04 Jul EXPELLING A MEMBER FROM SHUL

It is both a privilege

and an obligation to at-
tend shul. However,

sometimes a commu-
nity finds it necessary to

expel a member. Under

what conditions is it per-
missible to tell someone

he is no longer welcome in shul? Surpris-
ingly, 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 differ-
ence. 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 psychologi-
cally and religiously. While this cannot over-
ride 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 argu-
ment 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 Ger-
shom’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 every-
one or expel everyone (Jewish Self-Govern-
ment in the Middle Ages, pp. 120, 130).

The homeowner then promptly discontin-
ued 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 Katzenel-
lenbogen (Maharam) of Padua. Ma-
haram Padua (Responsa, no. 85) re-
plied 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 individ-
ual due to personal dislike. What is the un-
derlying rationale of this rule? Is it that this

would prevent the individual expelled from

performing mitzvos, which requires justifica-
tion? Or is it that expelling an individual for

personal reasons constitutes hurtful behavior,

similar to the story of Kamtza and Bar Kam-
tza (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 do-
ing mitzvos, then as long as there is anoth-
er 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 can-
not attend? If the reason for the cheirem

is so as not to prevent someone from do-
ing 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 invit-
ing 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 in-
vite 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 pri-
vate shul. Can you expel someone from

a communal shul because of a disagree-
ment 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 Ger-
shom’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 some-
one who talks during prayers and Torah read-
ing. Of course, you should first try speaking

with him privately and asking him to stop.

However, as a last resort, expulsion is al-
lowed 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 protec-
tion and the shul needs to serve as a place

for prayer. Therefore, someone who is dan-
gerous 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.