RR21 no. 5758.9

CCAR RESPONSA COMMITTEE

5758.9

Transporting a Torah Scroll to a Private Bat Mitzvah Ceremony

 

She’elah.

A family in my congregation wishes to celebrate their daughter’s becoming a bat mitzvah, not as part of a synagogue service, but in a private ceremony to be held on a Saturday evening at the local yacht club. The ceremony there, to be conducted by the girl’s tutor, who claims to have semikhah from an Orthodox yeshivah. They have requested the use of a Torah scroll from our congregation. I do not know whether they plan to read from the scroll during the ceremony, and I do not plan to be in attendance. Our board is deeply divided over this issue. Some argue that we should not lend them the scroll, that we should not encourage families to schedule beney mitzvah services away from the synagogue. Others say that we should lend them the scroll, on the grounds that we should do whatever we can to help insure that our members may have a memorable and meaningful religious experience.

Should we lend them a Torah scroll for their ceremony? (Rabbi Bonnie Steinberg, Great Neck, NY)

 

Teshuvah.

In one sense, this is a question about the proper use of a Torah scroll (sefer torah), the times when and purposes for which it may be moved from its honored place in the synagogue in order to meet the needs or desires of individuals. Our tradition offers much specific guidance on that point, and we have much to learn from what it teaches us. In another sense, this is a more general question concerning the nature of the relationship between a congregation and its members, the reasons why congregations are formed and the purposes they serve. On this issue, too, we think that a careful study of that tradition, in both its letter and spirit, will lead to an answer that reflects our best understanding of the values that ought to guide and animate our religious communities.

  1. Transporting a Sefer Torah to a “Private” Service. The halakhic discussion of this subject customarily begins with Mishnah Yoma 7:1, which describes the reading of the Torah by the high priest (kohen gadol) on Yom Kippur. The sexton (chazan) of the synagogue on the Temple mount would hand the sefer torah to the highest synagogue official, who would pass it on to the sagan, the high priest’s deputy, who would then hand it to the kohen gadol to conduct the day’s reading. The Talmud Yerushalmi criticizes this procedure: “everywhere else, we are told to go to the Torah, but here, you say that we bring the Torah to them!” That is to say, our usual conception of the duty to render honor unto the sefer torah would require that the high priest go to the synagogue to read it there. The Talmud answers this objection by noting that since these individuals occupy exalted ritual offices (beney adam gedolim), the Torah scroll is actually honored when it is brought to them.[1] This passage finds its way into two 13th-century Ashkenazic texts, which use it as a basis for two different yet related halakhic rulings. The Or Zaru`a cites it in support of his decision that when an exalted person (adam chashuv) is ill and cannot attend synagogue, a minyan of worshipers may assemble at his home and a sefer torah may be brought to him “so that it may be read in a quorum of ten.”[2] The second source is R. Mordekhai b. Hillel, who quotes a responsum which, basing itself upon the Yerushalmi text, declares: “we do not transport a sefer torah to a prison in order that it may be read to those incarcerated there, even on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur.”[3] Since prisoners are generally not “exalted personages,” it would seem that it is an act of disrespect (zilzul)[4] to take the scroll from its rightful place and bring it to the prison. This decision is in turn codified by R. Yosef Caro: we do not transport the Torah scroll to prisons.[5] Caro does not mention the Or Zaru`a and does not speak to the issue of bringing a Torah scroll to the home of one who is ill.Caro’s ruling, however, is significantly modified by the discussions of two other authorities. The 16th-century R. Meir Katznellenbogen[6] observes that all of the sources which address this issue–the Yerushalmi, the Or Zaru`a, and R. Mordekhai–refer to a situation in which the Torah scroll is simply transported to be read in another place and thereupon returned immediately to the synagogue. This contrasts with “our practice,” in which we overcome the objections against transporting a sefer torah by taking the scroll from the synagogue and placing it in an ark at the “private” location “a day or two” prior to its scheduled reading there. “It would never occur to anyone to prohibit this procedure. No insult (p’gam) is done to the scroll, since it resides in its own special place. And there is no distinction to be drawn between a ‘permanent’ and a ‘temporary’ synagogue.” That is to say, we show disrespect to a sefer torah not because we take it to a “disreputable” place such as a prison but because we move it in an abrupt and thoughtless manner. Moreover, Katznellenbogen offers a slightly different reading of the text of the Yerushalmi: the “exalted personages” are b’ney adam g’dolim batorah.[7] They are Torah scholars, not merely “powerful, wealthy, or influential.” He concludes that if we transport the scroll for the benefit of a noted Torah scholar who cannot come to the synagogue, we do not insult but rather honor the Torah thereby. R. Moshe Isserles cites these views in his emendations to the Shulchan Arukh.[8] This is followed a century later by R. Chizkiyah da Silva, a leading commentator to the Shulchan Arukh, who critiques Caro’s ruling on textual and ethical grounds.[9] His textual argument is that the Yerushalmi passage upon which Caro and the Mordekhai base their prohibition offers no support for it, since the text deals with persons who can go to hear the Torah reading in the synagogue but who for whatever reason do not do so. In such a case, we insult the sefer torah by bringing it out to those persons unless they are “exalted,” like the High Priest and the other Temple officials. Prisoners, by contrast, are anusim, “coerced”, physically unable to come to the synagogue; the Yerushalmi simply does not speak to such a case. His ethical argument[10] asks: on what grounds are we justified in denying these prisoners the opportunity to fulfill their ritual obligation in the only way they possibly can? We do not debase the sefer torah by bringing it to the prison; we honor it thereby. This argument, which effectively overturns the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, is adopted by numerous later authorities.[11]We learn from this discussion that it is generally forbidden to transport a sefer torah from its proper and honored place in the synagogue to be read in a place of “private” worship. To do so is to show disrespect to the scroll; we should strive to bring ourselves to the sefer torah rather than have it brought to us. This rule may be suspended, however, when any one of the following three conditions is met:
    1.  A worshiper is unable for good and compelling reasons (such as illness or incarceration) to attend services in the synagogue, and a minyan is assembled elsewhere for that person’s benefit.
    2.  An “exalted” or “important” individual, most likely a noted Torah scholar, is present, and to assemble a minyan there at which the Torah is read can be said to render honor to the scroll.
    3.  The scroll is placed in an ark at the private place a “day or two” prior to the scheduled service, so as to establish there a temporary synagogue that serves as a “proper” resting place for it.[12]

