NRR 168-174

REBATES FROM A BUILDING FUND

QUESTION:

The congregation had a synagogue building in Philadelphia. Now it has moved to a suburb (Spring House, Pennsylvania). It sold the building in Philadelphia and used the money to buy the land for the new temple. Now a number of the contributors to the former building fund (for the Philadelphia synagogue, which was sold) are making the request that the contributions which they made for the Philadelphia synagogue be credited to them as a rebate or deduction from whatever contribution they are now asked to make for the new synagogue building. Is this request justified? (Asked by Rabbi Merle E. Singer, Beth Or Congregation, Spring House, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

THE MEMBERS who are asking for this credit or rebate from the new assessment reason as follows: The money obtained by the sale of the synagogue in Philadelphia is being used to buy the land, etc., for the new synagogue. Since their contributions are part of the monies realized by the sale, their former contributions are already being used for the new building. Hence their request for credit to that amount from their new assessment. This request must be evaluated on the basis of the considerable body of law which has been built up in the tradition on the question of the building and the financing of synagogues.

The first thing that must be decided is this: According to Jewish law, have these members any right to make demands as to the disposal or handling of their original contributions to the synagogue in Philadelphia? To this question the answer is definitely in the negative. According to traditional law, it is only under special circumstances that a man may change the purpose or the use of a pledge to charity or to the synagogue. If a man makes a private, unvoiced mental pledge for a charitable purpose, he may without question change that pledge from one charitable purpose to another. If he has made the pledge in the presence of others, he may have to ask permission to change from one charitable cause to another. In other words, any change in the use of the money may be made as long as the money is still in his possession. However, once the money has been turned over to the officials authorized to receive it, the donor no longer has any right to make demands as to the use of the money (as long, of course, as the money has been used for the purpose to which it had been pledged). This law is based upon the Talmud Arachin 6b and is codified in the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 256:6.

However, although the original donors no longer have any right to make demands with regard to their original contributions, the officers of the congregation (or the officers at the congregational meeting) have the right, if they so decide, to make decisions as to these requests by the members. But should they accede to this request?

There are a number of considerations which must guide the officers or the congregation in making a decision on this matter. The law makes a basic distinction between a synagogue in a village and a synagogue in a large city. The synagogue in a village may without question be sold outright by its members, but basically speaking, the synagogue in a large city may not be sold (Orach Chayim 153:7). The reason for this distinction is as follows: In a village, all the contributors or their descendants are still present, but in a large city, many visitors or traveling merchants who are no longer present may well have contributed to the building, and therefore, in a sense, the large city synagogue belongs to many absent owners and therefore may not be sold. Of course, nowadays, because of special situations in modern cities and in America, this prohibition against selling a large-city synagogue has been modified; but the basic prohibition still has weight in the law and has specific bearing on our question, namely, that there are certainly many former members of the congregation in Philadelphia who did not move to the suburb. If credit for former contributions be given to those members who have moved to the suburb, then those who have not moved to the suburb have equal rights to the property of the synagogue. They too, therefore, may now demand to be credited with their former contributions and perhaps ask that their gift be now transferred to some other congregation to which they at present belong. Thus, giving credit for a former contribution to a metropolitan synagogue could easily become a dangerous precedent.

Aside from the fact that giving credit to former members could create a bad precedent, there is also a more definite traditional law involved here, namely, the law governing the proper use of monies obtained from the sale of a synagogue building. With regard to the use of this sale money, the law is clearly stated in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch #193 based upon Mishnah Megillah 3:1. It is as follows: The money realized from the sale of the synagogue is considered to be sacred money and may not be used for any purpose less sacred than that which has been sold. Thus, for example, the Ark is more sacred than the rest of the building. A Sefer Torah is more sacred than the Ark, etc. The monies obtained from the sale of such objects share the sacredness of the object which has been sold. The monies, therefore, obtained from the sale of a synagogue building may be used for another synagogue building, which is equally sacred, or for an Ark, which is still more holy. But the money may not be used for anything less holy (see especially 153:5). Thus in this case the money obtained from the sale of the Philadelphia synagogue may not be used for the reimbursement of private individuals. This would be a drastic misuse of sacred money. In other words, although the money will be used for another synagogue, since it will also be a rebate to these individuals, it is in effect being used for private benefit, since it leaves them with less to pay out on the new assessment.

There is also another practical consideration involved. If these members get their former gifts deducted from the present assessment, there will, of course, be less money available for the building of the new temple. This fact might well create a greater burden upon all the other members. This fact involves the law of how the money for a new synagogue must be assessed. There are different modes of assessment established in the legal tradition for different types of synagogue expenses. If, for example, there is a need to hire a cantor for the holidays, the cost for this may be met by an equal assessment imposed upon every individual member. But a capital expense, such as the building of a synagogue, is not met by an equal per capita assessment but by special assessments made according to the financial ability of the various members. This law is stated clearly by Meir of Padua in his responsa #42 and is referred to in the Be’ er Hetev to Orach Chayim 150. Now we must assume that the original contributors to the older temple could afford to have given those contributions and now can still afford to make a larger (and not a smaller) contribution to the new temple. Of course, the former contributors who are making the present demand for credit may claim that to demand a second large contribution to the synagogue constitutes excessive pressure put upon them even though they can afford it. But the law clearly states that when it comes to the high purpose of building a synagogue, members of the community may exert the necessary pressure on each other (“kofin zeh es zeh, ” Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 150).

To sum up: The donors to the old synagogue no longer have any right to make demands as to the disposal or handling of their former gifts, since those gifts had already come into the hands of the authorized officers. The authorized officers of the congregation (alone or at a congregational meeting) have the right to make all such decisions. The officers must now consider the fact that in a large-city congregation, many people not now living in the new location also have certain rights in the old synagogue property. They must also consider that it is clearly against traditional law for them to convert part of the purchase money into what amounts to private funds. They must decide now how much may be justly assessed. This decision must not be based upon past gifts, but on the present needs of the building fund and the ability of the prospective donors to meet the assessment.

As for the donors involved, once the traditional laws are put before them, they are not likely to press their demands for what amounts to a rebate. They have already earned spiritual credit for their contributions to the Philadelphia synagogue. They will surely not insist also on a financial credit for a past mitzvah which they had properly and generously fulfilled.

Addendum

There has developed in American congregations a method of raising building-fund money which differs from the traditional method of asking members to pay according to their ability. The newer method, followed in a number of congregations, is to assess all members equally as an addition to their membership dues, with allowance made, of course, for hardship cases. Suppose, then, in the case mentioned in the responsum, that members of the congregation were taxed for the original building fund and now claim it is unjust to be taxed a full amount again for the second building fund. Is not the situation different from what is described in the above responsum? This may well depend upon what the plan was when the original synagogue building was acquired. If, for example, the original building was meant to be permanently the synagogue of the congregation, and if it was used as such, let us say, for ten years, then it is a complete building enterprise in itself, and the money contributed to it can be deemed sacred money and none of it can be used for the lesser sanctity of helping the financial burden of individual members.

If, however, it was understood when the original building was acquired that this was perhaps temporary and therefore the gifts given to it were given with the condition or understanding that it was part of some future enterprise, when a more permanent suburban synagogue would be built, then both building enterprises are really one and the gifts or assessments given for one are also given for this new building, and therefore if any individual wishes some adjustment, he may ask for it and be granted it.