LEO BAECK COLLEGE 63L LIBRARY

Universalising Tendencies in Jewish Liturgy John D. Rayner

Particularism and Universalism in Iudaism

There has always been in Judaism a tension between particularism and universalism. It could hardly be otherwise, for without particularism Judaism would cease to be Jewish, and without universalism it would cease to be monotheistic. But to say that is not to say that the two tendencies have always been in a state of equipoise. The relative emphasis has varied in the different phases of Iewish history and the different genres of Jewish literature.

Particularism and Universalism in Traditional Jewish Liturgy

In the traditional Jewish liturgy, which concerns us, particularism predominates. To a large extent Jewish worship is a ’private conversafion’ between the Jewish people and its God, the people addressing God in prayer, God addressing the people in the Scripture readings. To put it another way, every Jewish service is essentially a renewal of the Jewish people’s Covenant with God.

Thus the non-Jewish world, comprising well over 99% of the human family, doesn’t get much of a look in. There are indeed exceptions, but not all of them are positive. They include prayers for the overthrow of tyrants and for the defeat of God’s enemies who, in the worshippex’s mind, are always liable to be identified with enemies of the Jewish people. Which is perfectly understandable in the light of the Jewish historical experience of the non-Jewish world as generally hostile.

On the positive side, the hope is sometimes expressed for the coming of a time when the nations will be united in the worship of the One God and live together in freedom, justice, friendship and peace. But that is an eschatological hope.

If we look for expressions of concern for the well-being of non-Jewish humanity in run n‘m — the lore—messianic here-and-now - they are not easy to find. There is indeed a daily prayer invoking God’s compassion on, among others, p137: m, sincere proselytes, but then they are of course ’card—holding members’ of the

Jewish people. There is, perhaps above all, the prayer for the government. But even that has usually been expressed in terms of Jewish self—interest.

A typical one, which appeared in the first edition of the Anglo-Jewish Orthodox prayerbook, known after its translator/as ’Singel’s’, dating from 1890 and hence the reign of Queen Victoria, beseechgs God to ’put compassion into her heart and into the hearts of all her counsellors and nobles, that they may deal kindly with us and with all Israel’. And it concludes: ’In her days and ours may Judah be saved, and Israel dwell securely, and may the Redeemer come unto Zion.’ N0 concern is expressed for the welfare of Her Majesty’s non-Jewish subjects, although, as we shall see, that ,omission was subsequently remedied. The Impact of Emancipation

The Emancipation impinged on Jewish life in many ways. What matters for our purpose is that it changed the way in which most Jews perceived- their relationship with the non-Jewish world. For the first time, they felt themselves to be part of that wider world. They identified themselves with humanity. And they could not very well leave that perception behind whenever they crossed the threshold of the synagogue. It no longer seemed right that Jewish worship should be exclusively a pfivate conversation between the Jewish people and its God. The proportion between particularism and universalism of the traditional Jewish liturgy, which had seemed right in the past, no longer seemed quite right. A need was felt for a little less particularism and a little more universalism.

The Universalising Tendency in Orthodox Judaism

The need was felt, here and there, even in Orthodox Judaism. An example is the prayer for the government in Singer’ 3 prayerbook. Within ten years of its first publication, i.e., by the end of the 19‘11 century, the supplication that the Queen and her counsellors ’may deal kindly with us and with all Israel’ had been enlarged to read ’thut they may uphold the peace of the realm, advance the welfare of the nation, and deal kindly and truly with all Israel.’ And in 1935 Chief Rabbi Dr Joseph Hertz took the further step of universalising the conclusion of the prayer as well, so that it read: 'May the Heavenly Father spread the tabernacle of peace ban 332716359, over all the dwellers on earth; and may the redeemer come unto Zion’. (See John D. Rayner, ’Ideologically Motivated Emendations in Anglo— ]ewish Liturgy’ in Noblesse Oblige: Essays in Honour of David Kessler, ed. Alan D. Crown, pp. 118E. See also pp. 119ff on Hertz’s emendation of the Mu’oz Tzur).

