RRT 306-308

HIGH-RISE CHURCH AND RESIDENCES

QUESTION:

The Sixth Presbyterian Church is planning to raze its present church building and to build on the site a high rise building which will house a Presbyterian church, commercial office space, and housing for the aged. Since the church is in a neighborhood (Squirrel Hill) where there is a large Jewish population, the question has arisen as to whether Orthodox Jews or Jewesses might object to living in a building which contains a Christian church. Is there any objection in the Jewish legal literature to residing in such a building? (Asked by Eugene B. Strassburger, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

THIS QUESTION could never have been asked in the past, since the building of tall buildings, and the awarding of government aid to churches to provide residences for the aged, is a new and an American phenomenon. Of course, considering the wealth of the churches in Europe, it must certainly have happened that Jews resided in buildings owned by a church; but such a situation has, as far as I know, left no record in the legal literature. Besides, even if there were such a record in the Middle Ages of Jews living in properties owned by a church, it still would not be closely relevant to our question. The building in question is not only owned (or controlled) by the church, but the church itself is in the building, and Jewish old folk would be living in the same building which contains a church; and that is our question.

First it must be established that the large body of Jewish law in relation to non-Jewish religious institutions, etc., were originally developed in the time of idolatry, and the objections to the various religions were objections to idolatrous religions. It must be clear at the outset that Judaism does not consider Christianity or Mohammedanism idolatrous. (Please see the responsum on “Church Use of the Synagogue Building” in Contemporary Reform Responsa, pp. 44 ff.) However, although Judaism does not believe Christianity to be an idolatrous religion, nevertheless such objects as crucifixes, etc., are still deemed to be idolatrous objects (as, indeed, many Protestant sects consider them to be). Hence there are many questions in the law as to the usability by Jews of church objects. Such questions as these are asked: If the stubs of the wax candles used in the churches are remelted, may they be used as candles in the synagogue? May a Jewish tailor and embroiderer make the cloak used by the priest with a cross embroidered on its back? May a Jewish jeweler or pawnbroker buy and sell crucifixes, etc.?

Among these questions are some that are relevant to our inquiry. For example, it is asked: If such objects as crucifixes, etc., were brought into a room and used for Christian worship, and then they were removed, could that room be used for Jewish worship? The answer is yes, because the objects were worshiped, but the room itself was not worshiped. So, for example, if a house is built for general use and then changed (by the painting of images on it, etc.) for non-Jewish worship, if these paintings are removed, the house may be used for Jewish worship. So it all depends on whether the house itself is worshiped as sacred. If, therefore, the religious articles are not present, the house may be used for general purposes (see Yore Deah 145:3 and Mogen Abraham in Orah Hayyim 154, end of par. 17). In this special case, the building itself is not dedicated for worship. In fact the main part of the building is definitely set aside for secular purposes. Besides, even in the church itself, Presbyterians make very little use of crucifixes, etc.

Therefore, since the building itself is not intended for non-Jewish worship, and the part that is for worship is well separated from the rest, there is no ground in Jewish law for a Jew to object to living in parts of the building; or even, for that matter, to having a little synagogue in one of the rooms. Of course, some old Jewish people may object to living in the building, but their objections would be based upon personal feelings, unjustified by the law.