Without being presented with the details by the two sides,[1] we must not and will not discuss “Choshen Mishpat”[2] questions of when a landlord can remove a tenant from a rental property.[3] Rather, we will deal with the “Orach Chayim”[4] questions relating to closing down a shul, which you present as the basis for the renters’ grievance.
The first question is if and when it is permitted to sell a shul. Doing so is, in fact, sometimes permitted,[5] but one basic condition is that the decision must be made in a serious manner by community leaders who conclude that the step is in the community’s best interest.[6] In this case, since the community wants to keep the shul, we must evaluate whether it makes a difference that the property is owned by someone other than the community and is only rented by them.
The gemara[7] cites the Rabbanan’s ruling that the part of town in which prayers are held on public fast days lacks sanctity, because praying is done there on an ad hoc basis. The Beit Yosef[8] cites Mahari Ibn Chaviv as saying that the batei knesset of his time/place lacked kedusha, as they were expected to be used for a limited time, secretly, and until closed by the authorities. Some sources[9] say that the critical factor in this situation is the lack of even short-term security. The Shulchan Aruch[10] implies that regarding any rental, when the congregation’s ongoing use of the premises depends on the landlord’s agreement, there is no kedusha.[11] Various poskim make distinctions, including based on the duration of the rental[12] and whether the rental is for a set time or open-ended.[13] However, all seem to agree that when the rental period is over, the status of beit knesset ceases.[14]
Similarly, poskim also assume that the temporary status of a beit knesset cannot prevent a landlord from legally discontinuing the rental. Although some of the sources’ deliberations involve non-Jewish landlords,[15] who naturally are not bound by these halachot, several discuss Jewish landlords, who could have been bound by the previous use as a beit knesset.[16]
In certain cases, another factor arguably plays a role. The gemara[17] states that a community may not dismantle a shul before they secure its replacement. This is not due to the problem of removing the sanctity from a place of kedusha, as it applies even if they are just renovating the shul for future, improved use.[18] Rather, it is due to the concern that the community will be without a proper beit knesset for a short or possibly long time.[19] One might argue that this concern should prevent a landlord from closing a shul if there is no proper alternative.
In fact, the Mishna Berura[20] cites several Acharonim as extending the above Rabbinic enactment to a rental. In other words, a community that rents a beit knesset may not terminate the rental arrangement before securing a replacement location. However, this relates to the permissibility of the community’s actions, not those of the landlord. One cannot infer from this whether or not there is a prohibition on the landlord to terminate the rental in an otherwise legal manner, because this halacha’s primary source[21] relates to a non-Jewish landlord, who obviously has no obligation to be concerned about batei knesset. Logic seems to dictate, however, that there are no special limitations on the landlord. It is the community’s obligation to search for alternatives; the concern need not fall on the landlord. Landlords generally cannot evict a tenant without giving him sufficient opportunity to find another option.[22] Once the community is forewarned, they are obligated to find an alternative, such as acquiring their own shul or renting at a different location. Assuming this can be done, a landlord would not be bound by the concern that the congregation will be left without a place to daven.
That being said, there may be circumstances in which at least the spirit of the law would require giving the community an especially long warning period to ensure their ability to find a reasonable option.