Bat Mitsvah

5774.2

CCAR RESPONSA COMMITTEE

5774.2

Bar/Bat Mitzvah Observance Prior to Age Thirteen

Sh’elah.

Our congregation’s policy is to conduct Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies only for students who are thirteen years of age or older. Recently, many families have asked to schedule their children’s ceremonies prior to the student’s thirteenth birthday. Often, families request the earlier dates for reasons of convenience – vacation schedules, travel plans, etc. Some who ask for dates just a few days before their children turn thirteen argue that, as a Reform congregation, our policy should be flexible enough to allow for a little leeway in the age-requirements. Other families, citing traditional Jewish practice, argue that we should allow Bat Mitzvah ceremonies to occur as early as age twelve. In one family, the parents of the student grew up Orthodox, and argued that the congregation should honor their families’ practice of celebrating their daughters’ Bat Mitzvah ceremonies when girls turn twelve. Some congregants have argued on behalf of earlier Bat Mitzvah ceremonies on the grounds that girls tend to mature at an earlier age than boys – physically, emotionally, and intellectually.

Under what circumstances, if any, should Reform congregations celebrate Bar or Bat Mitzvah ceremonies for students who have not yet reached the age of thirteen? (Rabbi Mark Glickman, Woodlinville, Washington)

T’shuvah.

In their most basic sense, “Bar Mitzvah” and “Bat Mitzvah” are terms of status: they indicate that the person in question is a Jewish adult, responsible for fulfilling the obligations (mitzvot) that define the covenant between God and the Jewish people. One becomes Bar- or Bat Mitzvah simply upon reaching the age of Jewish majority, understood traditionally as thirteen for boys and twelve for girls. In Reform Judaism, our commitment to the principle of religious egalitarianism has led us to fix the point of Bar/Bat Mitzvah at age thirteen for girls as well as for boys. In today’s Jewish life, the term “Bar/Bat Mitzvah” usually denotes the celebration, the combination of religious services and social events, with which it is customary to mark a child’s transition to Jewish adulthood.[1] Our task is to consider whether and under what circumstances it is permissible to schedule this celebration prior to the child’s thirteenth birthday, that is, before he or she has become an “adult” according to Jewish tradition.

The Age of Jewish Adulthood. Let us examine, first of all, that tradition itself: is it in fact a hard and fast rule that a child becomes a Jewish adult at a definite chronological age? Some sources indicate that the answer is “yes.” We read in Mishnah Avot (5:21): ben sh’losh esrei lamitzvot, “at the age of thirteen a boy becomes obligated to fulfill the mitzvot,”[2] while girls, as we learn elsewhere, [3] attain adulthood at the age of twelve. Another mishnah, however, sets legal adulthood according to physical criteria: “a child who shows the signs of puberty is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot of the Torah.”[4] While the commentators do their best to harmonize these conflicting standards,[5] the very existence of the conflict suggests that the rule “boys at thirteen, girls at twelve” is not so hard and fast.[6] And, indeed, Tanaitic (early Rabbinic) sources establish varying ages of “obligation” depending upon the nature of the particular mitzvah: when a child is able to walk while holding his father’s hand (on the requirement of pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem);[7] when a child is emotionally able to be separated from his mother (on the requirement to “dwell in the sukkah”);[8] when he is sufficiently responsible to care for his t’filin;[9] and when he knows how to wave the lulav and how to don tzitzit.[10] The age of majority in matters of personal status – for example, eligibility to contract marriage –was originally determined according to signs of puberty.[11]

In his comprehensive study of the topic, Professor Yitzchak Gilat demonstrates that this wide variation in ages was the original state of Jewish law, which did not recognize thirteen or twelve as the points at which Jewish adulthood automatically begins.[12] It was only later, during the Amoraic (Talmudic) period, that the halakhah underwent a process of standardization, precisely because the existence of varying ages for adulthood required a specific decision regarding the maturity of each and every individual, a situation that places a heavy burden on any functioning legal system. The Sages, seeking to bring clarity and unity to the law, gradually came to accept the ages of twelve and thirteen as a chronological standard, the time when girls and boys became obligated to fulfill the mitzvot.[13]

