Unpacking the Iggerot: Celebrating Bat Mitzva
Read more about “Unpacking the Iggerot” and see the archive of all past columns.
Celebrating a Bat Mitzva / Iggerot Moshe, O.H., vol. 1, #104
Summarizing the Iggerot
Since the moment in 1922 that Mordechai Kaplan, founder of the Reconstructionist movement, performed a “Bat Mitzva” ceremony for his daughter, Judith, the practice gained steam. By 1956, the question about the permissibility of such ceremonies was facing Orthodox rabbis squarely, prompting R. Baruch Aharon Poupko to seek R. Moshe Feinstein’s counsel.
R. Feinstein was not only concerned with the nature of the ceremony, but the setting in which it took place. He argued that a devar reshut, an “a-religious” event, something of neutral halakhic consequence, may not be held inside the sanctuary of a synagogue (even if it was built with the stipulation that it would not have the sanctity of a beit kenesset). In addition to seeing no religious significance in such a ceremony, R. Feinstein argued that it was not as neutral and innocuous as some might be tempted to believe. Indeed, such a practice (at least in America) was introduced and promoted by the non-Orthodox movements with a feminist and egalitarian ethos. Although he did permit holding a private party at one’s home, akin to any other birthday party. However, R. Feinstein did not merely oppose the innovation of such ceremonies for only one gender. He writes:
If I had the power I would abolish the Bar Mitzva ceremonies in our country as well. For it is known that such [ceremonies] do not bring a person closer to Torah and mitzvot for even one moment—not even the bar mitzva boy himself. On the contrary, in many places [such events] lead to a desecration of Shabbat among other transgressions of the Torah.
R. Feinstein, however, conceded that Bar Mitzva ceremonies have at least a stronger precedent, as we will explore in the next section, and decided to pick his battles. (At the end of this brief responsum he addresses an ostensibly independent question pertaining to dishwashers which we will address in a later essay.)
Connecting the Iggerot
Some readers of R. Feinstein’s initial responsum were not satisfied with the delineation between the (begrudgingly) legitimate status of a Bar Mitzva versus a corresponding ceremony for girls. In a subsequent responsum penned only a few years later, in 1959 (O.H., vol. 2, #97), he clarified his reasoning. He begins by taking us back to the origin of celebrating a Bar Mitzva. The Talmud tells of Rav Yosef, who was blind:
Rav Yosef, said: At first I would say: If someone would tell me that the halakha is in accordance with R. Yehuda, who says: A blind person is exempt from the mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis, as I am not commanded and yet I perform [the mitzvot. This means my reward is very great]. Now that I have heard that which R. Hanina says: Greater is one who is commanded [to do a mitzva] and performs it than one who is not commanded [to do a mitzva] and performs it—on the contrary: If someone would tell me that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda [and a blind person is obligated], I would make a festive day for the rabbis (Kiddushin 31a).
From this passage, we can glean that there is a value to celebrating the moment of becoming obligated in mitzvot. Yam shel Shlomo (Bava Kamma 7:37) notes that this anecdote served as the rationale for Bar Mitzva celebrations. If Rav Yosef was willing to commission a party upon merely learning that he was already obligated in mitzvot then certainly a boy who actually ascends to the state of being newly obligated ought to mark the special occasion.
One might inquire that a girl, upon reaching the status of Bat Mitzva, also becomes obligated in Torah commandments and should have the same basis to celebrate akin to her male counterparts. To that, R. Feinstein distinguishes between the concrete and the sublime. A young man who becomes Bar Mitzva can now lead the communal prayers and count toward a minyan. This is in contradistinction to the Bat Mitzva girl who functionally doesn’t do much more than she was already observing earlier due to the imperative of hinukh (childhood Torah education). According to this framework, even Rav Yosef, who serves as the model for mitzva celebrations, would still have ample basis to celebrate as he was presumably honored with publicly reciting blessings on the behalf of others.
Challenges to the Iggerot
The two most iconic reactions come from R. Ovadia Yosef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, and R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, who served as the rosh yeshiva of the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin, prior to World War II.
