On Changes in Jewish Liturgy: Options and Limitations 9655240401, 9789655240405

Citation preview

· ... ··

.

.

.

,.

Options and Limitations

‫ז‬

DANIEL SPERBER

Lf'iDIANA u‫ז‬-c‫ד‬VERSl'I'"t LIBRAR,Y BLO‫כ‬o ·_"l!o· . · ‫א‬·.· -·· ‫י‬ ·.·_..-*·f""MUG !Y--..‫ נ‬... ,,‫ י‬.· · 1 .. .

URIM PUB,LI.CATIONS Jen1s;alcm •·New York Digitized by

Go g ,e

IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

On. Chan,ges i.n.Jcwis.h Liturgy: Opcion.s and Limi‫י‬tations by Danicl Sperber

Co·pyright @ ‫נ‬.010 by Daniel Sperbcr AJI rights reserved" No parr of ·tl‫ו‬is book may bc uscd or reproduced in any manner whatsoever withour writtcn pcrmission from the copyright owner‫י‬

,exc:ept in the casc·o·f bncf quotations cmbodicd in rcview.s and ar‫ז‬icles. Printt‫ו‬l in lsr‫ו‬ul

First Edirion I SBN:

978-9 65-s ..‫ ג‬.4 . . 0 ,40 ... S

Urim Publi.cacions, P~O . Box.s~18·7,Jerusalem 91s.2.1 lsr,acl Typcsct 'by Aricl Walden

Lambda Publishers lnc. 3709 13th Avcnuc Brooldyn, N'ew York 111.18 U"S ..A. Tel: 718-971-s.4 49 Fax: 718-97‫נ‬.•6307" [email protected]

www. UrimPu. blica‫י‬cions~com

Digitized by

-

Go g e

Origi‫ח‬al

from

ND ANA U IVERSJTY

CONTENTS

9

INTRODUCTION

The Complexity of thc: Hc:brc:w Prayc:r Book Thc: Constant Evolution of Our Liturgical Text The Variety ofLi‫ז‬urgical Versions Blessings Offc:nsive ‫ס‬t Womc:n Rc:commended Changc:s The Lc:gitimacy of Changc: Nc:w Prayers and lnnovative Crc:ativity Talmudic Sources Forbidding Change in the Liturgy and Maimonides's Undc:rstanding ofThem Limits of Flexibility in Change The Dynamic Process of Change in Our Liturgy The Main Reasons for Change Examples oflnternal Censorship The Talmudic Sources Revisited The Positions ofGeonim and Rishonim Attempts to Fix a Single, Crystallized Version, and Their Failures Nusah ha-Ari and the Hasidic Position The Response of the Mitnaggedim The lmpact of Printingon the Hebrew Prayer Book The Pc:rmissibility ofMaking Changes AFTERWORD

Digitized by

21

24 31

33 41

s1 S4

S7

66 70 72

86 93 96 99 103 108 114

120

131

Google

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

. . ~. . ..

.

,-

---- ... - -

- ~-~

.. -- .. -

CONTENTS

APPENDICES 1.

On the Licurgical Theories of Hasidei Ashkenaz

2..

Sevcn Versions of Birkat Nahem The Ha-Siddur ha-Meduyak Affair Corrupt Versions or Alternate Versions? The Piyyutim Controversy The Avodah Prayer - An Example of the Complex Development of a Benediction "For Your Covenanc which You Sealed in Our Flesh" On R. Meir's Three Benedictions

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

Index of Primary Sources lndex of Prayer Books lndex of Prayers, Benedictions and Piyyucim

Google

174 181 192. 199

2.04 2.09 2.11 2.13

General lndex

Digitized by

143 161 168

2.15

6

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

8 Mishnah Berachot 4:4: R. Eliczcr says: Hc who trcats his praycr as a per• functory obligation (.keva) - his prayer is no tr‫ט‬c supplication.

8 BT Berachot 1.9b: What does leeva mcan? Rav Yosef [explains] ..• He who - 1·- some 1nnovat1on • • [m .. h· 1s · prayer] (1.c., · cannot ‫ש‬ . cannot maA.:c ·· ‫ · י‬re,c t h‫י‬. 1s hcart to rcqucst his needs - Rashi).

8 And whcn you pray‫ י‬add to each and cvcry bcncdiction somediing suitable to ‫ם‬i csscncc rclating to yo·u r own nccds"

Digitized by

Go .· . e

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

Digitized by

Go g e

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

INTRODUCTION ln rcccnt ycars, there has bec.n a growi‫ת‬g number of initiativcs in thc Orthodox Jewish community to m:ake certain changes in the text ofour .liturgy. Orthodox feminists have fel·r that it is too male-orien‫ו‬:cd or, as Tamar Ross exprcssed it, it has an."androcentric bias.‫ ·יי‬i O·thers havc asscrtcd thac it does ‫ מ‬10t take into account majo.r events that have raken place i.n our recent history. To cit-e scvc:ral exam.ples, the Holocaust is hardly represented in the praye.rs ‫•ס‬f our fast d.ays, the establishment of th•e Statc of lsrael receives hard.Jy any mcntion (oth;e r than a. single prayer for th:e state1 ), nor does the re:‫ט‬ni.fi.cation of.J.erus·alem ‫נ‬

Ross, Tamar. Expanding tht Palace of Torah: O‫ז‬thodoxy and Fe.minism. Waltham, M.A: 2004., 2.1 •. 37·-38. Therc ,{:z.1) she writ,cs:· Sta‫ת‬dard prayers

are also phrased w.i th refcrence to men only.. T.h e femal.e ,p ro• no,u n appears only ‫ת‬i brackets, if at all. This same androcentric b.ias aJso applies to all classics ofJewish thought. Thus~ women readi‫ת‬g the traditionaJ sources are: li.kely o‫ ז‬have thc sense of eavcsdropping on a m:ale"onl·y conversatio-.n.

Women's opi‫ת‬io‫ת‬s do ‫ת‬ot figur,e in thc discussio·n" On p. 2.s7, n . 9S, she refcrs us, o‫ ז‬Rachel AdJer, "l VC Had Nothing, So I C,a n't Take More" (Moment 8:8 [Septembcr 1983]: z.~-‫ב‬3). On Tamar Ross's book. scc thc rev.i cw 'by Arye·h Frimer ‫ת‬i BDD 8‫(( נ‬2,007]: 67-10,6 ), Ross's rejo,i ndc.r in BDD 19 ·([:‫ג‬ooB]: 93-1.:&3), and. Frimer·s‫י‬. rcply (ibi.d., 7

1

‫נ‬zs-1i6)· . ‫ב‬

O·.n the qucsti,o,n of the authors,hip of the prayer for ‫ז‬he State ‫•ט‬f Jsrael, the‫•ז‬e has bee·n a gre:at deal of conuoversy. S·o.me suggcsted Agnont others Rabbi He.rzog, still others Rab:b i Uziel. See thc articles by M. Hovav in HA~Tzofth (11/10/'o‫ )ב‬and Shaul. Schiff (ibid., 1,8 /10/01-), erc .. H-ow‫י‬ev•er, most recently Yoel Rapp,cl published an article (Maleor Rishon, 19/9/.2;008, Shahbat 6-·‫)ד‬. proving most assenively and convi‫ת‬cingly that it w.as

Digitized by

Go .·• e

Original from

INDIANA UN VERSITY

‫סא‬

C:HAN'GES JN J'EWISH. LIT'U .R.G Y

(orhcr than on Jerusalem D·ay). Some ·o f those who live in lsracl reci.te in the Grace· afc•er Meals: ‫י אוה ••• רנכילדי תריםםרק רנצראב‬,‫ ןוכחרה‬and not ‫ונצר‬.-‫• ·אל‬May the Merciful One ... lead us upright in our land,‫ מ‬r.ather than "to our land."·3 Others have ,expressed the unsuitability of the formulation of the N‫י‬ahem praycrt whic,h is rccited in ,the afternoon prayer on the Ninth.of Av: ‫ת ריעה‬.‫או‬ ‫הידז הםוכרשהר‬.‫ הלבאה הברחהו בהר‬- '" th,c c.i.t y [i.c.,Jerus.alem.] .in mo‫ט‬rn:ing, .i n ruins, defiled and c·mpty·• (i.e.,,a ruincd ghost town_), .i n.vicw of the radical historical changes th,at havc altcred the face of modern-..day Jerusalcm. 4 Further ex.amples could be given. 5 Rabb-i Herzo-g who composed the prayer and that Agnon made only the mo st minor editorial changcs. He also lists seve·ral carli,cr ancmpts by vario-us rabb-is to formulate such a prayer. He:statcs that his book on this subject will appe·ar .shonly. This change ap_pears in Ha-Sjdd.,ur·ha~Meduya/c (see b,elow app. ‫)ב‬, and apparen·tly was :first i,n uo-duccd by R. Shl.o mo Goren, the Chicf Rabbi of Is.rael. Needless ·t o say, thi,s emendati.o n was also bitterly attacked in the· pamphlet:Ko·vetz li-·G8dor-Peretz,, 42 (app. 3). Funhermore‫ י‬in Ku‫מ‬tres Isb M11.tzliah‫ י‬pub.lished .i.n va . .Yaan Shmuel (vol" 3. :‫ב‬ooo, 332.) the au.t hor points out ·t hat t,his is th:e version ·found in R. Moshe Hagiz's manuscript resp,ons·um, cited by R.. Hayyim Sitho.n, in his Eretz Hayyim, sec. 60" who writes ‫י‬that R. Moshe b·en Haviv also had this version., So" to,o, .is R. Yaakov Hagiz1s Halacb,ot Keta‫מ‬ot (vol" 1, sec. 18s)‫י‬. Hcncc, this vcrsion has ,a. fine pe·digre·e indeed. See app.. 2.. I should like to quotc fro.m Rabb-i Jules Harl-ow's c·ssay~ "Thc Siddur· and the Contemporary Community" (in Prayer in]uda.ism.· Co‫מ‬tinui'ty and ·Cha‫מ‬ge, e·d ited by G. H. Cohen and H., Fish, 2.03. Nashville., New Jers-ey and London: 199,6):, 1

3

4

s

A conccrn for contcmporary relevance is not some·t hing invented only with the .appeacan.ce of these booklcts [i"e... thc 17s booldets co‫ת‬tain.i.ng e‫נ‬:perimental se‫ז‬-· vi-c e.s and readi‫ת‬gs, fro.m Reform and Conserva‫ז‬ive congregatio‫ת‬s ‫ת‬i the Unitcd States tha.t he co:l)ected; see ibid. , 2.01]. If you wil,I co‫ת‬.sidcr p•r,ayer books published with Eng)ish uanslatio.ns in ‫ז‬he U‫מ‬it~d States in ·t his ccnrury, including the Sabbath and Fe:stival Prayerboo.k published for the On.h odo-:x: Rabb.inical Co·uncU of America in 1960 a‫ת‬d edited b,y Ra.b bi D,avid De Sola Pool, you ‫ש‬w see that they contai‫ ת‬suppl.e.m entary p·rayers, usually set up as responsive read . . ings, ·‫ת‬O various topical subj;ects of gcneraJ as well as Jewish co‫ת‬cer‫ת‬,. Such read-i‫ת‬gs are ge‫ת‬erally fo·u‫ת‬d collected at the cnd of the book, or at the end of sec•· ‫ז‬ions" Thc bookle‫ ם‬are diffe· re‫ת‬t, bowever. in, t.h.a t their compilers obviously feel that the new matcrial s.hould.bc int·c_gral to the:fabric of a scrvic:e, that ·y·ou should not have ·t o look to thc back of the book :for the rdevant readin,gs, that they·‫ז‬a,e pan of th.e.service .itself. .1 ·wouJd. Jike to run through some of t.h e most popular themes in the .n cw

Digitized by

Go g e

10

0 &‫ ו‬ig i‫ ח‬a ‫ ו‬f ,. ‫ ס‬m

JNDIANA U IVERSJTY

INTRODU·C T'ION

lndeed, there seems to, be evidenc·e for the le.gitimacy of such change in a passage in the Talmud (BT Joma 69b)‫ י‬: R" Ychoshua bcn Lev.i said: Why wcrc thcy call.cd .Ansh~i Ken‫ם‬s~t ha•G~JoLJ, (Mcn of the Great Asscmbly) '? For thcy ret‫ט‬mcd ‫ו‬d. e· crown c·o its ,e rstwhilc·

[gl•ory]. M·oses camc and said., •God, thc great. ·d‫ו‬c migh‫ז‬:y,. and the awcsomc ·(Dcut. 10: 17) ..Camc Jcremiah and said, •,G,entilcs are cackling in His holy·sanca‫נ‬ary. Where is His awcsomencss,?• Hc did not

say "awesome.‫ י‬Came Daniel

,a nd said, "Gc.ntiles arc· subj‫ י‬ugating His childrcn. Whcrc is His might ?·• H'c ····came · and_· sa1 · ·d_ "o·‫ מ‬-L · · th · 1s. · th d_‫·•ו‬d. not·say •m1·g1‫ו‬ _.· · ty~• Th ‫ י‬. en· th _cy u1c· contrary, ‫ י‬1S _-·_ c strcngd‫• ו‬o f H'is.mightiness: thar he overc‫ ·ס‬mes His .inclina‫ז‬io· ns and sh.ows prolonged mercy to the wicked. lt is His aw,esomcnc-ss, for wcre it not for His awe• somc naturc, how could a singlc pc·ople survivc among thc nations ?" 1

,

-

·

·

T.hc mean.ing is that they .rcinsta~ed .Moscs's original formulations. Surely from here we may learn that at cen.ai,n times,, ,changes i.n the lirurgy could be

Often .f ound as a s,o rt o:f lu,uvauh, or d~vo‫ו‬:ional i‫ת‬troduc‫ז‬ion ·r o a s,e rvice. Brothnhoo.d" This refie,c‫ז‬s. th,e situa‫ז‬ion in the Unitcd States, nor so much at ‫ז‬hjs moment,.bu‫ ז‬c!e na.inly .i n previ.o us years. There were a number of readings ‫םת‬. 'b rotherhoo,d , trying to• reflect thc fact that black and white, rich an,d poor, are brothers. Democr‫נו‬cy. AII men are cr·ca.t ed •e qual. Ght.ttoes. Int·eresti‫ת‬gly, in the· Unite•d States. these‫ י‬days, ghetto does ‫מ‬ot mea‫ת‬ a place‫ י‬wher·e J,ews live. A‫ת‬d whcn,ever the word appears ‫ת‬i thesc booklets, as ‫ת‬i the newspapcrs. it refcrs to ·thc· "bla,ck. ghcttoc·s." .Poverty. Love,, Holiness.. ma.t erial:

S1if-u‫מ‬thrs· t11nding.

Pollution. Ecology and pollution are very muc·h. ‫ת‬o, the minds of'children and adults" Thc thre,at of ecologi.ca‫ נ‬disaster is mor·c real for them. rhan th.e threat of cni‫ת‬ction by a cn‫נ‬sade. Co.ncer.n over· .a n,d r~actio‫ו ת‬:o poll.u t·io-n aniculates. somethi‫ת‬g tha‫ ז‬peop.le f~el" Wa‫ז‬. EspeciaJly the war in Vietnam. Peace" Viole‫ו‬u:e. For more stri,c dy Jewish themes: Soviet Jcwry, Je'WS in Arab lands, lsrael, Jerusalem, ‫ז‬he Six Day War, the Holocaust. and Jew.ish commitment head the list.

We may. for cxample ,call atte‫ת‬tion to the addit.i on found ‫ת‬i the C.o nservati.ve siddur. Sim Shalom (N•ew York: 19 8.9 ‫ )י‬414- 41.s, in the mi•s·he-‫י‬ber‫גו‬th after the Torah re·ading on Shabbat, which has: And al.l who devoted.ly involve thems,el.ves with

the needs of this community lsrael" Se·e the introd.u ction by the

Digitized by

A‫מ‬d

edit‫ •ס‬r,

Go g ,e

the Land of

‫רכי יצבור‬,‫וכל 'ם שעוסקים בצ‬

..... ‫ אבמונה‬ca‫ •םוול‬c‫ ןיר‬r‫וננב‬

Rabb1Jules Harlow, ibid., xxii.

11

IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

-

ON

‫י‬C: HANGES

IN JEWISH LITUR.G Y

and wcre made ·(albeit by prophets‫ י‬according to this,passage) ‫מ‬i v.iew of the cont,emporary cir·c‫ש‬nstances.6 On the other hand, there is a commonly ;accepted notion that one ,may not make any change in our standard liturgy.,This notion was very dearly and forcefully articulaced by Rab'bi Hirz Scheur, rabbi ofMinz, in hi.s letter, ·whic·h was printed in Eleh divrei ha-bnt (These .Are the Words of the Covenant) a documcnt published by order of the Orthodox Co·mm‫ט‬.nity of Hamburg. in Al·tona i.n 18.19:: 1

,

No changes .in prayers are permittcd. This pertains not mcrely to prayers.establishcd more than two thousand ycars ago by·die Men of the ‫י‬Great Assc·mbly. but also to latcr·t.raditional praycrs of Ashkcnazim and S,efaradim. By the least change, the origi.nally in‫ז‬ended mcaning woul,d be alcercd .... Changing thc conte·n t and text of our praye.rs is the wont ahe‫ו‬ratit‫נ‬n from the ]ewish .fizith [cmphasis mine - D. S!!], since the regular·prayers constitutc our basic servicc in place o:f the s.acrifices. Changing che praycrs would split Judaism into two religions. 7

6

See.R. HayyimNavo‫'ת‬s remarks on this passage in Tzoh1‫ג‬r32, (.‫ ג‬,008): sB. So,me great sc.ho)ars did indeed suggest radical ch.anges in thcir praycrs, Thus, R. Yehiel Michel Epstcin, in his work Anu:h‫ י‬ha-Sh.ulha‫מ‬, Orah Hayyim 42.s:‫ג‬, writcs: Know that 1. have always questio‫ת‬ed our versi.o n as it appears in Ata yaturta (from. the mu.na/.prayer of Shabbac Rosh Hodesh), .in which. after the phras,e ‫םל ןרע‬n‫ תלי‬one says: ‫ תכשו ךשדקי‬.... ‫ןם לארשי· תרחב‬,‫יכ עב‬1• ecc. Why does one not say: .. , ‫ רנ לארשי יזסרקם ךםש‬,‫ וחוני‬.... ‫רר‬n‫ ונליוי‬.. ,. ‫צםב ךתר ןכקלח ןתרותב‬m‫ ז‬,‫ םשרק‬,c ontinuing: ‫ יכ" ךסעכ לארשי‬For surely on every fest.ival ‫ז‬hat falJs. on Shabb.a t, and so on Ro,sh ha. . Shanah and Yom ha-‫י‬IGppurim t.h at fall. ‫ת‬o Shabba·r,. we recite this text, which is the essence of'ludushat Shab·bat, at the en•d of the middle be‫ת‬edicti.on, and why should. we not recite it O·‫ ת‬Rosh Hodesh that falls on Shabbat? 1n the Scfardi ve.r sion, this indeed is the ve.r sion. 1n my opinion, this is missi‫ת‬g from the Ashkenazic edition.s, a‫ת‬d I am acc:u stomed to saying iti for I see o‫ ת‬rcason n.o t to do so. But I have found no ‫ת‬o, c who commen‫ז‬cd on this issue"

7

1n other words, this great authority wish:e d t,o add some twcnty-·fivc wo.rds to the ,commonly accepted vcrsion:! See further in the dis.cussion" and an ex.p lanation .for this "lacuna," in Mavo le,Siddur Maharsba by R.,Yitzhak Satz (Baltimore·: 2-002., 464-478). :1 have foUowcd the translatio‫ת‬s ,o:f Alexander Guttma‫ת‬.n, ‫ת‬i .his The Struggle over Reform in Rabbinic Literatu‫ז‬e during the Las.t Ce‫מ‬. tury a:nd a Half ‫(י‬Jerusalem and NewYork: 1977, o‫גז‬:·-‫ו‬.‫)נז‬.

Digitized by

Go

•· - _ _e-- .. "

.

11

Original from

INDIANA U JVERSITY

-

INTRODUCTION

This notion was rcitcrat·e d in varying formuJations in several othe.r .state~ ments by promin.c nt Orthodox leader·s that we.re also publishe,d in Eleh Divrei ha-Brit. 8 Onc rabbi whosc s‫ז‬ateme‫ת‬ts wcre publishcd was R. Ja'°cob of Lissa, who maintaincd, inter al.ia, that •changing the ve.rsions i.c., thc t,e xt o·f ·d te praycrs] is ·b.i ner poison,"' and .in the v.ario‫ ש‬responsa ,o f the Hatam Sofer .and ‫יי‬R Mo.s.he S.hik. 10‫ י‬Howcve(, we should remember ·d‫ו‬at such state·m,ents wcre made in response :a‫מ‬d oppos1:ti,o n ·to ·d‫ו‬e newly eme.rgmg·Rcform m.ovcmcn.t, which .sought to cxcise any mention of the coming of dtc .M.cssiah, th.c ren‫ג‬rn to d‫ו‬e Land ,o f lsrael, the reestablishment of the Te·mple service as it was conducted in ancient times, and so on. The v·e hemence of their style is ample testimony to their strong opposition to thcsc trcnds. 11 This attitude may be found .i n the wri·tings of thc early geonim of Bab,yloni,a. Thus we find in a manuscript version of the work Shibolei ha-le/eet ‫(י‬ms. Oxford 6s9, published by 1. Ta•Shm.a in Tarbiz 53/i [1,9 84]: :z,87-2.88) in which Rab,bi Natronai be.n Rabbi H'ilai, head of thc Academy at Mata Mehasia, wri.tes as follows: 1 [

You have asked conccrning bazanim who appear to bc punctilious [in their liturgy·]I, and delcte and add to vers.ion ·which the sagcs cstab . .

me

r

‫ לתם חזניו ש~ כ~ילר‬.‫שרשא‬ i

r

r

r

‫דםקדק י רנדוע רםרסיפ על םטכע‬

.u‫י‬.‫ ·דכ דא‬.‫ רשוכנים‬,‫כיוכם‬n ·‫שסבעו‬ 1

lished, and make changes. Thus have we secn: that what· they do is not scemly in that they changc thc custom.of d‫ו‬e two Yeshivoc [ i.e., Sura

‫כ ששםנים םהנג‬t‫שלא יפה הם עשוי‬

and Pumbedita] .and all Israel. And their examinadon (,YYun) [of thc text] is wordtlcss.

‫כל‬:: ‫ ועם‬,‫אלר רנרןיע· רםוםפי וונשנים‬

‫ ן‬v‫ ער‬.‫ר רכיל שיארל‬r‫י ישיוב‬.‫ח‬.‫של ש‬ ‫חזנים‬: .‫אל לכדם הם םייעניים‬-‫שלהם‬

r

.r‫ק‬,‫ כאילו הם דםדק‬r‫הם ארנ‬. ‫זה‬

Even more radicaJ is d‫ו‬e statement we find citcd by Rabbi Yohanan b. R. Reuvcn of Ochride in his commentary to the Sheiltot (Parshat Yitro, ed. M.irs.ky, Exodus,Jerusalem: 1964, 140): S.aid R. Arnram [Gaon, author of thc grcat .Siddur Ra·v Amra·m Gaon]: Said Rav Nahshon. in the Acadcmy: 1n all.places that have rabbis.• wc m:ake no

8

lbid., 2.0,9 -233.•

9

Ibid., ~‫ב‬7.

10

lbid., 2.42. et seq. Guttma‫ת‬n, passj:m.

11

Digitized by

Go g ,e

13

‫ ~םו‬:‫רכן ~םר רב עםדם ז"ל‬ ‫ ככל אתר‬,‫ריינחא‬r‫נוכ‬, ‫רב חנרשן‬

‫םשניןנ כלל‬, ‫ראיאכ רכנ' לא‬

IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

ON CHANG.ES IN JEWISH LITURGY

changes in the prayers established by the sages, nor do we introduce into the synagogue a hazan who knows [ i.e., who inserts into the liturgy] piyyut. The members of a synagogue in which piyyutim are recited demonstrate thereby that they are unlearned. Rav Amram said: We do ‫מ‬ot change that which the sages in the Talmud said [be it in the weekday (liturgy) or on the festivals]. If we find ourselves in a place where the hazan recites something that does not accord with the text established by the sages, we remove him. Rav Zemah, a great judge and cantor, [said:] Whoever adds to the text established by the sages in the liturgy and lengthens the prayer (marbeh be-devarim) should be excommunicated, and mus‫ז‬ be removed.