Since that time, this rule has been a universal Jewish practice: Jewish ritual majority has been determined by a person’s chronological age and not by his or her physical maturity or intellectual acuity. It is also, we stress, the standard in Reform Judaism. When we say that young people in our congregations become Bar/Bat Mitzvah at age thirteen, we identify our practice with the standard that our people have observed for fifteen centuries and more. In our communities, of course, girls as well as boys become b’nei mitzvah at that age. This is due to our commitment to gender equality and to the separate (though related) fact that girls and boys learn together in our religious schools and therefore satisfy our educational requirements for Bar/Bat Mitzvah at the same time. Like all religious standards, this one reflects our history as a people, as well as the religious commitments we affirm as Jews in general and as Reform Jews in particular. Like all other rules, especially rules that have complex histories of development, it may admit of exceptions. But because we take our standards seriously, those exceptions should be weighty, substantive, and rare.

2. Exceptions to the Rule? The reasons given by the “many families” cited in our sh’elah do not meet this test.

Some ask that the age requirement for Bar/Bat Mitzvah be waived “for reasons of convenience.” That request is contradictory on its face. A standard of practice, by definition, is not a “standard” at all if it can be set aside whenever we find it inconvenient. On the contrary, a standard of practice is an expectation imposed upon us by factors that lie outside the realm of our own personal or family desires. It embodies an ideal, a goal, or a purpose toward which we are asked to strive even when it is inconvenient for us to do so. The definition of Bar/Bat Mitzvah as something that takes place at age thirteen is such a standard. It is not too much to ask families to plan their vacation schedules accordingly.

The second reason is likewise self-contradictory: that some of our congregants “grew up Orthodox” does not require that we modify standards of Reform practice in accordance with their family traditions. This is especially true when the standard involves one of the most fundamental commitments of Reform Judaism, that of gender equality. Bat Mitzvah, in our Reform context, means exactly what Bar Mitzvah means: our young women, who have received exactly the same religious education as our young men, become full and equal participants along with them in Jewish ritual life. That equality, obviously, is denied to them in Orthodox communities. This particular Orthodox standard is therefore out of place in our synagogues, where the standards of religious practice reflect our own values and affirmations.[14]

3. Situations of Urgency. There is, however, one reason that does justify an exception to the rule: the principle known as sha’at hadachak, “situations of urgency” under which it is permitted to set aside a particular rule or standard of practice in favor of a more lenient viewpoint.[15] Although the precise extent of this principle is the subject of a long controversy in the sources,[16] our long-standing policy has been to permit the scheduling of a Bar/Bat Mitzvah observance prior to age thirteen “in cases of serious emergency.”[17] The tradition, to be sure, does not define this category with precision; it gives us no laundry list of situations that qualify as sha’at hadachak. The decision is left to the considered judgment of the rabbi. A Reform rabbi will undoubtedly exercise this judgment with the “flexibility” that our sho’el’s congregants seek. But he or she should not agree to waive the age requirement for Bar/Bat Mitzvah – a firm standard of Reform Jewish practice – for the reasons cited in this sh’elah.

NOTES

1. On the history of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah observance see “Bar/Bat Mitzvah on a Festival,” Reform Responsa for the Twenty-First Century (New York: CCAR, 2010), volume 2, no. 5762.6, pp. 39ff, http://www.ccarnet.org/responsa/nyp-no-5762-6/, at notes 1-4.

2. On the age of thirteen as an indication of adulthood, see Bereshit Rabah, parasha 80: Genesis 34:25 describes both Shimeon and Levi as ish (“a man”), and R. Shimeon ben Elazar declares that Levi was thirteen at the time (and see Machzor Vitry and Bartenura to M. Avot 5:21).

