Mezuzahs on the Doorposts of Gentiles

By Susan Esther Barnes

Because of the name of my blog, I just had to comment on this.

The New York Times recently published an article about Gentiles (non-Jews) in New York who have mezuzahs on their doors. Apparently, this is a result of Jews who put up the mezuzah(s), then subsequently died or moved out, leaving their mezuzah(s) behind.

For various reasons, the new occupants of many homes have left them up. Based on the article, it appears some like their decorative qualities, while others are concerned about the mark that would be left if the mezuzah were removed, particularly in places where the doorway has been painted over, leaving another color underneath.

At first, I didn’t see this as a big issue, but then I realized how irresponsible it is of the previous owners, or in the case of those who died, whoever was supposed to take care of their personal effects after their death.

After all, a mezuzah is an important ritual object. Technically, although we call the container we see on the doorpost the mezuzah, my understanding is that the actual mezuzah is the scroll inside which has certain specific passages from the Torah written on it.

The mezuzah therefore has the name of God written on it, and nothing with the name of God is supposed to be thrown in the trash. If it is damaged or needs to be discarded for some reason, it is supposed to be buried.

It seems highly unlikely that a Gentile, no matter how well intended, will know the proper way to dispose of a mezuzah once it is no longer wanted. So, no matter whether the new occupant wants to keep it for a while, or gets rid of it right away, the chances are good the mezuzah will not receive the proper burial it deserves.

If someone puts a mezuzah up, then unless they know the home will subsequently be occupied by other Jews, they should take it down when they leave. When a Jewish person dies, if they are the only Jewish person in that home, their mezuzah(s) should be removed by their family members or whoever is taking care of their affairs.

And even if you don’t think it’s a big deal whether or not a mezuzah is buried once it’s no longer going to be used, read how the NYT article ends:

Connie Peirce… said she often wished she had inherited a mezuza like many of her non-Jewish neighbors did... To her delight, one of her Jewish neighbors recently hung a mezuza on her doorway. “Every time I come home and remember, I kiss it and touch it and then I bless myself, saying, ‘In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.’ ”

So, the mezuzah, the holy scroll which begins with the words, “Sh’ma Yisrael, Adonai eloheynu, Adonai Echad – Hear Israel, Adonai is our God, Adonai is one,” the central Jewish expression of God’s unity, is being caressed by someone while they are asserting that God is a trinity.

Now that’s just wrong.

Sh’ma Discussion on Pluralism

By Susan Esther Barnes

Last week I attended an event at the San Francisco Contemporary Jewish Museum celebrating the move of “Sh’ma, A Journal of Jewish Responsibility” to California. The event was billed as “A conversation on the boundaries of pluralistic dialogue and engagement.”

The evening started a little late with a somewhat lengthy introduction, so the actual conversation didn’t start until about a half an hour after the advertised start time, but at least that gave the numerous latecomers a chance to settle in before the juicy bits of the evening occurred.

The format consisted of Susan Berrin, the editor of Sh’ma, reading a list of questions to the panelists, then asking them to begin a conversation about one or more of those questions. The conversation was followed by an audience question and answer session, then a reception.

The panelists were Rabbi Levey Derby of Congregation Kol Shofar in Tiburon, Karen Kushner of the Jewish Welcome Network, Peter Stein of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, and Carole Zawatsky of the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco.

The conversation covered a fascinating range of topics, including who is or isn’t Jewish (for instance, are “Jews for Jesus” really Jews?), excommunication, the definition of pluralism, and the right (and even the responsibility) of individual organizations to set their own boundaries regarding permissible behavior and who is or isn’t allowed in.

The discussion touched on the tension created when the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival showed a controversial film with a controversial speaker, and the San Francisco Jewish Federation recently adopted guidelines to withhold funding from organizations which host events or speakers which advocate for the destruction of Israel or divestment from, or boycotts of it.

A poignant moment occurred when one woman in the audience who is a member of an organization which clearly would be excluded from funding under the restrictions of the Federation’s new guidelines said that by denying her a seat at the table, the Federation is saying she is not a Jew. Rabbi Derby answered her by asserting there is a distinction between the rejection of a person’s political view and the rejection of a person as a whole. He said he doesn’t think anyone that evening had said she isn’t a Jew; just that some organizations, in setting their own boundaries, have chosen not to support her organization’s views.

Another audience member pointed out that the panelists seemed to agree with each other on most points, and suggested the conversation might have benefitted from the inclusion of at least one panelist who would have argued against the desire for pluralism.

Overall, I was pleased with the tenor of the discussion, and I was glad the audience members were willing to ask pointed questions without being rude and the panelists were willing to address those questions. In the end, I found myself wishing the conversation had gone on longer, and I hope Sh’ma and/or the museum will host more, similar conversations in the near future.