Synagogue

See Video-taping
See Sisterhood, non-Jewish President of
See Shabbat, synagogue gift shop open on
See Gambling
See Deconsecration
See Burial, extending
See Ark
See also Smoking
See also Sanctuary

ARR 61-63

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

18. Orientation of the Synagogue

(1979)

QUESTION: Must a synagogue face east? Should the Ark of the Torah be in the east wall? Must the entrance be on the eastern side of the building? Is any other orientation of the synagogue possible?

ANSWER: We can best deal with this question by turning to archaeology, as well as to the traditional literature. The literary source for turning eastward comes from the Book of Daniel (6:11): “Now his windows were open in his upper chamber towards Jerusalem and he knelt upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God as he did afore-time.” This verse led to synagogues being oriented toward Jerusalem and to the placement of windows or portals on the Jerusalem side of the building (Ber. 31a, 34b). Here we have an insistence that the site of prayer, which was interpreted to include private homes and synagogues, needed windows. Additional emphasis on orientation of worship is provided by the Tosefta (Meg. IV.21), which stated that the Ark should be set in front of the people with its back toward the Temple in Jerusalem. This statement, of course, referred to those early days when the Ark was not yet permanently placed in the synagogue, but was carried in and out; therefore, the congregation was to remain within the synagogue until the Ark with the Torah scrolls had been removed (Sota 39b). The orientation toward Jerusalem has been stressed in the Mishna and Talmud repeatedly so that if one is riding and cannot dismount one should at least direct one’s eyes or one’s heart toward Jerusalem (Mishna, Ber. IV.5; Ber. 30a; J. Ber. IV.5). The general rule is that outside of Israel, one should turn toward Israel; in Israel toward Jerusalem; in Jerusalem toward the Temple. Maimonides has codified (Yad, Hil. Tefila XI.l; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 150.5) that the Ark should be placed in the direction of Jerusalem and opposite the entrance. This has meant that synagogues in North Africa, Europe, and America have usually faced east, while those of Babylonia and Asia Minor have faced west. We can see this clearly in the third-century synagogue of Dura Europos on the Euphrates, which had its entrance in the east and a niche for the Ark in the western wall.

Although this orientation became dominant, we should remember that there was a period when it had not yet been fixed, so we find the Talmudic statements of Rabbis Oshaia and Ishmael, which state that there is no orientation at the time of prayer, as the Divine Spirit is everywhere (B.B. 25a). We also find various midrashim which deal with the orientation of the worshiper during prayer; for example, he might face north for wealth or south or wisdom. This would account for various synagogues in Israel being oriented differently, for that could not have been done purely on topographical grounds. These synagogues would also comply with the statement in the Tosefta: “Synagogue gates should open toward the east as did the gates of the Tent of Meeting” (Num. 2:2,3; Tos., Meg. IV.22). Following the destruction of the Temple, the Tent of Meeting may have been taken as a model for the synagogue building. Landsberger (“The Sacred Direction in Synagogue and Church,” The Synagogue,ed. Gutmann, p. 188ff) used this explanation to interpret the wide variety of orientation of synagogues in Israel and in Jordan. In the city of Ostia in Italy, we find a synagogue, later remodeled, that originally had its entrance in the eastern wall. After the Ark was installed in the east side, according to the new style, the entrance could no longer be moved to the opposite side, and remained beside the Ark. In the case of Beit Shearim in Israel, one of the entrance doors was blocked and remodeled into an Ark, while the portals on both sides remained as entrances. In later synagogues, such awkward arrangements were avoided.

Occasional efforts were made in various sections of Europe to orient the synagogue more precisely toward Jerusalem, and therefore a number of these synagogues face south rather than eastward. This led to considerable controversy about the orientation of the synagogue, whether it should be changed and in which direction the worshippers should actually face (Judah Altman, Mei Yehuda, #17; Naftali Zvi Berlin, Meshiv Davar 1.10; Sede Chemed, Ma-arechet Beit Hakeneset, #42; Ba-er Neitev to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, #94). The last source cites two responsa which came to totally opposing conclusions.

After the Ark became a permanent part of the synagogue, it was placed in the eastern wall, as mentioned earlier. In most of the early synagogues of Israel, the niche in the eastern wall served as a temporary place for the Torah. It was without doors or coverings of any kind. Sometimes it was decorated with a painting of the Temple to show the intent of the orientation.

Modern synagogues have sometimes gone to great lengths in order to face eastward. For example, the B’nai Israel Synagogue in Pittsburgh (A. Sharove and H. Hornbostel, Architects, 1923-24) has its entrance in the east, which is followed by circular rising interior walkways which lead to the actual synagogue. The Ark is placed above exterior doorways within the building. The Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue on Central Park in New York built an elaborate facade on its eastern street front, but without an entrance, so that this side of the building, used for the Ark, would remain unbroken.

In most cases, an orientation toward the east or toward the southeast is possible with the entrance in the west. If that is not possible, the entrance may be on any other side. If it is absolutely impossible to build or reconstruct in this manner, then the worshiper would simply orient his heart toward Jerusalem (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 94.2).

