Qaddish

RR 165-168

Kaddish and Yahrzeit for a Child

A child died at the age of four. After the funeral the father asked whether he should observe mourning for the child, say Kaddish and keep the Yahrzeit.

Whether the regular mourning customs should be observed for a child has been widely discussed in the legal literature, but as yet the law is far from clear. There is a wide variety of opinions and even a divergence in the basic principles involved.

What is sure is the status of very young infants with regard to mourning. If an infant dies before it is thirty days old, it is considered equivalent to a stillbirth (Nefel). Therefore no regular funeral rites need be observed (cf. “Magan Abraham,” Orah Hayyim 526, n. 20).

A child who dies when older than thirty days must have the usual burial rites, but how much mourning should be observed is widely debated in the law. Basically, it is seriously questioned whether a father has any duty at all to say Kaddish for his son. The essential duty of saying Kaddish devolves upon a son for his father. All relatives other than sons who recite Kaddish do so not out of legal duty, but only by custom (see Isserles’ full note on the question of Kaddish at the end of Yore Deah 376). This opinion is based upon the statement in the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 104a) to the effect that a son can bring merit (and deliverance) to a father, but a father cannot “save” a son (i.e., in the judgment after death). Furthermore, according to the tradition, no one is subject to judgment after death before the age of twenty. If, then, Kaddish is for the sake of redeeming the departed, it is not even necessary if the departed had not reached the age of twenty! (See the question in Ezekiel Landau’s “Nodah b’Yehudah” II, Orah Hayyim #8.) However, Landau in his answer doubts the validity of the argument that a person who dies before twenty does not need to have Kaddish said for him; for if the argument were valid, then the orphan children of a young father who dies before he is twenty would not need to say Kaddish for him, which, of course, is not so. Nevertheless, most of the opinions agree that anyone under twenty does not need Kaddish said in his behalf. (Cf. Joseph Schwartz, “Vayitzbor Yosef,” #21.)

But there are strong psychological reasons involved in the saying of Kaddish and the keeping of Yahrzeit. These psychological reasons go beyond the legalistic denials of a father’s duty to say Kaddish for a son and the notions about a person under twenty not needing the redemptive effect of Kaddish. There is a strong emotional need in a parent to say Kaddish for a son. Therefore, in spite of the law, the custom arose for a father to say Kaddish. However, this is recognized as being only a custom. Therefore, in the numerous disputes between a number of mourners in a synagogue as to who has the right to recite Kaddish (and, for example, the orphan’s right to recite the Haftara or to lead the Saturday evening services), it is always stated that orphans have the right to protest the privilege given to a father, since his Kaddish is not required by law. (Cf. Jacob Reischer, Shevus Ya’acov, II, Yore Deah 93, and Beth Lechem Yehuda, Z’vi H. Azriel, of Vilna [eighteenth century], to Yore Deah 376.)

However, all this indicates that the custom has been firmly established for a father to say Kaddish for his son. But how old must the deceased child be for the father to say Kaddish? Since this is merely custom, not law, it is not surprising that the customs vary.Chaim Cheskia Medini (“S’de Chemed,” Avelus 151) cites (with disapproval) the custom not to say Kaddish for a child who died unmarried. Nissim Ashkenazi (“Ma’aseh Avraham,” #59) says that the custom in Smyrna is not to say Kaddish unless the child was Bar Mitzvah (except, of course, the Kaddish at the grave). Isserles says that it should be said only if the child was twelve months old (Yore Deah 344 : 4). Medini says (loc. cit.) that Kaddish should be said if the child had reached the age of understanding and intelligence.

Clearly, the state of law and custom allows the parents to make their own decision. If the child was to them an intelligent personality, or if they feel the need to say Kaddish and keep the Yahrzeit, then, although it is not strictly required of them, they may certainly do so.

RRR 132-138

Kaddish for Apostates and Gentiles

A woman had resigned from the synagogue and had become a Unitarian. When she died, her sister (who had remained a member of the synagogue) asked whether she should say Kaddish for her. (From Rabbi David Polish, Chicago, Illinois)

The Christian wife of a Jew had died. Should he say Kaddish for her? (From Rabbi Nathan Kaber, Altoona, Pennsylvania)

A widow had a husband who was half-Jewish. He had not been affiliated with any Jewish congregation. Yet he bequeathed his home to the temple. The widow now wants to have her husband’s name included in the congregations Kaddish list. Should this be done? (From Rabbi Norman Diamond, Springfield,Ohio)

Each of these questions has its special complications. With regard to the Unitarian the problem is: What is the Jewish status of this woman? Does the fact that she had joined a Unitarian church make her an apostate? After all, she added no deity to her Jewish belief in the One God. Furthermore, may the fact that she had asked to be buried in a Jewish cemetery indicate repentance of whatever trace of apostasy may have been involved? (For a specific discussion of the status of Jewish-born Unitarians, see supra, responsum 10.)

With regard to the man who was half-Jewish, if it was his mother who was Jewish, then he is fully a Jew, since in mixed marriages the child has the status of the mother. If the mother was Gentile, he is a Gentile.

Behind all these complications there is a clear and basic question: May we say Kaddish for, first, an apostate, or, secondly, for a born Gentile who never was connected with Judaism?

Concerning the apostate, he is involved in special laws with regard to his burial. The laws are derived from the Talmud (in b. Sanhedrin 46c) that relatives should not mourn for those who had been sentenced by the court. This was fixed and developed as a law in the tractate Semachot 2, that we should not concern ourselves with one who “goes aside from the path of the community” (eyn misaskin imohem). This is embodied as law in the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 345 : 5. Of course the question still is: What does it mean when we say we should not be concerned with them? Generally the commentators take it to mean that we do not give them the full ritual, such as standing in the line of mourners, or giving eulogies, and so forth; but even the strict Moses Sofer, of Pressburg, says that nevertheless we must provide a burial place for them in our cemeteries (see his responsum, Yore Deah 341). However, should we say Kaddish for them?

