Rabbi John D. Rayner * Rabbi Emeritus

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

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. what some reformers found objectionable others found acceptable, and

the revisinn tool: .5 variety of forms. Sometimes the Hebrew tent was left intact but the translation, or paraphrase, given a "twist"; sometimes a Hebrew phrase, or a whole prayer, was omitted or reconstructed; sometimes new prayers were vinterpolated to supply what was feLt to be missing. But F'etuchnwski's book has three limitatinns for our present. purpose. First, it does nu't focus exclusively or even primarily on the issue of particularism versus univeralism which concerns us. Secondly, it deals with Europe only, so that the history of worship reform in America and other non- it was... EL_I..I:r-'|Dean....gauntr'iea._rzemains ‘.tD...QEHJ‘JFitte’L:__.,.I.hidCd1Y_s V puhljshed over twenty year‘a ago, in 1968, when a whole new phase had only just begun.

Progressive Judaism and its Liturgies in Great Britain

The new phase began in 1967 with the publication, in Great Britain, of Service of the Heart, for that turned out to be the first of a whole new generation of Progressive (and Conservative-I pra-ferbonks which have appear-ed Since then in the EngliEh-speakinq world On both sides of the Atlantic. (To some eutent also in Israel and France.) ' what, in Spite of the wide di'f fer'ences between them, they all have in .common may be summed up. under three headings. First, they combine tradition and innovation, mostly going further ,in bivth directions than the liturgies they renl‘a'ced. Secondly (-and this is just one relatively minor aspec't. of their" innovativeness), in their translation; as well am their“ new prayers they have abandoned archaic in favour of mode-En English, so that, for instance, Gad is no longer qddr'esséd as "Thou" but as "You". Thirdly, they are the ‘firs“: Jewish prayerbnoks in which a serious attempt is made to take into account, and togive expression to, the implications of the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel, as well as other changes in the global situation which have occurred Since the Second World War. It is the last point that is relevant for our purpose, since it raises the question: How, then, have these changes affected the perception, in Progressive Jewish circles, of Jewish—Gentile relations and hence of the issue of par'tiCLllar'ism versus universalism?‘ Let us examine some of the evidence supplied by the new prayerbooks, chiefly ‘in Great Britain but with an occasional comparative glance across the Atlantic and elsewhere. First, though, a rapid historical Survey. British Jewry is unique in having not one but twn Progressive movements, popularly known as "Reform" and "Liberal" respectively. The "Reform" movement, which has always been the more conservative and is today by far the larger, goes back to 1840, when the west London Synagogue of British Jews was founded by 18 Sefardi and six Ashkenazi Jews. Its first Siddur, edited by the Reverend David Woolf Marks, appeared in 1841 under the title Forms 01’ Prayer. It went through Several editions, the sixth of which, substeintially revised under the guidance of the Reverend Morris Joseph, appeared in 1931 and will be referred to as FOPf31). The "Liberal" movement derives from a society, established in 1902 Llnrler the leadership of Claude Montefiore and Lily Montagu, which Called itself the Jewish Religious Union. Later it added to its riame "for the Advancement of Liberal Judaism" and in 1910 founded a congregation, the Liberal Jewish ExrlégqgueL which in..12he .(Blvlpw‘ingﬁ_yeac.,aapyi.n§.§.d.the ragicallxu. and independently minded Rabbi Israel I. Mattuck its minister. The Jewish Religious Unionvpr‘oduced its own collections of prayers, but these were ultimately superseded by Rabbi Nattuck's Liberal Jewish Prayer Bonk (weekday and Sabbath volume, 1926, revised 1937), which will be referred to as