We may, therefore, conclude that synagogues should be oriented east or south in accordance with tradition, whenever this is possible. This would express our spiritual unity with the Jewish people throughout history and our love for Jerusalem and Israel.

Walter Jacob, Chairman

Leonard S. Kravitz

Eugene Lipman

W. Gunther Plaut

Harry A. Roth

Rav A. Soloff

Bernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 213-216

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

143. Synagogue Plantings and Christian

Legends

QUESTION: Would Jewish tradition prohibit the planting of

certain trees and flowers as landscaping of a synagogue social hall? Is there any prohibition against using the dogwood tree because of Christian legend? (P. S. G., Pittsburgh, PA)

ANSWER: In order to provide a response within the proper framework, it is

necessary to answer two broader questions. We must ask about the entire matter of imitating Christian customs (huqat goyim) and also discuss the matter of any plantings in connection with the synagogue. We should note that Jewish tradition is very specific about customs of non-Jews which are prohibited and those which are permitted. Avodah Zarah (11a) makes it very clear that only customs which are directly connected to idolatrous worship are prohibited (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 178.1). For this reason, it would not be wrong for a Jew to wear garments akin to those of non-Jews, but he should not wear garments which are specifically used in church ritual. The same would be true of the use of non-Jewish music in Jewish services. As long as it is folk music, and not specifically associated with a Christian service, it would be appropriate as shown by Joel Sirkes (Bayit Hadash 127).

When we turn to planting around the synagogue, we are faced with the objection

of some Orthodox authorities based upon Deuteronomy 16.21, “You shall not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord thy God, which thou shalt make thee.” This law has been fully developed in later Jewish tradition by Maimonides (Yad Hil. Akum 6.9), who stated that no shade or fruit tree could be planted in the Temple Sanctuary near the altar and also in the courtyards of the Sanctuary, although there was some debate about the latter. However, all this applied only to the Temple in Jerusalem, and later tradition did not connect this with any prohibition against plantings which decorated the exterior of a synagogue; the ancient synagogues at Arsinoe and Palermo had gardens (I. Kraus, Synagogale Altertümer, p. 315). In fact, we find no objection until Moses Schick who, in 1870, prohibited such plantings by reasoning that the synagogue is analogous to the Temple (Responsa Orah Hayim 78, 79). Although this objection was widely discussed, it was not accepted by most authorities who cited Yomtov Lippman Heller’s comment to Mishnah (Midot 2.6) as well as other scholars who felt that his reasoning was faulty. Nothing would have prohibited planting of trees, even in the court of Israel in the Temple of Jerusalem. Some historic Haggadah illustrations, which depict the temple, show it surrounded by plantings of shrubbery.

The great modern authority, Shalom Mordecai Schwadron

(Responsa, Vol. 1, #127; Vol. VL #17), specifically stated the objection to trees in the Temple of Jerusalem did not apply to synagogues, and only cautioned individuals who decorated their synagogues in this way to make sure that the planting would be somewhat different from that of neighboring churches. He quoted Joseph ben Moses Trani, a sixteenth century scholar (Responsa Yoreh Deah #4), who stated that gardens and plantings around synagogues were widespread during his lifetime.

We see that there are no specific prohibitions

against planting of any kind of tree, shrub or flowers around the synagogue; only those items which are essential to Christian worship are prohibited.

Now let us turn to the specific

matter of the dogwood. There are innumerable legends about a wide variety of flowers, bushes and plants which are connected in some way with Christianity. Medieval Christian art developed a highly sophisticated system of symbolism. There is hardly a common flower or tree which has not been connected with Jesus, Mary or a saint. Sometimes this symbolism has become wide- spread, while on other occasions its use was highly localized. When we turn to the dogwood and legends connected with it, we must distinguish among various species. Two types of dogwood were known in medieval Europe, the Cornus sanguinea, a small tree cultivated for its tiny fruit which was bitter. Oil from it was used for lamps. This tree was probably introduced from Siberia. There were references to it in Turner’s Herbal (1551). In addition, there was the Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas). This was an ancient, hardy tree with an interesting bark, small flowers, tasty berries and exceptionally hard wood. It was widely planted in medieval and older times. Ancient legend claimed it provided wood for the Trojan Horse; another stated that Romulus set the borders of Rome by throwing a spear made of this tree, which later sprouted into a fine specimen. Neither one of these dogwoods is known for its blooms, nor has any medieval Christian legend been connected with them; in fact, the Cornus mas was called “Jew Cherry” in some areas (I. Löw, Die Flora der Jüden, I, p. 464).

One legend about the dogwood is connected with the spectacular native

American variety (Cornus florida) with its grand bracts which protect small flowers; it was first described by Mark Catesby (Natural History of Carolina, 1731). These trees, as well as the Cornus stolonifera, the Western American Cornus nuttalli, the Siberian Cornus alva and the Japanese Cornus kousa, have rather spectacular petals. They bloom in the Middle Atlantic States around Easter; the West Coast Cornus nuttalli, with six flower petals, occasionally reaches a height of fifty feet.

