Siman 151

Batei kenesiyot and batei midrashot possess great sanctity, since one prays in them and studies Torah in them. They are a semblance of the sanctity of the Temple, as our sages, of blessed memory, expounded in Megillah (29a): "And I will be for them a small sanctuary" – these are the batei kenesiyot and batei midrashot... and that which is written: "O Lord, You have been a dwelling place for us" – these are the batei kenesiyot and batei midrashot. See there. And even at the time of their destruction they possess sanctity, as it is written: "And I will bring your sanctuaries to desolation" – their sanctity remains even when they are desolate (Mishnah ibid. 28a). Therefore, one must not conduct themselves with lightheadedness in batei kenesiyot and batei midrashot, such as laughter, mockery, and idle chatter. The Arizal was very careful not to speak in the beit keneset except for words of prayer. And even words of mussar he did not speak, lest it lead to mundane matters (Magen Avraham, subsection 3).

And one may not eat or drink in them, even a casual eating or drinking. And one may not adorn oneself in them, nor stroll in them, nor enter them in the sun because of the sun or in the rains because of the rains. And scholars and their students are permitted to eat in them out of necessity. And some say that in the beit midrash it is permitted even not out of necessity; since they sit there most of the day to study, if so, there would be a neglect of Torah if they were required to go from there and eat. But to enter because of the rain or because of heat and cold—even for a scholar it is forbidden unless he needs to study there, or in the beit knesset to pray (ibid. subsection 2). And it is stated in the Yerushalmi that a scholar is permitted to lodge in the beit midrash (ibid.). And so it implies in Pesachim (101a) ostensibly, that guests may eat in the beit knesset. However, in truth, the Tosafot wrote there that it refers to rooms adjacent to the beit knesset, see there. (See Taz subsection 1, and his words are puzzling. And also the Ramban wrote only because of a condition, see there.)

And one may not calculate accounts in them unless they are for a mitzvah, such as the account of a tzedakah fund, the redemption of captives, and the like. And one may not deliver eulogies in them except for a great man. Or, if the eulogy pertains to a great man among the residents of the city, such that all the residents of the city gather and come to eulogize him, such as if one of the members of the household of the great man died, for in his honor everyone comes for the eulogy. (See Rashi, Megillah 28b, who explained "a eulogy of the many" – for a talmid chacham who died... and if so, what did the Shas seek: What is the case of a eulogy of the many? And perhaps since it did not teach "for a talmid chacham who died" – learn from this that it is even for one of his household because of his honor, see there. Examine closely and you will find it simple.)

And what shall a person do when he needs to enter a beit knesset or a beit midrash, such as to call someone from there or the like? He should enter and read a bit of Scripture or some halacha and afterwards call him, so that it does not appear that he entered for his own needs. And if he does not know how to read Scripture or study halacha, he should say to one of the children, "Read for me the verse that you are reading." Or he should stay for a short while, for sitting is also a mitzvah, as it is said: "Happy are those who sit in Your house." And afterwards he may call the one he needs. And the measure of the stay is: the time it takes to walk two entrances, as I wrote in siman 90. And it is not specifically sitting, and the same law applies to standing (Bach). For "sitting" is a term for staying, as it is written: "Like the days that you sat." However, he should intend for the sake of the mitzvah of sitting in a beit knesset and a beit midrash. And it appears that in such a case it is also permitted to enter because of the sun or the cold or because of the rains. Even though it appears that he entered because of this, nevertheless, since he learns a verse or a halacha, it is not so recognizable that he entered because of the rains or the sun or the cold.

One must wonder at how people are now lenient to speak many mundane matters in the beit knesset and the beit midrash after the prayer, and it has become as if permitted. It appears to me that they hold according to the view of the Ramban that will be explained, that the batei knesset of Babylonia were built on condition, even while they are inhabited, for matters that are necessary. And we consider this a necessity, each person according to his matter. However, this is certainly so regarding smoking bitter leaves there as is customary, and to bring up smoke there—there is certainly a complete prohibition in this, and you have no greater levity than this. And it was only permitted for those who sit and learn there all day or half the day, for this is like eating for them. Therefore, it is permitted for them in the beit midrash and not in the beit knesset. But for all other people, it is a complete prohibition, and for this a condition is not effective. Therefore, it is proper to rebuke those who do so.

And one may not sleep in the beit knesset, even a brief nap. However, in a beit midrash it is permitted for one who studies there. For the needs of the beit knesset, it is permitted to eat and sleep within them, provided that one does not bring a bed there (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). For this reason, they sleep on the night of Yom Kippur in the beit knesset in order to guard the candles, so that no mishap occurs. Furthermore, those who sleep there recite much Tehillim, songs, and praises. Similarly, for the purpose of a mitzvah it is permitted, such as in ancient times when they would enter the beit knesset for the intercalation of the year and would not go to their homes at all—they were able to eat and sleep there. However, they would only subsist on bread and legumes. Similarly, when they make a siyum on a masekhta, and certainly on more, they may eat a little in the beit midrash, as this is a seudat mitzvah. To establish a large feast there appears to be inappropriate, and one should not do so except in a case of great necessity. This applies specifically to a seudat mitzvah of Torah study, but for another mitzvah, such as a seudat brit milah, or pidyon haben, or a wedding—it is forbidden, as these have no connection to the beit midrash.

Some say that what we have learned regarding the sanctity of batei midrashot—it refers only to those of the public, like a beit haknesset. However, an individual who designates a room in his house for study, and for his own need to learn there—this does not possess the sanctity of a beit midrash. And there is no doubt regarding this, for the beginning of its construction was as a mere house. And even now that he has designated this room for his study—he did not intend to sanctify it at all with the sanctity of a beit midrash. And he does not require an explicit condition for this, as it is inherently so.

And one may not make them a shortcut. This means when they had two entrances—it is forbidden to enter through this entrance and exit through the other entrance in order to shorten the path, for it is forbidden to enter a beit knesset or a beit midrash for no purpose. And how could he enter and exit merely to shorten the path? Therefore, if he did not initially enter to shorten his path, but rather needed to enter for a matter of a mitzvah—he may exit through the other entrance even though he shortens his path by this. And all the more so when he entered to pray, that it is permitted to exit through the other entrance. And there is also a mitzvah, as it is written: "He who comes by way of the north gate shall exit by way of the south gate" (Tur). And likewise, if before the building of the beit knesset the path passed through there—it is permitted even afterward. And it seems to me that specifically the beit knesset itself, but to pass through the courtyard of the beit knesset in order to shorten the path—it is permitted, and daily actions prove this. And likewise through the corridor of the beit knesset—it is permitted to shorten.

It is permitted to enter the beit knesset with his staff, and with his pouch, and with his money-belt, and these are types of large pockets. And even though in the Beit HaMikdash it was forbidden to enter with them, the Beit HaMikdash is different as it possesses additional holiness, just as is the case with a shoe, which was also forbidden in the Beit HaMikdash and is permitted in them (Berakhot 62b). And likewise regarding spitting, it was forbidden in the Beit HaMikdash and is permitted in them, for one should not forbid in them that which is a person's way to do in his home (ibid.). And there are those in the lands of Ishmael who go to the beit knesset without a shoe. And it is not a proper custom and they learned this from the Ishmaelites, and it should be nullified. And only when he spits—he should rub it with his feet, for it is a loathsome thing and it is not fitting that a loathsome thing should be seen in holy places. And on Shabbat he should place the shoe upon it until it is crushed (Eliyahu Rabbah, subsection 12). And if there is sand or straw there, or also if the spit is not visible there—he should spit there. And spitting is permitted even after the prayer (Bach), for such is the way of people to do so in their home. And all the more so during the prayer, for if he does not spit he will have confusion in his prayer. And the Arizal was careful regarding spitting (Magen Avraham, subsection 9), for his holy body was able to withstand this, which is not the case for us.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: And there are those who forbid entering it with a long knife, or with an uncovered head. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: what is the connection of this to that? Furthermore: with an uncovered head it is forbidden regardless. And it appears that one should say as follows: with a long knife and with an uncovered head, meaning: when the body of the knife is uncovered and not in a sheath, for when it is in a sheath it is permitted (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 10). And therefore specifically a long knife, for a short one he can hide under his garments or in his pocket (see Taz who labored over this). And the reason for the prohibition: since iron shortens the days of man, and Torah and prayer lengthen the days of man – it is not proper that the shortener should be seen in this holy place. And it is forbidden to slaughter in a beit knesset or in a beit midrash. And so too one should not enter with mud on his feet. And it is proper to wipe them before his entry, and so too the shoes should be clean. And it is proper that there should not be any filth upon him or upon his garments. And so too they treat them with honor to sweep the floor, and to sprinkle with water so that the dust does not rise, and to clean the walls. And they are accustomed to light candles in them for honor. (And regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 10 in the name of Sefer Chasidim, that the Ri would sweep with his beard before the holy ark, see there – it is a baffling thing to disparage his beard. And many are not comfortable with this.)

Even after they have been destroyed, they still retain their sanctity. And just as one conducts oneself with honor toward them in their inhabited state—so one conducts oneself in their destruction, whether in the Land or outside the Land, except that sweeping and sprinkling do not apply in their destruction. And so we have learned in the Mishnah of Megillah (28a): A beit knesset that has been destroyed—one may not deliver a funeral oration within it. And one may not twist ropes within it, and one may not spread fruit upon its roof, and one may not make it a shortcut, as it is said: "And I will bring your sanctuaries unto desolation"—their sanctity remains even when they are desolate. If grasses grew in it—one should not pluck them because of the grief of soul, so that the people will see and their spirit will be stirred, and they will strive to rebuild it. And according to this, if they do not need to rebuild it, such as if they built in another place and do not intend to build further—they do not need to pluck the grasses. Rather, they should make a fence around the place, so that they do not perform disgraceful things in the place. And they can also sell it according to the details that will be explained in siman 153 (Taz, subsection 3). And it is brought in the Yerushalmi, the fourth chapter of Megillah (Halacha 3), that Rabbi Yochanan would curse the women who would spread their garments to dry them in the airspace of the beit midrash. And it implies there that it refers to the Mishnah, and even in their destruction it is forbidden, see there. And all the more so to wash garments there, which is certainly forbidden.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: If at the time of the building of the beit knesset they made a condition regarding it to use it—it is permitted to use it in its destruction. But in its inhabited state, a condition is not effective. And even in its destruction for a degrading use, such as sowing or public accounts—a condition is not effective. To what do these words apply? To the batei knesset of outside the Land. But regarding the batei knesset of the Land of Israel—a condition is not effective. Thus far his words. And the condition is specifically when they stipulated explicitly. But ordinarily we do not say "they are made on condition" regarding batei knesset of outside the Land. And specifically in Bavel was this their custom, that all their building was ordinarily on condition, and not in other lands that are outside the Land (Magen Avraham, subsection 12). Also, that which a condition is effective in its destruction—this is when they do not intend to rebuild it. But when they intend to rebuild it—it is not effective (ibid., subsection 13). And there is one who disagrees in this (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 18). And there are also those who hesitate over the distinction between Bavel and other lands (ibid., subsection 17). And if he stipulated to pray in it until a certain time, and afterwards they will not pray in it at all—he is permitted to use it from then onwards for any use he desires, even if it is entirely standing, since he explicitly sanctified it for a time (ibid. in the name of the Bach in siman 153).

And behold, this is the approach of the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch: that which we say there, that they are made on condition, even if they explicitly stipulated for the time of its building—it is only effective for after its destruction, as I have written. However, the approach of the Ramban and the Ran is that even during its building, a condition is effective for a necessary matter, such as that the poor may eat and sleep there, and likewise for all temporary needs of the poor. And this is what they said in Pesachim (100a), that the kiddush in the beit knesset is effective for those who eat in the beit knesset. But the Tosafot and the Rosh explained there that this refers to the rooms that are next to the beit knesset, as I have written in section 5.