This question, whether we should say Kaddish for them, has its precedent during the time when Marranos were escaping from Spain and there was often a different religious status between the generations in one family. We might combine this question with the clearer question, namely: Should we say Kaddish for a non-Jew, who was not an apostate since he had never been a Jew? This too can be, and is, a practical question. It can come up in the case of a man converted to Judaism whose father remains a non Jew. May the Jewish son say Kaddish for that Gentile father? Let us, therefore, deal with the fundamental problem, beginning first with the question of whether to say Kaddish for an apostate, and then of whether one may say Kaddish for a Gentile.

The question as to apostates, which arose first in the sixteenth century with regard to the Marranos, is itself based upon an older Talmudic precedent.

Rabbi Meir, in the many legends told about him and the famous apostate Elisha ben Abuyah (Asher) in b. Chagiga 15 b , made great effort to redeem the soul of this apostate from Ge-hinnom and to bring him into Paradise. Since the purpose of the Kaddish is the redemption of the father, and since the dictum is quoted in discussions of the Kaddish, “The son brings merit to the father,” therefore the precedent of Rabbi Meir is used in the discussion of whether a Jewish son may do merit, i.e., redeem his apostate father by saying Kaddish for him. This question came as a practical inquiry before Rabbi David Cohen, of the Island of Corfu, in the sixteenth century. In his Responsa (section 30) the situation dealt with was as follows:

A Marrano, escaping from Portugal, never succeeded in reaching a Jewish community. His son, however, was successful and returned to Judaism. Now the father was murdered and died while still a Christian. Should the Jewish son say Kaddish for him? David Cohen says: “In my humble opinion, at a quick glance, it would seem that this matter does not require a scholar to decide it [phrase from b. Baba Metzia 101a, often used when the answer to a question is obvious]. Certainly this mourner, whose father was slain as an apostate, must say Kaddish among the other mourners on the basis of the Talmudic principle (b. Sanhedrin 44a) that even though one has sinned (i.e., the father) he is still a Jew. Note that Achan (Joshua 7) transgressed against the entire Torah, yet even so they called him an Israelite. . . . Clearly, then, a son should do all he can to earn merit for his father, even if his father had been a ‘provocative’ apostate. For behold, Ahaz (the father of Hezekiah) was a provocative idolater and did all the evil things which God hates. Nevertheless, his son Hezekiah dragged his bones [to the grave, as a mark of pennance] in order that he should attain atonement (Pesachim 56a). For this the rabbis praised him. If this would not have done Ahaz any good, Hezekiah would not have done it and the rabbis would not have praised him.”

Moses Isserles, in his commentary, “Darke Moshe” to the Tur (Yore Deah 376), says that a son should say Kaddish for an apostate father, but not if that father died a natural death; only if the father was slain should the child say Kaddish for him, since the slaying was a means to atonement, for the father certainly would have repented before he was slain. Isserles repeats this opinion in his commen-tary to the Shulchan Aruch (same reference). The commentators to the Shulchan Aruch, Taz and Schach, at this point underline Isserles’s limitation that the Kaddish be said only if the father is slain. However, Solomon Eger, son of Akiba Eger, in “Gilion Maharsha,” says that if the deceased apostate has no other mourners, then the one mourner should say Kaddish for him even if he was not slain but died on his bed.

Abraham Teomim (Galician rabbi, end of the nineteenth century) in his responsa “Chesed L’Avrohom,” Tinyana, Yore Deah 84, says that if the father is slain, the son is in duty bound to say Kaddish, but if the father dies on his bed, the son is not in duty bound but he is not prohibited from saying it. And he adds, “There certainly can be no prohibition to utter this praise to the Almighty [i.e., the Kaddish].”

All this applies to an apostate father. But what if the father was bom a Gentile and remained a Gentile? May his Jewish son (who had converted to Judaism) say Kaddish for him? It is possible to take the point of view that the Jewish son should not say Kaddish for the Gentile father. The general description in the Talmud of the relationship of a convert to his Gentile relatives is that they are no longer his relatives at all. “A convert is like a new-born child” (Yevamoth 22a), which means that entering Judaism is like a new birth and all his past life does not (legally) exist. He has no relatives any more. Of course, this general principle added to the respect in which the proselyte was held because it declared that he is not the same person who once was a pagan. Yet the principle could not be applied in the practicalities of daily life. For example, since he is new-born, then his pagan relatives are no longer his relatives. He therefore could legally now marry his sister! Yet the Talmud (ibid.) says that if this were permitted, it would be said that paganism (which he had abandoned) was more sacred or moral than the Judaism he has entered.

The same situation occurs with regard to a proselyte saying Kaddish for his Gentile father. Since by the general Tahnudic principle he is new-born, his Gentile parents are not related to him any more, and therefore he need not say Kaddish for them. Indeed, this is the conclusion to which Maimonides comes (Yad, “Hilchos Avel” II: 3) and from Maimonides it is carried over to the Shulchan Aruch (Yore Deah 374:5).

This background of the law is dealt with by Aaron Walkin, Rabbi of Pinsk-Karlin, in a responsum written in 1933. He believes that in spite of Maimonides’s negative opinion mentioned above, a proselyte may say Kaddish for his Gentile father. He calls attention to the fact that Maimonides himself (in “Hilchos Mamrin” V : 11) says that a proselyte must honor his Gentile father, and gives the same reason which the Talmud (in Yevamoth, ibid.) gave as to marrying his close Gentile kin, namely, that it should not be said that a proselyte has left a more sacred religion than he has entered. Therefore Rabbi Walkin concludes that since Kaddish is an expression of a son’s honoring his deceased father, this proselyte should say Kaddish.

