RSS
The Evolution of Jewish Sacred Architecture
The Second Jewish Temple, model in the Israel Museum. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
In a letter to James Madison dated Sept. 20, 1785, written from Paris, Thomas Jefferson expressed his fascination with the urban aesthetics of the French capital — and his eagerness to return to the Monticello estate, in Charlottesville, Virginia, so he could incorporate the architectural ideas he had encountered in Europe into his own home. “Architecture is my delight, and putting up, and pulling down, one of my favorite amusements,” he wrote.
Truthfully, a visit to Monticello has been on my bucket list for years, and yet — somehow — I’ve never made it there. It’s just over two hours’ drive from Washington, DC, and I find myself in DC often enough.
But my visits are usually short, packed with meetings and events, and I’ve never yet managed to carve out the time to detour into Virginia’s rolling countryside to see Jefferson’s famous mountaintop retreat. One of these days, I’ll make it happen. Or at least, that’s what I keep telling myself.
What makes Monticello so compelling — beyond the fact that it was home to the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and helped shape modern democracy — is that it’s not just a historical site. It reflects Jefferson’s unique mind — his creativity, his obsessions, and, perhaps most of all, his deep love of architecture.
Monticello wasn’t simply a house or a home — it was Jefferson’s lifelong project. He tinkered with it constantly, designing and redesigning, experimenting and innovating. It was, in his own words, his “delight.”
Jefferson wasn’t a trained architect, but he taught himself by studying the works of classical masters like Palladio and Vitruvius, poring over pattern books, and sketching countless designs and plans. Monticello’s neoclassical style — its symmetry, domed roof, and columned portico — reflects Jefferson’s belief that architecture wasn’t merely functional, but philosophical. To him, the form of a building could embody ideals: balance, order, rationality — the very foundations of an enlightened society.
And he never left it alone. The Monticello we see today is actually Version 2.0 — Jefferson tore down large sections of the original structure and rebuilt them to align with his ever-evolving vision. Inside, Monticello is filled with quirky innovations and clever inventions, revealing Jefferson’s obsession with efficiency, design, and technology.
There’s a dumbwaiter cleverly concealed in the dining room fireplace, designed to bring wine directly up from the cellar without the need for servants to interrupt. There are self-closing double doors connected by a hidden pulley mechanism, so opening or closing one would automatically move the other. And in his study, Jefferson used a rotating bookstand that could hold five open books at once — perfect for a man who often researched multiple sources simultaneously.
Jefferson’s bed was tucked into an alcove wall, a space-saving design allowing him to step directly into his study or bedroom, depending on which side he exited. But perhaps the most remarkable feature of all is the Great Clock in the entrance hall, which Jefferson personally designed.
Powered by an intricate system of weights and pulleys, the clock not only told the time but also tracked the days of the week — with the weights dropping through holes in the floor – although Saturday is visible only in the basement, because the ceiling simply wasn’t high enough to accommodate it upstairs. Every room at Monticello tells the story of a man who couldn’t stop inventing — a restless mind, always looking to bring function and beauty into perfect balance.
To Jefferson, building something wasn’t just about creating shelter, it was about expressing values, turning abstract principles into tangible form. And that idea — the notion that a building can be much more than the materials it is made of — echoes through Parshat Vayakhel, where the Israelites begin constructing something that would express divine ideals in the most concrete way possible.
But unlike Monticello, the Mishkan — the portable sanctuary described in Parshat Vayakhel — was designed from the outset for “putting up, and pulling down.” This wasn’t just a practical feature – it was its defining characteristic. As the Israelites wandered through the wilderness, they needed a movable sacred space that could travel with them, be assembled at each stop, and then carefully dismantled and transported to the next location, always ready to accompany them on their journey.