Many Indian legends

about the dogwood exist, as this spectacular tree seemed to appeal to the imagination. The Christian legend about the dogwood presents an interesting sidelight on the development of Christianity in the United States. In the eighteenth century, after the Shawnees had been converted to Christianity by the Jesuits, they continued to hold some beliefs in the nature deities. A Shawnee legend showed this mixture clearly; when Jesus was to be crucified, the gods told the trees not to participate, but the dogwood permitted itself to be used. It did not split or rot in protest. The deities, therefore, condemned the dogwood, which was then as tall as an oak, to become a small tree. Its floral petals would form a cross; its notches would bleed, and so it would forever bear witness to the Crucifixion. Later Shawnee warriors used the syrup of the dogwood to heal wounds. They thought it was effective because of the connection with Jesus (Vernon Quinn, Shrubs in the Garden and Their Legends, 1940, pp. 79 ff). Christian ministers eventually emended the legend slightly so that it no longer reflected pagan influence and added the element that Jesus blessed the dogwood to exonerate it and give it magnificent blooms which would open at Easter in his memory. This American legend remained local and is only rarely repeated nowadays. No medieval art or tales are connected with this story. We can see, therefore, that there is no firm or widespread basis connecting the dogwood with Christianity in the vast system of medieval Christian symbolism.

As such legends are not an

essential part of Christianity and are not wide-spread, there would be no objection to planting a dogwood as part of landscaping a synagogue or its social hall. In fact, as so many plants have some loose ties to Christianity through artistic symbolism, we would have to say that if we object to one, we would have to object to all. That would clearly be wrong and contradicts the broad traditional interpretation of huqat goyim. Only those matters which are an essential part of the Christian service are objectionable for synagogue use.

October 1977

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 207-210

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

140. Synagogue Architecture

QUESTION:

We are planning to construct a new synagogue and our architect wishes some guidance about synagogue architecture. Are there any specific suggestions of a traditional nature which should be followed? (O. M., Los Angeles, CA)

ANSWER: For guidance on

synagogue architecture, we must look at the traditional literature and archaeology. The traditional literature is clear about the orientation of a synagogue which should always be toward Jerusalem. For us in the western world, this means an orientation toward the East (W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa, #18). Appropriate citations are presented in that responsum. The ark is to be placed in front of the people and facing toward Jerusalem (Tos., Meg. 4.21).

The Talmud stipulated that synagogues be placed on the highest point

within the city (Prov. 1.21; Ezra 9.10; Yad Hil. Deot 4.23; Shab. 11.1); furthermore, the synagogue should be taller than any other building in the city except perhaps the city hall (Shab. 11a and commentaries; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.2; Arukh Hashulhan 150.1). Of course during the Middle Ages this was specifically prohibited by law, and churches were always placed higher than the synagogues. Under those circumstances the earlier stipulation could be ignored (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.2 and Isserles, as well as commentaries). As our modern cities are filled with skyscrapers, this ancient specification is generally ignored.

Synagogues were to have an entrance in the East akin to the

temple (Num. 3.38; Tos., Meg. 3.1), but this became difficult when synagogues faced eastward in order to orient the worshipper toward Jerusalem. Therefore, the entrance began to be placed in the West (Rashi to M. Meg. 3.12; Tosfot to Ber. 6a; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.5), although some controversy about this remains (Rashi Ber. 6b; Moses Sofer, Responsa, Orah Hayim #27). We possess archaeological evidence which demonstrates clearly that entrances of synagogues were shifted in the early centuries of our era when the orientation of synagogues toward the East became a general practice (Landsberger, “The Sacred Direction in Synagogue and Church,” The Synagogue, ed., J. Gutmann, pp. 188 ff).

Aside from this, it was specified that a synagogue should have

windows, as Daniel already prayed while looking out of his window toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6.11; Ber. 34b; Yad Hil. Tefilah 5.6; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 90.4). Some of these windows should be oriented toward Jerusalem. The Zohar even stated that a synagogue without windows was inappropriate for prayer (Zohar Piqudei 251.1) . There was some controversy about this (J. Pes. 1.1, Maimonides, Responsa #21, ed., J. Freimann). Some felt that the synagogue should have a courtyard (l. Ber. 5.1; Shulhan ArukhOrah Hayim 90.)

As far as the interior is concerned, the ark was to be

placed in the eastern wall and the bimah in the center, so that all could hear (Yad Hil. Tefilah 11.3; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.5). If, however, the synagogue was sufficiently small, the bimah could also be placed at the end (Kesef Mishnah to Yad Hil. Hagigah 50.4 3.4). The description of the ancient great synagogue in Alexandria made it clear that even a centrally placed bimah could not always assure that the people would hear the service. Some authorities felt that the centrally placed bimah was akin to the placement of the altar in the ancient tabernacle or the temple (Moses Sofer, Responsa, Orah Hayim #19). In modern times, the placement of the bimah at the front of the hall is considered an imitation of non-Jewish practice by some and is to be avoided for that reasons (Hanal Betzion #8; Imrei Esh #7; Sedei Hemed, Bet Hak’neset #13). This matter remains controversial and there are Orthodox authorities who permit the building of a synagogue with a bimah at the front or worship in such a synagogue (Ezekiel Landau, Noda Biyehuda, II, Orah Hayim 18; Solomon Schick, Responsa, Even Haezer #118).

