It is often difficult and unwise to argue with chiyuvim because their demands usually stem from a sincere desire to honor their parents properly. Putting things in perspective, however, helps develop a healthy halachic outlook, which can ease a situation in which a binding ruling is not appropriate.
The Rama[1] rules that is proper for sons of a deceased parent to increase his or her merit by reciting Kaddish and acting as chazan during the eleven months after his or her death. However, the mourners do not have an absolute obligation or entitlement to be the chazan. The Shulchan Aruch[2] says that the congregation may choose a person other than the mourner to be the chazan, if it so desires. A mourner’s absolute right applies only to the Kaddeishim designated for him.[3] However, the congregation has a mitzva to allow the mourner to be the chazan under normal circumstances (i.e., when he is a fluent chazan and a decent person).
Those mourners who are not able to be the chazan were allotted Kaddeishim to aid them in attaining merit for their parents. It is halachically preferable for one mourner alone to recite each Kaddish. To deal with situations of multiple mourners, the Acharonim arrived at detailed rules of kedimut (prioritization). However, over the last few hundred years, in order to prevent quarreling, the minhag to allow multiple people to say Kaddish together has spread almost universally among both Sephardim and Ashkenazim.[4] Thus, nowadays, the applicability of the rules of kedimut is limited to the question of whom to choose as chazan.
Upon review of the major sources on kedimut,[5] one will not find the suggestion of splitting minyanim. Because the idea has apparently only been implemented relatively recently, the practice is still too recent and limited to have spawned significant literature. The main source that condones it is the Afarkasta D’Ania (20th century).[6] The main concern that he addresses in regard to the practice is its impact on the halachic concept of b’rov am hadrat melech (the King’s honor is enhanced in large gatherings). He demonstrates, however, that this is not an absolute rule and that it can be outweighed by other factors. The Afarkasta D’Ania assumes that a mourner has an obligation to be a chazan, even though he does not always have the opportunity, and he thus maintains that this is sufficient grounds for splitting minyanim.[7]
We would counter that it is difficult to believe that Chazal created a full-fledged obligation that it is so frequently impossible to fulfill due to the mourner’s capabilities or the presence of multiple mourners. Furthermore, if it were a compelling obligation, why didn’t earlier poskim address the problem? Rather, we believe that the mitzva is to follow the halachic rules, which provide guidelines regarding how to deal with multiple chiyuvim. Following this system, the chiyuvim will be able to recite Kaddeishim and do their fair share of serving as chazan as well.
We can identify six possible problems that may result from creating a separate minyan (depending on the case): 1. Lack of adherence to the principle of b’rov am, as discussed above; 2. moving people from their makom kavu’a;[8] 3. davening outside of a set shul;[9] 4. the possibility that there will not be nine people responding to the parts of the tefilla that require a minyan; 5. the effect on the cohesiveness of the community and its davening;[10] 6. tircha d’tzibbura,[11] when it is necessary to wait longer for a minyan in order to begin chazarat hashatz.[12] A combination of these factors may explain why the classical poskim did not propose the solution of splitting a minyan for a mourners’ benefit.
There seem to be two sociological reasons for this recent innovation, developing from the grass roots. One is the “shteibelization” of our communities. The tradition of consistently davening in one shul has given way, in many places, to finding the best fit for each circumstance (based on time, speed, location, etc.). Why shouldn’t helping a mourner be a reason to ignore the above issues, about which people are lax in any case? The second explanation is that once one chiyuv is seen making his own minyan (and people are afraid of causing hard feelings if they confront him), others feel that their parent deserves no less, thus causing a snowball effect. If the trend becomes more prevalent, trying to prevent its implementation will indeed cause fights (which we do not condone). It is best if those concerned consider that their parents’ souls will acquire no less merit by having a son who follows the age-old rules of kedimut and preserves the integrity of communal tefilla. Hopefully, this will slow the trend.