‫גיקונ רנןנ' ולא‬

,, ‫וכתפילרת‬

‫ וןיא וכבינסןי לבית‬,‫אסיוג' פירט‬ ‫ רבית‬.‫ע פירט‬ ‫ין‬

‫הכנסת ןזח ישרו‬

‫נכסת שארסןיד פירט וכיעו‬

.‫צעןוב שאיןנ תלוכ?ן י חכיוכם‬ ‫ אןי אונ שונינם‬:‫ואסר רב עסרם‬

‫על סה אשוברר חביוכם תבלסדר‬

[‫ ראי ]אק‬,‫]ןיב בחו[ל בןי ביר"ט‬ ‫יעלןנ לארתא ואסר חןז אסי‬ ‫לוא דוכי לסטבע שטבעו תכיסס‬ ‫ ורב צונח יידאאנ‬.‫ר‬-:‫ססלקיןנ לי‬

‫ ז ציבור שסרסיף על‬1'‫;ש י‬, ‫דאכ‬ ‫סטבע שטבעו תכיסס תבפיהל‬ ‫ רסבתיע‬I ‫וי‬

‫וסרהנ דרבים רב ני ו‬

.‫עלגוירה‬

(See below, and in Appendix 5, ‫ סח‬the issue of the insertion ofpiyyutim.) This, then, is the position of the Babylonian geonim, as opposed to that of the c‫ס‬ntemporary Palestinian authorities, who allowed and practiced greater flexibility in changing formulations and modulating the liturgy, as we shall see below. (For an in-depth analysis of the issue of insertingptjyutim in the body of the liturgy, see Yitzhak Shilat, Rosh devarecha [Maaleh Adumim: 1996, 241-256).)

lt is interesting ‫ס‬t 6.nd a similar position in the second half of the twentieth century, though for a completely differenc reason. Apparencly, this was the position ofRabbi YosefDov Soloveitchik, as expounded by David Hartman in his work A Living Covenant: The lnnovative Spirit in Traditional]udaism (New York and London: 1985). Because of the importance of this discussion, 1 shall cite Hartman's analysis in extenso (145-147): According o‫ ז‬Soloveitchik, it is because human beings are so insigni.ficant and helpless before God tha‫ ז‬they are dependen‫ ז‬upon preceden‫ ז‬in order o‫ ז‬dare ‫ס‬t pray at all. For that reason, Soloveirchik considers ir impossible ro make rhe sligh‫ז‬est change roday in the forms of prayer. This not only excludes rhe innova‫ז‬ions in‫ז‬roduced in Reform Jewish worship, bur even teji,/lat nedavah sponraneous volunrary prayer. The three fixed daily prayers, in rhe morning, the afrernoon, and the evening, are all rhat are permi‫זז‬ed ro a Jew. Since it is only the distan‫ ז‬pasr that legitimates prayer today, rhere musr be

Digitized by

Google

14

Original from INDIANA UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

INTRODUCTION

absolute commicment and conformicy ‫ס‬t the prayer forms of the tradirion. ln utilizing the fixed forms ofthe tradirion, 1 admit my own unworthiness ‫ס‬t pray. The words of the prayer book are a gif‫ז‬: of the tradition - 1 pray because my ancestors prayed. My thoughts and feelings are sacrificed on the altar through my voluntary renunciation of the possibilicy of introducing new prayers. By submitting ‫ס‬t the prayer forms that the tradition has given me, 1 both acknowledge the absolute urgency ‫ס‬t stand in prayer before God and confess my sense of personal unworthiness ‫ס‬t do so. Soloveitchik does not portray the absolute authoricy of halakhah as enslavement ‫ס‬t tradicion or as crushing human poetic passion and creativicy. The willing renunciati‫ס‬n of innovative or spontaneous prayer expresses the heroic self-sacrificial feature of Soloveitchik's dialectical anthropology. Jews submit ‫ס‬t the halakhic form of prayer because of the exiscential terror that finite man feels before the infinite God, n‫ס‬t because Judaism enslaves one ‫ס‬t the past .... . . . 1n Raayonot al ha-tefillah, [he writes:] "There is no place for tefillat n(davah in Soloveitchik‫י‬s approach ‫ס‬t prayer. Ntdavah, the free, sponcaneous gifi, would presuppose that God is easily approachable. Only one who feels welcome ‫ס‬t scand before God could look upon tefillat ntdavah as a legitimate form of prayer. For Soloveitchik, however‫ י‬there is no one alive t‫ס‬day who is qualified ‫ס‬t act in that spirit. As individuals with their own parcicular religious longings‫ י‬Jews have not been able ‫ס‬t pray for centuries. They can pray only collectively as the children‫י‬s children of the patriarchs‫ י‬whose unique abilicy ‫ס‬t initiate prayer was consolidated by the scribes and sages of the tradition. Only within the ordered framework of ritual prayer is one given the legitimacy ‫ס‬t express pecitional needs. Any outpouring of the soul that is not grounded in total subordinarion ‫ס‬t the liturgical form of the Amidah must be viewed as egocentric expressions by an arrogant individual who has forg‫ס‬tten that prayer is a gifi from the tradition and not a normal expression of covenantal consciousness. If it is not within the worshiper‫י‬s abilicy ‫ס‬t present before God the whole arrangement of the prayer in its original formulation, ‫ס‬t arrange the praise of the Lord and ‫ס‬t request permission for his daring approach, ‫ס‬t recall the merit of the pacriarchs and also the gracious deeds of the Holy One‫ י‬blessed be He, Who is responsive ‫ס‬t the needs of al1 creatures - the worshiper does not have permission ‫ס‬t ask for his own needs. An egoistic supplication which falls ‫ס‬ut­ side the form of prayer that was instituted by the men of the Great Assembly is forbidden. Soloveitchik‫י‬s covenantal man sees himself as able to stand before God

exclusively because he is a remote descendant of those who received the Torah

Digitized by

Google

IS

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

at Sinai. 1n h.is view, the ,cove,nantal commw‫ו‬ity, which enends across thc generatio,ns:‫ י‬redeems the individu.a lJew fi-om an existence

that:is fundamentally wo,rthless and empty of significance. lt keeps ‫& ש‬om bc:ing ,overwh,elmed and crus.h ed, by a ,d ivine reality that seems to repulse human bcings. and negate their right to approach God in p,rayer. According to Soloveitchik, wc must us.e the absolu~ely immucable forms ofJudaic praye.r because we can pray ,o,nly · ,c omponents o r·· a vast h·- 1stor1c, · al•.· d·r:ama, t‫ מס‬as contemporary 1n ,. d~ as t1ny - 1v‫·ו‬d.· .uals with our own sentiments and C·o‫ח‬cems. If we dare step ou.tside the fixed structurc and,language of prayer handed ,down by the tradition‫ י‬we lo.se the · h.. t· to · speak · 1s · w h·‫ י‬1,ch-_· ‫ "י‬trad"' · " we must r.rollow. r‫ו‬g: . •‫ _· י‬. 0-_· -·f coursc:, th .. .•· ·e quest‫ו‬on -_ ‫נ‬t‫ו‬on ,.. su1 .b-scque·‫ח‬.t d_· .1scuss1on;J • • ,o r rath · ·· · ch~ H arm‫ו‬an, n‫ ו‬.h‫י‬. 1s - er cnnque, of._ ,S-_· o1ove‫ו‬t •· ....ii.1‫ י‬-'s position, comp·le:tcly rejects this approach to prayer (i'bid., 1s1-1s9), ,cncourag• ing spontancicy within strucn‫ו‬re· and wh,at he calls kavvanat ha-l'ev, as oppo.sed to kavvanah la.tzet - praycr that expresses a personal relationship rather than prayer that is recitcd mcrcly out of a sens.c of dury (16s-170),. This study will attempt· to examine the po,ssiblc parameters of change in thc Jiturgy ·w idiin die fi-am,ework.1f‫ ס‬,no.rmative halachic thinki,ng,. drawing 1

upon classical s-o urces and rabb.i nic p·r ecedents,. and viewing die evolution of'

our liturgy in its hist‫•ס‬rical perspeccive. 12

1:i

This srudy deals with rabbinic liturgy mos:tly ‫י‬from ‫ז‬he destn‫נ‬ction of thc Second Temple onwards. lt ,does not tou.c h upo,‫ ת‬biblical p‫ י‬rayer,, i‫ת‬tcnestamental. . apocryptaJ liturgic evidence or Q.wnr.anic liturgy. 'T here is a ,considera.blc:body of sch,olarly litcran‫ז‬re on th,ese subj,ects, but I do not feel i‫י‬t is gcrmane to ,o ur thesis. Sec, for cxample, the fine study of Danie.l K,. Falk,,Dail‫ ~ן‬S.abbatb1 and Fes‫י‬tival Prayers in the Dead Se‫ו‬l Sc‫רו‬olls ,(Leiden. Boston, Koln: 1998), ,especially his introduction ('1 -9). Thus, Ezra Fleischer,, for example, argued forc·efully that in th,c ge‫ת‬,era.tion after the de-struction of the Second Temple, Rabb,an Gamliel 11 introdu.ced wit·h out p,recedent the novel instituti,on ,o:f prayer as obligatory for indivi.duals and as service 1:0 God for th•e commu‫ת‬ity, together with fixed form.u lations for the C•entral compo.nents of the synagogue licurgy (ibid., 3, referring to, E. Fleischer, n‫יס‬- the B•eginnings of ‫י‬Obligatory Jewish Praye.r." Tarbiz S9 [19,9,0 ]: 3‫י‬97‫י‬-401, .4 14-41s, 42.6-4:17). Falk (·s) als‫י‬o quor:es S. Reif,JudAism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspecti‫ש‬es on ]ewish Litu‫ז‬gical History ,(Cambridge·: 1993:, 66), as folJows: 1

Th,e situation at Q.umran, at least physical,ly se·p arate·,d from wo.r·shjp, prayer, praise and benediction were in. the process of merging,ji The question that has yet to be asked, let alone an,swered, i.s whethcr that proc::e·ss is o‫ ז‬be u‫ת‬derstood

16 Digitized by

Go g e

Original from -

-

ND ANA UNIVERSJTY

1NTROD .U ‫י‬CTION

‫יי‬8‫נ‬

This book began as a lecture givcn at a confcrcnce of the Jewish Orthod•ox Femin.ist Alliancc (JOFA) on Feb. 11, 2.007. The lecture was recorded and th.en transcribed. 1 edited i‫ו‬:, and the ,e‫י‬nd-product was, put on d‫ו‬e JO FA websitc undcr th,c tide "Our Dialogue with God: Tradition and lnnovation.• When I late.r reread my o,w n words, 1 real.ized that therc was a grcat deal more to say on the subject. Over thc years, 1 h.ad ,dealit with numcrous limrgi·cal ,quest·ions, as will b,e e·vident from cven the m.ost curs:ory _perusal of my eight volumes o,f Minhagei Yurael ('Jcrusalcm: 1989-1.0 07). 1 was most fortunate ‫ס‬t have had v,ery close pcrsonal relatio,nships with three of the forcmost authorities on lirurgical history of thc .las.t half. . century, all of.whom are un. fortu‫מ‬,atel.y n.o long·er with u.s: Prof. Ez.ra Flcischer, Pr·of. Joscf Hc.incmann, and Prof. Nafi:aJi Wi.cd:er. My debt to them is greatcr rhan m.ay bc apparent from referenc,es in thc fo,o tnotcs. From them. as also from my own studies, feamre of thc way of life rcprcsen‫ז‬ed at Q.umran. which was later adopted and adapted by the rabbinic inherit,ors ofJcwish r,eli.gi.ous practicc" or as ‫ת‬a ezample o,f popular liturgical p·iety that was c:o mmon to var1ous Phar.isaic and Essenic groups and subsequ,en‫ז‬ly survived i.n the tannaitic:tradi·tio,ns. as a

‫וש‬ique

:He thcn a;d ds: Herc, &cifhas.put his fingcr o.n the key issue: not just whethe.r individuaJ.prayers origi‫ם‬atcd in a sectude·d sect· or not - a qucstion which is being as.k ed .m ore &cquently in rece‫ת‬t years - but wb,c ther thc system of formal commu‫ת‬al liturgy re8eca. a wider phenomc.n on in thc Second Templ•e period. Unce‫ז‬tainty on this ques‫ז‬io.n has )ent irs~l·f to unccnai‫מ‬ty about thc r~lcvancc of the D·e ad ,Sea Scrolls fo.r the history ofJewish pra~r. See also his dis:c ussion (ibid., 73-‫ך‬s) in. Tahanunim in the Words ,ofthe Lumi'‫מ‬aries (DJD 7 (1982.]: 1,6 8-17s) and our ·‫ז‬ti.banu‫( מ‬w.h ich we havc discusscd bcl-ow ‫ת‬i "Recomm.ended Changes" a,d fin..).,Some scholars saw ‫ת‬um-erous parallcls b•ctwce‫ת‬ them,. ·w hiJe others felt i.t unnecessary to posit any ,d irect rela‫ז‬ionship. rather cxplaining:that they both make e‫ ש‬ofco,mmon themes ‫י‬foun•d in biblical.scrypt.ica‫ו‬:o,ry texts (e.g., E. Chazon, "A .Lin‫ג‬rg: icaJ Documcnt from Q.umra‫ ת‬and lts (mplications.: Words of the Lumi‫ת‬ar.ies." 4Q.DibNan1, Hebrcw Univ.e rsity Disscr‫ז‬atio‫ת‬, 1991, 109·.11~). For my pan, 1. do not enter into the very in·r eresting discussions., which I feel

are not r,clcvan·r o‫ ז‬thc cc‫זת‬ral message of r·his study.

Digitized by

Go . . e

17

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

ON CHANGES IN )E\VIS.H LITURGY

1 became keenly aware of the cxtre·me complexiry of rhe textu:al history and nature of our lirurgy" Already i.n 19,89, i.n th,c introduction to che 6.rst volume of Minhagei Yura,el (page 13). 1 noted that there· was. thus far. not even a prelim.inary bibliography of all liturgical.literat·ure‫ י‬siddurim and mahzorim bo•t h in print as well as in manuscript (se,e ib1d.,. .‫ מ‬8). Sinc,e th,en much im" portant·work h.as becn done, such as J. Ta.bo·ry‫י‬s "Jewish Praycr an,d ·the Yearly Cycle: A List of Articles" (Kiryat Sifer, Supplement to vol. 64, 1912-1993), and JI Tabory and M. Raffeld's bibliogr·aphy in the b,ooklet they published in 1994‫ י‬enricled SidJ,urHana.u (1628):; and. of cour·se Ycshayah.u Vinograd‫י‬s .invaluable Thesaurus of'the .Hebrew Book (Jerusalem: 19,9s), which in th.e hrst volume has tw‫ ס‬indices ‫ס‬t· l.i.turgical literature (34.3-376). A grcat de:al of work has also 'been done i.n rhc ar,eas of tc.xtual and historical. re·scarch, as well as through the ,p ublication of a number ‫ •ם‬f impo.rt.a‫מ‬t editi,o ns ,ofclassical

prayer books. Needless to say I havc benefited gready fr,om all these:valu.able resources.

Nonetheless, much basic rcsearch i,s‫ י‬still t·‫ ס‬be done, such as clear~ bu·t detailcd guides to the st·andard prayer books, with historical introductions to each section, di.sc·ussions ‫ סח‬the‫ז‬r halachic status‫ י‬clarification.s of th,e various vers,ions, explanations for customs. and. laws relating to the various prayers, su,ch .as when :a nd why onc st.ands, whc:n and why one bows., stepping backwards and.onwards, taking lit‫י‬cle jumps, whac onc says silendy, what out .aloud, what the cantor repe·ats and what n.‫ס‬t,. when is it· sufficient to hear the cantor's recitat‫ו‬on, an,d wh.en onc must recite th.in.gs on.one's own, what i.s..Pri·vate prayer, what is com.munal, when and wher:e m.ay onc add one's own pcrso,nal prayers into the body of the standard tex-ct etc. Textual groundwork for som.e of thes·e rc,q.uirements is being done by Prof Yo,nah Fracnke,I.• .in his p.rep.aration for a critical cdition of the siddurNusah Ashkenaz, which promises ‫ס‬t be a work of outstanding importance . .1 havc ‫י‬been a c•‫ס‬mmunal rabbi h.ere in .Jerusalem for over four de,cadcs . Nonetheless, 1never servcd as a hauan, a sheliah tzibbur. And the.main rcason for that is that, because of my knowle,dge of die complex variety of Ycrsions, an:d ·thei.r .rad·o‫מ‬ale, 1 was n,ever quite sure o,f .my own nusah, and ofcen .stum . . bled even when reading a scan.dard prayer bo•ok. Perhaps ‫י‬this is what thc grc:a[‫י‬

Sanzer Rebbc, Rabbi Vckudcl Ychudah Halberstam of S.anz-Klau,senburg,

Digitized by

Go g e

18

Original from

NDIANA UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION

meant when he reportedly said that he wanted ‫ס‬t establish a fixed ten for the Amidah, listcned carefully to his fathcr's rccitation of it and rccordcd each benediction in faithful detail. However, he was astoundcd when he heard a completely different version several days later, and afi:cr a few times realized that the vcrsions changed each time. So fi.nally, he acceptcd for himself versions of the Shinyever Rebbe, which was in accordancc with Nusah Ashkmaz. And he continued: 1 was delightcd when I found ‫ת‬i Shaar ha-Kavvanot (s9a), and ‫ת‬i the carly authorities that no onc day has becn idcntical ‫ס‬t thc next since the creation of the world, and the version of the prayer ( ‫) הליפתה‬u‫ חס‬changes every day, and on each day for each prayer. There is a different version of shaharit, minhah and aravit ....

See Sefer halichot hayyim: hilchot ve-halichot mi-Maran mi-Sanz, seder ha-yom (edited by A. Y. Kluger, 146-148, introduction 10-11, 146-148, 1.008). He added that this is how he understood the Mishnah (Avot 1.:13) which states: ‫לא שעת ךתליפת עבק‬

- "Do not make your prayer a fixed form," meaning: You cannot pray in a fixed formulati‫ס‬n, for there is no fixed for‫ז‬nulary, si‫ת‬ce it constantly changes ....

1n view of all of the above, 1 decided to expand my original article, seeking ‫ס‬t demonstrate convincingly the complexity, fluidity and variety in our li‫ז‬urgy, and to discuss ‫ז‬he possible parame‫ז‬ers of change, be it in addi‫ז‬ions, deletions, al‫ז‬erations, and/ or corrections, so as ‫ס‬t reAect the contemporary situation and its sensi‫ז‬ivities. And hopefully this will s‫ז‬imulate thought and discussion and lead to a deeper appreciation of the nature of our liturgy, and an ability to find greater meaning in our prayer. Here I would like to express my sincere thanks ‫ס‬t Mrs. Esther Drenger, who with care, loyal‫ז‬y and great perseverance prepared this manuscript, suffering silencly my never-ending changes and additions, and finally producing a clean copy. 1 owe an undying debt of gratitude o‫ ז‬my dear deceased parents, who imbued in me the love of learning and the spiri‫ ז‬of prayer, and ‫ס‬t my paternal grandparents, whose great wisdom and deep but simple faith

Digitized by

Goog le

19

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

O‫ י‬N

CHANGES JN J'EWISH LITURGY

lcfi: a per111anent mark ,on my way of thi.nkin:g. My parents-in-law, Nana and. Papa, have been a ,const·‫מ‬a‫י‬t source of e.ncourag:em.ent, .and mer.it .my d.e,c·pe·st ~ppreciation,

.And linally my immcasurab‫י‬lc thanks to‫ י‬my dcar wife., ‫י‬Chana, for hcr unJl.agging love and suppon, with.o ut whic·h nonc of this would havc bccn possible. -Daniel Sperber Jerusalcm, 1010

Digitized by

Go g e

~0

Original from

NDJANA

UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

1

The Complexity of rhe Hebrew Prayer Book The Heb,r ew pray~r book ‫(י‬sidelur) is probably the most complex, and perhap,.s the least .researched, book in rabbinic literature1 - ·d‫ו‬ere is as yct .n o full 1

Th,e best introductio,n to the history of'the Hebrew prayer book is lsmar E.lb,o,gen's Ha•tefilla.b bt‫•י‬Yisrael bt"bitpatbuta.b ha‫י‬-historit (transla.te‫י‬d from ‫י‬the o.r iginal G·c rman, Lcipzig: 1913; ,edi‫י‬ted by Y. Amir, and r,cvised and updated by J. Heinema‫תת‬, Tel Aviv, 1971). A usef‫ט‬l additi.o n to it is S‫ז‬cfan C. Rci.f ~sJudaism .ttnd Hebrew Prayer: New Perspective:s on.Jewish Liturgical Histor‫( ן‬Cam.bridg.c : 1993). Invalu.able infor‫י‬ mation may b,c‫ י‬found in N. Wicdc.r's Hitgabshut nusah hA-‫י‬tefillAh b,i--,njz,ah u-va.-maarav (The Forma'tion ofthe]ewish Litu.rgy ;·n the East and the West·) (two voJ.. umcs, Jerusalem, 1998)‫ " י‬P‫י‬artial Hebr·ew bib,liographi·cs on studics, of prayc·r were publ.ished by J. Tabo,r y ‫ת‬i Areshet 4 (1984): 101- 112; ibi.d., s (198s): Ss-112.; i.de.m, S'iddu‫ יו‬Hanau,. 1628 (with Meir Raffeld; Bar,-Ilan Unive.rsity, 1,9,94),, with a fine characterization of the lit.e rary co,m p.l exity of the sidd,u:,‫ ז‬and also ss-8.6 ibid.., an,d in Kiryat Sefu- Suppleme‫ת‬t to vol. 64 (19,‫נ‬9--19‫י‬93) for a bi:bliograp.hy of anicle.s ,o n liturgy and fcstivals (by Tabo·ry). A good o·,verview of the history ofthe siddu‫ז‬ may bc found in S. Tal, Ha-siddurbe-bisbta,lsheluto (Jerusalem: 198s), .1 -J4. For·the, history o,:f the printed prayer bo,o k from the first ,e d.i tion (Prague: 1s13) to Z. W. Heidenheim's edition (Rodetbeim: 1813), sce .A. B,e rliner, "He'arot al ha~siddur~" in his K•tavim Ni‫י‬uharim, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: 1945),‫ יי‬The c.lassic works of L. Zu.nz, .Die Ritw dts SynagogAle‫ מ‬Gottesditn‫נ‬te Gesebicbli,cb ,entwiclltlts (Berlin: 1919), and Die Syru,gogllk Poesie ,t ks Mittel,ilters ,(edited 'by A. Freimann, Frankfurt am Main: 192.0,), are stlll i‫ת‬valuable. We should also mention the valuable book by Levi Yerahmiel Klatzki:, Erccb T‫י‬fillab (Warsaw: 186-8), which con,t ains much valuable ma‫ז‬erial and origjnal i‫ת‬si,ghu. lt is a linle odd to r,e ad ‫ת‬i the preface· to The Story ‫י‬ofth• P~ayer Boolc (by Philip Arian and Azricl Ejsenb·erg, Hartford: 1968), the following: '"S·tra‫ת‬ge as it may seem, there bas been up to n.o w no s.ingle· volume in any language on the development of Jcwish Liturgy through the a,gcs." Elbo,g en.'s classic ·w as published in 1913, and Zunz1s works fi.rst appeared even

Digitized by

Go g e

Original from

JNDJANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

ON CHAN GBS 1

‫זא‬

JEWISH LIT'UR.GY'

bibliography·of siddurim an,d mahzonm in manuscript and print!:‫ נ‬lts multitudc of l.ayers come from different periods, whic.h arc often interwoven one within another: vcrses and pass.ages from all sections of th•e Bible, ,notably the Boo,k of Psalms, alongside formulations by the rabbis of the Second Tcmplc p,eriod, passages from ·d‫ו‬c· Mishnah, thc: Talmu.d,. thc geonim, the rishonim, the ka'bbalists ,ofSafed and evcn portions from the n.ineteenth, twenti,eth and possibly twen‫ז‬y-firs:t centuries. Although it‫ י‬is. often ·difficult to unravel d‫ו‬e intertwining s·uands, certain ,passages can bc datc‫י‬d approximately. 3 Thus, somc clearJy identifiablc portions date from thc latter part ofthe Secon,d Temple period. Othcr passagcs date from thc p‫י‬eri,od of dt,c Mishna in other words, the first ·cwo ccnturics of thc Common Era, and the Talmud. Still othcr portions date from the following thrce cen twies of thc Comm.o n 1

earlicr (Berlin: 1831 ). And Abraham ldelsohn"s jewish Liturgy an.J .its Dwelopment first ‫ב‬

3

appeared in New York in 1932. See my remarks ‫מ‬i Minb12gei Y-isral 1 (Jcrusalem: 1989), 13, n. ,8. j ,a cob J. Petuchowslci, at the 'begin‫ם‬i‫ת‬g ,o f his P·rayerboolc Reform ‫מ‬i Eu.~pe: Tbe Lit‫ע‬TD ofEuropea‫מ‬: Liberal and Refi‫נ‬rm]ud4ism (New 'Yo•rk: 1968. 2,3.), h.as a fine formulatio‫ ת‬describing this s.i‫ש‬ation: Biblical psalmists, Pharisaic interp:r·e‫ז‬ers, Rabbinic sages, medieval bards,, com" mentators and philosophers•.and more r•ecent mystics and p,o ets - all .h a•d their share in ‫י‬the form.atio‫ ת‬of the siddu‫ ~ז‬Moreover., the existence ofvarious rites such as ·t he ,S epharadi, the As.hke‫ם‬azi, the Italianit the 'Yeme‫ת‬ite,, etc.. - withi‫ת‬ the Traditio‫ ת‬itsdf testifies to the impo·na‫ת‬t role played by local needs as weU, as by local talent. Yet all of ·t he rites. with all ·t heir divergences and ‫ת‬u.ique minhagim (l1‫ס‬cal customs)‫ י‬, have enough basric material in commo•‫ם ת‬t be recognizable as mere varieties of the same fun.damentaJ st·ructure ofJ'ewish prayer which was laid down ‫ת‬i Mi.s hnah and Gemara, a‫ת‬d formalized ‫ת‬i the Geo‫ת‬ic: perio,d .

The co,m plexiry of the tens may in some w.ay b,e app‫ י‬reciated by •examining closely the v·aryin,g versio.n s c:ited in R. Aryeh Leib Go.rdon's pioneeri‫ת‬g Otur hATefillot (Vilna: 191·s, ‫ת‬i two versions, NWAh Ashkenaz and Nusah Sefarmi),‫ י‬with i:ts sup· ercomme‫ת‬taries a‫ת‬d notations, lyyun Tefillah and ‫ת‬/‫ו‬tkun Teftllah, and in ·h‫•ז‬e mag‫ת‬ificent· comrnentary o.n parts of thc siddur by R . Menachem Mendel. Hayyim Landau and R. Yaakov Verdiger, in Verdiger's Tzelo·ta de•Avraham, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: no date‫ י‬but pr,obably· 19s7 ), vol. ‫ג‬: (Tcl Aviv: 196·1). This unfinished oeuvre,. which covered th,e weekday services and some additional issues, benedictio‫ת‬s1 etc., has. been continued 'by R. Yaakov Verdiger's son, R. Avraham Verdiger, on the basi,s of his fath-e r's n,ote‫י‬s covering part of the Sabbath service, in ‫ו‬:hree addition.al volumes (Jerusalem: 1991-1993). However, thcse: lattcr volumes are more in ‫·ז‬.he: nature of' co:llect:ea‫ת‬a than developmental. analysis.