But that is a rare exception. By and large, Orthodox Jews have not felt the urge - or the entitlement — to make changes in the traditional liturgy in order to universalise it, or for any other reason.

The Prayerbooks of Progressive Iudaism

It is therefore almost exdusively in Progressive Judaism that the universalising tendency has manifested itself. Of the two or three hundred discrete prayerbooks it has produced since its inception in the immediate post-Napoleonic era, I shall select a few of the most significant, mainly from Germany, the United States and England, with only a few side glances at other countries where there is something of special interest to report. Country by country, the books I shall refer to are as follows.

In Germany the story begins with the prayerbook produced for the Hamburg Temple in 1819 and revised in 1841. I shall refer to it as Hamburg. Secondly, we shall note Abraham Geigex’s prayerbook of 1854, revised in 1870, which I shall refer to as Geiger. Thirdly, the so-called Einheitsgebetbuch of 1929, which I shall refer to as Einheitsgebetbuch. In the United States I shall single out, first, David Einhom’s Tm £1511) of 1856, which I shall refer to as Einhorn. Secondly, Isaac Mayer Wise’s Rpfima arm of 1857, which I shall refer to as Wise. Thirdly, Emu» m‘mn 'm or the Union Prayer Book, which goes back to 1892, last revised in 1940, which I shall refer to as Union Prayer Book. Finally, the New Union Prayer Book or than "1927, Gates of Prayer, published in 1975, whichI shall refer‘to as Gates of Prayer.

In England our concern will be, first, with the prayerbooks of the West London Synagogue, known as m‘mn “no or Forms of Prayer, which go back to 1841, last revised in 1931, which I shall refer to as English Reform. Secondly, the current prayerbook of the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, dating from 1977, which I shall refer to as New English Reform. Thirdly, the prayerbooks of the Liberal

Iewish Synagogue, beginning with the Liberal Iewz‘sh Prayer Book, Volume I, which goes back to 1926, revised in 1937, which I shall refer to as English Liberal. Fourth, :‘7n mm: or Service of the Heart, published by the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues in 1967, which I shall refer to as Service of the Heart. Finally, the current prayerbook of the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues, entitled 12m 3'? ‘mo, published in 1995, which I shall refer to as Siddur Lev Chadash.

Now let us examine how these various Progressive prayerbooks have dealt with ten test cases.

1. ’Not a genfile’

The mm nth: or ’Morning Benedictions’ of the daily morning service traditionally include a series of short benedictions, one of which praises God for the fact *u may 8527, that ’He has not made me a Genfile’. Most Progressive liturgies omit this benediction, but some replace it with another phrase, expressing the same sentiment in a posih've way. For instance, English Reform has n'mo DD'? 15 m’n‘a n: "m: was, which it translates, ’who hast chosen us to be unto thee a peculiar people’. The Israeli Progressive Movement, in its prayerbook 35:27 mum, published in 1982, makes uSe of another ancient version of the traditional benediction which simply concludes, 5mm a327nm, giving thanks that God ‘has made me an Israelite’. In this it is followed by the Mouvement Iuif

Libéral de France in its prayerbook 13:15 "me: ‘mo, published in Paris in 1997.

2. 'Between Israel and the nations’

The traditional Huvdulah ceremony, marking the conclusion of the Sabbath, consists principally of a prayer that praises God for making a distinction ’between holy and profane, light and darkness, Israel and the nations, the seventh day and the six working days’. Since this implies that Israel is related to the nations as holy is to profane and light to darkness, it has seemed to some compilers of Progressive liturgies unacceptably particularistic and contfary to the oecumenical spirit of modern interfaith dialogue. They, therefore, have omitted the phrase, D’DSI'D 5310’ Pa, 'between Israel and the nations’. So, for instarite, Service of the Heart, Gates of Prayer, and Siddur Lev Chadash. Others have retained the traditional phrase, evidently not regarding it as problematic. 3. ‘Pour out Your wrath’

