RRR 23-27

Mentally Retarded Child and Bar Mitzvah

A child who is mentally retarded, but to some small degree educable, is approaching his thirteenth birth day. His father would like the child to be Bar Mitz vah. It will be possible to teach the child to recite the two blessings over the Torah, but not more than that. Therefore the father himself will read the Haftorah. Is it justified, according to the spirit of Jewish law, that such a retarded child engage in the ceremony of

Bar Mitzvah? (Asked by L.S.F. for T.K.S.)

There are, alas, many mentally retarded—feeble-mindedchildren; and undoubtedly their parents have wanted them to have whatever joy they could and perhaps bring joy to themselves by celebrating his Bar Mitzvah. Yet, since Bar Mitzvah means the formal acceptance of responsibility for the commandments and since, clearly, such a child can hardly be responsible, then whether Bar Mitzvah is permissible is surely a question which must have often been asked before. Yet I do not recall a single responsum on this sad but important subject. Let us, therefore, see what deci sion can be arrived at through a general consideration of the basic laws involved.

There are many laws in the Mishnah, Talmud, and Codes dealing with the feeble-minded. Of course, mental ailments are so varied that one can hardly expect the Talmud to have a precise definition, if indeed precise definition is at all possible, covering a wide spectrum of mental deficiency. The Talmud gives a rough-and-ready way in which to judge whether a person is insane (b. Chagiga 3b)— an insane person goes out alone at night, sleeps in the cemetery, tears his clothes, and so forth. From the legal point of view, the mentally retarded person (shota) is grouped with two other classes, namely, the deaf-mute and the minor. While many laws apply to all three equally, they are nevertheless not entirely of equal religious status. For example, the marriage of a mute would be recognized as valid (see Shulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer 67 : 8) whereas the marriage of a shota is not valid (Even Hoezer 67 : 7). This is based upon the Talmud (b. Yevamoth 112b) where we are told that the rabbis did not provide for marriage for a shota because it cannot be a happy marriage. Among the other special legal disabilities of the shota is that he cannot engage in buying or selling either movable property or real estate. No sales made by him or made to him are valid (see Maimonides, Yad, “Mechira” 29 : 4, and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpot 235 : 20). He cannot even transfer property to another (without sale) or have property transferred to him (Choshen Mishpot 243 : 16). A general description of the legal status of the shota is summed up in the commentary of Rashi to the passage quoted from Chagiga 3b. Rashi says a shota is free from all the commandments and from all punishment (for the violation of them). Therefore it is quite understandable why a shota cannot be included in the quorum of ten (minyan) necessary for public worship. (See Orah Hayyim 55 : 8.)

Now a Bar Mitzvah is one who becomes in duty bound to fulfill the mitzvos (see Abot 5 : 21). The father recites the blessing—generally interpreted to mean that from now on this boy will bear the responsibility for his own sin and be in duty bound to obey all the commandments. Clearly, then, a shota who is free from the duty of obeying the commandments and is free from punishment if he violates them cannot possibly be Bar Mitzvah. The normal boy through Bar Mitzvah, or at least through becoming of age, which the Bar Mitzvah symbolizes, changes from the status of irresponsibility to that of responsibility. The shota cannot change at all. He was irresponsible as a minor and, according to the law as cited above, remains irresponsible as an adult. Therefore it is clear that the Bar Mitzvah has no meaning in his case and should not be carried out.

All this is according to the strict letter of the law. Nevertheless, even acknowledging that he cannot be made responsible for the mitzvos, there is some justification for permitting this child to participate in the ceremony. Actually, the whole Bar Mitzvah ceremony is only a custom, a minhag. It is hardly mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. According to the law, it is the boy’s maturity which makes him responsible. The ceremony grew up later, and is in no sense equivalent to an ordained ceremony like the Seder or the Suceah or putting on the tefillin. Therefore, even though the law says that this feeble-minded lad (if he remains feeble-minded) cannot be responsible for the commandments, still, is it really objectionable if he goes through this ceremony? In other words, may not such a boy be called up to the Torah since the Bar Mitzvah ceremony is not really “sacramental” or mandatory as such?

Nowhere in the literature is there any direct statement as to whether a shota who knows the blessings may be called up to the Torah. Nevertheless, since the shota is irresponsible and regularly grouped with the minor (who is also irresponsible) we may, perhaps, decide from the rights of the minor in this matter, whether a shota could be called to the Torah. The Talmud says clearly (in Megilla 23a) that all may be counted among the seven who are called up Saturday to the Torah, even a minor. The Shulchan Aruch, in Orah Hayyim 282 : 3, repeats it as a law that a minor may be one of the seven called up to the Torah on the Sabbath. But it adds: Provided he knows to Whom the benedictions are addressed. This additional test, namely, that a minor should be aware of God, to Whom the benedictions are addressed, is derived by the Shulchan Aruch by analogy from the Talmud in b. Berachos 48a, where we are told that if a minor knows to Whom the benedictions are addressed, he may be included in the public grace after meals (M’zuman). If, then, this unfortunate child has enough intelligence, not merely to learn the blessings, but to understand that the blessings are addressed to God, then he may be called up to the Torah at any time. If that is the case, why not also on the Sabbath after his thirteenth birthday?

In Reform congregations, the Bar Mitzvah ceremony is not taken to have a strict formal and legal meaning as it might have in an Orthodox congregation. The six hundred and thirteen commandments do not become more a part of the life of a child after this Sabbath than they were before. The Bar Mitzvah is taken to be a symbol much like the general spiritual symbol associated with Confirmation, namely, that it is a taking on of a new and stronger sense of ethical and spiritual responsibility, of becoming adult in mind, heart, and conscience. If that is the case, it would not be of too much importance to us that technically this child, being a shota, is, according to Rashi, freed from all responsibility for the mitzvos. We would rather judge the ceremony on its spiritual and ethical side. If it does the child good, if it will stir the child to a little extra effort which he may need, if it will bring joy to his parents who have had so much sorrow, then certainly the child should be allowed to recite the blessings and the father to read the prophetical reading.

To sum up, then, we must make a distinction between Bar Mitzvah (“the coming of legal age”) and the later ceremony of Bar Mitzvah which is primarily calling the boy to the Torah as a symbol of his religious majority. As far as the actual coming of legal age, this is beyond the reach of this child. The law declares him to be permanently irresponsible, therefore permanently a minor. But the ceremony of Bar Mitzvah is not a firmly rooted part of the law. It is only a formal participation in the public Torah reading. This any minor may do who knows to Whom the blessings are addressed. Especially in liberal congregations where the conferring of technical responsibility does not count as much as our helping the child toward, a happier and more useful life, the ceremony, while necessarily pathetic, may be of encouragement and benefit.