3. A baraita in B. Kiddushin 63b-64a.

4. M. Nidah 6:11; Tosefta Chagigah 1:3.

5. See Rambam and Bartenura to M. Nidah 6:11: the signs of puberty determine the onset of adulthood only when the girl has reached the age of twelve or the boy has reached the age of thirteen.

6. See, for example, M. Nidah 5:6 and B. Nidah 45b: while R. Yehudah Hanasi sets thirteen (for boys) and twelve (for girls) as the age at which one is culpable for one’s vows, R. Shimeon ben Elazar reverses the numbers: boys become adults at twelve and girls at thirteen.

7. M. Chagigah 1:1.

8. M. Sukkah 2:8. On the phrase katan she’eino tzarich l’imo, see B. Sukkah 28b.

9. Mechilta d’R. Yishma’el, Bo, parashah 17 (ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 68).

10. Tosefta Chagigah 1:2.

11. M. Yevamot 10:8; M. Nidah 6:1 and 6:12; Tosefta Nidah 6:2; and elsewhere.

12. Y. D. Gilat, P’rakim b’hishtalsh’lut hahalachah (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992), pp. 19-31. Gilat suggests (at pp. 19-20) that the famous declaration in M. Avot 5:21 is the creation of a later time. He points out that the declaration is missing from the earliest textual witnesses to the tractate. See, for example, the variants in an early parallel of the Avot text in B. Ketubot 50a.

13. Ibid., at 28-31.

14. We might also point out that allowing girls to observe Bat Mitzvah a full year ahead of boys would have severe consequences for our educational curriculum, which is also based upon our commitment to egalitarianism.

15. See B. B’rachot 9a: k’dai hu Rabbi Shimeon lismoch alav b’sha’at hadachak, “Rabbi Shimeon is of sufficient stature for us to follow his opinion in an urgent situation.” That is, we are entitled to follow the minority (and lenient) viewpoint against that of the majority in the halachah when “the hour requires it” (Tosefta Eduyot 1:5; Rabad on M. Eduyot 1:5, as cited by R. Sh’lomo Edani (d. 1624), M’lekhet Sh’lomo to M. Eduyot 1:5).

16. According to a statement in B. Nidah 6b, the sh’at hadachak principle applies only in cases where the halakhic rule in question has not been firmly set (la itamar hilkh’ta); when that rule has been established, then presumably it is not set aside even in “urgent situations.” But just what it means for the halachah to be “established” and for minority opinions to be firmly rejected is a controversy all its own. In general, our Reform approach to the halachah tends to preserve the plurality of voices and interpretations found within the sources and to avoid declaring that halakhic decision is “fixed” for all time. And in our case, “minority” views do exist: the fact that the original halachah does not recognize age thirteen as the absolute standard for adulthood, as well as the fact that to this day a congregation is permitted to call a minor to the Torah (B. Megilah 23a; Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 282:3).

17. Rabbi’s Manual (New York: CCAR, 1988), p. 229.

ARR 82-83

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

31. Bat Mitzvah

(Vol. XXIII, 1913, pp. 183-185)

The lesser part of women in religious life is not Orientalism. As far as Israel is concerned (to say nothing of our other Semitic peoples, such as Babylonians, Assyrians, etc.), the women maintained a leading role in religious life as far down as the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The women were considered of equal standing not only as worshippers but also as functionaries in the religious life. It was on account of the Istar-worship which the women in Israel, as well as elsewhere, favored, that they were excluded from the religious functions in post-exilic Judaism, and later, in Talmudic times, from certain religious duties which depend on fixed times and seasons. But by this the Jewess was by no means relegated from the religious life in which, on the contrary, she had at least as high a standing as women in any of the Occidental Churches ever had. If we do not consider the nuns as religious functionaries, we have to admit that no Occidental Church ever entrusted women with priestly functions. If the women in the synagogue were separated in galleries not accessible to men, while the church did not care for separation, we cannot designate this as Orientalism, since–on the contrary–the Church, returning back to the Oriental Istar-motif in religion, did not care, as she was not entitled, to go in demands of purity as far as Judaism went. We may think differently today as to the advisability of separation of sexes, but separation is by no means a lessening of the woman’s standing in the synagogue. And in the home woman had exclusive religious functions, such as challah, Sabbath candles, etc., unknown to the Occidental Church. The only real case in point is the debarment of women from religious functions, but as to this, Conservative Judaism is on a par not only with all Occidental Churches but also with Reform Judaism. As yet we have no woman rabbi, no woman cantor, even no woman shamash in the synagogue, nor do we find her in the councils of the kehila (see, however, the new attempt with the sisterhoods).