' ' LJPBI‘37) . , Both movements grew substantially in the years before and especially after the Second World war, by which time they had become known respectively as the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain (R568) and the Union of Liberal.and Progressive Synagogues (IJLPS). In the last '20 years or so the former has made particularly rapid progress, and today ‘they number about 38 and 26 congregations FESPE‘CtiVEly. They have long :0— opr—Jrate‘d with each other in various areas, including the world Union for Progressive Judaism, established in 1926. and LED Based: College, founded in 1956. But they have remained organisationally separate and ideologically (to some extent) distinct, and a merger attempt in 1.985 failed narrowly. Liturgically, too, each has continued to go its own way. The ULF‘S replaced its previnus liturgy with Service of the Heart (for weekdays, Sabbath; and Festivals” in 1967 and Gate (:1. Repentance (for the High Holydays) in 1973, both edited by Rabbis John Rayner and Chaim Stern; the-former will be referred to as 30H(67). The RSGB produced a new Siddur in 1977 and a new Hachznr for the Days of Awe in 1985, both edited by Rabbis Linnea"!~ Blue and Jonathan Magunet, under the previous title, Forms 07‘ Prayer, Volumes I and III respectively. We

shall refer to the former as FOP(77)I. _ The new prayerbooks of the ULPS Served as a stimulus and, to some extent, as a basis fur the production of a whole new series of liturgical publications by the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), edited by Chaim Stern, including Gates 01' Prayer (1975) and Gate: 01" Repentance (1978). These replaced the'Ur’irm Prayer Back ('UPB), which itself went back to Rabbi David Einhor‘n's Olaf Tami/j of 1856. The former will be referred to as 60P(75).

. 6

It should be mentioned that the Rabbinical Assembly (American Conservative) has also come out with a new liturgy, edited by Rabbi Jules Harlow, in recent years, Viz., a Hahzor for Rash Haghanah and Yom Kippur in 1972 and Siddur Sim Shalom in 1785. In France the older Liberal prayerbDDks (Des Ailes a la Terre, 1913, and Ritual des Priéres Journaliéres, 1925) were succgﬁded in 1968 by La Hwntaigne de Dieu, edited by Rabbi Andre Zaoui, and more recently, in the case of the Mouvement Juif Libéral de France, by yet another new liturgy, beginning with a volume for the High Holydays, Réponds—nous, edited by Rabbi Daniel Farhi, in 1977. The Progressive Movement of Israel publiShEd its current Siddun, nﬁnu n111un ("Service of the Heart"), in 5742 (1981—82). It has been a remarkable burst of liturgical creativity, as the following tabulation will re-emphasise.

‘_1967 ULPSJFSgkvica‘o{_theWHeant_um_ .m. “m” HW~_"~H 1968 Union Libé%ale Israelite: La Montaigne d2 Dieu 1972 (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly: Hachzmr 1973 ULPS: Gate uf Repentance 1974 CCAR: A Passnver Haggadah (ed. Herbert Bronstein) 1975 CCAR: Gate. 0f Prayer 1977 HSGB: Forms Uf Prayer I 1977 MJLF: Rébbnds—naus 197B CCAR: Gates of Repentance 1951 Israel Progressive Movement: JVJU n111un 1981 ULPS: Passover Haggadah 1982 (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly: Passover Haggadah 1985 R585: Forms 0f Prayer III 1985 (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly: Siddur Sim Shalom

It should be added that the R568 is in process of preparing a new Hachzmr for the Pilgrimage Festivals, and the ULPS is working on a new Siddur which, it is hoped, will replace Service of the Heart in 1992 and be the first of yet another new geheratiun of prayerbooks.

We Shall now select twelve "test-case" or "tell-tale" liturgical passages (with respect to the issue of particularism versus universalism) and examine how they have been treated in the new, compared with the older, prayerbooks, chiefly of the R568 and ULPS. But before doing so, we Should make two general points abouL these movements. The first is that, in general, the'RSEB has tended to adjust Judaism as and when’it seemed necessary, while cultivating an image of traditinnalism, the ULFS has tended to recvnsiruct Judaism in accordance with conscience—dictated principles. The second is that, in Spite of this difference in approach, recent times have seen a growing convergence of attitudes, policies and practices between them: a convergence particularly noticeable in the area of liturgy, for whereas that of the R558 formerly tended t0 be

-—.__._, 7 traditional rather than innovative, and that of the ULPS innovative rather than traditional, the new prayerbooks, on both sides of the divide, ShUW a remarkably similar desire to dd justice both to the Claims of tradition and to those of modernity.

