31 Jan TURNING A CHURCH INTO A SHUL

I. Lower East Side
Dispute

The question has
arisen numerous times
whether a community
may buy a church
building to be used
as a synagogue. In the
1850’s, such a question arose in a political
battle over the oldest Eastern European
synagogue in New York. In 1852, the first
Eastern European synagogue in New York
City, and the first Russian synagogue in
America, opened in the Lower East Side.
It was called Beth HaMedrash, not to be
confused by a later break-away named
Beth HaMedrash HaGadol. The next
year, Rav Avraham Asch was appointed
rabbi. However, one of the congregants,
Rav Yehudah Mittleman, was also an
ordained rabbi. These two clashed about
the appointment of a specific individual
as shochet, slaughterer. Rav Mittleman
left the synagogue and started his own.
In 1856, the Beth HaMedrash bought
a Welsh church and converted it into a
synagogue, dedicating the new home
on Shavuos eve with Rav Avraham Rice
of Baltimore in attendance. This was

neither the first nor the last time that a
synagogue used the premises of a former
church but it seems to have generated the
most halachic discussion. Apparently,
Rav Mittleman attempted to obtain
rabbinic disapproval from Europe for the
use of a former church as a synagogue. In
response, Rav Asch looked to Europe for
rabbinic approval.
Rav Mittleman inquired of the great
rabbinic authority, Rav Yosef Shaul
Nathanson of Rav Mittleman’s hometown
Lvov, Poland, whether a congregation
may purchase a Protestant church and
convert it into a synagogue. It seems clear
from the language that Rav Mittleman
was asking for a prohibitive ruling. The
responsum was issued in 1858 while the
synagogue moved into the converted
church in 1856. It is not clear whether
the delay was due to limitations in
communications or some other reason.
II. First Response From Europe
Rav Nathanson (Responsa Sho’el
U-Meishiv, first recension, vol. 3 nos.
72-73) quotes the Magen Avraham
(154:17) who cites a responsum of

Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi (1:79) that a
house used for idolatry may be used
for prayer. Even though items used for
idolatry may not be used for prayer
because they are disgraceful, a house is
different. The Magen Avraham suggests
that the difference lies in a house being
connected, more or less, to the ground.
And the ground can never be forbidden
due to idolatry.
Some, such as the Dagul Me-Revavah
(ad loc.) and Chasam Sofer (glosses,
ad loc.; Responsa, Orach Chaim 42)
bring proof from a comment of Tosafos
(Megillah 6a sv. tiratra’os) that a house is
also forbidden. The Gemara (Megillah
6a) says that the biblical promise that
“And he shall be as a chief in Judah, and
Ekron as a Jebusite” (Zech. 9:6) means
that in the future, the princes of Yehudah
will teach Torah in Roman theaters and
circuses. Tosafos quote an opinion that
this refers to houses of pagan worship
which are derogatorily called theaters
and circuses. However, Tosafos reject
the possibility that Torah will be taught
in such disgraceful places. This seems to
imply that Torah study, and presumably
prayer, should not take place in buildings
previously used for foreign religions.
Rav Nathanson rejects this proof
because Tosafos do not use the
word forbidden. Tosafos say that it
is difficult to interpret the Talmud
that way, meaning that it is difficult
to say that this biblical prophecy
refers to pagan houses of worship.
It doesn’t seem like the prophet
would promise something relatively
unseemly as such a good sign. But it
is not forbidden. Rav Nathanson then
disagrees with Tosafos and suggests
that the conversion of a pagan house
of worship to a house devoted to the
worship of God is actually a great
praise of God. Idolatry will be wiped
off the face of earth so that even the
central places of idolatry will be
dedicated to God.
III. Second Response From Europe
In 1858, Rav Ya’akov Ettlinger of
Altona, Germany, sent a responsum
on the same issue to Rav Abraham
Asch (Binyan Tziyon 1:63). Rav
Ettlinger sides with Tosafos against
the Magen Avraham. He advances
the consideration that gentiles are
permitted to embrace Christianity but
counters that Jews are not, therefore
this does not point to leniency. He

concludes that he rules strictly but allows
for reliance on the Magen Avraham in
a time of great need. Additionally, since
the church purchased for Rav Asch’s
synagogue was originally built as a
private house, this offers another reason
for leniency.
IV. Later Authorities
In a responsum dated 1900, Rav David
Tzvi Hoffmann (Melamed Le-Ho’il,
Orach Chaim 20) addresses the same
issue. He accepts Tosafos as forbidding
the use of a house of foreign worship
for prayer. After pursuing and rejecting
a number of possible ways to reconcile
Tosafos with the Magen Avraham, Rav
Hoffmann concludes that they disagree.
However, in the specific case he was
considering, he ruled leniently because
the building had ceased serving as a
church decades earlier.
The Mishnah Berurah (154:45) says
that common practice follows the
Magen Avraham‘s lenient ruling. The
famous mid-twentieth century halachic
authority of the Lower East Side, Rav
Moshe Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Orach
Chaim 1:49), disagrees with this lenient
conclusion of the Mishnah Berurah and
what he says is common practice in the
US. He was not willing to forbid prayer in
synagogues that were converted churches
but he also would not permit the practice
of buying a church for synagogue use.