observing Shabbat in all its minutiae, is surprisingly permissive when dealing with the question before us. Its proof text is Isaiah 58:13:

If you refrain from trampling Shabbat,

From pursuing your affairs on My holy day;

If you call Shabbat “delight,”

The Eternal’s holy day “honored” …

The Rabbis reasoned that “your”, that is human, affairs were forbidden, but God’s business was not. Hence, matters dealing with the welfare of the community were allowed to be discussed on the Sabbath.¹

The Prophet also challenges us to the mitzvot of oneg shabbat, Shabbat joy, and of kibbud shabbat, Shabbat honor, which is the subject of the Fourth Commandment.² These mitzvot give the day its distinctive character and go beyond the duty to abstain from prohibited labor. One should turn away also from those activities which, though permitted, interfere with the honoring of Shabbat and making it a time of joy. The ordinary should give way to the special and thus, congregational worship, study, and festive celebration with family and friends should be the order of the day.

For this reason, meetings of any kind are generally not scheduled for Shabbat, even though they might halakhicly be permitted. This abstention has become quite general in the Jewish community, which constitutes a case where popular practice (minhag) has become more stringent than the Halakhah would demand.

Maimonides, in dealing with this type of divergence, ruled that minhag cannot annul that which is forbidden, but can prohibit that which is permitted.³ As a general custom, the minhag of a community was respected, though of course not every minhag deserved that approbation. Thus, when it could be said to have been practised and approved in error one should pay no attention to it.⁴

How does the halakhic permission to hold communal meetings and the popular practice of prohibiting them fit into this schema? The answer is that the rabbinic permission was given at a time when Shabbat was strictly observed by the Jewish community, and therefore the occasional exception could be tolerated. Holding a meeting for the welfare of the community did not in any wise diminish the respect for Shabbat or its meticulous observance; it was seen for what it was: an unusual but necessary exception.

In our time the situation has radically changed; the community as a whole is lax in its observance of Shabbat and therefore the minhag of not holding meetings on that day has become a fence, meant to guard against a further erosion of Shabbat awareness and respect. Clearly, the practice of discouraging meetings on that day is designed “to keep Shabbat holy,” and Jewish law would caution against overriding such a minhag.⁵

Rabbi Freehof was nonetheless permissive in this case. While he preferred that meetings not take place on Shabbat he reiterated the halakhic rule that such meetings were indeed permissible, but at the same time he cautioned against the inclusion of financial matters in the discussions.⁶

We feel certain that, were he asked the same question today, he would rule differently and agree that the sense of Shabbat holiness has diminished so severely that every further intrusion should now be quite aside from the fact that congregational meetings have in any case a way of focusing on financial issues.

Since Rabbi Freehof published his responsum, the Reform movement has made a sustained effort to re-enforce the sense of Shabbat holiness amongst its members. To this end, the Central Conference of American Rabbis has stated:

Kedushah (holiness) requires that Shabbat be singled out as different from weekdays. It must be distinguished from the other days of the week so that those who observe it will become transformed by its holiness. One ought, therefore, to do certain things which contribute to an awareness of this day’s special nature, and to abstain from doing others which lessen our awareness.⁷

Congregational meetings are generally perceived as secular occasions and would by that very fact further undermine the sense that Shabbat is a special day. We should make every effort to increase rather than to diminish this sense, even in the face of good intentions. Regrettably, Reform congregations have a hard enough time to inculcate amongst their members the awareness of Shabbat holiness. Trying to involve them in greater participation in Temple business is certainly laudable, but doing it at the expense of the Shabbat spirit appears to us as counterproductive.

The problem of poor attendances at annual meetings is wide-spread and not restricted to congregations. Yet secular organizations do not hold such meetings on Shabbat, and congregations should not set the wrong example in the community by doing what popular minhaghas so far discouraged.

Notes

[1] Here too the relevant sources were explored by Freehof in a responsum, “Congregational meeting on the Sabbath”, Reform Responsa (1950), pp. 40-50.

[2] The classic definition of these dual requirements is found in Rambam, Yad, Shabbat 30. One’s time on Shabbat ought to be divided so that half of it is devoted to God (Torah study and worship) and half to personal rejoicing (see BT Pesachim 68b; Tur, Orach Chayyim 242).

[3] Yad, Shevitat-‘Asor 3:3; Responsa of R. Shelomo ben Shim’on Duran, no. 562. (Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 11:14).

[4] See Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 11:14; and cf. BT Pesachim 50b-51a; Nedarim 81b; and Tosafot to Eruvin 101b.

