Siman 151: The Dignity of the Beit Knesset

TALKING IN SHUL

 

The Zohar referred to in the MB s.k. 2 (Zohar Vayakhel II:205b) likens engaging in worldly concerns in Beit Knesset to desecrating the Shabbat. We have all week long to work, leaving Shabbat as a little island in time when we put workday concerns aside; likewise, we have all the world for our mundane activities, reserving only the few square meters of the Beit Knesset as a place where we leave these activities completely aside. (Actually, this particular passage seems to refer only to Beit Knesset on Shabbat itself, but the same principle definitely applies during the week - see e.g. Zohar Trumah II:131b.)

 

SLEEPING IN THE BEIT MIDRASH

 

The Beit Yosef in YD 286:10, after mentioning that fundamentally a Beit Midrash should be exempt from a mezuza, brings the story of the Maharam of Rotenburg (an early Rishon) who had troubling visions during his afternoon nap in the Beit Midrash until he put up a mezuza. This is one of the main sources for the current custom to put mezuzot on the doors of our study halls. Perhaps the fact that the troubling visions came to him in sleep is because it was this very sleep which testified to the fact that the Beit Midrash is obligated in a mezuza. Since the Beit Midrash is the Torah scholar's house (see MB s.k. 8) a mezuza is appropriate.

 

GUNS

 

The SA at the end of seif 6 talks about a "long knife". This is related to the question of firearms. I don't know what fraction of my readership lives in Israel, but here the question of guns in Beit Kenesset is a constant concern. The Beit Yosef and the Beer HaGola refer to the Orkhot Chaim which mentions the reason given in MB s.k. 22. An explicit source is found in the gemara:

 

"(Bamidbar 25) And [Pinchas] stood up from among the congregation and [only then] took a spear in his hand" - from this we learn not to enter the Beit Midrash with arms. (Sanhedrin 82a, very end of the page.)

 

It follows that entering a Beit Kenesset with a gun is problematic. However, in many yishuvim many men carry a pistol most of the time. Furthermore, since a Beit Kenesset or Beit Midrash is a conspicuously Jewish place where people are gathered together, it's as good a place as any to take security precautions. And in an army camp, ALL soldiers are required to carry rifles at ALL times. Leaving the guns outside the synagogue or study hall is not really a viable solution; one person would be required to watch them and that person would miss tefilla.

 

The best policy seems to be as follows:

 

If you can just as easily leave your weapon at home, then this is definitely best.

 

If the gun is brought to shul, it is best if the weapon is not on your person during davening.

 

Ideally, one would remove the magazine (that's what holds the bullets in an automatic or semi-automatic weapon). It could be that a gun without a magazine is not really considered a weapon at all. But while this is a contribution to the halakhic problem it creates a safety problem as I mention below.

 

A rifle should be put down - it's a distraction to daven bearing one.

 

Ideally, the weapon should be covered (see MB s.k. 22).

 

All of these suggestions are subordinate to SAFETY and SECURITY:

 

If the Beit Kenesset is in a place where it is prudent to be carrying a pistol, then there is no reason to leave it at home! Likewise, if Beit Kenesset is a place where a gun could be needed, then removing the magazine is a very bad idea. Also, if there is a danger that removing and restoring the magazine could kick a bullet into the chamber, thus necessitating checking the gun afterwards (a dangerous activity), then it is not a good idea to play with it.

 

This question is discussed in Tzitz Eliezer X:18 and Yichaveh Daat VIII:18.

 

May ladies carry handguns? Perhaps this is considered a breach of modesty. This question is discussed in Igrot Moshe OC IV:73, section 3.

 

A BEIT KNESSET BUILT ON CONDITION

 

This is the central "motif" of our siman. The main source is a gemara in Megilla:

 

Rav Assi said: The Batei Knesset in Bavel are made on condition; and even so, we may not engage there in levity. What is [levity] - bookkeeping. (Megillah 28b)

 

The condition referred to stipulates that the synagogue may be used for secular purposes.

 

Three main approaches in the Rishonim as to the scope of this condition are mentioned in the Beur Halakha:

 

1. Rashi: the condition is valid even during the period when the synagogue is in regular use;

 

2. Tosafot: the condition is valid when the synagogue becomes abandoned, except for extreme levity like making a garden out of it;

 

3. Rashba: the condition is valid only when there is some duress (dochak) - whether or not the Beit Knesset is still in use.

 

What emerges is that two out of three opinions permit using the synagogue (one built on such a condition) at least to eat and drink when there is duress (Rashi and Rashba) or when the synagogue is abandoned even without duress (Rashi and Tosafot).

 

SYNAGOGUES IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL

 

The Shulchan Arukh (seif 11) rules that a condition has no validity for a synagogue built in Eretz Yisrael. As the Beur Halakha mentions, this is the view of the Tosafot. The Tosafot explain that the condition applies only to synagogues outside of the land of Israel because these are obviously meant to have their sanctity lapse when the Redeemer arrives. But synagogues in Israel maintain their sanctity forever.

 

The Beur Halakha explains that this approach is intertwined with the view of the Tosafot that no condition is valid while the synagogue is in use. Since the condition is meant to apply only when the Beit Knesset is abandoned, Tosafot consider that a condition can be made only in Batei Knesset which are meant to be abandoned - when the Redeemer arrives.

 

However, we pointed out above that according to most opinions a condition creates some leniency even when the Beit Knesset is in use. Therefore, the Beur Halakha considers that a condition should be valid even in Eretz Yisrael.

