What is "due" to our congregations?

Korah

Numbers 16:1 - 18:32

Précis: Korah foments a rebellion, claiming that Moses and Aaron have taken too much power for themselves. Dothan and Abiram also attack Moses’ leadership, claiming that Moses has brought them from a land of milk and honey (Egypt!) only to let them die in the wilderness. A test of fire offerings is arranged, and Korah and his followers are destroyed as the earth opens and swallows them. The People continue to complain, God threatens to destroy them once again, but Moses and Aaron intercede. A plague takes the lives of 14,000 people. A final test, that of staffs, is performed, and when Aaron’s staff miraculously blossoms on the following morning, it is clear that his status as High Priest is secure.

Numbers 18:25-26 “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the Levites and say to them: When you receive the tithes from the Israelites, which I have assigned to you as your share, you shall set aside from them one-tenth of the tithe as a gift to the Lord.’”

               All Israelites were obligated to donate one-tenth of their produce (or earnings) to the Temple, in order to support the Levites (the only tribe not allotted a portion of the Land of Israel). This is one proof-text for the concept of tithing, or giving a portion of one’s income to support the Sanctuary. I find it interesting that the Levites themselves are not exempt from this process; even the Levites had to give “to the Lord” one-tenth of what they received from the People as offerings. This may be a source for the traditional rabbinic dictum suggesting that when it comes to giving tzedakah, the poor are not exempt, and that it is a mitzvah to provide a beggar with sufficient funds so that he may, in turn, offer tzedakah to another.

               For synagogues, money and finances are an ever-present fact of life. We never seem to be able to earn a sufficient amount to make our budgets work without extra fundraising or ever-present cost-cutting. The concept of tithing we read about here has a modern corollary in the “fair share” dues systems which some congregations utilize, where a household’s dues relate to the household income. Yet many “fair share” congregations face financial challenges similar to congregations who use a flat rate or stepped dues system (usually age or marital status dependent).

               What is clear to me, after more than forty years of involvement in congregations as a member, a president, or as an executive director, is that the dues model is broken. Congregations all seem to depend more and more on fewer and fewer households. In so doing, we have raised enormous financial barriers to membership in our congregations, particularly for younger families. This in no small part contributes to the growth of the so-called “Jewish nones” (who claim that they are proud Jews but refuse to join a congregation) and in the growth of smaller, more intimate groups of like-minded Jews who eschew professional-led congregations. It may also be leading to the growing phenomenon of so-called “ala carte” options, when Jews decide to “purchase” specific “services” (often in the form of bar mitzvah tutoring or a wedding service at a hotel) from professionals in the community who are willing to sell such services at a price far below congregational dues levels.

               Those of us who believe that a congregation is more than a venue for the provision of services, but rather a “kehila kadosha” – a holy assembly – must find a way to restore the sense of community that is the essence of Jewish life, and is at the core of congregational existance.

Does a "fringe movement" tell us something about Israeli society?

Sh’lach L’cha

Numbers 13:1-15:41

Précis: Moses is ordered to “send out” (sh’lach l’cha) spies to examine the land.Representatives of each tribe go out, report on its bounty, but also report about its fearsome inhabitants. The People are frightened, and their “murmuring” turns into something close to panic. God tells Moses that He will destroy the People, but Moses intercedes; the People are sentenced to spend 40 years in the wilderness. The parasha then returns to matters concerning the Tabernacle, with a discussion of the offering for unintentional sins. Near its end, the parasha discusses the wearing of tzitzit, a paragraph which is part of the traditional recitation of the Sh’ma. This is the 27th of 54 parshiot, marking the half-way point in the yearly reading.

Numbers 14:37-38 “The Eternal One said to Moses as follows: ‘Speak to the Israelite people and instruct them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout the ages; let them attach a cord of blue to the fringe at each corner. That shall be your fringe; look at it and recall all the commandments of the Eternal and observe them….’”

                

These verses are the proof-text (guiding verses) for the commandment to wear tzitzit. While the mitzvah is ritual in nature, the tzitzit (fringes) became a distinguishing sartorial feature for Jewish men wherever they lived. For traditional and observant Jews, wearing tzitzit was not a matter of choice; here we have a biblical command to wear fringes. As Jews emerged into “modern” society, many of the outward signs (in dress, beards, hairstyles, etc.) of Jewish tradition were abandoned. This was particularly true in the Reform Movement, which eschewed such displays in the 19th century.

              

Traditional Jewish men have always worn a tallit during morning prayer, an explicit way of following the commandment for tzitzit. The tradition of wearing a tallit during morning prayer has again become more common in many Reform congregations, Moreover, in America, (at least in non-Orthodox congregations) it is no longer unusual for women to wear a tallit when praying.

               

But in Israel, the "Women of the Wall" have been cursed at, spat upon, and arrested for trying to observe the commandment. What are we to make of the outrage engendered by the desire of Israeli women to wear a tallit during prayer? This symbol of faithfulness to God’s commandments has become a symbol of a political struggle in Israeli society. In the State of Israel, the dominant Orthodox establishment finds a woman wearing a tallit so outrageously disturbing that riots and arrests have followed. Legal decisions on what is appropriate “custom for the community” continue to percolate in Israeli courts, and recent attempts to find a solution by creating another “section” of the Western Wall seem to have resolved very little. If nothing else, current events underscore the powerful nature of religious symbols, and also emphasize that in Israel today a small group of rabbis exert enormous authority over the entire nation. We Americans, particularly American Jews, take pride in the concept of pluralism. This, apparently and unfortunately, is not true in today’s Israel.  

               

In general, I believe that as a Jew living in the United States, I do not have a legitimate right to criticize the State of Israel as if I myself was an Israeli; after all, I have not chosen to make aliyah and become a citizen there. On the other hand, this matter is one of those instances where I feel, as a Jew, that I do have a right to express my anger over the absolute rule of the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel on matters of Jewish ritual life and civil status.