Digitized by

Go . . ,e

22.,

Original from

IND ANA UN

VERSl‫ד‬Y

THE COMPLEXIT'Y OF THE HEBREW PRAYER

BO‫ י‬OK

Era; the pcriod of thc ,geo·nim;. additions and accretions that occur.red i.n the time of the Baalci ha-Tosafot; and, of coursc‫ י‬numerous ,a dditions from thc

pcriod of the kabbalists of Safed - namcly~ dic: latter pan of the sixtecnth century, such as the whole of the Kabb:alat Shab.bat prayer service ‫ סמ‬Friday night that inc.lude.s psalms and othcr .sc c·1:ions.4 As we go along, we can sc-e that 1

additional prayers wcre added·s in the scventce.n th, eighteenth :a nd nineteenth cenruries. ln ad:d ition, there are wholc sections, small addition.s wi·t hin ,existing prayers, and change.s in accordance with what was d.e cmcd nccess:ary in speci6c timcs o·r in a speci6c place. There·are also p·rayers that wc·re·penned in the last sixty years or so, su-ch as the Prayer for th.e State o-f Israel, the· Prayer .for ,Soldiers, of the Israel Defcnsc Forccs‫ ו‬thc p.raycr· for thc Royal Family i.n Bricain, thc praycrs for the governmcn.t in die Uni.t ed S‫י‬tates, and so.me beauti-

ful prayers that were co,mposed within [h.e past few months for the missing. sol.diers, the three soldi.ers abductc:d prior to d‫ו‬e Sccond L,ebanon War. ChiefRabbi SirJonathan Sacks, in.his introduction to ‫ו‬d:e newAuthorised Daily P'rayer Book (fourd‫ ו‬edition, London: ,2,006, 81)., expressed the above most e·loquendy, even lyrically: The Siddur is th,e c.h.oral symphony the cove‫מ‬antal p,eo_ple has sung to God across forty -cenr,uries from d‫ו‬e days of die, patriarchs until present day. 1n it we hear the voices of lsrad's pr~phets,, priests and kings,,its Sages and scholars, poets and philosophers, rati.o.nalists and mystics, singing in caJibra·ted harmony. lts libretto weaves toged‫ו‬er te‫נ‬:ts from almost every part o,f the vast .library of Jewish spirin‫ז‬ali.ry: Torah, thc Prophe[s, thc Writings‫ י‬the classic compendia of thc O·ral Law - Mishnah, Midrash and Talmud - together wi·th philosophical

passages like Maimonides's Thirtcen Princi.p.les ofFaith and enrac·ts from d‫ו‬e Zohar, the key text ofjewish mysticism. 4

s

See 1. J. Coh,en's classi,c study, ,S ,der Kabb‫נו‬lat Shabbat u.•Pizmon Lecha Dodi (Jerusalem: 1969). Republished in his Mele-oro.t ve-Korot ‫(י‬Jerusalem: 1982., 74106 ); R. Kimclman. The· Mystical Meani‫ת‬g of Lelt.hah Dod'i and Kabbalat Sha.bhAt (Jerusalem: 2.003) (Hebrew). Such as,, for example, Sh‫י‬aar~i Tz.iyyo‫מ‬, by Rablb i Nata‫ ת‬Nata Hanover (ed. Princ. 'P.raguc: 1641.) (Tefillot v‫י‬e"Tiltleuni'm alpi Kitvti h11.~.Ari), whi.ch h.as been republis:h ed over tifty times. 1n a similar ge·nre, we find .L i'kleutti Tefillot. base,d on the teachin,gs of Rabbi Nac.hma‫ ת‬of Braslav, edited by his disci.p)c, Rabbi Natan Ster‫ת‬h,an (two volumes, Breslau: 8‫נ‬:~4-1 -82,7)‫ י‬. There ar,e innumerable examples of s.ingle prayers or· collcctions of prayc·rs writ‫ז‬e·n by rabbis both in the East a‫ת‬d the West, a.subj‫ ו‬ect tha‫ז‬ requires funher researc.h and docum,e ntation.

Digitized by

Go g e

~3

Original from

NDJANA

UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

2,

The Consl:ant Evolution of Our Liturgical Text Thus, we sce that o·ur liturgy has. always becn evolving·.1 'There ·was never' a 1

lt is of intcrest to note .a classic example ofth,e understanding of the dynamic oflitur• g‫נ‬cal change. Norma‫ ת‬Lamm, ‫ת‬i his magi.s terial The R•ligio:us Tbougbt ofHt‫ש‬.idism.~ Text and Commmt•ry (' Hob,o• kc‫ת‬, NJ:: 1999,, 197-198), cites a passagc from R. Levi Yitzhak of'Berdichcv's Kedushat Ler‫נ‬i ba-Shalnn ( Mu‫ת‬kacz: 19 39, re.p rint N ew York 19 62.), to ParshAt V..•Ethanan, as follows: 1

The Talmud (Berachot 4b,, 9b) concludes that ·t ht words "God, open. Thou my

lips• l[recited at the bcginning, of the Amidah,] are .n ot considere·d an inre.rrup-tion b,etween [the bcnedictio•‫ מ‬of] Redempt.ion (Ge‫ש‬Ah) and the.Amidah ev,‫ת‬e duri‫ת‬g the Shahari‫ ז‬servic:e. for i‫ת‬asmuch as the Rabbis decreed that it is to be recited •. it is regarded as ‫ת‬a cnc‫ת‬sion of thc Amidah. But then th.c [Talmud•s] statcment should havc bee·n. MTh.e Rabbis decreed it as prayer‫ "י‬One must conclude~th.a t this.phrasc was not incl.u ded in the o,riginal e.nactme‫מ‬t (o,f thc liturgi,.. cal te‫ ]ם‬by the Men of. d‫ו‬e Great Assembly•.and when its r:e citation.was de,r·e ed later, it·was regarded as ‫ת‬a extension of the Amidah [rather· ‫ו‬:han as p:‫ח‬a· of the original enac‫ס‬nent]. Thus, "G·o,d, open Thou my Ii.p•.s" should bc undcrsto,o d as a. pr.ayer for the ability to pray. The tannaim and their pre·decessors had no nee,d to pray .for th.is, for surcly thei.r prayer·s were ‫י‬e‫שי‬p Only later‫י‬. when ".h earts di:minished." did they feel compellcd to add.a praycr·that .our·prayers [i"e... the prayers we ‫ז‬a•e about to recite] .sh,ould be pure. Hence there are· rwo aspects to pra.y,er: the prayer itself‫י‬. a‫ת‬d a prayer fo.r the ab·iliry to pray [p.roperly]. 1

1

What R. Levi Yitzhak .is sayin,g.is that origi‫ת‬ally, when people were pur,e,. d‫ג‬ere was .n o, need to invokc the ability to pray. B•u t when ‫"י‬spirituality had so declin,e d that ‫ז‬i was, difficult to sustain purity of intent.i on in prayer'" (Lamm, ibid., n. 89•), it was ‫•ת‬eccss. ary to ad.d an additional opc‫ת‬ing vcrse. Even though this would appear to run cou‫ת‬ter to the ru.le of ‫ הלראנ הליפתל‬,‫ יחכיפס‬that there should be ‫ת‬. o interrup·t ion

Digitized by

Go g e

Original from

ND ANA UNIVERSJTY

THE CONSTANT EVOLUTION OF OUR LITURGIC.AL TEXT

fixed ten or a tefi/Lit leeua (a sct lin‫ו‬rgy.) in.which evc.rything was fully fornied so that no furthcr changes could bc introduc.cd. Surely this is the meaning of R. Shimon‫י‬s statemcnt in Avo.t i::13: "·'Whcn you pray, do not make your praycr in a 6xed form (al taas tefi/.L‫ו‬.te,ha kev.a), but ‫[י‬a plca for] mercies and supplications bcforc thc Lord ....• Let mc givc somc ,cxamples j‫ י‬ust ·co demonsttar:e thc degree to which our· li‫ש‬rgy ·was in a state of 8ux evc.n in the cighth. and ninth centuries of thc Common Era~ Wc :arc all familiar with thc daily Amidah prayer. Lct ‫ש‬ lo,o k at three cxamples of berachot (benedictions) with which we arc cert.ainly acquainred. 1.shall cite different versions from Eretz Yisracl.during the

geoni.c period.1 Hcar our· voice, ·o Lord our God. Havc •Compassion

‫ם‬:‫ רדח‬u‫רי א·לריה‬-: ‫שעם קםלו‬

on us and accept our praycrs with mcrcy. Blesscd ar,e You, 0 L.ord, Who hcars prayer.

t-‫יי‬-t‫כ ת‬:1‫ר חרבםיי‬1‫לעינר קרב‬

.‫ אכ"י ש·רעם תפיהל‬.u‫תי‬.‫תפיל‬

That is very cl.ose to what wc nor111ally say in. thc Ashkenazi.c nUSAh (li·n‫ו‬rgy). Please lis.ccn r:o us and plcasc hcar our praycrs. Have compassion on us and pleasc ‫י‬carry out wha.t we havc rcqucstcd bc,causc You arc compassiona·cc and mcrc:iful. Blesscd arc You, 0 Lord, Who he.ars praycr.

‫שםעי בק ;ולרנ שר·םע תםליתידנ‬

‫ רה‬:‫ייר‬:‫רשעו ם‬: ‫כ עילס‬l m‫ר‬ :‫ בי א·ל חונן· ררחרם‬u‫שקכחי‬

. ‫ אב"יי שרםע תפהלי‬.‫אהת‬

This version has been expanded, with additional sections in it, and i.t certainly is,n,o t identic·aJ to d‫ו‬c tirst v,ersi.on that wc j·t‫ ש‬read. Hear our voice,, 0 Lord our God,. Have· p,i ty and

‫י וחרס‬,u‫רי‬-:‫ו‬-‫רי אל‬-: :•‫שעס קרלירנ‬

compassion upon ‫ ש‬and acccp,t our prayers with mcrcy. for You arc a God w·ho lis·tens t·o praycrs and c·n tre.a t·ies. Blc·sse·d are You, 0 Lord, Who hears prayer.

‫כ‬:1‫ וקבל חרכםי‬,‫ ילעונ‬r::‫כ‬n‫רה‬

‫כי ל·~ שוסע‬: ‫תיניי‬-‫את זרפלי‬ ‫ אב"י‬.‫רה‬r‫רנונידנ א‬r‫פילתיס רח‬n -L.‫חפי‬ .· · ...‫ן‬,_‫יישר‬ . ‫עם ו‬

.‫ ה‬7

bctwt‫ת·נ‬e Geuli‫נ‬h,

‫ב‬

!_'

.

rhe last b·‫ת‬e·ed‫נ‬ctio‫ ת‬befor‫י‬e the .A mid4b, and Ttfillab, the .A .m idah itself. This implies tha.t changin.g nee·ds .rcquire ‫ת‬a,d just·ify textu.ral. m.odificatio.ns . .Scc also ‫י‬R Hayy.im Navon~s rcmarks on ‫ו‬:his passage·in Tz,ohar 3.2 (:100•8): sB. Scc Y. Luger, T‫י‬fill4t .h11.~AmidAh le--bo·l lll pi ha•,GenizAh h‫ו‬i-Kab,irit (Jerusalem: ‫נ‬.001), 167, 13s, ‫ז‬os-106, ‫ת‬a. d his dctailed d.iscussi,ons following thc te:xt· and app‫ י‬araau. O‫י‬n t.he .Palestini.‫ת‬a l.iturgy as reveal.e d in the Cairo Geniza ‫ת‬i ge‫ת‬eral. see E. Fleischer, Eretz•fgul P‫ףז‬tr and P‫ז‬ayer .R i.tuAls as Portraytd in tht Ge‫מ‬iza Docummts (Jerusalem:· 1988) (Hebrew).

Digitized by

Go g e

25

Original from

NDJANA U IVERS ‫ןץ‬

ON CHANGES IN JEW.I SH LITURG·Y

This la.ttcr prayer .is fairly close to the:so,--callcd Nusah S‫י‬ejaraJ (d‫ו‬e Sefaradic version uscd by Ashkenazic Jcws)‫ י‬. Hear our v,oicc. 0 Lord, our God. Have pity on us and show mercy toward us. Rcccive wi·th ‫ס‬c1mpa‫ע‬ion our praycrs, which wc hopc will find favor in Your eyes, becausc You .arc a God who listcns to prayers and entrca‫ו‬:ie.s. Plcase do not t‫ט‬m us away empty"handecL for 'You arc a fathcr who is fwl o,f abundant compas-~- PI· ease ‫יי‬J1s‫י‬ten to ‫ט‬s, our Kin. ‫י‬ s1on. ·_· _·g,, as wc rcc‫ו‬tc our prayers bcforc You, and plcase hear our moans, just as you heard the moans of our ancestors. Blessc•d are

•‫יונ‬.

r‫י‬-cf‫רזיי?ר י חי וז‬:‫עפש ק‬

‫קרב‬,, ‫ם עילם‬lm ‫חרם וחפור ן י‬

•‫ ;תפילתים‬r‫י‬--t‫ונחיםם ורבצןד ת‬ ‫סי‬r ‫ ד‬,‫י‬,‫כי אד ושעם חפ‬

‫· אהת וירקם םלפנןי‬uu‫חתריג‬ ‫יםם‬m ‫כ אלם‬r---c ‫ת~םכ כי‬, ‫אל‬

‫ רםכרני‬u‫ערת ל‬m‫ר‬r‫ריבם אה‬

‫רירנ‬r‫טק‬-‫יי‬t ‫תכפתלייונ שועפ‬ ‫~;נת‬

nr--c ‫~שר שעםח‬

.‫תפהלי‬. ‫ים• אב"י ·שרעוב‬n‫אוב‬

You, 0 Lord, Wh.o hcars praycr.

Here we havc a vcrsion chat is much.lon,ger th.an the one most of us havc

probably heard and th,a t is vcry similar to the Sefardic version. So we can sec that even in. this sim.ple berachah (benedictio‫מ‬.)1 wh.i.ch .is part of onc •f‫ ם‬the most crystallizc,d prayers, thc .Amulah, thcre has bee‫י‬n a gradual proccss of ,expansion in. different periods of time, and in different places. We will not ,go into the history of the cvolutio.n of this btr4th1IW, but it is suffi.cient to ‫ם‬otc that i‫ו‬: has been ~panded in a pcriod that cncnds from tbe eighth to thc thirtecn,t h or fourteenth century. Perhaps a morc significant example of an earlicr bertKhah is. the one· conceming hcretics (•ve-Ul--malshinim 11) , called birkat ha-minim in early sources.3 Again.1will start with thc shorter vcrsio.n. 3

Sec Tzelot• th".A.rn‫י‬:llhu‫מ‬, vol,. 1 ( 2.90-294) :f or an cxtcnded examinatio,n of ‫ז‬his 'be‫ת‬e­ diction, including a version beginni‫ת‬g ve-,l:;,-lu‫נ‬frim,. "and the he‫ו‬,-etics or i‫ת‬fidels," m. entio‫ת‬ed in Magen .A.vrah•m 12,6:1, ‫ת‬i thc‫ י‬nam.e of the Kn‫ע•נ‬et .ba"G«louih by R. H.a yyim Bc‫ת‬venist‫ג‬, sec. 118. See Siddur·. ~. R. ShJJbtai Sofu. vol. 1 (edired by Y. Satz, 20, n. 15. Baltimore: 1,·87) and ·vol" :i (Baltimore·: 1:994, note to 148, ad. . di‫ז‬ions,, S,9·). Sec furthcr Beer ba-Gouih‫ י‬b·y R. Judah .Loew, the MaharaJ of Prague (Warsaw 18:38. 48ab), and R . A. Wciser's anicle, "Nusb41Jt b11-Tejillah.• Ha~Mu‫ן‬An 1-‫ג‬/3 (1972.):

:,s-36~ Most.re‫י‬:cntly, this benediction has bee·n aami‫ת‬ed exh,austively by Yaakov Y. Te:ppler in his book Birut h11•Mini'm (Tiib,ingen: zoo7, in d‫נ‬e serics Tens and Studics in Anc.ie‫ת‬t Judaism 12.0), 9-·1 24•.Also sce David Rokcah's discussio•n in his Justi'n Man‫ן‬r: D.ialogw witb T‫ז‬ypbo the Jew, translatcd fro,m.thc Greek ·w ith. inuoduc·ti.‫ם‬o an.d ,commentary (Jerusalem: zoo4, 4-·7) (Hcbrew), ‫ת‬o the issue ‫·ס‬f whether J‫ש‬tin makes. reference o‫ ז‬b.irlcat h•--minim. Scc ,a lso thc rcmark of R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira, the M:unka,cz,cr Rav,. ‫ת‬i his work HAmisbah Mu,,wrot· (Beregsas: 192.‫ג‬, rep.rintedJe~ n‫ו‬salcm: 1981, 168) (in M"m‫גו‬rNusah b,1-T‫י‬.fil:W,), ‫ת‬o 1

Digitized by

Go ·• .· ,e

.‫ ב‬6

IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

THE

C ‫י‬ONSTANT

EVOLUTION OF OUR LITURGICAL T .E XT

This one,.from the Cairo Gcni·za, daces from the .s inh or seventh century and rcprcscnts,Nusah Eretz Yisrul {‫ז‬:he Palestinian versio.n): May thc aposc:a·rc Jcws havc no hopc and .may the evil kingdom bc uprootcd quickly and be dcscroycd in ,our‫ י‬day. Blesscd arc You, 0 Lord,.Who dcs‫סם‬ys cvildocrs and de‫י‬fcats villains.

‫לירםרשם ם אל יהת חקהר רלםרכת‬ r

.u‫וב יכים‬.‫ןחז הםהר תעקר ןתש‬ .‫אכ•·י שרוב שריעם רעינכוכ ירזם‬

This is a vcry sho,r t vcrsio,.n th.at refers t·o a specific sirnatio·n, prcsumably that of in.dividuals who co.nvened to C.hristianiry. A‫ת‬othcr vcrsion:

May th.c apostatc Jews have no hope if d‫ו‬cy do not rctum to v1our 14orah, may ‫ו‬d .· . c c ·h_, ristians and' h.erctics instandy pcrish, .may thc days of thcir·lives bc crascd and may thcy not 'bc counted among thc rightc‫י‬ous!! Blcsscd arc You1) 0 Lord, Who defeats villains.

‫יהת חקרהי אם‬. ‫~שםויוםם אל‬ ‫ הצונירם‬,‫ז‬m ·.. ,: ‫ן יחםר‬

. ‫ל·א ושים‬

ir--t‫נ רכגע כי‬::c‫הוםניי‬

‫םוכרפ חיים ערם ידציק·ם אל‬ .‫עינכ ידזם‬:‫ אכ"י ם‬.‫יכםת‬

Here wc havc thc phrasc •if thcy do .not rcturn to 'You.r Tor·ah• - ‫י‬chat is, if dicy do n,o t repcnt. Fu.rth.e.rmore, both. Chri,s tians and other heterodox .peoplc arc includcd with a request ·t hat they "instan·dy perish, .may ‫ז‬:he days of their livcs be e.rased,.• Hcrc is yet ano·t hcr version:

May th~ apostatc Jews .havc no hopc, may th.c •Cvil king• dom bc uproo te·d quiclcly and bc: desuoyed, and may you dcfcat it in our day. May thc Christians and hcretics instandy perish and may rhc encmics of Yo‫ ש‬peoplc and those who are h.ostile to it bc quiclcly .se‫ת‬.t to thcir dcadu, and.may You brealc che yoke ofrhe Gentiles that weighs upon o‫ט‬r bodics (nccks?). Blcsscd arc You, 0 Lord, Wh.o dcsttoys cvildocrs and 1dcfca‫ ם‬villains. 1

‫ םי אל יהת תקהר‬1 ‫שםלופ‬ ‫הר תע·רק‬1 1‫וססת דוןו ם‬, ‫רעינכ יברנים‬r:‫רשרב ן‬r‫ן‬

‫ינםי כרגעי יזבאר‬.‫הוצונירם רוים‬

‫יהם‬

‫יניויכ סךםי צןןך 'ן‬--‫י‬t :‫וכל‬

‫ח יירכות שווכר סלו החרנם‬:‫הם‬

m‫לעם צד‬

‫ אכ"י‬.(‫ים )צארםירו‬

.‫רשוב יעשרם וםכינע ·ידזם‬

Onc•c again wc scc that, .a t each s.tagc in thc dcvclopmcnt of this beracha, addidons havc bc:en madc. Thc original vcrsion -startcd with meshummiim. the elfcct of thc censors on th.is benediction. .All of secrion 11 (164-171) on the ..A.mitL&b·is full of lu:ghJy illuminating commc‫ם‬ts. F'i‫ת‬aUy. sec David Fluss,er,Jud‫נו‬ims of the S~eond Temple Periotl. vol. ‫( ו‬Jcrus·al.e m: ‫ב‬oo‫ך‬,. 70-1.1.1.), a chapter entided • 4Q.MMT and thc Bc‫מ‬c•dic‫ז‬io‫ת‬. agai‫ת‬s‫ ז‬t;he Minim,.•

Digitized by

Go g e

17

Original from

NDJANA U IVERS ‫ןץ‬

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

(ap‫ס‬state Jews), and then

notzrim (Christians) and minim (heretics) were added. Next, the phrase oyvei amcha ve-tzorereihem (the enemies ofYour people and those are hostile ‫ס‬t it) was introduced. Here again we see that, even in this berachah, which we consider ‫ס‬t be a fully crystallized part of the Amidah, there has been a constant evolution. The early, brief text was expanded and at each s‫ז‬age, and in each region, in accordance with the par‫ז‬icular sufferings of the Jews in a particular communi‫ז‬y, addi‫ז‬ional secti‫ס‬ns appeared. When the Jews felt that they were being persecuted, they spoke of ve-cho/ oyvei (and all the enemies of). (See also L. Ginzberg's discussion in his work, A Commentary

on the Pa/estinian Ta/mud, vol. 3 [New York: 1941, ‫נ‬..79-‫נ‬..83] [Hebrew]), for a further discussion ‫ סמ‬this benediction.) To give yet a third example, let us look at birkat ha-shanim (the blessing of the years).

Blcss us, 0 Lord, in all our endeavors. Blessed are You, 0 Lord, Who blesses the years.

‫• ברכיונ י ה' א·להינו' בכל‬.

Grant us this, 0 Lord: Bless this year so that it will be a good and blessed year. Bless it as You have blessed all the good years. lmpart a blessing ‫ סח‬our endeavors. Blessed are You, 0 Lord, Who blesses the years.

‫ את‬,‫ ה' א·הליונ‬,‫ רבכה עליונ‬.2

3. [Grant us this, 0 Lord] our God: Bless this year

‫ ]ךדב עילונ ['ה א·להיונ שחהב‬.3

so that it will be a good year. Bless all its crops and quickly bring near the year ofour rcdemp‫ז‬ion. Grant ... welcome rain and dew for the surface of the earth and grant that Your world will be satisfied with Your blessings. Blessed are You, 0 Lord, Who blesses the ycars.

‫וני ובתאהת‬r ‫האזת לסרהנ כל‬

1.

2..

.‫ אכ"י סךרב השנים‬.‫השעמ ידינו‬

‫השהנ הזאת לטובה ולברכה‬ ‫ורבכה כשנים הטובות וןת‬

‫ אב"י‬.‫ינו‬

‫רשעוכ יו‬:‫רבכה נ‬ .‫סבךר חשבים‬

‫וקרב ונל הסהר תנש אגולרגת‬ ‫ וונסר וסל צרבןו על פני‬... ‫וןת‬

.‫האדהמ שובע עולךס סרנכותז‬ .‫אכ"י סךרב נשהים‬

4. [Gran‫ ז‬us this, 0 Lord our God: Bless this year

‫ ]רנך עריונ ה' א·להינר את‬.4

so that it will be a good year. Bless all its crops] and grant dew and rain for the surface of thc earth for the sake of Your name, and grant that the entire world will be satisfied with the blessings of Your boun‫ז‬y. Saturate the surface of the world with the wealth of the gifts of Your hands. Guard and save this year, 0 Lord, from all kinds of des‫ז‬royers, from all kinds of

‫חשהב הזאת לסובה ואת כל סיני‬

Digitized by

Google

28

‫בתאוהת[ ותן טל וסטר על פני‬ ‫ ת‬N ‫האדסח רעסן שסך שובע‬ ‫העולם כולו סובכות טוךנ ורוח‬

‫פני בתל מעושר ונונתת דיז‬ ‫ושסרח והצילה ה' אלקינו את‬ ‫השנה הזאת סכל סיני משחית‬

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

THE CONSTANT

E.VO‫ י‬LUTION

OF OUR LITURGIC,A L TEXT

disascers. Treat us .and aU m,e fru.its of this year widt

‫ רפל‬m‫ת וחרס‬u‫םכל םיני פורע‬

pity~ mcrcy and compassion. May thc year cnd in abundance, pcacc and .a. b.less,ing likc ·the blcssing of. .all thc good ycars. Bless all our cndcavor.s because

‫ם ערניל רלע כל רפותהי רהחא‬m‫ו‬

You are a good God Wh•o•grants good th.ings c·o oth. . crs. B,lcssc:d arc·You,,·O‫ י‬Lord, Who blesses thc ycars.

‫יכ א·ל סוב רםטיכ‬, ‫בעובשה ידוני‬

s.

Gran[ us this, 0 Lord ‫ ·ס‬r‫ ט‬God, this, ycar and all kinds of its crop·s that they bc good. and grant dcw .and rain for a blcssing upon aU thc·carth. Saturatc the surfacc of thc world,,and grant tha‫· ז‬chc wholc world will be satis6ed wi·th Your bouncy. And fill Yourself with good hope and an ending in peace, and havc

‫ה• •· י יי‬ ‫ ~ י‬,; >‫ע‬ ‫י‬. ‫ךדכ‬ ‫· את‬u ‫ י‬,-1‫ ה‬7 r‫י‬-c~ ‫םי י‬ ‫יי· ו‬

mercy upon us and upo,n al] c.r ops and fruit, and blessing for bounteous rains. And may its cnd bc o.nc

‫ חם עילה‬- ,‫ ו‬,‫רית לשרם‬n· ‫רא‬

of life. satis;fa~ ction and peacc,as the ycars ofgood and blessing. For yo·u are a good God w.ho grants good things ‫ת‬a:d blesses thc ycars. Blesscd are Yo·u•.0 Lord, Who blesses thc years.