 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

Since the synagogue is the center of communal life, and very often the only public building available to the kehilla, there is naturally a demand for flexibility in its use. This obviously conflicts with the principles set out in our siman, and many interesting discussions exist regarding alternative uses for a Beit Knesset.

 

GUIDE DOGS

 

Rav Moshe Feinstein (IM OC I:45) was asked if a blind person may bring his guide dog to synagogue. Rav Moshe cites the Yerushalmi parallel to the above passage (Yerushalmi Megilla 3:3) which permits a person who has a "speck" of Torah in him to enter the synagogue together with his donkey. Rav Moshe reasons that a guard dog is certainly preferable to a draft animal, and adds that there is certainly no greater duress than the dependence of the blind person on his guide dog.

 

Rav Moshe also brings support from the gemara Berakhot 62a, which relates that Abaye trained a sheep to accompany him to the outhouse. Rashi explains that the sheep was trained to follow Abaye wherever he went. Since Abaye spent almost all his time in the study hall, this may suggest that the sheep accompanied him even there.

 

However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Braun in "Shaarim Metzuyanim beHalakha" (siman 13:2) expresses amazement at this ruling.  Citing the Chatam Sofer that we must respect a Beit Knesset in every way in which the non-Jews respect their houses of worship (for an example, see MB 244:13), Rav Braun asserts that guide dogs are never allowed in the latter - though he does not bring any evidence. He also mentions the gemara on Makkot 24b that the sight of foxes was a poignant source of sorrow entering the desolate Beit HaMikdash - though one could make a distinction between a wild animal which demonstrates the desolation of the place and a tame one. Rav Braun also cites Chelkat Yaakov III:87 as forbidding guide dogs in synagogue.

 

LECTURES AND CONCERTS

 

Rav Yechiel Weinberg (Seridei Esh II:12) was asked if it was possible to permit lectures and concerts in a synagogue. As Rav Weinberg explains in the moving preface to the responsum, the question was asked in the context of the oppression of the Nazi regime in Germany, at a time when the only possible place for the congregation to assemble was in the Beit Knesset, and when the possibility of providing something to occupy and elevate the dispirited Jews was almost a question of life and death.

 

In a very long and erudite response, Rav Weinberg discusses the various approaches in the Rishonim and Acharonim. He concludes that in the circumstances under question having a lecture could be considered a "mitzva", and therefore he permits lectures on two conditions: first, that the lecturer be a God-fearing Jew, since otherwise it is almost impossible for the lecture not to include anti-religious content; secondly, that there be no "disputations" at the end of the lecture, since these tend to be confrontational and light-headed and in addition tend to provide a platform for anti-religious opinions.

 

As far as concerts are concerned, Rav Weinberg starts out by pointing out that concerts which are not religious in nature are forbidden even outside the Beit Knesset, as explicit in Shulchan Arukh OC 560:3. While he recognizes that "in Germany very many [even] of the God-fearing go to secular concerts," these  rely on lenient opinions which Rav Weinberg considers against the consensus. Even though he cannot stop the lenient custom of going to concert halls, there is certainly no basis to permit secular music in the synagogue.

 

Regarding hearing religious instrumental music, Rav Weinberg is also opposed to this on the basis of it not being in the spirit of the synagogue, but he suggests that perhaps if it is the only way to prevent strife the Rav need not intervene.

 

Rav Weinberg points out that no matter what activities take place, utmost care must be taken to prevent mingling of men and women in the synagogue. He also emphasizes that the leniency is only for the unique dire situation which the Jews faced in Germany at that time.

 

 

UPPER STOREYS ABOVE THE SYNAGOGUE

 

The SA in seif 12 rules that we can not permit ongoing disrespectful activities in the attic (aliyah) above the Beit Knesset, and expresses doubt if even other activities can be permitted there. The MB (s.k. 40) limits this stringent ruling somewhat (but see Shaar HaTziun 21). This obviously presents difficulties in a modern city where almost all structures are multi-storeyed.

 

This question was the subject of an article by Rav Samuel Hubner in HaDarom (Tishrei 5732, cited at length in Rav Bleich's Contemporary Halakhic Problems I, pg. 63-65).  The grounds for leniency are as follows (the citations are taken from the article - I did not verify all of them):

 

1. There is a difference between an "attic" (aliyah) - which is subordinate to the main floor - and an upper floor, which is completely independent. (Chida, Chaim Shaal OC 56.)

 

2. There may be a difference between the storey directly above the sanctuary and those "insulated" by an intermediate level.

 

3. The prohibition may apply only if the attic is open to the sanctuary (Maharit II YD4, Tziun leNefesh Chaya Pesachim 86a).

 

4. If the upper storey was not built after the synagogue, then it never acquires the special status of a synagogue "attic" (Taz s.k. 4).

 

5. In addition, some authorities are more lenient than the MB and do not restrict use of the synagogue roof (Divrei Chayim I:3).

 

The author's conclusion is to permit selling air rights even above an existing synagogue if there is a great need for the funds.

 

BINGO

 

Religious institutions are a perennial host for bingo because they have a special legal exemption from the ban most states have on gambling. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe EHE III:40,  OC IV:35) considers bingo a disrespectful activity which should preferably not be hosted at all. While not forbidding it entirely if a yeshiva is in dire need of funds, he does forbid holding the games on the premises of a yeshiva or beit knesset.