Walkin begins by an argument a fortiori: If a son may say Kaddish for his Jewish-born apostate father who had willfully deserted Judaism, then certainly a proselyte son may say Kaddish for a Gentile father who is naturally following the religion in which he was brought up.

In the Responsa of Abraham Zvi Klein, rabbi in Hungary during the past century (“Beerot Avraham” 11), the author is asked whether we may accept a gift for the synagogue from a Gentile woman. He answers that we may do so. Then he is asked whether we may pray for her, which she had requested. To this his answer is that of course we may, and he gives the following reasons: In the temple in Jerusalem they sacrificed seventy oxen in behalf of the seventy nations. Further, it is accepted by all Israel that the righteous of all nations have a portion in the world to come. In b. Gittin 60a, we learn that for the sake of peace we should visit the sick of Gentiles and bury their dead. When Maimonides records this law in chapter 10 of his “Hilchos Melachim,” he adds: “For the Lord is good to all and His tender mercies are over all His works.” So there is no prohibition against recording her name and her good deed in the Hevra Kaddisha, and we should recite an El Mole Rachamim for her on Yiskor days.

Thus, while there is not very much discussion on this matter in the legal literature, yet whoever discussed the answer is in the affirmative. There may be some opinions in the negative but I have not seen them. It seems clear that, according to the law, you are completely justified (as Rabbi Teomim said) “to utter this praise of God” in honor of a deceased Christian or apostate.

(Based upon the responsum originally written for the Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook, Vol. LXVII, 1957.)

RRR 217-219

Kaddish and the Three Steps Backward

What is the origin and the purpose of the custom of concluding the Kaddish by taking three steps back ward? (From Rabbi Nathan Kaber, Altoona, Pennsylvania)

It is clear that taking three steps backward at the close of the Kaddish while reciting the verse from Job 25 : 2, “He who maketh peace in the high places” (Osay Shalom), is a required practice. The Shulchan Aruch in Orah Hayyim 5 6: 5 says that the reader of the Kaddish before the Borchu must do so. This practice applies to every form of the Kaddish recited by the reader and the form of the Kaddish recited by the orphan. However, the Shulchan Aruch gives no explanation as to why the reader or the orphan must take these three steps backward.

A hint as to the reason is found in the responsa of Israel Isserlein (fourteenth century), “Terumas Ha-deshen” 15. Isserlein discusses the question of the reader taking three steps backward, and during the discussion makes some mention of the similar custom with regard to the close of the Shemoneh Esray, where the worshiper, at the conclusion of the Shemoneh Esray, when he comes to the above verse from Job (Osay Shalom) takes three steps backward. Also, Elijah of Vilna, in his notes to the Shulchan Aruch, com pares the reader’s three steps backward at the close of the Kaddish to the three steps backward taken after the Shemoneh Esray.

Now it is clear that the three steps backward is easily understood as a practice for the formal close of the Shemoneh Esray. The Shemoneh Esray is a standing prayer, during which the worshiper must remain “rooted” in one spot. During the prayer he may (and must) bow at certain times, but must not move from his place. When the Shemoneh Esray is over, he must definitely mark its close by uprooting himself (oker es raglov). Rabbi Alexander in the Talmud (b. Yoma 53b) says that when he “uproots himself,” i.e., moves backward, he makes the greeting of peace, the analogy to a man taking leave from a king, and so forth; that is to say, he steps backward from the Royal Presence and utters the blessing of peace.

Obviously, then, for some reason the stepping backward and the greeting of peace which the Talmud appropriately required for the close of the Shemoneh Esray were transferred by analogy to the conclusion of the Kaddish. Why should this have been done? Baer in his Prayer Book, p. 130, indicates the reason. The true end of the Tefillah for the reader comes after the additional prayers which follow the Shemoneh Esray. Even the Torah reading is deemed to be appended to the Shemoneh Esray. After these appendages are finished, the reader recites the full Kaddish, which is the close of his Shemoneh Esray. In order to make his Shemoneh Esray end with the stepping backward (from the Divine Presence) the custom arose to end that reader’s Kaddish with three steps backward. That this seems to be correct is seen from the fact that the verse from Job, Osay Shalom, is merely a Hebrew parallel to the previous sentence with which the Kaddish already ends, namely, Y’he Sh’lomo Rabba. Why was the Osay Shalom added to the Kaddish when it merely repeats the thought with which the Kaddish already ends? Obviously, the addition of Osay Shalom was to make a complete parallel between the closing of the reader’s Shemoneh Esray, and the closing of the worshiper’s Shemoneh Esray, which already ends that way.

In brief, the answer to the inquiry is that originally the Talmud required the three steps backward and the sentence of peace as an end to the Shemoneh Esray. Then, to give the reader the same sort of impressive ending to his Shemoneh Esray, the sentence Osay Shalom was added to his Kaddish so that he, too, could take three steps backward. From this Kaddish it spread to all other recitations of the Kaddish.

RRR 14-18

Kaddish When Worshiping Alone

It often happens that an older person no longer can come to the synagogue; or, a sick person is confined to the hospital room or to the home. Such people fre quently read the service in the prayerbook. Occasion ally, when it is the yahrzeit of a parent or another close relative, such worshipers wish to say the Kaddish. Is it permissible to say the Kaddish without a quorum (minyan) of the congregation?

Precisely this question was asked of the Chaplaincy Committee of the Jewish Welfare Board during wartime. Soldiers on lonely duty—for example, coast guardsmen patrolling isolated sections of the coast—wished to say Kaddish on the yahrzeit of their parents. The answer that we gave was based upon an analogy between the Kaddish and the Tefillah. We said: “Just as in the case of the Tefillah, it is preferable to say it with the congregation and yet it is permitted to be said silently alone, so the Kaddish, which is primarily part of the congregational response, may also be recited silently alone.” Because it was wartime, we did not go into the full discussion of the propriety of saying Kaddish in personal worship, but were content with this general analogy. It was for that reason that we felt impelled to add that if the soldier or sailor would write to our Committee, giving the name of the relative and the date of ydhrzeit, we would arrange to have Kaddish said in one of our civilian congregations.

