Reflecting on Judaism

Pesach 2005 will mark the 50^th anniversary of my joining the United Synagogue. It will also mark the allowing of my membership to lapse because I am making Aliya. Reflecting on these past 50 years I can detect three significant changes that have occurred within the Organisation.

The first change is in the calibre of its ministers. In the early days the minister was, as likely as not, a graduate of Jews’ College, a Reverend with a degree who sometimes went on to take Semicha at the same College.  Today the minister is likely to be a yeshiva-educated rabbi. It had become conventional wisdom that a rabbi with his assumed, but not always, greater knowledge of Talmud than the Reverend would prove a better religious leader. In fact, this proved to be not necessarily so, for what the Reverend allegedly lacked in Talmudic knowledge he more than made up for by his better training in some other skills, mentioned below, necessary in a good minister.

In my early days several new synagogues were being established in the suburbs of London funded by money raised at organised functions such as an Annual Dinner and Ball which the minister happily attended. This gave all members of these communities the opportunity to work together, get to know one another and also to get to know their minister. The minister would, at these functions, meet and socialise with even his ‘three times a year’ congregants. In such manner were new communities established.

Many of today’s rabbis will prevent such functions and some even shy away from their congregant’s simchas if ballroom dancing is envisaged. By such unsociable behaviour these ministers meet few of their congregants personally other than at bereavements and thus the community spirit is suppressed. These rabbis do not remember the ‘Young Israel’ gatherings held in the United Synagogue’s Adolph Tuck Hall, Woburn House where, after the Second World War, on a Sunday evening, dozens if not hundreds of Jewish young boys and girls met to dance and from which gatherings many in-marriages resulted.

The problem of lack of a suitable environment where young people can meet was highlighted in two articles which appeared in the Jewish Chronicle earlier this year. The first told of the efforts by the wife of a United Synagogue minister who, recognising the difficulties, was trying to establish an informal agency to arrange for young singles to meet. The second reported a public meeting arranged in Jerusalem to discuss the frustrations of religious girls who were brought up to believe that they must not even hold hands with potential boy friends. They felt the need to do so but had a guilty conscience when they did.    

Is it not time that the Honorary Officers reclaimed the temporal powers for which they were elected and resume the ‘Adolf Tuck Hall’ concept, updating it to accommodate the requirements of today’s more sophisticated teenagers and students. By these means we might even help reduce the flow of out-marriages. Surely this concept should be at least as acceptable as, and should achieve greater results than, the synagogue adverts which appear regularly in the Jewish Chronicle. These adverts knowingly encourage Jewish young adults to travel on Shabbat, participate in a synagogue’s Shabbat evening service followed by Kiddush, a meal and chance to meet other Jewish youngsters. A worthy endeavour and I can understand why the promoters consider that the ends justify the means.

The United Synagogue recently established a new venture called ‘Tribe’ to attract young persons, from babies to late teenagers, into the active community. This is a welcome innovation and we must hope that it succeeds. I would suggest that this venture would attract a following, different from those young Jewish adults who might be attracted by an updated ‘Adolf Tuck Hall’ concept. In spite of some possible objections the two ventures should be run in tandem particularly as this might again help reduce the out-marriage problem. 

Bearing in mind the rate of out-marriage, the difficulty many young persons have in meeting a suitable partner and the efforts that some synagogues are making to resolve the problem, I really don’t know why the religious establishment is so actively against mixed dancing. It has a very respectable precedent. In bible times, as today, boys and girls wished to meet prospective partners and so on at least two days in the year, the boys and girls would go into the fields and dance together. The girls wore white clothing, borrowed, so that the rich girls would not shame the poor girls. I doubt whether there was a mechitzah between them for that would have defeated the object of the exercise.

Interestingly, one of the days was Yom Kippur and the second was the fifteenth of the month of Av.

Is this first significant change desirable but if not what is the solution?  

