CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
25. Gifts to Organizations Inimical to Reform
Judaism*
QUESTION: Should Reform Jews contribute to organizations
which advocate changes in the Law of Return in Israel? (Rabbi D. Taylor, Highland Park,
IL)ANSWER: If we begin by asking the broader question, “Who has the right to
expect some help from us or any other fellow Jew,” we must turn to the Biblical demands which
deal with the maintenance of the sanctuary as well as charity toward the poor. The temple in
Jerusalem, and the earlier Tent of Meeting, were maintained through a gift of the half-
sheqel by every adult male. In addition a tithe, as well as portions of all the sacrifices,
were provided for the priests and the Levites. The other gifts mandated by the Bible, and
later literature are intended to deal with the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc. (Lev. 19, 27.30 ff;
Nu. 18.26; Deut. 12.17; II Ch. 31.5 f; Neh. 13.12; see “Priorities in Charitable
Distribution”). As Judaism developed, numerous institutions became part of each
Jewish community. These included a system of schools, both for the education of the young and
advanced scholars, hospitals, as well homes for the aged and destitute (J. Marcus,
Communal Sick-Care in Medieval Germany; M. Gudemann Geschichte des
Erzieungswesens; L. Löw, Die Lebensalter; Israel Abrahams, Jewish Life in
the Middle Ages). These institutions served the entire Jewish community despite differences
of opinion about interpretations of Jewish law. When major disagreements appeared
on the Jewish communal scene in various periods of Jewish history, such common ventures
ceased. We can see this clearly in the century long bitter struggle between Hassidim and
Mitnagdim. They not only refused to support each other’s institutions, but fought with every
weapon at their command including the intervention of the hostile Czarist government (S.
Dubnow, Geschichte des Chassidismus, Vol. 2, p. 149 ff). We find a similar situation
when we look at the vigorous rising Reform Movement in Germany and Hungary during the last
century. In Germany, for example, the Orthodox community fought hard to withhold financial
support and to keep the liberal community from obtaining government funds to which all religious
communities were entitled. These struggles also led to the secular courts in encounters like the
Geiger-Tiktin Affair in which a segment of the community sought to keep the great liberal Jewish
scholar, Ludwig Geiger, from the position of rabbi in Breslau (D. Philipson, The Reform
Movement in Judaism, pp. 51 ff). When the battle was lost by the Orthodox, they
successfully sought legislation in Prussia which would permit a segment of the community to
withdraw from the general community and still receive government support. This effort was led
by Samson Raphael Hirsch (Ismar Ellbogen, A Century of Jewish Life, p. 99 ff; W. G.
Plaut, The Rise of Reform Judaism, Vol. 1, pp. 63ff; N. H. Rosenbloom, Tradition in
an Age of Reform). We see similar hostility when we review the history of the
Zionist Movement in Europe and America. Certainly anti-Zionists strongly opposed all financial
support for Zionism. The ultra-Orthodox neturei karta, as well as various Hassidic anti-
Zionist groups, still deny support and do their best to lobby against it both within the Jewish
community and with the United States Congress. We as Reform Jews should not
contribute to organizations which advocate a change in the “Law of Return” and should do
everything within our power to see to it that others do not contribute to them either. This not only
represents enlightened self-interest, but also will help maintain some semblance of unity within
the broader Jewish community. We must remember that it is militant Orthodoxy which threatens
to divide, and thereby, weaken the modern Jewish community. This threat should not be taken
lightly, but must be fought with all the vigor and power at our command.May 1986
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.