Kaddish for First Wife

A widower in the congregation has remarried. He wants to know whether he should say Kaddish for his first wife. (From Rabbi Leon Kronish, Miami Beach, Florida)

First, there is the basic question whether, in the opinion of Jewish law, any bond is deemed to exist between a remarried husband and his deceased wife. Upon the answer to this question depends the decision as to where the husband when he dies should be buried, whether beside his first wife or his second. So also, when a widow who has remarried dies, where should she be buried, beside her first husband or her second?

I have discussed this question of burial in Reform Jewish Practice (I, 146-48). There is no need to rediscuss here the specific question of burial; it is sufficient to recall the basic question as to whether there is still a legal bond between a remarried husband or wife and the deceased spouse. On that question there are two opinions. Moses Sofer (“Chasam Sofer,” Yore Deah 55) decides that there is no longer any such bond. But a later opinion, that of Wolf Leiter (in his “Bays Dovid,” #134), declares that the bond of the first marriage still exists. The basic question may therefore be considered as still undecided, and the specific question of burial is thus made to depend upon whether a remarried wife, for example, had children by the first or the second husband. (See references quoted by Leiter.)

Therefore our present question as to whether a remarried husband should say Kaddish for his deceased wife cannot be decided upon the basis of general principle, since the principle itself is still undecided. However, as a specific question it has received considerable discussion.

The basis for the discussion is in the Talmud (b. Moed Katan 21b). The question there concerns the greeting and the consolation of mourners. Greetings (She’elas Sholom) are forbidden in the early stages of mourning. This prohibition is gradually relaxed as time passes. So, too, with the prohibition of words of consolation (Divre Nichumim); this also is graduated downward as the period of mourning lengthens. In its discussion, the Talmud brings up the question of a man recently widowed who marries again. In such a case, the Talmud declares, one may not enter his house (where, of course, he is living with his new wife) to utter words of consolation (for his bereavement of his first wife). If, however, one meets the man on the street, he may console him in a whisper (since his second wife is not present). All of this is codified as law in the Shulchan Aruch (Yore Deah 385 : 2).

Rashi to the Talmudic passage explains the reason for the prohibition against entering the house to console the remarried man. He says it is because it would cause grief to the second wife. Upon this Talmudic statement and Rashi’s explanation, all the later scholars base their opinion. Moses Junggreis (1834-1889), in his “Menuchas Moshe,” # 114, discusses the situation when a man has remarried, and his sons by his first wife are setting up a tombstone for their mother. He may not utter any eulogy for his first wife on that occasion, even though his second wife is not present at the cemetery, for his second wife will say that just as in so doing he is still thinking of his first wife, he will always continue to do so.

Elazar Deutsch (1850-1916), in his “Duda’ay Ha-sodeh,” # 14, is asked whether a remarried man may recite Yizkor for his first wife. Deutsch bases his opinion upon the above Talmudic passage in deciding that he should not do so. If, however, it is the custom in the synagogue, as in some communities, for the cantor to read a list of all the names memorialized, there is no objection to the remarried man being present. But if, as is usually the case, each person reads the paragraph himself and mentions the name memorialized, this man may not do so. Deutsch also explains (in his “Peri Ha-sodeh,” #54) why it is necessary for a bereaved man to wait for the passing of three major festivals before he may remarry. The reason is that he should no longer be grieving for his first wife when he is married to the second.

The latest scholar to discuss the question is the recently deceased Elijah Posek, of Tel Aviv. In his magazine HaPosek (for Tammuz, 5707, No. 85), he is asked whether a man who is remarried may say Yizkor for, or keep the Yahrzeit of, his first wife. He quotes the material mentioned above and answers in a firm negative, as do his predecessors. He says:

In order that peace may reign in the house, it is necessary to dispense with all customs such as Yizkor, eulogies [at tombstones], and visits to the grave. Let the children fulfill all these tasks. For all these reasons I have forbidden him [the enquirer] to observe Yahrzeit and I have ordered him to remove her [the first wife’s] picture from the walls of his house.