The second significant change is in the quality of lay leadership. In the early days local lay leaders were recognised and chosen for the contribution they made to the community. Because the United Synagogue promoted itself to be a ‘rainbow’ one, it attracted lay leaders from across the religious spectrum. Not all the lay leaders were 100% Shomrey Mitzvot but they wanted to belong. It was often they who made the major input that helped build the local Synagogue. Today the criterion for lay leadership is too often religious observance, not ability, and the results are here for all to see, for many of the most able within the Jewish community are not attracted to, or are discouraged from, leading lay positions. Some years ago some leading rabbis, quite improperly, interfered in the election of an Honorary Officer, canvassing for one candidate against another, not considering their respective overall ability but only their perceived standard of observance. Both candidates were, without question, competent and committed Jews but was it just a coincident that the allegedly less observant one was more outspoken in his criticism of the United Synagogue Establishment?

Is this second significant change desirable and if not what is the solution?

The third significant change is in the finances of the United Synagogue. When I joined the United Synagogue the general belief was that it was a financially sound organisation but in the recent past the United Synagogue has been in deep financial straits. This occurred partly because of the fall in the value of its investments, partly because of bad and negligent management and partly because of internal machinations as indicated by the Price Waterhouse report.  Even today their finances are, allegedly, stretched to the limit, hence the ‘sale of the family silver’.  There may well be some local synagogues in similar financial straits.

Is there a solution to this financial problem which might help not only such synagogues but  which in turn might also help the parent organisation? One solution is to consider whether every synagogue needs its own rabbi. Another solution involves considering the rabbi’s role in the local community. Let us consider the duties which rabbis are expected to perform and then assess whether the community is receiving value for money. No precise figures appear in local synagogue’s annual accounts but I am reliably advised that the minimum salary for a full time rabbi is some £45,000 per annum, sometimes much more than this, sometimes this includes housing benefits and extras and sometimes not.

What are the duties that the rabbi is expected to perform in exchange for this not inconsiderable salary:

*Conducting the synagogue services, sometimes leining, and giving regular sermons

*Giving Halachic advice

*Hospital visitations and visiting the sick

*Counselling generally and for bereavements

*Funerals and Shivas

*Teaching adults and children

Each synagogue should consider how its rabbi measures up to the above criteria bearing in mind the salary he receives and the time available to him. If they are satisfied with his performance, satisfied that they are receiving value for money and that they can afford him, then well and good but if not they might wish to consider alternatives.

Let us then examine each of the above criteria in turn.

Conducting synagogue services. Nowadays many synagogues have learned laymen perfectly capable of conducting the services. So much so, that many synagogues have early morning minyanim in order to quicken the service and avoid sermons, so as to allow members to have more time to spend at home with their families. This shows that in some instances the minister’s services can be dispensed with as far as conducting synagogue services are concerned. 

Giving Halachic advice. I have learned that some rabbis phone the Bet Din before giving even the most elementary of halachic advice. Some are so concerned ‘looking over their shoulder’ that they prefer to ‘pass the buck’. This practice is unfortunate for it leads one to suggest that we can dispense with the rabbi acting as an intermediary and each member could phone the Bet din direct for halachic advice should he feel it necessary.

Hospital visitations and visiting the sick. These duties used to be carried out diligently by most old-time Reverends but today many rabbis find them a bore and restrict them to a minimum. I understand some rabbis, but more often lay volunteers, carry out these duties. 

Counselling and bereavements. Why is it assumed that rabbis are particularly trained for this duty? Reverends trained by Jews’ College were so trained. Would a synagogue or a group of synagogues not be better served if they were to employ a Jewish counsellor, specially trained for this purpose, whose services would come much cheaper than those of a rabbi, whilst not expecting housing benefits?  

Funerals and Shivas.  The United Synagogue could nominate a rabbi for this purpose, for very often the bereaved and the local minister barely know each other, but should the bereaved request a particular rabbi he could make private arrangements for him to be present.

Teaching adults and children. Not many rabbis spend much time conducting regular shiurim for adults and often they require extra pay for teaching in the part time classes. Again, if a community wants rabbinic teaching it might be cheaper to engage a rabbi, regularly, on an ad hoc basis.

As indicated above, not all the above alternatives suit every community for there are many excellent rabbis employed by the United Synagogue who measure up to the criteria. Unfortunately there are also many who do not adequately fulfil these duties. The above alternatives can serve as a basis for thought to see how one, two, or more of them might help reduce organisational deficits marginally but significantly reduce local deficits.

April 2005