Qaddish

ARR 383-385

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

121. Length of Time for Recital of Kaddish

(Vol. XXIII, 1913, pp. 173-176) Historically of no great significance, one ritual question looms up large in the estimate of the people and is therefore most frequently brought before the rabbi of today for decision, viz.: How long after the death or burial of the relative is the Kaddish to be recited, and on what day is the Yahrzeit to be observed, and the like. An elucidation of the whole practice seems to me, therefore, quite in place. The name Kaddish, which–like the prayer itself–is Aramaic, is found first, as far as I can see, in Mas. Soferim (16.12, 19.19, 21.1). The Talmudic term is “Yehe Shemeh Rabba.” It is the congregational response to the reader’s call to praise the Lord,^l and the idea underlying it is the messianic hope as expressed in Ezekiel 38:23: “Vehitgadalti vehitkadashti,” somewhat corresponding to the original form of the so-called Lord’s Prayer in the New Testament.² In the Babylonian schoolhouse or synagogue it was recited as a doxology at the conclusion of the Agadic lesson or homily addressed to large assemblies, and hence it was recited in Aramaic.³ The more value and importance was attached to this Kaddish recital, the more mystic power was ascribed to it. Originating, no doubt, in the primitive pagan belief that the son must, by some rite (originally by offering food and drink), keep the father’s soul from perdition in the grave, the view took shape in Jewish circles that by having the son or grandson study and teach the Law, the father escapes from the fire of Gehenna.⁴ And the same magic power was ascribed to the recital of the “Barechu” (Praise the Lord) or of the Kaddish. Quite a number of legends illustrative of this idea circulated in Gaonic times. According to one, it was Akiva, according to another, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, who saved a poor soul from Gehenna’s fire by teaching the son either the Torah or the prayer “Barechu.”⁵ However, this very belief in the power of prayer for the dead can be traced to pre-Christian times, as in the Testament of Abraham (Version A, ch. XIV), where the Patriarch is described as saving a soul from Purgatory by his prayer, in which the Archangel Michael joins him. No doubt, the whole conception was adopted by the Jew from his Persian surroundings, and the Church took it over from the Essene circles. Now, inasmuch as the Purgatory fires, called “the judgment of Gehenna,” were believed to last twelve months,⁶ the Kaddish ought by right to be recited by the son throughout the whole year from the day of burial on. This is indeed given as the custom in Kol Bo, CXIV. But, as Moses Isserles of Cracow tells us in the name of Isaac of Corbeil (13th century), it was felt to be rather unbecoming to a son to regard his father as so sinful as to be subject to the full twelve months’ punishment in Gehenna, and therefore it became customary to cease reciting the Kaddish eleven months after the father’s death.⁷ Much later, the custom spread to have the son recite the Kaddish also for the mother, and still later for the wife, brother, sister, or son. Originally, then, the Kaddish recital for the dead rests on a view which has no root in our system of belief; but, like all the funeral rites in a later stage, it assumed the character of pious regard for the dead. All the more it behooves us to do away with such customs and practices as still bear the character of crude superstitions. Accordingly, Dr. Solomon of Hamburg proposed atthe Rabbinical Conference of Breslau to have the eleven months’ recital of the Kaddish changed into a recital during the whole year of mourning. Certainly, this ought to be generally adopted by the members of our Conference. As to the Yahrzeit⁹–its history is also singular. The name, which is found also among the Jews of Italy and of Persia,^l0 has been taken over from the Germans, who held a Todtenfeier annually for their dead on the day of their death on which the souls were believed to be allowed to return to look after their relatives.¹¹ The name occurs in Jewish literature first among German authors at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th century,^l2 whereas the Spanish Jews of the Orient opposed the Kaddish recital on the Yahrzeit as casting reflection on the parental honor in the spirit expressed above. Only Isaac Luria, who was of German descent, defended the custom, saying that it was to elevate the parent’s soul into a higher realm of Gan Eden. On the other hand, it seems to have been an ancient custom to fast on the anniversary of the parent’s death. This is mentioned in Sefer Chasidim and Kol Bo,¹³ and seems to rest on the baraita:¹⁴ “One swears to abstain from food and drink on the anniversary of the death of his father.” No doubt, this day was regarded as one of ill luck, and–like the fasting after a bad dream–it was meant to avert the same. We have here again a custom based on some superstitious notion transformed into a mark of filial piety, and it is as such that it claims our consideration.K. Kohler and D. NeumarkNOTES:1. Sifrei, Deut. 30:6.2. See J.E., s.v. “Kaddish” and “Lord’s Prayer.”3. Sota 49a; Shab. ll9b; Ber. 3a; comp. Tosafot eadem; Kol Bo, VII; Tur, Orach Chayim LVI.4. Tana d.b. Eliyahu Rabba, XVII; Zuta, XII; Sanh. 104a; Sefer Chasidim, Vislinezki, 12. 5. Seder Eliyahu Zuta, XVII; Kala Rab., II; Menorat Hama-or I, A, h; Machzor Vitry, 144; comp. M. Friedman, Pseudo Seder Eliyahu Zuta, pp. 23-25, and Landshut, Maavar Yabok, ch. XXXI.6. Eduyot II.10. Rosh Hashana 17a; compare Tosefta, Sanhedrin XIII.3-5, where it is an object of controversy between the Shammaites and Hillelites.7. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 376.4, and Darchei Mosheh to Tur, eadem.8. See Protocolle d. Rabbinerversammlung zu Breslau, p. 286. 9. Berliner, Rome II, d. 55; Loew, Ges. Schr. IV, 264, note 1.10. Peterman, Reisen im Orient II, 175.11. Schoenwarth, Liter. u. Sagen aus der Oberpfalz.12. Isaac ofTyana’s Minhagim; Mordecai Jaffe, Lewsh Hatechelet.13. Sefer Chasidim, ed. Wistenetzki, 200; Kol Bo, CXIV.14. Nedarim 12a; Shevu-ot 20b.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 184-185

