Home

1. What is the origin of the modern bar and bat mitzvah ceremony?

One of the first scholars to use the term bar mitzvah in the same sense of which it is spoken today was Mordecai ben Hillel, a 13th century German rabbi. Most of the references to the bar mitzvah appear after this day.

Beginning in the 2nd or the 3rd century of the Common Era, young Jewish women at age 12 assumed legal responsibility for the performance of mitzvot. As with the age of 13 for boys, 12 likely corresponded to the age of the onset of puberty. Girls, however, were subject to fewer religious obligations than the boy. They were exempted from a whole series of time-bound positive commandments, on the assumption that their domestic duties at home took precedence. Many centuries passed before the bat mitzvah ceremony as we know it today appeared on the scene. The first known bat mitzvah in North America was that of Judith Kaplan Eisenstein (early 1920s), daughter of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of the Reconstructionist movement. Her bat mitzvah was held on a Saturday.

2. If drugs were legal, would Judaism allow them?

According to Jewish law and rabbinic opinion, anything that is dangerous to life and limb must be avoided. Our bodies are considered on loan from God, and because we are made in God's image we must do everything to protect them and treat them with respect. There are quite a few references in the classical Jewish sources to use of drugs as medicine or a painkiller. All of the drugs spoken about were legal in the communities where they were authorized to be used. If certain drugs that are now illegal were made legal, I suppose that there might well be circumstances under which Judaism would allow for their use. A good example would be marijuana, which is illegal in most states, but in some can be used under a doctor's supervision to help alleviate the pain of a life-threatening illness or for another medical application. The bottom line is that if a particular drug were legal, deemed to be non-injurious to one's health, and had the approval of a physician, it would surely be permissible for use according to many rabbinic authorities.

3. Did God really turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt?

The Torah tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities filled with evil people. When God decided to destroy them, Abraham protested and bargained with God to try to save them. Abraham could not even find 10 good people to be saved, so God proceeded with the destruction. As the Torah tells it, when Lot's wife turned to look back to see the rain of brimstone and fire befall the people, she turned into a pillar of salt.

One will never know for sure whether Lot actually became a salt pillar. But I must share with you the following story. Some years ago when I visited the Dead Sea, our tour guide took us to a nearby hill, and there for the first time he told us that this is where people believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt. I could hardly believe my eyes. There, encrusted in a small hill, was the likeness of the figure of a woman. Our guide said: "There she is: Mrs. Lot!" I since have learned that many other guides have pointed out to their tour group the likeness of a woman on this same spot. Perhaps one day you too will have a chance to visit this place and see for yourself. Then you can e mail me and tell me what you think!

4. The Torah says "an eye for an eye." Do Jews still believe this?

This ruling of an eye for an eye in the Book of Exodus, which appears to lay down the principle of literal retribution, was not at all formulated for such a purpose. In fact, no case of physical retribution is recorded in the Bible where a penalty was ever exacted.

The rabbis in the Talmud pointed out that, inasmuch as the law seeks equity, its literal enforcement would frequently lead to gross inequity. For example, they said, taking the eye of a one-eyed assailant would not be just retribution but excessive punishment. Or, how is one to guard against the fatal effect of retribution upon the offender. If he dies he gives a life for an eye or a hand, and the objective of the law is thwarted. Therefore Jewish law made detailed stipulations for monetary compensation, much as modern insurance contracts are apt to do today.

In all likelihood, an eye for an eye is a graphic way of expressing the abstract idea that the punishment should not be too lenient or too harsh, but should fit the crime and the circumstances. Both insisting that evil must be punished and in equally insisting on setting limits to the punishment, an eye for an eye is a basic principle of biblical justice.

5. Why are Jews most often associated with politically liberal causes?

Milton Himmelfarb, an American-Jewish intellectual who wrote for Commentary magazine, one said that "American Jews live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans." Although the majority of Jews in the U.S. have gone from being poor 20th century immigrants to successful and fully integrated members of American society, they have remained overwhelmingly liberal in their politics. Known for usually voting Democratic, Jews make up the one ethnic group the majority of whom consistently vote against their own personal economic interests. On social issues, too, the Jewish community has generally always stood behind liberal causes.

In his book "The Quest for Inclusion," historian Marc Dollinger discusses the mythical Jewish affection for the downtrodden, the outsider, and the foreigner. Jews, he said, have also tended to favor liberal immigration policies, to preserve a particular image of the United States for themselves and all newcomers to the country. It was, after all, the Jewish poet Emma Lazarus, who wrote the now famous poem "The New Colossus" that hangs in the Statue of Liberty.

Rabbi Ron Isaacs is the spiritual leader of Temple Sholom, a Conservative congregation in Bridgewater. His forthcoming new book is "Siddur Or Shalom," a Shabbat morning prayerbook. Contact him at www.rabbiron.com or "Ask the Rabbi," c/o Rabbi Ron Isaacs, Temple Sholom, P.O. Box 6007, Bridgewater, N.J. 08807.