Our answer then was perhaps adequate for the special purpose and circumstance, but now that the question comes up in peacetime, it requires closer analysis.

In general, we can say, as we told the inquiring soldier, that Kaddish can be said for the deceased even in the absence of the mourner. This is true especially in our modern congregations where we recite Kaddish together. We all understand that the Kaddish is in honor not only of those mentioned by name, but of the other deceased whose ydhrzeit is being observed by members of the congregation. In addition, if, as in many of our congregations, the name of the departed is read before the Kaddish, then arrangements can be made to have the name commemorated by being included in the list. But even without this, the Kaddish is meant for all the departed kin of the congrega-tion. If, therefore, this shut-in does not say Kaddish at all, he may take it for granted that the Kaddish recited in the congregation that week is in reference also to those whom he would wish to commemorate.

Nevertheless, the very fact that this inquiry has been made indicates that there are some who would like to say Kaddish themselves, even though they cannot attend the services. May they do so?

The law is clear in the Shulchan Aruch that Kaddish is one of those sacred parts of the ritual (Davar She B ‘Kedusha) which cannot be recited with fewer than ten people present. The Shulchan Aruch, in Orah Hayyim 54 : 1, says that we do not say Kaddish except in the presence of ten adult males and that this applies to the Kedusha and to the Borchu. The importance of the minyan for the saying of the Kaddish and so forth can be seen from the rule in Orah Hayyim 55 : 7: namely, that if a person is praying alone in the synagogue, and the others have prayed in unison, they must wait until he is finished so he can participate in the Kedusha and the Kaddish with them. Of course, there are some minor mitigations of the rule requiring a quorum of ten. If, for example, the relevant part of the service was begun with a full minyan and then somebody left, the incomplete minyan can nevertheless recite the Kaddish and the Kedusha and so on. Also, where people have been praying alone as individuals in the synagogue, they may be joined together for a shortened form of the service (Poreys Al Shema) so that they can hear the Kaddish and the Kedusha (see Orah Hayyim 69).

In fact, what seems to be most important about the Kaddish is not even its recitation but the congregational response to its recitation by the leader. The Talmud tells, in Berachos 3a, that when Israel enters the synagogue and responds to the Kaddish with the phrase, “May His great Name be blessed” (Yhay Sh’may Rahba), God Himself nods approval. (See also die statement of Joshua ben Levi in b. Shabbas If, then, a minyan is required specifically for the Kedusha and the Kaddish, and if an important part of the Kaddish is the congregational response, then it would be clearly contrary to the laws and traditions of the service for an individual to recite it when praying alone. People very often prayed alone at home, but when they did, they omitted the Kedusha and the Kaddish; and when, during the w 119 b.)eek of mourning, the mourners could not go to the synagogue and needed to recite the Kaddish, a minyan of friends gathered to make it possible.

Moreover, from the practical point of view, we certainly should not encourage people to recite the Kaddish at home. The Shulchan Aruch tells us (Orah Hayyim 55 : 22) that it is the duty of members of the community to exert pressure upon each other so that there should always be a minyan in the synagogue. There often has been difficulty gathering a regular minyan, especially in the smaller cities. Great effort was expended to make possible the privilege of pub he worship, and it was a frequent enough practice to hire men for a minyan that the law takes cognizance of it (ibid.). Now in modern times the feeling of piety at the yahrzeit date is one of the justifiable motives which urges people to come to public worship. It would surely not be for the good of Judaism if we weakened this motivation and allowed the spread of the custom of saying Kaddish on the yahrzeit at home.

Nevertheless, there are certainly special cases which deserve consideration, namely, sick people or aged people, to whom it would be of great consolation if they themselves could say Kaddish in their home worship. Is this in any way possible without encouraging the practice? It is noteworthy that the Orphan’s Kaddish is not the only form of Kaddish recited. The cantor himself recites four forms of Kaddish in the regular traditional worship. Then there is a Kaddish which is not at all part of the public worship, the Kaddish of Scholars (Kaddish di Rabbanon). After the day’s study was completed, the scholars present recited the Kaddish.

How many scholars need to be present to permit the recitation of this Scholar’s Kaddish? Originally it is presumed that it required ten, as with the Kaddish in the services. But soon it was taken for granted that fewer than ten could recite it after their study. Abraham Abele Gom biner (Magen Avraham to Orah Hayyim 69, end of para-graph 4) says that even if two or three have completed their study, they may recite the Kaddish. Judah Greenwald, in his responsa “Zichron Judah” (vol. I, no. 24), cites this with approbation and tells of the famous Hungarian rabbi, Maharam Moses Schick, who, when asked by a single student who had finished his studies whether he might not recite Kaddish alone, insisted that there should be at least two students present.

At all events, it is clear that the requirement of a minyan of ten does not apply to the Kaddish recited after study. If the person in whose behalf the inquiry is made is eager to recite the Kaddish and cannot come to the synagogue, which would be preferable, then let him study a chapter in the Bible and recite the Kaddish after it. Of course, the title Rabbi’s Kaddish indicates that this was meant to follow the study of rabbinical literature, but we need not be quite so strict about it. Incidentally, the form of Kaddish which we use in our Reform service is much closer in text to the Scholar’s Kaddish than to any of the others. Note also that Eliezer Deutsch, of Bonyhad, an authority especially on matters of mourning, says that the Yiskor (memorial prayer on holidays) may be recited by an individual without a minyan (“Duda’ye Ha-Sodeh” 12).

