Philadelphia Debates Tax on Kosher Meat and Poultry to Meet Deficits in Philanthopic and Educational

Will the Jewish community of Philadelphia, the third largest Jewish community in the country, put into effect a voluntary tax on all kosher meat and poultry in order to meet the ever mounting deficits that are distressing local philanthropic and educational institutions?

This question is agitating the minds of the leaders of the community. It was brought to the fore by the decision of a small group with the sanction of Rabbi B. L. Levinthal, head of the Vaad Hakashruth, to place a tax of one cent on all chickens killed kosher so that the Central Talmud Torah, which also includes the Yeshiva Mishkan Israel and the Strawberry Mansion Talmud Torah, are not forced to close their doors. Incidentally the question is raised: Who profits from the extra charge on kosher meat?

The Jewish Community of Philadelphia, it is claimed, consumes approximately four hundred thousand pounds of kosher meat per week. This does not include fowl.

Assuming the Jewish butcher pays only two and a half cents additional per pound for kosher meat, it means an added income of approximately ten thousand dollars per week.

It is said the Vaad Hakashruth spends approximately two-hundred and fifty dollars a week to maintain itself, its Rabbis, its supervisors, etc. This is exclusive of the cost of slaughtering which is said to amount to one thousand dollars per week. Allowing additional two hundred and fifty dollars per week for good measure, the sum total is only fifteen hundred dollars per week, as against an estimated income of approximately ten thousand dollars per week.

These figures are based on the assumption that the increased price for kosher meat is only two and a half cents per pound. Actually, the charge is much more. It is said to run somewhere between two and a half and four cents per pound at the source. People now are asking: Why should this be? Why should kosher meat cost anywhere from five to fifteen cents per pound more to the consumer when the actual cost of making it kosher is not represented by more than one-quarter of a cent on the pound, if that? Why this exploitation? Who gets this extra profit?

Then, too, there is the matter of chickens. It is estimated that upwards of fifty thousand chickens are killed kosher in Philadelphia per week. The actual figure runs close to sixty thousand chickens per week. If a tax of one cent were to be placed on each chicken for supervision, it would mean an income of approximately five hundred dollars per week. The present price for slaughtering chickens kosher is seven cents in some sections of the city and eight cents in others. The new rate will therefore be eight cents or nine cents, depending on the neighborhood. The size of the chicken in no way alters the price of slaughtering.

The decision reached by Rabbi Levinthal and those associated with him to place a tax of one cent on every chicken killed kosher in order to meet the deficit of the two Talmud Torahs, though technically independent of the Vaad Hakashruth, nevertheless served to revive the entire issue.

Pertinent questions are now being asked. Here are some of them: If there is to be a tax on kosher chickens, why should the proceeds go only to these two Talmud Torahs? Certainly they are not the only ones in financial straits.

If it is true that approximately fifty thousand chickens are killed in Philadelphia weekly, what is to become of the rest of the money? These two institutions would not need five hundred dollars per week, in addition to their present income, meager as it might be. What is to become of the difference?

Then there is this matter of favoritism. Why, it is asked, did Rabbi Levinthal limit himself to these two institutions, worthy as they may be? As Chairman of the Education Committee of the Associated Talmud Torahs, a constituency of the Federation of Jewish Charities, the esteemed and venerable Rabbi knows what difficulties these latter are experiencing in order to make ends meet; how the number of teachers were reduced; how they were forced to make retrenchments; under what tremendous difficulties they are now laboring with the outlook for the year ahead far from encouraging. If taxation is in order, why not in the interest of all the children?

Then there are those who are following a different line of reasoning. In effect they are saying: Our community has come upon hard times. Our institutions are facing want. Those charged with the trying responsibility of keeping them alive are doing their utmost. The struggle is rapidly getting beyond them. None knows what the morrow will bring.

Old methods of fund raising are proving futile. New plans must be devised. New sources will have to be tapped. Perhaps the taxation method is one of them—a tax upon those things that are Jewish for the continuity of those activities that are the di-