True, Judaism in the Talmudic period and in past ages in general did not care as much for the religious training of the girl as it did for that of the boy. But the fact of the matter is that the average girl in past ages in some respects knew more of Judaism than does the modern girl of today after finishing all courses in Sunday school. Women lomedot in old-fashioned Judaism are not rare; I personally know quite a number of them. As to the practical question involved, I am perfectly in accord with the suggestion to abolish Bar Mitzvah ceremony in favor of the Confirmation on Shavuot for boys and girls alike. But in synagogues where the Bar Mitzvah ceremony for boys is still in practice, I would be in favor of letting the boy come to the Torah, whether to read himself from the Torah–as is the custom in some synagogues–or only to say the Benediction and to read from the Prophets. In the synagogues where this is practiced, it is considered as a religious function (which it really is, historically considered), and as such the boy is called upon to perform it, while the girl is deprived of that privilege, even within Reform Judaism. And this appears strongly justified by the fact that a boy of thirteen may be called upon soon to decide to enter the Hebrew Union College, where he is admitted after completing his fourteenth year; this possibility is practically out of the question in the case of a girl.
D. Neumark

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 83-86

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

32. Bat Mitzvah

(Vol. LXIV, 1954, pp. 81-83)QUESTION: For the past few years I have been with a congregation where some of the parents believe in Bar Mitzvah. I get the boys ready for the ceremony and attend the extravagant parties staged. Some of my colleagues, who are more impressed than I am, are even planning to introduce Bat Mitzvah. Frankly, I am puzzled. What actuated the early Reformers in their decisive stand against the Bar Mitzvah idea? Are those reasons no longer tenable? And what about Bat Mitzvah, concerning which the rabbis of yesterday had no occasion to formulate an opinion? I may not understand the whole historical process. But the question I should like to have you answer is whether Reform Judaism has changed its course, or is it just drifting into another port?ANSWER: A religion that seeks to mold a certain type of character will necessarily impose definite duties upon each individual life. It will also deem it within its province to determine when the age of individual responsibility shall begin, since the human personality develops but slowly and gradually. In Biblical times a man was thought to have attained his majority at the age of twenty, when he became fully liable for any act of misconduct (Num. 14:29). In the Rabbinic period, a downward revision in the age of accountability took place. “For the first thirteen years of his son’s life,” a Rabbinic authority declared, “a father is obligated to attend to his son’s conduct; thereafter, he should say, ‘Praised be He who has exempted me from the liability now resting upon him“‘ (Genesis Rabba, 63.14). When the Mishnaic teacher affirmed that at thirteen the age is reached for the fulfillment of the commandments (Avot 5.24), he did not mean to indicate the time when one’s training in the performance of duty began, but rather the time when one began to bear full responsibility for any dereliction in the performance of his duties. Accordingly, a boy who had attained his thirteenth year joined the “congregation,” as it were. He formed part of the “quorum required for public worship; he wore the phylacteries during the morning prayers; and, he fasted on the Day of Atonement. In short, he became a full-fledged ‘Son of the Covenant’–a Bar Mitzvah. To mark the importance of the occasion, the father would take his Bar Mitzvah to a man of learning, who would bless him and pray for him, beseeching God to make him worthy of a life devoted to the study of Torah and good deeds (Soferim 18). The more elaborate Bar Mitzvah celebration, of which our latter day extravaganza is a curious offspring, seems to have originated in the 14th century, when a family party would be held in honor of the Bar Mitzvah (Abrahams, J.L.M.A., pp. 23, 144). The exclusion of girls from this form of initiation might, of course, be interpreted as an act of discrimination, mirroring the time when women stood none too high in the intellectual and social scale. Yet, when we consider the fact that women were legally exempt from religious duties the performance of which was linked to a specified time, we may discern in the Rabbinic attitude not