CONGREGATION WITHOUT A RABBI

QUESTION:

A large Jewish retirement settlement has grown up in a certain district in southern California. These retirees established a congregation a number of years ago, but they have not selected a rabbi. Is it a requirement of Jewish law and tradition that a congregation must appoint a rabbi, or may it continue to conduct its religious life without a rabbi? (Asked by Rabbi Martin Weitz, Laguna Hills, California.)

ANSWER:

Under Jewish law and tradition every community, especially a new community, has certain inescapable responsibilities. These responsibilities are described in the talmudic literature as follows: “The members of the city may compel each other (Kofin zeh et zeh)” to do certain things or to establish certain institutions. The earliest reference to what members of the community ‘may compel each other to do’ is to establish a synagogue and provide a Sefer Torah. This mandate stems from the Tosefta (Baba Metzia 11:23). It reads as follows: “The men of the city are required to compel each other to acquire a synagogue and a roll of the Torah.” This means that even the minority can insist that the majority agree to the action. (cf. Isserles to Hoshen Mishpat 163:1 and Arukh Hashulkhan ibid.) From this original source it is cited in almost all of the legal literature. The Or Zarua cites it in Baba Batra #4. So does Meir of Rothenburg in his responsum 918, etc. It is codified as law in the Shulkhan Aruldi, Orah Hayyim 150:1.

This requirement, that every community should acquire a synagogue and a Sefer Torah, is enlarged by a further requirement, that every community have a teacher for children and a physician.

This requirement is stated under a different formula, Sanhedrin 17b, as follows: “No one should live in a community that lacks a synagogue, a teacher of children and a doctor.”

Now it must seem strange to a modern student that among all these requirements which are incumbent upon every community, thereis no mention of a community’s obligation to appoint a rabbi.Considering the high esteem in which the scholar was held and what important functions he fulfilled in the community, being virtually the guide and magistrate of all of Jewish law, why was the appointment of a rabbi not mentioned along with the providing of a synagogue and a Sefer Torah? This apparently strange omission is to be explained by the history of the rabbinate. Originally the presence of a rabbi in the community was not dependent upon the decision of the congregation or the community. The rabbi was not a professional man. He was a man learned in the law and he performed various public duties as his personal religious obligation, and for which originally he received no pay. If a rabbi came into a city, he came of his own accord and served the community of his own free will. Of course, in order to make this possible, he was freed from the communal taxation (Yore Deah 243:1,2).

In later years, it became acceptable for the rabbi to accept fees for performing the various rabbinical functions (see Current Reform Responsa, p. 199 ff.). When it had become acceptable for a rabbi to accept fees, then no other rabbi could come into town and take these fees for himself, although another rabbi was still permitted to come to town and perform rabbinical functions. At a later time the rabbi’s status changed more completely. He was no longer a self-appointed scholar-guide in the community in which he chose to settle. He was now selected by the community as its rabbi. As early as the 13th century, Asher ben Yehiel in his responsa (Kelal, 6:1) says that if the community is limited in its resources and therefore has to choose between appointing a cantor or a rabbi, then, if the rabbi is a noted scholar, it is he who must be chosen. This, then, is cited as the law in Orah Hayyim 53:24. Based upon this statement, Moses Sofer (1763-1839, Responsa Orah Hayyim 206), concludes that since the congregation must appoint a cantor and yet if a choice is to be made, it is obliged to appoint a rabbi instead of a cantor; then it is clear that the appointment of a rabbi is the more important. Hence, Moses Sofer adds to the ancient formula and declares that just as the members of the community must compel each other to build a synagogue and have a Sefer Torah, so it is equally the law that the members of the community “must compel each other” to appoint a rabbi. So also Arukh Ha-Shulkhan, Hoshen Mishpat 163:1, where the author, Jehiel Epstein, adds that it is also a mandate for the community to buy the books needed for study (Bible with Rashi, Mishnah, Talmud, Shulkhan Arukh, etc.).

The relationship, therefore, between the community and a rabbi has gone through a long evolution. Originally the rabbi was one who served the community by his scholarship as a free-will expression of his religious obligation to do so. The status of the rabbinate gradually changed and it became acceptable for him to accept fees for his various services. Then, finally, the rabbinate changed into a profession. The free-will status of the earlier day is, however, still operative and a rabbi can, for example, come into this new community with or without the community’s consent and perform rabbinical functions for those who will seek his services. This right he still has, but since the rabbinate has become a profession, it has become appropriate and customary for communities formally to contract for the rabbi’s services and, as Moses Sofer says: to appoint a rabbi, together with providing a synagogue and a Sefer Torah, is now an inescapable mandate of the community.