The traditional Passover Haggadah includes a rubric according to which, after the recitation of 1mm mu, Grace after Meals, the door is opened and a short sequence of Scripture verses is recited, beginning 1191’ 3'7 mm mm 5R 1M1 Tm, ’Pour out Your wrath upon the nations that do not acknowledge You’ (Psalms 79:6-7, 69:25, Lam. 3:66); an understandable sentiment in the light of the historical circumstances that gave rise to the custom, but hardly in accord with the way modern Iews look upon the non-Jewish world. Progressive Haggadot therefore tend to omit the passage altogether or else substitute a very different one, such as Psalm 27, beginning, ’The Eternal One is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?’ (So ULPS, Services and Pruyersfi)r Iewish Homes, Second Edition, 1955.)

4. ‘Not like the nations’

The Aleinu, which was originally intended for the Rosh Hashanah Musuf (Additional Service) but has since the Middle Ages served also as a regular concluding prayer, traditionally includes a passage which offers praise

fiD'IRx‘l Imam: my 351 £11313?! w: 13:22:: Nam, ’that God has not made us like the nations of other lands, nor placed us like other families of the earth.’ And it goes on to explain: DlnT'DDD 1351111 an: up‘m m7 R527, ’for He has not assigned to us a portion like theirs, or a destiny like that of all their mulfitude’. This is omitted in most Progressive prayerbooks and replaced with a positive statement of Jewish distinctiveness, for instance mn'm'm 11511131 D’DDFF'DDG 1:: 1n: 1%, ’who has chosen us from all peoples by giving us His Torah’ (so English Reform and New English Reform) or wzbn T‘mrb 1151111 mm 1147 upbn m was, ’whose unity it is our mission to make known, whose rule it is our task to make effective’ (so Service of the Heart and Siddur Lev Chadash).

It should be added that the particularistic phrase for which these emendations serve as substitutes used to be followed, and in the Sefardi liturgy still is, by an even more problematic one, which is an amalgam of two Scripture verses (Isa. 30:7 and 45:20): pm s5 5R 5% nfi'a'vemu pm Barb Dmnwn mm, ’For they bow down to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a God who cannot save’. But in the Ashkenazi tradition this has now been generally omitted for some three centuries, partly under censorship, partly by way of self-censorship, thus proving, like the emendations of the Prayer for the Government I mentioned earlier, that even in traditional Judaism it is not entirely impossible to modify liturgical texts. (The ArtScroll Siddur, first published in 1984, includes the offensive verse in brackets, explaining that ’some prominent authorities’ insist on it.)

5. ’God will send a redeemer’

We now turn to the daily prayer known as Amidah or Tefilluh or Shemoneh Esreh. The first of the nineteen (originally eighteen) benedictions which comprise this prayer on weekdays, or the seven to which it is reduced on Shabbat and Yam qz, is called Avot, referring to the Patriarchs whose piety it invokes. It includes thg phrase nuns: m 19:35 am: 2.35 5m: mm, assuring the worshipper that ’God win~ “ send a redeemer to their children’s children for His name’s sake, in love’. This is clearly a reference to the Messiah, the central figure of the eschatological drama according to the Apocalyptists from whom that belief passed both into Pharisaic Judaism and into Christianity. The concept is not necessarily particularisfic, for it is possible to believe, as indeed Judaism has traditionally taught, that the Messiah will inaugurate a golden age for all humanity. Nevertheless the more immediate connotation of the word is that of an anointed king of the Davidic line who will reign over a restored Jewish commonwealth. The spiritual redemption of humanity is contingent on the political restoration of the Jewish people; that is the traditional doctrine.