    When we turn to the case before us, we find that not a single one of these conditions is met. First, as a Shabbat service, a bat mitzvah ceremony is ordinarily held in the synagogue. The family is in no way prevented from scheduling it there, and the invited guests could easily attend it there. The yacht club is no doubt a fine setting for the dinner and celebration that will follow the service, but there is no reason why the service itself cannot be held in the synagogue. The desire to schedule all the day’s events in one convenient location hardly transforms the girl, her family, and the invited guests into anusim, a designation which in this discussion is reserved for those who are physically unable to come to the synagogue. Second, the category of “exalted personage” is irrelevant to our situation. Even were we to assume, for the sake of argument, that the girl’s tutor possesses a genuine semikhah from a recognized institution of rabbinical education and even were he to possess a degree of Torah learning that marked him as clearly above the rabbinical norm, this would not matter: the guests are not gathering at the yacht club in order to “honor” him. Indeed, the point of this service is not to “honor” anyone. Its purpose is to allow this girl to mark her reaching the age of mitzvot by being called to the Torah. It is customary in our day and age to hold such services in the synagogue. It is also customary for rabbis and tutors to be present there, at the synagogue service, and we do not think that we somehow fail to “honor” these teachers when we hold the service in the synagogue rather than in their homes. Third, it is most unlikely that the Torah scroll will be transported in an ark to the yacht club long enough in advance to turn the place into a temporary synagogue. Indeed, it seems clear that the yacht club was chosen as the location, not primarily as a good setting for the ceremony, but because it is especially well-suited for the dinner and party that will follow it. Given such an atmosphere, it is difficult to think of the yacht club in any way as a “synagogue,” even a temporary one.

    For these reasons, we think that Jewish tradition would forbid a synagogue to lend its Torah scroll for this service.

