26 Jun Turning a Shul into a Church
I. LOWER EAST SIDE DISPUTE
The question has arisen numerous times whether a community may buy a church building to be used as a shul. In the 1850’s, such a question arose in a political battle over the oldest Eastern European shul in New York. In 1852, the first Eastern European shul in New York City, and the first Russian shul 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 shul and started his own.
In 1856, the Beth HaMedrash bought a Welsh church and converted it into a shul, 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 shul 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 shul. 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 shul. It seems clear from the language that Rav Mittleman was asking for a prohibitive ruling. The responsum was issued in 1858 while the shul 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 shul 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 shuls that were converted churches but he also would not permit the practice of buying a church for shul use