[Avodah] [Areivim] More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead

[Chana Luntz]

RZS asks:

> It's the first night of Pesach, and you have an obligation to drink
> four cups of wine.  The only wine available to you is kosher and
> mevushal, but it has unfortunately been used for a Protestant mass.  After
the
> mass the minister poured the leftover wine back into the bottle, and is
now
> offering it to you to use for your seder.  Do you use it or not?
> It's certainly distasteful, but OTOH it's not tikroves AZ (which is why
> I specified Protestant), and arba kosos is a chiyuv.  Do you have the
> right to reject it and neglect the mitzvah?

I think the answer here would probably be the same one as the Shulchan Aruch
Yoreh Deah siman 139 si'if 13 which says that candles and wax of idol
worshippers are forbidden for a ner mitzvah whether of shabbas or Chanukah
or for a shul and also the garments of the priests one should not make from
them a talis and not anything of a mitzvah mishum dimiusi, even though it is
made clear above and elsewhere that these things are permitted for ordinary
use.

Ie there seems to be an inyan that if something is distasteful to this
extreme then it cannot be used for a dvar mitzvah.  Of course that does
raise the question, is the Shulchan Aruch talking about the ordinary case,
or about a case where it is this or nothing?  And in a quick search around I
couldn't find anything directly on point.  But it seems to me that the
language of mishum d'mius is suggesting of baal tishkatzu so there may be an
element of a d'orisa in it, and the four cups at least (and, come to think
of it, all the other mitzvos mentioned except perhaps tzitzis which is not
obligatory) are derabbanan, and since we are talking about a shev v'al
ta'aseh, my instincts are that the answer is to reject the bottle of wine
and neglect the mitzvah are arba kosos.

I do think the question that started this off though is a little different.
Because here we are discussing one's own obligation to do a mitzvah,
whereas, it seem to me, the original question under discussion involving
taharos is a question of kovod hameis.

And it seems to me that the place to look for sources is in Orech Chaim
Siman 526 si'if 1 where the Shulchan Aruch discusses the case where it was
common in our sources to involve a non Jew in the burial, that is, when we
are dealing with a meis on Yom Tov.  In that case, the Shulchan Aruch rules
that the non Jew should do for the meis all the things that involve an issur
d'orisa, such as making the aron and the tachrichin etc but to dress it and
to pour water for its tahara is permitted to be done by a Jew (mutar al
yadei Yisroel).  And the Magen Avraham comments there in si'if katan 3: that
it is the minhag to be metaher him completely without the assistance of an
akum and not like the Radvaz.  Now it appears from the other meforshim (I
tried looking in the reference in the Sharei Teshuva and the Magen Avraham,
but couldn't find the relevant part) that the Radvaz held that the akum
should do most of the tahara, and a Jew should do the final pouring of the
water in order to finish it off.  And the issue seems to be this, moving the
limb of a dead body (and other actions involved in the tahara) are issurei
rabbanan on Yom Tov, and the question is, should a Jew violate issurei
rabbanan to do the tahara or not? The Radvaz says no, the other meforshim
say yes, it is a mitzvah and kovod hameis.  And the Levush explains not only
is it mutar afilu b'yom tov rishon al yadei Yisroel, but mutav sheasu al
yadei Yisroel masheyasinu al yadei goyim hatameim v'ain bo kavod l'meis.

So, it seems to me we have at least some sources to answer the questions
that are being raised. Firstly, it is minhag Yisroel to always have the
tahara done by a Jew, even if it involves violating issurei d'rabbanan to do
so (as in the case of Yom Tov).  And while there is rishonic authority to
the contrary, it would appear that it is not only mutar to violate issurei
d'rabbanan in this case, but it is better to do so, because of kavod hameis.
But, it would also seem from the language of the Magen Avraham and the
Levush, that it is not assur for an akum to do the taharah, given that the
language used is mutav and minhag.  And maybe I am reading too much into it,
but it does seem like, if there was no option but to have an akum do it,
then that would be a better option than not to have it done at all (the
Levush does not say, and if a Jew can't do it, it cannot be done at all).
The implication being that while it may be a bizayon to the meis to have it
done al yadei akum, it would seem to be a greater bizayon if it is not done
at all.  So on the one hand my instincts are with RZS here in that, vis a
vis an individual meis, it is better that it have a lesser bizayon (done by
dubious chevrei kadisha that are possibly not Jewish and possibly minim)
than a greater bizayon (not to have a tahara at all).  But on the other
hand, once we are clearly dealing with minhag yisroel, issues of not
breaching minhag in order to encourage minus do raise their heads, so that,
for the greater good of the klal, it might be that it is better not
encouraged (which really gets us into the common question about how to
relate to Conservative, Reform etc where it is often the case where the
individual may benefit but the judgment is that the klal does not).

> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you

Regards

Chana