\ _-. “.. a 610 Tradition and Modernity Prayerbook Reform in the English-Speaking World John D. Rayner Introduction In 1968 the World Union for Progressive Judaism published a book by my late friend and teacher Professor Jakob J. Petuchowskj (1925-1991), na‘ub 1mm, entitled Prayerbook Reform in Europe. My subject today is prayerbook reform in the English-s eaking world, with special reference to the second half of the twentieth century, in w ’ch my friend Rabbi Chaim Stem, TR” 11:, has played a re-emjnent role. When I say that, I refer both to 9 North American part of the story, which Petuchowski did not deal with because it lay outside his frame of reference, and to the British side of the story, which he covered only down to 1967 — a key year, as we shall see, in the story to be told. But before we come to that, there is a whole lot of background to be filled in. Importance of the Prayerbook. The traditional Jewish prayerbook is, next to the Bible, the most important work of Jewish literature in terms of its influence on Jewish life. The Bible is of course in a class by itself: unrivalled in spiritual and literary greatness, and also in the sense that practically all subsequent Jewish literature presupposes it and is to a large extent a commentary on it. But the Prayerbook bears comparison with it because it has been and still is more widely owned and more frequently used than any other Jewish book. Besides, much of the Bible is contained within it. The Psalms, for instance, are known to most Jews from the Prayerbook rather than from the Bible. If that applies to Judaism generally, it applies with special force to Progressive Judaism, by which term, as in the World Union for Progressive Judaism, I mean all sorts of Liberal and Reform Judaism. For there, in addition to all else, it is an expression of the distinctive which binds the _ ideology movement together. History of the Jewish Liturgy For our purpose the history of the Jewish liturgy may be divided into three phases. The first phase extended from the emergence of the Pharisees in the second century BCE until the compilation of the Mishnah around 200 CE. This was the formative phase in which the biblical selections were made and the so-cafled Stammgebete or ’basic prayers’ cb'mposed. ’biblical selections’ we mean the Shema, the Priestly Benediction, the Hallel, the other Psalms as appointed for various occasions, the weekl readings from the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and the Five Megillot as read on t e relevant feasts and fasts. By Stammgebete we mean the many hundreds of prayers in berakhah or ’benediction’ style, some long and some short, which consist of, or conclude with, a eulogy praising God, for example, as our Creator or our Benefactor or our Lawgiver or our Redeemer. The second phase extended from the period of the Talmud through the Middle Ages down to the dawn of modernity. This long period was one of elaboration and supplementation, particularly in the form of poetic compositions called piyyutim. But the rate of expansion of the liturgy gradually declined because the traditionalism which allowed only additions, never omissions, had the effect of making the services so long that it ultimately produced a sort of saturation point: there was no room for more. As a result, the traditional prayerbook has an ‘antique’ feel. For it contains little that is later than the Talmud and almost nothing later than the Middle Ages, and therefore shows virtually no awareness of the huge changes that have occurred in human knowledge, thought and feeling in recent centuries. That is perhaps the fundamental reason why, when the Emancipation opened for European Jewry the door to modernity, many of those who passed through that door found the old prayerbook no lon er spiritually satisfying. There were other, more superficial reasons: the length of t e services, the excessive amount of repetition, the exclusive use of Hebrew, the absence of instrumental music, the segregation of the sexes, the indecorum. But the deeper problem was one of theological content. Accordingly, the third phase in the history of the Jewish liturgy, in which we are still engaged, has been one of reconstruction. Even the Orthodox and the Conservatives found it necessary to tidy up the traditional liturgy to some extent, but of course it is chiefly the Reformers who may be said to have, in varying degree, reconstructed it. Conservative and Radical Tendencies The prayerbooks they have produced on both sides of the Atlantic — numbering by now about 250 - fall broadly into two categories, which we may call conservative (with a small ’c’) and radical. The more conservative a prayerbook is the more faithfully it will reproduce the traditional liturgy, the more reluctant it will be to