From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Synagogue Financing
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:37:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.173701.29646@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@gypsum.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>Some Orthodox shuls are privately owned by the rabbi.  Donations cover the
>mortgage and expenses. 
>
>This is very helpful to halachic disputes between lay leadership
>and the rabbi.  When the "ritual committee" make a halachic decision in 
>a Reform or Conservative shul, it is usually binding that the rabbi adopt 
>such practices into the service.  If the rabbi owns the shul, then there is

Now we are talking about shul politics, and shul politics exist in
orthodox shuls as well.

It really doesn't matter if there's a separate religious committee
or if the board of directors acts as a "religious committee of the
whole" as it were.

What we have is a conversation between the rabbi and the board.  If
the board attempts to put religious changes into effect that the
rabbi believes is contrary to Halacha, then the rabbi must challenge
this.

A persuasive, convincing, political, respected rabbi will succeed in
convincing the board to act according to his wishes.  If not, the
rabbi rightfully should leave.

This applies to all congregational rabbis.  There's no need to
concentrate on conservative shuls and rabbis.   The issues should
really concentrate on Halacha though.   Example:  In the early
1970s,  our conservative shul decided to start a weekly Bingo fund
raiser.  The rabbi, citing resolutions of the United Synagogue,
insisted that we could not put in Bingo under any circumstances, but
the board voted to start the game anyway.  At that point the rabbi
should have left.  He didn't.   Thereafter, his authority was
greatky diminished, and several years later he finally did leave.
I had discussed with him the Halacha of Bingo, and the United
Synagogue's arguments really did not sound convincing or based on
Halacha at all, so he was doomed to failure.  But if I was wrong,
and there was good Halachic argument that he understood but hadn't
explained to me, then I think he was obligated to leave that
synagogue.


Your example of a rabbi owning the shul is interesting, and could
work for small shuls.   It's not likely it would work as well for
large shuls unless they were part of an organized movement where
everyone followed the leader.

>no synagogue or temple executive board (most always non-Rabbis) making 
>halachic decisions based on politics rather than halacha. The Rabbi makes 
>the decisions, period.  
>
>Rabbi Roth, one of the heads of the Jewish Theological Seminary and 
>a champion of Conservative Halacha, is working to have all "ritual 
>committeess" be banned from Conservative synagogues for just this 
>reason.

Again, this seems futile.  The board itself can attempt to make any
decisions it wants, and the rabbi should advise and persuade the
board, and in the extreme, leave.  Not having a ritual committee
doesn't "solve" the problem.  A congregational rabbi must have the
confidence of the board, and the persuasive authority to act as
Mara D'Atra.

>Many Orthodox Rabbis teach at yeshiva as well, and preform religious 
>duties as needed.  Therefore they need not command a 6 figure salary (like
>the Rabbi at my mother's Conservative synagogue) in order to support
>themselves.

Again, a small shul leaves time for the rabbi to teach, act as
moshgiach, etc.  A very large shul takes 100%+ of the rabbi's time,
and the large salary is what the market bears.

>Buying kosher meats, giving 10% (ma'aser) of ones income to tzedakah, 
>and paying for yeshiva makes up for the difference in dues between 
>traditional and reform/conservative houses of worship, I am sure! 

Oh?  I am a conservative Jew.  Are you giving me a heter not to buy
kosher meats or ma`aser :^)
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish