Siman 150

The residents of a city may compel one another to build a beit knesset, and to purchase for themselves Torah, Prophets, and Writings. And in this time, they may compel one another to purchase Mishnayot, Gemara, the four Shulchan Aruch, and other necessary books. We have already explained this in Choshen Mishpat siman 163, see there. And it appears to me that even if they have a place to pray with a minyan, such as by renting a house to pray, nevertheless, if their situation indicates that they have the ability to build a beit knesset – they may compel one another. However, when they have one beit knesset – they cannot compel one another to build another beit knesset even if the first is too narrow for them, for each one can say: "For me, this beit knesset is sufficient." And if the beit knesset requires necessary repair, such as if rain leaks in or the walls are damaged and the like – they may compel one another to give money to repair it. But for mere beautification, it appears to me that they cannot compel one another. And if this one says it is necessary, and that one says it is not necessary – it depends on the assessment of the beit din (so it appears in my humble opinion regarding these laws).

I saw one who wrote that regarding the collection for the building of a beit knesset—they collect according to wealth and not according to souls. And when they rent a place for prayer—they collect according to souls (Knesset HaGedolah and Olat Tamid). And there is one who says that half is according to wealth and half is according to souls (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 1). However, according to the custom of our lands where they sell seats—this is not relevant at all. For they set a fixed rate for all the seats, and whoever desires this seat shall pay such, and for this seat shall pay such. And the fixed rate of the seats shall be made according to the beit din if they are unable to reach an agreement among themselves. And likewise, for the repair of the beit knesset, they shall pay according to the seats. And such is the simple custom among us, that the eastern seats pay more, and each one pays according to the value of his seat. And in any matter of difference of opinion in the beit knesset, such as whether to sell the aliyot or not, or regarding the hiring of a sheliach tzibbur, or regarding other conducts and expenses of the beit knesset, and they are unable to reach an agreement in opinions—they shall rely on the beit din, and they shall rule according to the law. And in Choshen Mishpat siman 163 we explained further regarding these matters, see there. And above in siman 55 it was explained that when there is not always a minyan in the beit knesset—they compel one another with fines so that there will always be ten. And in a place where there are few of Israel—they do not compel to hire to complete a minyan except on the Yamim Noraim, see there.

It is stated in Shabbat (11a): Any city whose roofs are higher than the beit knesset will ultimately be destroyed, as it is said: "To exalt the house of our God and to restore its ruins." And in the Tosefta, the third chapter of Megillah, it is taught: One only builds a beit knesset at the height of the city, as it is said: "At the head of the noisy streets she calls." That is to say: to build it in a place where the land is high, and then even if the building itself is not so high, nevertheless, since it stands on a high place, it automatically rises in its height above all the houses of the city. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that this applies specifically to houses that are used for dwelling. However, citadels and towers made merely for beauty, and not for use, are permitted. And so it is stated in the Gemara there.

From this it is clear that the reason is not due to honor alone, meaning that the beit knesset should be higher than all the buildings in the city. For if so, why were fortresses and towers permitted? Rather, the reason is so that one who uses the roof of his house will not stand higher than the roof of the beit knesset. And for this they said: Any city whose roofs are higher..., because for them the roofs were flat, and they would use the roofs. Therefore, in truth regarding our roofs, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that a roof which is sloped and is not fit for use – we measure until the place that is fit for use, which is to say that if there is an attic under the roof – it shall not be higher than the beit knesset. Thus far their words. And according to this it is clear that one should not use the attic of the beit knesset, and it will be explained in siman 151. (The gloss of the Taz, subsection 1, requires further study.)

And it appears to my humble opinion that the Rambam has a different view in this. This is his wording at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of Hilkhot Tefillah: When a beit knesset is built – it is built only at the height of the city. And it is raised until it is higher than all the courtyards of the city. Thus far his words. And he changed the wording from "roofs" to "courtyards," and also omitted that permission regarding fortresses and towers mentioned in the Gemara. And the wording of the Gemara is as follows: And these words apply to houses. But regarding fortresses and towers – we have no concern. And Rashi explained "kashkushi ve-abruri" – fortresses and towers. And so wrote the Rosh, and from this he permitted our roofs, and in this way the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch followed. But the Rambam, it appears to me, explains according to the explanation of the Aruch (entry "abruri"), that "abruri" is the city wall, and in the Persian language it is "kashkush." And if so, this is not among the buildings of the city but rather the perimeter of the wall that surrounds the city. And therefore he omitted this because this is not relevant to us, obviously. But every type of building is forbidden, and the reason is solely due to honor: that it should be higher than all the buildings in the city. And therefore he wrote "courtyards of the city" and not "roofs," so that the reason would be due to usage. And according to this, even with our roofs it is forbidden. And I am astonished at the poskim who did not sense this.