The Mishkan remained unchanged during the 40 years in the wilderness. It clung to its original design — with no tinkering, no updates, and no expansions. But the story took a new turn once Joshua led the Israelites into the Land of Israel. The Mishkan, still at the heart of the nation’s religious life, began to move from place to place, no longer simply following the needs of a nomadic people, but gradually adapting to settled realities.
Eventually, it found a semi-permanent home in Shiloh, located in the hills of central Israel, just north of modern-day Jerusalem. There, the Mishkan took on a modified form — still fundamentally the same structure, but now set upon stone foundations, replacing the original transportable supports. It became more stable, less temporary, yet it was still not a full-fledged Temple — a kind of in-between space, bridging the mobility of the wilderness with the permanence that was yet to come.
Remarkably, the Mishkan remained in Shiloh for 369 years — almost as long as King Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, which stood for 410 years. And Solomon’s Temple was, in many ways, a scaled-up version of the Mishkan. While its proportions echoed the original, everything about it was grander, more permanent, and far more elaborate — built with stone, gold, and cedar.
This first permanent temple of the Jews marked a shift from the simple, portable structure of the wilderness to a majestic, enduring edifice, a shift from divine blueprint to royal embellishment.
Centuries later, Herod the Great embarked on his own monumental architectural project: a complete renovation of the Second Temple, transforming it into one of the architectural marvels of the ancient world.
The Talmud (Bava Batra 4a) famously declares, “He who has not seen Herod’s Temple has never seen a beautiful structure in his life.” Its splendor, scale, and symmetry were a far cry from the humble, portable Mishkan of the desert, although it traced its origins to that first sacred space, meticulously crafted according to divine command.
From the Mishkan in the wilderness to Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem, Jewish sacred architecture evolved — from mobile to monumental, from simple to sublime — yet it always remained anchored in core values and ideals, with every detail reflecting a spiritual purpose transcending the material.
The Mishkan was designed to be far more than just a structure — its purpose was to serve as a space filled with prompts and triggers, physical cues that would elevate hearts and minds and lift all who entered to a higher spiritual place. Just as Jefferson infused Monticello with deliberate design elements meant to inspire thought and reflection, the Mishkan was crafted to engage the senses and the soul, transforming the physical into a gateway to the divine.
My fervent hope is that there will soon be a Third Temple in Jerusalem, one that will reflect the Mishkans and Temples of Jewish history, while also incorporating the wonders of modern design and technology — enhancing the original format, recalling its ancient beauty, and becoming an even greater tribute to God and to our enduring faith.
A journey that began in Parshat Vayakhel and has wound its way through history to the present, still awaits its final, magnificent chapter.
The post The Evolution of Jewish Sacred Architecture first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
China, Russia Join Iran in Rejecting European Move to Restore Sanctions on Tehran
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian attends the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit 2025, in Tianjin, China, Sept. 1, 2025. Photo: Iran’s Presidential website/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
UN Security Council permanent members China and Russia backed Iran on Monday in rejecting a move by European countries to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran loosened a decade ago under a nuclear agreement.
A letter signed by the Chinese, Russian, and Iranian foreign ministers said a move by Britain, France, and Germany to automatically restore the sanctions under a so-called “snapback mechanism” was “legally and procedurally flawed.”
China and Russia were signatories to Iran‘s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, along with the three European countries, known as the E3. US President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement in his first term in 2018.
The Europeans launched the “snapback mechanism” last week, accusing Iran of violating the deal, which had provided relief from international financial sanctions in return for curbs to Iran‘s nuclear program.
The letter published by Iran‘s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in a post on X on Monday said that the course taken by Britain, France, and Germany “abuses the authority and functions of the UN Security Council.”
Iran has long since broken through the limits on uranium production set under the 2015 deal, arguing that it is justified in doing so as a consequence of Washington having pulled out of the agreement. The deal expires in October this year, and the snapback mechanism would allow sanctions that were lifted under it to take effect again.