The Reformers found it problematic because it ran counter to their desire to identify themselves with the societies in which they lived and which had granted them citizenship. It also seemed to contradict their belief that, however desirable the restoration of Iewish sovereignty in their ancient homeland might be, nevertheless Judaism was in principle a universal religion, capable of being practised anywhere on God’s earth. For this reason among others, they tended to reject the concept of a personal Messiah and to emphasise instead the hope for a universal ’messianic age’. What then did they do with the hm), the ’redeemer’, of the Avot?

Most of them left the Hebrew word unchanged but translated it by an abstract noun such as ’redempfion’. However, in the United States, already Einhom and

Wise substituted r9715}, ’redemption’, and so did successive editions of the Union Prayer Book.

In England, the Liberal movement has always followed the example of Einhom and Wise and the Union Prayer Book in changing 5m: to #731. The Reform movement, on the other hand, has always retained the traditional Ema, but the

translation of it has undergone some interesting changes. The early editions of its prayerbook had ’Redeemex’ with a capital ’R’, perhaps with the intention that it should be taken to refer to God, although that is syntactically impossible in this case, where God is said to be the one who sends the Ema. Perhaps that is why the 1931 edition changed the translation to ’redeemer’ with a small ’1’, thus making it refer to the Messiah, after all. But the current, 1977 edition translates 5m: as ’rescue’, which has a twofold implication. On the one hand the editors chose an abstract noun, presumably because they did not wish to endorse the concept of a personal Messiah. On the other hand they opted for the sudden-divine- intervention form of the messianic hope rather than the gradual-amelioration form which the Reformexs have generally considered more credible.

In Germany, Geiger had n‘agn, translated Erlfisung, but the Einheitsgebetbuch had the traditional 5RD, translated Erlbsgr. To complete the picture, let me add that the Israeli Progressive prayerbook has 715$).

6. ’Healer of the sick of His people Israel’

The eighth benediction of the Amidah, known as u’b‘n mm, traditionally concludes with the eulogy 5mm” m9 a‘m 3311, that God ’heals the sick of His people Israel’. This is a singularly inappropriate particularism, since the healing processes of nature work impartially for all peoples, and nobody would wish it to be otherwise. It is also very easy to universalise since the more general eulogy a“)?! Ram, that God ’heals the sick’ sans phrase, is well attested in the ancient sources (Sifrey Deut. To Deut. 33:2, I. Ber. 2:4). Surprisingly, though, not all Progressive liturgies have adopted that remedy.

Those that do include, in the United States, Wise and Gates of Prayer. In Germany: Geiger and the Einheitsgebetbuch. In England: Service of the Heart, New English Reform and Siddur Lev Chadash. On the other hand the traditional, particularistic eulogy was retained by the Union Prayer Book from 1940 till 1975 and by English Reform from 1931 till 1977, and is still retained by the Israeli Progressive prayerbook'as well as that of the Mouvement Iuif Libéral de France.

7. ’Gather us together from the four comers of the earth’

The tenth benediction of the Amiduh, known as m’f?) yup, ‘The Ingathering of the Exiles’, traditionally includes the petition, 1mm man: 3mm: 'm~ 1:33p» ’Gather us together from the four corners of the earth’ and concludes by eulogising God “WW 1m Am: ppm, ’who gathers the dispersed of His people Israel’. This is another expression of the belief we have already noted, which is a dominant motif of the traditional liturgy, that the present phase of Jewish history is like a great parenthesis: in the beginning the Jewish people lived in their own land, and one’ in the end they will do so again. We may therefore call it the 'back to square view of Jewish history.

But this is not how emancipated Jews were inclined to see themselves. On the contrary, they regarded themselves as permanent residents of the countries that had admitted them to citizenship. In addition, thinkers like Abraham Geiger were concerned that Judaism should be seen to be a world religion. That ideal did not seem to them compatible with the notion that the ultimate destiny of the adherents of the religion should be to withdraw from the world into the little corner of it where their history had begun. Here, then, was a clear clash between the older particularism and the newer universalism. What did the Reformers do about it?