R. Ovadia Yosef (Responsa Yabia Omer, vol. 6, O.H. #29; cf. Yehavve Da’at, vol. 2, #29) notes that there was already an acceptance of marking the Bat Mitzva milestone independent of the liberal elements found in the Ashkenazic experience. R. Yosef Chaim of Baghdad (Ben Ish Hai, Re’eh, #17) suggested that the Bat Mitzva girl wear a new garment so that she may recite a blessing of shehehiyanu to mark the occasion. R. Ovadia Hedaya (Responsa Yaskil Avdi, vol. 5, O.H. #28) infers that Ben Ish Hai would in principle be supportive of a festive meal as well. He adds that such an occasion does not only celebrate this young woman’s milestone, but celebrates the father’s freedom from assuming responsibility for her sins, just as when a son turns 13. On this basis, Ben Ish Hai authorized a father to recite the blessing of barukh she-patrani, (without the invocation of God’s name, just like for sons).
With significant Sephardic precedent marshaled, R. Ovadia remains unmoved by R. Feinstein’s opposition to Bat Mitzva ceremonies. He does not find the distinction between the functional change for a 13-year-old boy versus the perhaps more subtle status change of a 12-year-old girl to be compelling enough to prohibit the latter from holding a celebration of the occasion. Is becoming obligated in the Torah’s commandments not reason enough to celebrate? He concludes that it would be best to not interfere and prohibit those who mark the event—for the Jewish people are “sons of prophets,” and there is presumably some Divine guidance at work.
Writing in Israel rather than mid-century America, R. Yosef had the luxury of approaching the development of Bat Mitzva celebrations independent of the complications of fending off egalitarianism and liberal Jewish innovations. For him it was simply a matter of celebrating the moment a young woman became bound by the mandates of the Torah, without the external baggage of public policy.
R. Weinberg, on the other hand, charts a course between those of Rabbis Feinstein and Yosef. Having emerged from Germany, where Orthodoxy was locked in an ideological battle with Reform—his instincts are similar to those of R. Feinstein and what he faced in the United States. In his Seridei Eish (vol. 3, #93; or vol. 2, #39, in the later edition), R. Weinberg sympathizes with the asymmetry of what women can perform within the realm of religion. And at the same time he concurs with R. Feinstein’s jaundiced view of Bat Mitzva ceremonies in the synagogue. He even suggests that the private party to be held at the family’s home should incorporate a speech from the rabbi to frame the moment in religious terms. The rabbi would be expected to charge this young woman to observe kashrut, Shabbat, taharat ha-mishpaha and raise a Jewish family with a God-fearing husband.
R. Weinberg subsequently cites R. Dovid Tzvi Hoffman’s concern for not emulating the practices of heretics (Melamed le-Hoil, O.H., #16). A core aim of the American and European Orthodox rabbinate was to categorically deny the non-Orthodox movements any foothold or influence on Jewish communal practice. R. Weinberg connects this to R. Feinstein’s ruling and reiterates his recommendation to hold a private family party in lieu of a synagogue event.
At the conclusion of his responsum, R. Weinberg laments how many who have jumped head-first into these new practices “are not paying attention to the halakhic considerations. Rather they are deciding based on the feelings of their heart alone.” He continues: “The Jewish heart which cleaves to the tradition of parents and teachers is shaken by any change to religious conduct.” On the other hand, he argues that we need not see this as a negative development either. Orthodox rabbis are now presented with the opportunity to proactively take what would otherwise be a secular birthday celebration with only the veneer of religiosity, and instead instill it with authentic Torah values.
Reflecting on the Iggerot
We will do a deeper analysis of R. Feinstein’s approach toward women and egalitarianism when we analyze his responsa on feminism (O.H., vol. 4, #49) and holding positions of communal authority (Y.D., vol. 2, #43-44). What I find most fascinating about his series of responsa on Bat Mitzva ceremonies has less to do with the social implications than the behind-the-scenes glimpse of how he published his responsa.
One could possibly have the impression that after R. Feinstein produced the critical mass of responsa he would simply assemble them in the next volume of Iggerot Moshe. However, such a theory fails to account for the editing and deliberate decision making that went into the process. When he penned each responsa he was consciously storing many of them away for future publication. Reportedly, when he replied with a letter, he would keep a copy of his response, presumably that it may be included in a future volume (Man Malkhi Rabbanan, p. 22). If we put on our detective hats for a moment, we notice something odd about the four responsa which in which he address the topic of Bat Mitzva celebrations (date indicates year the response were penned, not published).
