CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
152. Congregational Membership at
Thirteen
QUESTION: A parent who is dissatisfied with his congregation
wishes to drop his membership, but nevertheless, would like to have his thirteen-year-old son
continue his education beyond Bar Mitzvah. The congregation’s policy insists on parental
affiliation for enrollment in the religious school. Should this policy be changed in order to permit
a thirteen-year-old to affiliate in his own right? (Rabbi J. M. Brown, Long Beach,
CA)ANSWER: This question involves the obligation of a parent toward affiliation
and education for her child as well as the obligation of a congregation to provide education for
children. An accompanying responsum on “Bar/Bat Mitzvah Certificates” makes it quite
clear that the education beyond the age of thirteen has always been encouraged by our tradition.
Although technically thirteen is the age in which the individual can be viewed as an adult and
reckoned toward a minyan, this is an unrealistically low level in a society in which secular
education extends almost a decade further. As the general society mandates school attendance
through age sixteen or beyond, the Jewish community can certainly demand no less. Our
tradition often dealt with individuals in an environment in which the vast majority of people were
illiterate or placed little emphasis on education. Nevertheless, we always stressed the need to
educate at least to the age of thirteen. It is, therefore, clear that the father has an obligation to
continue to educate his child and that the child has a continued obligation for his own education
beyond the age of thirteen. This obligation can, however, only be carried out by a
synagogue if it possesses adequate financial means. In the modern American Jewish
community, this is provided through synagogue membership. The financial obligation of adult
Jews toward religious institutions was first mentioned in the discussion of the ancient half
sheqel (Ex. 30.11 ff). All men above the age of twenty were obligated to give it, both rich
and poor. Later the Diaspora Jewish community provided regular maintenance for the temple in
Jerusalem. When the Temple was destroyed, the Romans sought to divert this financial
obligation 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 256.5; 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 unable to be present 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 force an unwilling minority within it to contribute to a synagogue (Yad Hil. Tefilah
1.1; Tur Orah Hayim 10.50). The obligations of a congregation vary according
to the nature of the community. In a large community, with many congregations and numerous
unaffiliated individuals who do nothing to maintain the congregation, a congregation may
properly exclude those who are unwilling to bear the necessary financial obligation from its
services (as long as there is no financial need). Under those circumstances the community as a
whole may need to provide some services, such as education for the unaffiliated. The same goal
could be attained by levying a charge equal to that of membership for any specific services
provided such as education, marriage, the naming of children or burial. In a small
community, the congregational obligations are somewhat different as the congregation virtually
possesses the status of a community. Again various devices may be used to obtain the
necessary financial support from the unaffiliated (W. Jacob, “Limitation of Congregational
Membership,” American Reform Responsa, #9). Membership at age thirteen
should not be among these methods. Tradition considered such a person as an adult, but did not
expect financial independence from him. This would represent a bad precedent. If the parent
does not wish to affiliate, and can not be dissuaded from that decision, then the charge for
religious education should be equal to that of membership (providing there is no financial need);
this is currently done by some congregations. Jewish education without any parental involvement
is deficient, but it is far better than no Jewish education at all. Perhaps some individuals within
the congregation leadership can take the place of the bet din, which traditionally looked
after the education of orphaned or neglected children, and also provided some psychological
support for their education. In summary then, the obligation to provide an education
continues to rest both upon the congregation and upon the family, and methods to finance it
should be readily available.May 1981
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.