In Germany the tendency was to remove the geographical dimension but to keep the reference limited. to the Jewish people. Thu$ Geiger concluded the benediction with 531405 m: nfim mm, praising God for ’saving the remnant of His people Israel’. The Einheitsgebetbuch changed the penultimate phrase of the benediction to read: pan mm: mm: Tm? rap“; on m, ’and lift up the banner to gather those who revere You in the four corners of the earth’.

In the United States, Wise universalised the prayer boldly. His version (to quote only the not very felicitous English translation) reads: ’Let resound the great trumpet for the liberty of all nations; lift up the banner to unite them in the covenant of peace, and bring them nigh unto Thee, to worship Thee in truth! His concluding eulogy reads: D’nfi'? ms) :m‘n'n nm 111:, ‘Blessed be thou who lovest the community of nations.’ The Union Prayer Book omitted the benediction altogether, and Gates of Prayer follows England’s Service of the Heart.

In England, the Reform movement at first kept the traditional Sefardi text, then in 1931 omitted the benediction altogether. However, in its current, 1977 prayerbook it introduced a new and singularly inept version which reads: wnms‘m: ma mm mm, which it translates ’and speedily may the voice of ’voice’ liberty be heard in the cities of our lands’. Unfortunately, the word for is missing in the Hebrew; the word for ’liberty’ should, by analogy with Leviticus 25:10, be 'm': rather than five, and the reference to ’the cities of our lands’ sounds like a territorial claim going far beyond that of the most expansionist Likudniks. The concluding eulogy praises God mam: 5mm, up man, ’who redeems His people Israel in mercy’.

Service of the Heart and Siddur Lev Chadash universalise the prayer, making it a petition on behalf of the oppressed of all nations. The key phrase reads mm mm: 93m: mu: 1m 51;», ‘and let the song of freedom be heard in the four corners of the earth’, and the concluding eulogy praises God as D’P‘KDD rma, ’Redeemer of the oppressed’. As already mentioned, this version was taken over by Gates of Prayer in the United States.

The Israeli Progressive Movement, unsurprisingly, has the traditional text,

' calling for the ingathering of the exiles. So, more surprisingly, have the most recent Progressive liturgies of Paris and Amsterdam.

8. ’Speedi re-establish the throne of David’

The fourteenth and fifteenth benedictions of the Amidah, which were originally one, are known respectively as Dbm'v run, about the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and 111 mm, about King David. In the first of these, according to the Ashkenazi text, God is implored to return to Jerusalem, to rebuild it, and speedily to re—establish

in it the throne of David. And in the second there is a further supplication that ’the sprout of David may flourish speedily’, i.e., that the restoration of David’s kingdom, under his descendant the Messiah, may transpire soon.

The problems which this raises from a Progressive point of view have already been indicated. How has it dealt with them?

In Germany, Geiger combined the two benedictions into one, as they had been in Mishnaic times. His version implores God to 'remembex’ Jerusalem - rather than to ’retum’ to it - and then goes on to speak about mm», ’salvation’, in universal terms. The Einheitsgebetbuch has the traditional text of Benediction 14 but with a subtle change of the intransitive Kal :mnn to the transitive Hiphil :vwn, so that God is entreated, not to return to Jerusalem in compassion, but to cause His

compassion to return to it. In Benediction 15, too, the traditional text is reproduced, except that ‘m was, ’the sprout of David’, has been changed to rmwr max, ’the sprout of salvation’. In short, bothbenedictions are universalised. In the United States, Wise completely re-wrote both benedictions in a universalistic vein. To quote only the translation - which is better theologically than linguistically - his version of Benediction 14 reads: ’God, our Lord, let Thy dwelling be in our midst, and let the glory of Thy holiness shine upon us, as Thou hast made us the people of the covenant unto the light of the nations. Sanctify Thy name upon those who sanctify it. Praised be Thou, God, who art sanctified by us before the nations.’ And his version of Benediction 15: ’Let sprout, O Lord, our offsprings with the descendants of Thy servants, and bend their hearts toward Thee, that they may walk in Thy ways and? promote and glorify Thy laws. Increase their strength by Thy salvation, for which we daily wait. Praised be Thou, God, who art our might of salvation’. Gates of Prayer follows England’s Service of the Heart, of which more anon.