a disparagement of woman, but a more just appraisal of the value of her time. What she had to do at a given time–the Rabbis may well have held–was of infinitely greater importance than the punctilious observance of some ritual practice. At any rate, when Reform Judaism arose, the leaders felt quite acutely that the time had come for an upward revision of the age at which maturity and moral responsibility began. The Rabbinic estimate of the degree of maturity which a boy of thirteen was capable of achieving might have been true in days long past; it surely did not hold true in the opening days of the l9th century. Nor were these leaders satisfied that in an age of shifting emphases–when not conformity to ritual, but adjustment to life, became the chief concern of men–the religious instruction represented by the requirements for the Bar Mitzvah ceremony was adequate or even pertinent. Then, too, eager as they were to raise the status of women in the synagogue, they could not but view the conspicuous Bar Mitzvah ceremony as a striking reminder of the dominant role the male chose to play in the house of God. Confirmation, as instituted by the early Reformers, put boys and girls on a plane of equality. It also opened the way for a modification of the age of maturity as fixed by the Rabbis. Above all, it initiated, and has since helped to develop, a new system of religious education, which has vitally affected the course of American Judaism. Yet, despite its feeble basis in the realities of religious living, Bar Mitzvah has retained its old appeal for many parents in some of our Reform congregations. In fact, in many recently organized congregations, it has assumed a position of importance which it had never before attained. It would seem that when the substance eludes our grasp, we tighten our hold on the shell. But the Reform synagogue, committed to the principle that it is the function of religion to serve human needs, stands ready to respond to any call for service that may come from its members. Our rabbis do well when they comply with the wishes of parents and prepare their sons for the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. However devoid of substance the rite may be, if the boy’s training in the religious school is not discontinued, the nostalgic indulgence of the parents may be productive of some good. Surely, the special type of instruction offered for the occasion should serve to stimulate interest in the language of the Bible. Quite different, however, must be our attitude to the proposed Bat Mitzvah ceremony, which goes counter to tradition and for which there is no popular demand. When a new religious practice is urged upon us, of whose value our fathers had no estimate and we have had no convincing demonstration, it is not enough to point to some by-product of possible utility, as we attempt to do in the case of the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Unless the new project recommends itself to us by its inherent worth and direct positive purpose, none of its strained qualities shall ever win and hold our active interest. It is surely vain to hope that we shall keep Bar Mitzvah alive by reinforcing it with Bat Mitzvah–two figments do not make one fact. Reform Judaism has not changed its course. In striving to meet the needs of men, in countenancing even dubious experiments, the Reform synagogue is true to itself and to the principle that gave it birth.Israel Bettan

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 235-237

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

157. Bar/Bat Mitzvah

Certificates

QUESTION: It is Temple policy to grant Bar/Bat

Mitzvah certificates at the beginning of the confirmation year approximately two and a half years after the Bar/Bat Mitzvah and not at the ceremony itself. This represents a congregational effort to assure the continuing education of the members’ children. Some children and some parents have objected and consider this as inappropriate coercion. How far should a congregation go to assure the education of its children? (Rabbi J. Brown, Long Beach, CA)

ANSWER: It is, of course, clear that the ceremony of Bar/Bat Mitzvah

stands on its own merit and has no relationship to any certificate which may or not be issued. Certificates represent a recent innovation. On the other hand, as these parents and children are anxious about the certificates, they seem to be meaningful, and so represent an appropriate tool to encourage Jewish education. We must, therefore, ask what standards of education were set by our tradition. Is there any age when the obligation ceases for the parents or for the children?