CURR 180-181

SOME KADDISH CUSTOMS

How old is the custom of reading the names of those whose Yahrzeit comes up during the week? Is there a traditional basis for hiring somebody to say Kaddish for the deceased? (From Rabbi Wolli Kaelter, Long Beach, California.)

As to the first question, our Reform congregations, at least up to the last thirty years, had the custom of reading the names of the deceased and the Yahrzeits as part of the Kaddish. Later some large congregations abandoned the practice simply because there were too many names to be read each week. Others, in order to keep the sense of Yahrzeit from fading from our people, are experimenting with informing the members of the Yahrzeit and reading the names of the deceased whose relatives have signified their intention to be present at the service. Other congregations, usually smaller ones, continue the older Reform custom of reading the names as part of the Kaddish. The question that is asked is: Does this reading of the names have any basis in the Jewish tradition?

Clearly this custom of ours is related to Yizkor or haskoras neshomos. The haskoras neshomos, as all scholars agree, began in the Rhineland after the Crusades. It was conducted on Yom Kippur and obviously the names of the martyrs were read, because we still have lists extant of the martyrs. The Rhineland congregations kept a Memor Buch, obviously for this purpose.

Then the custom of haskoras neshomos was extended in eastern Europe from Yom Kippur, also to the last day of each of the three festivals (cf. Isserles to Orah Hayyim 284:7). The question now is whether on these Yizkor services during the year a list of names was ever read (as we do at Memorial Services and as some of our congregations do at Sabbath services). First, we know that in eastern Europe there is a custom that lists of names of the deceased are read. There is a discussion of the whole question in Greenwald, Kol Bo Al Avelus, p. 339 and then later on p. 400 ff. Maharash Engel was asked the following question in his Responsa V, 24: There is a custom in many congregations that if a person leaves money to the Chevra Kadisha for this purpose, his name is read on the holidays and a light is lit on his Yahrzeit. The question asked of Engel was, since oil is now expensive (it was during the First World War) may they light one light and read a whole list of names of those whose Yahrzeit it is that week? He gives this permission, but adds that we must be sure that the names of all the donors should be read whose Yahrzeit it is. Solomon Schick, in his Responsa Rashban (Orah Hayyim 213) speaks of reading all the names in a memorial list and says it is not necessary (as some claim) to list the men and the women separately.

Now all this concerns either the Yizkor at holidays or the Yahrzeit day of the deceased. Could such memorial services take place on the Sabbath? Yes, for those who died during the week (Maharil quoted by Beer Heteb, Orah Hayyim 284). There is no question that they may (see Kol Bo 339, 13, which gives various references to this effect; cf. also Azulai Birche Joseph to Orah Hayyim 284:15). However, this is not quite our custom. The names of the dead mentioned were always in the regular Yizkor place, after the Torah reading in connection with the general memorial prayer, av horachamim, never in connection with the Kaddish, as is our custom.

Therefore it seems clear that our custom of reading memorial names on the Sabbath in the Kaddish is original with Reform, but it has these many roots, as is mentioned above.

Now, as to the second question, how far back the custom can be traced of hiring somebody to say Kaddish (this will occur especially with families in which there are no sons surviving). The earliest statement I have found on this goes back to the fourteenth century. Jochanan ben Mattathias who was virtually the last rabbi in Paris before the expulsion (i.e., fourteenth century) is quoted by Joseph Caro in his Bes Josef to Yore Deah 403, and he speaks of people hiring a melamed to say Kaddish. Later references are fairly numerous (Magen Avraham, Orah Hayyim 132:2, near end). For example, it is discussed by Ezekiel Landau of Prague in his Responsa Nodah b’Yehuda, II, 8. Finally there is a full discussion of the whole question in Israel, in the magazine Ha-Posek, published by the late Rabbi of Tel Aviv, Hillel Posek. The question arose because the shammas of a Shul in Tel Aviv was hired to say Kaddish for as many as ten people at a time. Therefore he asked David Assaf, who is rabbi of Haifa and has written a book on funeral customs, whether this situation should not be changed. In the magazine Ha-Posek, beginning with paragraph 780, he has a long responsum which covers all the literature. He does mention, however, that while the custom is well founded among us Ashkenazim, the Sephardic Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel (in his Mishpotey Uziel, Orah Hayyim 2) objects to it on the ground that no one should take pay for what is a mitzvah. At all events, it is a well established custom.

What is the basis for the folk custom of sitting shiva for a child who has converted to Christianity? (Asked by Rabbi Morris M. Task, Bayonne, New Jersey)

The basic source of the custom is in a statement in Isaac of Vienna’s Or Zorua (twelfth century). In the laws of mourning (at the end of the volume, 428) he transmits a report that Rabbenu Gershom (the Light of the Exile) sat shiva for his son who was a convert to Christianity. This statement is quoted by a number of the early authorities and I give you the references for completeness’ sake: The Mordecai to Moed Katan 886, Meir of Rothenberg in his Responsa (edited Budapest, 544) and a later authority, Joseph Caro in his Bes Josef to Tur, Yore Deah 354. In all these references the authorities cited are careful to say that the law is not according to Rabbenu Gershom. Now, therefore, if the original reference to Rabbenu Gershom in Or Zorua meant actually that Rabbenu Gershom sat shiva when his son was converted (i.e., because of the conversion) even so, the chief authorities say that this is not the law.

However, a careful reading of the texts reveals that there is a misunderstanding. Rabbenu Gershom did not sit shiva when and because his son became an apostate. What he did was to sit shiva for his son when the son died, in spite of the fact that the son had become an apostate years before. That this is the meaning of the passage in Or Zorua is clear from the following: All the discussions in Or Zorua itself and in the later sources which quote the incident, quote it in the following setting: The tractate Semachos, Chapter II, says that we must have no mourning of any kind for sinners and those who abandon the community. Therefore the law is that there must be no mourning, i.e., no shiva, etc., for apostates. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Gershom sat shiva for his apostate son when the son died, and the authorities all say that we do not follow his precedent. In other words, we do not sit shiva when an apostate dies.

