fi¥3 ~ P a r t i c u l a r i s m a n d U n i'v e'r 5 a 1 i s m i n t h e L i t u r g i e s 05f P r 0 g r e s S i v e J U d a i s m i n G r e a t B r ~ i t a i n Rabbi John D. Rayner * Rabbi_Emeritus,‘The.Liberal Jewish SynagogUe, London Lecturer in Liturgy and Codes, Leo Baeck College, London Council for (In; H0r1d";= Religions "Influences in the Reconfiguration of Modern Judaism: Events, Movements, Thinkers" November 9-13, 1989 Toledo, Spain PARTICULARISM AND UNIVERSALISH IN THE LITURGIES OF PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM IN GREAT BRITAIN John D. Rayner Particularism and Universalism in the Liturgy of Rabbinic Judaism To say that there hag always been in Judaism a tension between particularism and universalism is both a platitude and a truism: a platitude because it has been said so often, and a truism because, if Judaism ceased to be particularistic it would cease to be Jewish, and if it ceased to be universalistic ._”~V._. r-. .“m.. Ait.wou1d cease_towbe.monotheistica‘ ‘ . n. But ifi doesn’t follow, as is sometimes implied, that the two tendencies have received equal emphasis. "Tension" doesn’t mean "equilibrium". Not unly has the balance shifted from age to age and from author to author, but if I were to venture a generalisation, it would be that in Rabbinic Judaism particularism has been decidedly more pronounced than universalism. If that generalisation is true for Rabbinic Judaism 35 a whole, it applies especially to its liturgy, which is perhaps its moat characteristic and normative expression, since, more than any other book, it is a creation of the people, a repository of its thoughts and longings in many lands and ages, and a daily companion and guide of the observant. Not that universalism is entirely absent from it. On the contrary, the God to whom its worship is addressed is 153 afi1un, the Sovereign of the universe, and n111unn 131*, the Creator of the stars. Rosh Hashanah is declared to be n1n n1~n 051», "the birthday of the world". The penitential season is conceived as one of divine judgment on humanity as a whole. The feast of Sukkot, in one of its aspects, celebrates the bounty Inf universal- nature. In various places the hope is ' expressed that one day all humanity will be united in the worship of the One God; for instance, in the medieval hymn, 713v? #3 1‘nH‘1, well known from Israel Zangwill's translation, "All the world sha11 come to serve thee" (Routledge Hachzor. Rosh Hashanah volume, pp. 151 f.); in the 11mg 1n 1331, "Teach all Your works to stand in awe before You"; and in the Aleinu, with its fervent longing for the time when all mankind will call upon God’s name, and all who dwell on earth will understand that to Him alone every knee must bend and every tongue swear loyalty. There is even, in the daily Tefillah, a special commendation to God's mercy of pwxn 11a, non-Jews who convert to Judaism. Nevertheless, particularism predominates, and for two reasons which need to be understood. One is that Jewish w 2 worship is to a large extent an act of collective rededication to the respensibilities which rest upon the Jewish people in consequence of its Covenant—relationship with God, in which non-Jews are not participants. The other is that the Jewish people’s experience of its non-Jewish environment has been during the greater part of its history, and was particularly during the formative period of its liturgy, a predominantly negative one. Although some medieval Jewish authorities declared Christians and Muslims to be monutheists, that perception of them (since it came too late) exerted little if any influence on the liturgy, 50 that there non-Jews, in so far as they are mentioned at all, seem-to be generally thought of as both idolatrous and hostile. For both these reasons there is in the liturgy of Rabbinic Judaism great emphasis on the uniqueness of the Jewish people: y1u: finu 111 fiuwuw 1nuj "01, "Who is like Your people Israel, a hation'ufiIQflé'bh ééFtfi?" ‘”Tfiéf§'ié”?