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.
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.
Thus
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
If
and peace. But that is an eschatological hope.
we look for expressions of concern for the well-being of non-Jewish humanity
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.
in run
—
A typical one, which appeared in the first edition of the Anglo-Jewish Orthodox
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.’
concern is expressed for the welfare of Her Majesty’s non-Jewish subjects,
although, as we shall see, that ,omission was subsequently remedied.
prayerbook,
N0
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.
need was felt for a little less particularism and a little more universalism.
A
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
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
It is
refer to are as follows.
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
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
In the United States
Prayer Book. Finally, the New Union Prayer Book or than
published in 1975, whichI shall refer‘to as Gates of Prayer.
"1927,
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
a series of short benedictions, one of which praises God for
that ’He has not made me a Genfile’. Most Progressive
benediction, but some replace it with another phrase,
sentiment in a posih've way. For instance, English Reform
m’n‘a
n'mo
DD'?
n: "m: was, which it translates, ’who hast chosen us to be
has
15
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.
traditionally include
the fact *u may 8527,
liturgies omit this
expressing the same
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
mm
of Scripture verses is recited, beginning 1191’ 3'7 mm
5R 1M1 Tm, ’Pour out
You’
Your wrath upon the nations that do not acknowledge
(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’
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
1147 upbn
English Reform) or wzbn T‘mrb 1151111
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).
The
mm
m
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.
s5 5R 5% nfi'a'vemu pm Barb Dmnwn mm, ’For they bow down to
30:7 and 45:20):
and
and pray to a God who cannot save’. But in the Ashkenazi
emptiness,
vanity
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.)
It
pm
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
m
phrase nuns:
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’.
clearly a reference to the Messiah, the central figure of the eschatological
that belief passed both into
drama according to the Apocalyptists from
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.
This
is
The Reformers found
whom
problematic because
ran counter to their desire to
identify themselves with the societies in which they lived and which had granted
it
it
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?
them
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-divineintervention 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
the traditional 5RD, translated Erlbsgr. To complete the picture, let me add
that the Israeli Progressive prayerbook has 715$).
had
6.
’Healer of the sick of His people Israel’
The eighth benediction
of the Amidah,
concludes with the eulogy 5mm” m9
a‘m
as u’b‘n mm, traditionally
3311, that God ’heals the sick of His
known
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.
people
Israel’.
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
de France.
7.
Mouvement Iuif Libéral
’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
in the end they will do so again. We may therefore call it the 'back to square one’
view of Jewish history.
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?
But
this is
not
how
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
Tm? rap“; on m, ’and lift up the banner to
benediction to read: pan mm:
corners of the earth’.
the
four
You
in
revere
gather those who
In Germany the tendency
mm:
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:
which it translates ’and speedily may the voice of
wnms‘m:
liberty be heard in the cities of our lands’. Unfortunately, the word for ’voice’ 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’.
ma mm mm,
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: 93m: mu:
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.
mm
'
1m
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.
The
8.
Israeli Progressive
’Speedi re-establish the throne of David’
of the Amidah, which were originally
Dbm'v
run, about the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and
one, are known respectively as
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 fourteenth and fifteenth benedictions
this raises from a Progressive point of view have already
been indicated. How has it dealt with them?
The problems which
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
Lord, our offsprings with the descendants of Thy servants, and bend
sprout,
their hearts toward Thee, that they may walk in Thy ways and? promote and
O
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
a house of prayer for all peoples’, except that Deutero-Isaiah’s ’house’ 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
universalises it by the simple device of substituting np'rx n93, literally ’the 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
pub 'n any-1m cnpnn ’the place which the Eternal One will
Temple-to-be as mm
m
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.
1mm
In Germany, Hamburg 1819 retained 1153‘? 1mm)
followed by Geiger and the Einheitsgebetbuch, all have
but Hamburg 1841,
raw: 1135 mm.
mm
In the United States, already Einhorn and Wise changed the concluding eulogy
and so did the Union Prayer Book. Surprisingly,
to my: mm: 113':
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.
1mm
In England, the Reform movement originally had the traditional 11’3'7 Imam 11mm,
but in 1931 significantly changed that to 11’s 59 1mm) mmm, translated ’who
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).
Movement has 1153': m1 1mm: Tim”,
God
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
The
Israeli Progressive
that
is
10
the Jerusalem
Programme
1951 Congress.
10.
of the
World
Zionist Organisation as adopted at
its
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
into exile, and pray to God on its behalf, for in its peace you will find your peace’
(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
mm), ’the Maker of
the concluding eulogy which simply praises God as
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.
mm
Hamburg
retained the traditional, parficularistic version, Geiger
opted for the universalistic one, but the Einheitsgebetbuch reverted to the
particularistic one.
In Germany,
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»
mm
11327:.
English Reform has always thought it preferable to pray for the peace of Israel
only. But English Liberal has since 1923 praised God as ’fhe Maker of peace’ 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
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.
In conclusion,
we may say
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
1854
m: or 12-: man T10
Iews, ed.
D.W. Marks, Vol. I (Daily and Sabbath). London.
imganzen Iahr, ed.
-—
Gebetbuchfiir den bffentlichen Gottesdienst
Geiger, Breslau.
Israelitisches
Abraham
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.
Conference of American Rabbis, New York.
1926
1929
Liberal Iewish Prayer Book, Vol.
Synagogue, London.
1,
1,
Central
ed. Israel I. Mattuck, The Liberal Jewish
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:
and Progressive Synagogues.
I
(see 1926), revised edition,
Union of Liberal
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.
The New Union Prayerbook, ed. Chaim Stern,
1975
.1551 "13m
1977
m'zm "no — Forms of Prayer for Jewish Worship, Seventh Edition, ed. Lionel
1982
35m mum -—m:an awmh numb hm ma“; nb’sm 1110, Israel Progressive
1995
mm 3'7 1110, Services and Prayers for Weekdézgs and Subbaths, Festivals and
1997
—-
Gates of Prayer,
Central Conference of American Rabbis,
Blue
8: Jonathan
New York.
Magonet, The Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, London.
Movement, Jerusalem 5742.
Various Occasions, ed. John D. Rayner 8:
Progressive Synagogues, London.
13:5 fine)
aim Stern, Union of Liberal and
'mo -— Priéres pour les jaurs de semuine, le shabbath, lesfes mineures,
ainsi que dw‘érentes occasions, ed. Daniel Farhj,
Paris.
Mouvement Juif Libéral de France,