English Reform, apparently untroubled by any theological difficulties, reproduced the traditional Sefardi text of both benedictions. New English Reform has a strange mixture of theological inconsistency and inept innovation. Benediction 14, for instance, begins in the traditional way, except that the Hebrew text implores God to ’return’ whereasihe English translation asks only that He should ’tum’ to Jerusalem. It then requests God to rebuild ‘the city of righteousness’ and continues: own-53'; n‘azérnbn mm: ram, which is a fine allusion to Isaiah 56:7, mam-53') mp’ n‘aan'rr: w: ’3, ’For My house shall be called ’house’ a house of prayer for all peoples’, except that Deutero-Isaiah’s has been vandalistically changed to 1m, ’institute’, which in turn is mistranslated ’centre’, and that his ’peoples’, in the plural, has sadly become 'people’ in the singular. Benediction 15 has been completely re—written. It begins with a made-up phrase, 11:9 111 1131 my: Nan, 'Fulfil in our time the words of Your servant David’, which is clearly meant to sound traditional but has no other justification. It then continues by referring to God’s promise to rule the world in justice and compassion, and to bring to it light and salvation, and concludes with the traditional eulogy.

Service of the Heart and Siddur Lev Chadash, modified both benedictions. The later version of Benediction 14, as translated, reads: ’Let Your presence dwell in Jerusalem, and Zion be filled with justice and righteousness. May peace be in her gates and quietness in the hearts of her inhabitants. Let Your teaching go forth from Zion, and Your word from Jerusalem.’ In short, it is all about Jerusalem, but without suggesting that God has been absent from the city, and without any reference to the throne of David. It concludes in the traditional manner with #201? mu, ’Builder of Jerusalem’. Benediction 15 retains the traditional text, but ’the universalises it by the simple device of substituting np'rx n93, literally sprout of righteousness’, a phrase taken from Jeremiah (33:15), for 11'! max, ’the spout of David’.

The Israeli Progressive Movement has the traditional Sefardi text for Benediction 14, but without the throne of David, and re-Writes the opening phrase of Benediction 15 to read: rpm mam p131 nnxn rum rm, ’Truth sprouts from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven’, a quotation from Psalm 85 (y. 12), 1m~mm own 1032 m», ’and let the horn of Your people be exalted by Your salvation’, then concludes in the traditional way. 9. The Return of the Shechinah

The ante-penultimate benediction of the Amidah, which is known as .1113», concludes by praising God 118': 1mm) 1mm, ’who will cause the Divine Presence to return to Zion’. The phrase is a poetic metaphor for the rebuilding of the Temple. For the key verse from which the very word mm! was derived is Exodus 15:8, urn: ’mm W'IPD ’5 mm, ’Let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.’ Furthermore, the book of Deuteronomy regularly refers to the Temple-to-be as mm m pub 'n any-1m cnpnn ’the place which the Eternal One will choose to cause His name to dwell there’ (12:11, 14:23, 16:2,6,11, 26:2). In short, the very word mum is intimately associated with the Temple. In addition, there is reason to believe that the traditional wording of the benediction dates from after the destruction of the Temple and replaced an earlier one which concluded TDD! mw: 113': 1mm, ’whom alone we worship in reverenqe’ (I. Sotah 7:6). This pre—Destruction version is, furthermore, found in the Cairo Genizah- and is still used in the re-enactment of the ritual of the Priestly Benediction on festivals.