From the evidence of

existing synagogues, we may see that a variety of different architectural styles were used. The synagogues in Worms and Prague followed the Gothic style. The synagogue of Seville was Moorish. That was true to a lesser extent of the ancient synagogue in Cairo. The seventeenth and eighteenth century synagogues of the small Italian towns like Sienna followed a renaissance pattern in their interior, while the exterior, because of strict Christian laws, appear like late renaissance houses. The wooden synagogues of Poland, which existed to the middle of this century, followed local architectural practices (M. and K. Piechotka, Wooden Synagogues). Even a cursory glance at books which deal with synagogues in the last century and a half demonstrates that no uniform architectural patterns were followed. During some periods every effort was made to fit into the general environment, therefore both Gothic and Greek Revival styles were frequent. At other times, an effort was made to establish a Jewish tradition which led to buildings which were vaguely reminiscent of Egyptian temples or Islamic mosques. In more recent times, modern architecture has been widely utilized for synagogues without any hesitation (R. Krautheimer, Mittelalterliche Synagogen 1927; J. Gutmann, ed., The Synagogue, 1975; A. Kampf, Contemporary Synagogue Architecture, 1966; Harold Hammer-Schenk, Synagogen in Deutschland, 1981; Synagogen in Berlin Zur Geschichte einer zerstorten Architektur,1983).

Tradition does

have some stipulations about orientation, place ment of the main entrance, the ark, the windows, a courtyard and the bimah, but little else. Even these remain rather broad and permit an architect to build a synagogue in virtually any style.

April 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 90-91

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

55. Synagogue and the Planting of Trees

QUESTION: Should certain species of trees be prohibited on synagogue grounds as the Bible prohibits worshipping under trees? (Nathan Trachtenberg, Dallas TX)ANSWER: The Biblical statement in Deuteronomy (16.21) demanded: “You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree aside the altar of the Lord your God which you shall make for yourself.” This law has been fully developed in later Jewish tradition by Maimonides (Yad Hil Akum 6.9), who stated that no shade or fruit tree could be planted in the temple sanctuary near the altar and in the courtyards of the sanctuary, although there was some debate about the latter. However, this applied only to the Temple in Jerusalem, and later tradition did not connect this with any prohibition against plantings outside the synagogue. We know, for example, that the ancient synagogues at Arsinoe and Palermo had gardens (1. Kraus Synagogale Altertümer p 315). In fact, we find no objection until Moses Schick who, in 1870, prohibited such plantings by reasoning that the synagogue is analogous to the temple (Responsa Orah Hayim #78, #79). Although this objection was widely discussed, it was not accepted by most authorities who cited Yomtov Lippman Heller’s comment to the Mishnah (Midot 2.6) as well as other scholars who felt that his reasoning was faulty. Nothing would have prohibited planting trees even in the court of Israel in the Temple of Jerusalem. Some historic Haggadah illustrations which depicted the temple show it surrounded by plantings of shrubbery. The great modern authority, Shalom Mordecai Schwadron (Responsa Vol I #127; Vol Vi #17), specifically stated that the objection to trees in the Temple of Jerusalem did not apply to synagogues, and only cautioned individuals who decorated their synagogues in this way to make sure that the planting would be somewhat different from that of neighboring churches. He quoted Joseph ben Moses Trani, a sixteenth century scholar (Responsa Yoreh Deah #4), who reported that gardens and plantings around synagogues were widespread during his lifetime. There is no analogy between worship of an Asherah, a form of ancient idolatry of which we know virtually nothing, and our worship. We need not be concerned with this Biblical prohibition. There is, therefore, no reason to be careful about the planting of trees or any other kind of greenery around the synagogue. We should be guided by the concern of Exodus for the beauty of the sanctuary. That thought was continued in the Temple of Solomon (I Kings 6 ff). We should follow the ideal of hidur mitzvah in all ceremonial objects as well as the synagogue building itself. Circumstances have often forced us to use humble buildings as synagogues, but when it was possible to build more grandly we did so. From the nineteenth century onward when our synagogues were recognized and protected by the secular authorities; we no longer hid them behind a neutral facade, but provided them with a decorative exterior which often included plantings (Harold Hammer-Schenk Synagogen in Deutschland; Rachel Wischnitzer The Architecture of the European Synagogue). There would be no reason to exclude trees or shrubs from the grounds of the synagogue.January 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 19-20

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

13. A Ban on Smoking in the

Synagogue

QUESTION: The congregation has recently constructed a

new wing which includes multi-purpose rooms sometimes used as a small synagogue, as well as

various assemblies and classrooms. We would like to ban smoking from the area sometimes

used as a synagogue and would like to know whether it is appropriate to ban smoking entirely.

