Talk:Ramban Synagogue

"resting on Roman and Byzantine capitals"
What does this mean? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wikilinked it to Capital (architecture). Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not good enough.
 * I suspect it's meant to say "resting on columns capped by Roman and Byzantine capitals".
 * "The foundation of the building comprises vaults resting on Romanesque and Byzantine capitals." Is that a fact? Are there vaults under the nave? Or does it actually refer to the nave itself, not its foundations?
 * The 1-sentence paragraph has no source. If the source of the next paragraph is meant to cover both: it's dead. It also seems to have dealt with the nearby 4Four Sephardic Synagogues, although it might have included Ramban S. as well, as it was used by Sephardics. Anyway, as of now it's unsourced and can't be checked. Arminden (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"Along with the fact that there are no Gothic or Islamic architectural features, this suggests that the original building predates the Crusader period."

Dubious. Crusaders did very much build in the Romanesque style. The hidden meaning probably is: Crusaders chased the Jews out of the city, so a synagogue either pre- or post-dates them. But this is wrong, there were several Muslim interregnums between 1187-1244, when Jews were invited back in, see Saladin in 1878, which doesn't mean that the Jews had to immediately adopt Islamic architectural elements for their synagogues during that half of a century. What is there today sounds very much like a hall put together from recycled materials from older ruins, with little in terms of style and decoration. No source, which makes it even harder to swallow. Maybe there was a smart comment somewhere, but it got stripped down to nothing... Arminden (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wager writes that, during the post-1967 reconstruction, the columns were found to stand upside-down, and during restoration their capitals got unearthed. Who knows at what point in time this happened (1400, 1475,...), but it also seems to prove how little one can conclude in this case from a certain style to a date or period. Terminus post quem yes, but terminus ante quem hardly. Arminden (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Synagogue in Katamon: connected?
I have removed what seems to be totally unconnected material (different, Modern Orthodox synagogue outside the Old City). In case there is any connection, salvage what you see fit - maybe the Katamon congregation wanted to create a parallel, or a disambiguation tag is seen as useful.


 * In 2016, Carmit Feintuch became the first woman to be hired as a communal leader at an Orthodox synagogue in Israel, namely the Ramban Synagogue in Katamon, Jerusalem. 

Arminden (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now introduced a short section about the Ramban Synagogue in Katamon at the very end of the article: if it belongs here at all, then only in a separate section. Can be removed in my opinion. If notable enough, it can get an article and then a DAB tag will be needed. Arminden (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Now I think I understand: there was no Ramban Synagogue from the late 16th century until 1967 or sometime after. The building was apparently destroyed in 1948, and outside of Jewish reach between 48 and 67 anyway. This might have been the incentive for a new synagogue by that name in W Jerusalem, as was the case with other temporarily lost Jewish institutions from the Old City, which were reestablished in Israeli W Jerusalem. That does create quite a connection between the two. Others, too, kept 2 "incarnations" after 1967, connected or not. Arminden (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Confiscation: clarifications needed

 * "Ottoman authorities issued a firman to lock the synagogue door due to local complaints of 'noisy ceremonies' and further legal disputes were prohibited after the 1598 confiscation"

, hi. I see you introduced this information in 2015, here, maybe you can help out. I cannot access the book by Stillman beyond a few tiny snippets. Thank you! Once all this has been dealt with, the "clarify" tags can be removed. Arminden (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Joseph Schwarz (1850) quotes 1628 source dating the confiscation to 1588. Does Stillman explain why the dates vary by a decade?
 * Were there multiple successive steps taken by the Muslim authorities? First "closed", then "confiscated", maybe additional legal steps (the prohibition of legal disputes)? Does that explain the 2 years, 1588 and 1598?
 * The confiscation needs proper mention before being mentioned as fait accompli.
 * When was this particular firman issued?
 * Who made the "local complaints"? If Muslims, or even more precise: worshippers from Sidna Omar Mosque, this needs to be spelled out. The synagogue was in the Jewish "court", "locals" would be, at first sight, Jews, but them complaining is highly improbable.
 * Were indeed all "legal disputes" re. the building and/or its use as a synagogue prohibited? Unusual. Maybe the authorities gave a final decision, closing avenues for further disputes, on certain issues. Not clear.

Synagogue actually built by Ramban further southwest, on "Mount Zion"?
Also marked with a "clarify" tag, but it hints at a much more important issue, because if true, the subject of this article is not actually the synagogue built by Nachmanides.


 * "he undertook the effort to rebuild the Jewish community and chose a ruined house on Mount Zion"

"Mt Zion" is a very inaccurate term, as it doesn't have a precise, universally accepted definition. It is mostly used in common language to define the area of the Western Hill which lays south of (so outside) the city walls, around the Cenacle and Dormition Abbey, but it can also be extended to mean all or the largest part of the Western Hill. So what does this sentence mean? That Nachmanides first built a synagogue elsewhere, more to the SW?

