CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
1. Rabbinic Jurisdiction**
QUESTION:A rabbi in a mid- western city in which there is a single Reform congregation wishes to know whether it is proper to exclude colleagues who may be willing to officiate at ceremonies which he is unwilling to conduct. This is not a question of establishing a new congregation but of seeking to bring someone to the community for a specific marriage or funeral against the wishes of the local rabbi. What are the prerogatives of the local rabbi according to tradition? Is he correct in his opposition?
ANSWER: The problem of rabbinic prerogatives within a community is an old one and has taken different forms in different ages. The Talmud dealt with it tangentially under the rabbinic rubric of hasagat g’vul which treated free enterprise and competition generally (M.B.M. 4.12; 60a; B.B. 21b; Kid. 59a; San 81a based on Deut. 19.14). Free enterprise without restrictions was generally favored, (B.B.21b). The medieval literature vastly amplified these discussions and applied them to the rabbinate. Rabenu Gershom, the eleventh century authority, discussed rabbis who were active communal leaders and judges but earned their livelihood through commerce; he decreed that no one in the community should interfere with their ma-arufia. As such a rabbis devoted time to communal purposes, they were to be spared commercial competition (S. B. Freehof, A Treasury of Responsa, p. 13). While there was agreement on this, there was a vigorous division of opinion on the question of the other prerogatives of the resident rabbi. What happened when an individual of greater stature arrived? May a visiting scholar deal with marriages, divorces, etc. ? Some authorities like Isserlein and Weil permitted such competition and felt that it was good for the community (Weil, Responsa #151; Isserlein, Terumat Hadeshen, #128). In Weil’s case neither of the two contesting rabbis had been officially selected by the community, so he felt that both had equal rights, although one had been in the community longer. Israel Isserlein made a similar decision to encourage the study of Torah (Terumat Hadashen). Some later authorities agreed with them. Many scholars felt that the appointed rabbi of the community had a right to protect his status both as a teacher and a judge; he could also protect the income from these and other sources (Responsa Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Deah 312.37; Responsa Meshiv Davar, I, 8 & 9; Hatam Sofer, Hoshen Mishpat #21; Mayim Amuqim, #70). The Shulhan Arukh and its commentaries present both points of view (Shulhan Arukh,Yoreh Deah 245.18 ff). This equivocation on the part of the medieval authorities was intended to encourage strong scholarly leadership.
Matters changed entirely when the modern rabbinate became a profession and the rabbis’ livelihood depended upon services rendered to the congregation. Under these circumstances, it was forbidden to trespass on another rabbi’s territory (Moses Sofer, Hatam Sofer Hoshen Mishpat #21; Yoreh Deah 32; Meshiv Davar, #8). Some disagreement remained on the right of a newcomer to teach as this is a mitzvah and its fulfillment should not be denied to anyone (Elijah ben Hayim Mayim Amuqim,, #70; Akiva Eger, Responsa Tanina #12; Abraham Mordecai Halevi, Ginat V’radimYoreh Deah 3.7).
We in America are faced with a number of special problems as there is no chief rabbinate or any officially recognized jurisdiction for a rabbi either within the urban or rural setting as in so many European lands. The rabbi, therefore, has de jure, rights only, within the limited circle of his own congregation. They have elected him and through this agreed to his leadership. However, de factothe range of the congregational rabbi extends and is expected to extend considerably beyond his own congregation. He is constantly involved in communal activities and decisions. In addition, he is also expected to serve other members of the broader Jewish community who may not be affiliated with any congregation. We are in all of these instances not dealing with the income of the rabbi as that is assured through a salary which he receives from the congregation, but with the moral authority of the rabbi. That certainly should extend beyond the congregation especially in a smaller community in which he may be the only rabbi or the sole Reform rabbi.
The Code of Ethics of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Yearbook, C.C.A.R., 1976) indicates that the resident rabbi should be informed by the out-of-town visitor but need not have his consent. That is the official position of the Conference and governs our relationship with each other at the present time.
We would, therefore, conclude that the jurisdiction of the rabbi is clear among all those who are directly affiliated with the congregation (de jure) and those who are indirectly served by him (de facto).In the broader community the jurisdiction is somewhat less certain. A visiting colleague, of course, has the obligation to inform the local rabbi, but in accordance with our current policy, need not obtain his consent.
**the pronouns “he” and “she” have been used generically throughout the volume.
November 1986
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.