Shadows of Sinai

Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts

and Join Madlik on Clubhouse every Thursday at 8:00pm Eastern so you can participate in our weekly live discussion of the Parsha

Rabbi Cohen had imagined a synagogue with an exterior modeled on Mount Sinai and an interior that would have the bimah as its central focus, and yet it was precisely here that Wright refused to follow instructions. Cohen had wanted the Torah to be read, as it used to be in most pre-modern synagogues, “deep in the heart of the congregation,” at the center of Wright’s soaring room and right beneath the dramatic chandelier. In one of his first letters to Wright, Cohen had said, “to place the Bimah in such wise would carry out what I blushingly call ‘my philosophy’ of the interior seating plan of the Synagogue.”

Although Wright briefly considered a central bimah made of concrete, nothing ever came of it. Cohen kept telling Wright that a central bimah would “influence Synagogue Architecture for years to come,” but Wright would not be swayed:

Concerning the controversial Bimah! The more I think of so emphatic-emphasis on (or at) the center of the Synagogue, the less I like the reiteration of the chandelier . . . why not let it come along after we see the auditorium all together—you and I?”

In his casual use of the word “auditorium,” Wright showed his failure to understand Cohen. In the end, Cohen was opposed not only by the great architect but by a synagogue board intent on maximizing paid seats. He had to be satisfied with a portable bimah that was sometimes moved to the center.

See: A Tale of Two Synagogues BY DAVID GELERNTER Winter 2012 • JEWISH REVIEW OF BOOKS

BETH SHOLOM SYNAGOGUE: FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT AND MODERN RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE by Joseph Siry University of Chicago Press, 736 pp., $65

RESPLENDENT SYNAGOGUE: ARCHITECTURE AND WORSHIP IN AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY POLISH COMMUNITY by Thomas C. Hubka Brandeis University Press, 226 pp., $35

purpose of driving home the lesson that the Jews' negative attitude toward himself merely parallels the attitude of their ancestors toward the messengers of "before," Mohammed might found a very rich field of exploitation in both the historic and prophetical writings of the Old Testament. He might have cited vast variety of recriminations and denunciations against the "people of the Book" by verbatim quotations from the Book itself. Instead, makes little or no use of these two sections of the Old Testament but appears to depend, for his homilies of rebuke against the Jews, almost entirely on the testimony from the Pentateuch...

But most remarkable of all is the circumstance that, upon closer scrutiny, the distortions often (in fact, more often than not)
turn out to be nothing else but biblical substance fused with embellishments characteristic of the far-flung literature of the Jews in post biblical times-exegetical and homiletical embellishments recorded, frequently in essence, sometimes even literally, in one or another branch of the Agada in the wider sense of Midrash, the Talmud...

Rather, we are forced to recognize that his biblical learning had flown and accumulated through oral channels, that is, through accumulated contact and personal contact with "people of the Book": Arabs in his environment who had been
converted to Judaism or Christianity; Jews and Christians he had encountered on his caravan journeys; but, above all Arbic Jews he had encountered in the various centers of his native Hejaz, especially in Mecca and in and around Medina.

... it was through this channel of social intercourse and personal association between Arabs and Jews that a rather large variety of Hebrew and Aramaic words-such as Torah, Sabbath, rabbi (rabban), redemption (purqdn), sacrifice (qorbdn)-came to be used in Arabic and found their way into the Koran.

If, therefore, Mohammed's acquaintance with Scripture was one gained by his intercourse with Jews, it was bound to be in the main an acquaintance with the Pentateuch. Whether he was listening to the weekly solemn recital of Torah and Targum in the synagogue, or to discourse involving some point of religious practice, or to an edifying homily on God and man, Israel and the nations, he was as a rule listening to the words of the Pentateuch charged with the spiritof Agadah.

Apart from its basic importance to talmudic Judaism, this particular Agada was bound to figure pre-eminently in public discourses and sermons at least twice a year; namely, on the Sabbath of Jethro and during the Festival of Weeks.

When We caused Mount Sinai to shake above the children of Israel as if it were a [mere] shadow, and they thought it would fall on to them, did we not say, "Hold fast with [all your] strength onto what We have given to you and remember all that is within so that you might remain mindful of God"?

And when We shook the Mount above them as it were a covering, and they supposed that it was going to fall upon them (and We said): Hold fast that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein, that ye may ward off (evil)

وَإِذۡ نَتَقۡنَا ٱلۡجَبَلَ فَوۡقَهُمۡ كَأَنَّهُۥ ظُلَّةࣱ وَظَنُّوۤا۟ أَنَّهُۥ وَاقِعُۢ بِهِمۡ خُذُوا۟ مَاۤ ءَاتَیۡنَـٰكُم بِقُوَّةࣲ وَٱذۡكُرُوا۟ مَا فِیهِ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تَتَّقُونَ

29 Zamajshari (ad sura 7: 170

We have seen already that, over against sort of tribute to the generation that homilies reveal a measure of skepticism accepted the Law only under duress.

One homily goes as far as to make Prov. 24:28 address itself to Israel at Sinai: having flattered God with their lips, they were to untrue to him after only forty days. God himself is made, another homily, to say to the people: yesterday you pretended that the Lord said we shall do and we shall hear" and today you (of the golden calf) "This is thy god, 0 Israel" (Exod. 24:32:8).41 Nay, at the very day when they stood at Sinai and said with their mouth "we shall do and we shall hear," their heart was intent upon idolatry. Even those homilies which stress so decidedly the religious perfection of Israel as reflected in the response "we shall do and we shall hear" often imply that, properly speaking, the response should have been in reverse order. In the words of a Midrash: "It would have been more appropriate for them to say: we shall hear and we shall do." And while some homilies see in the improper order only further evidence of Israel's greatness, others take a different view. The Talmud makes a certain "Sadducee" refer to Israel as an "impetuous people" (cammd pezzad) who put their tongues before their ears: you should first have "heard" and then decided whether you would be in position to "do."

For the above quote and all the Koranic references, see: Koran and Agada: The Events at Mount Sinai
Author(s): Julian Obermann, Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan.,1941), pp. 23-48 Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/529210