The term “architecture of Judaism” is very diffi cult to defi ne, and in this form does not appear in the literature. Analyzing the context in which objects are created, and their designers, makes a kind of inexplicable phenomenon. Researchers are more of the opinion that Jews in the Diaspora did not develop any particular architectural form, they derived rather from existing patterns. At the same time these authors often use interchangeably the concept of culture and religion, making it even more diffi cult to defi ne the relevant terms. The aim of this article is to understand better the meaning of “architecture of Judaism” and, looking through the prism of culture and religion and the symbolism ingrained in them, to demonstrate certain universal patterns that are part of the constitutive phenomenon of architecture rooted in religion.

Original essay on synagogue architecture with insights into social and intellectual history, visual symbolism, folklore and local customs; includes section on alternative prayer spaces in Hasidism. A Leiden-Boston: Brill publication, edited by Steven Fine.

Studies of Jewish sacred and profane structures in Central-Eastern Europe started in the 19th century. The Jewish architecture was documented and considered by architects, art and architectural historians, ethnographers, photographers, artists, writers and poets. Through the long period of public interest, the objectives and methodologies of study significantly varied. The synagogue architecture was analyzed for practical formulae of an “appropriate” style for new structures, for physical and virtual preservation of monuments and historical landscapes. It was also studied to define the place of Jewish monuments in universal architectural history, thus evolving from the Enlightenment to romanticist, racial and national romanticist theories, which would be abandoned altogether in the 20th century for the sake of critical knowledge about priceless remains, iconographical studies, and construction of shared places of memory. The architectural history of synagogues in Central-Eastern Europe became one of the most advanced fields of study in last decades.

The present Space of Synagogues once served as the religious core of the Lviv midtown Jewish Quarter. Located on the margins of a predominantly Christian city, from the mid-sixteenth century it housed the Old, the Golden Rose, and the Great synagogues, as well as the Beit Midrash. Additionally, the community maintained a yeshiva, mikveh, hospital, slaughterhouse, and butcher shops located in the closest vicinity. The synagogues’ compound was destroyed by Nazis and has not been revitalized after World War II. The remains of the Great Synagogue and Beit Midrash were razed to the ground, while those of the Golden Rose Synagogue were conserved. This area contrasted with the fairly preserved surrounding, which was protected in entirety by UNESCO in 1998. The contrast became astonishing in 2000s, when public interest to the Jewish memory and flow of tourists increased manifold. In 2008, the City and the Center for Urban History have held an international conference on the future of the Jewish heritage in Lviv. The conference’s consent was to organize an architectural competition for the space of synagogues. The competition was held in 2010 by the City, the Center, and German Society for International Cooperation. Were presented 35 projects. The winning project by Franz Reschke (Berlin) was developed into working design and its first stage was implemented in 2016. The work lasted one year. The Space of Synagogues became a success in urban policy of Lviv. It frames and emphasizes the void of the erased space and populace. However, the project was not accomplished: the site is due to include the Great Synagogue, an open space now used by a restaurant. The remaining challenges are not only financial and logistic. Reconsidering the space, which was transformed from the place of worship to that of memory, is an ongoing process now facilitated by the new architectural setting.

The absolute majority of maps of East European cities marked only one or two major synagogues, while tens or hundreds of smaller synagogues and Jewish prayer houses were omitted. Using Vilnius as a case study, the article argues that this omission was not only a consequence of viewing the Jews as a 'not indigenous' part of the population, but also reflected the reality. The absolute majority of synagogues and prayer houses had no role in the cityscape of Vilnius and other cities of Eastern Europe, and therefore were not noticeable to non-Jewish people. Either synagogues and prayer houses were situated in courtyards, or they had no external features designating them as Jewish sacred places. Only the Great Synagogues and the Choral Synagogues of 'modernised' Jews attempted to be visible and prominent in the cityscape. The discussion of the issue of visibility of Jewish sacral buildings is based on the Yiddish guidebook to the city of Vilnius published by Zalmen Szyk in 1939. This book is a unique work, which combines the description of Vilnius 'in general' with special attention paid to the Jewish public institutions existing in the city, the majority of them synagogues and prayer houses.

In Belarus there are entire categories of monuments recognised as cultural heritage and even included in the National List of Historical and Cultural Values, while at the same time excluded from the modern life and often abandoned. Along with rural manors and ancient mills, the former synagogues represent probably the largest group of such heritage objects. This is especially characteristic for the territory of Western Belarus, where their number is much higher. After the tragedy of the Holocaust these striking achievements of Jewish culture were nationalised and handed over to the local enterprises or executive authorities. Most of them were adapted to new, previously uncharacteristic functions, serving as residential buildings, warehouses, rural houses of culture, workshops, shops, etc. Their interiors were transformed in accordance with the needs and aesthetic tastes of the new owners. It turned out, however, that maintaining these facilities is rather difficult. Designed for a completely different function, they became expensive and inefficient in operation. The buildings deteriorated due to the poor economic situation, which did not allow investments in the old facilities. As a result, after the buildings were brought to deplorable condition, many of them were finally abandoned.