CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
9. Limitation of Congregational Membership
(1980)
QUESTION: May a congregation limit its membership on the basis of geographic boundaries? (Rabbi Martin S. Rozenberg, Sands Point, New York)
ANSWER: The basic matter of excluding individuals from membership in a congregation has been dealt with in a previous responsum. That question, however, hardly dealt with limitations based on geographic consideration. The main concern was the establishment of at least one synagogue in all sizable communities.
Although it was always possible to establish private or semi-private places of worship in a community, each community sought to establish at least one public synagogue, and the majority could force the minority to contribute to that synagogue (Yad, Hil. Tefila, XI.l; Jacob ben Asher, Tur, Orach Chayim, 1050). In fact, small congregations could make attendance at daily services mandatory if that was necessary to insure a Minyan (Adret, Responsa V, 222; Isaac bar Sheshet, Responsa I, #518, 531; Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, p. 268–the Takanot of Candia). Problems arose when many medieval governments limited the Jewish communities to a single synagogue. When massive immigration occurred, as for example of Sephardic Jews into Ashkenazic lands, or vice versa, they were often not admitted to membership or only reluctantly admitted.
We may draw some parallel of limiting a congregation to a geographical area from the medieval Jewish community. In this case, community and congregation were the same, and the community often restricted its membership by not permitting others to settle in the area. This ban against outsiders (Cherem Hayishuv) was of Talmudic origin (B.B. 21b, 22a). It was revived through a takana ascribed to Rabbenu Gershom, but was actually already found earlier (Moses Mintz, Responsa, 89; Jacob Weil in Isserlein, Pesakim, #126). This right of settlement was interpreted strictly or loosely, according to contemporary needs. For example, Rashi generally was strict and insisted that the Cherem was a valid Talmudic ordinance which could not be changed (Rashi to B.B. 21b). On the other hand, his grandson, Rabbenu Tam, interpreted it loosely and stated that the Talmudic law applied only to individuals unwilling to pay local taxes (Or Zarua I, 115; Meir of Rothenburg, Responsa, #11). These ordinances were usually taken strictly, and most authorities followed the opinion of Rabbi Meir ben Baruch (Responsa, #382). This view continued to be dominant in Germany throughout the Middle Ages.
We have, then, definite restrictions on communal membership within a circumscribed geographical area. Of course, these proscribed actual settlement in a certain area. This right was refused on the grounds that this might harm the economic or general status of Jews who had already settled in the area. Such considerations play no part in modern synagogue regulations. Nor should any limitation of membership to a geographic basis be construed as an indication that the area is the “province” of a particular congregation or that anyone in such an area may not join other congregations. Any Jew has the right to join any congregation he or she wishes.
It is clear, therefore, that there are some grounds for restricting membership to geographical locations, but we would hesitate to recommend this except when it will prevent conflict between two congregations seeking to establish themselves in the same area.
Walter Jacob, Chairman
Leonard S. Kravitz
W. Gunther Plaut
Harry A. Roth
Rav A. Soloff
Bernard Zlotowitz
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.