Don’t Talk, Just Daven

The Shulchan Aruch (OC 151:11) rules like Tosfos. He writes, “If, at the time of building the synagogue, they made a condition to be able to use it [for mundane purposes], it is permitted to use it after it is destroyed, but while it is in use, the condition is ineffective. Even when it is destroyed, to use it for a disgraceful purpose, like planting or financial calculations for the people, the condition is ineffective. What are we dealing with? With synagogues outside of Israel, but with synagogues in Israel, no condition is effective.”

The Ramban and Rashba disagree with Tosfos. They say that the conditional construction of shuls in Babylonia, permit limited use of the shuls even when they are not abandoned. For example, it would be permitted to feed poor people in shul if there was no other location available. The Mishna Berura (151:20) writes that some people are accustomed to making a meal for a siyum hashas in shul. Whereupon the Chofetz Chaim comments, “One should not protest against them because they have what to rely on.” The Shaar Hatziyon explains that they rely on the opinions of the Rashba and the Ramban that one can make use of a shul for poor people or temporarily for a communal need.

Sill, Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that this would not allow the practice of eating kichel, schnapps, and herring in shul, as eating tikkun is not a mitzvah. (Some have suggested that the practice stems from when people used to give charity in honor of a loved one. They would distribute food to the poor. Nowadays, people just put out food for everyone.) Rav Moshe writes that according to the Rashba and Ramban, one should not even eat the third Shabbos meal in shul. Although such a meal is a mitzvah, there is no reason that people cannot go home and eat it there. Yet, Rav Moshe notes that it is undeniably the custom of many shuls to serve the third meal in the sanctuary. Likewise, many shuls allow tikkun in the shul itself. Rav Moshe concludes that it must be that the populace has adopted the opinion of Rashi and the Ohr Zarua. Rashi and the Ohr Zarua accept the initial explanation raised earlier. The stipulation in Babylonian synagogues allows one to eat in shul even without a pressing need. (The Shar Hatziyon, quoted above, cites their opinions.) Moreover, they reject Tosfos’s understanding of the follow-up statement. The Gemara means to say, that even though eating and drinking in Babylonian shuls is permitted, nevertheless business calculations are not.

Rav Shlomo Zalman opined that this, too, is the reason that even G-d fearing people discuss mundane matters in shul after davening. Technically, it is forbidden to talk in shul about any non-mitzvah related topic. Indeed, some Acharonim even forbid one to say “Gezunteit!” in a shul. The reason people are lax is because they hold like Rashi and the Ohr Zarua. There is an understood stipulation at the time that the shul is built that it will be used for discussing mundane matters after davening. Those that follow this leniency in Israel must further reject Tosfos’s ruling – that the permit is limited to the Diaspora. They must consider the stipulation effective even in Eretz Yisrael.

Still, the prohibition of talking during davening must be taken very seriously.

The Sefer Tuvcha Yabiu (a compilation of divrei Torah based on Rav Zilberstein’s talks) quotes a machlokes between two gedolim as to the possible cause of the terrible pogroms and massacres of Tach V’Tat. Hashem has a justice system that we can never begin to fathom. These two gedolim, though, felt that there was a particular sin that caused the Jewish nation to be judged with the attribute of strict justice, instead of mercy. One suggested it was a wholesale laxity in the laws of modest dress. The other suggested it was because people were talking in shul. They performed a type of Divine lottery where a random pasuk was chosen. The resultant pasuk was (Breishis 34:31) “But they answered, ‘Should our sister be treated like a harlot?’”

This would seem to side with the gadol who said that the sin was a breach in the laws of tzinius. However, the other gadol amazingly countered that the verse is a proof to his view! He said to examine the Targum Yonason on that very pasuk. “Shimon and Levi answered: it is not appropriate that it should be spoken about in synagogues (what happened to our sister).” The Targum Yonason is clearly referencing talking in shul. This gadol opined that it is a Heavenly sign that the reason for the strict attribute of justice was that people were lax about not talking in shul.