CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
151. Synagogue Dues for a Wife
QUESTION:
A man of considerable means, who is quite generous to the local Jewish charities, has resigned his membership in the congregation as he finds “organized religion repulsive.” His wife, however, wishes to remain a member. As she works at a minimum wage level, she wishes to pay dues commensurate with her income. Should this be permitted? Will it set a precedent for others? (Rabbi M. Shapiro, Minneapolis, MN)
ANSWER: Financial obligation of adult Jews toward religious institutions was first mentioned in the discussion of the half sheqel (Ex. 30.11 ff). All men above the age of twenty were obligated for the sum, both rich and poor. Later, the Diaspora Jewish community provided for the regular maintenance of the Temple in Jerusalem; when that Temple was destroyed, the Romans sought to divert this financial resource to the royal treasury, which caused considerable misery. That measure eventually lapsed. During the Middle Ages, a community could force its members, through taxation, to help maintain the necessary religious institutions (Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 256.4; Orah Hayim 150.1) . Actually, measures went considerably further, and a community which had only ten males could force them all to be present for the High Holidays, so that the community could conduct proper congregational services. Anyone who was absent had to obtain an appropriate substitute for the minyan (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 55.20; Adret, Responsa V, #222; Isaac bar Sheshet, Responsa I, #518 and #531.) A community could also force an unwilling minority within it to contribute to a synagogue (Yad Hil. Tefilah 11.1; TurOrah Hayim 10.50).
In this instance, we are, of course, not only discussing the general obligations, but also the manner through which this obligation shall be determined. We must ask ourselves about the nature of the husband’s obligation toward his wife. It is clear that he is responsible for her maintenance, i. e., clothing and food . There is only a quarrel in the rabbinic literature whether food, clothing and shelter are a Biblical or a rabbinic obligation (Ket. 47b ff; Git. 11b ff; Sheeltot 60; Yad Hil. Ishut 12.2; Tur Even Haezer 69; Ket. 89a, etc.)
Furthermore, the Talmud quite clearly stated, “The wife ascends with her husband, but does not descend with him.” This indicated that a woman should be supported in accordance with her own standards, albeit those of her husband have diminished (Ket. 48a, 61a).
Clothing, and even perfumes, if the husband’s means permit them, were considered the wife’s due (Ket. 47b, 64a, 66b). In addition, a certain amount of spending money had to be allocated each week (Ket. 64b; Yad Hil. Ishut 12.10). All of these obligations were fixed unless a woman chose to support herself completely from her own earnings (Ket. 58b).
Medical obligations were included (M. Ket. 4.5, 51a). He also had to ransom her if she became a captive (J. Ket. 29a; Yad Hil. Ishut 14.18; Ket. 52a ff), an unfortunately frequent occurrence in the Middle Ages. He was obligated for her burial (Ket. 4.2, 48a, 46b).
All of these statements indicate that the husband is responsible for the complete maintenance of his wife. This surely includes synagogue membership in accordance with his means and status.
We must especially note that the husband was obligated to pay for various sacrifices which his wife owed to the temple (J. Yeb b. 14a; Sotah 17d; Ket. 2ga; Tos. Ket. 4.11; Sifrei [ed. Horowitz] #13; M. Edyot 2.3; Mid. 35b; Nazir 24a; also Tosfot to Nazir 24a; B. M. 104a). These statements, which dealt with the obligations to the ancient Temple, are absolutely comparable to synagogue obligations in our age.
As the woman in question will not provide for herself solely from her own income for any of her normal needs, and will share the income of her husband, as is proper, then this should also be the basis for her synagogue dues in accordance with the mood of all statements cited.
June 1984
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.