However, Progressive Judaism has always rejected the traditional hope for the restoration of the Temple with its sacrificial ritual, and looked on the synagogue as a permanent replacement of it. In addition, the notion that God‘has been absent from Jerusalem and needs to return is inconsistent with a liberal theology. Therefore the obvious thing for Progressive liturgies to do would be to revert to the older, pre—Destruction vexsion of this benediction and interpret it as a petition for God’s acceptance of present-day, synagogue worship. And indeed most of them havg done just that, but not all.

In Germany, Hamburg 1819 retained 1153‘? 1mm) 1mm but Hamburg 1841, followed by Geiger and the Einheitsgebetbuch, all have mm raw: 1135 mm.

In the United States, already Einhorn and Wise changed the concluding eulogy to my: mm: 113': 1mm and so did the Union Prayer Book. Surprisingly, however, Gates of Prayer reverts to lx’xb mum 1mm, but translates the phrase ’whose presence gives life to Zion and Israel', thus disguising any implicit reference to the Temple as well as any suggestion that God has been absent from Jerusalem.

In England, the Reform movement originally had the traditional 11’3'7 Imam 11mm, ’who but in 1931 significantly changed that to 11’s 59 1mm) mmm, translated causest thy holy spirit to rest upon Zion', thus eliminating any suggestion either that God has been absent or that His presence depends on the Temple. The latest English Reform prayerbook, however, reverts to 1135 1mm) ‘mnnn, The Liberal movement has since 1967 opted for 113323 raw: T135 mm).

The Israeli Progressive Movement has 1153': m1 1mm: Tim”, that God is causing both His Presence and His people to return to Zion, an emendation first introduced by Rabbi André Zaoui in a prayerbook entitled [A Montaigne pie Dieu, published in Paris in 1968. Thus a prayer which began before 70 CE as a plea for God’s acceptance of Israel’s Temple worship has become an endorsement of Clause 2 of 10

the Jerusalem Programme of the World Zionist Organisation as adopted at its 1951 Congress.

10. The Blessing of Peace

The last benediction of the Amidah is known as Dunn {1313, because it is modelled on the Priestly Benediction, and sometimes as 1;?l n31: because, like the Priestly

Benediction, it emphasises the blessing of peace, and ends on that note. Its concluding eulogy traditionally praises God D1527: blue? van-m 113nm, ’who blesses His people Israel with peace’.

The problem this raises is obvious. Whether we understand m‘m in the narrower sense of the absence of war or in the broader sense of welfare, surely it is neither possible nor desirable that the blessing in question should be conferred on the Jewish people alone but withheld from the rest of humanity. Surely peace is indivisible. And did not the prophet Jeremiah make just that point when he wrote to the exiles in Babylon, ’Seek the peace of the city where I have sent you peace’ into exile, and pray to God on its behalf, for in its peace you will find your (29:7)? Surely the case for universalising this prayer is overwhelming. Furthermore, there is an easy way of doing it, since we have another verSion of the concluding eulogy which simply praises God as mm mm), ’the Maker of peace’: a version which is found already in an ancient source (Lev. R. 9:9) as well as the Cairo Genizah and which is in fact used in the Ashkenazi tradition during the Ten Days of Repentance. One would therefore expect all Progressive prayerbooks to opt for the universalistic conclusion, and indeed most of them have done so, but not all.

In Germany, Hamburg retained the traditional, parficularistic version, Geiger opted for the universalistic one, but the Einheitsgebetbuch reverted to the particularistic one.

In the United States, Einhorn and Wise have :31a am, and so do all editions of the Union Prayer Book except that Gates of Prayer, surprisingly, goes back to m‘m: Ema» m m 11327:.

English Reform has always thought it preferable to pray for the peace of Israel peace’ only. But English Liberal has since 1923 praised God as ’fhe Maker of sans phrase.

