For donations Click Here

Some Halachos of Shuls: The “Small Sanctuary”

The shul is very important in the life of a Jew.

Aside from the thrice-daily prayers, the shul often serves as a center for Torah study and lectures. Shul is a place for social gatherings to mark both joyous and sad occasions. The laws that pertain to a shul, however, are not studied enough.

This week’s parashah deals with the Tabernacle in the desert. A shul is also termed mikdash me’at (Yechezkel 11:15) – a small Temple. This prompts us to examine and discuss the laws of the shul, most of which are derived from its status as a mikdash me’at.

Our discussion will seek to establish the parameters of this comparison, and study the halachos that are derived from this analogy. What details does the obligation of respect for a shul include? What is the nature of the obligation to build a shul? Where must the Bimah be placed? These, among other questions, are discussed below.

Awe and Respect in the Mini-Temple

Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 151) begins the laws about shul by relating a number of rules that result from its holiness: “One may not act with lightheadedness in shuls and in houses of study. One may not laugh, joke, or idly chatter; nor may one eat or drink in them… stroll in them, or use them as shelter from the sun or rain….”

The Mishnah Berurah (151:1) explains that the reason for these laws is that the shul is a mikdash me’at. Just as the Torah commands us to practice mora mikdash, to be in awe of the Temple, so we must be in awe of today’s small sanctuary – the shul.

Mora Mikdash in Shul: Torah or Rabbinic Law?

According to the Yere’im (409), the duty of mora mikdash in shul is a Torah obligation, and disrespectful behavior in shul is thus a full Torah transgression. This principle is derived by the Gemara (Megillah 29a) from the verse (Yechezkel 11:16), “I will be for them as a small sanctuary.” The ruling of Yere’im is cited by Chayei Adam (17:6) and noted by the Mishnah Berurah.

Others rishonim, however, imply that the kedushah of today’s shuls is not mandated by Torah law, but rather by rabbinic injunction. Ran (Megillah 8a) clearly states that the kedushah of a shul is of rabbinic nature, and according to Ramban (quoted therein) a shul has the status of mitzvah items (see Divrei Chaim, Orach Chaim 3, who writes that even according to Ramban a shul possesses at least a rabbinic level of kedushah).

Peri Megadim (Mishbatzos Zahav, beginning of 153), based on Ran, thus explains that there is a fundamental difference between the kedushah of a shul, which is rabbinic in nature, and the kedushah of a sefer Torah, which is mandated by the Torah.

Breaking off a Stone

A possible ramification of this discussion is raised by the To’afos Re’em (commentary to Yere’im), who quotes Sefer Ha-Eshkol (I, no. 24) that there is a prohibition to break off a stone from a shul. The Nahal Eshkol (commentary to Eshkol) explains that this prohibition is derived from the similarity between today’s shul and the Temple. With reference to the Temple, the Torah prohibits breaking off its stones: “You shall not do so to Hashem, your G-d.”

To’afos Re’em himself, however, writes that although the kedushah of today’s shuls might be Torah-mandated, we need not assume that the prohibition of breaking stones applies. The reason for this is that we can distinguish between the respective levels of kedushah.

On the other hand, Shut Divrei Chaim (Orach Chaim 3) writes that even if the kedushah of a shul is rabbinic, it is possible that breaking off a stone is a Torah prohibition of “not doing so to Hashem, your G-d” – a possibility mentioned by Peri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 152:6).

The question is discussed in Shut Shevet Halevi (III, no. 13), who was consulted concerning removing stones from the outer wall of a shul in order to build a Sukkah. Ultimately, he was lenient in this matter, but only on account of some additional factors that were special to the situation.

The Obligation to Build a Shul

The Sedei Chemed (Letter Beis, no. 63) discusses the obligation to build a shul. Based on the above ruling of the Yere’im and others, he writes that the obligation is included in the Torah obligation to build the Temple—even though the mitzvah of building a shul is not mentioned in the Torah or listed as a Torah mitzvah. The Sedei Chemed adds that this is the ruling given by Rav Chaim Falagi (Tochechos Chaim).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 150:1) writes that the obligation to build a shul is imposed on members of the community. According to the above-mentioned opinion of the Yere’im, the obligation to build a shul is not only a general obligation to participate in communal needs but is also every individual’s personal responsibility. It is derived from the verse, “You shall build Me a sanctuary.”

Doors and Hallways

The interior design of a shul is halachically prescribed, and also relies on comparison to the Temple.

Tosefta in Megillah 3:14, teaches that the doors to a shul must be on the eastern side. Just as the doors of the Temple opened westwards, so too, the doors of a shul (in Bavel, which is east of Eretz Yisrael) should open to the west. In the Temple, this design ensured that upon entering, one would bow before the inner chamber. In a shul, one must do so in the direction of the Aron Ha-Kodesh – the ark containing the Torah scrolls. From this Tosefta, the Shulchan Aruch (150:5) derives that doors to a shul must be positioned so that one who enters is facing towards the Aron Kodesh. (The Aron’s location is determined based on the direction of prayer in the specific area.)

An interesting addition to this is found in the rulings of the Chasam Sofer.

The Bach (Orach Chaim 90) derives from Yerushalmi that a hallway must be constructed before the entrance to a shul. This halachah is also quoted by the Magen Avraham (35) and the Mishnah Berurah (61). Based on comparison with the Temple entrances, the Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim 27) states that it is preferred that the doors to the hallway should not be aligned with the doors to the shul itself, but should rather be to the north and south (assuming that the doors of the shul are in the east). Note that according to the Chasam Sofer, the requirement applies only where doing so is feasible.

