The Twelve Tribes At The Bialystoker Home
print
tell a friend
Bialystoker Doorway, Left side. Henry Hurwit, architect
Directly underneath the massive Bialystoker panel are the next four sons. Issachar is normally represented as a “strong boned” donkey, meaning, according to Rashi, bearing the burden of Torah. Here the unknown artist has depicted him as a camel, similarly able to bear heavy loads but also alluding to a Middle Eastern sensibility. An ancient Phoenician single-masted ship aptly represents Zebulun as the industrious partner to Torah-learning Issachar. Clearly the residents of the Lower East Side recognized this time-honored paradigm. The snake of Dan evokes his role of extracting justice (dan – din) from Israel’s enemies. The quickness of a stag echoes, again according to Rashi, the prompt fertility of Naphtali’s crops, i.e. the quick success of his labors.
The multiple tents of Gad reflects his military prowess while Asher’s agricultural bounty, symbolized by a tree, reflects not only plentiful bread but also the luxury of oil. As is typical of many renderings of the 12 Tribes, Joseph is replaced by his two sons, Ephraim as a stalwart bull and Menashe as a wild ox. In this double tribe roundel, Menashe could be seen also as a unicorn, a mystical medieval creature. Finally Benjamin is symbolized as a wolf, combining cunning with a ferocious nature found in the midrash.
For Jews of the Lower East Side in the 1930’s these tribal signs reverberated with familiar meanings facilitated by the ubiquitous Yiddish spoken and understood by almost everyone. Whether observant or not, the general biblical literacy was guaranteed by the high proportion of biblical and Talmudic phrases and terms in everyday Yiddish. The creator of these panels knew he was speaking his audience’s language. These symbols effectively pushed the button that led directly to tradition and texts.
Ephraim & Menashe; Bialystoker roundel. Henry Hurwit, architect
The 12 Tribes here in the Bialystoker Center may be one of the earliest expressions of the notion of “diversity” in a contemporary Jewish context. The embrace of Art Deco in this communal construction signaled this immigrant community’s clear wish to establish roots in contemporary “modern” society while affirming its Jewish identity. It was a deeply significant moment.
The banners of the 12 tribes are used in another remarkably similar Art Deco setting a bare 5 miles uptown. The cathedral-like Temple Emanuel at Fifth Avenue and 65th Street have three sets of bronze entry doors on Fifth Avenue that depict almost identical symbols of the 12 tribes, frequently utilizing the exact same image. Completed in 1930, it is considered an Art Deco masterpiece as well as the largest synagogue in the world. The curious visual link with the uptown Reform bastion of wealth and power and downtown landsmanschaften Bialystoker causes one to wonder if the Bialystoker artist was consciously trying to connect with his uptown, powerful and so very modern brethren.
Ephraim & Menache plaque (1930) Temple Emanuel, New York
The contemporary use of these symbols, first mentioned in the Torah and then formalized in midrash, is inevitably ironic. When the tribes entered the land they of course settled “under their banners.” Nonetheless, during the First Temple period the tragic division between the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel finally resulted in the destruction of the Temple and the tribes themselves. After the first Exile, the tribes effectively disappear, leaving just Jews. Over the millennia we have grown to be an extremely diverse people, and the Jews of the Lower East Side, although predominately from Eastern Europe, were likewise wildly diverse in practice, belief and custom. In the throes of change, growth and hope it is remarkable that the banners of the original 12 tribes should appear as the banner itself of the Deco Bialystoker Center, summoning all simultaneously to tradition and modernity.
We should do everything in our power to preserve this significant architectural gem. Only in appreciating our past can we gain the wisdom to shape our future. For more information go to www.friendsofthelowereastside.org.
Elissa Boyarin, an expert in urban geography, has done considerable research on the Bialystoker Center and related concerns. This review is deeply indebted to her work and the distinguished panel, including Joyce Mendelsohn, Linda Jones, Laurie Tobias Cohen, Rebecca Kobrin (author of “Jewish Bialystok and Its Diaspora”), Suzanne Wasserman and Mitchell Grubler, which publically discussed this preservation project on February 5, 2012.
Richard McBee is a painter and writer on Jewish Art. Contact him at rmcbee@nyc.rr.com.
tell a friendAbout the Author: Richard McBee is a painter and writer on Jewish Art. Contact him at rmcbee@nyc.rr.com
You might also be interested in:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
6 Responses to “The Twelve Tribes At The Bialystoker Home”
Loading ...
Mr. McBee has swallowed the misleading story purpetrated by some in the Architectural Profession that Henry Hurwit was the architect of the Bialystoker Center & Nursing Home. Nothing could be further from the truth. My grandfather, Louis Aidak, was in fact the architect & builder of the Home, and that is confirmed by references to his role in the first Yizkor Book published in 1951 under the auspices of the founder of the Home, David Sohn. In addition to the Yizkor book, I have in my possession correspondence that refers to Louis Aidak as the Home's architect and builder. Indeed both of my grandparents played a seminal role in the early & on-going success of the Home with my grandmother, Ida Aidak, serving as the first President of the Bialystoker Ladies Auxliary which helped to raise thousands of dollars to support the Home's charitable endeavors.
Barry:
I have been on set with NB
Sorry, been on set for several days in Staten Island for NBC, will call when I can.
I apologize to Mr Winston if there has been misattribution as to the actual architect of the Bialystoker Center. That dispute will have to be settled by scholars as it is well beyond the purview of journalists like me. What is not in dispute is the historical importance of that building, its Art Deco decorations and the urgent need to preserve its facade.
Is it more important to preserve a facade whose historic importance certainly may be questioned than the well-being of more than a 100 former employees and their families, together with numerous family owned suppliers who can be made whole out of any proceeds obtained from a sale of this property?
As for "scholars," I have the proof Mr. McBee and you as an alleged jounalist failed to do your job in terms of research that is not only public knowledge, available from the N.Y. Public Library in its Yizkor Book collection, but also available by contacting me personally, not by a lazy man's effort through Facebook. If you want to see my documentation reach out to me, I'm not hiding in the weeds of social media.