Monthly Learning Forum by Rabbi Yaakov Kermaier: January, 13, 2009

Sacred Structures: The History, Halacha, and Design of the Synagogue

[Note: This summary has not been reviewed by Rabbi Kermaier.]

The Jewish people have not always congregated in synagogues, but they have done so for a long time. It is unclear when synagogues first came into being. There was no proclamation that they would exist or become the locus for prayer. Based on archaeological evidence, many scholars argue that synagogues go back to the period of the First Temple, 2,500 years ago. It is clear that after the destruction of the First Temple, there were synagogues, both in Israel and Babylon.

The Talmud in Megillah 29a (source sheet I(A)) says that in Babylon the Divine presence can be found in the synagogue of Hutzai and in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Nehardea. The latter synagogue is often cited in the Talmud. There are sources that say it was built with stones from the Temple Mount.

Seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple, the Second Temple was built. It is clear that synagogues were prevalent during the period of the Second Temple, with hundreds across Israel. The Mishna in Sotah 7:7 (source sheet I(B)) describes how one synagogue functioned during this period, with the Kohen Gadol taking the Sefer Torah from the Chazan (in this context, a sexton) and Deputy Kohen Gadol and reciting prayers in the synagogue located on the Temple Mount.

In Ta’anit 4b (continuation of source sheet I(B)), we see that Kohanim who belonged to the mishmar prayed for the acceptance of their offerings, while other Kohanim not stationed in Jerusalem would assemble in the synagogue and observe a series of fasts, praying for those who were vulnerable.

In Ketubot 105a (further continuation of source sheet I(B)), the Gemara says that there were 394 synagogues in Jerusalem. (By the bye, the Gemara mentions a corresponding number of elementary schools, which is an amazing statement about Jewish literacy and education during antiquity.) The Talmud Yerushalmi counts an additional 80 synagogues in Jerusalem, with the disparity perhaps reflecting disagreement on what constitutes a synagogue.

There is further historical evidence for synagogues during the period of the Second Temple. In the early Twentieth Century, archaeologists discovered a synagogue in Shedia, Egypt, near Alexandria. A marble slab dedicated the synagogue to Ptolemy III, who ruled from 246 to 222 BCE, in the middle of the Second Temple period. Similarly, Josephus mentions synagogues in, among other places, Tiberias and Caesarea. Archaeologists have discovered the ruins of at least thirteen ruins of synagogues in Rome. The New Testament describes Paul preaching to Jews in the synagogues of Damascus.

After the destruction of the Second Temple, the synagogue became more urgent, the primary venue for making contact with the Divine. While we cannot replicate the palpable Divine presence experienced in the Temple, Jews have striven in their synagogues to do the best they could.

Over the course of Jewish history, synagogues evolved from locations of Torah and prayer only into centers for community activity. In the Middle Ages, the synagogue became a place for public announcements, e.g., results of beit din proceedings, lost and found objects, or intent to move away from the community (so as to notify potential creditors). Excommunication became a powerful sanction for miscreants, with the most severe version denying an individual participation in synagogue life, thus cutting him off from the community.

In modern times, Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan was, for a time, one of the most influential Orthodox community rabbis. He began his service at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, founded the Jewish Center, and co-founded the Young Israel movement. It developed, however, that Rabbi Kaplan very likely did not believe in G-d, at least not a providential G-d, and he left the Jewish Center and founded the Reconstructionist movement. Notwithstanding his leaving Orthodoxy, one of his lasting influences is the transformation of the synagogue into a “Jewish center”; thus the name of the synagogue he founded on the West Side of Manhattan. In the fight against assimilation, he wanted Jews, even those who were not religious-minded, to spend their leisure hours in the synagogue, so that they would remain connected, at least socially if not religiously. Thus, synagogues built on this model had swimming pools, club rooms, and gymnasia. This sounds somewhat radical, but it is consistent with the development of the synagogue in Jewish history. Most major synagogues in the United States today at least aspire to provide social functions beyond Torah study and prayer. (In Israel, on the other hand, synagogues tend to focus solely on these two traditional goals.)