In the spirit of the unanimous tendency of all the above, the conclusion we should come to is clear. The remarried husband should not observe any memorial rites (Kaddish, Yizkor, et cetera) for his first wife. If, however, his first wife had no children and there is no one to say Kaddish for her, then the husband may say Kaddish in the absence of his second wife, but may have no Yahrzeit light in the house.

TRANSFER OF JEW TO CHRISTIAN CEMETERY

A Jewish man was married to a Catholic woman, who remained a Catholic. They have a child who has been raised as a Catholic and is a Catholic. The man died a number of years ago and he was buried in the Jewish cemetery in the plot of his family. His Catholic widow lives in a suburb. She is considering asking permission to have the body of her Jewish husband disinterred from his family plot in the Jewish cemetery, in order to have him buried in a Catholic cemetery in the neighborhood in which she lives. Is such disinterment permissible in Jewish law or custom? (From Vigdor W. Kavaler, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

THE laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (and possibly of other states also) give to a widow the right to determine in which cemetery her husband should be buried. This widow, four years ago, had decided that her husband, being Jewish, should be buried as a Jew in the Jewish cemetery and in the plot of his family in that cemetery. Now she has changed her mind and is thinking of having his body disinterred and reburied in a Catholic cemetery. Upon inquiry from a prominent lawyer, I have ascertained that the law is as yet not quite clear as to whether this legal right of a widow to determine the cemetery in which her husband should be buried is her lifelong right and that, therefore, she may decide to disinter him and move him as often as she pleases; or whether, on the other hand, having once exercised her right at the time of his death and having buried him in one place, her authority over the body has now ceased. Whichever way the law is, or will be decided at some later time, it is certain that the courts will take into consideration the regulations and laws of the cemetery in which he is now buried. The following recent court decision in Pennsylvania makes clear the necessity for a statement of Jewish law and tradition in the matter:

1. The rights of the surviving spouse and next of kin to control the disposition of the remains of the members of their family have been recognized in this Commonwealth. The paramount right is in the surviving husband or widow.

2. The reinterment involving the removal of the body to another locality is based upon a different rule of law, wherein the presumption is against a change or removal and will be permitted only in rare circumstances. It is a privilege to be accorded by a Court of Equity in the exercise of a sound and wise discretion.

The interest of the public is expressed in its public policy and the presumption is against removal.

3. Where restrictions are present, the court will give them due weight when not violative of the civil law.

It is therefore with regard to the regulations and laws of the Jewish cemetery that the following answer is directed. As a general principle, Jewish law and custom strongly object to any disinterment at all. The body, once buried, must be left undisturbed. This is clear in the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 363, which is headed: “The prohibition of removing the dead or his bones from their place.” The first paragraph states the law as follows: “We may not move the dead or the bones, neither from one honored grave to another, nor even from a less honored grave to a more honored grave, and certainly not from an honored grave to a less honored grave.” The basic objection is, however, modified by certain special exceptions. If, for example, the body has been buried in one cemetery with the clearly announced intention of later removing it to another cemetery, such disinterment would be permitted. Or it is permitted to move the body to a grave in the plot where his family is buried if the body had been buried in a separate grave, as the Shulchan Aruch says, “It is pleasing to a man to rest with his ancestors.” It is also permitted to move a body if it is now in some neglected place where the body might carelessly be disturbed. Such a body may be disinterred in order to be moved to a cemetery which is protected. It is always permitted to disinter a body in order to rebury it in the sacred soil of Palestine. Likewise, the great authority, Z’vi Ashkenazi, cited in the Pis-che Teshuva to this passage, declares that it is to the honor of the dead to be disinterred from a Gentile cemetery to a Jewish cemetery.

All these are specific exceptions to the firm general principle forbidding disinterment. Certainly, since it is deemed an honor for a Jew to be buried in a Jewish cemetery, it would not be permissible to remove him from a Jewish cemetery in order to be buried in a Gentile cemetery. Furthermore, since it is particularly “honorable” in a Jewish cemetery for a man “to rest with his fathers,” and since this man is already buried in the family plot “with his fathers,” it is certainly prohibited to disinter him, even to rebury him in some other Jewish cemetery. Therefore the request of the widow to move her husband from the family plot to a Christian cemetery is contrary both to the spirit and the letter of Jewish law and custom and cannot be permitted.