Our tradition has encouraged education in all periods of our history. The

parental duty was already presented in the well-known verse, “And you shall teach them diligently to your children” (Deut. 6.7). In Maimonides’ Sefer Mitzvot, this commandment stood as number seven among the positive commandments. The Talmud made education the father’s duty (Yoma 82a; Suk. 2b; Nazir 29a, etc.). There was some controversy in Talmudic and later times about the extent of obligation for women’s education (Nazir 28b, 29a; Yoma 82a; Or Zarua II, 48; Yad Hil. Talmud Torah, etc.). Generally women received little formal education until modern times. There was also controversy over a mother’s responsibility for the education of her sons if her husband failed or could not provide an education (Er. 81a; Mahatzit Hasheqel 343; Meir b. Baruch Responsa, Vol. 4, #20; Hatam Sofer, Responsa #24, etc.). Although the mother may have limited direct responsibility, anything that she accomplished was considered praiseworthy. If the mother failed, then the bet din could assume the responsibility (Terumat Hadeshen 94; Yad Hil. Shevuot 12.8; Magen Avraham 640.3). Of course, when a boy reached thirteen and his father recited the blessing which freed him from further obligation for his child (shepatrani), then educational obligations also ceased (Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 225.2). A Talmudic authority indicated that a man should struggle with the education of his son until the age of twelve (Ket. 50a), yet various medieval sources indicated that education was generally pursued to the age of sixteen (Huqei Torah I, 3; II, 5; III).

The eleventh century Huqei Torah provided extensive rules and curricula

for every facet of education for children and adults. Similar rules are also found scattered through the responsa literature and the books of minahagim from Gaonic times onward (M. Güdemann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens,Vols. I, II, III).

The

innumerable injunctions on the part of the Mishnah and Talmud to continue studying make it absolutely clear that adult education is obligatory for every Jewish male with statements like, “The study of Torah outweighs all other commandments” (Peah 1.1); “The world rests upon three things, upon Torah, worship and acts of kindness” (Pirkei Avot 1.2); “He who does not increase knowledge decreases it” (Ibid. 1.13). Furthermore, a Bet Hamidrash always accompanies the synagogue (Tos. Ber. 11b, 37b; Or Zarua II, 3; Adret, Responsa I, #210; III, #318; IV, #311, #417; Simon b. Zemah, Responsa II, #185, #217, etc. ) . Those who study are honored by being called to the Torahor are given other communal and synagogal recognition.

Widespread

communal pressure insisted on universal education for men, and it remained effective even in difficult times. Titles were used as another form of recognition for advanced study, so rebbe, gaon and haver have been used in various periods to encourage further education.

We must note that all of these statements which are largely, but not

entirely, limited to boys would also apply to girls for us as Reform Jews. Equality of the sexes has been a hallmark of our movement since its beginning.

One of the concerns

expressed within the Reform movement when Bar/Bat Mitzvahs were re-emphasized or re-introduced was the danger of stopping education at thirteen. Every discussion of Bar/Bat Mitzvah has stressed the need for continued education at least through Confirmation, if not through high school and beyond. The latest responsum written by this committee on Bar/Bat Mitzvah does so as well. Various congregations have used different methods to attain this goal. Certainly the method utilized in Long Beach effectively exerts communal pressure toward continued education. Such pressure is in keeping with our tradition and should be maintained.