How did the misunderstanding of the passage in Or Zorua arise? Why was it wrongly taken to mean that Rabbenu Gershom sat shiva when the son was still alive but had converted? This was due to a peculiarity of the text in Or Zorua. It says that Rabbenu Gershom sat shiva for his son, K’sh’nish-tamede. Obviously, as Chones indicates in Toldos Haposkim, page 208, the text should read “sh’nish-tamede. ” All the relevant contexts prove this (see Mordecai to Moed Katan 886). The incident, therefore, is that when Rabbenu Gershom’s son, an apostate, died, he sat shiva for him, which he should not have done. The wording of the text led people to the erroneous belief that he sat shiva for his son while the son was still alive and had just converted.

TRR 99-102

OMITTING THE BURIAL QADISH

QUESTION:

At a burial that I recently attended, at the close of the funeral ceremonies, the rabbi omitted reciting the qadish. I asked him why and he answered that the Hebrew prayer which he did recite would serve as a substitute for the qadish. Why was the qadish omitted? (Asked by a member)

ANSWER:

The prayer which the rabbi recited in place of the garfish was in all likelihood the el malei rahamim, “0 God of mercy,” but just why the rabbi omitted saying the qadish at the close of the funeral involves a rather many-sided question in Jewish law.

Whether the qadish at the close of the funeral is recited or not depends essentially on the mode of the final disposal of the body. As to that question, the Shulkhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 376:4, is quite definite. It states that after the grave has been filled with earth, the mourners recite the qadish. Orthodox scholars take this to be a sine qua non: in other words, if the body is not lowered into the grave and the grave not filled with earth, it is taken as law by Orthodox scholars that the qadish may not be recited.

This brings Orthodoxy into confrontation with many new modern practices. A number of these disapproved modern practices are dealt with by Greenwald, in his compendium, Kol Bo Al Avelut. On page 213, note 10, he is asked by a colleague concerning the following practice. He says that a custom of the Reformers has been adopted by some Orthodox Jews in his community (Hartford, Connecticut) according to which the coffin is placed over the grave, covered with a blanket of flowers, the coffin is then somewhat lowered, and qadish is recited. Greenwald directs his colleague to be firm, not to yield to this Reform custom, and that since the grave has not been filled with earth, as the Shulhan Arukh directs, he should send the mourners home and not recite the qadish at all.

Another modernist practice to which Greenwald objects is the encasing of the wooden coffin in a concrete outer coffin and that lowered into the grave. He believes that even if the grave is then filled, qadish should not be recited because the concrete is meant to keep the body from decaying, thus violating the commandment: “Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return” (Genesis 3:19).

A third modern practice to which Orthodox authorities object is discussed by Abraham Yudelevitch, in his smaller work, Av Behohmah. (It is the last responsum in the book.) The modem practice here objected to is placing the body permanently in a niche in a mausoleum. In discussing the reason for the prohibition, Yudelevitch cites the classic discussion in Sanhedrin 46b as to atonement for all sins being achieved by the burial of the body, and he cites Rashi to the passage that it is to bring atonement. Of course, Yudelevitch must deal with the fact that the Talmud speaks of a “built-up” or erected grave (kever shel binyan). This, he says, does not mean anything like the mausoleum built like a house above the ground, but meant a deep excavation lined with masonry in the ground. Of course, one might call attention to the fact that in ancient times in Palestine, bodies were generally buried in niches in caves, but of course the cave was a natural part of the earth.

It was learned that the funeral mentioned in the question was a cremation; and cremation, too, was a modem practice which has aroused Orthodox objection, leading undoubtedly in this case to the omission of the qadish. Nevertheless, while Orthodox law objects to cremation altogether, Orthodox opinion is not quite clear as to the disposal of the ashes and the burial of them in the cemetery. David Hoffmann, in his Melamed CHoil, Yoreh Deah 113, says that while it is not obligatory to bury the ashes in the cemetery, it is not forbidden to do so. As a matter of fact, the Rabbi of Leghorn, Italy, Elijah ben Amozegh, in his work, Ya-anei Vaesh, declares that it is in fact a duty to bury the ashes of the cremated (see the full discussion in Current Reform Responsa, p. 145). Of course if (as some people do) the ashes are kept in an urn and not buried, that would further complicate the question.

To sum up: The strict law in the Shulhan Arukh requires earth burial and the grave filled up before qadish is recited. Hence strict Orthodox authorities will disapprove of reciting qadish if the coffin is merely hidden under a blanket of flowers; or if the coffin is put in a concrete casing, or if it is placed in a niche in a mausoleum or if the body has been cremated. But of course Reform congregations and other modernist congregations have established a custom of saying qadish at the close of every type of funeral.

ARR 377-379

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

118. Kaddish

(1980)

QUESTION: What is the origin of the Kaddish? For what length of time should the surviving family recite Kaddish? For whom is it obligatory to recite Kaddish?

ANSWER: The most frequently recited prayer of the traditional synagogue service is the Kaddish. It was originally not a prayer commemorating the dead, but a great doxology which served as a way of separating various segments of the service (Ismar Elbogen, Der Juedische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 1924, pp. 92ff). It was also used at the conclusion of segments of the study of Rabbinic literature, and only later became a prayer recited at the burial service.