[5] Further on this issue, see Responsa of R. Yitzhak ben Sheshet, cited in Kesef Mishneh to Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 11:14; see also Isserles, Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 194:1; also R. Yechezkel Landau, Responsa Nodah Biyhudah I, Yoreh De’ah, no. 54.

[6] L.c., footnote 3 above.

[7] A Shabbat Manual (1972), pp. 6 ff.; this sense is reiterated in Gates of the Seasons (1983), pp. 11 ff. See also F.A. Doppelt and D. Polish, A Guide for Reform Jews (1957), p. 9: “Activities which are clearly not in the spirit of Shabbat should be planned for other days.”

TFN no.5753.15 39-41

CCAR RESPONSA

New Year’s Eve Party on Shabbat in the Synagogue

5753.15

She’elah

This year December 31 falls on Friday, and thus New Year’s eve coincides with Shabbat. Many Jews will be tempted to celebrate the secular new year and thereby forsake Shabbat services and observances. What is the religious propriety of hosting a New Year’s eve party on Shabbat in the synagogue? (Rabbi Seymour Prystowsky, Lafayette Hill, PA)

Teshuvah

The she’elah incorporates two issues. Is it appropriate for a synagogue or a Jewish organization to celebrate the secular New Year? If it is appropriate, what should be done when New Year’s eve falls on Shabbat?

1. Celebrating the secular new year. It is well known that some Orthodox authorities are opposed to any celebration of the secular New Year. In Jerusalem, for example, major hotels have been threatened with a revocation of their kashrut license if they hold a New Year’s eve party. The opposition to celebrating a non-Jewish festival is based on the Toraitic injunction, “you shall not follow their customs.”¹ Talmudic commentators saw in this prohibitions two types of foreign customs: one, any custom that is related to idolatry, and two, any foreign custom that is foolish or superstitious.²

Some halakhic authorities expanded the rule in order to ensure the separation of Jews from Gentile society.³Thus, Maimonides taught:

Jews should not follow the practices of the Gentiles, nor imitate their dress or their hair styles. . . .The Jew should be distinguished from them and recognizable by the way he dresses and in his other activities, just as he is distinguished from them in his knowledge and his understanding. As it is said, “And I have set you apart from the peoples.”⁴

But over the centuries this rigorous judgment has beeen followed by a minority only, and the definition of what constitutes chukkat ha-goy has been reinterpreted.⁵

Some who opposed the celebration of the secular new year did not want Jews to give the impression that they were observing the Catholic feast of Saint Sylvester,⁶ which was celebrated on December 31, and was followed by the Feast of the Circumcision on January 1. It should be noted that in 1961, the Catholic Church reduced the “Feast of St. Sylvester” to a day of mere commemoration, while the “Feast of the Circumcision” was eliminated altogether.⁷

It is worth noting that the feasts for December 31 and January 1 were originally created by the Catholic Church as an attempt to overcome the Roman pagan celebrations of those days,⁸ while today, when people have festivities on the secular New Year’s eve, they are not doing so with any intent to observe a Christian or pagan festival.⁹

Therefore, since Reform, Conservative and modern Orthodox reject the notion that Jews should be separated and segregated from general society, they need not hesitate to celebrate the civic new year.

2. Celebrating the civic New Year on Shabbat. Inasmuch as our synagogues are not only Houses of Prayer but also Houses of Assembly, and seeing that it is customary to hold social events in the synagogue’s social hall, there should be few objections to making it the locus of a New Year’s eve party, provided it meets the required standards of moderation and good taste. But may such a party in the synagogue be held on Shabbat?

R. Solomon B. Freehof held that the worshipful mood of Shabbat contrasts too sharply with the hilarity of New Year’s eve and said: “Let the joyous New Year party this year be moved to another hall [i.e., outside the temple premises] … Let the synagogue stand alone and unique as a place of worship.”¹⁰

While this caution needs emphasis, the Responsa Committee believes that the civic new year can be observed on Shabbat, as long as the sacred day’s spirit prevails. Indeed, we urge the congregation to explore creative ways to attract Jews to celebrate Shabbat when it falls on December 31. For example, the congregation might consider hosting a more elaborate Oneg Shabbat; those attending could listen to Jewish music; or a movie could be shown that is compatible with Shabbat. But the latter, and not New Year’s eve should be the dominant focus of the evening.

A further bonus of a Shabbat celebration on New Year’s eve would be the presence of a sober, sane and safe environment. While many may choose to forsake the joy of Shabbat for the bacchanalian irreverence of the secular observance, let our Reform congregations offer a sacred alternative.