May 1981

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 86-89

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

33. Reform Attitude Toward Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah

(1979)QUESTION: What is the Reform attitude toward Bar and Bat Mitzvah? Has it changed over the years? What is their relationship to Confirmation?ANSWER: Bar and Bat Mitzvah are, virtually, universally observed by Reform Jews. They celebrate the coming to maturity for boys and girls (Yad., Hil. Ishut, 2.9, 10) and the accompanying obligations (Yoma 82a, etc.). The ceremony possesses considerable meaning both to the young people and to their parents. It strengthens their bonds to Judaism and the synagogue, helps cement family ties, and marks a step in the religious education of each child. The nature of the ceremony and the participation of the child and his/her parents varies from congregation to congregation, but always includes reading from the Torah and the Haftara (on Shabbat morning), as well as a blessing by the rabbi. Bar and Bat Mitzvahs are normally conducted on Shabbat morning or at any other service at which the Torah is regularly read. The ceremony celebrates the entrance into the initial stages of adult life. It marks a change toward physical maturity and a new degree of intellectual maturity, as demonstrated by the curricula of the Middle School and a wide variety of ancillary programs. Most important of all, it demands responsibility for mitzvot within the framework of the modern family and society. The actual responsibility assumed may be modest, but the process of decision-making must now be undertaken in a more serious manner. The ceremony of Bar Mitzvah as a separate institution was first mentioned in the 14th century by Mordecai ben Hillel (cited by Isserles to Tur, O.Ch. 225.1), and was not welcomed by all (Yam Shel Shelomo, Bava Kama 7.37). The Talmud did not know it, and called coming of age “Bar Oneshin.” In any case, it has become widely established and followed by all segments of the Jewish community. It has now become thoroughly a part of congregational and family Jewish life and is a major portion of the youngster’s life as he or she grows up. Every effort should be made to have the youngster participate in the Torah service in keeping with his/her age, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the congregation. The child may also participate in the regular service in keeping with the general pattern of worship, so that all congregants will continue to feel that the service has meaning for them. Many Reform congregations have always conducted the Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremony, while others omitted it for some decades in preference to Confirmation. The ceremony of Confirmation was introduced by Ehrenberg in Wolfenbuettel in 1807 (J.R. Marcus, Israel Jacobson, p. 146). This communal ceremony soon involved both boys and girls (Denmark, 1817, or Hamburg, 1822; D. Philipson, “Confirmation,” Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook, vol. 1, p. 44), and therefore clearly emphasized the equality of men and women in modern Jewish practice. Furthermore, it generally occurred later than Bar Mitzvah, and thus extended the religious education of the child. This ceremony continues to be of major importance in most congregations and is usually conducted when the class has reached the age of sixteen. Most children who are Bar and Bat Mitzvah are also confirmed and see the former ceremony as a step to the latter. Some attempts have been made from time to time by the Conservative Movement to change the age of the Bar and Bat Mitzvah, but these have not received popular support, and no such efforts have been made in the Reform Movement. The classic position for Confirmation in place of Bar Mitzvah was made by Kaufmann Kohler, who felt that we must recognize that true maturity had not been reached in our society by the age of thirteen, and therefore this tradition from the past should be discarded (Kaufmann Kohler, CCAR Yearbook, vol. 23, pp. 170ff). We disagree with these assumptions and see the ceremony as valuable for the child, the family, and the synagogue (“Symposium,” CCAR Yearbook, vol. 72, p. 157ff). In contrast to the early Reform Movement, we now see no conflict between Bar/Bat Mitzvah and Confirmation. One emphasizes the individual child, the other the role which he/she plays in the congregation and community. Bar/Bat Mitzvah particularly reinforces the study of Hebrew. Each marks a different level of maturity and intellectual attainment. Bat Mitzvah is a new ceremony introduced by Mordecai Kaplan in the 1920s (although it was mentioned in the l9th century by Joseph Hayim b. Elijah in Ben Ish Chai). It has been widely accepted by the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and among some modern Orthodox congregations, although the ceremony has been much modified among those Orthodox Jews where accepted (Seridei Esh III.93; Feinstein, Igerot Mosheh I.97,104; Noam, vol. 7, p. 8). Tradition has set the age of majority at twelve and one day for girls and thirteen and one day for boys (Aruch Hashulchan 225.4, etc.), and these are the ages for Bar and Bat Mitzvah among Conservative and Orthodox Jews. We recommend that the ceremony for both be held at age thirteen. Little was made of this ceremony until the Middle Ages, although it is clear that from age thirteen onward, a boy was considered to have reached his majority in every way and he was responsible for his own sins (Avot 5.21; Nid. 5.6). Majority originally depended upon the appearance of two pubic hairs, and if they did not appear, then the attainment of majority was delayed (Maimonides, Yad, Hil. Ishut 2.9,10); but by the 14th century the physical characteristics were simply assumed and there was no examination for them unless there was some question raised. In earlier times, minors were called to the Torah (Meg. 23a; Tur, Orach Chayim 282), and put on Tefilin, but this was protested beginning in the 12th century (Itur II, 26c; Isserles to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 37.1, contrary to the Talmud, Sukka 42a). A boy may now begin to use Tefilin a few months before the Bar Mitzvah in traditional circles (Ba-er Heitev to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 37.1; Aruch Hashulchan, O.Ch. 37.9). On the occasion of the boy being called to the Torah at age thirteen, the father read the special blessing, “Baruch shepetarani me-onsho shel zeh,” (for a discussion of the blessing see Noam, vol. 7, pp. 1ff), which freed him from responsibilities in the future (Isserles, Darchei Mosheh to Tur, O. Ch. 225.1, citing Maharil and Mordecai; Genesis Rabba, 63.10; Epstein, Aruch Hashulchan, O.Ch. 225.4). The social festivities connected with Bar/Bat Mitzvah also began in the Middle Ages (Yam Shel Shelomo, Bava Kama 7.37). Every effort should be exerted to maintain the family festivities in the religious mood of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Some of the efforts of early Reform in favor of Confirmation against Bar Mitzvah were prompted by the extravagant celebration of Bar Mitzvah, which had removed its primary religious significance. We vigorously oppose such excesses, as they destroy the meaning of Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Our emphasis will continue to be placed upon the growing physical and intellectual maturity of the children and upon their assumption of responsibility for mitzvot. We encourage the celebration of the Bar/Bat Mitzvah at the age of thirteen as an initial step toward maturity. The ceremony must lead to continued Jewish education, Confirmation, and high school graduation. The mood of that day should be religious and festive, so that the child and the parents feel a sense of mitzvah.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzEugene LipmanW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 234-235

