RRR 210-214

The Unfinished Synagogue Building

A synagogue was in the process of construction. It was walled and roofed. While it was not yet in regular use and not yet dedicated, vandals defaced the building with the painting of swastikas and obscene words. The laws of the state in which the synagogue stands are strict in their injunction against the defacing and vandalizing of houses of worship. The defense lawyers for the men charged with the vandalism argue that the strict laws of the state against vandalism do not apply in this case because the synagogue was not yet formally dedicated and, therefore, was not a sacred house of worship. The question before us is: When, according to Jewish tradition, does a synagogue become sacred? (From Rabbi Elliot D. Waldman, Utica, New York)

The Bible, in the Book of Kings (I Kings 8) gives a detailed description of the dedication by King Solomon of the Temple in Jerusalem. It is not clear from Scripture, or from later comments upon Scripture, whether the sanctuary in Jerusalem would have been sacred without this ceremony of dedication. The presumption is that for the Temple in Jerusalem, Solomon felt that this dedication ceremony was needed. Perhaps this was because it had supplanted a number of other sanctuaries (Beth EI, Nob, and so forth). These older sanctuaries were never (as far as we know from Scripture) dedicated in any formal way, and yet they had sanctity for generations. This much is sure, that the various synagogues for spiritual worship which rose after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, never required a ceremony of formal dedication. There is no record in the Talmud or any of the legal Codes that it is necessary to dedicate a synagogue. In recent years, some such ceremony developed, but it has no status in the law, nor does it represent any legal requirements. Clearly, then, the sanctity of the synagogue does not depend upon any formal ceremony of consecration.

When, then, does a synagogue become sacred?

One may say that the sacredness begins (to a partial de gree) from the very moment the money is collected for the purpose of building a synagogue. As a matter of fact, there is a sacredness in the funds, even before they are actually collected. The special sacredness of the money begins even when it has been pledged or promised, for there is a clear-cut distinction in Jewish law as to when an object (in this case, when a sum of money) becomes sacred, or the property of the sanctuary. If, in an ordinary, secular, transfer of property, all agreements have been made, let us say, the transaction is not considered complete until the buyer takes actual possession of the object or the property involved (mesira). With regard to sacred property, the mere declaration that the property has been dedicated to the temple, makes it the property of the temple. Thus, for example, if a man declared an animal to be the property of the sanctuary (e.g., in Temple times, to be used as a sacrifice) then, unlike secular transactions, the Temple agent or treasurer did not need to take actual possession of the animal for it to belong to the sanctuary. The mere declaration of the donor made it sacred Temple property. The full dictum of the law is: “Amira lig’vohah

mesira I’hedyat” (m. Kiddushin I: 7). This is constantly applied in the law to synagogue gifts. The mere declaration of such a gift makes it synagogue property.

Of course, the fact that the money already is sacred even when pledged, and certainly when collected, does not mean that it can be used only for the building of the synagogue and for no other purpose. There are other purposes for which the money may, in emergency, be used. However, as the process of arranging for the building proceeds and the actual steps toward building are taken, then it becomes less and less permissible, step by step, for the money to be used for other than the synagogue. In other words, there is a definite gradation in specific sanctity of the money as the process of building proceeds. The ques tion that concerns us here is: At what point in the total process from pledging the money to completing a sanctuary are the material and the building specifically sacred as a synagogue?

This whole question of the gradation of sanctity, up to the point when it becomes absolutely sacred as a synagogue, is discussed in the law, beginning with the Talmud itself. The Talmud, in Baba Bathra 3b, discusses the question of how long may the money collected for a synagogue be used for other sacred purposes. Then it gives a succession of stages: when the money is collected, when the material is bought, when the material has been piled up on the building lot, and so on. These laws are clarified by Maimonides in the Yad (“Matnas Aniyim” VIII: 10-11), then finally codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Orah Hayyim 153 : 13). The law as it stands is as follows: After the money is collected, the money may still be used to provide for students of the Torah and for other enumerated special virtues. If the material is bought and placed on the lot, there is only one other sacred virtue to which it may still be converted, namely, the ransoming of Jewish captives (Pidyon Shevuim). (Maimonides makes it clear that of all the ethical virtues, the redemption of captives is the highest, l oc . cit. VIII: 10.)

But after the building process has started, then the money and material are already as holy as the sanctuary. The Shulchan Aruch and the present text of Maimonides read: “If they build and complete the building,” it is exclusively sacred as a synagogue. Yet it is clear that it is sacred before the building is walled and roofed, for the “Magen Avraham” (Abraham Gombiner) to the Shulchan Aruch says that the reading in Maimonides is: “If they build, they must finish.” And the later commentators indicate that this is the correct meaning; see David Eibeschuetz, “Levushay S’rod,” ad loc, who says this means that even if they have built only part of it, they cannot use what is left of the money for any other purpose, but must complete the building.

Although not directly relevant to our discussion (but throwing some light on the sanctity of the synagogue), a ruined synagogue in which services are no longer held is still deemed sacred. This is stated in the Mishnah, Megillah III: 3, and in the Talmud, b. Megillah 28a, and is codified as the law in the Shulchan Aruch, Orah Hayyim 152 : 10. This at least indicates that whether or not services are actually held in a synagogue, such fact is not a necessary evidence of its sanctity.

The law, then, is clear: A synagogue does not require any formal consecration in a special service after the building is completed. Such dedications may be held, but they are not required by law to be the formal point for the beginning of the sanctity of the building. The sanctity begins with the pledging of the money, and is complete when the structure is finished. This is especially and certainly true in the case of the temple in Utica, where there was a service at the laying of the cornerstone which was a complete declaration of purpose, in accordance with which the building was walled and roofed. It is a sacred synagogue structure and clearly so designated in Jewish law.