|
Parshas Terumah: Respect for a Shul No definitive Halacha LeMa'aseh conclusions should be applied to practical situations based on any of these Shiurim.
When introducing the details concerning the construction of the Mishkan and its vessels, Hashem says "V'Asu Li Mikdash," commanding Bnai Yisrael to make a sanctuary for Him (Shemos 25:8). The Rambam (Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 1:1 and Sefer HaMitvos Mitzvas Asei 20) and the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 95) among others, derive from this Posuk that there is a Mitzvas Asei to build a Beis HaMikdash in which to serve Hashem. The Sdei Chemed (Klallim, Ma'areches HaBeis, Os 43, 44) cites those who hold that included in this Mitzvas Asei is a Mitzvah to build a Beis HaKnesses, a Shul; although he brings authorities that disagree and hold that to build a Shul is only a Mitzvah MideRabbanan, he quotes from the Zohar (in Parshas Nasso) that every Shul is considered a Mikdash, and since the Posuk in this Parsha (Ibid.) mandates making a Mikdash, there is obviously a Mitzvah MideOraisa to build a Shul as well. This notion is probably related to the famous statement of the Gemara in Megillah (29a) which derives from a Posuk in Yechezkel (11:16) that every Shul and Beis HaMidrash is considered to be a Mikdash Mi'at a miniature sanctuary, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash in Yerushalayim. The Metzudos Dovid on that Posuk (Ibid.) explains that Hashem indicated that He would have His Shechinah dwell in all the Shuls, no matter how far away they are from the site of the Beis HaMikdash in Yerushalayim, which would serve as miniature sanctuaries in its stead. Taking this comparison between the Beis HaMikdash and Shuls and Batei Midrashos a step further, the Sefer Yereyim (Siman 324) cites a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim (Parshas Bechukosai, 6:4) as well as the aforementioned Gemara in Megillah (Ibid.) to document that Shuls and Batei Midrashos are also referred to by the term Mikdash, and rules that the Torah's Mitzvah to revere the Mikdash (See VaYikra 26:2) includes a requirement to respect a Shul and a Beis HaMidrash as well. The implication there is that this requirement is MideOraisa; the Semag (Mitzvos Asei 164) apparently holds this way as well, as does the Sefer Chareidim (9:19), who quotes several of the sources cited above. The Sdei Chemed quoted above (Ibid.) discusses whether the Kedushah of a Shul is MideOraisa or MideRabbanan, mentioning several opinions on each side; this will obviously impact the question of the nature of the Mitzvah to show respect for a Shul. According to everyone, however, one must display the utmost respect for a Shul. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (13:1) thus rules that the Kedushah of a Shul and of a Beis HaMidrash is very great, noting, for the reasons mentioned above, that they are also referred to by the term Mikdash; he also alludes to the Gemara in Yevamos (6b) which states that the real Mitzvah is to revere not the Mikdash, but Hashem, who gave the Mikdash its sanctity. The Chayei Adam (Klall 17 Sif 6) writes all this as well, concurring that the Mitzvah to revere a Shul and a Beis HaMidrash is MideOralsa. The Mishnah in Megillah (28a) lists various activities that one may not do in a Shul even after it has been destroyed, because its Kedushah remains even then. The Tiferes Yisrael (Ibid., Perek 3 Mishnah 3 Os 10) writes that these activities are forbidden even after the Shul has been destroyed; they are certainly forbidden while the Shul is still standing and in use. One such prohibited activity is using the Shul as a Kapandaria, a short-cut to get from one place to another; the Rambam (Hilchos Tefillah 11:8) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 151:5) rule accordingly, explaining that if the Shul has two doorways, one shouldn't enter through one and exit through the other just to shorten one's path. The Gemara earlier in Megillah (27b) quotes that one of the Tannaim attributed his long life to the fact that he never mistreated a Shul by using it as a short-cut. The Aruch HaShulchan (Ibid. Sif 8) rules, however, that this prohibition applies only to the Shul (that is, the sanctuary) itself; the courtyard of the Shul and its hallways may be used as short-cuts. The Pri Megadim (in Aishel Avraham Ibid. Sif Katan 6) suggests that if one is on his way to do a Mitzvah, he may use the Shul itself as a short-cut, but the Mishnah Berurah, in his Biur Halacha (Ibid. s.v. L’Katzer) as well as the Kaf HaChaim (Ibid. Os 35) disagree and hold that only if the Mitzvah is done in the Shul itself may one enter; it is forbidden, however, to dishonor a Shul for the sake of a Mitzvah which is being done elsewhere. If, however, one enters the Shul in order to daven or learn, the Rambam (Ibid. Halacha 10) and the Shulchan Aruch (Ibid.) rule that it is certainly permissible to exit through another door in order to shorten one's route; it may even be a Mitzvah to do so, as indicated by the Tur (Orach Chaim Ibid.) and explained by the Magen Avraham (Ibid. Sif Katan 7) and the Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Sif Katan 21), among others. The aforementioned Rambam (Ibid. Halacha 8) writes that it is prohibited in general to enter a Shul or a Beis HaMidrash except for the purpose of a Mitzvah; the Magen Avraham (Ibid. Sif Katan 6) cites this ruling. The Gemara in Megillah (28b) thus indicates that if one must enter a Shul for some reason, such as to call somebody, he should learn a Halacha, a Mishnah, or a Posuk, or discuss a Torah topic with a child, or simply wait for a few moments before going about his business. The Rambam (Ibid. Halacha 9) rules accordingly, adding that in this way, one is not entering the Shul solely for his own purposes, and concluding that even just sitting in a Shul for a few moments is considered as an involvement in a Mitzvah. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim Ibid. Sif 1) also accepts this ruling, and the Ramo (Ibid.) adds that the minimum amount of time one should sit in the Shul is the time it takes to walk a certain distance, identified earlier in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 90:20) as eight Tefachim. The Bach, in his commentary on the Tur (Ibid. Siman 151 s.v. U’Mah She’Katav She’HaYishivah), points out that one need not actually sit down, but can remain standing, as the requirement is simply to spend a few moments in the Shul as a sign of respect before taking care of one's business there. The Mishnah Berurah, in the Biur Halacha (Ibid. s.v. L’Asoso), and the above cited Kaf HaChaim (Ibid.) rule that if one does learn something or remain for the required few moments, one may even use the Shul as a short-cut. The Gemara in Megillah (28a-28b) lists numerous additional activities which may not be done in a Shul, including behaving in a light-headed manner, and spending purposeless time there. The Rambam (Ibid. Halacha 6) and the Shulchan Aruch (Ibid. Sif 1) explain that included in this prohibition is behaving with inappropriate jocularity and foolishness, as well as engaging in idle conversation. The Sefer Chareidim cited above (Ibid.) notes that this prohibition is in force even not during davening time; he concludes by quoting that one should learn in this regard from the behavior of non-Jews who stay completely silent when in their houses of worship. The Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Sif Katan 2) goes on at length about the severity of the sin of talking in Shul, considering it an act of belittling the honor of Hashem by sinning in His Holy place, and noting that it will likely cause other people to talk and lead to Lashon Hora and arguments and the like; he thus concludes that one should speak only words of Torah and Tefillah in a Shul. He develops this even further in his Sefer Chofetz Chaim (In the Hakdomah, Mitzvos Asin 7 and in Hagah there); elsewhere in the Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chaim 98:3) he quotes that it is terrible for a parent to allow his child to talk about nonsense and stupid things in Shul. It is worth noting that the Ramo (Ibid. Sif 1) rules that one should not kiss one's children in Shul, in order to emphasize that there is no love like the love of Hashem. The Kaf HaChaim (Ibid. 151:8) likewise describes the severity of the sin of talking in Shul, and says that one who talks inappropriately in Shul would be better off not coming at all. He also criticizes even people who learn Torah and discuss it publicly during davening; he concludes that one must be even more diligent about all this on Shabbos. The Chayei Adam cited above (Ibid.) quotes that one who talks in Shul is as though he denies Hashem; the Magen Avraham (Ibid. Sif Katan 3) writes that the Ari Zal was very careful to say only words of Tefillah in Shul, avoiding even discussions of Mussar and Teshuvah, lest he be led by them to improper topics. The Gemara in Megillah (28a) also indicates that it is prohibited to eat or drink in a Shul; the Rambam (Ibid.) and the Shulchan Aruch (Ibid.) rule accordingly, adding, though, that Talmidei Chachomim may eat and drink there under pressing circumstances. The Magen Avraham (Ibid. Sif Katan 2) explains that this is allowed so that one will not have to interrupt his learning in order to go eat or drink; the Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Sif Katan 2) adds that the other forbidden activities, such as those mentioned above, are forbidden for Talmidei Chachomim as well. The Shulchan Aruch (Ibid. Sif 4) writes that if people gather in a Shul for the purpose of a Mitzvah, they may eat and drink there; the Magen Avraham (Ibid. Sif Katan 5) quotes that any Seudas Mitzvah is allowed in a Shul, although he concludes that this is only if it's a small Seudah, and the Kaf HaChaim (Ibid. Os 34) concurs, using as an example a Seudah following a Siyum, and adding that one should still be careful concerning what he talks about. The Aruch HaShulchan (Ibid. Sif 6) allows in Shul only a Seudah relating to Talmud Torah, but not the Seudah for a Bris or a Pidyon HaBen; the Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Sif Katan 20, and see Sha’ar HaTzion Ibid. Os 14), however, seems to be more lenient, allowing even bigger Seudos in a Shul for any Mitzvah purpose. (Note: This particular topic is examined in greater detail elsewhere in this Sefer, in an article on Parshas Korach.) There is some doubt in the Shulchan Aruch (Ibid. Sif 12) about the status of the Kedushah of rooms above the Shul, and, hence, their use for various activities; the Chasam Sofer (Sheilos V’Teshuvos Chasam Sofer Chelek Orach Chaim Siman 30) takes a stricter position about such rooms, but the Taz (Ibid. Sif Katan 4) writes that if, when the Shul was built, the intent was to use the rooms above the Shul for other purposes, there is no prohibition against most activities. Rav Yaakov Emden (Sheilos V’Teshuvos Yaabetz Chelek 2 Siman 54) rules that rooms on the side of a Shul have no Kedushah; the Kaf Hachaim (Orach Chaim Siman 154 Os 4) seems to say the same thing about the basement. All this, however, is true only if these rooms are never used for davening, as implied by the Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Sif Katan 3) and by the Kaf HaChaim (Siman 151 Os 10). It must be noted that if, when the Shul is built, it is stipulated that it will be used for certain activities, these activities may be permissible, as discussed by the Mishnah Berurah in the Biur Halacha (Ibid. s.v. Aval), the Aruch HaShulchan (Ibid. Sif 5), and the Kaf HaChaim (Ibid. Os 63), among others.
If you have any questions or comments, please click here
|