‫לאחירהת שעב שןלן ם ורכהנ‬ r

‫ה‬.‫נים סהרכות רתן רבב‬,‫רכככת שה‬

,.‫ אבייי פכרך שהנים‬.‫אתה‬

1

‫ יםביי‬:‫ת כר‬r--t ‫ת יר‬:t---t‫הז‬

~.-‫י‬

:, ‫השט‬

‫ וןת לם רססו‬,‫ייר‬:‫כ‬.‫בתואהת לסר‬

‫וה‬,‫אדםה דר‬:‫ייר‬: ‫לכרכה על כל נפי‬

‫ת עהולם כלרר‬r---t ‫ינפי בחל ·שונע‬

‫ ורונא ךל תקרזייר סרכה‬t ‫ךב‬.‫סטר‬ · ‫ערי י י‬ •‫י ה‬n‫פידדי‬ ‫הת יוי י‬ ‫ י‬. ·----·‫לב י ינחר‬ ‫ י י‬._ ‫ל‬ .‫יי י‬ ;...J

‫רהי‬r‫ ר‬,‫בה‬.‫רוכהב נכשפי רצרן רכך‬

‫חיים שובע שולום‬. ‫אחירהת‬ ‫ יב קל‬,‫ר לרככה‬r‫ם‬,‫·כשנים הםר‬ . ‫ים‬.‫טרנ וםסיב אהת וםכךו השב‬

.‫אנ''" סוברי השנים‬

Sid‫ו‬Jur

Kenesstt ha-GedoZ.h, vol. 1 [Tel Aviv: 1976J .113-118], for the Yemenite versions. Tzuberi cites many early sources for die component parts of this cxpanded composi.t c version.)

(See Y. Tzuberi,

Again, even in what we wouJd regard as ,o ne of our standard liturgi-

cal texts, which wc think of as having been crystallized at thc time of Simon H.afakuli (according to,,B T Megillah 1·7 b, i.n the Tann.aitic pcriod), we sec, nevertheless, that it was alccrc.d ;a nd. that it evolved, resulting in several different versions. Hcncc the differenccs between the Ashkenazic version, the Sefardic version, .nusah Edot ha-Mizrah (the version uscd by Ori,ental Jews)‫ י‬and ·thc Yemenite vcrs.i on, among othcr.s.

Ifwe could some.h ow entcr a Palc·s,t inian synagogue of the geonic ,period‫י‬ we would surcly feel J,ost, since we would not rcc·ognizc the liturgy. Thus, during a Friday night service, instead of the familiar hashkiven·u praycr, we would hear somcthing like this: .. 4

According to A. I. Sc.hech.ter (Studi,s ‫מ‬i Jewis·h Li'turgy, Philadelphia·: 193,0 , 10s), this is o.nly said on weckdays because ‫ת‬o the Sa.bbath we are protected fro.m cvil

Digitized by

Go g ,e

19 IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

ON CHANGE.S

‫זא‬

j:E\VIS-H L-ITURGY

Wc shall lie down wi.th Your bcncvolcncc an-d.awakcn to and bc saitisncd wi.th Your·fai·rhfulncss, and fear and alB.iccio.n and Saw‫ ו‬shall not have sovercign‫ז‬:y ovcr ‫ש‬ during th.e nights, .as is it statctL "Wh.en yo·u lie down. you shall not be afraid. You shall lie down, and your slc.ep shall bc swcct" (Proverbs 3:‫נ‬..4. ). Wa·cch over 'US and savc us from al1 cvil, for You are our guardian and our savior. Bl.esscd arc You, Who sp,reads the canopy· ofpeace over us and over all th.e congrc,g ations ofHis _pcoplc lsracl and ovcr Jen‫נ‬sale.m.

‫דצי‬:‫ד תק‬

‫חבם ו‬

1

•‫שככב‬

‫ןח צוהר‬.‫ןשנעכה םאכךתנו' רם‬

,‫ננ‬, ‫ אל ןשםיל‬n‫ו‬b ‫שןןס וילכ‬ ‫אכםדר ייאם תשבכ לא תפחד‬ ‫םלשי‬-) •‫ עוותנ שךתנ‬.‫ככ‬n‫ישר‬ ·‫ל‬.‫ םכ‬U‫ג' רכ( שורםררנ תרליצ‬

u‫ רםיצל‬u‫רי‬.‫ שרם‬,‫דרב רע‬ ‫ת שלום‬.‫ אב"י ופשר סי רכ‬.‫אהת‬, '‫כל דעת ·עםר שיראל‬, ‫' רעל‬U'‫·על‬

.‫רעל ירםילשו‬

As we continue into the Friday night Amidah praycr, we will..[‫ מס‬see thc familiar va-yechulu, but rathcr the fo.Uowing praycr·: And o·ut •f‫ ס‬Your loYc, 0 Lord our God, that You lovc Your pcople lsrael‫י‬, and out ofYo-ur mercy that

‫ ה' א·הלירג שאהתב את‬.‫רםארךחב‬

Yo-u havc bestowcd upon the children ofYour cov• ,c nant, You gavc us, Lord our God., the scvcnth day, this gr'Cat and holy [day] with lovc. for great‫מ‬css, .strengd‫ו‬, holiness, fo,r rcst, worship an,d acknowl. . cdgemcnt, for a sign and.a covenant and for glory, and to granr; us your blcssing and pcacc ...•.'

‫תתנ לס‬, ‫לם נ על כני ךחירב‬l‫חש‬

‫ארשיר עךם 'רחםלובךת םרכים‬ ‫כ השיעיב הנדרל‬:t‫ה' א··הלוני את יר‬

‫רכ לנדדלה‬:‫והקרשו הזזר אכה‬ ‫נה עלהדם‬m‫הר לקשחה רלם‬.‫רלכנר‬ ‫ולירכת תלופארת‬: .‫ח‬,‫הלואדוה לאר‬

.... ‫ לרנ וככה ולשוום ךחאם‬M ‫לד‬

One can i.m agine how lost a modem-day·Jcw well acquaintcd widi

thc sta‫מ‬dard contemporary prayers would feel in diis

unfamiliar licurgical

.a‫ם‬nosphere.

s

spirits by rhe holincss of th.e day" Th,a t vcrsion also contains: ‫אםר‬n‫ינםלם רנירר‬u ‫נש‬t‫רםשה· ·ן‬ ‫ם‬1‫עם וער ·לוס‬n‫ר ה‬m‫ו רניתאנ ·סיו‬.,‫ דפש‬- an.d dcstroy thc ,Sata.n bcforc us ‫ת‬a:d bchind us, and protect ,o,‫ ש‬cii1:ing and entry &om now unto all ‫י‬Ctcr‫מ‬ity. Scc alsoJ. Mann, "Gcnizah Fragments of the Pales:rinian Ordcr -o f S•ervice‫( יי‬HUCA ~ (19-2.s]: 304,, .‫ מ‬83, 313. 3.2.4). J havc citcd the ·vcrsion ‫ת‬i .S. Asiaf. Gao‫מ‬ic• ‫( נ‬Jerusalem: 1933.), (Mi-sifrut h11geoni'm], '"Mi-toch s‫י‬der t‫י‬ftllAh· ludmon.• 7,s -76•. See fu.rther E. Flcischer. Bretz-lsrul Prayn-·.11:nd Pr4yer Rituals U‫ ו‬Pm tr‫י‬9,d ‫מ‬i thc' GmiuDocume‫מ‬ts (Jcrusalem: 1988) 83-·84, ‫מת‬.• 1so, ‫ו‬ss (Hebrew). S‫י‬tln‫ י‬Ra.‫ ש‬Amram Gun, cd. Goldschmidt, 63; StiUT Rav Sa‫ו‬ulya Gao‫מ‬, 1‫ נ‬:1, with sligh‫ ז‬variations.. Wc arc •Cit.i ng· Fl.eischer, ibid., 2,.2,.

Digitized by

Go ··. . e

3,0

Original from

INDIA A UN VERSITY ......

....

3

The Variety ofLicurgical Versions Thcrcfore, onc cannot speak of a ,singlc crystallizcd vc:rsion o,f thc liturgy~ 1n fact, cvcn within thc Sephar,adic and ‫י‬Oricntal vcr:sions and that of thc Hasidim, ‫י‬th.cre are numerous versions, as one can sec &om the following cxample &om the.Amulah: 1‫י‬ 1•. And providc

(iit" raisc up) complctc healing for‫י‬

‫הוהלע רופאה שלםה לכל‬

•.

.‫םרנתירנ‬,

all our wounds. .‫ נ‬.. And providc (lit.

raise up) a balm and complcte

‫ והלעהי ארוהכ ררפראה לשםה‬.2

•‫נכרתרני‬r ‫ילכל‬

hcaling for all our wounds. raise ‫י‬up) a balm and complctc

‫דםו לכל‬r--.t‫עהל ארוהכ פ‬. ,‫ן‬.‫• ן‬3

healing for .all our ills, all our pains and all our wounds.

‫רני לוכל םאכרכירנ לוכל‬r--t‫חתלר‬

4,. ‫ת‬A,d provide (lit. raise up) a balm and a cure fo,r

‫ לכל‬t‫יי‬--t‫ווהכ רסדפ‬r--t ‫רעהל‬.‫ ד‬.4

all our ills and all our pains,,,complcte hcaling for all our wounds.

‫ת‬,‫ רמאר‬u‫רלחתארני לוכל םדאכבי‬

s. And providc (lit. raisc up) a balm and a curc fo.r

‫ לכל‬, ~,‫ודכה‬c--‫עהל זי‬.

all our ills and all our pains and all our wounds.

‫ןנ לוכל ;םאכרכים לרלכ‬,‫י‬r -t‫חתלר‬

complete heali‫ת‬g for all our wounds"

.u‫ רופאה לשהם לכל כפרתי‬u‫יםירכתי‬

3" And providc (li,t.

1

.‫םסתרני‬

l

•‫לש הוכ לכל פםתםי‬ r

~Sefarlld~ u‫~י‬shel htuid'i,m: tivt‫ נ‬ve-gilgul‫ו‬,v" (Tagim s-6·,[197s): 1‫נ‬7-1z6. espccially 118 ), and Weise‫י‬r ‫(י‬ibid.* 3.7 ). Sce ,a dditional ,c‫נ‬:amples ‫ת‬i, Weiser, 38. Sce M. Medan•s article

Digitized by

"Nus‫ו‬:Kh

n.5

Go g ,e

IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

ON CHANGE.S IN JEWISH Ll'T URGY

Co,nsider th.c following versions in thc third blessing of thc Grace aficr

Meals,(rAhem )‫ י‬: ,... ‫כי אם לךדי המלאה הפתוחה הקדשוה והרחנה‬ •.• ·‫ליךד הקחשה רהוכלאה והרבחה‬ ... ‫ ה‬n‫דילך הםלאה הרחבה הקחהשר דהפתר‬

(.Or Zarua, section 199) (Sepharadim) (Leket Josher)

‫ה הושבהע רה·טרבהג‬m‫הרבחה רהפת‬: ‫לדיך הפלאה‬

(Italian version)

‫ךדיל הוכלאה והרחבת העשירה והפותחה •• •· י‬

ht‫ייי‬ ‫ י י‬g .1 "nto a d_.ctail,‫ י‬ed' an a1·ys‫ג‬s. w1 ·_out go,m

· ·‫ו‬d · · to exp1a1n ·. ese ·var1ous vers1ons, we may notc d‫ו‬c fluidi.ty - or perhaps cvcn rangled jumble of words - .in d‫ו‬e formulation of th.is passagc. Such ex.amples can be multipl1ed .alm,os:t endlessly.

2.

See Tulot• de•AvrahAm, vol. a, s‫נ‬.1;: Fr.iedman, Yisrae·I Hayyim, Li:kkutei MAh,t‫ג‬riAb, vo.l. 1 (New Yor.k : 1964, 118a-b.), noting that this whole section is absent in m.any early versions, such as.Mahzor v,·rry and.A.budarb.im, ‫ת‬a·d. so too in the Yem:enite versions (see, for example, Siddu., Ken•ss~t ha"G‫י‬d'ol4b, by R. Yosef Tzuberi, vol. 1., Tcl Aviv. .Jaffa: 1976, 649). Some authori‫ז‬ies questioned the wor·d ‫ השורק‬and suggested

rcading ‫השרר‬:‫( ג‬Liltkutei .Mah.ariah, ib·id.). For an.additional example, the founccnth ben.c diction,,b,o‫מ‬eh 'Yenu.balayim, see my wo,rk Minhag•i YtsrM:‫י‬l., vo,I. 4 (Jerusalem: 199s), 13-17, and A. Ashkenazi, "Elohej Da‫י‬1.i‫ו‬J u·-Bonth Yn‫י‬ush~y,m" (i‫ ת‬Beit .A.haron w-Yisrael 38 (1992.]: 134-138). On the halachic status of this bl.essin,g, and i‫ת‬deed of th.e first t·h rcc blcssings of the Grace after Meals, whether ofbiblic,a l (mi'.,.de"oraita) or f;a bbinic ('de ..,rabban•n) authori‫ז‬y, see: mos‫ ·ז‬recently the s·ucci‫ת‬ct survey of opinions ‫ת‬i Eric Blum, Birltat Yitzhale (Brooklyn: 2,000, s9-61). 1

Digitized by

Go g e

3.2.

0 &‫ ו‬ig i‫ ח‬a ‫ ו‬f ,. ‫ ס‬m

JNDIANA U IVERSJTY

4

Blessings Offensive ‫ס‬t Women Nowadays. certain ber4.€hot (blessings) are particularl.y disturbing to women in generaJ. and to feminis‫ו‬:s in particular. Pe.rh.aps one of d‫ו‬c most fa‫נ‬nous is one· of d‫ו‬e d‫ו‬ree berachot that we s.ay in th,e morn·ing, she-lo asani ishah (that .H e [·that· is.• God] did not· makc mc a wo.man). lt .is particuJarly disturbing because the Tur (Rabbijacob ben Asher, 12w68-1340), in cxplainingthe mea‫מ‬-· ing of th.is particuJar bera,chah, or evcn mor•c so in explaining the mcaning of the phrase she-asan,i k.irtzono 1 (d‫ו‬at He· [tha·t .is., God] made me in acc·ordance with H.is will), states that whcn wom,c n recitc ‫ו‬d,c lattcr bera,hah, chcy m‫ט‬st come to terms with the unforcunatc situatio.n ,o f their stat‫ש‬,. ln other words, •what can wc do? This is the way that God madc us.~ lndcc,d, Rabbi David .Ab‫ט‬darhim s:ays thar, in reciting thi.s femaJe vcrsion, Jcwish. womcn arc p,erforming tzidduk ha-din - makin.g peace with their divinely decree·d ~sen·tence," ("'.Siddur shel Hol," J•crusalcm: 1907, 39-- 40),. We· kn,ow th.at many w:omen

1

This varia‫ת‬t does ‫·מ‬O‫י‬t appear in al1 sidd:urim. The Ashkenazic ‫ז‬radition in the name of R. Yisra:el Isscrlei‫ ת‬has: An,d he said:: A woma‫ת‬. says instead of "Who has ‫ת‬ot made mc a woman" •who has not made m•e a beast (bthem•h)." However, 1 have hcard .from a. woman who says instead ,o f Who has not made. me a woman" - "Who has made m.e in accorda‫ת‬cc with His will."' (But it appears to me that the· Gaon [R. Yisrael Jsserlein] ,did.not agree to this, for .his hol.y mothe.r, ofblessed memory,. during ‫ז‬he Austrian dccree, may thc Lord avcnge h,er blood, used ·1:0 say, •who has o‫ם‬,t made me a, beas‫ז‬.." (Lt:lt~t Yosh6r, 'by R. Yosefb,c n R. Moshe [written c. 1460, ed. J. Freiman‫ת‬., Berlin: 1903; rep.r intcd Jerusalem: 19.6 4]. Part ‫ וי‬7_ ) See Sidtlur H‫ו‬t‫ו‬JJJu, ‫ב‬l,, fo.r t.heir obse.rvation on 1his bcn~di•ction" 11

1 "

Digitized by

Go .·. . e

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

ON CHANG·ES, IN JEWISH LIT'UR.G Y

‫י‬Co,s‫;ת‬idered

'this pr.ayer very offensive. 2 Somc rabbis wcre so‫ י‬keenl.y aware of th.is that onc prominent halachist of the late·eighteenth cenmry, Rabbi Aaron ·ben Abraham Wermish of Metz, .rccited it silendy because he considercd it ;‫ת‬a offense to women to say it alo·ud. 3 l.t is,also possible that certain am:‫ס‬raim felt 2.

Wicder .also points o:u t in Hitgabshut· (vo•I" 1, 2.13-‫נ‬.14, .‫ מ‬70,) that this. blessing is. absent in s·everaJ man·uscrip·ts" Hc n.o tcs that hc has not fou‫ת‬d aplicit criticis.m o:f this. blc:ssing u‫ת‬til relativcly latc, ·w hcn. -t he ,censor of the Mahzor (Prape: 17.10) deletc,d it for mo.ral reasons. He rcfers us to Ste·inschneider's B•odleian. Cata.logue (C‫ו‬,. t11logw Librorum Hebruorum in Bibliotbeca Bodl1u‫נ‬n4, Ber.lin 18s2.-1860), col. 385 ‫ס·[ת‬.• ‫ב‬s‫ג‬.1a], a‫ת‬d Hebruische Bibliogr•phit (vol. s,,1892. 1:18). lndeedt women would have been e·ven more offended had thcy been ,aware ,o,f what· is writtcn in Derd.Shot l‫ וג‬hA.•·Tor‫נו‬l,, on Tazria-Mctzora by R.. Ychoshua i,bn Shuaib (Cracow: 1s7J, 48b, ed. Z Me‫ז‬zger‫~ י‬ss [Je·n‫נ‬salem: 1991], vol. 1., isB): T .h erefore evcry day we .s ay t.h e blessings: who has not made me a Cu1:hean,. and who has .‫ם‬ot made me a .slave, and.who has ‫ת‬ot made me a woman .••• For d‫ו‬e souls of [mc.n of] Israel arc: holier than th·ose oft-h e [other] nations and of Canaanite slaves who are [eve.n.] less [holy·] ,)‫ר‬.‫(םיתרחם‬, .a nd even of women, and [even] if they observe mitzvot ‫דצובב‬m( )‫ יכייש‬and are of lsraelite offspring (·‫ער‬,‫זם‬ )‫ ·לארשי‬,

thci.r souls ,are not like the soul o.f a mal,c [Jew] who is •b‫ס‬.ligatcd )‫(ךיישה‬ to ·t h.e Torah and alJ thc mitzvo1:, 'b oth positivt: and.‫ת‬egatjve"

3

That is to say: regardi‫ת‬:g thc status of holincss, womc·n arc infcrior to men .. Beer Shn‫ו‬a.: On ,the Blessings ofShabbat and Eruvin (Mai‫ת‬z: 1819). Scc most rcccntly Rabbi Dr. Joel S. Wolowels.ky, Trdition ‫ב‬9:4 ·(Swnmer 199·s): 61-68, and agai‫ת‬ ‫ת‬i h.is Wo.mrn, jewish Law and Motkrnity.~ .N tw Opportunih~ts i'n a Post•Fnnin:ist Agt (Hobokcn: 1997. 14-84). who also advoca.t ed fo.l lowing this su.ggestion. His vicw was vigorously rejected.by Rabbi Emanuel Fcldman in Traditi'on (ib.i d ..• 69-74). who stated that doing so "'b,ecam.c a daily con.f ession to or a.ccusation ‫·ז‬hat is not true; that ·there is somethin,g intrinsically offensive to women in this ber-achah.: Feldman .i‫ת‬stead suggests ·'‫י‬-Interp, reci‫מ‬g it properly."'

See fu‫ח‬her Rabbi Moshe Mciselman's disc,uss.ion in his wor:kJewish Woman in J‫ח‬uish Law (Ncw Yor·k: 197.8, 49-s.1) . Hc writes,, ‫ת‬i.tcr alia: The woman. whe‫ת‬. reciting her blessing, acknow.l edge.s that the role d .i Herentiati,o n implicit in her exemp‫ז‬ion from cenain mitzvot 1[i.e..,.the ti.m.e-related ones, mitcvot asei ‫נ‬ht'-ba-·uman geraman] is par‫ ז‬of the overall divine plan .for the world, whose jiu.stificat.ion lies ‫ת‬i thc will and wisdom of God.

He funher •quotes .a passage· fro•m ·rhe Hinab 1932,), r,c lating to thc three morni‫ת‬.g b:Jessings:

Siddu‫·ז‬

(Jerusalem & New York:

'T hesc thrce aspecrs of'our own [ male] s‫ז‬anu impose upon us duties much more compre.hensive ‫ז‬han thc res‫ ז‬of mankind. And if our women have a smaller number of mi‫ז‬zvot co fulfill ‫ו‬d,an men, the·y know·tha:t rhe tasks which they must

Digitized by

Go g e

3,4

Original from

NDIANA UNIVERSITY

BLESSING·S OFF.E NSIVE

T‫י‬O

WOM!:.N

un,comfort·ab.le with it even as far back as talmudic rimes. Thus. in Me.nahot 43b, we read: lt was taught: R. Meir says.: A pcrson must say three bcncdictio,ns cvcry day. and. these are thcy: who has mad.c mc an lsraelite (‫נ‬.c., a}ew); who has not made mc· a woman; who has not made mc an ignoramus. .Rav·Aha bar Yaakov heard his son reciting thc blcssing. "·Who has n.o t mad.c mc an ignoram.us.'' He· said to h.im: Why do you recite this blcssing? Surcly thc i,gnoramus is .also obligatcd in m.itzvo‫ז‬: (Ras.hi, ibid.) .. l[ Thc son. replied: What, th.en,, shouJd I say in order to complctc d‫ו‬c three bcncdictions? (Rashi) 'W ho has not madc me a slave? That i.s thc samc as a wo,man . ... This d1fficult passage was interpreted by R. Hayyim Hirschensohn, in his work, Ma/ki ba·-kodesh, vol" 4 (St..Louis, 206), as follows:

B•ut ‫ת‬i. truth I will tel1 you somcthing to which.all the earlicr an.d later·dccisors were not sensit:ive .... And that is that indeed, the Babylonian Talmu.d [al,so•] 11 . _ - d to_th ...s b - cne _- d,-•1c‫ו‬:1on · •__ - ••. an-d -L .... t --. the d;.1scuss1o• . _ • ‫'"[_ת‬m_.1.r‫נ‬tn.a h-D.tJ 1'"b·d] obJectc ·.' 1 wa. -1 . ; dcmonstrates the oppos.i tion ‫ס‬t it . , .. For it is clear that both Rav Ah.a b.ar· Yaakov and his son obje·ctcd to this blcssing ...., . .For thesc saindy elders sensed the fccling·ofaffront to the dign1ry ofwom.en, and Rav Aha b·ar Yaakov was not willing to re,cite this be:nediction, ‫ת‬a·d [therefore]· his son said "Who has no·t made mc an ignoramus" instcad ... "

Sce the continuation of his..int:crpretation (and what I wr‫·ס‬te in Dar/ea·h shel ha/4.chah [Jerusal·em: ‫נ‬.007‫ י‬10J, n. 148], .and ‫ מ·ס‬greate.r sensitivity to wom,e.n's feclings, ibid., pass.). We find.this kind ofsensitivity in yct anothcr calmudic licurgical conr·ex:t .. Thus in BT B"achot 49a, wc read the follow,ing: Rabbi Zcira said to Rav :Hisda, •come and t,each!• Rav Hisda answcrcd, "1

h·ave not cven leamed. birlu‫·נ‬t ha-mazon properly, and you want me ‫ס‬t t,cach?'‫י‬ Rabbi Zeira said, "What are yo,u talking about ?" Rav Hisda rcsponded: •When clischarge as free wo.mcn are no l,e.ss ‫ת‬i accordancc wi‫ז‬b. the wil.l and th-e des.ire ‫ ·ס‬f G·o d

than those of t,h cir bro,t hers. Henc,e thcir blessing is "who has c.r e.a tcd m,e in accorda‫ת‬.cc wirh His will."

Th.ese are the sorts.of argume‫ת‬-ts - apologetic - pu.t forward to explain, or j us . . tify~ such blessings.. Sce further Erp•n.di‫מ‬g the Palaee of TorAh, 38, on. Rabbi A. 1. K‫ם‬o· k 1s justi‫מ‬cation for·this blessi.ng:. 1

Digitized by

Go g e

3S

o,·ig ina ‫ו‬

f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA U IVERS Y‫ד‬

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

1visited the house of the Exilarch and recited birkat ha-mazon, Rav Sheshet uncoiled his neck at me like a snake." [He was very angry.] "Why?" "Because I did not mention brit [the covenant of circumcision], Torah or [David's] kingship.• "Why not ?" "1 followed Rav Hananel in the narne of Rav, as Rav Hananel said in the narne of Rav that whoever did not say "covenant," "Torah" and "kingship" [nevertheless] ful.filled the obligation. 1omitted •covenant" because it does n‫ס‬t apply ‫ס‬t women, and I omitted "Torah" and "kingship" because they do not apply ‫ס‬t women and slaves." Rabbi Zeira exclaimed, "You rejected all the tannaim and arnoraim and followed Rav?!"