1) Orah Hayyim (vol. 1, #104) | Year of responsum: 1956
2) Orah Hayyim (vol. 2, #97) | Year of responsum: 1959
3) Orah Hayyim (vol. 4, #36) | Year of responsum: 1959
4) Orah Hayyim (vol. 2, #30) | Year of responsum: 1961
How is it possible that a responsum from 1961 made into O.H. vol. 2 while a responsum from 1959 waited all the way until vol. 4? One could hastily dismiss this as nothing more than an archival complication. It would not be the first of many manuscripts that due to a host of technicalities only made it into later volumes. What is curious however is when we look more closely both at the precise date and inquirer of this responsum: 2nd of Sivan 5719 to R. Meir Kahane, then serving as a young rabbi in Howard Beach, NY, which appears as the header of a separate responsum (O.H. vol. 2, #32), about a kohen with a prosthetic legs performing his blessing. If R. Feinstein replied to two separate questions from R. Kahana on the very same day, why were they published two volumes apart?
Prof. Avraham (Rami) Reiner (Netuim 10 [Elul 5763], 66-67) suggests that this is due to the potentially controversial content of the later published responsum. Unlike R. Feinstein’s other three responsa which were ironclad in nature, his letter to R. Kahane expressed a degree of compromise. The inquirer’s synagogue had already decided to implement Bat Mitzva celebrations and to put his foot down would result in absolute rupture. Seeing the precarious position this pulpit rabbi was in, R. Feinstein recommended having girl offer her speech at kiddush, in the social hall, after the prayers had concluded. This was despite it still taking place within the synagogue premises.
According to Reiner, the responsum to R. Kahane reflected a shift in R. Feinstein’s attitude towards Bat Mitzva celebrations over time. He had withheld the responsum for many years, only to authorize its publication (over two decades later, in 1982) when he felt that a more permissive stance was in order. Such a bold theory, however, should require a high threshold of evidence. It is no simple matter to claim that a halakhic authority of R. Feinstein’s stature shifted his opinion so easily with the times— especially without any indication of retraction. Complicating Reiner’s theory even further, R. Dr. Harel Gordin (HaRav Moshe Feinstein: Hanhaga Hilkhatit be-Olam Mishtane, p. 326) points out that Reiner does not account for R. Feinstein’s 1961 position, his latest written responsum, in which he maintains his earlier opposition to Bat Mitzva ceremonies.
Instead, it is evident from the responsum itself that R. Feinstein had dispensed a tailor-made ruling, meant for R. Kahana’s specific situation. To publish it sooner would obfuscate his principled opposition to Bat Mitzva ceremonies. The untrained reader or opportunist would seize upon his “lenient” letter to R. Kahane and present it as evidence of walking back his other rulings on the subject. This theory is not just speculative, as, on occasion, R. Feinstein would instruct the recipients of his responsa not to publicize some of his lenient rulings, lest they be misconstrued (for example, see the very end of O.H., vol. 2, #79).
The evidence procured does not offer a convincing case that R. Feinstein revised his stance. Saving the responsum for later publication was likely more of a strategic decision than reflective of any substantive shift in attitude. Indeed, his son-in-law, R. Dr. Moshe Dovid Tendler wrote:
One evening, while lying in bed and reviewing his daily quota of Talmud, he paused and remarked, I have much to be grateful for. I am especially grateful that I have never had to retract any of my responsa. As all who knew Rav Moshe can testify, Rav Moshe would have withdrawn any Teshuva he felt was flawed, but the certitude he expressed even as a young Rav in Luban accompanied him all his life. It wasn’t that Rav Moshe could not make a mistake, it was that he did not make a mistake. His preparation for giving and writing a teshuva was the outcome of his legendary meticulous attention to details. His absolute recall of everything he ever learned, his faultless integrity, his unqualified concentration, and the governing principle of his life that every word had to be Toras Emes, guaranteed that he never made a mistake.
Endnote: One of R. Feinstein’s concerns with a Bat Mitzva ceremony was performing a non-religious function inside the shul. See our earlier column “Who Let the Dogs In? The Propriety of Pups in the Pews” in which he provides additional nuance on questions connected to the sanctity of the synagogue. We noted that R. Feinstein answered two of R. Meir Kahane’s inquiries on the same date, yet they were published two volumes apart. It is interesting to note that the word “yedidi” (“my friend”), is missing from how R. Feinstein addresses him in the latter version. Notably, in Mesoret Moshe (vol. 2, p. 427), R. Feinstein remarked that he was “a little meshuga.” It’s possible that this was a subtle way of distancing himself from R. Kahane as he developed a more extreme personality later in his career.
Prepare ahead: In two weeks we’ll continue in O.H., vol. 1 #104 and consider the strange juxtaposition of Bat Mitzvot and dishwashers int he same responsum.
Moshe Kurtz serves as the Assistant Rabbi of Agudath Sholom in Stamford, CT, is the author of Challenging Assumptions, and hosts the Shu”T First, Ask Questions Later.