(Rabbi J. Stein, Indianapolis, IN)ANSWER: There has been some discussion of

tobacco in the halakhah since the eighteenth century. It began with its use on festivals

and fast-days (Mordecai Halevi, Darkei Noam #9). Other questions were discussed

subsequently (Abraham Gumbiner Magen Abraham to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim

210 and 514; I. Z. Kahana, Mehakrim Besafrut Hateshuvot, pp. 317 ff). These early

discussions of smoking dealt with this habit and the way in which it affected shabbat,

holidays, studies and the decorum of the synagogue service. A few authorities even considered

its use beneficial (Joshua Pollock; Jacob Emden in Kahanah, op. cit., pp. 321,

323). The question of tobacco in the synagogue was discussed, and it was generally

prohibited (Moses Hagiz, Leqah Hakemah Hil Tisha B’Av; Isaac Lampronti, Pahad

Yitzhaq; David Hoffmann, Melamed Lehoil Orah Hayim 15), but Hayim Palagi

permitted it when there were no services (Kaf Hahayim 21.19). There was a division of

opinion about its use while studying (Shimshon Hamburg, Nezirat Shirmshon #92, Hayim

Benjamin Puntrimoli, Responsa, Orah Hayim #103). We, however, must view

smoking differently as it is clear that smoking and any other use of tobacco are health hazards.

Whatever lingering doubts existed earlier have been removed in the last decades by the

Surgeon General’ s report of January, 1964. Therefore, we must treat this matter entirely on that

basis. It is incumbent upon every Jew to care for his health as well as the health of

other human beings (Deut. 4.9, 15; 22.8), and no injurious product should be used. This applies

as well to the health and well-being of one’s neighbor (B. K. 91b; Yad. Hil. Rotzeah 11.4

ff; Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 427; Yoreh Deah 116.5 and Isserles). These

arguments have generally not been applied to smoking by Jewish authorities with the exception

of Israel Meir-Hakohen Kagan, (Kuntres Zekhor Miriam, Hofetz Hayim) who dealt not only

with the physical harm which cigarettes and cigars may bring but also with the neglect of study

which the habit of smoking may cause. Most modern Orthodox rabbis have been

hesitant about prohibiting smoking as they felt that this was a popular habit difficult to change or

that the danger to an individual was no greater than “crossing a street” (J. David Bleich,

Tradition, Vol. 10, #3, Vol. 16, #4). After all, tradition has been opposed to prohibitions

which will not be followed (B. K. 79b; Shab 148b; Moses Feinstein, Igrot Mosheh, Yoreh

Deah II #49). We, however, feel it is necessary to move beyond this cautious stance.

When it is within our power to ban smoking, we should do so on the grounds of personal health

as well as the health of our neighbors. It would, therefore, be appropriate for a synagogue to ban

smoking entirely in its building or to restrict it to a few isolated areas.December 1985