Notes

¹Leviticus 18:3.

²Tosafot on BT.Avodah Zarah 11a, and see, BT. Sanhedrin 52b.

³See “Chukat Ha’Akum: Jews in a Gentile Society,” The Journal of Halacha, vol. I, no. II, pp. 64-85; Sefer HaHinnuch: The Book of [Mitzvah] Education (trsl. C. Wengrow, Jerusalem, 1991), mitzvah # 2.

⁴Leviticus 20:26; Yad, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah v’Chukot HaGoyim, 11:1.

⁵For details, see our responsum 5751.3, “Blessing the Fleet,” p. .

⁶He was Pope from 314-335.

⁷“Christmas and Its Cycle, “New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967),vol. III, 1967, pp. 657-659.

⁸The Council of Tours (546 C.E.) declared in its 17th canon that the Church Fathers, “in a desire to stamp out the custom of the pagans, imposed a private celebration of litanies of the first of January…” (Alban Butler, The Lives of the Saints, Westminster, MD, 1967), vol. I, p.2.

⁹R. Moshe Feinstein who was strict about holding a Jewish affair, such as a Bar Mitzvah party, on the day of a Christian festival (lest one should convey even the appearance of apostasy), was, nevertheless, relatively lenient about the secular New Year’s celebration; Iggerot Moshe, Even HaEzer part 2,# 13.

¹⁰New Year’s Eve Party in the Synagogue,” Today’s Reform Responsa (1990), pp. 25-27.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5751.3 159-164

CCAR RESPONSA

Blessing the Fleet

5751.3

She’elah

I serve a New England community and have received a request to participate in the annual ceremony of “blessing the fleet.” Those involved, including Protestant and Catholic clergy, are taken on board a Coast Guard vessel into the Sound, where boats (predominantly pleasure craft) would pass by and be blessed. Is it appropriate to accept this invitation? (R. Elias J. Lieberman, Falmouth, MA)

Teshuvah

The question may be subdivided as follows:

1. What provisions and cautions in Jewish tradition and sensibility might be violated by participating in this kind of interfaith ceremony? Would it fall in the category of a gentile ritual, which the Torah forbids as chukkat ha-goyim(Leviticus 20:23)?

2. Is there a precedent for blessing a thing or things, as in this case, the fleet?

1. Chukkat ha-goyim.

At first glance the ceremony to which the rabbi has been asked would seem to be merely another civic occasion which he would share with other clergy, such as dedications, invocations, or benedictions which accompany secular functions. Reform rabbis (and not they alone) do this regularly, in part to affirm that they and their fellow Jews fully share in the life of the community. We generally take part in ceremonies which are religiously neutral these ceremonies are neutral and non-Christological.¹

We have therefore come to accept certain sancta of “civil religion.” Examples are prayers for the government during the service, the national flag on the beemah, national anthems printed in our prayer books and Haggadahs, liturgies for a communal Thanksgiving and Memorial Day service, and the like.²

All of this is well founded in tradition, which bases itself on Jeremiah 29:7: “Seek the well-being of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray to the Eternal on its behalf, for your well-being depends on it.” Further, there is a relevant passage in Ezra 6:10 and the oft-quoted advice of the Mishnah: “Pray for the well-being of the government, for without the fear of it we would swallow each other alive.”³ These sentiments entered the Ashkenazic liturgy by adding prayers for the government,⁴ and they have become part of Diaspora ritual. This was true even when Jews did not fare well in particular countries; thus, an Orthodox Russian siddur of the early twentieth century contained a prayer for Czar Nicholas II. How much more so has this custom entrenched itself in lands where Jews enjoy all civic rights.

However, despite all these precedents, the questioner clearly wonders whether there is something “un-Jewish” about blessing the fleet, which consists primarily of pleasure craft, plus some fishing vessels that contribute to the local economy. To use traditional language, does this kind of ceremony deserve the stricture of chukkat ha-goyim, of imitating Gentile practice.

It is well to remember that most of the ritual innovations which the Reform movement proposed in the course of its history were attacked by its opponents as chukkat ha-goyim, such as prayer in the vernacular, instrumental music, or gender equality. Still, the present threat of assimilation and the narrowing of Jewish religious distinctiveness and lifestyle lead us to increasing concern about melding our practices with those of the community in which we live. Therefore the question of chukkat ha-goyim deserves another brief look.