  2. The Congregation and Its Members. It is possible, however, to construct a counter-argument, one that would support a positive response by the congregation to the request of this family. This argument is in fact presented by those board members who contend that the congregation ought to “do whatever we can to help insure that our members may have a memorable and meaningful religious experience.” In this view, we would begin with the assumption that the bat mitzvah ceremony will be held at the yacht club no matter what the synagogue decides. Our only choice is whether to make a Torah scroll available to them, and to say “yes” means that the ceremony will take place in the presence of a powerful Judaic religious symbol. The bat mitzvah will even be able to read from the scroll, though the sho’elet is not certain that the ceremony is to include a Torah reading. The presence of the scroll will also help transform the yacht club into a kind of sacred space, to the point that we might consider it in traditional terminology a “temporary synagogue.” In other words, by allowing the use of its sefer torah for this service the congregation will help see to it that the event will leave a lasting and favorable Jewish impression upon the girl, her family, and their guests. To do this, the argument concludes, is to strengthen Jewish life, and to fulfill that goal is truly to render “honor” to the Torah scroll.Although there is some force to this reasoning, it is more apparent than real; indeed, we find it superficial. For while our synagogues should certainly strive to provide “memorable and meaningful religious experiences” to their people, we should note that in and of itself this term is empty of content. In the name of enabling our people to have a “meaningful religious experience,” we could conceivably advocate virtually any action and justify the violation of virtually any standard of religious practice. We could; but we don’t. That is to say, we know that no matter how “meaningful” the experience we seek to facilitate, there some actions we will not take and some standards which we dare not violate. This is because we cannot define meaning in isolation, apart from a coherent view of Judaism and Jewish religious practice as a whole. An experience is “meaningful” in Jewish terms to the extent that it partakes of that view and reflects our deepest Judaic commitments. And when we perceive that a proposed action runs counter to those commitments and is, perhaps, even destructive of them, we are likely to draw the line at that point, to place a clear limit upon what we are prepared to countenance for the sake of a “meaningful religious experience.”In our case, we are asked to provide the sefer torah for the bat mitzvah service, even though our tradition frowns upon the idea, because to do this will produce positive effects upon those in attendance. Yet the question we should ask ourselves is not whether they respond “positively” to the presence of the scroll but whether this is the sort of positive response they ought to have, the “meaning” they ought to derive. The question, framed specifically, is this: does the lending of the scroll help us to achieve the religious and educational purposes of the bat mitzvah ceremony as we understand them, or does it in fact frustrate them? And to this question, our answer is “no.” The point of marking a child’s attainment of religious majority with a formal service is to enable the young person to acknowledge his or her full adult membership in the religious community of Israel. The so-called “ceremony” of bar/bat mitzvah is therefore not a private ceremony or simchah at all but a formal and public act which takes place in the midst of the community itself. It is for this reason that the bar/bat mitzvah “ceremony” is actually a public worship service, a service held on an occasion when the Torah is normally scheduled to be read, such as Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, or a Monday or Thursday shacharit. By being called to the Torah at such an occasion, the young person affirms that he or she is ready to join the minyan, the adult community whose presence is required in order that the quintessentially public liturgical acts, like the formal Torah reading, can be performed. And it is for this reason that we have been critical of the so-called “Havdalah” bar/bat mitzvah, for although the minchah service for Shabbat is a regularly-scheduled occasion for the reading of the Torah,[13] most of our congregations do not hold a Shabbat minchah service on a regular basis. The “ceremony” perforce becomes a private gathering rather than a public service at which the congregation is present. The emphasis at such a ceremony is upon the private joy of the family and their friends rather than upon the communal/congregational aspects of the event. And since one of the purposes of the bar/bat mitzvah observance is to “encourage attendance at regular services…it would, therefore, be wrong to change the occasion into a completely private service and hold it at a time during which the normal services are not held…unless circumstances which would benefit the congregation dictate a change.”[14]

    In considering the request which prompts this she’elah, we see no such “circumstances.” It is bad enough that the ceremony is scheduled at a “private” time at which the congregation does not conduct services. It is also scheduled at a “private” place, a location away from the synagogue. And in doing so, the family has stripped this ceremony of any explicit link to the synagogue, the congregation, and its regular liturgical calendar. The chosen setting for this “religious” service is truly inappropriate, given that the family could just as easily have held the ceremony in the synagogue. A yacht club is not a synagogue; the presence of a sefer torah–which, since it may or may not be read, may be serving as a mere “prop” for the festivities–does not make it a synagogue; and the obvious inference is that to hold the ceremony there “leads to an emphasis on the social rather than religious aspects” of the occasion, an outcome that should be resisted in no uncertain terms.[15]

    Conclusion. The congregation should not lend its Torah scroll for this ceremony. To do so would be to violate both the letter and spirit of our tradition. It would also be to suggest that, to us, the observance of bar/bat mitzvah is primarily a private, family event, much like any sort of social occasion that might normally take place at a yacht club. And to make that suggestion is to send precisely the wrong message to our people, one that contradicts the core values of Jewish religious life that lie at the core of our teaching. The task of the congregation in this instance is not to help this family have a “meaningful Jewish experience,” for they have chosen to celebrate their “event” in a way that transgresses against one of the basic standards which define the bat mitzvah observance and make it “meaningful” in a truly Jewish sense. Its task is rather to urge them to reconsider the priorities they have set and the values by which they define their Jewishness, especially at a moment when their daughter declares her readiness to think about those priorities and values for herself. Put differently, the synagogue’s job is not to make people feel good about “their” Judaism, but to teach Judaism, a way of life whose patterns are set in accordance with the ideals and the standards by which we as a community determine to guide and direct our practice.

    In saying this, we speak to the specifics of this she’elah. We surely do not mean that a Torah scroll can never be transported from a synagogue to a “private” place. For while the sanctity of the sefer torah teaches that we should ordinarily bring ourselves to its place, there are occasions on which moving a scroll from the synagogue is an entirely proper thing to do.[16] Nor do we argue that a bar/bat mitzvah observance must always take place in a synagogue and can never be scheduled elsewhere.[17] We do insist, however, that each question of this sort be examined and argued in the context of our larger religious commitments and of the purposes that motivate our practice. Given that context, given our affirmation of the sanctity of the sefer torah, our definition of the bat mitzvah observance as a public event, and our understanding of the teaching role that our synagogues can and must fulfill, we answer this question as we do.

