Sanctuary

NRR 7-10

NAMING THE SANCTUARY AFTER AN INDIVIDUAL

QUESTION:

The congregation has been searching for major memorial gifts. One suggestion has recently been made to name the sanctuary itself after a departed member. Should this be done? (Asked by Rabbi Murray Blackman, New Orleans, Louisiana.)

ANSWER:

THERE ARE a number of precedents in the Jewish past for naming a synagogue after an individual, so that thereafter it would always be referred to by his name. In Egypt, in the Greek period, there was a synagogue dedicated to King Ptolemy and Queen Berenice. Philo refers to synagogues in Rome named for the Roman emperors. There was an “Augustus Synagogue” and a “Tiberius Synagogue.” Of course, these particular namings of synagogues in Alexandria and Rome were for the necessary political purpose of securing and protecting the Jewish community by honoring the emperor and thus soliciting his protection.

But a less political reason and a more spiritual one is indicated in the occasional naming of synagogues after Biblical personalities. Thus the Talmud (Eruvin 21a) speaks of a synagogue named in honor of Daniel (Kenishtad’ Daniel). In Aleppo there were three synagogues named after Moses. And also in the Near East there were some synagogues named after Ezra. Also, there were synagogues named for Elijah the Prophet. This practice finds some echo in modern Jewry. We have temples called Isaiah, and such. But these were names of the Bible personalities, not names which have been perpetuated because of a donation to the congregation.

Yet there are actually some cases where synagogues were named for donors. But strangely enough, as far as I can discover, this practice was limited to one historic city, namely, to the ancient Jewish community of Prague. In Prague there were at least four synagogues named after donors. One of them was the “Meisel Synagogue,” named after the well-known sixteenth-century leader of the Prague Jewish community, Mordecai Meisel. This name of the synagogue persists to this day after four centuries, although I believe the Communists have converted the Meisel Synagogue into a museum. Also in Prague there was a “Pinkes Synagogue,” named for Phineas Horowitz, built and rebuilt by that rabbi’s descendants; a synagogue named the “Popper Synagogue” after a donor; and in memory of the donor, Salkind Zigeuner, there was a “Zigeuner Synagogue.”

Other than this custom in Prague, I do not know of any other synagogue in any well-known Jewish community named for a donor. This is rather surprising, for Prague was a very great community with famous rabbis, and one might have expected that its example would spread to other Jewish communities. There may be other synagogues so named, but 1 do not know of any. Evidently, then, if the example of Prague does not seem to have been widely followed, there must be some objections, voiced or unvoiced, to the idea.

Possibly the objection is a purely practical one, and what this objection might be can be understood by examples from the secular world. Andrew Carnegie was one of the first great philanthropists in America. The libraries and the cultural institute he established in Pittsburgh all bear his name. But now the money of the Carnegie Foundation seems less available, while the needs of these institutions have become great. They are appealing to the general public for help, but they are experiencing serious difficulty in receiving donations because people feel that if the institution bears Carnegie’s name, let his family support it. Even with smaller gifts, there is sometimes a danger in identifying the gifts with a specific name. In our own congregation, the main temple organ was named after a generous donor of three generations ago. The family no longer is available for donations, and the organ requires rehabilitation at considerable cost. Now the congregation finds it especially difficult to obtain the necessary gifts from donors because the potential donors feel that since the organ is named for this one family, the family should continue to maintain it. This situation is likely to become especially serious with regard to the sanctuary itself. As the years go by, there is an increasing need for funds for upkeep or reconstruction of the sanctuary, and the very fact that the sanctuary is named for one person, while it may indeed be of great help for the present, nevertheless in the long run will become a serious detriment. Of course, a large stained-glass window or even a smaller chapel, neither of which is likely to need constant donations for upkeep, can perhaps be safely named for an individual donor, but not the temple itself, which will always need additional funds for upkeep. All this is, of course, a practical reason. It might be mentioned that in New York the Free Synagogue has been renamed “The Stephen Wise Free Synagogue,” but this was done to honor the founding rabbi of the synagogue and is not likely to evoke later financial repercussions.

But there is also a relevant principle in Jewish traditional law which must be borne in mind, namely, that if the congregation does decide to name the sanctuary after a donor, and if this decision proves later to have been a mistake, then it is against Jewish traditional law to reverse that action and to restore the original name (such as Sinai or Sholom) to the sanctuary. This law is stated in the Talmud in Arachin 6b, in Maimonides, Matnas Aniim 8:6, and in the Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deah 259:3. The law states that when a gift has been made to the congregation, then as long as the name appended to the gift is still remembered, no changes may be made (see also Modern Reform Responsa, pp. 141 ff.).

This, then, is the situation. While some ancient synagogues, for political reasons, were named after Roman emperors, and while particularly in the city of Prague there were indeed four synagogues named for donors, the custom never spread to the rest of Jewry, evidently because of the practical reasons mentioned above and also because of the traditional law that as long as the name is still remembered, the action may not be rescinded.