The maj‫ס‬rity of rabbis did n‫ס‬t accept Rav Hisda's version, nor do we follow it here. However, Rav Hisda's sensitiviry ‫ס‬t everyone who recites the grace after meals and his desire ‫ס‬t avoid using language that does n‫ס‬t apply ‫ס‬t everyone equally are surely significant. (See Afterword, n. 9.) Closer ‫ס‬t our own day, Rebbetzin Rayna Batya, the granddaughter of Rabbi Hayyim Volozhiner (1749-182.1) and the first wife ofRabbi Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin (the Netziv, 1816-1893) is said ‫ס‬t have been deeply offended by this blessing. Her nephew, Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein ( the author of the Torah Temima and the son of the Aruch ha-Shulhan ), writes as follows in his memoirs,Mekor Baruch (part 4, chap. 46, sec. 3 [Vilna: 192.8, 981], as cited by Ross (ibid., 37-38): How bitter was my aunt that, as she would say from time ‫ס‬t time, •Every emptyheaded, ignorant man; every ignoramus who hardly knew the meaning of the words and who would not dare ‫ס‬t cross her threshold without first obsequiously and humbly obtaining her permission, would not hesitate ‫ס‬t boldly and arrogancly recite ‫ס‬t her face the blessing ofshe-lo asani isha. Moreover, upon his recitation of the blessing, she was obliged ‫ס‬t answer "Arnen." "And who can rnuster enough strength," she would conclude with great anguish, "co hear this eternal symbol of sharne and embarrassme‫ח‬t ‫ס‬t wornen?"

Furthermore, it was the same R. Meir who commented (BT Bava Batra 16b) on the verse in Genesis 2.4:1, "and the Lord had blessed Abraham with

all" ,‫ (לכב‬ba-kol): What is "with all" - ba-ko/? ... That he had no daughcer. R. Yehudah says: That he had a daughcer. And others said: He had a daughter and Ba-kol was her narne.

Digitized by

Google

36

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

BLESSINGS OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN

And in Midrash ha-Gaddol ad loc.: "Said R. Meir: He definitely had no daughter" ‫ התיח ול תב (ללכ‬.)‫( אלש‬R. Meir's conclusion accords with his unders‫ז‬anding of a text inJob 42.:12.-13, as we learn frornJT Hagigah 2.:1, 77b. See Lieber111an, Mehka‫ח‬m be-Torat Eretz Yisrae/ [Jerusalern: 1991], 114, and see M. A. Friedrnan in Teudah 4 [1886]: 79, in his article "lyyunim be-midrasho shel R. Meir," in which he shows conclusively [page 82.] that the blessing she-lo asani ishah rnay indeed be attributed to R. Meir.) The sarne R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein, whorn we cited above, comments on R. Meir's staternent in his Torah Temimah on Gen. ibid. (2.17, n. 6): Also, one migh‫ ז‬say concerning this view of R. Meir that he is [here] consiste‫מ‬t with his ruling in BT Mmahot 43b that one must recite the blessing every day "that He has t‫ מס‬made me a woman; and one may suggest that women were of lesser value in his eyes because of their inferior intelligence (‫ ןתעד‬,)‫תולק‬ as is appare‫מ‬t from BT Avodah Zarah 18b [where we are ‫ז‬old] tha‫ ז‬he fled in shame because of his wife Beruriah ... and also that he fell ‫ס‬t‫מ‬i ‫ז‬emptation at the hands of a cer‫ז‬ain woman, as we learn from his biography in Stdn- ha-dorot.

‫גם יש ררסר כעדתיה דר' סאיו‬ ‫ואיזל שליסתיה שחיקן לךרכ‬

‫ כסובאר‬,‫ככל ידם שלא שעני אהש‬ ‫ שי ררסר‬I ‫ )זו‬,‫כמנחרת ס"ג ע"כ‬ ‫רש•ם ה•ה לק ביענוי ינוכם‬.‫שוען נ‬

‫תולק ועןת' כסכואר כעובדה זרה‬ ‫כסופא‬

n

‫י"ח ע"כ שרבח סחס‬

,‫ספני ברורהי אשתו עויין שם‬

‫וגם ספני שנשבל ער ירי אהש‬ ‫אחת ככסואד כותדלרתיר כסדר‬

. ...‫דהורות‬

This view is very different indeed from the one expressed by the late Rabbi Professor Emanuel Rackman in his classic article "Arrogance or Humili‫ז‬y in Prayer" ( Tradition 1 [1958]: 13-2.6), in which he criticizes the Conservative and Reforrn movements' radical rewriting of the siddur. lt is in‫ז‬eresting that the author of these blessings was Rabbi Meir, whose wife was t‫ מס‬only his beloved, but also his peer - a woman who was so scholarly that her view in opposition ‫ס‬t the majority of rabbis is cited by the Talmud in connection with a very difficult Halakhic problem (and her view prevailed). She was one of the many ‫ס‬t be credited with the literature of the Mishnah. And when an Orthodox Jew recites the blessing Rabbi Meir composed, he hesitates ‫ס‬t emend it and make himself appear more chivalrous than the great sage, and more appreciative ofhis own wife than Rabbi Meir was ofhis. (18)

But clearly, this apologetic statement is part of the general polernic therne of his article. (For further exarnples of such apologetic justifications

Digitized by

Google

37

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

see 1. Jacobson, Netiv Binah, vol. ‫( ז‬Tel Aviv: 1976 [ fifth lmpression], 166), referring ‫ס‬t R. S. R. Hirsch, etc., and in E. Munk, Olam ha-Tdi[/ot, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: 1994 [ninth impression], 35-36). However, Munk's argument with R. Meir's statement in BT Sanhedrin 59a is irrelevant because it refers only ‫ס‬t gentiles, and the additional reference to Yalkut Shofti,m 4.4, 7osb is to a statement by R. Pinhas ben Eliezer, not R. Meir.) If we accept the Torah Temimah's suggestion that R. Meir had an antifeminist attitude for whatever reason and that he adopted the ancient blessing she-lo asani ishah because of it, we may ask ourselves whether we must follow his apparent prejudice in our day. After all, we do not necessarily accept his view that Abraham had no daughters. The rabbinic consensus is actually that he had one daughrer who may even have been called Ba-kol! Parenthetically, we may comment that his opinion that Abraham had no daughter is very strange, since it would mean that he had not satisfied the requirements of the mitzvah of procreation (periah u-reviah). According to the Mishnah in Yevamot 6.2, one fulfills this mitzvah only after having both a son and a daughter ( according ‫ס‬t Beit Hillel, while Beit Shammai requires tw‫ ס‬sons and a daughter; see also Shulhan Aruch Even ha-Ezer 1:4). Can it be that the patriarch Abraham, who according ‫ס‬t the sages of the Talmud (BT Yoma 28b) kept all 613 mitzvot (!), neglected the first and perhaps the most important one? (See Maharsha, R. Shmuel Eliezer ha-Levi Eideles, Hiddushei

Aggadot ‫ סח‬BT Bava Batra 16b, and Perushei Maharal mi-Prag le-Aggadot haShas, vol. 3, edited by M. S. Kasher and Y. Y. Belchrowitz, 78,Jerusalem: 1966.) Returning ‫ס‬t R. Aharon Worms's (Wermish) statement that he recited the beracha "she-lo asani ishah" silendy, this view was more recendy advocated by Rabbi Dr. Joel S. Wolowelsky in Tradition (29:4 (1995]: 61-68) and repeated in his book Women,jewish Law and Modernity: New Opportunities in

a Post-Feminist Age (Hoboken: 1997, 75-84). 1n the same issue of Tradition, R. Emanuel Feldman, in a section enticled "An Articulate Berakhah" ( 69-74), states that doing so "becomes a daily confession ‫ס‬t an accusation that is not true: that there is something intrinsically offensive to women in this berakhah and R. Feldman advocates instead 'interpreting it properly.'" Although R. Dr. Ephraim Bezalel Halivni, in his recendy published book, Distinctions between Men and Women in Halakha (Jerusalem: 2.007, English section, 8-10), appears ‫ס‬t accept R. Feldman's position, he adds:

Digitized by

Google

38

Original from INDIANA UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

BLESSINGS OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN

Nowadays, there is no reason for the shaliah zibbur to recite any of the birlehot hashahar aloud; indeed in many congrcgations the shaliah zibbur does not recite the birkhot hashahar aloud. Of course, in that case, the issue of reciting ..sht-lo asani ishah" aloud bccomcs mo‫ס‬t.

R. Feldman's "proper interpretation" of the berachah is ncither that of the Tur nor, apparendy, of R. Aharon Worms, whose interpretation is really the peshat - the simple, straightforward and correct interpretation. lt parallels to the other two berachot, she-lo asani nokhri and she-lo asani aved. Saying it silendy was a sign of sensitivity ‫ס‬t the feelings of others, if not an ideal solution. Indeed, feminist dissatisfaction with this formulation will undoubtedly continue as long as it remains in the prayer book. Perhaps a more radical suggestion is simply ‫ס‬t omit the benediction. Thus, for example, the Rambam strongly rejected birkat dam betulim, to be recited a.fter first intercourse with a virgin (Shulhan Aruch Even ha-Ezer 63:2), since he saw in it a lack of modesty (Responsa, edited by Blau, 364, 366. Jerusalem: 1958) and later on by the Maharshal, R. Shlomo Luria. lt is already absent from Siddur Saadya Gaon, though since it is a post-talmudic benedicrion, it is easier to reject and omit it. (See N. Wieder, The Fo‫ו‬mation of]ewish Liturgy in the East and West: A Collection o/Essays [Jerusalem: 1998, 619-61.1 (Hebrew)]; B. Z. Groner, Berachot she-nishtaku [Jerusalem: 1.003], 1.9-34.) Similarly, the blessingmagbiah shifalim ("who raises up the lowly"), which is talmudic according to some opinions (Ba"h [Bayit Hadash], by R. Joel Sirkes, on Tur Orah Hayyim, sec. 4b) and used to be found in many siddu‫ז‬im, fell into disuse. (See in detail for all aspects of this blessing in M. Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, Halakhah and Customs [Ramat Gan: 2000, 465-473]. For many other examples ofblessings that fell out of use, see ibid., 436-445.) Yet perhaps even more significant is the fact that many early authorities rejected the clearly Tannaitic blessingshe-lo asani bur ("who has not made me an ignoramus") (see S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fihutah [New York: 1955], 119-11.0), which is one of R. Meir's three blessings (in BT Menahot 43b and ToseftaBerachot 6:18, in the name of R. Yehudah, and Yerushalmi ibid., 9, 2, 13b) on the basis of the continuation of a discussion in Menahot, ibid., and it gradually disappeared from our liturgy (Hallamish, ibid., 440-441) (see Appendix 8 below). We should also no‫ז‬e tha‫ ז‬the blessing •who has no‫ ז‬made me an

Digitized by

Google

39

o,·iginal from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

ignoramus," which was also a blessing of R. Yehudah and appears in many early siddurim (see Hallamish, ibid., 440-441), was rejected as far back as early medieval times. R. David Kochavi, a Proven~al scholar of the early fourteenth century, writes as follows in his work, Sifer ha-Batim (Beit Tefillah, edited by M. Hershler, 2.16 [Jerusalem: 1983]): Some cus‫ז‬omarily reci‫ז‬e a blessing, "Who has not made me an ignoramus." lt seems ‫ס‬t me that they are mistaken, since this blessing should not be recited.

,‫ רךדב לשא שעני רבד‬u‫שי הנ‬ ,‫ו יל שסערת חרא בדים‬-:‫רנוא‬

.‫שאין מרבכךי רבכה זו‬

The editor, ad loc. (n. 802.) refers us ‫ס‬t additional early authorities from the school of Rashi who also rejccted this blessing, all basing thcmselves ‫סח‬ BT Menahot 43b, when we read that when Rav Aha bar Yaakov heard his son reciting the blessing "Who has not made me an ignoramus," he said ‫ס‬t him: "So much so!" - ‫ יאה‬,‫ ילוכ‬indicating that he was criticizing him for saying it (see Rashi's tw‫ ס‬explanations ad loc. and the continuation of the passage). Thus, ‫ סח‬the one hand, despite Rav Aha bar Yaakov's dissatisfaction with this blessing, it survived to make its way into many early prayer books. On the other hand, there was a good talmudic precedent for rejecting it, which was adopted by many early authorities, so that eventually it dropped completely out of use. (See also below Appendix 8.) Eventually, this may happen ‫ס‬t ‫ אלש ינשע השא‬as well. lt, too, may join the many benedictions that faded into oblivion (see Groner passim). Only time will tel1.

Digitized by

Google

40

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

5

Recommended Changes There werc also various attempts at various times to rectify the situation. Wc

are not rcfcrring t ·O the changes .suggestcd b·y representatives ‫•ס‬f Conservative, Liberal or Reform Judaism in our own time.. We are speakin.g of classi-•cal timcs. Thus, for cxamp,lc, we· find that in 1476,, Rabb.i Ab,raham Farissol wrote a praycr book in Fcrr:ara, Italy, whi.ch ca‫ מ‬now bc found at the Jcwis.h Theologic·al Seminary Library i.n New York, in wh.ic::h he p•rovided alternativc. versions.for thesc blessin.gs: baruth she-asan:i·ishah (blessed is He Who•m:ade · stead_ of_/e,rtzo. · no (·•‫ גת‬ac,c,o rdancc ‫ו‬w·m me a woman)_10. -· - H·" _ - :.1s will"' --_· _. )_• ‫ז‬h· . . 1s was .a privatc·si‫ו‬ldur. Si‫ת‬cc Rabbi Farissol was a .scribc, hc presumably wro,tc such siddurim.for wealr.hy Jewish womcn of thc Renaiss:ancc period who spccially ordcred them .. He also,w:rot·c thc~e: Blcssed are You, Who has not m.ade mc a handrnai,d or slavc..

‫י"•הס‬--‫י‬ ~ ‫•שי_ני‬ - -‫ע‬,_-_-- •‫'ש‬--‫ו‬r......-‫זי‬ ---- -?-- :- - -‫• י‬. •• ‫ובוך‬ !,‫ ן‬- :- .‫שופחה‬

1n a second mahzor that was written.four ycars later, :in 1480 - a beautiful illuminat-ed manuscri.p t ofwhich may·bc found in thejew.i.sh National .Libr:ary i‫}ת‬erusalem. - we read as foUo‫י‬ws: Blesscd .arc You ... Who did not make me a handmaidcn .. B·lcsscd .arc You .... Who m.adc mc· :a woman and not a man. Blcssed .are You...•. Who did not make

.‫•י ש'רא שעני ~הס‬ ‫אשה ולא‬: ‫דיי‬r‫ עששנ‬.

4 ·•

1 •

‫רברן‬ ‫רבךר‬

‫ לשא שעי ני‬... ‫ רבךר‬.‫אזסי‬

mc a Gcn‫ז‬ilc woman"1·

.‫גויה‬

_- K · · 1-e, ·s -- h-· sh_e-asa‫מ‬i --- - ....u -b-A h.·_ ‫גת "י‬ · - ‫ע‬aru& -0 ·... • b-. s-h.-·e-as‫ו‬i, -----. ,,--_ ah' 1 See Y-. .H-. , .-ah _-__- ‫' ת‬s .-an1c --ATUC ni~ u .- . · (..- ed . D. Y~ Aricl,.M. Lcibovitz, Y. Mazor, 12.4-‫ננ‬.6. Tcl Aviv: 19_9 _9 [in Hc'brc:w]). Scc Tre4Ju‫ז‬es· Revealed rp.2 5-20.0 0: From ‫ו‬he C'olle,tio‫ו‬u ofthejewnh Nationa/ an.d

Digitized by

Go .· . e

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

ON

‫י‬CHANGES

:I N JEWISH LITURGY

These th.rce blessings, which we normally recite during the shahariJ {.m oming) praycr serviccs and which arc found i.n the Tosefta,1 are ac·rually Univn‫ז‬ity

Libra:ry, Je.rusale‫ י‬m :: 2,000, 98-101 .. On. p·. 99, we read the following de·scription: A prayer boo.k for ycar. . round, accordi‫ת‬g ‫ וכס‬th,e· l‫ז‬:alian rite (Mflhzor Bnd Roma.) writtcn by R. R. Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol ‫ת‬i Man‫נם‬a; 1480... Th,c prayer book was written for a wcalthy l.ady, apparendy from the banki‫ת‬.g 1

"

1 ,

.‫ג‬

famlly of Judah a‫ת‬d .Jaco'b Norsa, Farissol~s pauons duri‫ת‬g his soj,o,u rn in Mantua. For this won:h y lady, Farissol changed the wording o.f the mor.n ing bless.i‫ם‬gs: "Blcssc·d be Hc [" .. ] Who made .m e a woma‫ת‬, an,d not a ma‫( "ת‬see p. 101). Abraham Farissol_was born in Avigno‫ ת‬in 14.‫ן‬a, and_ ‫ת‬i 1470 moved_with_ .hi:·s family to Mantua. His carcer as a scribe, whi.ch. began while he ·was.still at Avignon. under his uncle's guidancc. •CO‫ת‬tinued for s,ome siny years. Farissol. who was leamed in philosophy and sciences, wrote commentaries O·‫ מ‬books of the Bible and on Ethics of th,e Father,s, as well as his book ‫מ‬1g‫ונ‬M .Avraham, a disp‫ י‬utation with Christ.‫נ‬ans writte·n in the wake of'a n actual dispu‫ז‬ation in l.taly to which Farissol was delegatcd asJewish represe‫ת‬rative ‫מ‬i 14.87-1489.,At the cn.d of his lifc·, in 1s2.s. h,e C'V cn wrotc a. ,cosmologicaJ"gcographical work, Iggeret orho.t o.lam, in which he also, dcscribc·s Amcrica shortly aicr its discovcry. Tosefta Berachot 6 ‫(ד‬.): 18 ‫(י‬ed. Licbe.rma‫ת‬, 38); p,arallels. in J'T Buacbot· 9"2,, 13b_; BT Mmahot 4 .i b, ctc. See S. Licberman., Tosefta.ki:fshutAh, vo.l.• 1 (New York: I9SS, 119-12.1),. with bibliographi.c re:ferences" Lieberm,‫ת‬a hi.mself is some·w hat skeptical of the ‫י‬Greco• Hellenistic influe‫ת‬c,e on rhese ber1:1cbot..See the interesting ,ugg·es‫ז‬ion of 1. S. 1. Hasidah, in his anicle '"Le•haua:n at shloshah bt‫ז‬1Khot· ... " (Sinai 9·9/‫נ‬-‫ב‬ [1986]: 9s-96), where hc tries to find a bib.lical. source in .Psalms 100:3 for thesc three benedictions. Although.h.is argument is clevcr‫י‬, it is not convinci‫ת‬g. There were appare‫ת‬tly var.iou.s aadi‫ז‬ions as to thc exact versio.n of thcsc bcncdictio‫ת‬s. ln thc Palcs‫ז‬i‫ת‬ian G•e‫מ‬izah we find sevcral expanded versio.ns" a‫ם‬d thc.rc au somc: very different rcadings of the who.l.e of hir:leot ba-shah•r~ See Dalia Sara Marx, "The Earl·y Morning Rimal in }c'wish Liturgy·:, Tenual, 'H istor.i cal and Th.cologicaJ Discussion in Birkot H.as,h a,khar (The Moming Bless.ings) and ‫ת‬a E.xamlnation of the Perfo.rmat.ive Aspects," PhD diss. , Heb.rew Universi:ry (April: 2'oos)., 176-2.16. H ere we shall cite.two examples fro-.m the Cairo Ge‫ת‬izah: Ms. Antoni‫ת‬. 993, fol. 16-‫ג‬a, published by S. Ass,af: "Mi-setuT b11.-tefill‫ו‬.‫ו‬.h b6-:Ere.t z rurul. • S‫י‬fr‫ ו‬Dinburg ,(Jerusalem: 19s6, 12.2): 1

Blessed an Thou ,. . . Who hath created mc A hum,‫ת‬a b·eing·and not an anim:al A man and no·t a wom.an Male and not fcm.alc An lsraelite· and not a gentiJe Circumciscd and ‫מ‬ot uncircwncised Free and ‫ז‬o‫ ת‬a slave Pure and not impure

Digitized by

Go ... e

41

‫שר· רבא ואחי‬:‫ לסך העולם א‬u‫תי לאקי‬, ‫וכרי אהת‬

‫ה‬.‫ לוא רכפ‬:‫אדם‬:

‫אשי ואל אהש‬ ‫זכר ראל נקהב‬ ‫·שיראל ולא ניר‬ ‫סהלר דילא ערל‬

‫חד·פיש אלר עבר‬ ‫םהדר לוא ·םםא‬

Original from

INDIA A UN VERSITY

Ica!ian Siddur of an ariscocracic lady ,vritte‫ ח‬by Abraham Farissol, 1480 (Ms. Medieval 111.,, ). Note also apparcnt censorship : ‫לשא‬ ‫נ' ]•וג[ה‬,‫ תשע‬where ‫ וג•ה‬seems t‫ ס‬be partially erascd.

Digitized by

Google

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHA.NGES IN .JE.WISH LITUR.GY

parallel to Grcek benedictions that are found in ‫י‬Grcck classical sources. specifically·in the writings of Plato and Aristode, ‫מ‬a·d. in o,t her Greek.s.ources from thc fifth century B.C.E. Blesscd are Yo‫ ט‬Who has ma,de mc an .Ad‫ו‬enian and ,n ot a barbarian,. Blessed arc You Who has madc me a man and not a woman. B,lesscd arc You Who has madc mc.a frec man and..t‫ מס‬a slavc.

Since the Jewish prayers wcre deemed offensive to women, alternative versions wcrc written in ltaly as early as thc fiftecnth century. These versions actually appcar later on in. other placcs such as Bavaria. Thcy wcrc uscd and apparcndy wcrc quite acceptable. 3 ln,deed, wc may well be surpriscd whcn wc rcad the following discussion of ·d‫ו‬cse thrcc first morning bencd.i ctions in Berliner's classic .He'arot al ha-siddu‫ז‬4 (part 1,. 2,1-2,1): And in ms. Cambridgc 31·60/b‫ י‬p•u blished by·J" Mann, "Ge.n izah Fragments of the Pale,s tinian ‫י‬Or,dc.r ofS,ervice" (HUCA 2, [19,2.s]: z77)., we read:

BJ,essed an·Thou ... who hath creat,e d m,e A human bcing and not an animal A .m an and not a woman An Israeli‫·ז‬c and not a ,ge‫ת‬t.ilc C.i rcumcised a‫ת‬d not uncircumciscd Free a‫ת‬d ‫ת‬ot a slave

‫ רש ובא ארחי‬lC ••• •‫רבןו ·אתה ה‬

‫אדם אלר הבוכה‬,

‫שיאלראהש‬.K ‫ירנ‬, ‫ישראל יולא‬

‫םלרלאערל‬ ‫ו‬.‫חופיש רלא עב‬

lt is surely evide‫ת‬t that the .firs:t versio‫ ת‬we quored (and the seco:nd to a lesser degree) is a co‫ת‬flatio‫ מ‬of ,d ifferent ·tradit·io‫ת‬s. for "a man and not a woman‫ יי‬is actually· the s.a m,e as "male and .n ot fcmale," and so too "lsraeti‫·ז‬c and not a gentile" is much rhe same as "circwnciscd..and not u.ncircumcised, and also "purc and not impure." "Circumc:isc·d and not u‫ת‬circumcised" may .r efer to Christ.i ans as op‫י‬posed to Moslems, who are circumciscd. ,Sce Mann's C•o mment (ibid., 2..74). Mann (ibidl. .‫ מ‬19) cites yet anoth,e r versio.n fromJTS Cod. Turin s.1), which.reads as follows: ‫רבל‬r‫ונ תי‬.‫ישע ע‬n‫א רנ‬:‫לם' אלר לרע' לש‬, ‫תדצראה‬: ‫יאלש ינשע ףג יירנכ‬

‫אלש •נתישעי השא יאלש •נתישע הסהנ‬

...... Who,hath not m:ad~ mc a gentU~ like the gen‫ו‬:iles of ‫ז‬:he wor·l d, circumcised

and .‫ת‬ot uncircwnc:ised,, w ·ho hat·h not madc me a slavc ‫ס‬t p,eople, Who hath ‫·תס‬t made me .a woman, Who hath ‫ת‬ot made .m e ‫ת‬a animal. Mann rightly notes that "Th.e 1nRuence of the P‫י‬alestinian rite is obvious." 3 Kahn, ibid. 4. He'arot al b.tt"si'd dur is a Hebrew translations ,o f a series of articles in Germa‫ת‬: Randbtmerkungm zum tuglichen Gebetbuch, vol. 1 (Be.rlin: 1909), vol. .z (Ber.lin: 1912) Die E.inhe.itsgtsa‫מ‬g (Berlin: 1910); .Li,teratu‫ז‬-geschicbtliche Btltgt ubt‫ ז‬dit 1

;

Digitized by

Go g e

44

Original from

JNDJANA UNIVERS TY

:R E.COMMENDED CH .A NGES

" ... 1n thc ancient and currenr vcrsions., •Who has not mad,e mc a ,goy," the meaningof'the wo.rdgoy is, as .i·t is found in thc: Tal.m·u.d - a non-Jew. The ve:r sions that wcre "c,o rrcctcd," for rcasons of c·ensorship, contain thc s.ugges.tc,d no,hri instead ofgoy ·and arc totally in:c orrcct, s.ince in talm.udi,c parlance the word nochri, w:hich m•c:a‫מ‬s, som.cone: from a foreign land, may· refer cven ro aJew who is n ,01: local. For this rcason, in che mid•eightccnth century, they·began [ 'O read: aWho has nor .made .me an aleum• )‫ (םיירבע‬- idol.ator. lt is to be recomme.n dcd in the mosc forccful manner to insti. ‫נ‬n·t.e in all sidduri.m the [fo,Uowing] formu.lation: ‫לא‬.‫ ינשעש •י·רש‬- who has madc mc an lsradite, as, is clearly ‫ס‬t be found in printed p.raycr books, such as d‫ו‬e Man‫ש‬a edicion of 1ss8,, Tihingen ‫·ז‬s6o,. Prague 1566, Vcnice 1s66 and 157i, Dyhrenfurth 1694, Bcnv·cnisri's Kenesset ha-Gedolah, vol. 1.. , fol~ 4.6. ‫ז‬e·c., all ofwhom demand that this be thc ve.r sion .... If this V•ersion shou[d 'bc accepred and become the no,r.m through‫·ס‬t‫ ט‬all J•ewish comrnunities, thcn, ip·‫ס‬s facto, thc two 0 ther b,encdictions,, •Who has ‫•ח‬o ·c madc me a woman• and •·who .has o‫ימ‬t made :me a slavc," bcc‫•ס‬mc s;uper1

‫ (ןהילאם‬,)‫תדלםב‬

and we will no longer· be obli.gaitcd 't O jus,tify thcm in whichevcr way [was rcquired in thc past]. Mo-rcover:. there is no place for the late formulations "Who has not madc mc ag~ah• or "nochnt" (‫ת‬o•‫ מ‬. .Jcwish woman), •who has m.adc me according [o Hi,s will.‫" יי‬Who has not made mc a maidscrvant"' or cven "Who has not made me a beast" (as in .Leltet loshe‫ ;ו‬part fl·u1ous

1,

7, and in several other manuscripts).

