Reciting Mourner's Kaddish when there are no mourners

[lethargic_man]

Here's something that I've been wondering about for a while. (Actually, that goes for many of my blog posts—I've been meaning to post them for months by the time I actually get around to it.)

It's been the custom for almost a thousand years that kaddish is recited by mourners (including people with yahrzeit) at certain points in the service. But what when there are no mourners? There does not seem to be an accepted protocol.^* In some shuls, the kaddish is simply missed out; in others the chazzan says it; in still others, a member of the congregation (usually the same one, and IME always one old enough to have been a mourner in the past) recites it. But what should be done?

This raises the interesting question of what the point of mourners reciting kaddish is. The custom of mourners reciting kaddish arose in response to a mediaeval ghost story, which claims that saying kaddish for the deceased saves them from punishment in Gehinnom. This is (as the linked article points out) the sole source for the custom of mourners reciting kaddish; no earlier source mentions the practice, and indeed some deny the efficacy of such a practice.

But what relevance does that have to us today? Do people really believe that reciting kaddish saves souls from Gehinnom (and, indeed, that reciting kaddish when there are no mourners saves non-relatives who have no living relatives to say kaddish for them)? Or do they just do it because it's what's done, and people feel uncomfortable not having mourners' kaddish in the slot in the service where they expect it?

I'd be interested to hear people's views on the subject, whether they are knowledgeable on the subject, or have recited kaddish without knowing of the above. (Some indication of denominational affiliation might also be helpful, so I can see if belief that kaddish saves correlates with Orthodoxy; but you don't have to provide this if you don't want to.) I'd also be interested to know if there is actually a correct answer about what one should do in this situation.

(If you are reading this on Facebook, please click "View Original Post" to comment, so I can keep all comments together.)

* ETA: After initially failing to find it (because I was looking in the wrong place), I found a passage in the קיצור שולחן ערוך which says "If there are no mourners for a father or a mother in the synagogue, any one who has neither father nor mother shall recite the mourner's kaddish, in memory of all the departed of Israel"... though it's worth remembering that the קיצור שולחן ערוך is not binding even on all of Orthodoxy.

Comments

[iddewes]

In Reform/Liberal services it is just always said. Normally they read out the names of people in the community who have died recently or whose yahrzeits it is. And then they say 'for all those who have no one to say kaddish for them' etc before starting the prayer.

UK Reform

[kerrypolka.livejournal.com]

I read it as giving ritual structure and acknowledgement to people who are almost certainly at ends about how to act and feel, and of course letting the congregation know who is in mourning and therefore in need of comfort and support.

For myself, as someone who has never been a mourner, hearing weekly mourner's kaddish (I don't say it, although many non-mourners in my congregation do) feels like grieving rehearsal; it's like training wheels for the time I will be deeply upset and need something regular and familiar to hold onto that reflects what I am going through.

The bit about saving souls from pain in the afterlife sounds very Catholic to me! I'd be curious to know whether the idea originated in rabbinic Judaism and migrated to Christianity (and was subsequently fell out of most forms of Judaism, it seems) or started in Christianity and filtered slightly into Judaism.

Re: UK Reform

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

For myself, as someone who has never been a mourner, hearing weekly mourner's kaddish (I don't say it, although many non-mourners in my congregation do)

I read on the Net of a Thousand Lies, googling to see if there's an answer Out There before posting this, that in many Reform shuls, the congregation recites kaddish together. (I don't know if this goes for UK Reform too.) The idea of that comes across as very strange to me.

The bit about saving souls from pain in the afterlife sounds very Catholic to me! I'd be curious to know whether the idea originated in rabbinic Judaism and migrated to Christianity (and was subsequently fell out of most forms of Judaism, it seems) or started in Christianity and filtered slightly into Judaism.

It's filtered further into Judaism than you're probably aware of. The reason for the very long מעריב on מוצאי שבת (in the traditional liturgy at least, I don't know about Reform) is because souls in Gehinnom were supposed to get a respite on Shabbos, and by prolonging the מעריב service when Shabbos goes out gave the souls in Gehinnom a little longer before their punishment would recommence.