And know that in the Rambam this law is not found at all. And it appears to me that he would explain a different explanation: for in truth, how is a condition relevant against the laws of their sanctity? For as long as they are in their sanctity, it is necessary that their sanctity be upon them, like one who consecrates an object for the repair of the Temple and stipulates that he should be able to use it? He would certainly be liable for trespass. And certainly it is not effective whether during their construction or during their ruin, for who can abrogate the sanctity against the law? Rather, he explains regarding a condition that it should be possible to sell them to a commoner, as will be explained in siman 153. And this he explained in chapter eleven there. And this is permitted, that they make a condition to abrogate their sanctity entirely, for it is like one who consecrates for a set time. But as long as they use it for the Most High—perforce all the laws of sanctity apply to it forever. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 14, who raised a difficulty regarding this, that during its construction a condition is not effective, from siman 154, for even for an ark a condition is effective? And he answered with difficulty, see there. And in my humble opinion, it appears according to the reasoning we wrote: that there, from the outset he does not consecrate this for the Sefer Torah, and it is as if the Sefer Torah stands in a mundane ark, for it is not an obligation to make an ark. But a beit knesset is an obligation, and perforce since they pray there it becomes a beit knesset; and its sanctity is upon it, and a condition is not effective during its construction. Examine and you will find it simple.) (And see what I wrote in siman 153, section 4.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: One must be careful not to use the lofts that are above the beit knesset for a permanent use of a degrading nature, such as to sleep there. Regarding other uses, one should remain in doubt if it is permitted to use them there. Thus far his words. And the doubt is whether the roofs and lofts were sanctified with the sanctity of the beit knesset. For in the Beit HaMikdash we say in Pesachim (85b) that in the entire Azarah the roofs and lofts were not sanctified, but in the Heikhal it was sanctified; see there (Beit Yosef). And seemingly it implies there explicitly that according to the law, any sanctity of a house does not extend to the roofs and to the lofts, and in the Heikhal it is explicit in the verse that they sanctified the lofts; see there. And if so, what doubt is there in this? And it appears that they do not doubt the essential law. Rather, perhaps it is proper to make a memorial to the Mikdash Me'at, like the sanctity of the Heikhal (and so it implies from the wording of the Maharik brought by the Beit Yosef; see there).

However, I wonder to the contrary: For granted that there is no kedushah in the roofs, nevertheless, in siman 150 it was explained that the prohibition that all the roofs should not be higher than the beit knesset is because they used to use the roofs. Therefore, they ruled that in our case, where we do not use the roofs—the concern is only up to the place fit for uses, as I wrote there in section 4. If so, it is forbidden to use any place in the city higher than the beit knesset. If so, it is obvious that on the roof of the beit knesset itself it is forbidden to use. If so, what doubt is there in this? And granted that according to the method of the Rambam that we explained there in section 5 the reason is not because of use, but they did not cite his opinion at all. See there, and it requires great study. (And with difficulty one might say that specifically when they use them throughout the city permanently there is a disgrace, and not in the beit knesset itself when they use it occasionally. Nevertheless, it does not seem so. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And all this is specifically in a permanent beit knesset that was built from the outset for this purpose. But a house that was designated after it was built for a beit knesset – it is permitted to sleep above it. Thus far his words. For since it was not built from the outset for a beit knesset – a condition is effective for it even in its inhabited state (Magen Avraham, subsection 17). Nevertheless, one who guards his soul should distance himself from this (ibid.). And there is one who says that certainly if at the time he built the beit knesset he built a dwelling house above it, it is permitted, for the upper part was not sanctified at all. And only a usage of great disgrace, such as filth and the like, is forbidden (Taz, subsection 4). And I wonder greatly at this, for it seems to me that in such a case it is certainly forbidden, for the reason that it is forbidden to use permanently a place that is higher than the beit knesset, as I have written and as has been explained in siman 150. (And the words of the Taz are very puzzling. And he wrote that he himself was punished for this, see there. Therefore, it is simple that it is forbidden, and it is not similar to the ruling of the Rema, which was never sanctified with the sanctity of a beit knesset and does not require the condition we wrote, and it is only a house in which they pray. But whenever the name of a beit knesset is upon it – it is simple that it is forbidden to dwell above the beit knesset. Examine and you will find it easy.)