If, afte·r all the.se· proofs and rcason.s, thcre still remai.n scrious doubts and hc.sitati•o‫ת‬s in o,ne s hcarc that preve‫ ·ס [ת‬c‫ מ‬fr‫ •ס‬m accepdng 1 [this] vcrsion, which already in ancient times un.derwcnt change and alteration, le·r us bring a conc.lus.ivc example from our·sagcs;,who, ‫ת‬i o.rder c·o lcavc no pl.acc for misunderstanding, cvcn changcd the fonnulation ofa biblical vcrse:: ·1refc·r to that which is ,said in BT Berachot 11b, whcre we are told that th.ey aliered the blessing lotzer; for in lsaiah 45:7 it is.wri‫י‬ttcn, "1 form die light and create darkn.css, 1. make peac·e and create e‫ש‬il,• .a nd they changcd .it to cnd "and crcate all." 1

He the,n cit:es addition.al evidence in ·‫ס‬rder to·support his argu.m,ent. This apud Zu,r Lehr und' Weh‫•• ז‬. (Be·rlin: 1904, 40-63). The tran,s lations wer,e by Y, A" Zcidman and.Y. Blumbe.rg. Note that R. Yitzhak Va‫~ת‬ih in his sitldur ( Tichlal), Paamon Zabav (ms,1) has: ‫ ינשעש ידוהי‬.‫ךררב‬ S.ee A. Gaima‫ת‬i, Tem. uro‫ י‬t be·Mo,resbet Yahadut Teinuin (Cha‫ת‬ges in thc Heritage of 'Yeme‫ת‬iteJewry), Ramat Ga‫ת‬. : ioo,,, 1·2.3. ‫ת‬O this sidduT .sec M. Gavra, Teim• 4 (1994)·: ss-6s. This reading wa.s known ‫ם‬t· R~ Yihye Tzalah (Maharitz)‫ י‬but rejectcd. Se•e his Tichlal Etz Hayyim, vol. 1 (editcd by S..‫ז‬-zalah, 43b. Jerusalem: 1979,).

,hristliche ,Orgel im judischen

Digitized by

Go.tt~s‫ו‬lie.nste,

Go g ,e

1

4S IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

ON

CHAN ‫י‬GES

IN JEWJSH. L.I TURGY

is not the only place‫· י‬where he s,trongly

recommends changes. in ‫י‬thc prayer.

Thus, on pagc 2,,0 ‫(י‬i.bid..), hc writcs: The following ‫וי‬crs.ion is rccommcndcd ( in Yigda/), ‫רעה ןורא םלוס לכר רתי הרוי‬ ‫כלםר‬m‫ ר‬,‫ רחלחג‬inst.cad ofwhat is found in our cdirions, [‫םיה ןחא םלרע לכל רצם הרוי‬ ‫רכלםר‬n‫ ותלודג] ר‬. Scveral tcsdmonia. bear out th.is ve:rsion, and it is suited to thc thineen principles ,o f ,fa.ith, as set out by Maimonidcs .i n his commenrary to

Mishna Sanhcdrin‫ י‬and d‫ו‬e bcginning of chapccr Hela. .Berliner ‫(י‬185, 3-191s) was. not a Refon11 r.abbi. On th.e contrary,,.he was a staunch supporter ofOrthodoxy and an opponcnt ofReforn1. He supported Hildeshcimer in the estab.lis,hmcn‫י‬t ,o f thc.Adas lsrael secessionist congregation and actcd as chairman of thc coun,cil for ,many years. lt is .sai.d tha.t he was such

a strong ttaditionalist he rcfuscd to call ·u p to the Torah those n.O‫י‬t wearing •:cylindcr" top hats. Yct.he was willin,g to recommc.n d changes in p.rayers, texts and customs d‫ו‬at wcre [‫ מס‬to the lik.ingofhis Orthodox collcagues.s Another passagc which I havc ofte·n hcard to bc offcnsive to women is fo,und in the long t11.hanun prayer beginnin,g with the words ‫חתרפ די הבושתב‬1‫ה‬ - "You who .hold out ,an o,pen hand of repentancc." 1n che passage thcrc .are ve·rses that mn as foUows: God, se•c how low our glo,ry has s.u nk among thc nations.

‫א·ל י הכיםח לד בכדום‬

Thcy abomin.ate s‫ ט‬as much as t.hc ritual impurity of thc m.cns.t ruant woman. How long will Yo‫ ש‬.strcngd‫ ו‬bc hcld captive, and Your glory in.·d‫ו‬c hand ,o f the foe?

‫ם‬ca‫נםר וםכת‬r‫זשצ‬, ,‫ירגנם‬ ‫י עךזו כשבי‬.‫ דע םת‬,‫הדנה‬

.‫ךת בדי צו‬,‫פאר‬n‫ר‬

Clearly, in modern te.rms.the phrase ‫ןכרצ תאוכרטכ הדנה‬/‫ קשו‬- "They abomi. ual ‫יי‬ na.t e us as much as th .... e r1t . 1mpur1ty o r· th . e menstr‫ט‬ant woman‫ יי‬._s not __ .-_· "p- o_1··‫·_ ג‬. cally c,orrect," to put it mildly. ,Here it s.h,ould be noted that th.is whole prayer derives from the Mahzor· •·.-

·..

..

.

- •. -

-

-

. -

-.

•. ·

.- .

.

.. -

-

·.··

· · · -

· •

-

•

-

-

cc,

-

·

-· - .

·-

. ·.. -

. ·

·•

-

·

·• . · .·

1‫י‬

t‫נ‬-

Vitry, from chc school of Rashi. ln the Horowitz edicion ,o f this.work (Berlin 1889-1897), these two verses are absent (70) . Appare.ntly, thcre was a gap, in the editor's manuscript, i.nd‫ז‬cated in his cdition by thre.c dots. (Th.,e manuscript he use·d was ms. Bri·t., Mu.s" No. 65s, &om c. ‫נ‬. 2.42. . ) Ir seems clear that 1

s

See EncyclopaediaJutL‫ג‬ica, vol. 4 (Jc-rusal,em: 1971, 66s)‫ י‬, and A. Ferziger, Ex,‫ז‬:lu.s.ion and Hierarchy (Philadelphia.: ,‫נ‬.oo·s, :‫ג‬4-‫ב‬9). For·a fuller evalua·rion of Berliner•s .re• ligious positions, see Yis,hayah.a Wolfsberg's introduction ‫ם‬t• Hearot, ‫י‬s-10.

Digitized by

Go g ,e

46 IND

Original from ANA UN VERSl‫ז‬Y

RECOMMENDED CHANGES

this lacuna is the result of(internal) censorship. Maybe it is for this reason that these lines are absent in the siddurim that are in accordance of the Lurianic tradition. Thus, they do not appear in Siddur ha-Ari Kol Yaakov of R. Yaakov Koppel (Slavita: 1784, reprin ‫ז‬ed Jerusalern: 1004, 71a); Siddur Tefil.lah al pi Nusah ha-Arizal in Perush Mahari»d, vol. 1 (=R. Yitzchak Dover) (Kfar Habad: 1991), 114; nor in the standard Habad siddurim. They do not appear in Siddur Hegyon Lev (Konigsberg: 184s, 89-90, and see editor's cornmen‫ ז‬ad loc.), or in a manuscrip‫ ז‬from 1344 where many sec‫ז‬ions of the tahanun that are now found in our prayer books are absent. On the other hand, it is found in the manuscripts of the Mahzor Vitry used by A. Goldschrnidt in his edition (Jerusalem: 1004, vol. 1, 118). It is also found in Perush Siddur ha-Tefillah /a-Rokeah, vol. 1 (edited by Hershler, 394. Jerusalem: 1891), in Siddur R. He‫ו‬-z Shatz (Tihingen) and, more surprisingly in Siddur ha-Arizal (Zolkiev: 1771, 79b), and in the siddur printed in Yarnpol in 19so, 52.b. Nonetheless, in Siddur Tzelota de-Avraham (vol. 1, 353-354), in Nusah Ashkenaz these verses appear in brackets. And, as an in‫ז‬eresting observation, we note that in the siddur printed in Turin (Torino) in 1515, the text reads : ‫ )!(ושקצרנו כסומאת‬with the word ‫ נדה‬absent. 1n view of the above, it would seem to be perfecdy acceptable t ‫ ס‬follow the version found in the siddurim of Habad and the prayer books that omit these verses, particularly since they also do not really reflect the contemporary situation of the Jewish people. 1n this connection, it would serve well t ‫ ס‬recall the rabbinic ttadi‫ז‬ion that seeks to explain the institution of the Tahanun prayer. We shall cite the text as it appears in Perush Siddur ha-Tefillah la-Rokeah (vol. 1, edited by Hershler, 369-370,Jerusalem : 1991:) :‫םציונ בתשובת האגונים‬

‫בחמייש ושגי ובחישימ םערםד יסדו אניש השם השוגלו‬

r‫ ווחם אשונ קוד‬m ‫תיקןו ר‬

‫ וצהר לעשרת הלם אניות‬,‫ית הוגהל אותם אספסגיירס חשיק עצסות‬.‫ימרשולים שבעת חודןכ וב‬ ‫ עווס עלהים הרוח רילשהכם ליהשב‬,‫והכניסן תנרכם בלא רב החולב ובלא שום סחל והשידגם נים‬ ‫ ספינה אחת חכשיינה במדיתנ יילדןר הואחרת בירסתג אוורל והישילשת נםידתנ‬.‫בכל פךל ופלך‬ ‫ אוהת שתנשינה בירסתג בודידל יצאו ןם הספיהנ וחכישינו שם וקינלם שד היער נסרב‬.‫נודידל‬ .‫ הויו שם ימים דנים עד שסת אותו שר וקם עהילם סךל שדח‬,‫פנים יפות וןתנ להם דשות וכרסים‬

,‫םה שתיקן להם סלך הראשון סרת השני' רזה מחשד עליהם גזירות רעות שלא היה להם צד הלפונת‬

r

r

‫ והיו שם ב' אחיד יוסף ובגים רןנ דדום היה נינהים שומואל‬. ‫כי רבג עליהם יד המציק דכח א ללידה‬

Digitized by

Google

47

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

‫ ושים בצווכות‬,‫ יוצעקו אל ה' בצר הלם רוכצוכוקותיהם הצויאם‬.‫שוכר הום היו בצעוכם וכאניש ירלשום‬

‫ יוסף יסד והוא רחום דע‬.‫ ום ששלןת‬m ‫ובתעניות ולבשו שקים על בשרם חישורו לא·ל' ויסדר והוא‬ ‫ וכניוכין אחיו יסד ונן אאנ וכךל רחום וחנון עד אין כסוך' שרוכראל ןב דודם‬,‫כי א·ל וכלך חרגן ורחם אתה‬

r

‫ לאחר שהישרעם ואנלם וגאל שיראל וכחונת‬.‫יסד ונן א כוכךו עד שזכע שיראל ה' א·להינר ה' אחד‬ ‫ שלחו בכל וכקרוכות שיראל לקבל‬,‫ כבתוהו נכבת עול ידי הוכשעה‬,‫הוכיצר שהלם בזכיתה וכהר וקשה‬

‫יד‬r‫עילהם לווכר והוא רחום בשני רנחוכייש' וכל קהילה שקיבלה על עצהוכ לאוסרר שנני רנחוכשיי ע‬ .‫ וכסר השושיעם צרר שיראל וקדשוו כן ישרעינר סכל צר תירג הא·ל הוכעישו‬.‫היא רגיהל רסתרוכת נו‬

According t ‫ ס‬this tradition, after the destruction of the Second Temple, Vespasian seized the leading personalities in Jerusalem and exiled them by placing them in boats and casting them adrift with no captain or sailors to steer them. A wind came and drove each of the boats t ‫ ס‬a different shore, t ‫ס‬ Bordil (Portugal), Leiden (or: Lepanto), and Arlado (Arles). The survivors who arrived at Bordil, were welcomed by the local ruler, who granted them fields and orchards. They lived there for a long time ‫ת‬u til a new leader arose who did away with all the former favors and enacted harsh decrees. Living in the Jewish community were tw‫ ס‬brothers, Yosef and Binyamin, and a cousin named Shemuel, all of whom were Jerusalemites. They cried ‫ ס‬ut t ‫ ס‬God, fasted and donned sackcloth, and instituted the three Ve-hu rahum prayers "( He is merciful"). Yosef escablished ‫ והוא רחום‬t ‫כי א·ל מךל רחום אתה ס‬, Binyamin his brother from ‫ אנא מלך רחום וחנון‬t ‫אין כמךר ס‬, and Shmuel from ‫ אין כמרך‬t ‫שמע ס‬ ‫שיראל ה' א·להינר ה' אחד‬. After the decrees were nullified and they were saved from their terrible plight, they sent messages t ‫ ס‬al1 the Jewish communities throughout the world telling them t ‫ ס‬recite these three prayers on Mondays and Thursdays, and all communities that took it upon themselves t ‫ ס‬do so c‫ ס‬ntinue the practice t ‫ ס‬this day. The passage ends with a brief prayer that just as the Rock of lsrael saved them from their affiicti‫ ס‬ns, so may the God of salvation save us from all our misfortunes. 1n some versions they were placed in a fiery furnace, like Hananya, Mishael and Azariah, and were miraculously saved, and there they formulated the three secti‫ ס‬ns of Ve-hu rahum. ( For a further analysis and comparisons t ‫ ס‬this text see Siddur Otzar ha Te.fillot [907-410] in Tikkun Tejil,lah; Baer Siddur, 112.-113; and full references in Sefer ha-Manhig [edited by Raphael, 102., n. on line 88]; Elbogen [ 60-61, 403, n. 17 ]; Berliner [66-67 ]. The text appears with variations in Sefer haMachleim [sec. 14]; Kol Bo [sec. 12.]; Tanya [sec. s]; Orhot Hayyim [sec. 1;] Abudarhim, 12.7, and so on ).

Digitized by

Google

48

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

‫~~‪:.‬יי~י ~~~~‪p‬זהע‪t‬י‪ ~~.‬די‪t‬רו‪t‬ד‪i,‬וויז~ ·‬

‫‪ f‬על ~גליצ‪t‬ןוביו ~ג ‪::‬יו~רי;בן;ב‪:‬ד‪.‬ב ~‪.‬וור ~~י‬

‫י~ ח‪ ~; r,‬נןו!ה יזש~ ‪lritp‬ל~‬

‫‪.‬‬

‫יזב~‪t‬ד~ ~ ד~‪~ ~~:‬נ(‪~t‬‬

‫‪t‬‬

‫וג הזז‪w‬זדןינ‬

‫‪~:,.‬‬

‫~י~י‬

‫ןן~‬

‫ג~יו‪.‬ז‪.f;.‬י!'זקה ג‪;.‬י‪,-‬ר ‪ u‬ו~דחף‪,‬ד‪J‬שד~ ן\גי גי ~~‪:1‬ז‬ ‫‪f .‬שיו‪'9‬ח ל~ ‪:q‬ל ~;א‪~,‬ג‪t‬י;‪:‬ןו‪1t‬זטיןזע‪!)~.‬נ‪~~~M‬‬

‫‪t t‬‬

‫~א ~אנ ‪~,‬ביו ~ידם ס~יגי יי‪~ f.-‬יניז ןג ‪ t‬ס‪~.‬ינב‬ ‫דד ~יביל ;~ ‪.‬חגושה ‪:w.‬יד~יניו ‪~ .1‬י !'סן\ דז«חד‬ ‫נ‪:‬ז ‪w,‬םונ'גננ ~רד ן'ב‪:‬ג דז‪ ~,‬זו ן‪~ "Q‬ת ;‬ ‫~ ~שנ;ןו‪ ~q‬ךו‪~,‬ו 'פ ?‪ t‬יע‪ C.‬וב‪,‬ינ‪,‬י‪M‬וב ~~ןח‬ ‫‪:‬ז‪.-‬םחת‬

‫;ש?יונ ~‪:‬כדננ‪,‬ע‪;.‬זינ‪'tc 'l‬ונ ג;ד~"י‪,:‬דנ ~ן‪.‬‬ ‫ייי~ ‪Jj‬ןז‪w,‬ת‪~ 1‬יזכ~יייונ ~ ~ברלס~רנ ~ ·~‬

‫כי?‪~~ ~,,‬ים גחט‪.‬ד~~ח ע‪t.‬ןוזנ ד ‪t‬דע‪ .‬זו‪~./‬ן זנזד לני‬

‫~תונ‪~,‬ת~םז‪.‬ריכד ~דיז‪.‬דימ ‪,‬כ‪1‬ייים ~ • ‪:‬וג‪mr.‬‬

‫דח‪t‬גת~ ‪.‬‬

‫?~ב‪,‬י‪.‬ךבו ~י ‪,‬ונ דב~‪,‬א~~ דדיטזת ן‪:‬גיכנ‪.!f‬‬

‫יב]ןיבר י‪~,‬ה ש‪.‬ב~ייונ ~חן!‪~ i‬וג~יכיז גוי ~~זג‬

‫ז‪t‬סשויבי‪.‬וב‬

‫‪,1‬כ ~;‪;,‬ירסו ~ל ‪\:‬לז}י‪l‬ו רל כ‪.‬כררב ‪1‬‬ ‫ער ~י עו‪J‬ן ;בז‪~·p‬י ך ~·~זזנ;ףד ‪;:p‬ר~‬ ‫‪:‬קטיי;~ ‪r.‬‬ ‫דערכ ~םדוכ‪,‬ד ‪ t-‬ד~נ‪:‬ו ‪ p‬ל ש‪ 'IJ~~'t‬ר~י‪.‬רכש ‪ '1‬וס‪:‬ך)‪;:‬ךיו‬

‫‪o‬‬

‫‪m‬ם~ ד;‪.‬ז‪-:‬ב~י~ו ך ;‪:‬זי נךואז‪.‬זדיב‪.~ ,‬ו~‪11‬ןמד‪,‬נ‬ ‫בי‪,‬גו~ק~י~‪ !t,~-‬ל‪it‬ך!נץ‪;.‬כירנ ~~ז~דגע‪9‬דל ‪ .‬ן~ל‬ ‫~זד‪;~m‬נ ‪~f.1‬וגני זכ‪:‬דר י‪t‬א‪;l‬נ חוכינדף~‪lt‬זרן‪j‬כ~~ם‬ ‫ה;~ ו~ר~ם ~‪.‬עי;ב~~וא‪.‬ל ‪.‬ר~·בר‪, -‬ן‪...=:~~,,‬‬ ‫~ב יוד יכ~~‪e‬ז‪.‬וי ן‪~Q‬ג ‪~ f‬ד‪,‬א ‪·:‬ו‪i,‬י‪~~t.‬י~ני‪q‬‬ ‫‪m:‬ג‪t‬‬

‫‪t‬‬

‫‪t‬‬

‫ע‪.‬ילן ‪ ~1'2‬נוי‪~:‬ני~י ~ל ·דג~‪:tq‬ח‪~i‬ונ‪:‬י~י‬ ‫‪ i s‬ו‪Siddur Torino (Turin) s‬‬

‫‪Orig1nal from‬‬

‫‪INDIANA UN/VERSITY‬‬

‫‪Google‬‬

‫‪Digitized by‬‬

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

lt is generally accepced that Ve-hu rahum da‫ז‬es back ‫ס‬t the geonic period and was composed during a period of severe persecution (perhaps during the seventh cenrury, so Zunz surmises; see Berliner, ibid. and above lntroduction, n. 12.). ln any case this prayer, with its component parts, is evidence of a dire ‫ז‬hreat ‫ס‬t the Jewish community at a particular place and time. Many subsequent generations, who saw it as reAecting their own conditi‫ס‬n, also used it. lt was always regarded as a personal prayer ‫ס‬t be recited silently, with the status ofminhag (custom), rather than obligatory prayer. Perhaps it should have this • • status 1n our t1me.

Digitized by

Google

so

Original from INDIANA UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

6

The Legitimacy of Change When we ask ourselves about thc legitimacy o,f changc, we can d.cmonstratc that ch.anges in th,e licurgy took place at all. times. Sometimcs thc changes

wcre m.inor, sometimes thc·r:c were addit.ions, and somctim.es compl,etdy new prayers and benediccions were composed. 1 F:o r exampl.(, who would have thought that the central sections of the four Sabbath AmW.h prayers are actually post. . talm:udic embeU.islhments that were not necessartly·accepced by all. communities d.u ring the geo.n‫ו‬c and early p,o:st•geon.ic periods.'? Saadya Gaon writes in hissid‫ו‬iur (111) as follows: "·I found the custom that th.e·middlc 'bene-dictions of the four Sabbath prayers arc .not idcntical." He lhad ·t o "find" this. fact, which apparcnd.y was by no means oibvious ~o him. Rav Na.t ronai Gaon writcs (citcd in Sefer ha-lttim, .174):

1

On ‫ז‬he s·ubjcc·t ,o f ‫ת‬ew, post-talmudic: ben cdict.ions, sce Gro‫ת‬cr (2,,-33). Groncr (:i9-30) shows that already in geonic times there was .a diffe·rence of opi‫ת‬.ion as to whcthcr it was permissible to formulate ‫ת‬ew bened.icti:o‫מ‬s ·t hat had not be,e n mentio‫ת‬ed in the Talmud-~Pir.ko.i ben Baboi ( Ginzei·Schechter, sso) .is .a damant that ~onc is for.b idden any benedict.ion that is not ‫ת‬i the Talmud." This is .aJso th:e view of varjo‫ט‬s r·ishoni.m.,.such as the Manbig (Hzkhot Su/wJ,,.61), Rosh (Kiddusbim chap. 1, sec., 41 ad fin.)‫ י‬eic. 'T his is also the ruling of the Beit Yoscf of R. Yosef Caro ( O‫ז‬ah Httyyim, scc. 46 ). On the 0ther·band., R ..Amram Gaon an,d.R. Saadya Gaon, accepted somc po.st•Talmudic be‫ ת‬1cdiction.s, and Ra'bbenu Tam (Sefer ha"Yasha.,‫ ז‬Respo.nsa respo-nsum 4s:4, 82.) wrote: •we have found severlal benedic·tion.s ,.... even thoug)i.they are no‫ ז‬writte.n [in the Talmud ], w.hi.ch we accept." Among the J,a ter auth,o riti,es, the Tulrei Zah·av (call.ed Taz) on Orah Hayyim•.sec. 46 als,o recognizes the legitimacy of some .post-Talmudic benedic‫ז‬ions. Groner, in later chapters of his, book, disc·ussesspecific examples o,f this phenomcnon (e .g., 171 et scq,., ~S9 ct scqi. ,etc.)·. 1

1

1

Digitized by

Go g e

Original from

JNDJANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

As ‫ס‬t your question regarding whet.her t.he arvit, shaharit and minhah prayers on Shabbat are identical, just as are t.he prayers we pray on Yom K.ippur and t.he festivals: t.he custom in t.he tw‫ ס‬Yeshivot and in t.he house of our Master in Babylonia is [as follows]: in arvit we say "U-me-ahavatecha," in shaharit we say yismah Moshe, "and in minhah "Ata ehad ve-shimcha ehad.‫יי‬

Even in Rashi's time, these ernbellishments were not altogether accepted, as we hear from Sefer ha-Pardes (ed. Ehrenreich, 310): Striccly speaking, it wouJd appear t.hat one should not add in t.he Sabbat.h prayers anyt.hing afier Ha-El ha-kadosh (t.he end of t.he t.hird benediction of t.he Amidah ), but go straight on to retuh .... However, t.hey are accustomed to say Ata kiddashta (in maariv), and in t.he morningyismah Moshe, and in minhah Ata ehad before saying retzeh. They also found a reason [or pretext] to lengt.hen t.he prayer .... And you too, "Do not forsake t.he instruction of your mot.her" (Proverbs 1:8).

R. Avraharn ben Natan Ha-Yarhi rells us rhe following in his Seftr haManhig (ed. Raphael, ‫ז‬so): R. ShJomo (i.e., Rashi) did not say Ata kiddashta ... but R. Yaakov (i.e., Rabbenu Tam) ... returned it to its erstwhile estate ... .

