CORR 13-17

SELLING SYNAGOGUE TO BLACK MUSLIMS

QUESTION:

Two synagogues in San Francisco have merged and, therefore, one of the buildings is not needed and is available for sale. The building is situated in a Black area and an offer has been received for it from Muhammad’s Mosque, a Black Muslim organization. Some of the members of the congregation object to the sale since the Black Muslims have frequently expressed themselves anti-Semitically. Is there any Halachic principle involved in selling the building to such an organization? (Asked by Rabbi Herbert Morris, San Francisco, California.)

ANSWER:

FIRST OF ALL, there arises the question whether a congregation really has, according to Jewish law, the full right ever to sell a synagogue building, since such a sale would be destroying or at least diminishing the sanctity of a synagogue. This basic question has received much discussion in the law and has resulted in considerable restrictions and limitations in the possible sale of a synagogue building. The discussion is found in the first place in the Mishnah, Megilla, Chapter 3, and then in the Talmud, Megilla, page 27 ff. Then the law finds its way into the codes and is discussed in the Tur and in the Shulchan Aruch in Orah Hayyim 153.

At the outset the Halacha makes a distinction between synagogues in villages and synagogues in large cities. The synagogues in small cities may when necessary be sold without much legal difficulty. But it is not so easy to permit the sale of a synagogue in a large city. The reason for the distinction is this: No synagogue can be sold without the consent of the members. In a village all who have contributed (or their heirs) are present and therefore have the right to agree to sell it. In the large cities to which many strangers come and where presumably many non-residents, visiting but not living in the city, have contributed to the building, these non-residents are deemed, as it were, part-owners of the synagogue and one can no longer know who they are to get their consent to sell. In a sense a synagogue in a large city belongs to world Jewry and so cannot be sold since consent cannot be obtained.

However a decision permitting the sale of a large urban synagogue was made in the sixteenth century by Joshua Hoeschel ben Joseph (1578-1648) Rabbi in Cracow (P’ne Jehoshua, I, 4). He said that in a large city where there are many synagogues, each synagogue really belongs to its own group of members, who can exclude non-members if they wish. Therefore each separate synagogue, even in a large city, is equivalent to a small-city synagogue and may be sold. It is on this basis that nowadays synagogues in large cities, when no longer needed, are sold. So this permissive line is followed through the law and, for example, in our day the great authority (head of the Agudas ha-Rabbonim) Moses Feinstein, in his Igros Moshe, Orah Hayyim 50, permits the sale of a large urban synagogue, especially when worship no longer takes place within its walls. Therefore there is no question that the Talmudic prohibition no longer applies and a congregation in a large city may sell its synagogue (cf. previous responsum).

There is an additional reason indicated in the pioneer sixteenth-century decision permitting the sale of the building. The synagogue in the city of Grodno about which Joshua Hoeschel wrote his decision was in ruins. A ruined synagogue is deemed to retain its original sanctity and must be protected. The members of the congregation had built a fence around the ruined synagogue to protect it from intruders who befouled it, but the fence was not adequate to save the ruins from being further defiled. Therefore Joshua Hoeschel said that since its sanctity was being destroyed by intruders, this was an additional reason why this large urban synagogue, despite the Talmud’s negative opinion, could be sold.

There is no question that the synagogue building under present discussion which is now in a neglected neighborhood would undoubtedly be invaded, looted and generally defiled, and for that reason should certainly be sold to a tenant who would occupy and use it. But the second question involved here is perhaps the more grievous one. To whom may a synagogue be sold? This is really the question which is now being asked. A similar question was raised in the Mishnah and the Talmud and carried over into the codes. No synagogue may be sold for an unworthy purpose as, for example, a tannery (because of its evil smell), a bathhouse, etc. But even this is not a insurmountable obstacle, at least with regard to a small-town synagogue. If both the officers and the entire membership agree, they may sell it for an unspecified purpose. Nevertheless, there is obviously a hesitation about selling a synagogue for an unworthy purpose, since even in a small town it would require virtually unanimous consent of the entire community.

There is another indication that no sale should be made which is unworthy of the synagogue’s sanctity. This example has no direct connection with the selling of a synagogue but with the building of a synagogue. It is permissible for a Jew to have a house built by the type of contract with a Gentile builder called “Kablonus,” by which no time limit is established and the Gentile works on his own time, as it were. In that case, the building process may go on even on the Sabbath since it is not being done on that sacred day at the express command of the Jew. This Sabbath work is permissible for the building of a private house but is not permissible for the building of a synagogue because even the appearance of working on the Sabbath violates the sense of sanctity with regard to a synagogue.

Such feelings against selling the synagogue for an unworthy purpose or the violating of special religious sensitivity stand in the way of the sale of this syna gogue to the Black Muslims who often are anti-Semitic.

Nevertheless, this synagogue should be sold and must be sold or its sanctity will be destroyed anyhow by intruders. Furthermore, it would be a distinct disservice to the Jewish community if the risk were taken of intensifying the anti-Semitic feelings of the Black Muslims by refusing outright to sell the building to them.

Perhaps the best solution would be somewhat in the line of the minority suggestion made by Rabbi Judah in the Mishnah (M. Megillah, III, 2) that while a synagogue may not be sold directly for an unworthy purpose (tannery, bathhouse, etc.) it may be sold to be used as a courtyard and then the purchaser can do with it as he wishes once it is sold. Therefore what should be done is this: The building should not be sold to the Black Muslims. It should be sold to some other purchaser. If he wishes to sell it to them, the building is no longer sacred and it is his property. But even so, there should be, as the Talmud suggests, virtually unanimous consent of the officers and members of the congregation.