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 58-61

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

17. Collecting Synagogue Pledges Through Civil Courts

(Vol. LXII, 1961, pp. 127-129)QUESTION: One of our congregations has used legal processes in collecting delinquent building pledges. Summonses have been issued to defaulting members, placing liens upon their property. Are there any precedents for this action?ANSWER: The very fact that the question is asked reveals a feeling that it is wrong to bring Jewish religious disputes to the secular courts. Of course, it does happen in modern times that such matters have occasionally been brought to the courts in the United States, as, for example, disputes in Orthodox synagogues on the question of mixed seating, or questions of disinterment from Orthodox cemeteries. Nevertheless, whenever such lawsuits do come up, there is a general feeling in the Jewish community that the disputes should never have been brought to the courts–that to have done so was a Chilul Hashem. This strong feeling against such actions is the product of a long tradition in Jewish law. The Talmud (B. Gittin 88b) denounced the resort to Gentile courts. The Takanot of the various medieval Jewish communities forbade Jews to resort to Gentile courts. This tradition is recorded in vigorous language in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 26.1: “Whoever brings his case before the Gentile courts is a wicked man, whose action amounts to blasphemy and violence against the Law of Moses, our teacher.” Of course, that does not mean that Jews in the past never had recourse to the civil courts. There were circumstances when there was no other way to obtain their rights. If, for example, a debtor was influential and stubborn and refused to be sued in the Jewish courts, he could be sued in the civil courts, usually with the creditor getting express permission from the Jewish authorities (Choshen Mishpat 26.2,4, Isserles). This procedure, as a last resort, is valid because Gentile courts may (according to Jewish law) deal with matters of business debts. This limited validity is acknowledged by Jewish law because the “Children of Noah” are understood to have been commanded to maintain courts dealing with civil law, Dinei Mamonot (cf. B. Gittin 9a-b). If the building pledges discussed in our question are to be considered merely as notes of debt, then, if there is no other way to collect them, it would be permissible to bring them to the civil courts for collection. But surely they are not precisely of the same nature as a business debt. They are rather what the law calls a Shetar Matana, a Document of Gift (Choshen Mishpat 68.1). Jewish Documents of Gift cannot legally (in the eyes of Jewish law) be dealt with by the non-Jewish courts (Choshen Mishpat 68.1). In Jewish law itself, such pledges, certificates of gift, are valid, legal documents. If, for example, Jewish law still had the executive authority which it possessed in past centuries, these pledges could be collected by force. The building pledges are equivalent to charity gifts in general, and are deemed collectible even if the maker of the pledge changes his mind. The law is that the members of the Jewish community may compel each other to give charity–“kofin” (Yoreh De-a 256.5). To give Tsedaka is considered an inescapable religious obligation, Chova, which even the poor must fulfill (Yoreh De-a 248.1). In fact, a promise made to give Tsedaka has the sacred status of a religious vow, Neder (Yoreh De-a 257.3), and, therefore, must be fulfilled without delay. This serious concern with the legal validity of Jewish charity pledges is exclusively a matter of Jewish law. Non-Jewish law can have no relevance to it, unless we say that the pledges are also to be considered analogous to the taxes and imposts which the medieval community imposed upon its members. These, too, were collectible by compulsion. In fact, with regard to taxes and imposts, there are indications that occasionally, in some localities, the power of the civil government was called in to enforce payment. This resort to the secular arm seems to have been confined to Italy. Joseph Colon (Italy, 15th century) says (Responsa, #17) that he sees nothing wrong in asking aid from the government in collecting the taxes imposed by the Jewish community upon its members. In fact, he adds, this has been the custom of many (Italian) communities. Yet, after all, these taxes were to be paid over to the government, and the Jewish community would be endangered if they were not forthcoming. It was understandable, then, that the Italian communities might, in desperation, call for secular aid in collecting them. But even in the case of taxes, there seems to be no evidence that the resort to government help was made by Jewish communities in other countries. Certainly this practice is not recorded in the general codes. The taxes and imposts were by their nature secular and civil. But a gift to the community for the building of a synagogue was a religious gift which was to remain within the Jewish community. Gentile authorities could not and would not be used to enforce an intra-community religious duty. There is only one exception to this, namely, the situation mentioned in the Mishna (Gittin 9.8) in the case of a man ordered by the Jewish court to give his wife a divorce. If he refused to do so, Gentiles may be asked to compel him to obey the mandate of the Jewish court. But even in that case the divorce is not a fully valid divorce (cf. Tur and Perisha, ad loc.). Within the Jewish community and in Jewish law, a pledge to the building of the synagogue is valid and enforceable. The same phrase used in the case of charity gifts is used for synagogue building gifts, namely: “The members of the community may compel each other,” “Kofin zeh et zeh” (Orach Chayim 150.1). To enforce payment, the older communities used the power of excommunication (Cherem). When the Russian government forbade the Jewish communities to employ the Cherem, the phrase “to compel” used in the Shulchan Aruch seemed to reveal a violation of government decree. Therefore, in the Shulchan Aruch printed in Wilna, at the word “compel” there is an asterisk pointing to a footnote which reads: “By means of the government.” This, of course, did not mean that the Jewish communities ever called on the Russian government to enforce this religious obligation. The footnote either was added by the censor, or else was added to disarm the censor and to say that the community would not use the forbidden instrument of Cherem. It is clear, then, that except for the time when Italian communities called for government aid in collecting taxes, the Jewish communities did not call upon secular courts to help them collect charitable or religious pledges. Jewish law considered that secular law could not validly deal with charitable pledges, and in general, the resort to Gentile courts was held to be a sin. Therefore, the action of the congregation referred to is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of Jewish legal tradition.Solomon B. Freehof

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 84-86

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

52. A Cabaret Group in the Synagogue

QUESTION: In our Temple building we have a sanctuary and adjacent social hall. As the sanctuary’s acoustics are better than those of the hall, a cabaret singing group has requested the use of the sanctuary for a show whose proceeds would go to the Temple. Is it appropriate to have a cabaret musical, or drama without Jewish content on the bimah? (Rabbi Steven A. Moss, Oakdale NY)ANSWER: A synagogue possesses a special degree of sacredness, which begins when money has been pledged for the purchase or construction of such a building. This represents a transfer of the status of sacrifices dedicated to the ancient temple to articles or funds now dedicated to the synagogue. So, for example, in ancient times when individuals pledged inanimate objects to the temple, they became sacred although no transfer had occurred (M Kid 1.7). Funds collected for a synagogue, may on a temporary basis, be utilized for other sacred purposes, but ultimately must be utilized for the synagogue (B B 3b; Yad Hil Matnat Aniyim 8.10 f; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 153.13). While the process of collecting money was underway students, could be supported by such funds. When building material has been assembled then funds could only be used for the synagogue during the process of erection, the structure possessed an element of the sacred, so funds may not be diverted for other purposes (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 115.10). Now we must ask of what did this sanctity consist? According to the traditional point of view, with which we agree, a synagogue is considered a small sanctuary. In other words it possesses some of the sanctity of the ancient temple in Jerusalem (Meg 29a based upon Ez 11.16). The sacredness of the synagogue is akin to that of the Temple and rabbinic literature only disagreed whether this was an ordinance of the Torah or the rabbis (Semag Asin 164.1; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 151; etc.). Aside from regular services, the funeral of a congregational leader may be held there (Meg 28b; Yad Hil Tefilah 11.7; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.5), as also circumcisions (Tos to Pes 10a; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 131.4; Yoreh Deah 265.11). The uses of a synagogue aside from prayer were defined. It may be used for study (Meg 28b; Yad Hil Meg 3.3; Yad Hil Talmud Torah 3.12; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 346.22); it may be utilized for congregational business (Ket 5a; 63b; Yad Hil Shabbat 24.5; Hil Tefilah 11.7; Hil Ishut 14.9; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 77.2). Ten individuals might remain there all day in order to be present for a minyan or for any congregational business which might need attention (Maimonides Responsa #13 (ed) Freiman). Actual business matters could only be discussed if they were charitable or dealt with the redemption of captives (Meg 28a; Yad Hil Tefilah 11.6; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 151.4). There are also some ancillary uses to which the synagogue could be put. Teachers and students are permitted to eat there as could others if it involved congregational business (Meg 28b; Yad Hil Tefilah 11.6; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 151.1). Occasionally individuals slept in the synagogue or in adjacent rooms; the latter was preferable (Tos to Pes 101a; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 151). Matters were different in villages where the inhabitants simply did not have room to house strangers and so they were permitted to sleep in the synagogue (Meg 28a; Nimuqei Yosef; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 151.11). During the early period of Nazi oppression in Germany, Yehiel Weinberg was asked whether it would be permissible to use a synagogue for concerts. He reluctantly agreed. However, he suggested that a few psalms or prayers be recited in conjunction with the concert to give it a slightly different context. One might say, therefore, in times of emergency, cultural events, of a non-religious nature, would also be permitted in a synagogue. The main concern is that nothing untoward or irreverent should occur in the synagogue (Meg 28a; Yad Hil Tefilah 11.6; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 151.1). The occasion which you described, however, does not fall into any of the permitted categories. The contents of the presentation may be offensive or border on what is inappropriate, and so it would be improper to use the synagogue facilities for a cabaret.November 1987

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 86-88

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

53. A Concert Mass in the Synagogue

QUESTION: A community junior college, which is a friendly next door neighbor of our Temple, is planning a spring concert featuring the “Requiem” by Faure The college auditorium is undergoing renovation and will not be available for this concert. May the Temple itself be used for the performance of this “Requiem” rooted in Christian theology or may it be presented in the Temple auditorium? (Rabbi Samuel M. Stahl, San Antonio TX)

ANSWER:We should divide this question into two segments. We will first deal with the use the synagogue itself for a musical performance and then for the performance of a specifically Christian piece.

Some traditional authorities have felt that all music, both vocal and instrumental, is out of place in Jewish life (San 101a; Git 7a). This was the opinion of Mar Ukba who based it upon the verse, “Do not rejoice O Israel among the peoples” (Hos 9.1). This was introduced as a form of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. This prohibition was also found in the later codes and some responsa (Maimonides Responsa (ed) Freimann #370; Yad Hil Taanit 5.14; Tur Orah Hayim 560). These strict statements were, however, modified by custom so that rejoicing and music at weddings became permitted. It was considered permissible to ask a non-Jew to play an instrument at this happy time (Yad Hil Taanit 514; Tur Orah Hayim 338; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 560.3). Others permitted music and based it on the comment of Mar Ukba, at the beginning of the tractate Berakhot, stating that only love songs were prohibited, but music which praised God was permitted. Leon De Modena (1571 – 1648) provided a thorough discussion of the sources and indicated that there was no logic in prohibiting beautiful music which praises God without also asking cantors to sing off-key to obey such an injunction. According to him both instrumental and vocal music were permitted in the synagogue (Zikhnei Yehudah #6). Music which accompanied a mitzvah is permitted. A trend toward leniency may be seen in the Shulhan Arukh(Orah Hayim 561.3).

In modern times the question has arisen again in a different fashion through the controversy over the organ in the synagogue. The numerous responsa on this issue dealt with instrumental music during the service (Die Orgelfrage; Eleh Divrei Haberit; David Hoffmann, Melamed Lehoil Vol 1 #16). Our question arose also during the Nazi period when synagogues suddenly became the center for all Jewish life, both religious and cultural. The Orthodox authority Yehiel Weinberg prohibited secular concerts in his synagogue in Berlin; he felt that even religious concerts should be preceded by psalms to provide a spiritual setting (Seridei Esh,Vol 2 #12). Liberal Jews, faced with the same problem in Nazi Germany, agreed to the use of synagogues for secular concerts. They felt that serious music did not violate the spiritual character of the synagogue. We would agree to the use of a synagogue for concerts in keeping with the mood and purpose of the synagogue.

Now let us deal with the use of the synagogue for a specific Christian performance as the Mass. Our attitude is determined by our feelings about Christianity. A historic review of Judaism’s changing attitude toward Christianity demonstrates that we had moved from considering it as idolatry by the Middle Ages. We considered both Christians and Islam as monotheistic religions. Therefore, the ancient restrictions against pagans do not apply to Christians (W. Jacob Contemporary American Reform Responsa #167). We continue to emphasize that the Christian concept of God and its fundamental attitudes differs sharply from ours (Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 156). In secular matters, Christians are benei noah,but in religious matters distinctions must remain.

We have gone considerably further than previous generations and have been willing to share facilities with Christian churches as the military chapels of the United States Armed Forces. In addition, many synagogues like my own have lent facilities within the building to various Christian groups over longer periods of time during emergencies. This meant that entirely Christian services were conducted within the synagogue setting.

The answer to your question, therefore, rests as much on the contemporary mood as on halakhicprecedents. We stress openness and friendship, but with limits; it is permissible for Faure’s “Requiem” to be performed within the synagogue building, but preferably not in the synagogue itself.