Even with its broader function, the synagogue remains, at its core, a place of sanctity, and halacha is careful to protect this. The Talmud in Megillah 29a (source sheet III(A)), interprets the phrase “mikdash me’at” (minor sanctuary) in Ezekiel 11:16 to refer to the synagogues and study halls of Babylon. Building on that concept, Chayei Adam 17:7 (source sheet III(A)) rules that the halachic obligation to revere the synagogue and study hall is biblical in origin. (The Ramban said the obligation is rabbinic.) What is more, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 151) lists a number of restrictions on behavior in the sanctuary: no gossip, no sleeping, no eating, no unsheathed weapons (which becomes an issue for Israeli soldiers). Many if not most synagogues in the US are built on condition that the sanctuary may be used for other purposes, though there is a tripartite debate on the efficacy of such a condition.

Gender separation is a defining characteristic of the Orthodox synagogue, especially as this became a hotly contested issue in the US in the middle of the Twentieth Century. The Talmudic source is Sukkah 51b (source sheet IV(A)), which tells of the Simchat Beit Hasho’eva in Temple times. While men and women were in separate sections, this proved inadequate to maintain decorum during this festive occasion, and it was decided to build a balcony for the women. It is fairly remarkable that the authorities of the time changed the design of the Temple, since it was designed by the Architect of architects, but that shows how serious the issue was. In an open letter (source sheet IV(B)), Rabbi Soloveitchik described the fundamental importance of gender separation in synagogue. He said that separation is biblically required, while the mechitza is rabbinic.

Historically, in ancient times and the Middle Ages, women, when they came to synagogue at all, tended to be in an annex or separate room. Mechitzot and balconies were introduced later, though of course the balcony had precedent going back to the Temple.

The nature of the mechitza — its design, height, and materials — has been the subject of great debate. There are two streams in the Rambam, one of which says the goal of the mechitza is to prevent mingling, the other to prevent sight. Rav Moshe Feinstein focused on the mingling explanation, and thus said that a glass mechitza, while not ideal, would still be valid. Rav Ahron Soloveitchik ruled that even a rope separating the two sections would technically suffice. Conversely, Hasidic and Hungarian sources focused on the sight explanation, and thus they require a complete separation, with sight blocked even from a balcony.

Notwithstanding different conceptions of what the mechitza should be, Orthodox sources agree on its necessity. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik was once asked by a person who lived in Massachusetts, too far to walk to an Orthodox synagogue, whether he may attend a synagogue with mixed seating on the High Holidays. The Rav answered no. The person then asked the shofar-blower at the mixed-seating synagogue whether he would blow for this individual in private. The shofar-blower declined. Thus, the person returned to the Rav and asked if he could go to the mixed-seating synagogue for the short period of shofar blowing. Again, the Rav said no.

In flashpoint litigation in the 1950s, Rabbi Baruch Litvin sued his congregation, Beth Tefilath Moses Synagogue, in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, to enforce its constitution and compel retention of the mechitza. He produced affidavits from the Rav, Rav Moshe, and Rav Aharon Kotler on the importance of a mechitza to an Orthodox synagogue, and he won the case.

Every aspect of the synagogue’s design has a halachic basis. Because of the principle that we should call out to G-d from the depths (Psalm 130:1), there need be justification for a bima that is on a platform. The Chasam Sofer said that the bima is in the place of the altar in the Temple, and thus must remain in the middle of the synagogue. This became the subject of dispute when Reform synagogues moved the bima to the front of the sanctuary. In 1886, the rabbis of Hungary and Galicia issued a cheirem against synagogues that made such a move.

The windows of the synagogue should allow natural light to enter. There is a concern about using stained glass, insofar as it might mimic the appearance of a church.

The Rav, in an essay called Jews at Prayer, decried excessively ceremonial synagogues, because they suppress the worship of the heart, which should not be separated from the daily life of the congregant. The synagogue, the Rav argued, is not a place to escape from the self or daily activity. Unlike a church, it does not create the illusion of contact with G-d when the heart is stone. Dramatization is alien to the Jewish experience of prayer.

In conclusion, the synagogue should be a place where we aspire to create our own mikdash me’at and make contact with the Divine.