Tour of Historic Houses of Worship in San Antonio, annual meeting, American Academy of Religion 2016 (original) (raw)

The Lloyd Street Synagogue Mikveh: Creating Community in Nineteenth-Century Baltimore.

The Lloyd Street Synagogue in Baltimore was the first structure built specifically as a synagogue in the state of Maryland. Built in 1845, the synagogue included separate buildings for a school and a mikveh. These two buildings were leveled in 1860 during expansion of the synagogue. Mikva'ot (ritual baths) are central to traditional Jewish life and are used both by men and women for ritual purification. A congregation would often build a mikveh before constructing their synagogue. Excavation uncovered the remains of the circa 1845 mikveh complex, the earliest known mikveh in the United States. Additional features, including the foundations for the mikveh house, a brick hearth for heating water, and the reservoir for " living water " were also defined. These are all similar to elements found in contemporary Dutch synagogues. The Baltimore synagogue and mikveh complex was created by a congregation of immigrant Jews from Central Europe at a time when Baltimore was torn by sectionalism and nativism. Between 1845 and 1860, the mikveh played an important role in the Lloyd Street congregation's journey to becoming American, while simultaneously enabling them to forge a community and to maintain important religious and ritual traditions.

An Architectural History of Temple Emanuel in Beaumont, Texas

This paper examines the architectural history of Temple Emanuel in Beaumont, Texas. The architect was Albert S. Gottlieb of New York and Rabbi Samuel Rosinger was involved in the design and concept for the building. The paper examines the architectural choices as well as the historical context that informed them, including the rising antisemitism and xenophobia of the 1920s.

Arnold W. Brunner and the New Classical Synagogue in America

2011

Arnold W. Brunner (1857–1925), Albert Kahn (1869–1942), and other Jewish architects played an important role in reviving the classical style for American synagogue design at the turn of the twentieth century, putting their stamp on American Jewish identity and American architecture. The American-born Brunner was the preferred architect of New York’s Jewish establishment from the 1880s until his death. He adopted the classical style with his third New York synagogue, Congregation Shearith Israel, dedicated in 1897, and then championed the style in his extensive public writing about synagogue design. The classical style was subsequently widely accepted nationally by Reform congregations, especially in the South and Midwest. Classicism was a mediating device, and served as a new emblem of religious and civic identity. Mixing a variety of architectural and cultural traditions, Jewish architects and their patrons created a bridge between Judaism—or Jewishness—and Americanism

The Rise of Synagogues in Biblical Times

Bible and Spade, 2020

This article explores the synagogues which emerged during the time between the Old and New Testaments and continued to be used into the first century AD. What happened in those nearly 400 years that changed how and where the Jews gathered for worship and ceremony? How did Greco-Roman influence impact worship, freedoms, and the spread of Jewish teachings? Is there evidence that Jews were worshiping in distant synagogues during the Second Temple period before the Romans finally destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD?

The Architectural Origins of the Great Early Modern Urban Synagogue

Leo Baeck InstituteYear Book, 2011

Throughout the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period, synagogues across Christian Europe were generally small and, as far as their exteriors were concerned, they adhered to prevailing norms of vernacular architecture, so as to be ‘‘invisible’’ or at least unrecognizable as houses of worship.1 This was not just a defensive measure by Jews in order to avoid unwanted attention but was also a result of the restrictions placed upon the Jewish populace by the government which required that they be inconspicuous. Synagogues are important artifacts of Jewish material culture. Their size renders them immovable and they represent a substantial investment in resources.This either requires a communal investment or a significant sum from a benevolent benefactor. Like any form of art, a statement is made through the production, visibility, and maintenance of synagogue architecture. Therefore a ‘‘great synagogue’’ constitutes a much larger, more pronounced statement. The cultural meaning of a great synagogue can be echoed, and thus reinforced, when aspects of its architectural design are duplicated elsewhere.

Synagogues -Samaritan and Jewish: A New Look at their Differentiating Characteristics

Samaritan and Jewish synagogues of the Roman-Byzantine times exhibit many similarities that make it at times difficult to determine to which religion newly excavated building remains belong. Architecture, furnishings and decoration are very similar in both instances. Scholars use therefore a number of criteria to distinguish one from the other. However, as new evidence comes to light and existing data are re-evaluated, these criteria have to be reexamined. The most frequently enumerated characteristics differentiating Samaritan from Jewish synagogues are the following: the orientation of a building towards Mount Gerizim; the omission of the depiction of lulav and etrog from floor mosaics; the absence of human and animal representations from synagogue art;1 the location of a synagogue in an area that is known to have been inhabited by Samaritans; the position of a settlement's synagogue vis-à-vis its residential quarters; and the presence of inscriptions in the Samaritan script.2

