TEMPLE MEMBERSHIP AND CHARITY

QUESTION:

Our congregation has a bylaw that one of the conditions of membership is an annual contribution to the United Jewish Fund. One family in the congregation objects to this bylaw as a coercion of conscience. What would be the attitude of Jewish tradition to this bylaw of our congregation? (Asked by Rabbi Wolli Kaelter, Long Beach, California.)

ANSWER:

THERE ARE A number of social clubs in the various Jewish communities of America which will not accept a person into their membership unless he is a contributor to the United Jewish Fund. However, I am not at the moment aware of any congregation that has this requirement. The fact that I do not know of any such congregation would indicate that such a requirement is not likely to be a widespread practice, but this does not mean, necessarily, that a congregation is wrong if it does have this rule. Besides, it is not only a question of this congregation alone; there may well be other congregations that already have such a requirement and, also, it may be that situation will change and other congregations may wish to add such a requirement. For these reasons, it is important that the question raised here by the Long Beach congregation be discussed basically on the grounds of Jewish law and tradition. What, then, is the attitude of Judaism to the giving of charity, specifically to the charities of the organized community, and what relation does this giving of charity have to the Jewish religion itself and to the congregation?

The giving of charity is a mitzvah of special status. It is one of those mitzvos which have a double mandate. It is both a positive commandment and a negative commandment. As a positive commandment, it is Number 480 in the list and is based upon the verse in Deuteronomy 15:8: “Thou shalt open thy hand to the needy.” And as a negative commandment it is Number 479 and is based upon Deuteronomy 15:7: “Do not close thy hand” (i.e., from giving). Since it is a mitzvah of double status, it is therefore incumbent upon everyone. Hence even a poor man who is himself a recipient of charity must give charity too as his religious duty (Yore Deah 248:1, based upon Gittin 7b, top). As one gives charity, he must give it joyously; in other words, not show any ill-tempered reluctance (Yore Deah 249:3).

Furthermore, the spiritual status of charity, besides its status of a commandment, positive and negative, is that the promise to give charity has the religious status of a sacred vow (Yore Deah 255b). For all these reasons, because it is a positive and a negative commandment, and because it has the sacred status of a vow, Maimonides says one must be more careful in the fulfillment of the duty of charity than with any other of the positive commandments (Yad, Matnas Aniim 10:1).

Therefore, it is not surprising that the giving of charity is one of those few commandments of which the law says that we may exercise social pressure to insure its fulfillment. One other such commandment is the building of a synagogue. The members of a community may bring pressure on each other to organize and maintain a synagogue (Orach Chayim 150) and, according to some opinions, may exercise compulsion to see that there is a minyan always; that is to say, if there are only ten people, one may not leave the city without providing a substitute (Orach Chayim 55:22). So, in a similar way, the codes indicate that the same type of communal pressure (kofin zeh es zeh) must be brought to bear to see that the commandment to give charity is fulfilled. This is based upon the Talmud in Kesuvos 49b. The Tosfos raises some objection to this compulsion and then justifies it, and it is further justified by David ben Zimri in his commentary to Maimonides (ibid. 7:10).

If this is the case, as it manifestly is, that charity is so vital and inescapable a religious duty, then why is it that not every synagogue in America has this requirement? The answer, of course, lies in the difference between the organization of Jewish communities in America and the Old World. In the Old World the community was one organization, even though there may have been many synagogues; and in many of the European communities the amount of charity to be given was actually apportioned, just as the taxes were (see the Tosfos to Gittin 7b quoted above). But in America, where the Jewish communities were built up slowly from fragments of various and differing Jewish communities, each congregation became a separate and independent unit. This fact, by the way, created considerable changes in Jewish law as to the right to sell a synagogue, etc. So in America the organization of charities became community-wide independently, but was separate from the synagogue. Why, then, did not the various synagogues demand an active role in the charity organizations, since charity was a religious duty? The answer was a practical one. There developed a sort of division of function, especially in the large communities. Some individuals became active in the charities, and others became active in the synagogues. Besides, the charities organized great propaganda pressure for contributions and considerable publicity annually, which made it unnecessary for the synagogue to participate as an organization.

However, in a smaller community, where there is limited activist manpower, those active in maintaining the synagogue are to a considerable extent the same as those maintaining the communal charities, and it is natural for them to want both types of organizations to help each other.

If they do so, as they have done in the Long Beach congregation, they are fully in accord with Jewish religious tradition, which considers charity a spiritual obligation upon every Jew, whatever his financial status. And, also, tradition gives the right to a congregation or community to exercise social pressure (kofin) to guarantee the fulfillment of this commandment.