CCAR RESPONSA
Names of Donors on Synagogue Windows
5756.3
She’elah
Our synagogue is over ninety years old. We are repairing some stained glass
windows which are desparately in need of major attention. Several of the
windows have dedications on them and related families are still in the
congregation. We will approach those families for help in repairing the
windows. However, several dozen windows in need of repair were donated by
members who today have no known relatives in the congregation. Would it be
appropriate for us to offer these windows for a new dedication by our current
congregants? (Rabbi Martin S. Weiner, San Francisco, California)
Teshuvah
Jewish tradition grants the community a broad power to alter the terms of a
gift, diverting the funds it has received to a purpose other than that
specified by the donor, provided that the new purpose is a “higher” one than
the old.[1] Thus, the community may sell a synagogue building in order to
purchase an ark, an ark in order to purchase covers for the Torah scroll, and
so forth; but it may not sell an object of “higher” sanctity in order to
purchase one of “lower” sanctity.[2] We are taught as well that if a Jew
donates a ritual object to the synagogue, that object may be sold and the
funds used for the sake of a commandment [d’var mitzvah]. This permit applies
even “if the name of the donor has not disappeared from the object,” that is,
even if the congregants associate that object with the donor.[3] This
position is ratified by the medieval halakhic authorities[4] and
codifiers.[5]
Bedek habayit — restoring the synagogue structure — certainly counts as a
d’var mitzvah. And the renovation of a synagogue building so that the
congregation may worship in a more beautiful and suitable structure must be
considered as the diversion of synagogue funds to a purpose of higher
sanctity. It would thus seem that the congregation may offer the windows in
question for dedication by current congregants.
On the other hand, not all authorities accept this conclusion. R. Moshe
Feinstein, in particular, forbids the replacement of donated synagogue
furnishings without the consent of the donors.[6] His argument is that such
gifts are usually made with the implicit understanding that the dedication is
to be permanent (le`olam) and that to replace their donations with those
given by others is a breach of promise. To this, we respond that, according
to halakhic principle, one who donates tzedakah does so `al da`at haminhag,
in accordance with that community’s customary practices.[7] It is clearly the
custom among our congregations, which rely upon voluntary contributions to
build or renovate synagogue buildings, to raise the needed funds by offering
donors the opportunity to dedicate parts of those structures. The original
donors, therefore, are aware of this custom. When they give ritualia or
dedicate parts of the synagogue building, they do so with the knowledge that
these may one day need to be replaced and that other donors may be given the
opportunity to contribute the replacements. Were this not the case, were our
synagogues forbidden to replace parts of their buildings without first
receiving consent from donors whose families no longer live in our
communities, it would be virtually impossible for communities to fund new
construction and renovation. Surely the original donors, when sharing the
gifts of their generosity with synagogues, do not thereby intend to prevent
the synagogue from building larger and more suitable structures for
themselves. Nor do the communities which accept these gifts intend thereby to
surrender their freedom to grow and expand. In other words, we hold that our
donors make their gifts according to an “implicit understanding” which
differs from the one that Feinstein suggests.
In addition, Feinstein’s reservation applies more properly to specific ritual
items than it does to stained glass windows and other similar parts of the
synagogue structure. As one nineteenth-century notes, one who donates part of
a synagogue building cannot be considered the “owner” of that which he
donates; he has turned his donation over to the community. Moreover, should
the original donor(s) object to the building’s renovation on the grounds that
the names will be effaced from the existing structure, “it is obvious that we
should not accede to their demand. For if the community wishes to make
something new for the glory and honor of the holy place, it should not be in
[the opponents’] power [to stop them] for the sake of [their own] honor. For
God forbid that we place the honor of God second to the honor of human
beings.”[8]
Under Jewish law, therefore, the congregation may indeed offer the new
windows for dedication to current congregants who are not descendants of the
original donors. In fact, it would be permissible to extend this offer to all
the windows, including those which were originally dedicated by families
whose relatives remain in the congregation. We agree, however, with your
intention to approach those relatives for help in replacing the windows
originally donated by their families. Although, as we have seen, the
community is entitled to divert donated funds and objects “for the sake of a
commandment” and “to a purpose of higher sanctity,” it is wise to use this
power with caution. For one thing, we might with justification be accused of
ingratitude were we cavalierly to efface the memory of the original donors.
Moreover, as rabbinic writers remind us, one of the reasons that individuals
are allowed to inscribe their names on objects they donate to the synagogue
is that, by “publicizing the deeds of the righteous” we encourage them as
well as others to make further contributions to the community.[9] If so, then
it is surely possible that if potential donors realize that the terms of
their gifts will one day be altered without the consent of their descendants,
they may be less likely to make those gifts in the first place. In other
words, to raise money by replacing the names of original donors may prove in
the long run to be counterproductive.
Conclusion. Your congregation is certainly entitled to offer the new st`ained
glass windows to current congregants for dedication. It is essential,
however, to indicate through plaques or in some other concrete fashion the
names of the donors of the original windows.[10] In this way, the
congregation would fulfill its moral debt of gratitude to those who supported
it in the past, its pragmatic responsibility to insure that potential donors
will want to give, and its religious duty to raise funds to provide a proper
structure for prayer, Torah study, and Jewish life.
NOTES
1. See our responsum 5753.18, “Memorial Plaques and the Kaddish List.”
2. M. Megilah 3:1. See also BT Megilah 26b-27a: a synagogue may be turned
into a house of study, but not vice versa, since the study of Torah is the
highest value.
3. BT Arakhin 6b. If the name of the donor has indeed been forgotten, the
proceeds of the sale may be used by the community for a discretionary
(non-mitzvah) purpose (d’var reshut).
4. R. Shelomo b. Adret, Resp. Rashba, I, no. 617, and III, no. 291; R. Asher
b. Yechiel, Resp. Harosh, 13:14.
5. Yad, Matanot Aniyim 8:6; SA YD 259:3.
6. Resp. Igerot Moshe, OH III, no. 26.
7. Resp. Rashba, 5:249; Isserles, YD 259:2.
8. Resp. R. Yekutiel Asher Zalman Zaumser (d. 1858), no. 97. The issue in
this teshuvah involved a new ark for the synagogue sanctuary. Had the
question concerned a “movable” ritual object, Zaumser writes, the
congregation would be forbidden to sell that object or rededicate it as long
as the original donor’s name was upon it, unless the sale was for a d’var
mitzvah.
9. Resp. Rashba, I, 581; Isserles, YD 249:13.
10. Feinstein, in fact, suggests an arrangement such as this when the
original donors do not wish to contribute to the purchase of a new ark for
the sanctuary.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.