SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA
community may compel charitable contributions. On the other hand, scholars felt uneasy about compelling devotion and respect.
Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg indicated that charity must begin with close relatives; parents are first, then brothers and sisters, other relatives follow, and the total stranger comes last(Responsi, Vol. II, p. 118f; Seder Elijahu , Chap. 27, p. 135). It was normal in medieval Europe to support family members from the tithe allocated to the poor(Meir of Rothenburg , Responsa#75, p. 10b, ed Bloch; Isaac of Vienna, Or Zurua, Tzedakah, Sec. 26). The community could go to considerable length to force a son in this direction. Solomon ben Aderet , for example, suggested that the synagogue be closed to a son and he be publicly shamed until he supported his father, yet he should not be placed under a ban (Responsa, Vol. 4,#56). In this case there was some doubt about the economic deprivation of the father. Somewhat similarly, David ben Zimiri felt that children could be compelled to support their parents in a manner appropriate to the financial status of the children(Responsa, Vol. 2, p. 664). A decision akin to this wa rendered much later by Moses Sofer (Hatam Sofer , Yoreh Ded 229). It further indicated that anything which the son possessed must be placed at the disposal of the parents.
There are, of course, many other responses which deal with specialized problems in which there is controversy betwee! parents and children over other matters which cloud the nature of these obligations. We may, therefore, conclude that the community may go to considerable length to force children to support thelr parents. The traditional authorities, naturally, mentioned only the responsibility of sons; we would broaden that to include all children. If the community does not succeed in obtaining such
134