The short answer is that there is
probably, a small preference.
The gemara (Berachot 6a)
says: “A person’s prayer is heard only in a beit knesset, as it says:
‘… to hear the praise and the prayer’ (Melachim I, 8:28) – at the place of the
praise, there should be the prayer.” The Rambam (Tefilla 8:1) cites this idea
with the addition that the prayers will not be “heard at all times” outside of
a beit knesset. This would seem to be an important reason to daven
specifically in a shul, and indeed the Shulchan Aruch (Orach
Chayim 90:9) writes: “A person should try to daven in a beit
knesset with the community.” He continues that there is also a preference
to daven in a beit knesset even if he will be davening
there alone (this is the subject of a machloket Rishonim - see
Beit Yosef, OC 90).
The question is whether all
davening out of a beit knesset is inferior and to what extent.
The Magen Avraham (90:15) cites, as the reason for the Shulchan Aruch’s
recommendation, the idea of b’rov am hadrat melech (roughly, it is
preferable to the King when there is a large group). The Pri Megadim (ad loc.)
posits that even without the factor of b’rov am, a shul is
always a preference, as he assumes that the preferences of a minyan and
a shul are both called for. This is not a clear conclusion. The
Tzelach (Berachot 6a) says that the important thing is having one’s tefilla
heard and that this can be accomplished either by davening
in a shul, even as an individual, or by davening
with a minyan, even out of shul.
There is another Talmudic source
about davening in a beit knesset. The gemara
(Berachot 8a) says that whoever does not daven in a community’s
shul is called a bad neighbor and is slated for exile. The
Chida (Machazik Beracha 90:4) says that this does not apply if the person
davens elsewhere with a minyan because the Divine Presence
dwells wherever a minyan is praying. However, he continues to
say that in order to receive the full positive impact, it must be in a place
that is “set for holiness.” The definition of “set for holiness” is not always
clear. Public vs. private ownership is not the issue (see Rama 153:7). Whether
steps were taken to allow occasional use of the place for meals, especially when
limited to mitzva-related eating (see complex issue in Shulchan Aruch,
OC 151:11; Igrot Moshe OC I:45) is also probably not critical. However, using
one’s living room for a minyan after a regular shiur or a
daily Mincha minyan in a business’s board room does not turn these
places into batei knesset.
While we accepted the
preference of davening in a beit knesset (see Mishna
Berura 90:38; Ishei Yisrael 8:2), this is not an absolute requirement. This
qualification is important, not only to justify one opting out due to a
significant inconvenience, but also because other preferences can potentially
outweigh that of davening in shul. We will mention some such
possible cases, while warning that the particulars of a given case can make all
the difference. 1. Davening in a place where one learns on a regular
basis (Shulchan Aruch, OC 90:18). 2. The speed of the davening and/or
congregants’ behavior make one’s davening noticeably “better” out of
the beit knesset (Ishei Yisrael 8:10; see Mishna Berura 90:28; Aruch
Hashulchan, OC 90:15). 3. One will have to daven in the shul
without a minyan, but can make one elsewhere (Mishna Berura
ibid.).
We are generally strong believers in
the importance of community on various grounds. We note that Rav Kook,
commenting on Berachot 6a, says that it is important to show that one connects
his prayer to the matter of publicizing Hashem’s greatness and that this is done
most profoundly in the communal setting (Ein Ayah, Berachot 1: 48,49). That
being said, sometimes even the most communally oriented people have recourse to
davening outside a shul.
[Machon Eretz Chemdah]