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

156. Sunday Morning Bar/Bat

Mitzvahs*

QUESTION: It is no longer possible for the congregation to

schedule the large number of Bar/Bat Mitzvahs which recent growth has imposed on

shabbat morning, Friday evening or even shabbat afternoon, without making this

a meaningless ceremony. Would it be possible, therefore, to schedule Bar/Bat Mitzvah on

Sunday morning and have the Torah read as part of the regular week-day morning

service? (Rabbi M. Winer, Commack, NY)ANSWER: It is, of course, the desire of

the Bar/Bat Mitzvah to proclaim publicly that the youngster can now be part of the

minyan (Meg. 23a). Participation in a service has been used for this purpose for several

millennia. For us, Bar/Bat Mitzvah also recognizes the youngsters’ achievements

in Hebrew and religious studies, encourages some knowledge of the liturgy, and tries to establish

the habit of regular worship attendance for both parents and children. This means that the public

service at which the festivities take place seeks to strengthen the religious life of the individual

as well as the congregation. Bar/Bat Mitzvah should, therefore, be part of regularly

scheduled public service. Traditionally such public services at which the Torah

was read were held on shabbat morning and afternoon, as well as Monday and Thursday

morning. In addition, of course, the Torah was read on Rosh Hodesh and the

various festivals, which are also suitable for Bar/Bat Mitzvah. In many Reform

congregations the Torah is regularly read on Friday evening, an American innovation

instituted in this century, which has become part of our established congregational

practice. Each of these occasions represents a normal time of regular public worship.

We are interested in strengthening all public services, especially those on a shabbat

morning so that this day will be a day of rest, worship and celebration for us and our

congregants. Permission for Bar/Bat Mitzvahs on Sunday morning would move us away

from this emphasis . We would, therefore, urge that all Bar/Bat Mitzvahs be

scheduled on shabbat, even if it means that a number of children will share this occasion

.November 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.