deviate from its structures or tamper with its texts, and the more disinclined it will be supplement it with anything new. Conversely, the radical tendency is more selective in its use of the traditional liturgy, more prepared to take liberties with its structures, more willing to abridge or amend its texts, to supplement it with novel material, and to offer variety and choice. Of course there are many gradations within each of these tendencies, so that towards the centre they are not so easily distinguishable. Nevertheless the vast majority of the prayerbooks to be surveyed fall unmistakably into one category or the other. The distinction between them corresponds to, and derives from, a difference in perception as to the nature of Progressive Judaism. Is Progressive Judaism essentially a continuation of the Rabbinic Judaism of pre-Emancipation times? Then its liturgy, like its beliefs and practices, should remain substantially unchanged and require only relatively superficial, 'cosmetic’ adjustments. Or is Progressive Judaism a new kind of Judaism, as different from Rabbinic Judaism as that was from the Temple-based Judaism of biblical times which preceded it, because the Emancipation wrought a paradigm-shift as fundamental as the destruction of the Tem le in 70 CE? If so, it needs a new liturgy, appropriate to the post-Emancipation age, a1 ough in constructing such a liturgy it may of course make more or less abundant uSe of the traditional liturgical heritage. Controversial Issues It will be helpful at this stage to identify in advance some of the specific issues, so that we may be able to refer back to them more briefly later. Traditionally, the Shema consists of three biblical passages of which the first is about the Unity of God, the second about the rewards of obedience and the penalties of disobedience, and the third about thla commandment of the fringes. Is it de rigueur to retain all three or, having in mind the need to keep the services reasonably short, is it sufficient to recite the first? The traditional liturgy includes an additional service called Musuf, recited on sabbaths and festivals after the morning service in memory of the additional sacrifice that used to be offered on those occasions in Temple times. Is that a sufficient reason for canying on the tradition two thousand years later? ‘ The traditional liturgy maintains the ancient eschatology, which involves the ingathering of the exiles, the coming of the Messiah, the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, the rebuilding of the Temple, the resumption of the sacrificial cult, and the resurrection of the dead. For instance, the first benediction of the principal Jewish prayer, known as Amidah, expresses the belief that God will one day send us firm, ’a redeemer’, meaning the Messiah. Can we honestly say that? The second benediction declares that God mm“: mm, will revive the dead. Can we truthfully say that? The tenth benediction concludes with the assurance WWW ‘09 TH: ppm, that God will gather in the dispersed of His people Israel. Can we sincerely say that? The seventeenth benediction affirms 11‘s“: 1mm 1mm, that God will restore His Divine Presence to Zion, which is a poetic way of saying that the Temple will be rebuilt. Can we with integrity say that? The traditional liturgy is also particularistic. It prays bmcr my “31:1 Rah, that God will heal the sick of His people Israel, and 5150: 5mm» mrm: Tum, bless His people Israel with peace. It affirms 1W5‘52n mom, that God has exalted us above all tongues; mznnn “1:0 mm N'DID; that He has not made us like the nations of other lands, mum awn: now 351, nor placed us like other families of the earth. Can we say these things consistently with our belief that the God of Israel is the God of all humanity? T e traditional liturgy shows no awareness that we live in a post-Copernican, post- Newtonian, post—Napoleonic, post-Freudian world; a world of ecological awareness; of interfaith dialogue; of religious, ethnic and cultural pluralism; and one which has experienced the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel. Is there not a need to acknowledge these facts liturgically? There is an abundance of inspirational passages in Jewish literature, biblical and post- biblical, which do not feature in the traditional liturgy. Likewise in Yiddish and Chasidic literature, and in modem Hebrew poetry, and indeed in non-Jewish spiritual literature as well. Is there not a case for drawing on these sources to enrich Jewish worship? From the standpoint of feminist theology the traditional Siddur is "flagrantly fiatriarchal and hierarchical in word, thought and tone” and its “overriding view is that umankind is subordinate to an all-powerful deity who bears incontestably masculine attributes” (Dr Eric L.