Treatment of Problematic Traditional Liturgical Passages ’ \ 1. Return to the Land \

The Ahavah Rabbah traditionally indudes a messianit 13u11n1 petition whictu in its Ashkenazi ‘form, feads: n1fiu5 waav nwwnmwp 133*fiwn1 rwnn n1933 unfiun, "Bring us in peace our from the four corners of the earth, and lead us upright to land”. This was retained (in a modified wording) in the eanligf_gditiqps‘gqpfl but has been omitted since 1931, and o?"’t’fié“‘uCPS GEAR?“ has never featured in thé‘iituré‘ié‘s dr the

E. Redeemer.0r Redemption

The first benediction Of the Tefillah, known as Avaf, the whiclv refers to the Fatriarchs, traditionally expresses conviction, an“): 131V VH11 uﬁnnw, that God "will send a the redeemer to their Children's Children”. This allusion to Messiah was turned by David Einhorn, in his Olaf Tamid (1856), device of into a reference to the Hesaianic Age, by the amending $u11, "redegmer", to read nﬁqn,‘ "redemption". a precedent follcwed in all the liturgies of the ULPS as well as retained the CCAR. The RSGB, on the other hand; has always the traditional reading, Vu11, but, it would seem, with.growing discomfort, for wheréas the earlier editions of its liturgy translated the word "Redeemer" (with a capital "8”), the 1931 edition had "redeemer" (with a Small _"r"),‘_while FOP(77) paraphrases: “brings rescue tn the generations".

3. Holy Jews?

The third benediction of the Tefillah, known as Kedushat ha-Shvm, cantajns the phrase, 1155n1 u11—531 u~w1171, "holy beings praise You daily”. This is obviously an allusion to the angels singing God's praise in heaven, and the editors of SDH(67). nut wishing to affirm the existence of such creatures, amended the Hebrew to read 1nu11p ﬁVnJ u1~—$:31,."every day we will praise Your hnlinegs", thus making the worshipping congregation the subject of the verb. But some prayerbook compilers seem tn have laboured Under the illusion that the traditional tent was always meant to refer to human beings. specifically Jews. and, not wishing to affirm the progosition thEY that Jews are (sans phrase) holy, have disguised what mistakenly supposed to be the meaning of the Hebrew in their "translations". Thus GOPf73) renders 019117 "those who Strive _% B

to be holy"; FDP(77) "thDSE who seek holiness"; and Siddur Sim Shalom mistranslates: "Holy are those who praise You daily".

4. Healer 0f the Sick

The eighth benédiction of the Tefillah, known as Refu’ah, traditionally ends with a chatimah (concluding eulogy) which praises God a3 fiufiww 1n» "V1n H911, "Healer of the sick of His people Israel". That is the version still found in FOP(31) and .would have been followed in FOP(77)I but for the fact that, when I happened to be shown the final proofs, I persuaded the editors to adopt the emendation of 30H(67) and GOP(75), bath of which had substituted an equally ancient text which Simply reads nwfiWnn H911, “Healer of the sick" (Sifre Deut. to Deut. J. Ber. 2:4Y. Oddly, LJPB(37) had the particularistic ~, 'n concluding eulogy‘ ~ Hebrew but a..u.r3_i.\rer§a.l.i?ti§__.0r1e__$9_§n.9.l15h...‘ "b'”§$f.’ The prayé?boofi of Ithe Israel 'Progrégsive Movement (1981) also opted for the particularistic chatimah.