(So says R. Chaim Weiner, who knows all kinds of interesting things about the history of the liturgy.)

[liv]

Yes, it's more common than not in (UK) Reform shuls for the whole community to recite Kaddish in unison. This is partly for the prosaic reason that Reform shuls generally recite most prayers in unison, especially the important ones. It's also partly for the compassionate reason that we don't want to embarrass anyone who may be a mourner but not feel confident reading in Aramaic. And theologically speaking it's a post-Holocaust thing: the custom was changed explicitly in memory of those people who were murdered along with their whole families. It's not because most Reform people believe that reciting Kaddish saves souls from Gehinnom, but because we consider ourselves collectively to be in mourning for the unprecedented number of completely broken family lines.

Also note that a typical Reform service has only the mourners' Kaddish, there's no half Kaddish marking section breaks or Kaddish deRabbanan or Kaddish Titkabal after the Amidah. So if we don't recite mourners' Kaddish we would end up not saying it at all, which would be even more weird than saying it in unison.

[kerrypolka.livejournal.com]

I didn't know Reform typically dropped every other occurrence except the mourners'! We do half kaddish before the Barchu at Alyth (and it's in the big blue siddur). I wonder if it's making its way back in?

[liv]

You're right, it is coming back in; I just skipped over the detail of recent changes to the liturgy. It's among a number of changes where the new siddur has restored bits of the traditional liturgy that were very much the exception among Reform shuls until the last few years. I think the responsive style is coming back in a bit too. I've always done it because that's what I was taught by my father who was brought up Ortho, and I'm certainly getting a lot fewer weird looks for that custom than I used to!

[kerrypolka.livejournal.com]

We do responsive style in some of the smaller services but not in the main one; in the main one a slightly odd thing has developed where everyone says the non-responsive bits quietly and the responsive bits slightly more loudly, so it sounds as if people are responding even though it's mostly the same people saying it all the way through.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

In St Albans Masorti the Rabbi does the mourner Kaddish even if they are no mourners. Or maybe there are but in this old community not everybody is very good reading another language than English and maybe that is why he does it. I find that very strange. Assif does not do that only the person who is a mourner does it. If there is nobody then nobody says it. Years ago I went a few times to Kol Nefesh as I was living for short time in Edgware. Somebody asked me to do it with her. I was not very good with that aramaic text. I did not want to do it not just because I would embarass myself but also because I was not a mourner. As there is no difference between the full kaddish and mourners kaddish I heard it plenty of times to know it. In my case however I have no Jewish relatives to say Kaddish for though the Rabbi of NNLS said I could do it anyway for my parents or brother. I am not sure about a boy-friend. Not everybody gets married. There are people out there who just live together or not but are in a committed relationship.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

in this old community not everybody is very good reading another language than English

Which is why the Singer's Prayerbook has a transliteration at the back.

Assif does not do that only the person who is a mourner does it. If there is nobody then nobody says it.

John Schlapobersky will say it if no one else says it, if he's around that week.

Somebody asked me to do it with her. I was not very good with that aramaic text. I did not want to do it not just because I would embarass myself but also because I was not a mourner.

I've done that in the past too. It's a mitzvah (in the looser sense of the term) to help a mourner say kaddish if they would struggle by themselves.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Next time I will help then. I believed it is really just for the mourner to say. She was actually much better than I was and still am.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

I should point out that that was just my opinion above; I was not stating the received halacha. Check with a rabbi if you want to be certain (and let me know what you find out!).

[daniel vulkan (from livejournal.com)]

Just for completeness - in Liberal synagogues in Britain, it is also the practice that the whole community recites Mourner's Kaddish (even if there is no minyan - the concept of requiring a minyan for certain prayers isn't present at all in Liberal Judaism).

As with Reform synagogues (prior to the introduction of the new Reform siddur), this is the only Kaddish that is normally recited. However, the most recent Liberal machzor includes Kaddish Titkabel at the end of the Shacharit and Musaf services on Yom Kippur, and Hatzi Kaddish before the Amidah in Ne'ilah. (It's also the first Liberal prayerbook to include the doubling of l'eila.)

