REMOVING JEWISH SYMBOLS

QUESTION:

A Jew traveling through former Jewish neighborhoods in a large city, is saddened by Hebrew words and symbols on former synagogues which have now been sold to churches. Should the congregation which sold the synagogue have been required to remove these symbols?

ANSWER:

You ask a sad question and one which, as far as I can recall, has not been asked before. Many of the churches which formerly were synagogues still have visible Jewish symbols. Sometimes there is engraved in masonry the name of the synagogue in Hebrew letters. All this, as you properly say, creates a feeling of sadness that these synagogues had to be abandoned.

What your question actually amounts to is this: Was the congregation that sold the synagogue in duty bound to remove these visible symbols? First of all, there is no question that the grief of seeing abandoned synagogues is a genuine one. The Talmud (Moed Qatan 26a) says that when one sees the ruins of the Temple and of the cities of Judah, one should tear his garments as a mark of mourning. So this grief that you mention is an ancient one which has followed us all through our history. But the question is, what can we do about it?

There used to be a question as to whether a synagogue in a large city might be sold at all. That was originally prohibited. Please see most of the law on this question in my Contemporary Reform Responsa, pp. 13 ff. It was a question from San Francisco, whether we may sell a synagogue to the Black Muslims, who were anti-Jewish. Moshe Feinstein, the chief Orthodox authority of our day in America, proves that nowadays a synagogue in a large city may be sold. See Igrot Mosheh Orah Hayyim 50. Generally, it is a poor remnant of a congregation that is left in a neighborhood which cannot pay the interest on the mortgage, if there is one, and cannot maintain the shul. When they sell the shul, they need every penny they received for it towards the building of a new shul in the new neighborhood.

There is no question that we would require them to remove the Ark and whatever sacred appurtenances there are in the building but it certainly is beyond their power to remove masonry or change stained glass windows that contain Jewish symbols and words. If the Gentile buyers want to remove these things, the building is now theirs and they may do so. They may not want to do so; it may happen that the Christian congregation is of such a type that it honors and is proud of the Hebrew symbols. Then we have a situation equivalent to the following: If a Jew moves out of a house and a Gentile moves in, is the Jew in duty bound to remove the mezuzah? Isserles (Yoreh Deah 291:2) decides that if it would cause ill will, the mezuzah should be allowed to remain. However, this would be a special situation.

As far as we are concerned, the building is no longer holy, as the legal phrase is, yotzo l’hulin, “it has become non-holy” Your concern, and it is a proper one, is a sadness to Jewish passersby to see Hebrew words and Jewish symbols on a church because it reminds us of the poverty of the people and the sorrows. Certainly if such things could have been removed without too much expense or trouble, it would be a duty to do so to avoid the agmat nefesh referred to above, but as far as I can see, there is no ground to compel the remnant of a congregation to go to expense and trouble to change masonry or other difficult tasks. As for the grief that Jewish passersby may feel, that is genuine but must be endured.

It is too heavy a burden to expect the selling Jewish congregation to go to that expense.

ADDENDUM

The enquirer raised the following additional question. The answer had considered primarily impecunious remnants of former congregations who would be unable to bear the expense of removing masonry and other permanent recordings of Hebrew names or Biblical verses on the synagogue which they are forced to sell. The further question, however, is this: Suppose we are not dealing with impecunious remnants but a fairly well-to-do community which is moving from one neighborhood to another and can sell its synagogue, often for a high price. It would therefore be no financial burden on such a synagogue organization to go to the expense of repainting Hebrew sentences, etc., on the inner walls, or even chiselling out Hebrew words in the masonry on the outside of the building. The question, then, is: Would Jewish law require them to remove these Hebrew sentences and symbols, etc.?

The grief at seeing neglected or abandoned former synagogues is real enough, but it involves no active duty except the expression of it. However, there may well be specific dudes involved from another point of view, namely, what may possibly be involved here is the element of hillul hashem, desecrating or bringing to shame the good name of Judaism. If, for example, the Hebrew words in the masonry would just be carelessly chopped out by me new owners, or painted or plastered over roughly so that it would be obvious to passersby that the Hebrew words or sentences remaining were cavalierly or scornfully treated, then if there is a likelihood that the new owners would aet in such a way as to bring shame on the Jewish faith, clearly it would be the duty to avoid hillul hashem. Great sacrifice, sometimes even sacrifice of life is required of us to avoid shame brought on our Jewish faith; that is to sa>: if there is this danger described above, then there is no question that the Jewish congregation is in duly bound to take the necessary steps to avoid such a situation.

However, there is a strong caution involved in the matter of removing or painting over Hebrew words and sentenres. It is a general Jaw ih;tt we may not erase the Name of Cod. See the fairly full discussion in Current Reform Responsa, pp. 29 ff Especially note the opinion of the Rambam. who speaks of die Name of God engraved in spoons and on other utensils. He insists that that part of the spoon be cut out and reverently buried before the rest of the spoon can be melted down. In other words, the Name of God on the spoon must not be destroyed. On the face of it, then, if, for example, there are verses painted on the wall of the synagogue, or a verse in the outside masonry containing the Name of God, it may well be argued that not only are the sellers of the synagogue not required to erase it, they arc actually forbidden to do so. The stones would need to be reverently removed and put away.

However, this strictness has been mitigated by larer law Later authorities have observed that the Talmud in Sola 35b relates that the Israelites marching into Canaan engraved the words of the Torah in stone and then plastered it all over. Therefore, Babad in his Minhat Hinukh, page 42, column 2 (to Commandment 437) sums up the status of the law that since these names of God were not written with the express intention of their being sacred, as a scribe must do when writing a Sefer Torah. the walls may be painted over or plastered over.

To sum up: If the congregation can afford to remove or cover up Hebrew sentences and such, they should do so, since it is not prohibited to paint over or plaster over the Name of God, provided the Name was not inscribed or written with the intention of it being sacred, as in a Sefer Torah.