5; Ingathekihg of the Exiles-

The tenfh benedictibn nf'the Tefillah, known a5 Kibbut: Galuyyot, "Thé Ingathering of the Exiles", reads (according to Ashkenazi tradition):y1pfi DJ uu1,13n11nfi 3111 191a: urn wnu 1n13 r179 1"“: .yfinn H1933 911un 1n1 131171 ,1j*n1*1fi1 .Vu1u1 "Sound the great horn for our freedom; lift up the banner to gather our exiles, and gather us from the four corners of the earth. Blessed are You, 0 Lord; who gather the dispersed of Your people Israel“L As one would expect, this benediction was universalised in practically all prayerbooks of the Progressive movement frqm its inceptinn (see Petuchowski, 0p. cit., pp._Elb—20), but not in the early editions of FOP, which retained the traditional text (in its Sefardi version) until 1931, when it was omitted altogether; 30H(67) rephrased it:w111 fiwpw ,1p1vu n179$ DJ nun ,1Jn11n5 5111 191w: upn ,u‘p1uu n119 ,‘"H1 .rfiun N193: unfiun HQQT: Somewhat freely rendered; "Sound the great horn to proclaim freedom, inspire us to strive for the liberation of the oppressed, and let the song of liberty be heard in the four corners of the earth. We praise You, D Lord, Redeemer of the oppressed." This version was adopted by GDP(75). FOP(77)I constructed a version which combines universalism with particularism: 5111 151w: urn .nnu Vu111 n119 fin 13 131n131n-11u1 H175 nfinn ugqn1 ,13n11n5 , ,U1nn11 Vn1w1 1n» n11gn ,‘HHJ which is translated: “Sound the great horn for our freedom, and speedily may the voice of liberty be heard in the cities of our lands, for You are a God who redeems and rescues. Blessed are You Lord, who redeems His people Israel in mercy." (Why the editors omitted V17 and preferred n119 to 1111, is not Clear. Neither is it obvious why they rejected "the four carnerS of the earth" in favour of "the Cities of our lands"; but it may be safely assumed that 9

the latter was not meant to imply a territorial claim exceeding that of the Greater Israel Movement!)

6. Restoration of Autonomy

The eleventh benediction of the Tefillah, known as Birkat Hishpat, traditionally begins: 13139111 n31un113 131051u nnfiwn nfinnna, "Restore our judges as at the first, and our counsellors as at the beginning.” Again, Progressive prayerbooks have tended to universalise it as well as to avoid the implication that there was once a better time which needs to be restored (Petuchowski, mp. cit., pp, 220-23). SOHfS?) substituted: 171x *ugumn 0:111n1 ,1n11 1190 r1“ ~ua1u bu, “Pour Your Spirit upon the rulers of all lands; guide them, that they may govern justly." This version was also adopted by 60P(75). FOP(77)I, with the same intent, but untrnubled by the golden— ‘égeflin4the-pégE"E6hcefifT hag! dfi¥iimfihg13¥ugbfiwififitw“ReétDre~ Your judgment hf righteousness in the world".

7. Rebuilding of Jerusalem

The fourteenth benediction of the Tefillah, known as Boneh »Yerushalayim, "Rebuilder of Jerusalem", reads (according to Ashkenazi tradition): n31n: 113wn1 ,11un nfinnfin 1119 u1$u11‘51 I'l'lnD 7W7 M031 50.711) 1133 1313]“3. :l‘l'IPJ nnwu F1311 ,n'll—T WUN‘J 0*Wu111 n31n ,‘"NJ .113n n31n7, “And to Jerusalem, Your city, return in mercy, and dwell within it as_ You have spoken. Rebuild it soon in our dayE as an everlasting building, and speedily FE“EEtabliSh the throne of David within it. Blessed are You, O Lord, whn will rebuild Jerusalem.“ This has troubled reformers chiefly because of its wish for the restoration of the Davidic -monarchy but in some cases also because of its implication that God has been "absent" from Jerusalem and needg to “return”. In 30H(57) it is recast to read: 153 n1fiu1 ,nwwuwz u15v 1n11 ,naan u1nn11 11*9 nfifiu11*fi1 u15u 1nw3 ,~"n1 .ufifiu111n 11111 Nun 111nm jn11n1 ,ntun1 ywnn-fijn1 u~fiu1111, "0nd ta in compassion to Jerusalem, Your city. Let there be peace in her gates, and quietness in the hearts of her inhabitants. Let Your Teaching go forth from Zion, and Your word from Jerusalem. We praise You, O Lord, who wirl set peace in Jerusalem and all the eafth." (A still more universalistic version is given in the notes at the back of the book as having been considered but rejected.) The 30H(67) version was adopted by GOP(75V but with the omission of the universalistic ending rfiunvfijj1, "and all the earth". FOP(77)I has: 1nV73-1‘H n331 ,njwnn jwjun1 ,11un D‘DHWI 11*u U‘VU11‘51 n31: ,1"n1 .gwnunnVUv an—113u n31n1 1‘jn1 ,131n1: nfinnn u~$u11~, "Turn in mercy to Jerusalem and may Your presence dwell within it. Rebuild the city of righteousness soon in our days, and may it be a centre of prayer for all people. Blessed

