CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
140. Synagogue Architecture
QUESTION:
We are planning to construct a new synagogue and our architect wishes some guidance about synagogue architecture. Are there any specific suggestions of a traditional nature which should be followed? (O. M., Los Angeles, CA)
ANSWER: For guidance on
synagogue architecture, we must look at the traditional literature and archaeology. The traditional literature is clear about the orientation of a synagogue which should always be toward Jerusalem. For us in the western world, this means an orientation toward the East (W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa, #18). Appropriate citations are presented in that responsum. The ark is to be placed in front of the people and facing toward Jerusalem (Tos., Meg. 4.21).
The Talmud stipulated that synagogues be placed on the highest point
within the city (Prov. 1.21; Ezra 9.10; Yad Hil. Deot 4.23; Shab. 11.1); furthermore, the synagogue should be taller than any other building in the city except perhaps the city hall (Shab. 11a and commentaries; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.2; Arukh Hashulhan 150.1). Of course during the Middle Ages this was specifically prohibited by law, and churches were always placed higher than the synagogues. Under those circumstances the earlier stipulation could be ignored (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.2 and Isserles, as well as commentaries). As our modern cities are filled with skyscrapers, this ancient specification is generally ignored.
Synagogues were to have an entrance in the East akin to the
temple (Num. 3.38; Tos., Meg. 3.1), but this became difficult when synagogues faced eastward in order to orient the worshipper toward Jerusalem. Therefore, the entrance began to be placed in the West (Rashi to M. Meg. 3.12; Tosfot to Ber. 6a; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.5), although some controversy about this remains (Rashi Ber. 6b; Moses Sofer, Responsa, Orah Hayim #27). We possess archaeological evidence which demonstrates clearly that entrances of synagogues were shifted in the early centuries of our era when the orientation of synagogues toward the East became a general practice (Landsberger, “The Sacred Direction in Synagogue and Church,” The Synagogue, ed., J. Gutmann, pp. 188 ff).
Aside from this, it was specified that a synagogue should have
windows, as Daniel already prayed while looking out of his window toward Jerusalem (Daniel 6.11; Ber. 34b; Yad Hil. Tefilah 5.6; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 90.4). Some of these windows should be oriented toward Jerusalem. The Zohar even stated that a synagogue without windows was inappropriate for prayer (Zohar Piqudei 251.1) . There was some controversy about this (J. Pes. 1.1, Maimonides, Responsa #21, ed., J. Freimann). Some felt that the synagogue should have a courtyard (l. Ber. 5.1; Shulhan ArukhOrah Hayim 90.)
As far as the interior is concerned, the ark was to be
placed in the eastern wall and the bimah in the center, so that all could hear (Yad Hil. Tefilah 11.3; Tur; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 150.5). If, however, the synagogue was sufficiently small, the bimah could also be placed at the end (Kesef Mishnah to Yad Hil. Hagigah 50.4 3.4). The description of the ancient great synagogue in Alexandria made it clear that even a centrally placed bimah could not always assure that the people would hear the service. Some authorities felt that the centrally placed bimah was akin to the placement of the altar in the ancient tabernacle or the temple (Moses Sofer, Responsa, Orah Hayim #19). In modern times, the placement of the bimah at the front of the hall is considered an imitation of non-Jewish practice by some and is to be avoided for that reasons (Hanal Betzion #8; Imrei Esh #7; Sedei Hemed, Bet Hak’neset #13). This matter remains controversial and there are Orthodox authorities who permit the building of a synagogue with a bimah at the front or worship in such a synagogue (Ezekiel Landau, Noda Biyehuda, II, Orah Hayim 18; Solomon Schick, Responsa, Even Haezer #118).
From the evidence of
existing synagogues, we may see that a variety of different architectural styles were used. The synagogues in Worms and Prague followed the Gothic style. The synagogue of Seville was Moorish. That was true to a lesser extent of the ancient synagogue in Cairo. The seventeenth and eighteenth century synagogues of the small Italian towns like Sienna followed a renaissance pattern in their interior, while the exterior, because of strict Christian laws, appear like late renaissance houses. The wooden synagogues of Poland, which existed to the middle of this century, followed local architectural practices (M. and K. Piechotka, Wooden Synagogues). Even a cursory glance at books which deal with synagogues in the last century and a half demonstrates that no uniform architectural patterns were followed. During some periods every effort was made to fit into the general environment, therefore both Gothic and Greek Revival styles were frequent. At other times, an effort was made to establish a Jewish tradition which led to buildings which were vaguely reminiscent of Egyptian temples or Islamic mosques. In more recent times, modern architecture has been widely utilized for synagogues without any hesitation (R. Krautheimer, Mittelalterliche Synagogen 1927; J. Gutmann, ed., The Synagogue, 1975; A. Kampf, Contemporary Synagogue Architecture, 1966; Harold Hammer-Schenk, Synagogen in Deutschland, 1981; Synagogen in Berlin Zur Geschichte einer zerstorten Architektur,1983).
Tradition does
have some stipulations about orientation, place ment of the main entrance, the ark, the windows, a courtyard and the bimah, but little else. Even these remain rather broad and permit an architect to build a synagogue in virtually any style.
April 1983
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.