Daf Yomi Nedarim 47
Recently, the Israeli minister for religious affairs
announced that Reform Jews are not real Jews.
Following an international outcry, he rephrased his statement, declaring
them ‘sinners.’ At that point, Prime
Minister Netanyahu had to step in to apologize and make amends and peace,
announcing that he would be inviting the leaders of the various denominations
in Israel to a roundtable discussion.
This announcement is a real coup for the non-Orthodox in
Israel. Since the founding of the State of
Israel, the country has only ever recognized Orthodox rabbis and standards,
despite years of clamouring for state recognition by the other
denominations. The latest non-Orthodox
campaign presents Israel as a theocracy that does not allow for religious
freedoms, which is a frightening approach, given our constant advocacy attempts
to present Israel as a beacon of democracy.
Until very recently, Israel only funded Orthodox synagogues
and rabbis. Should Israel acquiesce to
funding the non-Orthodox in the interests of maintaining its image as a
democratic nation?
If a person declared, ‘I
am forbidden to you,’ the other person is forbidden to derive benefit from the
vower. If he declared, ‘You are
forbidden to me,’ the vower must abstain from the other person. If he declared, ‘You to me and me to you,’
they must abstain from one another.
Both, however, are permitted to derive benefit from an institution of
the Babylonian immigration, but forbidden from city property.
What are some examples
of Babylonian immigration institutions?
The Temple Mount, the Temple areas, and a roadside well. What
are some examples of city institutions?
The town square, bathhouse, synagogue,
Ark, and holy books.
The Ran explains that city institutions are jointly owned by the
residents of the city who are partners in the properties.
In contemporary parlance, the difference between the
Babylonian immigration institutions and the city institutions is that the
former are nationalized whereas the latter are privatized. The former belong to the state while the
latter belong to the people. The words of the Mishnah are instructive:
the Temple is a national institution, but synagogues
are private institutions.
In other words, the Mishnah is teaching us that certain
major institutions must be state owned and operated. When it comes to the Temple, you want one
Temple – you don’t want people fighting over it. Likewise contemporarily, when it comes to
major issues of status – who is a Jew, marriage and divorce, we need a national
system in place to avoid conflict, strife and uncertainty.
But when it comes to
synagogues, the Mishnah makes it clear that they should not be state owned and
operated. Israelis look with envy
to synagogues in the Diaspora that are owned and maintained by their
members. Diaspora shuls have an
incredible vibrancy about them that you just don’t see in state-owned Israeli
shuls. There’s no sense of community,
no sense of responsibility, no sense of ownership.
Synagogues should be in the hands of the members. Rabbis should be appointed by the people –
they should not be political appointments.
If people were able to choose their shul and their rabbi, and, if shuls and
rabbis had to compete for members, religious life in Israel would be booming! And then the entire question of denominational
funding becomes moot – the state shouldn’t be paying for any synagogue rabbis!
Shuls should be membership-driven. They’re not meant to be owned by the state,
nor by individuals – they should be owned by the masses. They are communities for us all to come
together and build together. May we
merit flourishing, vibrant Jewish communities, driven by the adage, “the
competition of sages increases wisdom!”
