Q & A: K’vod HaTzibbur

Question: Whenever an activity is prohibited because of kavod hatzibbur [namely, the dignity of the congregation], may a kehilla decide that such activity, in their view, does not infringe upon the stature or dignity of the congregation? In my synagogue there are many people who do not wear jackets during services. What of a jacketless ba’al tefillah at Mincha or Ma’ariv, in a synagogue where the custom is such that the shaliach tzibbur does not wear a tallit for these services?

Menachem
Via Email

Answer: This question has great practical ramifications, well and beyond the situation in your congregation. I discussed this in depth with my late chaver and mentor and Jewish Press columnist HaRav Yaakov Simcha Cohen, zt”l, because when I became rav of my synagogue, I too was confronted with such a situation: Many people, during the week, do not wear jackets, especially so during the hot summer months. Rav Cohen’s view was that as relates to the ba’al tefillah, who leads the congregation, in the event he is not wearing a jacket he is to don a tallit when he leads the prayer. He deemed this to be a matter of k’vod hatzibbur.

His view in this matter led to a further discussion where he immediately referred to a contemporary case in point, one that actually goes back to our Talmud – whether women may be called for an aliyah to the Torah. The Talmud (Megillah 23a) rules that originally women were permitted to be included within the seven people called up to the Torah on Shabbat. However, due to the concept of k’vod hatzibbur, the Sages did not permit women to be called to the Torah.

Of concern is whether a congregation may decide for themselves that they do not feel that the concept of k’vod hatzibbur is negatively impacted should women receive an aliyah to the Torah. In other words, we are left with the question as to whether a congregation has the authority to forgive (to be mochel) their kavod.

Though the Mechaber (Orach Chayyim 53:6) contends that each congregation has the discretionary right to accept or reject the strictures of k’vod hatzibbur in certain situations, the Bach and the vast majority of halachic decisors rule that once something is outlawed due to the concept of k’vod hatzibbur, the prohibition remains intact, regardless of the views of a specific congregation. Indeed, the Mishna Berurah (Orach Chayyim 53:sk23) specifically and overtly rules (without citing any sages who disagree) that no congregation may renounce their kavod and permit an activity prohibited due to k’vod hatzibbur.

The Taz (Orach Chayyim 53:sk2), moreover, substantiates this ruling as follows. In ancient times, many communities had each of the five books of the Chumash separately rolled into a scroll. The scroll of the individual book was on parchment and was comparable to all requirements of a Sefer Torah, except that all the five books of the Chumash were not together in the scroll. The Talmud (Gittin 60a) rules that such a scroll should not be utilized for Torah reading due to the concept of k’vod hatzibbur.

Yet when this law is cited by the Mechaber (Orach Chayyim 143:2) it is merely stated that one should not use such a scroll for the Torah reading. At no time does the Mechaber note the reason for prohibition due to k’vod hatzibbur.

Now, reasons the Taz, if the law is that a community may overcome the prohibition of k’vod hatzibbur when they so desire, the Mechaber should have noted the rationale as to why one was not permitted to utilize a scroll with only one of the five books of the Torah. This would give a community the opportunity to use such a scroll in the event they lacked a true (five-book) Sefer Torah.

It is definite that in such a circumstance the congregation would prefer to read the parasha of the week in a scroll lacking the other four books rather than not read anything at all. Since, however, the codes do not mention the reason of k’vod hatzibbur, this means that the activity is proscribed in all circumstances, even should the congregation express a willingness to forgo the affront to k’vod hatzibbur.

The Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chayyim 53: sk10) notes that the definition of an activity that lacks k’vod hatzibbur is that it does not give proper kavod l’Shamayim, thus demeaning Heavenly dignity. This suggests that the activity is not within the purview of the congregation but, rather, relates to the proper respect to be afforded religious or heavenly matters.

Thus, it would be a breach of Jewish law and tradition for any congregation to assume that they have the authority to annul the ordinance of the Talmudic Sages prohibiting women to be called up for an aliyah. In summation, k’vod hatzibbur is not a matter in the hands of the tzibbur per se, but rather is in the hands of the Sages and the Shulchan Aruch where we find this and all other matters codified.

I have found that in the synagogue, according to current practice as relates to the ba’al tefillah at Mincha and Ma’ariv, wearing a jacket or at least a tallit (over which he does not utter a blessing, precisely because it is only worn for k’vod hatzibbur) is nearly universal. However as regards a Mincha/Ma’ariv service in a private home, hall, or office setting, being that it is not in the synagogue there seems to be room to opt toward leniency.