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

the concept of requiring a minyan for certain prayers isn't present at all in Liberal Judaism

I didn't know that. (I know very little about Liberal Judaism.) Do you know why they took that decision?

[daniel vulkan (from livejournal.com)]

Don't know the answer I'm afraid - probably just one of those things that "the orthodox do and we don't".

When I was growing up in a Liberal shul, the book that was given to bnei mitzvah was "Judaism For Today", by Rabbis John Rayner z"l and Bernard Hooker z"l. (The book is affectionately known by many people as "Judaism For To Today", due to the misprint that occurs on the spine of many editions, including mine.) At the time (it was first published in 1978), it more or less set out the definitive position of Liberal Judaism on many issues. I had a look to see what it said about minyan:

"Traditionally, a full congregational service requires the presence of a Minyan (Quorum) consisting of at leas 10 men aged 13 years or over. Progressive synagogues do not generally regard this as essential and, in any case, they would not exclude women."

I'd always thought that Reform (in this country at least) also dismissed the concept of minyan. However, a recent post on their website (http://news.reformjudaism.org.uk/assembly-of-rabbis/what-is-the-origin-of-a-minyan-being-ten-men.html) suggests otherwise - although it does also suggest that the rule may be relaxed in order to say Kaddish in the absence of a minyan if there are mourners present.

[liv]

In my current synagogue which is Orthodox by affiliation and nusach (even if not so much in terms of religious practice), there's one guy who recites mourners' Kaddish if there aren't any official mourners. I think he's officially the warden but I'm not sure if he does that ex officio or because he just took on the duty or because he's Indian and may have different traditions / superstitions about Kaddish from us Ashkenazim.

In most of the Reform synagogues I'm familiar with, mourners' Kaddish is the only Kaddish, and is led by the shaliach tzibbur. In practice that usually just means giving a cue to start off and everybody reads in unison anyway. Though in most shuls there's a minority who read only the responses unless they are official mourners. That minority includes me; I have the custom from my formerly Orthodox father and from R Michaels who was brought up Orthodox before becoming a Reform rabbi. It's a growing minority, though, and you're increasingly likely to find Reform congregations where responsive reading led by the mourners is the standard minhag.

I've come across the legend about saving souls from Gehinnom, from teachers of various denominations. But I've never encountered anyone who presented it as something you were expected to take literally, just as an example of a legend. In places where mourners recite, it's explained as being a way to show kavod to the mourners; their status as mourners gives them the right to lead the congregation in an especially holy prayer. The obligation for mourners to say kaddish means that they will seek out a community and therefore not be isolated at a distressing time. Everybody I know from across the spectrum takes very seriously the custom of making sure there is a minyan present if a mourner needs to say Kaddish. (Not surprisingly the people who don't count women continue not counting them for the purpose of Kaddish.)

When I led the service for my bat mitzvah in a fairly leftwing Reform synagogue, I assumed I would lead the Kaddish because that's part of leading the service. I was told I shouldn't do this because Kaddish should never be led by a person with living parents, but I never worked out if that was superstition or had a halachic basis. When I lead here I do lead mourners' Kaddish if there are no mourners and the warden is away, and nobody has expressed any issues with this.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

I've come across the legend about saving souls from Gehinnom, from teachers of various denominations. But I've never encountered anyone who presented it as something you were expected to take literally, just as an example of a legend.

How about Shlomo Ganzfried? Or at least, he writes (Goldin translation):

Many stories are told in the Midrashim to the effect that because the son said the kaddish for his departed father or mother, they were saved from judgment. It is therefore customary for a mourner to say kaddish, to be called up for maftir, and to act as ḥazan before the congregation, and particularly so at the termination of the Sabbath when the souls are returning to Gehenna; and this is true of every evening, because the judgment is then rigorous.