Originally, the Kaddish was recited as the congregational response to a sermonic discourse with the main emphasis on the words “Yehe Shemeh Rabba…” (Sota 49a), and so the Talmud knew the Kaddish by these words (“May His great name be praised”). It seems, therefore, that the origin of the Kaddish lies in Beit Midrash (house of study) rather than in the synagogue (J. Heinemann, Hatefila Bitkufat Hatana-im Veha-emora-im, p. 173, and “The Background of Jesus’ Prayer in the Jewish Liturgy,” The Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy, ed. J. Petuchowski and M. Brocke, pp. 81ff).

The first connection between the Kaddish and the mourner came about in the following fashion: At the conclusion of the Musaf service on Shabbat, the leader of the congregation would comfort the mourners and then recite the Kaddish (Soferim 19.12). However, we do not find the Kaddish recited by mourners themselves till the 13th century (Machzor Vitry, ed. Horvitz, p. 74). Isaac Or Zarua stated that this was customary in Bohemia and the Rhineland, but not in France (Or Zarua, 754). The practice of reciting Kaddish for the dead may have been influenced by a medieval Midrash which stated that such a prayer could help the soul after death (Seder Eliyahu Zuta, ed. Friedmann, p. 23, note 52; Menorat Hama-or 1.1).

It became customary to recite the Kaddish for an entire year following death, as the Talmud stated that the piety of a son could help the deceased father or grandfather (Sanh. 104a); therefore, sons were to be instructed to say the Kaddish properly (Sefer Chasidim, ed. Margolis, 722). It was felt that the tortures of the nether world could last twelve months (Mishna, Eduyot II.10; R.H. 17a). Both thoughts together led to the recital of the Kaddish by a son for twelve months (Kol Bo, 114). Eventually, that custom was changed to a recital of only eleven months, as the Mishna just cited asserted that the wicked are judged for a year, and no one wished to imply that his/her parents were wicked (Isserles to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 376.4; Aruch Hashulchan, 376.15). Most Reform congregations have rejected this line of reasoning and returned to a recital of the Kaddish for twelve months (Gates of Mitzvah, p. 62).

At first, only a son recited Kaddish for his dead father, but, according to Ashkenazic custom, a daughter was similarly permitted to recite Kaddish (Chavat Chemed, 60). Isserles stated that in some places it was customary to recite Kaddish for all of one’s dead kin (to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a, 376.4). Certainly, this would extend to the seven relatives for whom one would observe mourning. They are: father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, and husband or wife (Lev. 21:2 provided a primary list which was expanded in Mo-ed Katan 20b; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a, 374.4). Some would extend this list even further, and, certainly, we could agree that it may be so extended as prompted by individual feelings. We would include scholars or people who had particular influence on an individual’s life.

In some communities it has become customary for the entire congregation to stand and recite the Kaddish in commemoration of the martyrs of the Holocaust. Kaddish for the dead should be recited at daily services at the synagogue whenever such services are held on a regular basis, privately at home, or at the weekly synagogue services, for a period of twelve months (Isserles to Sh.A., Yoreh De-a, 376.4).

Traditionally, the recitation of Kaddish has required a Minyan (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, 55.1), as public prayer was preferred over private prayer (Sh.A., Orach Chayim 90.9). It

emphasized the presence of the Shechina in a community of worshippers. During the period of mourning, the presence of a congregation will help overcome sorrow. By reciting Kaddish in a congregation, “we declare the merit of those whose parting we mourn, that they have instilled in us loyalty to God and devotion to His service and the serene acceptance of His Will, so that in the presence of the congregation when we think of the departed, we praise God’s Name in serenity of heart” (S.B. Freehof, Reform Jewish Practice, vol. I, p. 170). It is for this reason that friends of the family will join in a service (with or without a Minyan) at the house of mourning during the Shiv-a (Gates of Mitzvah, pp. 62ff). The year of regular Kaddish recital begins with these services.

The prayer–as a doxology–praises God, and thereby lets the mourner reaffirm his faith in God despite all that has happened. It has become a prayer which expresses acceptance, loyalty, and devotion to God, and as such has become part of every Jewish service throughout the world. The Kaddish may, therefore, be appropriately repeated by all at any and every service; and any worshiper may stand during its recital. This is especially appropriate if done in commemoration of the Holocaust. Through this prayer, we express sorrow for unknown martyrs who have died and sympathy toward friends who have suffered bereavement.
Walter Jacob, Chairman

Leonard S. Kravitz

Eugene Lipman

W. Gunther Plaut

Harry A. Roth

Rav A. Soloff

Bernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 387-390

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

**123. A Proselyte Reciting Kaddish for Deceased Parents**

(Vol. LXV, 1955, pp. 90-91)QUESTION: A woman of my congregation, who had been officially converted to Judaism, requested that the names of her deceased parents be read before the Kaddish, on the occasion of the Yahrzeit. A member of my Board desired to know whether traditional law would favor such a practice.ANSWER: To the Rabbinic view of the proselyte and his parentage, there are two aspects–a theoretical and a practical one. Theoretically, the convert is a new-born babe. The old self has been replaced by a new self (Yevamot 48a). In practice, however, when confronted by a real situation, the Rabbis flung their theory aside. They permitted a proselyte to exercise the right of inheritance upon the death of his parents (Demai 6.10). They also imposed upon the proselyte the obligation to honor his natural parents, holding him responsible for any misconduct toward them (Yoreh De-a 241). The Rabbis, it would seem, had too keen a sense of the real and the practical to follow slavishly their own theories. There is no good reason, therefore, why we should not be as realistic and practical as the Rabbis of old and permit the converted woman to give full expression to her filial sentiment and obligation.Israel Bettan

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 186-188

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

**124. Qaddish for a Pet**

QUESTION:

A pet of a family quite active in the congregation has died; the entire family has been very

much attached to it for years. They would, therefore, like to recite qaddish for it. What

does Jewish tradition say about this use of the qaddish? (A. S., West

Virginia)ANSWER The indulgence of pets, a recent American phenomenon, was

unknown in earlier times. Animals played an important economic role in Biblical times, but there

was no discussion of them beyond the need to treat them decently and kindly. For example, the

commandment which deals with Sabbath rest insisted that animals rest along with man (Ex.