The biblical phrase, “you shall no walk in their ways”(u-vechukkoteihem lo telekhu)⁵ was understood as one of the negative commandments and was seen to reinforce the distinctiveness and separateness of the Jews, who are set apart from the nations (Lev. 20:26).⁶ While the principle of the prohibition was never in doubt, it was understood that it had limits, but just what these were was a subject of frequent debate.

Thus, the Midrash argues that the prohibition cannot be taken to its extreme. Does this mean, it asked, that we should not build buildings or plant vineyards as Gentiles do? Rather, Scripture says, u-vechukkoteihem…, meaning laws and customs which are indigenous to them.⁷ This led one authority to state that only idolatry and special practices enumerated by the Rabbis fall under the prohibition.⁸

According to R. Menachem ha-Me’iri the law of the Torah itself was meant as a specific caution against idolatry, and was later expanded to cover other practices as a fence against assimilation.⁹ This explains the far-reaching ruling of Rambam:

The law] forbids us to walk in the ways of idolatry and from adopting their customs, even their means of dress and their social gatherings.¹⁰

Still, popular practice did not always abide by these prohibitions, and the earlier discussions of Talmud and Midrash were continued. Thus, R. Isaac b. Sheshet (14th century) wrote that Jews need not do away with funeral customs which reflect secular practices among Muslims.

If you say otherwise, we might as well forbid eulogies, on the ground that Gentiles also eulogize their dead.¹¹

Similarly, R. Joseph Kolon (15th century) permitted Jewish physicians to don distinctive medical robes worn by Gentile doctors. His wide-ranging analysis set forth these guidelines by which one could recognize what fell under the prohibition of chukkat ha-goy:

customs which Jews adopt for no other apparent reason than to imitate the Gentiles;

customs which offend the rules of modest behavior.

But practices which reflect legitimate purposes or are meant as tokens of respect are not covered by the prohibition of lo’ telekhu.¹² While this view was criticized by some,¹³ it was endorsed by R. Moses Isserles and codified in his addenda to the Shulchan Arukh.¹⁴ This in turn has become the basis for contemporary rulings.

Thus, R. Haim David Halevy permits the use of funeral flowers and the wearing of black clothing by mourners. Such practices are prohibited “only when we adopt their custom out of the desire to imitate their religious rites.”¹⁵ For this reason too he defends the Israeli custom, borrowed from Western culture, of standing for a minute of silence on Yom Ha-Zikaron and Yom Ha-Sho’ah (Remembrance Day [for the fallen in Israel’s wars] and Holocaust Remembrance Day).¹⁶ The rabbi who participates in a civic ceremony does not do this in order to imitate Gentile religious practices, but rather in order to signal Jewish support for the civic well-being of the the kind of legitimate and purposeful motivation required by Kolon and endorsed by the Halakhah. His participation would be an aspect of “civic religion.”

This conclusion is fortified by another halakhic consideration, found in the Talmud. There we read that even normally forbidden Gentile practices are allowed to those who are kerovim le- malkhut, who are close to the government and must constantly deal with it.¹⁷

To be sure, this permission was meant for special people, like communal representatives(shtadlanim), and not for all members of the Jewish community, but in a democratic society all Jews may be considered kerovim lemalkhut. Their participation in the rites of “civic religion” is therefore a proper expression of their full participation in the life of the general community.

Of course, this participation has its limits.A necessary condition would be that the ceremony be truly non-denominational and not sectarian in nature, one in which all religious believers could share.

But this should not lead us to make light of the caution against adopting chukkat ha- goyim. We are still under the obligation to preserve our religious separateness, and thus the caution of lo telekhu… in Lev. 18:3 remains a constant and forceful warning to us.¹⁸

2. Blessing the Fleet.

It is important to consider the terminology of the event; if it refers to an actual blessing of ships it is one thing; if it is meant as a blessing of the seafarers it is another.

We do not bless things. The blessing is, rather, an invocation of God who is the One that is barukh, blessed. Thus we praise God “who brings bread forth from the earth”; we do not bless the Kiddush wine but the borei pri ha-gefen, and the act is referred to as lekaddesh al ha-yayin, to make a blessing over the wine, and not leqaddesh et ha- yayin; a blessing of the wine. and we do not bless the Shabbat lights but rather God asher kiddeshanu … vetsivvanu lehadeek ner shel shabbat.¹⁹

The rabbi would therefore offend Jewish tradition if his invocation aimed at sanctifying the ships themselves. While the participating Christian clergy may interpret the ceremony in accordance with their own theology, the rabbi has the same freedom and view “blessing the fleet” as referring to those “that go down to the sea in ships” (Psalm 107) and invoke upon them a wayfarer’s prayer, tefillat ha- derekh.²⁰ The view of sailing the waters as an especially dangerous enterprise has a long tradition, and though this danger has today become less pronounced, especially in comparison with other forms of locomotion, it has not disappeared. A wayfarer’s prayer retains its propriety, whether the journey is for pleasure of for earning a livelihood.