And one who raised his house higher than the beit kenesset, some say that we compel him to lower it. However, from the commentary of Rashi it is implied that specifically ab initio one must prevent him, but ex post facto we do not compel him to lower it (Beit Yosef and Bach). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that if one made a building higher in one corner than the beit kenesset – that is sufficient. Thus far his words. That is to say: that even if the height is not over the entire beit kenesset but only on one side – it is permitted. And specifically an actual building, like a roof or an upper story. But to stick in a mere pole – it is of no use (Magen Avraham subsection 3). And it appears to me that for this reason most of our batei kenesset are made very high in the middle, and not over the entire beit kenesset. And know that in batei midrash this law does not exist. And such is the custom, that the beit kenesset is made very high, and not the beit midrash. And even though we hold that the sanctity of a beit midrash is greater than the sanctity of a beit kenesset (like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in Megillah 27a), nevertheless, regarding this matter, the beit kenesset, which is a place of prayer for the entire city, is more stringent, for the distinction is more visible in a beit kenesset than in a beit midrash. And the verse says: "And I will gather them in My house of prayer." (That which the Rema wrote in section 2, that in a time of pressing need or when they do not allow the building of a beit kenesset according to its law – it is permitted to pray in a house even though they dwell in an upper story above it. Provided that they conduct themselves in the upper story above it with cleanliness. Thus far his words. And this will be further explained in siman 151, section 17. And see Magen Avraham subsection 2 and Eliyah Rabbah, that now that there are other tall houses – they are not careful in this. And it requires further study.)

In Hoshen Mishpat siman 154 it has been explained that one who builds opposite the window of his fellow—he must distance four amot so that he does not darken it, see there. And four amot is sufficient. But one who builds opposite the window of a beit knesset or a beit midrash—distancing four amot is not enough for him because it requires great light, and he must distance a great deal according to what is necessary for the light to remain as before. For it is no worse than an exedra which requires much light (Bava Batra 7a). And this is specifically when the public has established a chazakah in the windows (Magen Avraham subsection 4). An individual may open his windows to the courtyard of a beit knesset, since it is a place of entry for the many—it is like an open alleyway in which there is no damage of sight, as I have written in Hoshen Mishpat there. But the public may not open windows to the courtyard of an individual. And if the courtyard of the beit knesset is not a place open to the many, and they occasionally use it for modest use—they too may protest against the individual who comes to open his windows there (ibid. in the name of the Responsa of the Rema). And they must be careful when he is permitted to open windows, that he does not retain a chazakah in this, and protest against them from building in front of his windows when they have need for this. And he truly has no chazakah, only that now they cannot protest, and when they need to build there they may darken his windows (ibid.). And they should write this in the ledger for a memorial.

It is taught in the Tosefta, the third chapter of Megillah: One only opens the entrances of synagogues to the east, for so we found regarding the Sanctuary, that its entrance was to the east… and the reason is because they would pray toward the west. The entrance was in the east so that upon entering they would prostrate themselves toward the Ark, which was in the west. Consequently, for us, as we pray toward the east because we stand to the west of Eretz Yisrael—as I wrote in siman 94—the entrance must be in the west. So wrote the Rishonim, and such is the common custom and it is not to be changed. This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: One only opens the entrance of the synagogue opposite the side toward which one prays…, so that they shall prostrate themselves from the entrance toward the Ark… Thus far his words. (And see the Beit Yosef who wrote in the name of the Hagahot Maimoniyot: And so too north and south, see there. It seems to me the intention is also thus: that those who pray toward the south should open to the north and so too the reverse. And from the Malbush and Prisha it implies that it is not indispensable, see there. And it requires further study.)

The Rambam wrote in chapter eleven of Tefillah, law 3: The bima is placed in the middle of the house, so that the one who reads from the Torah or the one who speaks words of admonition to the people may ascend it, so that everyone may hear. Our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly in section 5. And newcomers have recently arrived to change the customs of Israel, to make the bima on the side. Their punishment is great, for without reason or sense they change an ancient custom that even logic supports. And they, as if to provoke, want to change it. And according to the Zohar, one should not make more than six steps for the bima. The sheliach tzibbur prays facing the Heikhal, and one may not sit between the bima and the Heikhal with his back toward the Heikhal. Regarding the order of seating in the beit knesset, the Tur wrote based on the Tosefta: That the elders sit with their faces toward the people, and all the rest of the people sit row by row with their faces toward the holy and toward the elders, see there. And what is good in the eyes of Hashem is not to change the custom of the fathers, and regarding this it is said: "Ask your father and he will tell you."