20.10). They are servants of man, but on a lower level. Some were not seen in a complimentary

light, so dogs were mentioned disparagingly. For example, Goliath spoke of David when that lad

was sent against him; “Am I a dog that you come against me with sticks?” (I Samuel 17.43).

When Ecclesiastes wished to indicate the value of even a meager life, it stated, “A living dog is

better than a dead lion” (9.4). Dogs were traditionally considered unclean, mainly

through their contact with corpses (Lev. 22.4). The dog was seen primarily as a scavenger, as

already shown in Exodus. Cattle which had been killed by wild animals were thrown to the dogs.

Elsewhere, male pagan religious prostitutes were referred to as “dogs” (Deut. 23.18). When the

Talmud wished to be derogatory about Goliath, it provided him with a genealogy in which

he is called the son of a loose woman, who had intercourse with dogs (Sotah 42b; Rashi and

Commentaries). Only in the post-Biblical book, Tobit, were there some

favorable references to dogs (5.16, 11.4). The Mishnaic and Talmudic literature understood the

danger of certain kinds of dogs being indistinguishable from wolves, especially in the evening

(M. Kil 8.6, 1.6; Ber. 9b). A dog was considered among the poorest of all creatures and often had

to subsist entirely on scraps and as a scavenger (Shab. 155b). Dogs used in sheep herding were

viewed more favorably (M. Hul. 1.8) On the other hand, the Talmud

appreciated the atmosphere of safety created by dogs and suggested that one should not

live in a town where the barking of dogs was not heard (Pes. 113a; Betza 15a). The potential

danger of rabies was also recognized (Hul. 58b; Yoma 83b). Dogs were to be chained as they

were considered dangerous (B. K. 79b; Yad Hil. Nizqei Mamon 5.9; Shulhan

Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 409), and it was considered sinful to maintain a dog that was known

to bite people (B. K. 15b), but one could let a dog run loose in harbor cities, presumably as an

additional safeguard against lawless seamen (B. K. 83a). Enmity between human beings and

dogs was mentioned in at least one passage of the Jerusalem Talmud (1. Ber.

8.8). Hunting dogs were not mentioned in the Talmud but later by Rashi in his

commentary to B. K. (80a). Dogs were sometimes kept as pets and the Talmud in one

place mentioned that if a woman spends her time entirely with lap dogs or on games (possibly

chess), this was grounds for divorce (Ket. 61b). Although cats were certainly known to

ancient Israelites, after all they were considered sacred animals in Egypt, there is no mention of

the domesticated cat in the Bible. The single reference in the post-Biblical book of

Baruch (6.22) may refer to a wild cat. The Talmud considered cats as loyal (Hor.

13a) in contrast to the dog. The principle purpose of keeping cats was to rid a building of mice

(B. K. 80a) as well as other small animals (San. 105a), including snakes (Pes. 112b; Shab.

128b). They were, of course, dangerous to chickens and domesticated birds, as well young

lambs and goats (Hul. 52b, 53a; Ket. 41b). Cats also endangered babies (B. K. 80b). The limited

intelligence of cats was blamed on their consumption of mice, which were supposed to decrease

memory (Hor. 13a). In nineteenth century Russia, a folk myth warned Yeshivah students from

playing with cats because that might diminish their memory. Cats were, on the other hand, seen

as a model of cleanliness and modesty (Er. 100b). Once cats established themselves in a house,

they rarely left and remained very loyal (Shab. 51b). Sometimes their fur was used as it was

particularly soft (B K. 80b). Nothing in the halakhah has dealt with the affection

felt for animals. This feeling is understandable, but we should not confuse it with the greater love

and respect for a human life. We should not use a prayer which is dear to the heart of every Jew

to commemorate a dead animal. It would be absolutely wrong, and a mockery, to include the

name of the pet in the weekly qaddish list. Mourners would be shocked and angered to

see their father and mother listed alongside a dog or cat. Whatever mourning for a pet

which may occur should be conducted privately and outside of the purview of

Judaism.December 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no. 5755.7 49

CCAR RESPONSA

Gentile Names on Yahrzeit List

5755.7

She’elah

May the names of deceased parents of a gentile who is married to a Jewish member of the congregation be included in the Temple’s yahrzeit list? If not, may such names which already are included on the list be removed? (Rabbi Douglas Kohn, Hoffman Estates, Illinois)

Teshuvah

The question has been discussed by R. Solomon B. Freehof¹. In his responsum, he dealt with the question whether gentile visitors to a service should rise for the Kaddish, and whether there was anything in Jewish tradition contrary to their doing so.

He answered : While the mitzvah to honor father and mother is not one of the seven Noahide commandments, excluding anyone from this act of reverence would needlessly raise inimical feelings on the part of the family. We would therefore caution you to avoid such a likelihood mipnei darchei shalomfor the sake of peace.

To be sure, R. Freehof’s responsum dealt with a passing phase, in that the gentiles participating were only visitors to the synagogue, and the only question that might be asked is whether by including the names of the gentile partner’s parents we give further sanction to mixed marriage.

We do not believe that including the names of the gentile spouse’s parents will constitute an act of such approval. The couple are de facto members of your congregation, and if the gentile partner wishes to worship in your synagogue s/he is obviously invited and even encouraged to do so. Part of such worship is paying reverence to deceased relatives, and since the Kaddish contains no proprietary formulation and can be said by anyone without assuming Jewish identity, calling names for whom Kaddish will be said appears as a proper act of filial piety. Al achat kama v’chama, the name(s) should not be removed from the list.

Notes

Modern Reform Responsa (1971), # 10, p.p. 62-69.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.