Elyahu Wager writes, also quite confusingly:
 * "As [Nachmanides'] description fits [the "Ramban Synagogue"] it was presumed that this is the site; however, scholars are now of the opinion that Nahmanides established a synagogue on Mount Zion." And then continues in the next paragraph, very confusingly:
 * "This [the "Ramban Synagogue"] was the first synagogue to be built in the Jewish Quarter, and Jews began to settle around it when they moved from Mount Zion in approximately 1400.">

So Wager (1920-2004), who is a trustworthy source, mentions a scholarly opinion prevalent in the 1980s stating that the synagogue actually built by Nachmanides (1260s) was "on Mt Zion", probably meaning the upper southern part of the Western Hill ridge, but then goes on to say that what is now known as the Ramban Synagogue, which is halfway down the eastern slope of the Western Hill and closer to its centre, was the first one built in the Jewish Quarter. This constitutes no contradiction if we go by today's most common understanding of "Mt Zion": outside the walls, at the most also a bit inside the Armenian Quarter (which already existed as such in C13), so Nachmanides' actual house of warship was indeed outside the Jewish Quarter; but then Wager fails to say what this new theory says about what happened to that initial synagogue, when it was abandoned, and when the "Ramban Synagogue" we know today might have been built. So he jumps from mentioning a diverging theory, to sticking to the old identification. We need a better source, which fleshes out the newer theory and offers an answer to when, in this new theory, the "Ramban Synagogue" might have been built (AFTER the 1260s, but BEFORE 1400).

Important: Wager defines in this book Mount Zion as the area outside the city walls, see pp. 114 & 122 (maps), 131 ff (description): "Mount Zion extends to the south of the western hill of Jerusalem, outside the city wall. [...] Mount Zion can be seen as the southern extension of the western hill." If one can firmly count on him being consistent throughout the book with this definition, then we definitely have an actual, C13 synagogue somewhere near the Cenacle, and the one discussed here quite a distance away to the NE of it. Arminden (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Article needs better sources, seems based on shallow magazine article
See Larry Domnitch, "The Ramban Synagogue; Hope Amidst Despair", The Jewish Magazine April 1999. Almost word for word, and that came long before the creation of the enWiki article (1999 vs 2007). Or both are based on some popular source written for the use of the Religious Zionist youth. Google Books: "Larry Domnitch is an educator and freelance writer who has taught Judaic studies on the high school and college levels in New York." Arminden (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Humus sapiens, when he created the article in 2007, gave Domnitch as his only source. I see it is listed as ref, just via Aish, not The Jewish Magazine.Arminden (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is confusing and altogether unsatisfactory. I'm on the lookout for a better source. Zerotalk 11:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Nablus scrolls: highly dubious

 * "The Torah scrolls that were evacuated to Nablus (near biblical Shechem) before the Mongol invasion were returned."

Typical case of unreliable source creating headaches. Arminden (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The passage from the alleged letter of the Ramban quoted in the article doesn't contain this detail. Roth (a reliable source) mentions it too, but only as "scrolls from Nablus", with nothing on a previous evacuation of Jewish scrolls to that city. Domnitch (not a reliable source) states the evacuation story, which conveniently "solves" the problem addressed by Roth: a famous rabbi like the Ramban would have had access to "kosher" scrolls and would never have taken them from Samaritans, who were heretics. Inventing the evacuation story does away with this problem by making the Nablus scrolls Jewish. Tradition? (Roth doesn't seem aware of such a tradition.) Or just Domnitch taking the freedom to make up "details"? Another source is needed.
 * Mongols would fit better than Khwarezmians (closer in time, 1260 vs 1244), but there is no proof for the Mongols even making it to Jerusalem, although Jews might still have taken precautions once the news of a Mongol invasion reached them. A source is much better than speculations :) Altogether, we have close to nothing about the decade and a half between the Khwarezmian sack of the city and the Mamluk beginnings after Ein Jalut (see History of Jerusalem). Maybe (hi!) knows more on the state of the city at the time.
 * Jews evacuating Torah scrolls to Nablus? Nablus was A. a Samaritan, "heretic" city in Rabbinical view, see Roth (2014), and B. closer to where the Mongols came from (Baalbek via Transjordan, see Battle of Ein Jalut) - so very unlikely.

What do the actual specialists say? All in Hebrew and old.
Now I think we have much of its history clarified, based on additional sources, although some don't make a clear distinction between the institution, which was apparently first established on Mount Zion, and the building from the Jewish Quarter, which was its 2nd location. If the 2-step evolution is the accepted mainstream theory? My problem is also that the sources don't focus on the Ramban Synagogue, have different topics in mind, are of different quality, so one can't combine the information from several sources. On the other hand, what looks like three important studies are all in Hebrew and rather old (70s-80s). I have used what is available in European languages. Can anyone access those three? Avraham David references them, he published in 2003, when they were already decades old, so maybe that's all there is (or he didn't bother to look for an update). D. Tani is the restorer of the Four Sephardic Synagogues, that's all I could find about him, not even his first name (David?). Arminden (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * D. Tani, The "Ramban Synagogue" [in Heb, with Eng summary/abstract], in Chapters in the History of the Jewish Community in Jerusalem [in Heb], edited by Menahem Friedman, Yehoshua, Yosef Tobi [or use et al.], Jerusalem 1976, vol. 2, pp. 286-301.
 * D. Cassuto, The Identification of the Ramban Synagogue in Jerusalem [in Heb], in Studies in Judaism: Jubilee Volume Presented to David Kotlar, edited by Alfredo Mordecai Rabello, Tel Aviv 1975, pp. 278-302.
 * R. Izrael, The History of the Ramban Synagogue in Jerusalem [in Heb], in Zeev Vilnay's Jubilee Volume edited by Ely Schiller, Jerusalem 1987, vol. 2, pp. 26-37.