épéated Féferehc€“fd’thé Jewish people’s high status becauae Of its Special relationship with God, jwwfi-finn 13nn111 DENVDD 131—1n1 10“, "who has chosen us from all peoples and exalted us above all tongues". .Isfael is said to be distinguished from the nations as holy is from profane, and light from darkness. Its enemies are assumed'to be God’s enemies, 1‘111u 131911, whose defeat is to be hoped for. 11u11 ufi wuu 0111n-5u 1nnn 1190, "Pour out Your wrath _upon the nations that do not acknowledge You," pleads the Passover Haggadah in a quotation from the book of Psalms (79:5). There is constant. reiteration of the hope that ultimately the Jewish people will be gathered from the four corners of the earth, and return to their own land, there to re—establish their national independence under a Meséiah-King of the Davidic line, and to rebuild their national sanctuary on Mount Zion, where a restqred priesthood will again offer the Fentateuchally prescribed Sacrifices. God has rédeemed Israel; God will redeem Israel; God heals the sick of His people Israel; and God will bring peace Vu1w1-Vj—Vu1 131v», upon us and upon all Israel. Non—Jews, as we have seen, feature favourably only in the content of the eschatological scenario of the messianic age, when they will turn to the warship of the true God, and in the case of proselytes, who, as it were, anticipate that time. Although the Talmud tells us that in the ancient Temple, during the feast of Sukkot, seventy bullocks were sacrificed on behalf of the Seventy nations of the warld (Sukkah 55b),rthere is in the liturgy cf the Synagogue virtually no expression of any Concern for the welfare of unconverted Gentiles here and now. The only exception I can think of is the Prayer for the Government, and even that tends to emphasise the hope that the ruler will "deal kindly with all Israel" and to end with the petition, Vu11 111x5 "11 ,nunV 11301 fiu1u11 h11n1 uu1n, that "Judah shall be saved, and Israel dwell securely" (Jer. 23:6), and that "a redeemer may come unto Zion" (Isa. 59:20). Universalising Tendencies in Modern Jewish Liturgies For the reasons already stated, the preponderance of particularism over universalism in the liturgy of Rabbinic Judaism is perfectly understandable. But whether it is satisfactory, especially in modern Circumstances, is another question. Orthadox Jews evidently find it so, since they have shown no inclination to alter it. But even among them there is yet least one exception to be noted. Joseph H. Hertz, who was Chief Rabbi 0f the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire frDm 1?13 till 1946, made two changes, significant for our purpoSe, in the liturgy. In the Prayer for the Government he omitted the Jeremiah verse, “Judah shall be saved, and Israel dwel) securely", and substituted the universalisti: phraEF-fla "May YOU:Heavenl>AflFath§r52:95:? ..t,h‘E_.._‘tAa_bF—'rnac1.,e.9f peas}? _"—‘WF§RHI‘Jb1‘-VJ-Vu, aver a11 the dwellers on earth“. And in the Chanukkah song, Ham: Tzur, he amended the phrase, nnun 11jn nu? nan Wyn, which asks God "to prepare a slaughter of the barking foe"r to read, nlann 1:1 nnun HTJun a, expressing the _tE that God "will cause slaughter — as well as the barking foe — to cease" (The Authorised Daily Prayer Bank of the United Hebrew Congregatior ~ of the British Empire, Revised Edition, 1947, pp. 506 and qSO). But of course-it was chiefly the Reformers who, already a century before Hertz, felt irked by what.seemed to them the inordinate particularism of the traditional liturgy, and proceeded to modify it. For they welcomed the Emancipation and the new relatiunship between Jews and GenEiles, as neighbours, fellow-citizen; and sharers in a common European Civilisation, which it brought into existence. They were anxious to identify themselves to the Fullest possible extent with the society they were now free to enter, even while maintaining their religious identity and distinctiveness and sense of "mission". To them. therefore, any excessive emphaais on the difference between Jew and Gentile, and especially any suggestion that Jews were a natiun—in—enile, only temporarily domiciled in European society, destined ultimately to withdraw from it and re— establish a national existence in a land of their own: all that was an embarrassment. It ran counter to their self- understanding, and their understanding of God's purpose for thém in the new circumstances. This struggle to re-define the rule of the Jewish people and its relatien to humanity within the Divine Scheme was a major pre—occupation of the Reform mavement from its inception, and much of it concentrated on the revision of the liturgy. Fortunately, we now possess a definitive history of the Reform — (movement in general I am referring to Michael A. Meyer’s Respon59 to Hodgrnity (Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. 1988) — as well as a meticulous study of its liturgical - revisions in particular here I am referring to Jakob J. 4 Petul:howsl=:i'5 Prayerbmzwk' Reform in Eurape (world Union for Progressive Judaism, New York, 1958]. While Professor F'etuchowski's study shows a bi'Dad consensus, it also reveals a wide range of differences.