_ 10'

are You Lord, who builds JerUSalem." (It will be noticed that the Hebrew word meaning "return" is rendered "turn", and that in the lovely allusion to Isa. 56:7, 11am, meaning "institute" but translated "centre", is preferred to the prophet's n11, "house".)

8. Offspring of David

The fifteenth benediction of the Tefillah, known as Birkat David, is traditionally a supplication for the speedy coming of 'the Messiah, descendant of King David, which begins: 111 nan-nu 1n‘1u*1 u11n 131V1 ,nwnxn nwnn 171D, "Speedily cause the offspring of David, Your servant, to flourish, and let his horn be exalted by Your salvation.” Progresaiye prayerbooks have sometimes universalised it by such devices as substituting for 111 nan, “fEpring of David", npwx hag, "shoot of v~m-m"m—righteousness“m(Jer.' ~ 215;”SEE’FEtUChDWSki, oprwcitag'ppz'ZZB- 30). Following that precedent, 30H(67) begins the benediction: 1n1u33 n11n nuwu~ 1171 ,nwnun nfina npwx “DH-NH, "Cause the plant Cf righteousness to spring up soon; let the light of. salvation shine forth afifiurding to Your word." This version, with a somewhat differenf translation, was adopted by 60P(75.. FOP(77)I preferred the following: 103 113v 111—1111 1311*: ufia 111": 031nV wwun nfina .ufiun131 7111 1nfi1u1 V1unn nnnu nnunnu ...31un, which is translated: "Fulfil in our time the words of Your servant David, 50 that men are again ruled in justice and in the fear of God. Let light dawn in the world in our days.." Here David is invoked. not as the ancestor of the Messiah, but a; the author mf a well-known‘pruphecy about the redemntion of a1} umanity. Since it is not immediatelv obvious which prophecy i5 méant, one Euspects that the Chief function of the mention of David is to give the text a semblance of traditinnality; but if it is tiré par 19: cheveux, it makes the universaljsing impulEe all the mare striking.

9. Festuration cf the Temple Cult

The seventeenth benediction of the Tefillah, known as Avudah, "LDrship", was originally, before the Temple was destroyed, a plea for God's acceptance of the (sacrificial) worship offered to Him by Israel in that place, and probably cohcluded 111u1 1715 1n1nu, "whom alone we warship", a version preserved in the Cairo 'Genizah, or 7139: nu113. 111$ 1n1nu, "whom alone we worship in reverence", a version preserved in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sotah 7:6) and still recited in Orthodox synagogues during the rite of duchaning. After 70 C.E. it was reformulated as _a petition for the restoration of the sacrificial cult in a rebuilt Temple, and ultimately came to read: 1‘375 n711un-nn 1wn1 ,nnfign11 fin1u1 jnuj 1J~nfiu 'n n31 nwwav 1“nn 11115 finnw ,11313 Warn nnnun nnfi9n1 Vuwuw ~uu1 ,1n11 1‘rnnn “"Nl .n1nn11 1113fi 131m: 1313‘» fi111nn1 ,1nu Vnwuw 11

