For many religiously observant Jews, the traditional siddur, or prayer book, constitutes a problem. One such Jew was the great hasidic rebbe, Nahman of Bratzlav (1772-1810), who articulated the problem in terms appropriate to his time: the fixed prayers, with their praises and petitions, are like a well-traveled highway, and well-traveled highways attract robbers. By which he meant that excessive routine makes it difficult to concentrate the mind.
But if the prayer book presents a problem, the ease with which traditional forms have been destroyed in the modern period presents another problem, and arguably the greater one. The traditional text is, after all, a reservoir of elevated thought and sentiment—potential energy waiting to be harnessed—while no serious person believes that simply dismantling the tradition will serve to revive the hearts of the Jewish masses.
The tension between the need to breathe new life into Jewish prayer and the danger of recklessly undermining traditional forms lies at the heart of a new book, On Changes in Jewish Liturgy: Options and Limitations. Its author, Daniel Sperber, is a scholar and an Orthodox communal rabbi in Jerusalem who has outspokenly advocated expanding the role of women in synagogue worship; his specific intention in On Changes in Jewish Liturgy is to demonstrate that the classical Jewish tradition leaves room for new modes of prayer, including by altering time-honored formulas that many Orthodox women consider to be offensive. That said, however, he is also aware of the dangers involved in innovation for the sake of innovation, "for it is easy to destroy but difficult to build constructively."
Why do traditionalist circles resist modifications to existing prayers or the addition of new prayers? Because, Sperber explains, certain talmudic texts seem to suggest that it is forbidden to change the standard liturgy, "the coin our sages minted." But, he claims, these texts have been misunderstood. The issue is complex, but Sperber's bottom line is that the rabbinic authorities intended to establish an unchanging framework for the mandatory and fixed prayers, not precise or immutable formulations. To the contrary, within the fixed framework, the sages wanted the heart of prayer to remain free and flexible. Illustrating his point, Sperber adduces much evidence to show how "[i]n all periods, additions, changes, alterations, and updatings were made" to the prayers.
An obvious objection to Sperber's claims lies in the rabbinic sources that do explicitly prohibit changing the liturgy. Sperber is of course aware of these sources, but he traces their position to a super-conservative attitude that first appeared among the classical scholars of Babylon. As against them, he appeals to their contemporaries in the land of Israel, who "allowed and practiced greater flexibility." In this sense, Sperber's position is restorative, an effort to revive the freer spirit of the Judaism of the land of Israel.
Toward the end of his book, Sperber lays out the two ways in which liturgical changes have occurred in history: either a great authority has introduced the change or a community as a whole has moved in a certain direction, leaving rabbis no choice but to give their blessing after the fact. This brings us to our current situation. Expecting little from today's religious leadership, Sperber hopes that change will come from the bottom up—so long as "numerous congregations are willing to be creative."
What sorts of changes might eventuate? When it comes to incorporating feminist sensibilities, some are already happening. To cite one well-known example: at a number of Orthodox synagogues, including one in Jerusalem, women are being called to the Torah and, for parts of the service, leading the prayers. But it's no coincidence that this is the only realm in which significant adjustments are taking place. Equality is the dominant value in modern society, and it has proved to be a potent weapon for those advocating equal roles for men and women.
But what about other sorts of change, for instance when it comes to the length and routinization of prayer? Here what is needed are rugged individualists ready to speak their minds even if doing so means giving offense; but in a world increasingly obsessed with tolerance and the virtue of not giving offense, few such types are likely to appear. As for the ultra-Orthodox, tolerance is admittedly not a supreme virtue with them; but neither is innovation.
What, then, remains for those dissatisfied with the present state of the traditional liturgy but hesitant to say anything lest they undermine larger traditional understandings? Rabbi Nahman, for one, cultivated an innovative solution that he was also careful to attribute to a number of biblical heroes: he found a secluded spot where he could pour out his heart to God, alone.
First Dennis Prager, now Daniel Sperber suggesting the liturgy needs to be reformed! As if I haven't already seen whole pyuttim skipped over in Dati shuls in America and Israel. Welcome to the 19th Century, gents. Again, the truth oft denied is revealed. Every religious Jew is a Reform Jew. We all change, we all want change, its just that only some of us can be honest with ourselves about it.
HI Geoff, with all due respect, wanting change does not make one a Reform Jew. Allowing any and every change that every Jew wants with no concern for tradition, Torah or, dare I say it, halachah, makes a Reform Jew. No one's talking about gutting the prayer book as has been done in so many cases. We can still be halachic Torah Jews and make change, if the changes we make are within halachah. Please refrain from projecting your own identity on the millions of Jews who are not like you.
Excellent closing advice, Jeff, now carry that message to the Chief Rabbinate and see how it is received. I only point out that people deceive themselves about what they claim vs. what they do, it is the Orthodox who actively strive to impose their halakhic identity upon unwilling millions with real-life misery ensuing.
One fascinating innovation in nusach tefillah is Machon Shilo's Rabbi David Bar-Hayim who has revived the ancient nusach tefillah of Eretz Yisrael, which is based upon the Jerusalaem Talmud. Machon Shilo has a minyan in Jerusalem. The nusach is briefer than other nusachim and very beautiful.Rabbi Bar-Hayim's initiative is part of his approach which holds that practicing Judaism as an "Ashkenazi" or "Sefardi" is no longer relevant in an age where Jews have reconstituted themselves as a a nation living in Israel.
Geoff is of course more on target than Jeff. If you simplistically look at halachah as meaning law, you are mistranslating a word that has walking, or forward motion, at its root. Judaism changes, and always has -- the only difference is the speed of change. While we can never know, I theorize that the speed of change introduced by Reform was directly responsible for putting the brakes on the speed of change of so-called halachic Torah Jews. The pressure to modify liturgy and liturgical practice, especially vis a vis the role of women, is just one symptom of the real tension -- do we participate in the world around us, or do we isolate ourselves from it. Jeff, you would do well to refrain from projecting his misinformed view of Reform on the millions of Jews who are not like you.
Can we please remember that the word "observant" is not the same as Orthodox and Orthodox Jews do not "own" the rights to being "observant Jews." There are plenty of people affiliated with Orthodox synagogues who are not observant, and there are plenty of serious, committed practicing Jews who do not identify as Orthodox. I am a religiously observant Conservative Jew who is generally quite pleased with siddurim and machzorim my denomination has published over the years. (The new machzor, Lev Shalem is being well received). This is a very interesting article about resistance to change in one denomination of Judaism. But its opening sentence is misleading.
By the way, that phrase, "well-traveled highways attract robbers", is used by the Baal Shem Tov to permit a very fast recitation of the prayers, just like a traveler who quickly runs through a forest so as to avoid any robbers (= interfering thoughts).Another metaphor the Besht uses is of one who is drowning and who throws his hands, arms and body all about to be saved. So, too, a soul of the one who prays and therefore one should not mock someone who is hyper-active in his devotions for he is trying to save his soul.
HI Geoff and Hineni -- I'm a little confused... what does this have to do with the Chief Rabbinate? And what's more on-point about saying all Jews are Reform than saying all Jews are not Reform?Yisrael and Moshe, thanks for your additions. I'm going to go look up R. Bar-Hayim right now.
Halacha needs to be replaced with "guidelines" for values and "suggestions" for behavior. All "holy books" were written by fallible human beings. Stop pretending there's a Big Invisible Man up in the sky watching us and requiring specific actions.
Read Full Article »