Though he does add later:

Although the saying of kaddish is helpful to the departed parents, it is not the most essential thing. It is far more important that the children should walk in the path of righteousness, because through this they obtain Divine Grace for their parents.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Where is this Gehinnom written? I know there is nothing about it in the Torah and I doubt it is written in the Talmud. I have never met somebody who actually believed in it rather people who said we are just dead or nobody knows what will happen when we are dead. Actually we do something hardly anybody believes in it. I could only think that this Kaddish is like other prayers for those people who need it the living ones not the dead ones. In which case it would not make any sense for somebody who has no dead parents, siblings or spouses to say Kaddish at all.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

Where is this Gehinnom written? I know there is nothing about it in the Torah and I doubt it is written in the Talmud.

Well, you're completely wrong there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehinnom#Rabbinical_Judaism).

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Ok, some Rabbi made it up in the Talmud. People believed a lot of things we would nowadays consider as non-sense or just fiction like fairy tales. The Torah talks about sea monsters and witches. Somebody must really live in a fantasie world and ignore the real one to believe all these things.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

You have such a way with words, insulting pretty much the entirety of Jewish history, along with a large number of Jews living nowadays. And in any case, you're wrong when you say:

Ok, some Rabbi made it up in the Talmud.

The numerous references to it in the Mishnah indicate that the concept had already arisen before the time of the Talmud. And it was not likely to have been made up by a single person, but rather be a product of the cultural zeitgeist.

People believed a lot of things we would nowadays consider as non-sense or just fiction like fairy tales. The Torah talks about sea monsters and witches. Somebody must really live in a fantasie world and ignore the real one to believe all these things.

You could say the same thing about G-d, and I think you'll find several billion people believe in gods of one form or another.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Where is that large number you are talking about? The charedi and chasidic community? They are a minority. Every educated Jew or down-to-earth Jew with a common sense does not believe in sea monsters and witches and not in the Gehonnim either. The singer has some comments who the prayers are for. It says they are not for God who does not need them but for ourselves.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

Where is that large number you are talking about? The charedi and chasidic community? They are a minority. Every educated Jew or down-to-earth Jew with a common sense does not believe in sea monsters and witches and not in the Gehonnim either.

I wouldn't bet on it. I suspect many Orthodox people believe in Gehinnom; and I wouldn't be surprised if they believe that there have been witches too. (After all, the Book of Samuel describes one of them raising the ghost of Samuel for Saul.) As for sea monsters, again, I would not be surprised if many Orthodox people believe that there is at least one sea monster, the Leviathan.

I think you place too little credence in people's powers of belief. (Cf., for example, the mass hysteria surrounding the report of a Hindu idol drinking milk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle) in the 1990s.)

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

People believes can be dangerous and harmful. Why do think I prefer anything non-orthodox? They are more critical about everything and not shy to admit anything unlike the Orthodox are often in denial. In most Western countries people are critical about their history and completely disagree with old believes such as seamonsters, witches and wizards and the methods of healing a person. They know nowadays that it was non-sense and none of it exists nor did the old medicine healed anything. Though there might have been herbal remedies that helped to a certain extend. Unfortunately these herbal remedies were often from women that were later accussed of being witches. They destroyed them and their knowledge. Countries with a very cruel history are not proud of it. Germany is not proud of the history of the holocaust (I describe as a form of witch hunt, too) and some ignore and deny proof of facts. However those who do ignore history try to learn from mistakes and hope history repeat itself.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

History is like an object that cannot be insulted. It like telling me I insulted a teddy bear:'Stupid teddy'.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

On the contrary. If you insult the history of a people, country or religion, you insult all the members of it that care about their history—as is actually demonstrated by the bad example you chose. In 2007, an English schoolteacher, Gillian Gibbons, teaching in a school in Sudan, asked her six and seven-year-old pupils to choose a name for the teddy bear she'd brought in. They suggested Mohammed. The Sudanese (adults), however, perceived this as an insult to the Prophet. There were protests on the streets, and Ms Gibbons was given a jail sentence, narrowly escaping being sentenced to a flogging.

Where in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch

[(Anonymous)]

Can you tell me where to find this reference in the kitzur shulchan aruch? This would be most helpful for our minyan. Thanks!

Re: Where in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch

[lethargic_man]

If you mean the one in my original post, it's in Volume I, Ch. 26, §19.