11*ufi wnJ‘jv (Ashkenazi version). Th; reformers have generally recast it as a Drayer'for God's acceptance of Israel's present — synagogue — worship (see Petuchowski, op. cit., pp. 231—35). Thug UPB had: ,Wnpn nan": anfign1 ,VNWU‘ 1n”: 1J‘flVfl ’n n11 111p: nuw‘n 11151n1nu ,1'u1 .1nu Vnwyfi n111u 1~nn 1131V *nnw. This version was adopted by 30H(é7), which translated it: "Be gracious, D Lord our God, to Your people Israel, and in Your love accept their prayers. May our worship now and always be acceptable in Your sight. We praise You, D Lord, whom alone we serve in reverence." Yet its successor, GOP(75), has reverted in part to the traditional text, 50 that it concludes, n3~1nn1 111x? 1nJ"3U 111nnn “"HJ .n‘unfin i1fixfi 1J1u2 1313*», which it translates (with some licence): "Let our eyes behold Your presence in our midst and in the midst of our people in Zion. Bleased is the Lord, whose presence gives life to Zion.and all originally Lgfiael." The lgggrgyrqf the British Reform movement "H ‘6? "the ‘SEféfifli had a siightlly modifiéd vérsinh M€F§aldné1 tent, but in 1931 abbreviated it and changed the conclusion to read: 11w: flu 1n3~3y nwunn, "who Causes His holy spirit to rest upon Zion". However, FOP(77)I has gone back to the traditional text, so that the last two gentences of its translation read: "Our eyes look forward to Your return to Zion in mercy! Blessed are You Lord. who restores His presence to Zion." Finally, it is interesting to note that Rabbi André Zauui, in his La Manta/gas d9 Dieu (1Q68), inserted into the chatimah the word anuw, "and His people”, so that the translation reads: "Scis loué: Eternal, qui rétablifi ta Schekhina et ton peuple E Siam." The same interpolation is found in the new (1981) prayerbook of the Israel_ Progressive Movement, nfinu n111un. Thus a prayer which' began as a Supplication for God's acceptance of the JewiSh people’s (sacrificial) worship has become an endorsement of the Jerusalem Programme of the World Zioniat Organisation!

10. Peace for Israel 0r Humanity?

The last benediction 0f the Tefillah is known as Birkat Kohanim, "The Priestly Benediction”, or Birkat Shalmm, "The Blessing ahcut Peace”. Traditionally, it énds by praising God, uwﬁwn Vu1m" war-nu 11nun, "who blesses His people Israel with peace". But there is also a Lmiversalistic variant of this chatimah, found in an ancient Midrash (Lev. R. 9:?) and preserved in the Cairo Genizah, which is still used in the Ashkenazi Rite during the Ten Days of Repentance; it praises Gad simply as uwﬁwn nu1u, "the Maker of peace". The latter version was considered preferable by the compilers of UPS, LJPB as well as 30H(s7}, which also inserted one Dr two references to "mankind" in the body of the benediction. V60P(75), however, reverted to the traditional particularistic text, which is likewise Tuunu in FOP(77), as in its predecessors. On the other hand the prayerbook of the Israel Progressive Movement, 12

nﬁnv n111nn, not only uses the universalistic chatimah but also inserts nwuun $3 nnw, "and all peoples“, in the preceding sentence.

1!. Not Like the Hatians

Professor Petuchowski (op. cit;) devotes a whole chapter to "The Problem of 'Particularism’ in the 'Alenu Prayer". The problematic passage powerfully emphasises the uniqueness of the Jewish people as the world's only worshippers of the true Bed, and consisLS of three clauses: (A) MV1 ,n1xwun 1111: 1Juu "by 331Dn—V3: 1371111 ,un: 1:7Vn an ufifi ,HDTHH n1n9vn: 1Jnu, "For He has not made us like the nations of other lands, and has not placed us like other families of the earth, since He has not made our portion like theirs, nor our lot like that of all —~~ w----theirmmultitude;”~A+B9wnh-Vu—Vu U‘VVBHDT ,1111mfinnfimu11nnun-unu u1u1*, "For they bow down before vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god whn cannot save." (C) 0111n1 U11nnun1 D‘U1j3 1JnJH1 u1n 1111 v11wn 0‘253n 13fin.1fin WJDV, "But we kneel, bow down and give thanks before the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He." Clause B has lung been omitted from Ashkenazi prayerbnoks because cf its alleged offenSiveness to' Christianity. (Df cour52 it was directed, in phrases taken frcm Isa. 30:7. and 45:20, against idolatry.) But some compilers nf Progressive prayerbooks have experienced difficulty with Clause A as well, and either omitted it altogether {so UPS and LJPB) or substituted a positive restatement of the théme. Thus FOP has since 1841 substituted, from the blessing bafufe the reading of the Torah, 1:: 1n: 10M 1nw1n-uu ':3? jun? u‘nnn~fijn, "who has chosen us from all peoples by giving us His: Torah", while 30H(67), using some phrases from the trafiitipnal text, has: 7n15 1JVVn my u1nu 1n13fim jwfiunfi 1351111_,1nw-nn, "for he chose.u5 to make known his unity, and called as to proclaim him King". On the other hénd GUPf75), which mffera several vensions of the Alainu, réstored the traditional Clause 9 in one of them. The prayerbonk Of the Israel Progressive Movement, JVJU n11nun, does likewise but offers this interesting alternative, quoting from Micah 4:3: nfi1u 1~u1 .nuu n11n 13v 1nJ1 u1v1nn 1n 1Jfi~11nu [...1Jn3uw] .1wnvu nun awn 13%“ ufinun 53 13 .1Jj1n1 uUJ, “For He has separated us from those who go astray, and given us a true Teaching, and planted eternal life within us. For all the peoples walk each in the name of its own god, [but we...]".

