דַּבֵּר֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה מֵאֵ֤ת כָּל־אִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִדְּבֶ֣נּוּ לִבּ֔וֹ תִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִֽי׃
Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts; you shall accept gifts for Me from every person whose heart so moves him.
וְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם׃
And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.
מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לִתֵּן כָּל אִישׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. אֲפִלּוּ עָנִי הַמִּתְפַּרְנֵס מִן הַצְּדָקָה חַיָּב. וְשׁוֹאֵל מֵאֲחֵרִים אוֹ מוֹכֵר כְּסוּת שֶׁעַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְנוֹתֵן מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל כֶּסֶף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ל טו) "הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט" וְגוֹ'. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ בִּפְעָמִים רַבּוֹת הַיּוֹם מְעַט וּלְמָחָר מְעַט אֶלָּא נוֹתְנוֹ כֻּלּוֹ כְּאַחַת בְּפַעַם אַחַת:
The Torah commands each member of Israel to contribute half a shekel each year. Even a poor man who lives on charity is required to give; he borrows or sells the garment off his back and contributes a silver half-shekel, as it is written: "The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel" (Exodus 30:15). One must not pay the half-shekel in several instalments, a little today and a little tomorrow, but has to contribute it all at once in a single payment.
The ‘Pay What You Want’ Experiment at Synagogues
By Michael Paulson
NYTimes - Feb 2, 2015
...Churches depend heavily on voluntary contributions collected at worship services. But Judaism forbids the handling of money on the Sabbath, so synagogues do not seek donations during worship, and must find other ways to pay clergy and staff salaries and fund their buildings and programs.
Mandatory dues replaced an early American Jewish practice of financing congregations by selling or renting seats in synagogues — a practice adapted from early American churches, which rented or sold pews to raise money. That practice was ultimately rejected, by churches and synagogues, as elitist, but in recent years, some Jews have argued that mandatory dues raise similar issues.
By Michael Paulson
NYTimes - Feb 2, 2015
...Churches depend heavily on voluntary contributions collected at worship services. But Judaism forbids the handling of money on the Sabbath, so synagogues do not seek donations during worship, and must find other ways to pay clergy and staff salaries and fund their buildings and programs.
Mandatory dues replaced an early American Jewish practice of financing congregations by selling or renting seats in synagogues — a practice adapted from early American churches, which rented or sold pews to raise money. That practice was ultimately rejected, by churches and synagogues, as elitist, but in recent years, some Jews have argued that mandatory dues raise similar issues.
Book Review of Pennies for Heaven: The history of American Synagogues and Money
By John Landry
Posted August 23, 2018
From 1728 to 1805, only a few Jewish congregations existed, and these depended on the irregular patronage of wealthy merchants.
After 1805, with a strong economy and greater confidence in their place in society, Jews built more and bigger synagogues. But these projects required a broader and more dependable base of support. So they copied their Christian neighbors – specifically, the Protestants – and sold seats, with those nearest the bimah costing the most. These were essentially seat licenses, where the buyer paid an upfront amount and then an annual assessment.
This system worked fairly well until a wave of patriotic, democratic feeling spread across the country after World War I. The class-based seating system now seemed intolerably elitist.
The system also became impractical as wealthier congregations built large synagogues that hosted a variety of activities besides worship (“the shul with a pool”). With such broad offerings, congregations sought more members than they had seats. So they switched to the familiar dues system of today, either a set amount for all families, or different levels depending on family income and situation.
In this second shift, Jews differed from Protestants, who found themselves unable to require a set level of giving. With society becoming increasingly secular, their churches moved toward voluntary giving based on religious ideas of stewardship.
Synagogue boards, by contrast, were so confident that people would affiliate that they went ahead with the mandatory assessments.
The ties of community and identity were strong, and the system worked fairly well for decades.
A similar dynamic happened with rabbinic salaries, as congregations increasingly wanted their clergy to be highly educated professionals in the upper-middle class. Churches, meanwhile, sought ministers who followed a calling and accepted lower salaries.
The current difficulties, Judson suggests, are the result of ever more affluent congregations seeking ever more elaborate programming and amenities, which raises the dues beyond what many younger or less-affluent families and individuals can afford. The result is a cost squeeze where fewer people must shoulder more of the expenses.
By John Landry
Posted August 23, 2018
From 1728 to 1805, only a few Jewish congregations existed, and these depended on the irregular patronage of wealthy merchants.
After 1805, with a strong economy and greater confidence in their place in society, Jews built more and bigger synagogues. But these projects required a broader and more dependable base of support. So they copied their Christian neighbors – specifically, the Protestants – and sold seats, with those nearest the bimah costing the most. These were essentially seat licenses, where the buyer paid an upfront amount and then an annual assessment.
This system worked fairly well until a wave of patriotic, democratic feeling spread across the country after World War I. The class-based seating system now seemed intolerably elitist.
The system also became impractical as wealthier congregations built large synagogues that hosted a variety of activities besides worship (“the shul with a pool”). With such broad offerings, congregations sought more members than they had seats. So they switched to the familiar dues system of today, either a set amount for all families, or different levels depending on family income and situation.
In this second shift, Jews differed from Protestants, who found themselves unable to require a set level of giving. With society becoming increasingly secular, their churches moved toward voluntary giving based on religious ideas of stewardship.
Synagogue boards, by contrast, were so confident that people would affiliate that they went ahead with the mandatory assessments.
The ties of community and identity were strong, and the system worked fairly well for decades.
A similar dynamic happened with rabbinic salaries, as congregations increasingly wanted their clergy to be highly educated professionals in the upper-middle class. Churches, meanwhile, sought ministers who followed a calling and accepted lower salaries.
The current difficulties, Judson suggests, are the result of ever more affluent congregations seeking ever more elaborate programming and amenities, which raises the dues beyond what many younger or less-affluent families and individuals can afford. The result is a cost squeeze where fewer people must shoulder more of the expenses.