February 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 69-70

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

24. Decorations in the Floor of a Synagogue

(1979)QUESTION: May the floor of a synagogue or entrance hall be decorated with Jewish symbols or with any other kind of decoration employing the figures of people or animals?ANSWER: The floors of the worship area of most modern synagogues remain undecorated in contrast to many ancient houses of worship, as we usually have fixed seating, and the major area of the synagogue is covered by permanent seats. The specific question of decorating the floor of a synagogue has only been rarely treated in the traditional literature. We know that many ancient synagogues had floors of inlaid mosaics which have been found in our century, like that of Beit Alfa, probably built between 517 and 525 C.E. It contained a mosaic of the Akeda with human figures and a Divine Hand stretching out from heaven. In addition, there were decorative symbols depicting the seasons of the year and the signs of the zodiac. We also find an ark, a candelabrum, a shofar, a lulav, incense shovels, etc. in the mosaic of the floors at Beit Alfa, Jericho, Yafia, Ashkelon, Maon, etc. Michael Avi-Yonah (“Ancient Synagogues,” The Synagogue, ed. J. Gutmann, pp. 108ff) stated that the early Palestinian synagogues used only abstract patterns in their mosaic floors, as Jewish and Christian leaders refused to allow anything which might have tempted the worshiper toward idolatry. From the fifth century onward, a richer Christian iconography developed, although the emperor Theodosius II specifically prohibited the use of figures in mosaic floors of churches in 427 C.E. A similar iconographic development had taken place among Jews, but the prohibition against the use of such elements did not affect them. For this reason, many Biblical subjects, including Noah’s Ark, the Sacrifice of Isaac, Daniel in the Lions’ Den, etc., were used. In the middle of the sixth century, the Rabbinic attitude seemed to change. Human figures disappeared and only animals, along with various ritual objects, were used. The only Rabbinic discussion which has dealt with this matter was related to the verse in Leviticus 26:1: “You shall not make an even maskit to bow down upon in your land.” Rashi has interpreted this to mean any smooth stone floor, while Rambam (Yad, Hil. Tefila V.14; Hil. Avoda Zara VI.6,7) interpreted it as either a decorated or a paved stone akin to those used in idol worship. The Talmud has recorded (Meg. 22b) that Rav was unwilling to prostrate himself while worshiping in the synagogue in Babylon because it had a stone floor. Despite these statements, stone floors were used in synagogues throughout the Middle Ages, and the medieval commentators stated that only full prostration was prohibited upon them (Asher ben Yehiel to Meg. 22b; Isserles to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 131.8; Joseph Caro in Kesef Mishneh to Yad, Hil. Avoda Zara VI.6). When full prostration was necessary, then straw or carpeting was spread on the floor, as on Yom Kippur. In other words, even in the Middle Ages, a cut or decorated stone floor was acceptable. There was absolutely no thought of objecting to walking across such a floor. It is clear, therefore, that any kind of decoration in the floor of the synagogues has long since gone beyond the ancient concern for possible idolatrous expression, and our synagogues contain representative figures, cut and decorated stone, metal, and woodwork. Such decorations must, of course, not contain the Divine Name of God. The custom of some modern synagogues of copying the mosaics of floors from ancient Jewish synagogues should be encouraged as another link to our past and to the land of Israel.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzEugene LipmanW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. Soloff

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 98-100

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

61. Synagogue Tours on Shabbat

QUESTION: Our synagogue is a national landmark, and is visited by a large number of individuals throughout the year. Tour companies seek to schedule visits on shabbat afternoon. There is no problem about opening the building through a non-Jewish caretaker, however, our Jewish guides who normally take the groups through the building have objected to being scheduled on shabbat.Is it more important to show the synagogue or to rest on shabbat? (Alice Grafner, Pittsburgh PA)ANSWER: During the last decades we have done a great deal to enhance the observance of shabbat and to minimize any activity akin to work or which would infringe on the spirit of rest, worship or study of this day. We may, of course, interpret showing the synagogue on shabbat as study, broadly understood. A major segment of shabbat has traditionally been set aside for study. Such study should be pleasurable and not considered a task. As the guides do not view it in this fashion and see it as work, we cannot justify the tours on these grounds. We should, of course, also consider the considerable effort we have made to teach the non-Jewish world about Judaism. There are national groups as well as special institutions like the Jewish Chautauqua Society of the National Brotherhoods which deal exclusively with Jewish/Christian relations, and make an effort to bring about understanding in the broader Christian community. We have a clash of values. The members of the congregation want to inform the world around us about Judaism, but are also sensitive about shabbat; that should be honored. It is a good sign and indicates that our efforts to enhance shabbat are bearing fruit. We could accommodate the Christian visitors through the use of modern technology, and provide them with an appropriate audio tape on shabbat which will explain the symbols of the synagogue and answer questions commonly asked. It should also indicate that no Jewish tour guide is on duty as shabbat is our day of rest. I am sure the Christian visitors will appreciate the effort on their behalf, as well as the desire of the guides to observe shabbat in the appropriate fashion.February 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