Placement of the Bimah

Rema (Orach Chaim 150:5) cites the ruling of Rambam (Tefillah 11:3) whereby the bimah must be placed at the center of a shul. The reason for this is given by Kesef Mishnah, who explains that this ruling does not contradict the common customin his time, which was to construct the bimos at the end of the shul. The purpose of a central bimah was to enable all those present in shul to hear the reading of the chazan.

According to this interpretation, there istherefore no obligation to place the bimah in the center of the shul, and this was done for practical reasons only. In the shul of Alexandria, where thousands of Jews prayed, the bimah had to be central (Sukkah 51b, quoted by the Biur Ha-Gra); for smaller shuls, this location is not obligatory.

However, Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim 28) makes the central placement of the bima a universal obligation. He writes that the bimah represents the altar in the Temple. Just as the inner altar (of the ketores) was situated in the center of the Temple between the shulchan and menorah, so too, the bimah must be placed in the center of the shul.

Chasam Sofer, as is known (see Biur Halachah, end of 150), fought fiercely against the Reform movement. Since the reformers wished to convert the shul into a modern prayer-hall in imitation of Christian practice, they insisted on placing the bimah at the front of the shul. The Chasam Sofer argued that this new practice, which emulated the ways of non-Jews, was forbidden. The principle, the Chasam Sofer concludes, is that “chadash (novelty) is forbidden by the Torah.”

Iggros Moshe (Orach Chaim II, no. 41) wonders why the Chasam Sofer compares the bimah to the inner altar, and not to the outer altar. This question arises from the Chasam Sofer‘s own writings. He writes that the reasons for the comparison are because we read about the sacrifices from the bimah, and because we circle around the bimah on Sukkos. Both of these reasons apply to the outer altar and not the inner altar.

In practice, both comparisons will dictate placing the bimah at the center of a shul. Rav Moshe concludes that because this is only a question of custom, there is no need to be stringent and situate the bimah exactly at the center of the shul. It should be in the middle, but there is no need for precision. In another teshuvah (42), Rav Moshe adds that it is permitted (if necessary) to pray in a shul whose bimah is not centered. The Chasam Sofer‘s staunch opinion reflected the condition of his generation and the battle he fought against Reform.

Additional Customs

A number of other customs are mentioned in connection with the shul as a small sanctuary:

Candles: Shulchan Aruch (151:9) writes that it is customary to light candles to honor the shul. Mishnah Berurah (27) explains that this corresponds to the practice in the Temple. He goes even further and rules (514:31) that although it is prohibited to light a candle at home on Yom Tov during the daytime (because the light is superfluous), some permit lighting candles in shul (in particular if people are there). Shelah (Tetzaveh 33) adds that candles should stay lit throughout the prayers, comparing this to the ner tamid in the Temple.

Trees: Rabbi Akiva Eiger (glosses to Shulchan Aruch 150:1) quotes Rav D. Arama who prohibits planting trees in the courtyard of a shul. This corresponds with the prohibition of planting trees “adjacent to the altar of Hashem.” Authorities discuss this prohibition (see Piskei Teshuvos 150:19, note 90), which applies specifically to trees (and not to bushes or flowers). Some adopt a more stringent position and some a lenient stance.

Paroches: Rav Ovadyah Yosef (Yechaveh Daas vol. 6, no. 9) was asked if it is acceptable to take down the ornamental curtain in front of the aron ha-kodesh, and replace it with elaborate gold plating on the Aron Kodesh itself. His response (based on Zera Emes, Orach Chaim 26) was that it is preferable to leave the paroches in place. The reason is that aside from adorning the aron, the paroches corresponds to the curtain that separated between the Holy and the Holy of Holies in the Temple.

Attic: Shulchan Aruch (151:12) rules that an attic directly above a shul should not be used for disrespectful purposes. He expresses doubt as to whether it may be used for any purpose on a steady basis. Mishnah Berurah (40, based on Beis Yosef) explains that the issue depends on whether the shul attic is compared to the attic above the main hall of the Temple (azarah) – whose sanctity did not prohibit the attic from other uses – or whether it is compared to the attic above the inner chamber, which was sanctified with the kedushah of the Heichal.

Architecture: Noda Biyhuda (tinyana, Orach Chaim 18) writes that there is no formal obligation to build the shul with four walls in correspondence with the design of the Temple. He permits building a shul in any shape, provided that the intention is for reasons of space and convenience, and not just to emulate non-Jewish architecture.

Giving Due Respect

In conclusion, it is worthwhile returning to the issue of honoring the shul with which we began. The comparison with the Temple, which is the source of so many halachos of the shul, requires us to treat the shul with due respect. Indeed, Mishnah Berurah (150:1) warns (quoting the Semak) that if attendees treat a shul with disrespect, it will end up as a house of idolatry. Tragically, after their closure, many of the old shuls in America turned into Churches fulfilling the Semak‘s warning.

On the positive side, Rav Chaim Palagi (Tochachas Chaim, p. 173) writes that one who is careful to refrain from speaking any idle speech in shul merits great reward: “During his lifetime he will see offspring, live long, Hashem will grant him success in all matters… and his bread will not be lacking. Even after his death, his spirit will rest in peace in his grave, and neither his bones nor his flesh will rot.”

May we merit to punctiliously fulfill the halachos of the shul, to grant our small sanctuary its due respect, and to beautify and adorn it to the best of our abilities. Thus, may we speedily see the rebuilding of the true Sanctuary with the coming of the Redeemer, speedily and in our days.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *