CARR 205-207

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

139. Support for the Union of American Hebrew

Congregations*

QUESTION: Temple B’nai Jeshurun is a founding

member of the UAHC and our Board of Trustees feel strongly that they should remain a member

of the Union. Do they have an obligation to support our national organization? Who should

decide what is an equitable level of support? (Rabbi S. Fink, Des Moines, IA)ANSWER:

The obligation of individuals to support the congregation is clear. Your question, however,

deals with the obligation to support a national organization. There are a number of precedents for

this, beginning with the duty to support the temple in Jerusalem. Certainly by the first century,

and probably earlier, support went hand in hand with the obligations to maintain local

synagogues in Babylonia, the Roman Empire and in the Land of Israel. The temple tax was fixed

at one half sheqel in Exodus (30.11 ff; see also New Testament, Matt. 17.24 ff).

The sums collected from the Diaspora were considerable and the Romans under Vespasian

turned these contributions into the fiscus judaicus (Josephus, Wars, 7.218; Dio Cassius

66:7.2) which was continued in some form till Julian the Apostate (E. M. Smallwood, The

Jews under Roman Rule, pp. 375 ff). This Roman tax was subsequently leveled

by various medieval authorities, particularly as the Opferpfennig of the Holy Roman

Empire which began to be collected in 1342. It was also continued as a Jewish voluntary tax by

the patriarchs of Palestine and called aurim coronarium. For further

illumination on this subject, we must turn to two directions, one to the system of community taxes

which were imposed upon the government assessed or reassessed and collected by the Jewish

community. In addition to that, we must look at various internal Jewish taxes levied by bodies

broader than the local community. In 1242 Henry II of England summoned a “Jewish

Parliament” and through it allocated taxes on the various Jewish communities of England. This

pattern was followed in other lands as well. We find it in Sicily (1489) and in the Spanish

communities under James II of Aragon from 1300 onward. Somewhat later, in Poland and

Lithuania the “Council of Four Lands” was organized for the purpose of assessing taxes,

although it served other internal Jewish functions as well. In modern times, the Jewish

communities of several western lands, particularly Germany and Italy, were recognized as

official bodies which could levy taxes locally or nationally and these were then collected by the

civil tax authorities. Individuals could, of course, refuse payment but that was the equivalent of

resigning from the Jewish community. The authority for collecting taxes on behalf of

the government was established early on the simple principle dina demalkhuta dina (B. B.

55a; B. M. 73b). This principle was less than wholly satisfactory, so in the post-Talmudic period

the authority was based on taqanot hagahal, which were recognized as legal and binding

although there was little or no Talmudic basis for them (Rebenu Nisim, Responsa #2;

Pisqei Harosh B. B. 1.29; Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 5, #270; see also Hayim

Palaggi Masa Hayim and Joshua Abraham Judah, Avodat Masa; Finkelstein,

Jewish Self Government in the Middle Ages). Most of the taqanot then dealt with

local and regional governmental units and established a strong basis for taxation as well as

means of assessment. Regional ordinances are known to us from the Barcelona area (Rashba,

Responsa, Vol. 3, #412) and of Vallidolid (Finkelstein, op. cit., p. 349 ff) as well as

a few other areas. We should remember that throughout the Middle Ages each

individual community also prized its independence. For example, although communities outside

the jurisdiction of the of Four Lands approached it from time to time to adjudicate some conflict,

it was not certain whether they would follow these decisions (Jacob Katz, “From Ghetto to

Zionism” in Isadore Twersky, Danzig between East and West: Aspects of Modern Jewish

History, pp. 42 ff). We can see from these sources that although the taxes were often

imposed by non-Jewish governmental bodies, the Jewish community organized a taxation

system which administered the taxes and unified the communities. Every community had the

obligation to support the system and its decisions. For a discussion of the amount of

the taxes and their apportionment we must look at the local community ordinances. There we

find that most taxes were levied according to the financial means of the tax payer (Mordecai, B.

B. #475; Meir of Rothenburg, Responsa #497; Pisqei Harosh, B. B. 1.22). In some

instances this was mixed with per capita allocation (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 5, #178,

#220, etc.; Vol. 3, #401; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 53.23 and commentaries). It was

also stipulated frequently that taxes be paid even if the services provided were of no interest to

the taxpayer, for example, providing education for all children, defense, police, etc., (Ramah,

Responsa #241; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 53.23 ff; Mahari Mintz,

Responsa #7). There was always the possibility of appeal. However, payment was to be

made before the appeal was heard (Taqanot Medinat Mähren #214; Maharik

Responsa #1, #2, #17; Meir of Rothenburg, Responsa, #106, #915). There are

complex rules regarding the rights of the individual versus those of the

community. The rabbis through the ages consistently spoke against tax evasion as

they realized that this would place an undue burden on others in the community (B. B. 35b, 88b;

Sefer Hassidim, #671, #1386, #1451). Various taqanot dealt with this matter

(Finkelstein, op. cit., p. 371; see also Avodat Masa and Masa

Hayim). These traditional sources enable us to establish that taxes on a broad

basis, levied by national or regional bodies, were common. They had the approval of the

authorities through the ages. As they were generally levied by representative bodies, those who

belonged to the organizations were liable for the taxes and strictures for non-payment were

always considered appropriate (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 3, #408; Maharil,

Responsa #12). Palagi even goes so far as to claim that those who do not pay the

amount assessed forfeit their right to the world to come (Masa Hayim, Chapt. 15). On a

personal note, I must add that my congregation has always paid the full amount of its UAHC

dues since the beginning of the system. Some of our leaders have been shocked by the number

of congregations who obviously do not contribute their fair share. Congregations which belong to

the Union of American Hebrew Congregations are obligated to supported this national

organization at the level set by duly elected representative delegates.July 1986

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.