TRR 25-27

NEW YEAR PARTY IN THE SANCTUARY

QUESTION:

The congregation sponsors annually a New Year’s Eve party which is held in the sanctuary itself. A screen is placed in front of the Ark, and thus the sanctuary is considered to become a social hall. Since this year New Year’s Eve is on Friday night, should the Friday evening service be conducted and then the sanctuary set up for the New Year’s party? Or should the rabbi recommend that this year the party be held elsewhere? (Asked by Rabbi Stephen A. Karol, Hingham, Mass.)

ANSWER:

The question would not have been asked at all had it not been sensed that to have a New Year’s Eve party with its inevitable hilarity, is inappropriate in the temple sanctuary even if a screen is put up before the Ark. In fact the law is quite clear as to the reverence and dignity due to the place of worship. The Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 151:1) says there shall not be any laughter or even idle talk in the place where worship is held. So in most congregations there is a separate social hall for bar mitzvah, parties, weddings and other social events. But the sanctuary itself is rarely used for such party purposes.

In America, unfortunately, especially due to the generations of immigration, communities were not yet fully established so public halls were often rented for the High Holiday services. During the year these halls were used for various social purposes so scholars protested against holding religious services in places associated with hilarity. Thus, for example, Moses Feinstein in New York, felt the necessity of writing two responsa on this question, in Igrot Mosheh Orah Hayyim, Part I, #31, in Orah Hayyim, Part II, #30.

In reading these halakhic opinions it becomes clear that the question asked here is really a double question. Not only is it asked whether the New Year party should be held in the sanctuary, but it should be also asked whether the worship may be held in the hall used for such jovial purposes.

The questioner, of course, is sensitive to these problems which come to a head this year. How would it be possible to have reverence for the synagogue if a service is held at 8 o’clock and then almost immediately after in the very same room a New Year party is held. Clearly, the fact that the party is in the synagogue itself may somewhat dampen the joy of the party, but more importantly the anticipation of the party will surely affect the religious mood of the worship.

This year the calendar compels us to make a decision, for it brings into inescapable juxtaposition the two contrasting moods. Thus, an opportunity is presented to change the congregational custom. Let the joyous New Year party this year be moved to another hall, and then continued in this other place thereafter. Let the synagogue stand alone and unique as a place of worship.

TFN no.5751.2 37-38

CCAR RESPONSA

Applause in the Sanctuary

5751.2

She’elah

During Friday night services in the Sanctuary we have had an Israeli dance performance or a jazz pianist who played contemporary interpretations of traditional Jewish melodies. Congregants were unsure whether applause on such occasions was appropriate.What about a guest speaker? Is it allowable to applaud at the conclusion of the address?

Teshuvah

The Sanctuary — that is, the place where communal worship usually takes place and where the Torah scrolls are kept in has served a variety of purposes at different times. At one time wayfarers would spend the night there, and today large communal meetings are often held in the Sanctuary. Some congregations, when they accommodate events which appear to be “secular” in nature, shield the Ark with a screen and thereby signal that the “holy space” has now been converted to ordinary usage. But others do not engage in this practice.

The matter of applause generally arises only at events that are clearly performances of one kind or another (which should, of course, be suitable to a synagogue), and applause would be the normal reaction of the audience. In fact, the rule of thumb that might be applied is to ask whether the people assembled are a congregation or an audience. In the latter instance, applause would be expected and unobjectionable.

But what if the applause takes place during a Shabbat service? Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof permitted it in the case of a couple who were blessed on their Golden Wedding anniversary. He considered the applause as a warm and friendly gesture on the part of the congregation, and deemed it halakhicly permissible.¹

You inquire about applauding a dance group or pianist or guest speaker during the service. While the Halakhah is permissive on the subject, we feel it imperative to ask whether such reaction enhances the worship service. Quite evidently your congregation feels somewhat uncomfortable about applauding guest artists or speakers, and we are sure they would consider it totally inappropriate to applaud the rabbi or cantor for their contributions to the service.²

The current discomfort of your congregation in this matter suggests that they have a sense that applause is predominantly an every-day expression which somehow runs counter to the sense of apartness ascribed to the religious service, the Shabbat atmosphere and the Sanctuary. That sense ought to be fostered and reinforced. While applauding the golden jubilars might express a sense of family among the congregants, we would counsel against extending such a custom to other occasions. It would be better to discourage all applause for guest artists and speakers during the worship service itself, for once we open the door to it there will be a constant problem of distinguishing between the appropriate and the inappropriate.

We would therefore advise that any event which is likely to elicit applause be held after the conclusion of the prayers; and then having now become may express itself in the usual manner.³ A religious service, wherever held, should be an occasion apart, and how much more so a service held in the synagogue.

Notes

His responsum on this matter, which he published not long before his death, set forth the way in which Jewish tradition dealt with the specific halakhah regarding the clapping of hands on the Sabbath; see “Applause in the Sabbath Service,” Today’s Reform Responsa (1990), pp. 31-34, where rabbinic sources are given. Since tradition forbade music making on the Sabbath, the question arose whether clapping one’s hands was a form of rhythmic music; if it was not, it was allowed. During the 1930s the writer of this responsum was present at an Orthodox Rosh Hashanah service in Chicago, during which the congregation repeatedly applauded the chazan. As, for instance, applauding a couple and wishing them mazal tov after the conclusion of the wedding service.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.