We see, then, that what we believe ‫ס‬t be basic components of the Sabbath Amidah prayers were actually additions composed in order "‫ז‬o lengthen the prayers" (see on this in detail in Wieder, Hitgabshut, 2.9s-319 ). Since we have mentioned new benedictions. let us take a look at a fascinating exarnple that Wieder discovered in the Cairo Genizah (Hitgabshut ,‫ ז‬32.3-347 ). lt is a long anti-Karaite benediction that was recited before the recitation of the Mishnayot ofBa-meh madlikin (M. Shabbat. chap. 2.), which is recited in the Friday night service. As it is a most interesting and instructive benediction, 1 shall cite it in extenso: Blessed are You, Lord our God, K.ing of the universe, Who chose t.he sages and t.heir disciples and gave t.hem t.he Torah at Mount Sinai t.hrough our teacher Moses, and commanded us ‫ס‬t read t.he Torah, t.he Mishnah, the Talmud, t.he Halachah, in order to acquire t.he two worlds, and chose our master Moses of all t.he prophets. speaking wit.h him

‫כרוך אהת ה' אלקינו סןר העולם‬ ‫אשר חנר חבכמים ותלמדיהים‬ ‫וןתנ חרם ותרה סהר סיני ער‬

‫ רצוח אותם רקרא‬u‫ידי שמה רב‬ ‫רג כתלמדו כהלכה‬-:‫בותרה בשמ‬ ‫ ובחר‬.‫לקנות חיי שני עולמים‬ ‫ב סבל הבניאים ודבר‬u‫נשמה ר‬

52. Digitized by

Google

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

.THE LEGITIMACY OF' CHANGE

facc [o face, .as i‫י‬t is said, '"With him w.ill I speak mouth to mouth" (Numbe:rs 11:8). Afi:cr him Hc chose his disciple Joshua and thc scven‫ז‬y e]dc.rs and prophcts and sages and tbeir disciples and

‫אל‬, ‫ ייפה‬I ‫סד‬.~‫'עובר פני~ם כפנ'ים ש‬

commandcd thcm to kecp thc Sabbath an,d light th.e S,abbath ,candle - Ba-,m~h madlikin .... (Wi.th what docs o.nc:light . . . ~·)..

‫םירת‬,‫ רצדה ארםת בש‬.‫;רתלדיםיהם‬

, ‫(י‬n ‫פה א·דונ בר ·ררנ'" )בוםוכ יב‬

‫תלםריר‬, ‫שורע‬,

1

r‫ואחידר חבד ג‬

n

‫כ בנויאים ד כםים‬:t‫·שונעים קןינ‬

- .‫קת הרנ לש שכת‬.‫שתנ רהנל‬

r

.‫כ'ל ורנ‬i‫בםה דם‬

Wiedcr ( ibi:d .• 335.- 3·3,6 ) an.alyzcd this long ten, showing it to be a conAation of rwo differcnt blessings ,(ct: chap. 17, n. 1" last paragrap,h, on ·t his ph.e. .. nomcnon), and found yet anorhcr sim.ilar benedicti:o n. (·332,) in A. Neubauer's Mediaeval]ewish Chronic/es (vol. ‫נ‬r, Oxford: 1895, introduction, xiii), though with a differe‫מ‬t liturgical contcxt - a blessing over rhe Torah: ‫םיוכ ל"ז‬,n‫כרב ירבדל· כ‬n‫א‬

Blesscd arc You. Lord our God. Rulcr of thc· uni-‫י‬ vcrsc,. Who has choscn thc sages and thc rightcous ones and given th-cm thc sc,cr‫י‬ets of.‫ו‬d:c Torah. and givcn them the Torah. May H'c in his gre·at me·rcy grant us every good measure to leam and to ‫י‬tcach. o‫פ‬ kecp .and to practice. Blcssed arc You., 0 Lord, Who

‫א ךלם םלרעה‬-‫ךרונ התא יה דניהל‬. ‫כיםכחב םיקידצכו‬i ‫רשא רחב‬

‫רנר םהל‬r‫ח ן‬t‫רר יח הר‬:‫רסםד ם‬ ‫ הרא דכחםי ר הרכים זיהכ‬,‫חררה‬

‫םוהכ ללםרר‬

• . ‫ו‬.‫ארנחו רכל' םד‬

‫ רכךו‬.‫םרר רושערת‬-‫ללד'מד של‬

u ‫אהת היי‬

gives thc Torah~

.‫ןת הרחרה‬

We have here clcar and unambiguous. evidence of the creativity that the

rabbis fclt frce ·to cxercise in formulatin,g new lirurgical elements when they s,aw an urgcnt ne,cd. for it. ,Simil.arly, we know of a long, c-o,mplex and totally new prayer that R. Elazar ,o f Wo,rms composed, prob;ably at the end of the thirtecn·th century. 2

~

SecJ" Dan, apud Temirin 1 (c,di1:ed by L" Wc·instock‫ י‬9,0-91.Jen‫נ‬salem: 1981) .

Digitized by

Go g e

S3

Original from

ND ANA UNIVERS TY

7

New Prayers and lnnovative Creativity Since we have mcntioncd ncw praycrs, let us consider the example of a fairly recent, completely innovated praycr. On Tu bi-Shevat, some of us may recitc aspccial prayerwritten by Rabbi YosefHayyim ofBaghdad, the Ben Ish Hai, one of the major halachists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Let us look at several passages from its text: Dear God, please rescue us on this day dedicated to trees, on this day of the New Year. Dear God, please help us succeed in our endeavors on this day dcdicated to trees, on this day of the New Year. Dcar God, pleasc provide us with prosperity on this day dedicated ‫ס‬t trees, on this day of the New Year. Dear God, please be our benefactor on this day dedicatcd to trees, on this day of the New Year. Dear God, plcase bless us on this day dedicated ‫ס‬t trces, on this day of the New Year.

‫ חירם‬,‫אאנ ה' הישרעח אנ‬

.‫זהה לאיח' חרא ראש השהנ‬ ‫ היום הזה‬,‫אאנ ה' הצריחה אג‬

‫ אאנ‬.‫לאילן' חרא ראש השהנ‬ ‫ חרים הזה אליןל י‬,‫ה' חרירהח אג‬ ‫ אאנ ה' הסיהב‬.‫חאר רשא השהנ‬

‫ יחרם הזה לאיןל' חרא ראש‬,‫אנ‬ ‫ היום‬,‫ אאנ ה' ךרב אנ‬.‫ההנש‬

.‫ הוא ראש שהחג‬,‫הזח לאיןל‬

We recognize that this passage is based ‫ סח‬the Hallel, the song of praise that we recite on festivals and on Rosh Hodesh (the new moon); Rabbi Yosef Hayyim has, in effect, introduced a new ‫ז‬ype of Hallel for the trees on the festival of the trees. This is the beginning of the year for the trees, ‫שאר הנשה‬ .‫ תונליאל‬He then c‫ס‬ntinues: And may it be Your will, dear God, our Lord and the Lord of our ancestors, that You bless all the ditferen‫ז‬ varie‫ז‬ies of ‫ז‬rees and may ‫ז‬hey bring for‫ז‬h an abundance of luscious, wholesome frui‫ז‬. Bless ‫ז‬he grapevines, so tha‫ז ז‬hey may bring for‫ז‬h an abundance of

Digitized by

Google

‫ויהי רצון מלפניך ה' א·לרחינו‬ ‫ שבתךר‬I ‫זרינו‬.‫רא·רוהי אנר‬ ‫ ויוציאו‬,‫כל סיני חאירנרת‬ ‫פיררתחים בידנרי שמנים‬ ,‫זרךר את הגפנים‬.‫ ונ‬,‫וטוניס‬

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

NEW PRAYERS AND INNOVATIVE CREATIVITY

luscious, wholesome grapcs; so that thc winc produced from thcm may be availablc in abundance for all thc membcrs of your people lsracl; and so that they will be ablc ‫ס‬t perform on Sabbaths and festivals thc commandment of sanccifying the wine and the commandment of blessing the wine at the Havdalah service signifying the end of the Sabbath or festival. For us and all our Jewish brothers and sisters, may thc following verse from Ecclesiastes (9:7) become a realicy: "Go forth, eat your brcad with joy and drink your winc with a happy hcart, for your acti‫ס‬ns have found favor in God's eyes.‫יי‬

‫ס"צויאר עיבנם הרהב שסבים‬., ‫ כיד ישהיה הןיי יהצוא‬,‫וסרבים‬

‫סהם סצרי לדוב לכר עוס‬ ‫ לקיים ם צסרת קדישו‬,‫שיראל‬ ‫רסצרת הבדלה כשברתת ריסים‬

‫ ויתקיים רנב ובבל‬.‫סרבים‬

‫שיראל אחיונ' סקדא שכותב‬ ‫(ז "ךר אבול‬: , ‫)קחלת ס‬

‫ שרהת ברב‬,‫בשסחה לחךס‬ ·‫טוב ייךנ 'בי בבד רצה הא‬

."‫חלים את סשעךי‬

We see, then, that entirely new prayers were written by completely normative Jews, including great authorities - in this particular case, a prominent leader of Sefardi Jewry - in order ‫ס‬t give new meaning to specific days or events. 1n the case ofTu bi-Shevat, Rabbi Yosef Hayyim felt that there was not enough within the existing liturgy, and composed a new prayer himself. Indeed, this was by no means an innovation; for we encounter this practice in the thirteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth cenn‫ג‬ries, when whole books of additional prayers were written to supplement the existing lin‫ג‬rgy. To give yet another example, we may point to the now more or less universally accepted Tejil,/ah Zakah, which we recite shordy before Ko/ Nidrei on the eve ofYom Kippur. The sourcc of this prayer is thc Hayyei Adam by Rabbi Abraham Danzig, which was first published in Vilna in 1809, and which contains a discussion about the new prayer in the second edition of 1819. The author (in Kla/ 145) claims as his source the workHemdat Yamim (Izmir: 1731), which was conttoversial because it was attributed to the Sabbatea‫ ח‬Nathan ha-Azati (see A. Yaari, Taal.umat Sefer: Sefer Hemdat Yamim - Mi Hibro? Jerusalem: 1954). As a consequence, in some subsequent editions of Hayyei Adam, the words Hemdat Yamim were removed, and in the Zolkicv edition of 1838 (Vilna: 1849, Tchernowitz: 1864), "in the works of the Arizal" has been substituted. lt is for this same reason that some authorities advised against reciting this prayer (see Y. Mundshein, Otzar Minhagei Habad [Jerusalem: 1995, 2.00-2.01)), also claiming that it was newly created and might also lead to impropcr sexual thoughts (R. G. Zinner, Nitei Gavrie/: Hi/chot Yom haKippurim [Jerusalem: 2.001, 185, .‫ ח‬4)). The Hafetz Hayyim, accordingto his

Digitized by

Google

ss

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

son, required pri‫ח‬ters to change the location of the paragraph gran‫ז‬ing forgiveness to those who sinned against the worshipper from the middle of the prayer to the beginning (Aryei Leib ha-Cohen, Michtevei ha-Hafttz Hayyim Zatzal, second edition. New York: 1953, 21-22; see my Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 4, 1995, 274). However, despi‫ז‬e its problematic source and the various other doubts that were raised, Tefillah Zakah has become almost universally accepted. (See Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael vol. 2, Jerusalem: 1991, 37, n. 10; M. Meir's article in Kenishta 2 [2.003): 119-138; Dan Rabinowitz, in his Seforim blog [http://seforim.blogspot.com], article enticled "Tefillah Zakah: History of a Controversial Prayer" [http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/09/teffilahzakah-history-of-controversial.html]). Therefore, if the text of our liturgy is not really formally and finally crystallized, and since we see that, in al1 periods, additions, changes, alterations and updatings were made, why can we not continue in this age-old liturgic tradition by adding our own prayers to the "standard" liturgy, together with changes that will suit the contemporary situation? Why can we not add Sarah, Rivkah, Rahel, and Leah to the berachot? Why should we not add additional sections in order to make our prayers more responsive to feminist concerns?

Digitized by

Google

56

--

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

8

Talmudic Sources Forbidding Change in rhe Lirurgy and Maimonides's Understanding ofThem The problem is that we have texts in the Talmud - in BT Berachot, based ‫סח‬ the Tosefta Berachot - that seem ‫ס‬t suggest that wc cannot altcr the nusah, or version, of the liturgy that the rabbis of old instin‫ג‬ted; these prayers are referred ‫ס‬t as "the coin our sages minted" - ‫ ועבטש םימכח‬.‫עבטמ‬ Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, where he presents the laws governing prayer (Hilchot Berachot 1:5) writes as follows: The version of all the benedictions was established by Ezra and his rabbinical court. lt is n‫ס‬t suitable that we change, add t‫ס‬, or subtract from any of them, and anybody who deviates from the "coin that our sages minted" - that is, from the version of the prayer that our sages instituted - errs, and every berachah that does not menti‫ס‬n the name of God and his Kingship is no berachah.

‫ונוסח כל הברכות עזרא רבית‬ ·‫ ואןי ראוי שלגר‬.‫כ‬:c‫ידרנ תקרג‬ ‫דלוסיף על אחת סהן‬: ‫ןת ולא‬ ‫ רכל השסהג‬.‫ולא לרגוע ססהג‬ ·‫ססטבע שטבעו חכסים בבר‬

‫ וכל כרכה‬.‫כרת איונ אלא טועה‬

‫שאין חג הזכרת השם ומלכות‬ .‫אינה ברכה‬

1n the section ‫ סח‬the keriya‫ ו‬shema prayer (Hilcho‫ ו‬Keriya‫ ו‬Shema 1:7), he says much the same thing: These benedictions that we have mentioned above, in addition ‫ס‬t all the other benedicti‫ס‬ns that all the commu‫ת‬ities

Digitized by

GoogIe

'‫רכות הערוכות בפי כל שיראל‬.‫ברכות אלו עם שאר כל וב‬ ‫ ואין אדם רשאי לפחות סהן ולא‬.‫עזרא ובית ידנר תקנוס‬ ‫רתקיגר לחתום ב"ברךו" איונ רשאי‬-:‫ סקרם ש‬.‫להוסיף עליהן‬ ‫רתקיגו שלא לחתום אינו רשאי‬-:‫ וסקרם ש‬,‫חרם‬.‫שלא חל‬

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH LITURGY

of lsrael say, were es‫ז‬ablished by Ezra and his rabbinical court and ‫ חס‬one may subtract from them or ‫ס‬t add ‫ס‬t thcm.

‫ ובקרם שחתקינר שלא לפותח נ"דברך" אינו שראי‬.‫לחותם‬ .‫ וובקרם השתקיונ לפותח איונ ו שאי שלא לפותח‬,‫לפחות‬ ‫ לכ חובשהנ ובובסבע שסנער חכיובם בכדנות‬- ‫כללו לש רדב‬ .‫חד רךרנוב כובסנע‬

m ‫היר זה סערה‬

He then says that our berachot have a certain basic structure. They must have a beginning and an end and so on, and we must keep ‫ס‬t this general structure: Where our sages rulcd that we must end the prayer with "Blessed are You, 0 God; that is how we must end the prayer. Where our sages ruled that we should t‫ חס‬end the prayer with "Blessed are You, 0 God,"' then we should .t‫ חס‬Where our sages ruled that we must begin the prayer with "Blessed are You, 0 God," that is how we must begin the prayer. Whcre our sages ruled that we should not begin the prayer with •Blessed are You, 0 God,"' then we should not. The rule of thumb is that if we deviate from the "coin that our sages minted"' - that is, from the version that our sages inscituted - we are committing an error and must repeat the prayer according ‫ס‬t the sages' version.

These rulings of Maimonides are based ‫ סח‬a passage from BT Bn-achot 40b, where, inter alia, Rabbi Yossi says that ifwe deviate from the version fixed by the rabbis for the benedictions, then we have not fulfilled our duty with regard to the benedictions. lnJT Berachot (9 ad init., 12d), we read: "You have no right ‫ס‬t add to the formulation fixed by the sages" - ‫ןיא" ךל תושד ףיסוהל לע‬ ‫( עבטונ ועבטש "םימכח‬see n. 2. below). All of this would seem ‫ס‬t be completely in contradiction ‫ס‬t everything that has been said above. For wc have seen that de f acto, throughout all the generations, in all communities, the greatest of authorities changed, added t‫ס‬, and subtracted from, the "received" version (matbea shetav'u). lndeed, as we have seen above, it is difficult ‫ס‬t speak of a "received" version when we read all these different ones and see that there are, in fact, numerous versions.

1n our own era, we have a Nusah Ashkenaz, and a Nusah Sefarad, as well as a Nusah Teman (Yemenite version), a Nusah Haleb (Aleppo version), also calledEretz (Aram Tzova), aNusachEdot Ha-Mizrah (Oriental version), and so on. The nusah depends ‫ס‬t a large extent ‫ סח‬the siddurim used by the community. When they were printed in Livorno (Leghorn), they followed one version, and when, they were printed in Constantinople (Kushta) they were

Digitized by

58

GoogIe --

Original from

-

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

TALMUDIC SOURCES FORBIDDING CHANGE IN THE LITURGY

printed in another way. What really deccrn1ined thc nusah, pcrhaps morc than the rabbis themselvcs, wcrc thc printcrs and their editions. (See chap. 17, n. 1, last paragraph et seq.). Maimonides addresscd this apparcnt contradiction between for111al halMhah and facn‫ג‬al evidence in several different responsa. 1n order to understand the halachic sicuation, we cannot limit ourselves to the brief forn1ulations in the Mishneh Torah. We must refer to the expanded discussions in his • vanous responsa. We have already seen that he has two different for111ulations. 1n Hilchot BerMhot, he says, ‫ ןיאו "יואר‬- it is not suitable" - and, in Hilchot Kriyat Shema, he says, ‫ ןיא םדא "יאשר‬- one is not pe‫ו‬mitted." These would secm to contradict one another. Howevcr, this is not the case. 1n Hikhot Kriyat Shema, he is saying that one cannot alcer the structure of the berachot, and he cxplains in detail how che berachot have co havc a beginning and an end, and mention the name of God and His sovereigncy. Unless the berachot are structured in this fashion, they are null and void. 1n the firsc passage that we read, he refers to a different issue. He says that within the given scructure of a prayer or blessing, alterations, additions or omissions are unsuitable, although the prayer or blessing will still remain within the accepted structure. 1n other words, he interprets the phrase in the Talmud that says that no one may alter matbea shetavu hachamim ‫ס‬t mean that no one may alcer the structure of the blessing thac the rabbis determined and established. This is the understanding of R. Yosef Caro in his commenrary ‫ סח‬rhe Rambam (Hilchot Tefil/,ah ‫ז‬:s), the KesifMishneh: lt is difficult ‫ס‬t understand why our master [Rambam] changed the language and wrote that [anyone who changes the format] •is in e‫ח‬or." lt is also important ‫ס‬t examine why he wrote "lt is not fitting ‫ס‬t change them." lt seems ‫ס‬t me that there are tw‫ז ס‬ypes of"changing." The first is when one says the nusah of the blessing established by the harhamim, but adds ‫ס‬t it or leaves some of it ‫ס‬ut. ln another case, he says something similar ‫ס‬t the nusah established by the hachamim, but in different words which, nevertheless, allude ‫ס‬t [the same point as] the nusah that the sages established. But since the meaning of his words conveys what the sages decreed, there is no "e‫ח‬or; but it is still "not fitting" ‫ס‬t do this.

Digitized by

Google

S9

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ON

CHAN ‫י‬GES

I.N JEWISH LITURGY

Thus wc be·gin - ‫א ·ןלונ םלןעח‬-‫יהרל‬u ‫ ןורב· התא· יה‬- Baru.ch ata Hashem Eloheinu melech ha-o.lam» (Blessed :are· Yo‫ט‬, 0 Lord our God, King of thc 'Universe::), and we end w.i th ‫ת·ה יה עסוש הליפת‬.‫ ךורב א‬- Baruch·ata Hashem shome11, ttfi/Lz.h" (B.lesscd arc You., 0 God, Who hears ,prayer). In all those versions which we c.i tcd from.thc·Amidah, we saw that the general structure was always prcserved and was not changed, although many addi.tions and altc·ration.s havc taken place within that structurc. 1n ‫·ס‬e‫ מ‬of his responsa, Maimonides w:as asked .about the J·ews of Alex·:andria, w:h.o inscrt piyyutim that are includcd in Saadya Gaon‫י‬s siddur in·t o their Friday night praycrs. The question.c·rs said that th,ey bad hcard ·that hc obj·e•cted to this, and wish:c d to‫ י‬understand hi.s position {cd. Blau, no. 181,. 487). The upsh.o t of his rcply is that thesc berachot repre·s·e·n t a deviation.from the version the ra:bbis escablished and that this ver·sion may not be changed. According to Maimonid·es, thesc piyyutim should not be recited instead of thc berMhot. However, hc conc·edes that, if ,people pray in this fas.h ion with th,e various additions. th.en they hav·e certainly carried out wh.at is requ.i.red of them as far as 1:he bcnedictions are c:o nc,c rncd.• ‫ (אצי ידיי תברח תרברב‬,)‫ יוה‬becausc ·t.hc original intcntion of thc bcncdiction is still to bc found in this. cxpandcd vers.i on - ‫ת חרררםש ןח‬.‫ונור·ת כרכה·ר‬.‫ כ‬l‫ יכ‬He adds tha.t rhis poin.t has. already bcen discussed in many othcr ofhis respon.sa. 1 ‫ו‬

‫כםערינ כרכרת ·שחיברו‬. ‫רנת לוםר‬u‫םוצאי ש‬:‫כהגוי אבלכםנורי·א ביללות שבת ר‬.‫בדרב םה ש‬

u

‫רש·םע ששרםנבר‬

li

••

u,~,,

m

‫םןר‬,‫םא ירם אשו צםאןרכ ב·םוירר רב סידעה אנ·ןר צז"ל קםייווכר·ת הוחיו לא‬:‫ה‬

‫ אהל הרבכות כ·ולן‬:‫התשוהב‬

..•. ‫· הסינה בזה‬u‫ לא ריע‬.‫םרנע לארםןר‬1 ‫הרא םהנג ארךת‬. ‫הבדלר 'חסם‬

‫ע•דבק נר‬, ‫ ויעקר זה הםהננ‬.‫חן ססרנ חה"זון הםפדרסם ככל האוצרת‬.‫נע בכרכות ו‬:‫שי ןהב ישזני םםט‬

‫טכע‬:‫רבככות םן ה·ם‬. ‫ ·סוף דרבי אםרר לשונת‬.‫ לא לפי קבעית תלםייד החכםים‬.•‫נים‬m‫·י ·קבעית ה‬rh ‫הדבק‬

.‫אם 'תפלל הםתםלל‬., .‫שםנער החכמים ןלא הללחי"ןפ אכדח אםותם הפ'ורםים אשו חיבורים הםארחיום‬ 1

‫ ורככ‬.‫ת הונברת שמוירם הן‬:‫ כי נדרנו‬.‫ א ירי חדנח ברכות‬r ‫םדצאי ש·נת היר‬,‫• הברכדת ניל·ל שנח ד‬...

.‫שדנות‬.‫ זאת פעים'ם ססםר תב‬up‫הת‬ O.n addi.t.ions ofpiyyutim within b‫י‬eracbot‫ י‬.see Elbogen ibid., 1s3-17J, ..‫ ננ‬o-2.6s " One may fin.d strong disap,proval of the insertion of piyyu.ti:m within herachot i‫ת‬ the wr.itings of the geonim ‫ •ט‬f ' Ba:bylonia and onwar,ds (see: Elbogen, ibid.1 2.2,6 , 2r2,7, 449, nn. 60-·64, 70·- 74). See Tur O‫ז‬ah Hayyim., sec . 68 ‫ת‬a d Beit Yosef, ib.i d ,. Museh .R .a v of R . .Eliyahu of Vilna, sec. 12'7, all of whom exprc·ss. their dissatis-faction with thc inscrted text. Ho•wever, as E.l bogen righdy points out, even these formidable autho.ri ‫ ז‬ies could not undermine the author·ity of thcse: p,iyyutim and c‫י‬ause them ·to be rcmov•e d from the lin‫ג‬rgy. See,. funher,. Laurence Hoffman, The Canonizatio ‫ מ‬of tb·,e Synagog,u Srrvice (Notre Dam,e 8c London : 1979 ,) 68-71 ‫ י‬and

Digitized by

Go g e

60

0 &‫ ו‬ig i‫ ח‬a ‫ ו‬f ,. ‫ ס‬m

JNDIANA U IVERSJTY

TALMUDIC, SOUR,C ES FORBIDDING CHANGE IN T'HE Ll 'T U,R GY

ln,d eed, thcre are ,other rcsponsa in which Maimo,nides ,discusscs the is . . sue of performin,g what is ,rcquirc‫י‬d conceming thc benedictions ‫(תברח‬: ‫ירה צייא‬ )‫( תרכרכ‬e.g., ed. Blau, nos. i.s4:46s-466, and, ‫ב‬,07:363). 1n fa.cc, Maimonides talks ,a bout this issuc in four other responsa. Now, 1 ‫ו‬d,ink th:at the most

78-80 on Saadya's sidd,u.r; ‫י‬Ginzberg. Gi‫מ‬zei Sch,ehter, ibid . , ;04-‫י‬s‫ך‬3; :a‫ת‬d the fine comprehc‫ת‬sivc

,discussion of Ruth Langer, To 'Worship God Prop,erly: Tmsitm‫ נ‬be• t‫ש‬em‫ י‬Litur:gical Custom 11,ul H4lalcbah i‫מ‬jud.ism (Cin,cinna‫ז‬i: 1988),. See also Seth Kadish,, Ka‫שש‬anab: D‫י‬irecting the‫ י‬Heart i‫מ‬.J1wish Pr‫נו‬yer (N'ew Jcrsey-J,erusal,cm: ‫י‬1997), ‫ג‬.63-~6s,

n. 9, and ‫ת‬i generaJ his fin,c discussion ‫ת‬o "fixed prayer" ‫ד‬s‫ (ג‬et

seq.). Funher on the ,issuc o,f thc inscnion of piyyuti'm ,‫מ‬i thc: bcncdictions, s,ce statement of R. Ephraim,,o,f Bonn in ms. Hamburg 1s2, 446:

thc‫י‬

‫םים ץראו רוסם חיםיםנ‬,‫רכ ש‬n‫' ןר•לע הנדב זים‬T:‫םיםכח ןזחהשכ ליחתס הבררקה וםרא א‬: ‫םם'דר‬

i[‫רם‬,]‫לם םירסח םיבוט הנרקר לכה רכרזר ח‬,‫ךכ ל·א עידייל רנ‬: ‫ו‬.‫ הכרכ‬n:‫הארנ ם'יםל א‬i ‫םיתכנו רכו לבא יל‬ ‫ינורקס‬, ‫עםש‬n‫ ןכד י‬..•• ‫םיםכח םינרבנו ירכז‬, ‫הב'האכ דוםם‬. ‫לא ינכל םהינב ןעםל רפש‬:u, ‫תובא איבםו‬ ‫םדבכח‬: ‫ דוסם‬c‫ ןכ אוה רםרו‬n‫ר‬, ‫ו לש ןגס רע התסיתח אר‬.‫םייס תא לכ הכרכ‬1‫ן"בא לארשי היהשי ם‬ ‫ו‬.‫םיםכח יכ וליפא הם שיןיק•ספם חא הכרב‬. ‫שלית ןם עבטם דעכםש‬u ‫רקיע אלש‬, ‫םינםנר ונד זכר‬

... "‫התרא‬. ‫רצקם‬r ‫ יכ‬1‫ ףא‬,,‫רש ייתנתכ הלעםלי‬,‫ השק אכ‬,‫םרםואר פיםיטד• הכרה‬ We sec here that wholc sec:t ions wcr,e ins,e ncd into thc first bc:nediction o,f the .Amidab, birluit' mag,n. 'R. Ephraim cxpressed dissatis,factio,‫ ת‬with t,he practice in light of what h,e had, heard fro,m his relative, R. Eliezer bar Natan ‫(י‬Ravan), w,h o insisted on complcting the b,e nediction and only‫ י‬then reciting the piyyu,t, and apparently saw such insenions as "a chang:e in that which Ehe sages coincd." (See

,a:b,ove for Ramb.am,'s vicw on this subje‫י‬ct.) He also makcs a distinc‫זי‬ion between ‫ז‬hc Amidah benedict‫נ‬ons and o,t her ones, such as t‫ו‬net vt‫•י‬yatz,iv, which were: al‫ז‬crcd a‫ת‬d shonen,e d in or,d er to r-ecei:ve piyyut,ic insenio,n s. Indeed, it appears tha,t these piyyutic addi‫י‬tions at times cv,e n effected a ,c h,a ngc in the versio‫ ת‬o,f the bencdic:‫י‬tions:. This pass,a,gc‫ י‬is cited by E" E. Urbach in his c,d ition of Arugat ha•bose‫ו‬n, vol. 4 (Jerusalc~m : 1, 963‫ י‬41) and discussed by E,. F,leischer in his introduction to Mahzor VeTmai,zA (London: 19,96, 48-49), who also points to the ,c hanges in the version of the benediction·s at times caused by the pi‫י‬yyutic a,d ditions. In the same in,troduc‫יייי‬ tion (40-so):, Fleischer also shows,h,o w ther,e were differenccs in the‫ י‬versio‫ ת‬ofth,e sta‫ת‬, dard prayers betwecn Worms and Ma,i‫ת‬z and,cven withi‫ ת‬Worms itsclf (see also his obs,ervations, ibi:d., 47). S,ee also app. S· Regarding differing versions of'th,e Am,idah bcn,e dictions and s,o me rcasons for thesc differc‫ י‬nces, scc N. Wiedcr's illwnination studies ‫ת‬i, Hitg‫ו‬ibshut, vol,. ,1 , 6s-102. For funhc‫י‬r examplcs of thc varicty of versions of well. .,k nown prayers and b,enedic•‫י‬ tions, s,eeJ. H,einema‫תת‬, Pray‫י‬erin th,,Talmud (Berlin, NewYork: 1977, 37-, 7‫י‬6),, and, Ha•tefillah bi-Jekufat ha•tan‫מ‬aim ve--ha‫י‬-amor•im: tivah :‫י‬U‫ י‬tUfusehah (Prayer durin,g the Tannaitic and th,e ,A moraic pe,r iod: i‫י‬ts nature an,d panern). Jerusalem: 1966, 39-41‫ י‬4,1 -s1.