Iran and the E3 held talks aimed at a new nuclear agreement after Israel and the US bombed Iran‘s nuclear installations in mid-June. But the E3 deemed that talks in Geneva last week did not yield sufficient signals of readiness for a new deal from Iran.
“Our joint letter with my colleagues, the foreign ministers of China and Russia, signed in Tianjin, reflects the firm position that the European attempt to invoke snapback is legally baseless and politically destructive,” Iran‘s foreign minister said in his post on X.
RSS
What Is Happening in the West?
A British bulldog toy and other souvenirs are pictured at a souvenir store, near Parliament Square, on ‘Brexit Day,’ in London, Jan. 31, 2020. Photo: Reuters / Simon Dawson.
In 1968, Enoch Powell — a British politician and writer — was attacked when he criticized immigration to Britain by large numbers of former members of the British Empire. At that time, I was convinced that he was off his rocker, largely because of the inflammatory language he used.
The Conservative Party expelled Powell and excoriated him for being a racist fanatic. At that time between 70 and 80% of the British population agreed with him. Anti-immigration in Powell’s day was directed at the black West Indians. But they in fact shared so much of the British cultural and religious values. Their only fight was racial prejudice — not imposing blasphemy laws or outlawing whatever they considered offensive speech.
In the 1970s, I was in the cabinet of Chief Rabbi Lord Jakobovits, who was responsible for Interfaith Affairs, and I must say I enjoyed very cordial relationships both with Christian, Hindu, and Muslim leaders. We hoped to work together, to support each other for a tolerant society.
Since then, Britain and Europe have changed beyond all recognition. In some ways, this has been very healthy. The old imperial white entitled middle and upper classes have seen the erosion of their grip on society. In its place, a much fairer and less prejudiced world emerged. But as with all cycles, there are reactions and have been major problems.
In Europe as in America, the cultural, academic, and human rights progressives have inexorably swung towards the left-wing neo-Marxist ideology that allows for any alliance, even with other groups with incompatible values, so long as it leads to power.
Like Stalin’s pact with Hitler, they have allied themselves with jihadi Islam and against Israel. The irrational theories of a universal, capitalist oppression lump everyone together regardless of history or nuance. Anyone perceived to be or have been suffering — regardless of the cause or the history or their wealth and status — is a victim. Everyone else is an oppressor.
This has resulted in a completely different ethos that is leading countries on a downward spiral of social and cultural conflict that is tearing apart societies and helping the rise of the only apparent alternative — fascism.
Welfare and health systems everywhere are in crisis. Public subsidies have made it almost unnecessary for so many people to find work. And yet, advanced countries desperately need new blood, to fill jobs — which will only increase as birth rates decline.
Unless the disparity is addressed, humanely, the result will be disastrous. Already there are no-go areas in the Western world, living according to different ethnic values that conflict with the dominant culture — and yet there is no serious effort to integrate them.
The UK Government’s own website explains, in straightforward terms, that anyone, including foreigners, can easily get subsidies — and can also help their families and friends.
We have ignored the explosive reality that is now changing Western civilization. Our lay and religious leadership has wanted to curry favor with governments for their own careers and status, and preached an apologetic gospel of naivete — a dream of sharing homes and co-operating and working together, that ignored an ideology of domination that came with many who have been preaching far-left and jihadi doctrines.
Liberal Jewish organizations on both sides of the Atlantic were so blinded by showing how liberal they were and only empowered enemies of Western values. Charity is important of course, but not at the expense of standing up for principles and the rights of everyone.
Meanwhile the press, the Internet, social media, and influencers have all but corrupted the minds of billions under our noses — and with our encouragement, they have all but erased the art of honest reporting, and reasonable, objective, and civilized discourse.
Too often, we have been told that Israel and the Jews are to blame, as if this disease, this culture war, were not endemic to our societies. We have allowed imported ideologies funded by rich states and enemies of freedom to spread, because we were overconfident and took our eyes off the ball.
