01 Nov EXPELLING A MEMBER FROM SHUL

 It is both a privilege and an obligation to attend shul. However, sometimes a community finds it necessary to expel a member. Under what conditions is it permissible to tell someone he is no longer welcome in shul? Surprisingly, even though this has been an issue for at least a thousand years (probably longer), there are no straightforward guidelines as to when a shul may expel someone. I would like to discuss some general principles found in the responsa literature.

I. Protecting the Vulnerable

Certainly, an overriding principle has to be lo sa’amod al dam rei’echa, the prohibition against standing idly by someone’s blood. This requires taking great care to protect shul attendees from physical and spiritual harm. We cannot subject shul members to someone who poses a physical danger to others or to someone proselytizing for another religion or for no religion. Of course, regarding this and everything else we will discuss, the specific details and facts make a great deal of difference. It is not the purpose of this article to establish how to determine when someone poses a danger or raises any other concern.

However, weighing against these concerns, is the reality that expelling someone from shul will severely impact him psychologically and religiously. While this cannot override the safety of others, it still must be at the forefront of thought.

II. The Private Minyan

In the early 1500’s, the town of Reggio in Italy had a minyan in a private home. The minyan was open to the public, both local residents and visitors from afar. The owner of the home got into a heated personal argument with one of the attendees and did not want that man praying in his home. The homeowner told his antagonist to leave and not come back. The man did come back and pointed out that one part of Rabbeinu Gershom’s cheirem protects against this very situation. There are a number of enactments attributed to Rabbeinu Gershom (11th cen., Germany). Among them is a prohibition against the individual host of a minyan from prohibiting a single person from praying in his house. Rather, he must either allow everyone or expel everyone (Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, pp. 120, 130).

The homeowner then promptly discontinued his minyan and started a new minyan. In order to attend this new minyan, every person had to sign a contract giving the homeowner the right to expel anyone he wanted. The homeowner then asked the highest halachic authority in Italy, Rav Meir Katzenellenbogen (Maharam) of Padua. Maharam Padua (Responsa, no. 85) replied that the homeowner can set any condition he wants as he opens the shul. Rav Moshe Isserles (Rema, 16th cen., Poland; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 153:16; Yoreh De’ah 221:1) quotes his cousin Maharam Padua’s responsum. (For a dissenting view, see Rema’s brother-in-law’s She’eris Yosef, no. 69 and the response by Maharam Padua’s son in Responsa Maharshik, no. 26.)

III. Shul Rules

What emerges from the Reggio controversy, and particularly from Rabbeinu Gershom’s earlier cheirem, is that the owner of a private shul may not expel an individual due to personal dislike. What is the underlying rationale of this rule? Is it that this would prevent the individual expelled from performing mitzvos, which requires justification? Or is it that expelling an individual for personal reasons constitutes hurtful behavior, similar to the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza (Gittin 55b) in which a host expelled Bar Kamtza from a party which eventually led to the destruction of the Second Temple?

If the reason not to expel an individual from shul is that of preventing someone from doing mitzvos, then as long as there is another shul in the area you should be allowed to expel anyone you want from a private shul. He can go somewhere else to fulfill his mitzvos. If it is due to hurtful behavior, you should not be able to expel someone even if there is another shul nearby. I am sure that Bar Kamtza could have gone to another party but being kicked out of a party once he was there was particularly hurtful.

Somewhat similarly, can you start a shul on condition that someone specific cannot attend? If the reason for the cheirem is so as not to prevent someone from doing mitzvos, then this condition should not be allowed. You are preventing this individual from doing mitzvos. However, if the reason is not to expel him like they did to Bar Kamtza, then this case is not the same. Here, you only are not inviting him to your shul. Who says that you have to invite everyone? Once he is there, you can’t expel him. But when deciding whom to invite, you can choose not to invite everyone.

Significantly, Mishnah Berurah (20th cen., Poland; 153:88; Bi’ur Halachah, s.v. le-osrah) follows the view that this is prohibited due to the insult to the person expelled, like Bar Kamtza. Therefore, you may not expel him even if he can go to another nearby shul. This is about a private shul. Can you expel someone from a communal shul because of a disagreement with a shul leader, like the rabbi or the president? Presumably, this applies equally to a communal shul. The cheirem was only needed for a private shul in which the homeowner might feel like he can expel someone from his property. But the reasons for the cheirem apply equally, perhaps even more strongly, with a communal shul.

III. Misbehavior

Rav Yishmael Ha-Kohen of Modena (19th cen., Italy; Zera Emes, Orach Chaim no. 25) adds that you may also expel someone from shul for being quarrelsome. Rabbeinu Gershom’s cheirem only applies to a personal grudge between two people. Someone who causes fights and disagreements with many people is different. The disruption he causes in the shul justifies expulsion. Rav Simcha Rabinowitz (cont., Israel; Piskei Teshuvos 153:24) adds that this also applies to someone who talks during prayers and Torah reading. Of course, you should first try speaking with him privately and asking him to stop. However, as a last resort, expulsion is allowed because he disrupts the shul’s prayers.

Based on the above, we see that expelling someone from a shul is a significant matter. The substantial insult and pain can lead to tragedy. However, the public needs protection and the shul needs to serve as a place for prayer. Therefore, someone who is dangerous to the community or disruptive to the prayers may need to be expelled from shul. It is a serious question that requires significant consideration and consultation with greater authorities.