We note that the rabbi’s congregation worships in a meeting house built at the end of the 18th century, which betokens a pride in the history of the community. In addition to all else, therefore, the Jewish as well as the larger community would expect the rabbi to be part of this history, which invokes the additional permission of acting for the sake of [communal] peace (mipney darkhey shalom),to preserve a sense of amity and well-being among all the town’s people.

We would therefore encourage the rabbi to participate in “blessing the fleet” by delivering a Wayfarer’s Prayer²¹ and/or read from Psalm 107, and suggest that he explain the strictures of Jewish tradition to his Christian colleagues, and do so before the date of the actual ceremonies.

Notes

See Rabbi Walter Jacob, Contemporary American Reform Responsa (1987), no. 167. See Rabbi Israel Bettan’s 1954 responsum on the question of whether a national flag should be placed on the pulpit; American Reform Responsa, ed. Walter Jacob, no. 21. We today might not phrase our reasoning as Bettan did (“…our national flag speaks to us with the voice of religion”), but we would not likely come to a different conclusion. Avot 3:2. On the prayer Ha-noten teshu’ah, see Baer, Avodat Yisrael (Rvdelheim 1868), p.231; Kol Bo, ch. 20, p.10c; Aburdaham (Warsaw 1878), p.47c. Lev. 18:3; see also Lev. 20:23. See Rambam, Yad, Avodat Kokhavim 11:1. A free translation of chukkim ha-chakukim lahem; Sifra, ed. Weiss, Acharei Mot, perishta 9, p. 85a. See also the differing interpretations of chok in Lev. 19:19 by Rashi and Ramban, and the talmudic discussion in BT Avodah Zarah 11a and Sanhedrin 52b which deal with the Gentile custom of lighting funeral pyres. The former passage permits it because it is not undertaken for religious purposes, the latter because it was already mentioned by Jeremiah 34:5. Sefer Yere’im, ch. 313. The author reads the verse according to its peshat and notes that only the religious practices of Egypt and Canaan are meant. This contradicts the talmudic expansion of the prohibition to imitate the “seven nations” (Exod. 20:23) to all nations (see Sanhedrin 52b and Avodah Zarah 11a), including those who were not idolatrous (see R. Isaac b. Sheshet, Resp. Rivash , no. 158). Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann, Resp. Melammed Leho’il, I no. 18, therefore translates the words avodah zarah as Fremder Kultus rather than Gvtzendienst. Beit Ha-Bechirah, Sanhedrin 52b. Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, Neg. Com. no. 30; see also Sefer Mitzvot Ha-Gadol, neg. com. no. 50, and Sefer Ha-Chinnukh, no .262. Resp. Rivash, no. 158, and see note 5 above. Resp. Maharik, no. 88. See Minchat Chinnukh, comm. 262.; cf. also Bi’ur Ha-Gera (R. Elijah of Vilna), Yoreh De’ah 178, no. 7. Yoreh De’ah 178:1. Aseh Lekha Rav, I, no. 44. Ibid., IV. no. 4; similarly R. Zvi Yehudah Kook, Techumim, v. 3 (1982), p.388; R. Yehudah Henkin, ibid., v. 4,(1983), pp. 125 ff. B.K. 83a, and see Rambam, Yad, Avodat Kochavim, 11:3. R. Joseph Karo suggested that the scholars of a community should delineate the extent of the law; Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 178. To be sure, there are certain objects which because of their nature and function are considered keley kodesh and are to be treated in a special fashion because they contain the Divine Name, for instance Torah scrolls, mezuzot and siddurim. Such a prayer is mentioned in BT Berakhot 29b-30a: “What is a prayer for wayfarers? … shetolikheni leshalom ve-tatz’ideni [better, ve-tacharizeni] leshalom … Barukh attah Adonai, shome’a tefillah. See also Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim, 110:4; Siddur Otzar Tefillah, under “Seder Tefillat Ha-Derekh,” which lists a variety of quotations and prayers; also Jacob Emden’s Siddur Beit Ya’akov, p. 111. The C.CA.AR.’s Gates of the House (1977), p.23, brings such a newly composed prayer

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.