From the Rav’s Desk – Q&A on Yartzites & More

Should a grandson say Kaddish and Daven for the Amud on the Yahrzeit of a grandparent?[1]

Kaddish: If the deceased did not leave a son to say Kaddish for him then a grandson, whether of the son or daughter, is to say Kaddish on his behalf.[2] This however is only allowed if the grandson does not have any parents, or his parents are Mochel and allow him to say Kaddish for the grandfather. If, however, his father or mother is Makpid, he may not say it.[3] If both parents are alive many are accustomed not to say Kaddish even if both parents are Mochel.[4]

Davening for Amud:[5] If the deceased did not leave a son to lead the Amud, then a grandson, whether of the son or daughter is to Daven as Chazan on his behalf. This applies even if the grandson cannot say Kaddish for his grandfather being that his parents are alive.

__________________________________

[1] See Toras Menachem 3:7

[2] Mateh Ephraim 3:4; Nitei Gavriel 70:12; So rule regarding Kaddish during the first year: Shut Rama 118, brought in M”A 132:2; Kneses Hagedola 403, brought in Kaf Hachaim 55:28; Beir Heiytiv 132:5; Beis Lechem Yehuda 376; Beis Hillel 376; Teshuvah Meahava 1:17, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 376:7 [See there for the details of Kadima for a grandson]; Gilyon Maharsha 376; Peri Hasadeh 92; Igros Kodesh 12:196 [printed in Shulchan Menachem 5:296]

[3] See Teshuvas Harama ibid; Beis Lechem Yehuda 376

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule a mother cannot protest the son saying Kaddish for his father’s father. [Teshuvas Shaiy, brought in Beis Lechem Yehuda ibid]

[4] See sources in Chapter 26 Halacha 2

[5] Peri Hasadeh 92 regarding the year of Aveilus; Nitei Gavriel 70:12; Toras Menachem 3:7 that the Rebbe Rashab Davened for the Amud on the Yahrzeit of the Tzemach Tzedek and the Rebbe Rayatz Davened for the Amud on the Yahrzeit of the Rebbe Maharash

Yes. A Bar Mitzvah boy in Aveilus may have his Bar Mitzvah take place as usual. He may wear Shabbos clothing.

Background – A child who became Bar Mitzvah during Shiva/Shloshim:

Some Poskim^[1] rule that a child who became Bar/Bas Mitzvah during the Shiva [or Shloshim] of a relative, is not obligated to keep Shiva or any laws of Aveilus even after he becomes Bar Mitzvah.^[2] Other Poskim^[3] rule a child who became Bar/Bas Mitzvah within the Shloshim from the burial, then he is to keep Shiva and Shloshim from that day and onwards. Practically, we rule like the former opinion that the child remains exempt from all mourning.^[4] [This applies even if he only discovered the death after he became Bar/Bas Mitzvah. If, however, he became Bar/Bas Mitzvah between the death and burial, he is obligated in Aveilus.^[5]]

[1] Michaber 396:3; Beis Yosef 396; Tur in name of Rosh; Rosh [student of Maharam] in end of Moed Katan; Taz 396:1 [Regarding the contradictory ruling of the Taz 340:15 in name of the Derisha, that even if a child has reached the age of Chinuch he is to be educated to mourn, see Shivas Tziyon 61, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 396:2, that this only applies if the child has a father and is not in a Talmud Torah, in which case he is to be educated by his father to mourn. However if the child does not have a father, or he is in a Talmud Torah, then he is exempt from Aveilus, as explained in the next footnote.];

[2] The reason: As once one is exempt at the time of the obligation, he remains exempt also for the Tashlumin. [Rosh ibid] Alternatively, the reason is because the Chiyuv of Aveilus is specifically at the moment of burial, when the bitterness is greatest, and hence since the child was exempt at that time, there is no obligation for him to keep mourning laws later on. [Taz 396:1 in explanation of ruling of Michaber ibid, and answer of contradiction in Michaber ibid to his ruling in 341 where he rules like the Maharam regarding Havdalah.]

[3] Maharam Merothenberg [teacher of Rosh ,brought in Rosh in end of Moed Katan], brought in Shach 396:1 and Taz 396:1; Rabbeinu Yerucham and Bach 396 conclude to follow the Maharam, as he was the teacher of the Rosh, as well as that the ruling of the Michaber ibid is contradicted earlier in 341 where he rules like the Maharam regarding Havdalah; The Taz ibid negates his opinion; The Shach in Nekudos Hakesef defends the ruling of the Maharam against the proofs of the Taz; Yad Eliyahu 93 also negates the ruling of the Taz ibid, brought in Gilyon Maharsha 396

Within the Shiva: Some Poskim rule [unlike Michaber ibid] that if a child became Bar/Bas Mitzvah within the Shiva then he must keep Shiva for the remaining days that are left of Shiva even according to the Rosh, as every day of Shiva is a separate obligation and is not Tashlumin, and it is only in a case that he became of age after Shiva that there is a dispute. [Yad Eliyahu ibid; Poskim brought in Pnei Baruch 25:5 footnote 12 and Nitei Gavriel 127:3 footnote 5-6; Gesher Hachaim 19:3-3 that so is custom] However according to the Michaber and Tur and Taz ibid the Katan is exempt even in such a case.

After Shloshim: If he became Bar/Bas Mitzvah after the Shloshim, then according to this opinion, he is to keep Aveilus for one hour, just as is the law regarding a Shemua Rechoka. [Maharam; Pnei Baruch 25:5]

[4] Taz 396:1 “Therefore it appears Halacha Lemaaseh to rule like the Rosh, not for his reason, but for the reason I mentioned.”; Chochmas Adam 168:6; Aruch Hashulchan 396:5; Kitzur SHU”A 216:2; Ikarei Hadat 36:48

[5] Nitei Gavriel 127:4 and 8; See Taz ibid

In G-d’s essence, He truly does care about good versus evil and whether we obey His will or not, and it is only in the lower levels of His infinite light where He ignores the existence of evil and so to so does not care.[1]

[1] See Sefer Hamamrim Beshah Shehikdimi 5672 2:923; Samech Vav p. 521; Atart 5679 p. 382;  Likkutei Sichos 7:22 footnote 28; Toras Menachem 6:159