CHURCH USE OF SYNAGOGUE BUILDING

QUESTION:

Is it proper for a synagogue to rent its facilities, including the Sanctuary, for a temporary period, to a Christian church for the conduct of classes and services at times not in conflict with the synagogue’s own schedule of services? (Asked by Rabbi Joshua O. Haberman, Washington, D.C.)

ANSWER:

IT HAS BECOME a well-established Reform practice that the synagogue quarters have been lent to Christian congregations for services and for Sunday school if, for example, the Christian church had burnt down or a new church building was not yet completed. Also, Reform congregations established institutes for the clergy in which ministers of all denominations are invited to be present in the synagogue Sanctuary for study. If, therefore, the question asked was concerned with ascertaining the Reform Jewish practice, the question need not have been asked at all. The matter has been decided for a generation now in actual Reform practice. The question, therefore, must go beyond Reform practice and is clearly meant to reach into the moods and de cisions of Jewish legal practice and the feelings of most Jewish people on this matter.

At first blush, the idea of Christian worship in a traditional synagogue would seem bizarre or even deeply disturbing to an Orthodox congregation. Yet, actually, a study of Jewish law on the matter contradicts what might be an instant, negative reaction to the question. Let us consider the law on the most extreme basis first. Suppose this were a Catholic or a High Church Episcopalian congregation: Part of their worship involves the presence of crosses and crucifixes. Would not this be shocking to a traditional congregation, perhaps, such objects even temporarily being set up in the synagogue?

Of course it is worthwhile mentioning that during the Second World War, in the military, the same chapel was used for Catholic, Protestant and Jewish services. The respective, specifically religious objects were either removed or covered up for the services of the other denominations. The decision to agree to such a triple use of the chapels was agreed to by the Jewish Chaplaincy Commission which was composed of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis. But, of course, this was under war conditions and the necessities of military life, and therefore no general conclusion can be drawn from that specific experience.

The question is whether under normal peacetime conditions it is permissible at all to have such objects as crucifixes in the synagogue. It is to be understood (and discussed later in this responsum) that Judaism does not believe Christianity to be an idolatrous re ligion. Nevertheless, such objects as crucifixes, etc., are deemed to be idolatrous objects and the prohibition of their use is fully discussed in the Shulchan Aruch. May, then, such objects deemed by the law to be idolatrous be placed in the synagogue, even for temporary use?

The Talmud (in Avoda Zara 43b) speaks of the most sacred synagogue in Babylon (called Shev V’Yashiv). It was the most sacred because, according to tradition, the exiled King Jehoiachin took earth from the Temple in Jerusalem for the foundation of this synagogue in exile. In this synagogue there were statues of the emperor. Yet the most famous of the Babylonian scholars worshiped there without hesitation. Elijah Mizrachi (1455-1525) the great Turkish authority, says in his code, Kenesses Hagdolah, Orah Hayyim 151 (the reference in Reform Jewish Practice, Vol. II, p. 44, in which the present discussion is briefly dealt with, has the Orah Hayyim reference erroneously as 192) that if idols had been placed in the synagogue, it would not invalidate the synagogue for Jewish worship after the idols are removed. The Mogen Avraham to Orah Hayyim 154 (end of paragraph 17) explains Benvenisti’s statement as follows: The building itself has not been dedicated to idolatrous use, or worshiped as such. Therefore when the idolatrous objects are removed, the room can be used for Jewish worship.

Of course Jewish sentiment might be somewhat disturbed by the fact that the objects were put into the synagogue at all. Therefore it would be less disturbing if the denominations were of the type of Baptists or Congregationalists, etc., who do not use crucifixes or can do without crucifixes in their services. In that case there would certainly be no objection in the law to their using the synagogue building or the Sanctuary itself.

Yet there is another objection to be considered: When a Jewish congregation lends its school facilities to a Christian church, it is aiding the teaching of Christianity. Have we the right to do so, or is it proper to do so? There is a considerable amount of law against the teaching of the Torah to non-Jews. There were many reasons for this. It often happened that those Gentiles who studied Jewish law would pervert what they learned and use it for anti-Semitic purposes. Most of the prohibitions of such instruction by Jews is based upon the statement in Hagiga 13a: “We do not give over the words of the Torah to Gentiles.” However, the bulk of the legal opinion is that the objection, to the extent that it is valid, applies only to rabbinic law; but the Bible, which Christians revere, can be taught to them. See fuller discussion in Reform Jewish Practice, Vol. II, p. 72 ff. Since, therefore, most of church school instruction (certainly in Protestant schools) is a study of the Bible, there can be no objection to assisting this instruction by providing facilities for it.

Of course it may be objected that the Christian Sunday Schools interpret the passages in the Bible in a Trinitarian sense, which certainly from our point of view would be erroneous. Have we the right, then, to help them teach their Trinitarian interpretations of Scripture?

To this question it is important to note that the greatest authorities in Jewish law, such as Rabbenu Tam (see the Tosfos to Bechoros 2b, s.v. Shema) authorities say that when Christians use Trinitarian expressions or add saints’ names, they really mean to refer to God; in other words, they are basically monotheists. This is embodied in the law by Isserles (see Orah Hayyim 156).

From the point of view of traditional law, we must come to the following conclusion: Even if objects like crosses, etc., are brought into the synagogue, the synagogue remains untainted after they are removed, although from the point of view of people’s feelings, it would be better if the renting were confined to those denominations who do not use crucifixes, etc. As for aiding in Christian instruction, it is mostly Biblical and even when the verses are interpreted in Trinitarian fashion, they really mean God. Therefore it is not objectionable.