Synagogue Dues
November 4, 2008 This week’s teshuva, from Kollel Eretz Hemdah, dealt with a question from Malmö, Sweden. We were fortunate to have a visitor from Norway who was familiar with the background of the story.
The question was whether a synagogue may deny entry to someone who refuses to pay membership dues. On one hand, the ideal is to preserve the unity of the congregation. On the other, how can the congregation look the other way on a fundamental issue? (Rabbi Kermaier noted that there’s an assumption the person in question can afford to pay dues, which was confirmed by our Norwegian visitor.) The synagogue trustees have suggested denying the recalcitrant individual entry to the synagogue. May they take such a severe approach? Our visitor from Norway told us that towns in Scandinavia tend to have only one synagogue, and it is understood that all Jews must support that institution. They do not have the practice with which we are familiar in the US (or in Israel), where people may attend different synagogues at different times. What’s more, our visitor said, there have been problems when Jews from outside Scandinavia have moved into one of these towns and have a feeling that they need not formally join the local synagogue. He further said that the synagogue in Malmö (presumably in reliance upon this teshuva) has in fact barred from entry residents who refuse to pay dues. The teshuva said that it is halachically permissible to deny entry to the synagogue, provided certain conditions are met. (1) If dues are used for maintenance or construction of the synagogue, the recalcitrant individual may be barred, because it is as if he is stealing from the community. This is true so long as the synagogue is categorized as a “town synagogue.” Footnote 3 explains that a synagogue built for a specific community, even though it occasionally receives visitors, is a town synagogue, owned by the community. If a synagogue is built to service many people, including travelers and commuters, it is a “city synagogue” and is not under the ownership of the local community. Rabbi Kermaier, seconded by Rabbi Roth, theorized that Fifth Avenue Synagogue is a city synagogue. Rabbi Kermaier cited a further example of a city synagogue, the synagogue at JFK Airport, which is exclusively for travelers and does not even have a local community. (2) Even if the establishment is a city synagogue or its dues are used for purposes beyond the synagogue itself — such as support for the poor or education or the purchase of a Sefer Torah — it would still be permissible to bar the recalcitrant individual, on either of two conditions: (a) A beit din rules that he may be barred. (b) The lay leaders of the community — the so-called “shiva tuvei ha’ir” — may bar the individual, provided that they enforce the rule in a non-discriminatory fashion. The Talmud discusses the lay leadership in the context of selling a synagogue building. (See page 8 of this link.) The teshuva notes that the lay leadership may consist of fewer than the seven individuals implied by their Hebrew title. The teshuva further states that the decision should be unanimous, but footnote 7 states that a majority decision will suffice in places where it is customary to follow a majority in such matters. (The footnote observes that the Chatam Sofer was unsure whether to require a majority or unanimity.) The teshuva further states that the power to bar an individual should be used sparingly, because the use of police or guards to enforce the decision could lead to litigation and chilul Hashem. Therefore, in such cases, it is best to avoid taking these steps, and preferable to internally publicize the individual’s refusal to pay dues. The synagogue may also deny honors — such as an aliyah, opening the Aron, or davening for the amud — to the recalcitrant individual.
|