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

**122. Reciting Qaddish for a Convicted**

Criminal

QUESTION: Is it appropriate to recite qaddish for a

convicted criminal even if the crime was heinous? (J. Brown, Long Beach,

CA)ANSWER: The background of the qaddish and those for whom it is

obligatory has been provided elsewhere. Although sons are generally obligated to recite

qaddish for their parents, if we are dealing with a convicted criminal, matters may be

somewhat different. Let us begin with the question of burial for convicted criminals. It

is clear from the statement in Deuteronomy (21.23) that those who are executed should be

buried even though the body may have been left to lie for a few hours. In Mishnaic times, it often

occurred that a special place was set aside for the temporary burial of those executed (M. San

4.5), but after his flesh had decayed in atonement, the bones were interred in the family

cemetery (M. San. 4.6). Later those who had committed a crime were simply buried in a Jewish

cemetery, however, at some distance from individuals who were considered righteous (San. 47a;

Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 362.52; Hatam Sofer, Responsa, Yoreh Deah 333).

This practice was also followed for those under the ban. If they had committed a serious crime,

then funeral honors were withheld, otherwise the coffin might be stoned by the bet din, or

they placed a single stone on it. Yet, even for serious offenders, takhrihim were permitted

(Solomon Aderet, Responsa, Vol. 5, #236), and his grave was placed in the cemetery in

the normal fashion (Caro in Bayit Hadash to Tur Yoreh Deah 334; Shulhan

Arukh Yoreh Deah 334.3). This pattern was followed for criminals, apostates and individuals

of doubtful character. Therefore, any Jew who committed a crime, no matter how grave, must be

buried in a Jewish cemetery. The normal honors like eulogy, cutting one’s garment, etc. are,

however, withheld. It remains the responsibility for the son to recite qaddish for

such an individual as for a righteous father or mother. For a division of opinion on this matter see

“Incest and Parental Responsibility.” This thought is reinforced by the fact that death is

considered to bring atonement (San. 44a, 56a); the recital of qaddish is traditionally

considered as a way of furthering such atonement through one’s own good deeds (San 104a).

Qaddish should, therefore, be recited for an executed or deceased criminal by those

normally obligated to do so. The obligations of children do not change through any act

committed by the parent.February 1981

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 380-383

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

120. Standing During Recital of Kaddish

(Vol. XXIV, 1914, pp. 152-153)

The question of the propriety of standing during the recital of the mourner’s Kaddish must be answered from the viewpoint of the Kaddish in general. The mourner’s Kaddish had its origin in early Talmudic, if not pre-Talmudic times, as can be seen in the Testament of Abraham, Version A, XIV (see Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Kaddish”), according to which Abraham is the author of the Kaddish Yatom (cf. also Tobit IV:17, and my Toledot Ha-ikarim I, 80). But this was only in connection with the Birkat Avelim in the first week of mourning (Soferim XIX.12: “Umotse sham ha-avelim…ve-omer aleihem beracha, ve-achar kach omer Kaddish”). The Kaddish of the mourner during the first year is a late institution, first introduced about the 12th century in Germany, and from all that I can see, the mourner was regarded as the substitute for the Chazan.

Now there is a controversy whether the congregation should rise for every Kaddish or only for special ones. (Cf. Rambam, Yad, Hil. Tefila IX.1,5,8; Sh.A., Orach Chayim, Hil. Berachot 53.1; Turei Zahav, 1 and 56; 1 Haggah, and Magen Avraham 4). This controversy has never been authoritatively decided, and the minhag varies according to the countries and congregations (in Poland the congregation remains seated; in Bohemia it rises). But there is no doubt that the Chazan should always recite the Kaddish standing. Consequently, the mourner, who is considered the substitute of the Chazan, should also stand. In some congregations, only one of the mourners (according to the established order of precedence) is admitted to the front row to recite the Kaddish aloud, while the rest of the mourners repeat silently or in a low voice. In our Reform congregations, where the rabbi recites the Kaddish and the mourners repeat silently, none of them evidently can be considered a substitute for the Chazan. Nevertheless, it is evident that the old idea of the mourner reciting the Kaddish before the congregation still exists, and this minhag should be continued, except in rare cases where there is definite and sufficient reason for not doing so.

