At Etz Ahaim there is a small beit midrash where people learn almost all day, and a large hall used only for prayer. On weekdays, is it better to pray in the beit midrash because it is also the place of learning, or in the large, spacious synagogue hall?
Why is a beit midrash preferred? — a dispute among the Acharonim
Berachot 8a: Hashem loves the gates of Zion — places where halacha is decided are more beloved than synagogues and batei midrash. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi prayed only “between the pillars,” where they learned, even though there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias.
Shulchan Aruch OC 90:18, following the Rambam: a fixed beit midrash is holier than a synagogue, and it is a mitzvah to pray there more — provided one prays with ten. The Rema, following Rabbeinu Yonah, adds that if one fixes his learning there, it is better to pray there even alone, rather than lose learning by going to the synagogue.
Magen Avraham 90:32 says the reason is bitul limud — not losing learning — even though the synagogue has berov am hadrat melech. His proof is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who rarely prayed so as not to interrupt learning. He answers the difficulty from OC 298:14, where a beit midrash is interrupted for rov am, by saying that there the interruption is only a brief hour, in place.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger disagrees: the reason is kedusha — the beit midrash is holier. Therefore there is no difficulty from 298:14, and the brief hour answer is unnecessary.
The Bach explains the dispute between the Tur/Rabbeinu Yonah and the Rambam about Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: according to the Tur, they prayed alone between the pillars; according to the Rambam, they gathered ten there, because they did not want to lose learning by going to the synagogue.
Practical difference in our case: The beit midrash is in the same building as the synagogue, right next to it. Going to the large hall causes no real bitul Torah. So according to the Magen Avraham, there is no preference for the small beit midrash here. According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger, kedusha alone would still require the beit midrash, because the place itself decides.
The difficulty with the Magen Avraham
Maran’s own wording, “beit midrash kavua kadosh yoter, points to kedusha, as Rabbi Akiva Eiger says. The Rambam wrote only gadol, which can be explained by bitul limud, but Maran changed it to kadosh.
Also, in OC 153:1 the Magen Avraham himself cites OC 90 as proof on a pure kedusha question — whether a synagogue may be turned into a private beit midrash. If OC 90 were only about bitul limud, a reason about the person, it would prove nothing about the kedusha of the place. Some therefore suggest the Magen Avraham’s words are a misprint, referring to the Rema, not Maran.
Advantages of the large synagogue in this case
Windows: OC 90:4: windows toward Jerusalem, and it is good to have twelve windows, from the Zohar, Pekudei. The large hall has twelve windows; the small beit midrash does not.
Chatzitzah: OC 90:21: nothing should separate one from the wall. This is easier to fulfill in the large hall.
Passing before one who is praying: OC 102:4: it is forbidden to pass within four amot in front of a praying person. In the large hall this problem is much less, because one can pass at the sides.
Conclusion
In this case, it is better to pray in the large synagogue hall, not in the small beit midrash — especially according to the Magen Avraham, since there is no bitul Torah here — and each rav should rule according to the actual situation in his place.