Is it permitted, within Jewish law, to view houses of idolatry that have been described as beautiful or artistic structures, intending to derive benefit from them?  In this article answering that question, I do not intend to deal with the issue of entering such a house of worship to see artwork inside, which relates to a different siman in Shulchan Aruch (see Yoreh Deah 149 and 150), but only to the issue of deriving visual benefit from battei avodah zarah themselves.  [I will note parenthetically that, following the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Poskim, this applies to many religious sites of worship, both in New York, Europe, and all over the world, that people commonly visit.] 

This is an interesting sugya that touches upon discussions in several Masechtas, although space only permits a partial entrée into this issue, which we will pursue beginning from the posekim on the issue and will arrive at Shabbos 149a, the locus classicus for this discussion. 

The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah (142:15), quoting Rabbenu Yerucham (Netiv 17 Chelek 5 Siman 159) writes:

Asur lishmoa klei shir shel avodas kochavim o lihistakel binoyei avodas kochavim keivan sheneheneh bire’iyah.

He thus prohibits listening to music of Avodah Zara or looking at decorations of Avodah Zara, based on the Gemara in Pesachim 26a that sounds and sights of hekdesh have no me’ilah, although they still are significant enough to be prohibited.  It thus seems to be the case that it would be prohibited to look at a building of Avodah Zara, such as a church, with intent to derive hana’ah from its putative beautiful design. 

However, the Shach (YD 142:33) understands the Shulchan Aruch differently.  He writes:

Binoyei elilim – peirush be’elilim atzmam shene’evdu asur lihistakel bahen lir’os noyan aval tzuros shena’asu linoy vilo la’avod mevo’ar bitosfos viharosh dimutar.

What is prohibited, according to the Shach, is looking not at the beauty of decorations of the idol, but at the beauty of the idol itself! 

However, this Shach is somewhat difficult to accept, as his reading of the Shulchan Aruch is surprising.  One must note the parallel in the Shluchan Aruch between listening to musical instruments of avodah zara and looking at decorations of avodah zarah.  It would be entirely unreasonable to explain that the Shulchan Aruch was only prohibiting listening to music from an idol (do any such musical idols exist?), and thus in the parallel case of sight it would similarly be unreasonable to explain that the Shulchan Aruch only prohibits looking at an attractive idol! 

Furthermore, the two sources cited by the Shach – the Tosfos and Rosh – similarly appear not to agree with his point upon closer reflection.  The sources he cites are based on the sugya in Shabbos 149a, which rules that it is prohibited to look at deyukna’os (three-dimensional images) at any time.  Tosfos there (Shabbos 149a) write:

Vedeyukni atzmah af bichol asur – nir’eh dibishavyah lishem avodas gilulim amar aval linoy mutar

If these images are for avodah zara they are prohibited, while if they are for decoration they are permitted, Tosfos argue; Rosh (23:2) writes similarly.  It appears that the Shach is reading these sources as distinguishing between images made as idols or as decoration for idols, and thus he is lenient in the latter type of cases.  However, it may be that Tosfos and the Rosh were distinguishing instead between images made as idols or as decorative images generally, having no connection to idols whatsoever.   If this is the proper reading of the sources, the Shach lacks support in the Rishonim. 

As the Shach seems to be arguing against the simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch, and the Rishonim he bases his position on arguably should be read differently, it appears difficult to rely upon this Shach.  (It certainly will be difficult to claim that there is some “tzorech gadol” involved in viewing architectural artistry.) 

As the Shu”t Shevet ha-Levy (8:47) points out, following the Ramo (142:15), the only prohibition here is gazing at these institutions of idolatry in order to view their beauty.  This Halacha does not dictate that anyone change their path when walking to their intended destination to avoid encountering the building, as the Ramo points out that ein miskavein is permitted.