The prayerbook of Israel’s Progressive Movement is more universalistic here than some of the British and European ones, for in the penultimate sentence it inserts mam '9: rm, ’and all peoples’, and it concludes with m‘vm mm.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we may say that all Progressive prayerbooks show a tendency to shift the traditional balance from particularism towards universalism, but the extent to which they do so varies considerably and sometimes surprisingly. J‘~¢

11

Broadly speaking, the more radical tendency is represented by the Progressive liturgies of the English-speaking world, with the sole exception of the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain and some slight retrogression in the United States in the case of Gates of Prayer. In Germany the Einheitsgebetbuch is considerably more conservative than Geigex’s prayerbook. The liturgy of the Israel Progressive Movement is mostly conservative but with some radical features.

Clearly, then, there have been geographical variations as well as differences between different movements in one and the same country, particularly between the Reform and Liberal movements in England. But in addition there have been fluctuations in the course of time. The latest period has been characterised in some instances by a forthright continuation of the universalising tendency of earlier times, but in other instances by a marked retrenchment. This is no doubt because the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel have induced among many Jews a new ethnocentrism which makes them feel, after all, ' comfortable with the particularism of the traditional liturgy.

It is idle to speculate what the future will bring. But it seems safe to assume that however the Jewish people see their relationship with the rest of humanity — which will continue to be influenced by historical circumstances - that View will sooner or later reflect itself in their liturgy.

British Association of Jewish Studies Summer Conference Hatfield College, Durham University, 15‘h July, 2003 ézé SELECTED PROGRESSIVE JEWISH PRAYERBOOKS

1819 mam T10 — Ordnung der iifl'entlichen Anduchtfiir die Sabbath— and Pesttage des ganzen Iahres. Nach dem Gbrauche des Neuen-Tempel-Vereins in Hamburg, ed. SJ. Frankel 8: MJ. Bresselau. Hamburg.

1841 Ditto, 2"d edition.

1841 nbam ‘na — Forms of Prayer Used in the West London Synagogue of British Iews, ed. D.W. Marks, Vol. I (Daily and Sabbath). London.

1854 m: or 12-: man T10 -— Israelitisches Gebetbuchfiir den bffentlichen Gottesdienst imganzen Iahr, ed. Abraham Geiger, Breslau.

1856 "I’m n‘am — Gebeibuchfiir Israelitische Reformgemeinden, ed. David Einhom, Baltimore.

1857 RP’WDR ma — The Daily Pruyersfor American Israelites, Cincinnati.

— 1895 531:» {11a 11c The Union Prayer Book for Iewish Worship, Vol. 1, Central Conference of American Rabbis, New York.

1926 Liberal Iewish Prayer Book, Vol. 1, ed. Israel I. Mattuck, The Liberal Jewish Synagogue, London.

1929 mm 53‘) m‘mn — Gebetbuchfiir das gauze Iahr‘(the ’Einheitsgebetbuch’), ed. Caesar Seligmann, Ismar Elbogen 8: Hermann Vogelstein, Frankfurt am Main.

1931 Forms of Prayer (see 1841), revised edition.

1937 Liberal Iewish Prayer Book, Vol: I (see 1926), revised edition, Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues.

1940 The Union Prayerboak (see 1895 , last revised edition).

1967 35:: mm» - Service of the Heart, ed. John D. Rayner 8: Chaim Stem, Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues, London.

1975 .1551 "13m —- Gates of Prayer, The New Union Prayerbook, ed. Chaim Stern, Central Conference of American Rabbis, New York.

1977 m'zm "no — Forms of Prayer for Jewish Worship, Seventh Edition, ed. Lionel Blue 8: Jonathan Magonet, The Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, London.

1982 35m mum -—m:an awmh numb hm ma“; nb’sm 1110, Israel Progressive Movement, Jerusalem 5742.

1995 mm 3'7 1110, Services and Prayers for Weekdézgs and Subbaths, Festivals and Various Occasions, ed. John D. Rayner 8: aim Stern, Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues, London.

1997 13:5 fine) 'mo -— Priéres pour les jaurs de semuine, le shabbath, lesfes mineures, ainsi que dw‘érentes occasions, ed. Daniel Farhj, Mouvement Juif Libéral de France, Paris.