NARR 73-75

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

45. The Portable Ark

QUESTION: The architect engaged in designing a new synagogue wishes to introduce a portable ark for the Torah. This will be functionally useful as we plan many out of door services and he felt that it would bring the synagogue closer to the ancient desert Tabernacle. Is it permissible to imitate the Tabernacle in this fashion? (Fred A. Rosenberg, Los Angeles CA)ANSWER: The Biblical ark to which you refer was very different both in function and in its theological implications from the ark of the later synagogue. The ark first appeared in the Book of Exodus (25.16; 26.33; 37.1-9) and again in Deuteronomy (10.3 ff). It was lovingly described with its precise dimensions and the material of its fabrication. The tablets of the Law were deposited within. The ark was subsequently mentioned a number of times in the Books of Samuel (I Samuel 4.7; 7.1; II Samuel 6.14 ff) and later in connection with the building and dedication of the Temple (I Kings 3.15; 6.19 ff. 8.1 ff; II Kings 23.12; II Chronicles 35.3 ff). In the ancient Temple the ark was central and was placed in the Holy of Holies; after its disappearance the Holy of Holies remained empty (Josephus Wars V 5; M Yoma 5.2 ff). During the Biblical period a number of terms were used for the ark, the most common were aron haqodesh, aron berit, aron adonai, aron elohim or aron haedut. In the later synagogue the Torah ark was called tevah or frequently in Sephardic synagogues hekhal. The synagogue ark also, of course, played a central role in worship as it served as the container for the Torah. In the early period the ark was mobile and was removed along with the Torah at the end of the service (Sotah 39b; M Meg 4.21); The remains of ancient synagogues at Bet Alpha Hamath-by-Gadara, Eshtemoa, Ostia, Sardis, as well as Dura Europa indicated a niche for the ark of the Torah (Franz Landsberger “The Sacred Direction of the Synagogue”, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol 28 pp 185 ff.; and Joseph Gutmann “Programmatic Painting in the Dura Synagogue,” The Synagogue: Studies in Art, Archaeology and Architecture pp 217 ff; Lee I. Levine (ed) Ancient Synagogues Revealed). The Temple and synagogue are related although very different in purpose, structure, and function. Psalms used in the Temple were carried over into the synagogue liturgy as were melodies (E. Werner The Sacred Bridge). The menorah of the Temple was not to be copied precisely (Men 28b; R H 24a; A Z 43a – notably only Babylonian references), but nothing was said about other architectural forms. There was no prohibition connected with the ark as it had disappeared long ago and certainly three dimensional cherubim were prohibited. It would be improper to copy the Temple ark in a contemporary synagogue not because of the fear of imitation, but as the function is totally unrelated. We do not know when the ark became a permanent part of the synagogue building. An early reference was provided by R. Isaac (Or Zerua Vol 2 pp 386 f). Its sanctity was more than that of a synagogue and less than a Torah (M Meg 25; Tur and Shulhan Arukh 153.2 Orah Hayim). An ark which is permanently in the wall did not have any sanctity beyond that of the synagogue (Shulhan Arukh 154.3 Orah Hayim) and some scholars indicated that the ark could be used to store sacred books alongside the Torah (Sefer Hassidim #60; Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 154.8). Some authorities felt that the ark has become secondary as modern Torahs are covered with a special cloak and the ark no longer serves as the primary protection for the Torah. It has lost its former status (Qorban Natanel to Rosh 4.1). The synagogue ark has developed in a very different direction from the lost ancient ark of the Temple. There would be nothing wrong with designing a portable ark akin to the earlier synagogue ark and reminiscent of it. We should, however, not imitate the Temple ark.December 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.