Can a Distinction Be Made Between the Dead?

If this question refers to the preceding, I would suggest that the mourners stand at all recitals of the Kaddish for the dead, for whom mourning is a legal duty (viz., relative in the first degree). If this question is general, I refer to Yoreh De-a, Hil. Avelut, where certain distinctions are set forth as the established din and minhag.

The Educational Value of Yahrzeit

The Yahrzeit as a permanent institution in connection with the recital of Kaddish appears first in Germany about the 14th century, but since it goes back to an ancient practice known in Talmudic literature (“Taanit beyom shemet bo aviv ve-imo,”Nedarim), and since its good influence is evident in manifold ways, I would strongly favor its retention as far as possible.

In addition, as chairman of the committee, I would say that while much may be adduced in favor of the individual mourner’s rising for the Kaddish as the outflow of the soul, longing for comfort to be found in submission to God’s will, in conformity with tradition–there is also a consideration for, and a sense of sympathy with, the mourner expressed by the whole congregation rising for Kaddish, wherever it is introduced. The decision of the question must therefore be left to the congregation.

In general, I would here refer to the ancient Rabbinical dictum, “Mitoch shelo lishmah ba lishmah,” “A good practice, even if not done for its own sake, but for some less spiritual motive, should still be encouraged, since it may eventually lead to a more spiritual view,” because it applies to the so-called “KaddishJew,” who attends divine service only in honor of his dead parents. While religion is not merely piety, nevertheless, filial piety shown by the mourners may in the end lead to a more permanently religious attitude.

K. Kohler

NOTE:

In some Reform congregations the traditional custom has been continued of having all mourners who desire to do so–men and women alike–rise for the Kaddish. We concur in Dr. Kohler’s judgment, appended to the 1914 responsum above, that there is no reason to press for discontinuing that custom. But it is clear that in a large number of congregations, the custom has grown and flourished to have the entire congregation rise and recite the Kaddish as a community. The original reason for the institution of this custom was to provide a sense of unity and community support for the mourners. Tragically, a second reason has evolved. The Holocaust makes mourners out of all Jews, and that ongoing sense of loss is expressed through the congregation’s rising and unison recitation of the Kaddish.

Responsa Committee (1980)

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 185-186

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

123. Incest and Parental

Responsibilities

QUESTION: What is the duty of young parents toward

their dying father who was guilty of incest with his granddaughter? This tragic incident occurred

four years ago. Both the family and the youngster have been helped psychologically in the

interval. Are the parents required to recite qaddish and in any other way honor him or his

memory?ANSWER: The question which you have asked is, of course, especially

tragic as family ties and many early childhood memories have been permanently destroyed. The

obligation of children toward an evil parent has been discussed since Talmudic times; a division

of opinion is found in some discussions, which are incidental to other matters (Yeb. 22a f; B. K.

94b; San. 85a; Kid 32a). By medieval times there was a clear division of opinion between

Maimonides and Alfasi on the one hand, and the exegetes of Northern France (Rashi and the

Tosafists) on the other. Maimonides and Alfasi felt that the obligation of children to honor their

parents was biological and had nothing to do with the moral status of the parents (Yad Hil.

Mamrin 6.8 ff; Alfas to Yeb. 22b). Rashi and Rabenu Tam felt that honor depended on the moral

status of the parent and a wicked parent need not be honored (Commentaries to Yeb. 22b; San.

85b; Mak. 12b). In each of these instances the medieval authorities dealt with parents who were

considered absolutely wicked and not individuals who had sinned in a minor way (Maimonides

Sefer Hahinukh 48; Moses of Coucey S’mag Lo Taaseh 219; Yad Hil.

Malveh Veloveh 4.4). In the medieval period, such individuals, of course, included apostates

(David Hakohen Responsa Radak Bayit 11.1 -2). The Shulhan

Arukh continued this division of opinion, so Caro insisted that honor due to a parent was

biological, while Isserles felt that it is dependent upon the moral status of the parents

(Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 240.18, 241.4). In the final analysis tradition would require

qaddish even for convicted criminals (see “Reciting Qaddish for a Convicted

Criminal”) as death brought atonement and qaddish added to such atonement (San. 44a,

56a, 104a). As you have asked specifically about qaddish, we must ask what

additional purpose it serves in our age. We normally recite qaddish in order to overcome

our sorrow and to make us feel at peace again with God and the world around us (see W. Jacob,

American Reform Responsa, #117). In this instance, upon the father’s death it will not

only be necessary to make peace with religious feelings about God, but also with the feelings

toward the father and the memories of the past. The recital of the qaddish should help in

this regard. Therefore, despite all personal bitterness and the division of opinion in our tradition

on this matter, the recital of the qaddish upon the father’s death would be appropriate and

should be beneficial.July 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.