In
the process of restitution many problems have arisen which
community leaders have not always foreseen before they received
the property. For example, it has sometimes happened that,
after having obtained the synagogue building, the community
can not always find the means to renovate or maintain it.
This happened with the small communities of Ivano-Frankovsk
and Dragobych.
In Mukachevo the authorities returned a synagogue to the
community. However, since the latter lacked sufficient funds
for repairs, it immediately rented the building to the former
owner and used the money to rent a smaller premises for
its own needs.
In Vinnitsa in 1991 the building of a former synagogue was
handed over to the city’s Jewish Culture Association
but then was obtained by a rabbi from the United States
who represented the Skverer Hasidim and who promised to
renovate it. However, the rabbi’s money ran out before
the repairs could be finished and the fate of the synagogue
would have been a sad one if the JDC had not stepped in
to help.
Such unforeseen situations arose as a result of the naiveté
of some of the community leaders who believed that as soon
as they receive a synagogue back patrons would automatically
appear. There were some cases when, without giving sufficient
thought to the matter, communal leaders agreed to receive
half-ruined buildings which could not reasonably be reconstructed.
On more than one occasion engineers working for the JDC
had to explain that without a preliminary evaluation of
the condition of the synagogue building there was no sense
in inaugurating the process of restitution.
Another problem was that some communities avoided a utilitarian,
strictly functional approach to the use of buildings that
were returned and wanted to restore their former grandeur.
However, this did not correspond to the aims of the JDC
which views restitution in a more practical manner, in terms
of obtaining suitable premises for community activity. Thus,
for example, the community of Samara in 1995 succeeded in
regaining their once beautiful but now dilapidated Choral
Synagogue. The community envisaged an extremely expensive
restoration that would have entailed the reconstruction
of a two-storey prayer hall for one thousand worshippers
although another synagogue was already functioning in Samara
and the number of religious Jews was quite small. At the
same time there was a lack of premises for Jewish philanthropic
and cultural organizations in the city.
It was not always easy for the JDC to convince the leaders
of various communities that their synagogue should be adapted
to today’s needs, that part of it could be rented
out as offices, another allocated for group activities,
and a third – for social aid, etc. One powerful argument
the JDC had at its disposal was its possible refusal to
finance non-functional repairs.
In view of the relatively small number of religious Jews
in the CIS and the great need for premises for philanthropic
and cultural organizations, the JDC has basically followed
a policy of facilitating the gathering of many organizations
under one roof and the transformation of the synagogue building
into a community center where the synagogue itself (the
prayer hall and related areas) would occupy an important
place but not the whole area. Although based on quite rational
grounds, this goal has not always proved realizable in practice
due to ideological differences between organizations and
the personal ambitions of their leaders. Passions have been
aroused in regard to the question of who will have control
of the building that is received and what conditions will
be established for its use.
Thus, Kharkov’s Choral Synagogue, with its extremely
large area, was divided between the Habad Hasidim and the
Reform community. A real war broke out between the two communities.
Years passed before the Habad Hasidim obtained a control
over the whole Synagogue, and started its renovation. Thus,
the process of restitution has made it clear that the return
of property may not be only a unifying factor in regard
to community building, but sometimes also a divisive one.
Nevertheless,
despite rivalry and friction, in many communities (for example,
Kazan, Chelyabinsk, and Rovno) a compromise was found and
secular and religious activity coexists in returned synagogues
that are used by both communities. Such coexistence and,
sometimes also, cooperation often takes place in small cities,
where there are few Jews and community resources are limited.
At the same time, in large Jewish centers, where religious
communities have been able to regain synagogues and obtain
sufficient money for their renovation (e.g. Moscow’s
synagogue of Bolshaya Bronnaya St., the Golden Rose Synagogue
in Dnepropetrovsk, and the Brodsky Synagogue in Kiev), the
returned buildings fulfill their traditional religious functions
while secular organizations operate outside the synagogue
walls.