The Social and Communal Role of Synagogues in Ra’anana

2021

Synagogues are one of the most ubiquitous local institutions in Israel. Indeed, it is hard to find a single square kilometer in a Jewish Israeli city with no synagogue. Therefore, it is surprising that the social aspects of synagogues’ in Israel has not generated scholarly interest. Macro perspectives of religion and micro perspectives of individual religiosity have drawn attention amongst Israeli sociologists. Meso-level organizational research of Israel congregations is scarce. Another surprising deficiency is the lack of congregation typologies worldwide, specifically synagogue typologies. This research employs organizational theory and theory developed in congregation research in the United States to sample synagogues and create the first comprehensive Israeli synagogue typology. By focusing on Ra’anana’s eighty synagogues, this research will offer an understanding of Israeli synagogues’ social and communal role. Two questions will be answered in this research: 1. What is the social and communal role of Ra’anana synagogues? 2. Which characteristics determine the synagogue’s social and communal role? Of approximately eighty synagogues, sixty-nine were sampled with a comprehensive questionnaire, completed by one of the synagogue leaders, clergy or lay. Quantitative research methods were used to analyze over one hundred variables. A two-step cluster analysis was employed to produce a model of four synagogue types, based on synagogue activity volume and communal character. After completing the typology, correlation tests were used to locate synagogue-type predictors. The findings indicate that Ra’anana synagogues can be divided into four types. ‘Limited services synagogues’ (LSS) with minimal organizational infrastructure, religious activity only, and only a general acquaintance between congregants. ‘Houses of worship’ (HOW), which in many cases serve existing second-generation immigrant communities strengthening their group identity, and yet are primarily religious institutions. ‘Communities of prayer’ (COP) facilitate significant and active communities yet grade medium on the social activity scale. ‘Synagogue community centers’ (SCC) enjoy large communities with an extensive array of religious and social activities. SCC’s and COP’s can be referred to as service providers and can maintain such activities thanks to congregations’ kinship and ties. HOW’s and LSS’s are less active in general and therefore provide fewer welfare programs and may only be considered religious service providers. Synagogue ethnic identity was found to be the primary predictor of the synagogue-type. In many cases, congregants self-select their synagogue based on their ethnicity; therefore, there is no significant difference in growth between various synagogues. Fundraising customs are also affected by synagogue ethnicity. All synagogues report their primary objectives are religious. Despite this, most Ra’anana synagogues offer social friendships to their members, and a handful of them also provide social care and benefits to the surrounding community. As found in US congregations, Ra’anana congregation’s volume of internal social activity predicts the volume of social care and services offered to the general community. This research has two primary contributions. It is the first study investigating Israeli synagogues as social and community service hubs, and it offers a typological explanation for Ra’anana synagogues. This research is limited since it focuses only on one city, known for its high socioeconomic status and Anglo community. An additional limitation is the respondents’ possible bias, as they are all synagogue leaders. Future research should focus on synagogue members and synagogues in various cities and towns.

Synagogue Typology in the 19th Century

Synagogues represent the longest surviving sacred building type of the Western Hemisphere with a two and a half thousand year old history. However, architecturally this continuity is more fragmented than the relatively shorter history of churches or mosques as Jewish people migrated frequently and Judaism was almost indifferent to the realm of the visual. Still, some types did develop in places of longer Jewish sojourn—antique and Byzantine synagogue types in Eretz Israel, Iberian synagogues until expulsion in 1492, Ashkenazi types in the Rhineland and Central Europe until medieval eviction and the Eastern-Central European, Polish-Lithuanian-Moravian types until modernity. Modernity, the last period of western (Christian) culture, no longer blatantly contradicted Jewish tradition as was the case in previous epochs and some cultural convergence had taken place. This and Jewish emancipation contributed to the dissolution of the last surviving tradition of Central-Eastern and East European synagogue architecture. Traditional types were replaced in the 19th century by new ones in which link between architectural style, composition of volumes, space conception, structure, decoration and many other facets of architecture were deconstructed. This paper tries to establish a system in this apparently free picking of architectural elements.

The Question of Identity : The Architecture of Synagogues in Isfahan , Iran

2014

Introduction Synagogues in Iran have a history as old as the life of Jews. About hundred synagogues in Iranian cities like Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, and Yazd still survive. The construction of synagogues followed different patterns that were usually under the influence of local or stylistic movements in Persian architecture. The humble exteriors and simple facades of synagogues did not differ in design from other buildings in Iranian cities, but their introverted interiors were based on a design language that was rooted in foundations of the Judaism.

The Modern Israeli Synagogue as an Experiment in Jewish Tradition

Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978. , 2019

The present chapter analyses the exceptional designs of three synagogues built during Israel’s first three decades of statehood. In the reviewed period, Israeli architecture was devoted to the building of a nation and the forging of a new Jewish and Israeli identity. The architecture of several synagogues built in that period is characterized by exceptional expressive features. Such are the synagogues reviewed in this chapter: the Central Synagogue in Nazareth Illit, designed by architect Nahum Zolotov (1960–1968); the Military Officers’ School Synagogue in Mitzpe Ramon, designed by architects Alfred Neumann and Zvi Hecker (1967–1969); and the Heichal Yehuda Synagogue in Tel Aviv, designed by architect Yitzhak Toledano and structural engineer Aharon Rousso (1972–1980). Architectural historian Amiram Harlap describes these synagogues in his book, where he portrays them as expressing Jewish symbols and ideas. I maintain that Harlap’s interpretation contributed to these buildings’ later reception as canonical Israeli synagogues. The present research investigates the tension between the synagogues’ designs and their interpretations. My argument is that this tension represents the consolidation process of Jewish national identity in Israel’s formative years.