SYNAGOGUE FROM FUNERAL PARLOR

QUESTION:

Is there any objection in Jewish law to converting a building which was a funeral parlor into a synagogue? (Asked by Rabbi Sidney Wolf, Corpus Christi, Texas.)

ANSWER:

IT MIGHT MAKE some difference, if only minor, if the funeral parlor were a Gentile one, not a Jewish one. In Jewish law, one might possibly entertain a more serious objection if the funeral parlor were Jewish than if it were non-Jewish. This may seem strange; one would imagine the reverse, but the fact is this:

If the objection is based upon tuma, the ritual uncleanliness of the dead, then the fact is, as far as a Kohen is concerned, that Jewish bodies are unclean for him by “enclosure.” That is to say, a Kohen may not go into a house that contains a dead body. But Gentile bodies are not unclean by enclosure, only by contact. In other words, a Kohen can go into a morgue which contains only Christian bodies, but not into one that contains Jewish bodies.

But all this assumes the actual presence of bodies in the building. Such a question as to whether a syna gogue may be built or a building be used as a synagogue where there are actually bodies present has arisen in England and created a whole series of responsa.

An old church was bought and converted into a synagogue. It was discovered that in the basement of the church, going back to the days when England was still a Catholic country, the bodies of monks and others were buried in what we would call the basement. And the question arose as to whether a shul, a synagogue, may be in a building in which all these ancient bodies are underneath it. There were varied opinions because in that particular case, the bodies or their bones were still there.

But the case that you are asking about is one in which there are no longer any bodies, Jewish or Gentile, on the premises. So your question amounts to this: Is the fact that once there were bodies in the building a reason for not permitting the use of the building?

This question can be answered definitely by analogy. The law gives us a clear analogy in the case of a building used for idolatry. The question is put in this way: If idols were present and were worshiped in a building (or a room), may it be used later as a synagogue? This question, before we mention the answer, could arise in modern times and, in fact, is a modern question. The reason for it being a live question is this: While the Christian religion is not considered to be idolatrous in Jewish law, nevertheless, certain objects, such as the crucifix, would be deemed idolatrous objects. Therefore the modern form of the question is this: Suppose a room or a large enclosure contained crucifixes and was used in Christian worship, can such a room be used as a synagogue after the crucifixes are removed? The answer to this question is generally yes, because it is only the objects which are dedicated to the non Jewish worship, but not the room or the house itself. Therefore when the objects are removed, the house or the room may be used for Jewish worship. Of course, if the building is actually dedicated, that might be another question.

Therefore, we may say that since the question of ritual uncleanliness of bodies is much less important than idolatry, if a room may be used after an idolatrous object is removed from it, then all the more is it permissible, if the bodies are removed from the building, for the building to be used as a synagogue.