12. The Question of Peace Again

The great danulcgy called Kaddish ends with a Dhrase based on Joh 25:2: HHWDW~53 Vn1 131V» u1ﬁb nun‘ u1n 11011n1 a1$u nu1u "He who makes peane in His lofty heights, may He make peace for us and for all Israel." Most Progressive liturgies have let that stand. Only the compiler; of LJPB and 30H(67) seem to

, 13

have been bothered by the thought that peace is indivisible (cf. Jer. 29:7), and have therefore added: awn Wan-V3 VH1, "and for all mankind".

Novel Passages

The foregoing examples have illustrated sufficiently how the prayerbook revisers have dealt in various ways with traditional liturgical texts which seemed to them over- particularistic. It needs to be added that they have-also innovated pasitively by introduting passages previously unutilised liturgically, some culled from ancient and modern Jewish (and, rarely, non-Jewish) literature, some newly written. ' Of theser.somevmight-bemsaid~towbeuparticularistic:—“For instance, -in the prayerbooks, such as UPB and LJPB, whose "spiritual ancestry" can be traced back to David Einhorn‘s Olat Tamid, there has always been a strong tendency to stres- Israel's chosenness, but understood as implying a "mission" to humanity,v a concept which therefore' serves as a "bridge" betwéen particularism and universalism. In the new generation of , prayerbodks, beginning with 30H(67), there are of course many references to mid-twentieth- century events, both tragic and triumphant, which focus attention on the Jewish people, such as the Sho‘ah (Holocaust) and the establishment of the State of Israel. But in addition, one detects in them,-compaﬁed with the liturgies they replaced, a more confident affirmation of Jewish peoplehood. Transliterated 'Hebrew words tend to be preferred to translations and anglicisaiions: "Torah" rather ,than "Law", "Shabbat" rather than "Sabbath", "Sukkot" rather than "Tabernacles", etc. Yiddish poetry makes its appearance. There are passages which sound a new note of Jewish self- respect, such as: "We wére beset by the weaknesses and faults common to all humanity: yet it has been our glory to testify to the unity of God, to hold up before the world an example of courage, and to keep alive in dark ages a vision of humaneness and brotherhood" [30H(67), p. 80]. There are also many novel passages that express general human concerns and aspirations, or that embhasise the unity of mankind, the mutual responsibility of all men and women, and even the hope for harmony between people of' different religions. A striking example is a series of prayers Rabbi Israel Mattuck wrote for the first (1923) edition of the High Holyday volume of LJPB: "We pray for all members of the house of Israel, who, though scattered over the earth, are yet bound to one another...We pray for all mankind. Though divided“into nations and races, yet are we all thy children...We pray for all who come together for thy service...Strengthen the spirit of brotherhood among the men of diverse faith and increase 14

mutual understanding between them." Such sentiments are also expressed in the more recent prayerbuoks. FOP(77) makes an important addition to 11Tnn n311, the Thanksgiving after Meals, with the Short prayer (in Hebrew and English): “We have eaten and been' ' satisfied. May we not be blind to the needs of others, nor deaf to their cry fur food. Open our eyes and our hearts that we may share Your gifts, and help to remove hunger and want from ouriworld."

Summary and Conclusion

The relationship between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity, and hence the issue of particularism versus Universalism, always problematic, has ‘several times changed CDmPIEXiDn- _In “angégnfimwtime5__the__questinn.,waswihow- &‘ ’flfififibfheisticwbédplé should relate to a polytheistic world, and a conquered nation to its conquerors. In the Middle Ages it was how a scattered and persecuted minority should relate to a monotheistic. but hostile majority Church. Until the .Emancipation it was therefore difficult for Jews to entertain favourable sentiments about non-Jews. Although individual proselytes were welcomed, and tolerant rulers appreciated, Gentile humanity as a whole was not generally thought of as playing a positive role in the Divine Scheme except in the far— distant eschatological future. With the Emancipation it became possible to envisage a new relationship in which Jews would no longer be exiles waitihg for a return t0 their own national existence in anuther land, but partners with their Gentile neighbours in a common human enterprise. Not all Jews espoused such a changed perception, but those who did found pre- Emancipation, Rabbinic Judaism, now perpetuated under the name of Orthodoxy, and especially its liturgy, both excessively particularistic and insufficiently universalistic. To remedy this, was a major preoccupation of the. Jewish Reformers throughout the 19th century and well into tHe 20th. But' after the Setond World War the old Progressive liturgies no longer seemed adequate. Too much had changed. 0n the one hand the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel induced a widespread disillusionment with European civilisation and a correspondingly cnnfident, even defiant, re- assertion of-Jewish identity and penplehood. 0n the other hand the increasing economic and political interdependence of the nations, the proliferation of international institutions, the accelerating speed of travel and information, and the awareness of common dangers (not least ecological ones) facing humanity: all these tended to make for a new cosmopolitanism. And some deyglopments pointed in both directions. For instance, the emergence (not least in Britain) of -mu1ti-racial, multi- cultural and multi-religious societies created an atm05phere in which, on the one hand, minorities felt freer to maintain their distinctive traditions but, on the other, social contact and 15

inter—faith dialogue engendered respect for religions other than one's own. The resultant picture is a complex one, with some tendencies favouring particular-ism and others

universalism. ‘ There was ‘therefore a felt need for new ways of balancing and expressing‘ the} conflicting claims of particularism and universalism, a'nd incidentally also for a more contemporary language of worship. As it happens, it was in Britain, in 1967, that this need first led to the compilation of a new .generation of Progressive Jewish prayerbooks. There ensued a period of remarkable liturgical treativity in which both of Britain's Progressive movements,‘ "Reform" and "Liberal", distinguished themselves, but which was soon emulated and further developed in the United States of America and qther countries. 4 We have examined how these.new liturgies, compared with those "'wh'i'x:'h"they replaced ;'“‘ have"‘handled"' the “issue” of‘ particularism versus universalism. We have observed, as was to be expected, divergencies between the more conservative and the more radical wings of Progressive Judaism. We have noticed inconsistencies, infelicities and retrogressions. It is very clear why the partial Ingathering of the Exiles which has taken place should be celebrated, and why it Should make former- repudiations of Jewish national aspirations seem over- categorical. It is less clear- why communities long accustoemed to more universalistic formulations should suddenly find it appropriate to» pray for healing and peace on behalf of Israel alone, or for the return of the Shechinah to Zion. And yet there is a broad consensus on many issues.‘ There is little or no emphasis on a personal Messiah. Thar-é is no wish for a ~ restored Davidic dynasty, or a rebuilt Temple, or the total Ingathering of the Exiles”. It is taken for granted that the Diaspora will continue, and that there, as well as in the State of Israel, the Jewish task is to live and work with non—Jews for the benefit of humanity, strongly affirming at one and the same time both their Jewish particularity and their identification with the larger human family. At the very least-we have seen a valiant wrestling with the problem of the respective roles of Jews and Gentiles in the Divine Scheme, a sincere desire to achieve the right balance between particularism and universalism, and a serious attempt to express that balance in appropriate liturgical language.