TFN no.5752.12 3-6

CCAR RESPONSA

Congregation Choosing To Remain Small

5752.12

She’elah

A congregation, located in the suburb of a metropolitan area in the American Midwest, is inquiring whether limiting its membership and choosing to remain small would find support in Jewish tradition.

 

“It is important to know (writes the rabbi) that most of our families are young and do not have enough financial resources to finance the building of a new structure. We could, perhaps, build an addition for religious school classrooms, but that still doesn’t answer our to create a family of friends.”

 

The rabbi adds a document which sets forth how such a close-knit community is envisaged. The congregation is about ten years old and grew from small beginnings into its present size of more than 350 members, with 320 children in the religious school. The present building is not large enough to hold all classes at once, and different sessions have been introduced. There are other Reform congregations in the general metropolitan area, each with more than 1,000 members.

 

The rabbi of the inquiring congregation writes: “While we are not anxious to put a ‘cap’ on our membership, we are concerned that if we do not, we will turn into a congregation too large to continue to promote the ideals and values for which we were founded.” (Rabbi Norman M. Cohen, Hopkins, MN)

 

Historical and Halakhic Precedents.

 

The Responsa Committee of the C.C.A.R. has previously dealt with membership limitation,1 but it addressed only matters of geographical and demographic import. The issue before us is different and, in fact, we have not found any material which speaks directly to it.

 

At best there are general analogies. They show that communities welcomed large numbers of worshippers, a prime example being the synagogue of ancient Alexandria.2 The centrality of the crowded Temple/synagogue remained a major feature of Judaism, and this sentiment raised public worship to a higher level than private prayer.3 The large community was considered the ambiance in which God was best approached. One traditional and this speaks to the question that even if one can pray with a minyan at home it is preferable to go to the synagogue, because “the glory of the King [i.e. God] is found in the multitude of people.”4

 

Another authority concludes that in a choice between a large and a small synagogue one should choose the former, unless its noise and confusion make such a choice undesirable.5

 

Contemporary Perspectives.

 

It may be argued that the traditional preference for worshipping in community, and if possible in a large community, was based on the need for “security in numbers” in an unfriendly non-Jewish environment, a consideration fortunately not applicable to a North American congregation.

 

Nowadays, it may be said, the pressure of society, with its depersonalizing impact, engenders in us a need to be recognized as individuals and to make interpersonal connections, an objective easier to realize in a small group than in a large congregation, which is often considered “cold.” These are worthy objectives, and the Committee is sympathetic to them.

 

Still, there are other and, in our opinion, weightier considerations that we would bring to the attention of the rabbi and his congregation.

 

There is, first of all, the principle of mar’it ayin, the avoidance of giving false impressions. A congregation with a “cap” on its membership, will be considered by others as elitist, for organizations that aver to strive for intimacy all too frequently use this claim as a cover word for exclusivity. The very idea of a numerus clausus6 is odious to Jews, and while our Committee does not in any wise assign unworthy motives to the congregation, we would have its members realize what the public impact of membership limitation might be.

 

A congregation should not be considered like a country club which has considerable social prestige, is admittedly elitist, has a waiting list, and selects its members, while a congregation should be open to all Jews who wish to worship and educate their children there.

 

Also, waiting lists in congregations have in our experience led to notable inequities. Well-to-do applicants waiting in line are likely to be advanced over the others, for they can better help to alleviate a congregation’s financial problems.

 

Further, a family who has moved into the neighborhood would wish to have its children associate in religious school with the same friends they have come to know in public school. Sending such children to another part of the city would make their attendance at religious school a less than pleasant and possibly counter-productive experience.

 

The Committee is not unmindful of the congregation’s financial strictures. There are limits to building new accommodations for sanctuary and school. But every effort should be made to find acceptable alternatives: double worship sessions on holy days; school sessions on Shabbat and Sunday; use of portables and, if needed, external facilities. All these have at one time or another served other congregations to good advantage.

 

At the same time, the congregation’s desire for an environment that creates closer interpersonal relationships, can be satisfied by the expansion of havurotin its own midst.

 

If nonetheless circumstances require it, let the congregation help to establish another synagogue in the area, either a satellite or a sister congregation, one that will serve the Reform Jewish community to best advantage Conclusion.

 

The congregation’s identity is well known to some of the Committee members. They are impressed with the religious spirit that prevails in its midst and with the rabbi’s and the members’ earnest desire to advance not only congregational goals but the welfare of the Jewish people.

 

We therefore conclude that our tradition clearly favors the openness of the congregation to all Jews and should be maintained. Neither in personal nor organizational life can we have all our desires fulfilled, and in our view this is one of such conundrums. Let there not be in your community a tension between those who already belong and those who wish to join but cannot and have no good alternative.

 

One member of the Committee, who dissents from the majority and would allow limitation of membership, insists however that indigent applicants or others with special needs must not be refused.

Notes

American Reform Responsa, ed. Walter Jacob (1983), # 9, pp. 44-45. R. Yehudah averred that anyone who had not seen that synagogue had not seen the glory of Israel. It was so large that flags were raised to let the congregation know that they should respond with an Amen. See BT Sukkah 5b; Tosefta Sukkah 4:3. Sh. A.,, O.H. 90:9; see also BT Berkhot 7b-8a. Prov. 14:28. Magen Avraham on Sh. A., O.H. 90, # 15. Mishnah Berurah on Sh.A., loc.cit., 90 # 28. There is a controversy involving the desire of a rich man to retain access to his seat without encumbrance and therefore objects to having the empty spaces surrounding him sold to other people; one side upholding his rights (Resp. Rivash, # 253) and the other, denying them (R. Binyamin Slonik, Resp. Mash at Binyamin, # 4). Literally, “closed number,” the usually unofficial limit of certain ethnic or religious groups by the regnant powers in an institution (often a university). The numerus clausus was frequently used against Jews.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.