NOTES

 

  1. PT Yoma 7:1, 44a, and P‘ney Moshe ad loc.
  2. Or Zaru`a, v. 1, Hil. Keri’at Shema, ch. 9. See also the Hagahat Asheri of R. Yisrael of Krems (14th-cent. Ashkenaz) to Hilkhot HaRosh, Berakhot 1:8, who cites this ruling in the name of the Or Zaru`a.
  3. Sefer Hamordekhai, Rosh Hashanah, ch. 710.
  4. The term is suggested by R. Yisrael Meir Kagan in his Bi’ur Halakhah to Mishnah Berurah 135:14.
  5. Beit Yosef, OC 135, end; SA OC 135:14.
  6. Resp. Maharam Padua, no. 88.
  7. This reading is preferred as well by the Gaon of Vilna (Bi’ur HaGra, OC 135:14) and the Mishnah Berurah, OC 135, no. 50. Katznellenbogen favors it, not only because he has a Yerushalmi text which reads thus, but also because of the continuation of that passage, in which the Talmud objects to the conclusion that the Torah is honored when brought to “exalted persons” on the basis of the Babylonian practice of bringing the scroll to the Exilarch (reish galuta). The Exilarch, according to this objection, may be a high-ranking official, but he is not “exalted” in Torah and mitzvot (see Korban Ha`eidah ad loc.). For this reason, the “variant” text is to be preferred: the “greatness” of the b’ney adam g’dolim and the importance of the adam chashuv lie in their accomplishments in Torah.
  8. Isserles, OC 135:14: Caro’s prohibition (derived from the Mordekhai) against bringing a sefer torah into a prison does not apply if the scroll is placed there “a day or two” prior to its scheduled reading, and we may transport a Torah scroll for the benefit of an adam chashuv even without such advance preparation (Mishnah Berurah, no. 51).
  9. P’ri Chadash, OC 135:14.
  10. This is an “ethical” argument in that it is not supported by a textual reference. R. Chizkiyah has already shown that the Yerushalmi passage proves nothing about the case of prisoners; he now suggests, based not upon a textual citation but upon his own “natural” sense of right and justice, that the Torah scroll is honored when it is transported to those who are physically unable to come to it.
  11. For example, Magen Avraham to OC 135, no. 23, opines that a Torah scroll may be brought to a prison in order that those incarcerated might hear the reading of parashat zakhor, since some hold that it is a Toraitic obligation to hear that reading on its proper day (see SA OC 685:7). The Mishnah Berurah at no. 46 writes that “there are those who disagree” with the Shulchan Arukh position and who hold that so long as one is anus, or prevented against his will from coming to the synagogue to hear the Torah reading, the scroll may be brought to him to allow him to fulfill his obligation. He cites these authorities in his Sha`ar Hatziyun at no. 42. See also his Bi’ur Halakhah, s.v. ein mevi’in, where he clearly sides with Peri Chadash against the Shulchan Arukh’s ruling. The Arukh Hashulchan also rules in this manner: the Torah scroll may be transported from the synagogue for the benefit of one who is either unable to go to the synagogue or who is “exalted” (OC 135, par. 31).
  12. Some recent authorities interpret the “day or two” requirement rather stringently, asserting that the common practice (minhag) is to insure that the scroll rest in its temporary quarters long enough to be read three times. See Arukh Hashulchan, OC 135, par. 32.
  13. M. Megilah 4:1; BT Bava Kama 82a; SA OC 292:1.
  14. American Reform Responsa, no. 36. See also Teshuvot for the Nineties, no. 5754.5, at 69: the private/public issue can also be a problem at when the bar/bat mitzvah observance occurs on Shabbat morning.
  15. See Rabbi’s Manual (CCAR, 1988), 230.
  16. For example, many of our congregations schedule retreats at camps or at other locations away from the synagogue. This is perfectly proper, and there is certainly nothing wrong with taking a sefer torah to a retreat for group worship. Similarly, the Torah scroll may be transported to the site of a large public meeting, a hotel or convention hall, where religious services are to be held.
  17. For example, there can be no objection to holding a service at another location if the synagogue building cannot accommodate the expected number of congregants. It is also an established minhag in our communities for some families to hold their bar/bat mitzvah observances in Israel. While it is possible to critique this practice on the grounds that it takes the young person away from his or her synagogue at precisely the time when he or she is acknowledging membership in that very community, a good religious argument can be made in support of this practice. We cannot say the same for a ceremony at a yacht club.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.