Are we witnessing the death of Western culture and civilization? I pray not.
The author is a rabbi and writer, based in New York.
RSS
Houthi Attacks on Israel Are a Real Threat — Why Won’t the World Acknowledge It?
A Houthi ballistic missile strike in the Palestinian village of Sa’ir. July 13, 2025. Credit: X/Twitter
On the evening of August 24, the BBC News website published a report by Paulin Kola headlined, “Israel hits Yemen’s Houthis after reports group used cluster bomb” which opens as follows:
Israel has carried out air strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, in response to the group’s missile attack on Friday which Israel said carried cluster munitions.
Readers would of course be unlikely to know anything about “the group’s missile attack on Friday” — given that the BBC News website did not provide any coverage of that attack at the time, or in the 50 or so hours before the appearance of Kola’s article about Israel’s response to it.
Neither would BBC audiences be aware of the fact that earlier “on Friday,” the Houthis had also conducted a UAV attack — or that at least seven additional missile or UAV attacks had taken place since the beginning of August (1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 8/8, 12/8, 14/8, 17/8).
Readers wouldn’t know this, because — as we have noted in the past — the BBC generally ignores such attacks, unless Israel responds. And even then, the BBC fails to provide its audience with any sense of the scale of Houthi aggression against Israel, which according to the INSS has now reached over 400 attacks:
Perusal of the BBC News website’s “Houthis” page shows that prior to Kola’s August 24 report, the last three occasions on which audiences found any brief mentions of Houthi attacks on Israel were on June 10 , July 7, and July 10, 2025 — in the first two cases, also following Israeli retaliatory strikes.
Like many of his colleagues before him, Kola tells readers of this report that: [emphasis added]
Since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in October 2023, the Houthis have regularly launched missiles at Israel and attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, saying they are acting in solidarity with the Palestinians.
The BBC’s serial use of the phrase “regularly launched missiles” of course fails to provide readers with any sense of the scale of those attacks, meaning that they are unable to put reporting about Israeli retaliatory strikes into the appropriate context.
On the topic of the attack on August 22 that used a missile containing cluster munitions, Kola tells readers that:
The Israeli military said the Houthi strike had been the first use of such bombs by the Iran-backed Houthis during the current conflict with Israel, local media and the AP reported.
The Israeli military is reportedly investigating why it was unable to intercept the missile carrying the munitions, which are banned by more than 100 countries. […]
After Friday’s attack, the Houthis released a video showing bombs dispersing mid-air.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told media on Sunday that one such bomblet had landed on the yard of a home in the central Israeli town of Ginaton, causing light damage.
The IDF investigation centres on why the missile delivering the bombs was not intercepted before they had been dispersed, according to Israeli media.
That “light damage” can be seen in a Jerusalem Post report which also includes an account from the daughter of the home-owner.
“Fortunately, our mother heard the alarm and went into the emergency room. We talked while she was there, and she said there was a big boom. When she came out, she saw that the whole house was covered in glass,” Shira told Ynet. “It’s lucky that it fell close and not on the house. She said that the whole house shook, and as you can see, everything is shattered.”
The version of Kola’s report which is currently available online closes by telling readers that:
The [Houthi] rebels are backed by Iran, which Israel said also used cluster bombs during its 12-day confrontation with Israel in June. Iran did not respond at the time to this report.
Interestingly, Kola did not inform BBC audiences that, in addition to the IDF statements concerning Iranian cluster bomb attacks, Amnesty International (which the corporation often quotes and promotes) also put out a report citing three such attacks in June 2025.
Even more remarkable is the fact that the original version of that part of Kola’s report read as follows:
The [Houthi] rebels are supplied by Iran, which also used cluster bombs during its 12-day confrontation with Israel in June.
However, some 11-and-a-half hours later, that paragraph was amended to make it less accurate and informative.
Hadar Sela is the co-editor of CAMERA UK – an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.