Digitized by

Go g e

6,1

Original from

NDJANA

UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

ON CHA.NGES IN .J EWISH Ll'T URGY

.impona‫מ‬t pan •‫ס‬fthis discussion is what he

says :a t the very cnd - .i f the ini-tial, ori.ginal intent and m.eani.ng·of th.e bera·chah is still being p:reserved‫ י‬then, be--‫ו‬itajvad, one has fulfilled the du.ry ,o f saying the berachah. Maimonid.es says as follows:· ideally~ we should follow thc original vcrsion - ‫עבזכם ןעבםש· םיובכח‬ .‫ תרכרכב‬We are c·c rtainly no·t pcrmitted. to change the stru,c.mre - th.e begin-.ningJ the •e‫מ‬d, the she‫ו‬n u-malchut (God's name and sovereignty),.an,d so on. z In fact, Maimonides himsclf.pcrn‫ג‬ittc,d certain additi·ons cven in the avodah benedicti·‫מ‬o of thc AmiJah (onc of dic last three )‫ י‬, concern.ing which .h c stated in Hilchot Tejillah·6:3, "One sh,o·uld nor make pcrsonal requests in thc firs·t thre,c: or che last three." .l n a rcsponse (no. 184, ed. Blau,Jerus.alem: 1960, 336, 339), he was askcd rcgard.ing ‫י‬this ruling:: ... Bu·t it is a custom that an individual add in the elective prayer in avo,dah,.as an elective prayer ‫ תליפת) (תרשו‬the followi.ng passagc: ‫והב םררס לארשי םש ךדבעב‬ ‫יניע‬u n‫ ח·הניז‬.‫ינ הצרת ונתוא‬nm ‫ חירכ‬.‫תיריצ‬u ‫תא לכ רשא‬: ‫שור‬1‫ םשר דנ‬- 0 n ‫ו‬d,c lofty hill of lsrael [i.c.., Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount] we shall worship You, and there shall we seek [tO‫ י‬carry out] all that which You c‫י‬omrnanded us. 'W ith thc swcet. fragrance [,o f thc· s:acnbces], may You :ac·c ept us. May our eyes se•c [Your return to Zion in mercy] . . . ..

. ·d-es answers: Ma1mon1. This passag~. which :i,s add ed .in m‫י‬e .avodah section, does no harm, nor do‫י‬es it consdtut•e a rcqucst for one‫י‬s needs ‫ (ויכרצ‬.)‫ לאוש‬but is ,o f the esse‫מ‬:cc of the 1

bened. ic‫ז‬ion ‫ הז ןינע (הכרבה‬.)‫אלא‬

Wc sce, then‫ י‬that Maimonides acceprs addirions "that are •O•f the essence ofthe benedictions." Furth,er.mo·re, .in Hilchot Tefillah 6: 1·- 3, he writes: Hc who prays with the commun.i·ty shouJd, not lcngchen h:is prayer too much, but in private ‫יב)· ץנל י(וםצע‬u he may do as he‫ י‬wishes. If he wish.es to add in :a‫מ‬y of d‫ו‬c middle benedictio,ns so, med‫ו‬ing ·which is of thc nature of th.e bene. . diction ‫(הנ‬1‫'ןי רבר‬,)‫ עם‬he may. H'ow so,? Ifhe k.nows o.f a sick person. hc may ask m,ercy for him in thc blcssing for· thc sick, according:to his personal srylc ‫(יםכ‬ i

1

i

i

For funhcr dc‫ז‬ails ‫ת‬o the suucmral requiremcnts of ‫ז‬.he differen‫ ז‬ki‫ת‬,ds ·o f beracbot, sec (B) Z. Gr‫י‬oncr, Ber«ho,t she-‫מ‬ishtaleu (Jerusalcm: 2.003), 16,- ~8, s,uch as that the section preceding the end -o f th.c main pan o,f the bertKbah· must be similar to the ha"timah,.etc.

Digitized by

Go g e

6i

Original from

NDJANA ~

.

-

‫ו‬

UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

TALMUDIC SOURCES FORBIDDING CHANGE IN THE LITURGY

‫ ונרשל‬.)‫תוחצ‬

If he rcquircs financial support, hc adds a requcst ‫ הניחת) (השקבו‬in birkat ha-shanim, and atter this fashion in each onc of thesc [bcncdictions]. And if he wishes ‫ס‬t rcqucst all his needs in birkat shomta ttftllah, hc may. But hc should not do so in the first thrce or thc last thrcc.

(Cf. ibid., 1:9.) He also agreed to the additions in the Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur prayers. He writes (ibid., 2:19): There are places whcre, during the Ten Days of Repentance, the custom is ‫ס‬t add ‫ ונרכז םייחל‬- "Remcrnber us for life" - in the first benediction, and in the sccond one •u‫ה ו‬m‫ יפ ךוסכ בא םיפ‬- •Who is like You, Father of Mercy; and in hodaah - thc second of the last three benedictions - ‫ בותכו םייחל‬m‫ רוכז ךיס‬"Remember Your mercy, and inscribe [us] for life," and they add in the last benediction, ‫ רפסבו םייח‬- •And in the Book of Lifc .. .‫יי‬

Indeed, in his section on the prayers for the whole year, hc writes: Most of the nations are accust‫ס‬med berween Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom haKippurim ‫ס‬t add in all the prayers of the Ten Days ofRepentance: in the first benediction the additi‫ס‬n ‫ םייחל‬,‫ ונרכז‬in the second ‫ ךוסכ בא םיסחרה‬,‫ יפ‬and so on.

Thus, Maimonides ‫סס‬t was willing ‫ס‬t regard as legitimate, even in the first and last three benedictions, additions that somehow accorded with the benedictions themselves, especially when the various communities accepted them widely. Under certain circumstances, he also permitted some changes in the wording of a blessing. Thus his disciple, R. Ovadia the Convert, asked him whether he would be permitted to say in his blessings, "Who has separated us," "Who has chosen us," "Who gave our ancestors [The Land oflsrael]," "Who took us out of the Land of Egypr," and so on (see lggrot ha-Rambam, vol.

1,

edited by Y. Shilat, 333-334, Maaleh Adumim: 1987, 333-334), he replies that the convert may use all these formulations and explains why. However, regarding the statement "Who has taken us out of the Land of Egypr" he writes: ... But "Who took us out of the Land of Egypt," or "Who performed miracles for our ancestors" - if you wish ‫ס‬t alter [the formulations] and ‫ס‬t say "Who t‫ס‬ok lsrael ‫ס‬ut ofEgypt," and "Who performed miracles for lsrael; you may do so. But if you do not alter [the text], there is no loss in this (it is also all right), for once you have come under the wings of the Shechinah (become a Jew) . ..

Digitized by

Google

63

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

‫סא‬

,c :HANG!.S

1

‫ ·נ זא‬1.w1su

LITURGY

thcre is no differencc bctween us and ylou. and aU the miraclcs that took pl,ace as it were, both to usl and o‫ ז‬you ... etc.

Hcrc, too,l fo.r the sakc o.f ·accuracy and honesty, Maimonides 1s willing to countenance s.light chan.ges.in the text of'blessings (see A.6:erword, n.. 1). Hence,.ifwe make additions an.d changes that do not chan,ge the intrinsi,c meaning of the ,blerachah (see responsum no. 2rs4, 46-s : ".However, this does not apply to the piyyu.tim, which introdu.c e new matters and include many thinlgs that have nothing to do with rhe topics of the liturgy:‫ מ‬- · ‫אר·ןי וסכ םיטריפה‬ ‫םני ןיינעמ הליפתה‬:‫הבר יאש‬,‫ר םת תפסרת ינייגע·ם תאכהו םירבד ה‬:,)‫שא‬

if th,ey ad,d, expand, and relate to a spccifi,c situation that .m.ay .n ot have c'xisted wh,e.n thc b·eracbah was originally composcd - ·t hen one need .n.o t repeat thc berachah ‫אצי ידי (תברח‬ ‫תן‬1‫נ‬.)‫סרכ‬

IndccdJ pcrso.nal addi.t ions ·wc:.re pc.r mitted in the srandard bcncd.ic·rions .. Thus, in Shulhan Aruch O.rah Hayyim 119:1. we rea,d:

lf hc wishcs to add in any of thc intermediatc blessings [an addition] that ac• cords with thc nat‫ט‬rc of ·t hat blcss:ing., hc may. How? lf he has a sick perso‫י‬n [in mind],, he may ask mcr•cy for him in. r.he blessing refaeinu (=heal us). If he needs mon,ecary support, .he may ask for it ‫ת‬i birkat ha"shanim .. . .and. in .sbomea tefillah (who harkens o‫ ז‬praye· r‫ ) י‬he may aslk for all his necds because .i·t includes all relq ue,sts . . . ,.

This ruling is based.on a talmudic pass,age in BTAvodah Zarah 8a, followed by Rambam. Hilchot Tijillah 6:3 (howcver, see Rashi on TaAnit 14b, where hc limiced .such inserts ro shomea tefill,ah ). We:may :further note that the Zohar in Midrash ha-Neel,am.Gcnesis, ‫ נ‬:12.1a, statels tha.t ,one may cv,en include 3

The R.aav:a d. holds a similar view·, but in a sligh‫ו‬:ly d.iffcren.t conte·xt. The question r:aised in B.T Pts4bim a‫·ך‬-b, and BT B,eracb.ot 38a,- b i,s w·h ether on,e fo,r mulates cer" tain bi'‫ז‬chot·.ha•mitzvot (benedic:t io.ns over p·erforming a mitzvah) with laiuot, lev•• re,h‫ י‬, li.tol (lula.v) etc., or with al asi‫ח‬at‫ י‬al bi·rchat, l‫ וג‬netilat. In BT Bera.chot,. ibid., the qucstion is raised whether, on eating bread, one should say ,ba..motzi o,r motci. Thc issuc is which of these fo,r mulations suggests a past activity - a.l asiyat, mo,t zi ( = h‫ י‬otzi) - or a future activity - la.asot, l'evarech etc" Co‫ת‬ce‫ז‬ning the search fo.r ham-etz bcfore Passover, the ques.t io,n was whcthc·r onc s.h ould s,ay k--vaer (i‫ ת‬the future ten.se)., or al biu·r ‫(י‬past ·tens-c·)I Th,c Raavad states tha.t if you say k-vur. you have certainly fulfilled the .h alac.hi.c req‫ט‬irement (yatza). However, a priori - milechathilJt - you should s.ay al biur..Se,e Rabb·i David B•agno's r·ec·e nt anicle,."Matbea bircbot h11~mitzvot (laaso,t o al ha-asiya)." Maga,l 15 (2.007 J: 32.-33" 1

64 Digitized by

Go g e

Original from

NDJANA

UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

TALMUDIC SOURCES FORBIDDING CHANGE IN THE LITURGY

birltat ha-dn‫י‬tch (the blessing for ‫ז‬ravelers) in shomea ttft/Jah (see M. Spielman, Tiferet Tzvi, vol. 1 [Brooklyn: 1988], 317-318.) Furthermore, Kadish (317-318) has argued convincingly that Rambam did not consider his prayer text in Mishneh Torah to be obliga‫ז‬ory, nor did he think that it was the original or official text from the time of Ezra. He simply recorded his own customary nusah as one valid text among many after making the minor changes necessary to make it halachically and linguistically accurate. This is the most cogent and straightforward explanation of Rambam's prayer text, as Rabbi Nahum Rabinovitch explained in his introductory remarks ‫ס‬t the text (Yad Peshutah 2./1,Jerusalem: 1984, 1307): Prayer books were already numerous and widespread in the days of our Master [Rambarn]. Especially well known were Sedn- Rav Amram Gaon and the siddur of Rav Saadya Gaon. 1n addition ‫ס‬t this, various cust‫ס‬ms prevailed throughout the Diaspora, and different communities each kept their own nusah. Since m‫ס‬st of the differences contain nothing significant that would invalidate [a blessing]. our Master did not think ‫ז‬i would be correct to incorporate his own nusah int‫ ס‬his book [Mishneh Torah] as an obliga‫ז‬ory halakhic ruling. lnstead, he put it in a separate sec‫ז‬ion for practical use by the masses. Thus. whoever wanted ‫ס‬t continue following one of the accepted siddurim that was already in widespread use was permitted ‫ס‬t do so. (See Kadish‫י‬s e.nended n‫ס‬te, ibid .• 318-319, note on the various views on this issue.)

Digitized by

Google

6s

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

9

Limits of Flexibility in Change Wc havc stated abovc that Maimonidcs made ,a disti‫מ‬ction between chang‫י‬ in.g the st‫גח‬cture and basic thcmc of a ,ber‫ו‬uhah· and making ,additions or changes wi·d‫ו‬in thc body of the berachah that do not alter its basic stn‫ו‬cture and cenual themc. This .is the conclusion of the KesefMishneh (a work by R. Josef.Caro, thc· author of the ShulhAn .A~h) in his comm.cntary on Rambam, Hikhot Berachot 1 : 6. lt answers the question of the Rema (R. Moshc ha-Cohen), who .saw a contradiction betwe·e n two statements ofthe Rambam ('sec above)‫ י‬. The KesefMuh.neh citcs‫ י‬funher proof for this conclusion &om the sugya in BT B'erathot 40b in which Benjamin the shcphcrd changed the ·version of the (fi.rst paragraph of thc) grace af‫ו‬:cr m,eals, and so on. The Rambam in Hikhot B,erachot 1:9 states explicidy that in thc centtal blessi.ngs of thc Amidah, on.e may add or innovate if one is .repcati.ng ·thc·prayer si.nce·it .is a tefillat nerlavah (a non---obli.gatory,.voluntary praycr). (Scc Ravad and commcntators ad loc.) 1 F ' .•or a pe‫ח‬etrat1ng • an·al · •‫ס‬f'Ram bams' po·s·‫נ‬t1on " on th · _ y.s1s .-e·stan·.dard· ·. 1za‫ם‬on ofliturgical tc!xts, one may refer ‫ס‬t G, J. Blidstein‫י‬s disc:ussi.o n in his Ha-Tefillah be-Mishnato ha-Hilchatit shel.ha·--Rambam (Prayer in Mairnonidean Halakha, Jerusalem: 1994., 12.3-1so). There, he ‫ס‬c• ncludes that although Rambam's in· th •‫י‬ · n‫נ‬ · ve.rs1ons · ten·t was to lim1t . e ..t1ex1‫יי‬bil.‫·י‬:tty and· ·var1ecy O·f- prayers an d·. movc‫י‬ 1

1

·•

toward a. more unified prayer· book, his rulings ‫ סח‬thc non-permissibility •f‫ ס‬chan~ refcr mainly t·o the beginnings and endings of'blessings, and .‫ס‬n• t

.1

See, most recently, the discussions and summary o.f this issue in M. M. Shilonj~s Shomea u-mashmia (Jerusale.m: 2,006). 1s3, col. 1.

Digitized by

Go g e

Original from

NDJANA U JVERS ‫ןץ‬ - - - . .·

1lii

=

LIMITS OF FLEXIBILITY IN CHANGE

necessarily to the main part (‫ף‬u), provided that the main thrust is preserved (12.4-12.6). However, regarding the first three and last three benedicrions of the Amiaah, Rambam perniits no change whatsoever (Hikhot Tefillah 1:9), though Blidstein (12.8-12.9) has difficul‫ז‬y in finding a source for this ruling (see, further, Kadish, 2.76-2.79, 3os-32.2.). 1n fact, the same phenomenon that we noted with regard to the intermediate benedictions of the Amulah - namely the varie‫ז‬y of their versions - also applies ‫ס‬t the inirial and final blessings. Thus, for example, Luger (ss), gives the following variant for the second blessing ( birkatgevurot) as follows: ‫נ חורה דירוסו לסה לכלכס‬m"‫התא רובג ליפשס םיאג קזח ןידסו םיצירע יח םיסלוע םיקס םיתס נ‬ ‫םיתסה‬. ‫חיסצת י"אב היחס‬. ‫םייח היחס םיתס ףרהכ ןיע העושי רגל‬

Here again, it begins ‫ התא רובג‬and ends ‫ םיתס‬,‫ היחמ‬but what is between them is very different from that with which we are acquainted. (See Luger's discussion, s6-6‫נ‬..) This is also true of the third blessing, of ktdushat ha-Shtm. Luger (6s) gives us an alternate version (no. 2.): ‫ךדעלבס י"אב‬. ‫ו ךםש ןיאו הול·א‬u‫שודק התא אר‬ ‫ ל·אה שודקה‬- which, of course, sounds familiar (see Luger, 66-72.). And perhaps even more so with the final blessing, hodaah, where Luger (186) lists the following text as a variant: ‫םידוס ונחנא ךל התא אוה 'ה רגיהול·א יהרל·אר וניתובא לע לכ תוכרסה דסחה םימחרהו ונחלסנש‬

‫תודוהל‬. ‫ י"אב גוסה ךל‬.‫תישעשו ונסע םעו רגיתונא רנינפלם םאו רגוסא הסם ונילגר ךדסח 'ה רגידעסי‬

(See Luger, 188-19s.)

ln sim shalom, the brief version .‫( נ‬Luger, 188) is as follows: ‫םולשה‬. ‫ י"אב השוע‬.‫םיש ךסולש לע לארשי ךסע לער ךריע לער ןתלחנ רגכרנו ונלוכ דחאכ‬

(See Luger, 199-2.08.) The above examples are all from the Palestinian rite found in the Genizah. When we study Wieder's findings (16-12.s), which encompass many other versions, including those of the Babylonian rites (witness on 54-ss, eight (!) di.fferent versions of the third benedic‫ז‬ion, or Goldschmidt's listing of Mahzor Vi‫ו‬ry's readings [ 69 ]), we can see the remarkable number of alternative forms

of the liturgy. Indeed in our current standard versions, some of the blessings of theAmidah, especially the final ones, are not necessarily in accordance with

Digitized by

Google

67

Original from

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

O·N C:HANGES IN JE'W .I SH LITURGY'

·t hose that the Rambam gave us in his Seder

Tefillat Rosh ha-Shanah~ 2 Thus:

‫ יונו‬.... ‫רנ תרות ייחים‬.‫'ה יהל·א‬: ‫ך תתנ רנל‬:‫לרכ· רראםם ינפ‬u ‫ סכרבו‬.•. ‫ םרלש‬.‫םיש‬

1 belicve that Ram'bam's inte‫מ‬t was that one may not: add pcrsonal or public req1KSts in these b.lessin.gs (sec Rabinovitz ibid..). rather than that no changes at all may be m.ade. This is based on BT B'eracho.t 34a: 1

R. Ychudah said:: A pcrson should not make his per-

‫אייר· יזרורה לערל ם אל אשיל‬

sonal req_ues·a either in d‫ו‬e first duce· bcncdictions [of the AmuLzh] and .n ot in the last threc, for R. Han.i nah said: The first oncs arc like unro a se.r van[ who ordcrs his praises bcforc his master; the:middle ones are like unto a scrvant who asks for .a .rew.ard from his .mastcr; thc last on,cs arc l.ikc u‫ת‬to a .sc.rvant who reccivcs a reward from.his master. takcs .his lcave

‫ אלו‬.n‫אדם צר כרי ל'א ננ' ראשרנר‬

1

r

,‫ר אאל אנםצעדית‬r‫ר‬u‫ו‬n‫ א‬t‫גכ‬ ‫םהי‬,‫ ראשרםת·רר‬:: ‫אנ‬.‫חני‬., ‫ארםד‬

;‫עלדב שםםזד שחב לפני ובו‬ ‫ענדי שסבקש‬:‫םאיעצזת·חהם ל‬ ·‫הפ‬-‫דר‬

-

‫רפם םררכ; אחרררנח‬

‫ררכ ןנפסר‬,‫סלכר שקלב ירפס ם‬ .‫ירהרלךלר‬

of him and goes off on his way.

(Cf: Rambam‫י‬sHi/chot Tejillah 1:4.) Indecd Pirkoi bcn.Baboi (a srodcn·t ·‫•ס‬f· R. Yehudai Gaon) writes (Ginz.ei Schechter - Geniza·h Studies, vol. 1, •c dited by L. Ginzberg, New Yo,rk: 192r9, 546): From here you learn that it is forbidden to add cve:n a single letter in praisc o,f [God.],that·has .not· 'b.een instin‫נ‬ted by the Sages, and how .much m ,o rc so diat a.person is forbidden to,make his per·sonal rcquests in the 6rs.t diree and the last thre·e [benc~

‫סדו ·הלוסיף‬t--‫י‬r‫הת לרפ ש‬t---‫םאכן זי‬ ‫ כשחנר שר‬nnr--c ‫ו ~רת‬-+‫א;פיי‬

,‫ח!זכיייל‬: ‫[ הס של~ תיקונ‬:-‫]ה·קכ"יד‬ ‫סרר לשאר'ר אםר‬t---‫נן שו‬,‫רכ'ר ש‬

‫נשלש‬.‫ר ו‬r‫צריכו שרשכ ראשרנו‬

,:... •·.‫ת‬u‫אחרר‬

dictions] .. . .

(lt· sh,ould be ‫מ‬oted diat therc are estab,Jishc,d pl:ac·es for additional perso‫י‬nal req.uests in the eighth l[ r~ein·u] an.d sixteenth [shem‫ו‬i koknu] bless.ings

2.

S,ee .f unher, Siddur Otza‫ ז‬ha•Ttfillot, 315-373; Sidd.u r Tz‫י‬elota tk·-Avraham, vol. .1. ‫ב‬7:1-‫גן‬4,

3

and sec N. E. Rabinovirz, Yad peshutab (A comprebmsive commentary [upo‫ מ‬Rambam~ Mish‫ י‬neh Torah·], Ahavah., Jerusalem·: 1984), on Hilchot Tefillllh 2:19, 172.-174, for a discussion ofwhcthcr onc may makc additions:in thc initiaJ and final benedictions ofthe .A.mid4b. See further Sefer HslAcbot Gedo.lo.t, vol. 1 (editcd by A., Hildes,heimer, 33.Jerusalem: editor‫י‬s ‫•מ‬ote.

ad loc ..; an.d Ruth Langer's discussio.n ., in hcr book To Worship God Proper:ly, 118-12,.3 • .See .als,o Ha,gahot Mai.moniyot o,n Hilchot Tefi/Jah·6.3, .‫ ת‬3,, which limi.t s forbidding requests only to personal o.‫ם‬es,, while those of the p·u blic arc permitted. 1971), an.d

Digitized by

Go g e

68

Original from

NDJANA U IVERS ‫ןץ‬

LI.M ITS OF FLEXIBI.LITY IN ·C .H AN'GE

[see chap. 6,. near .‫נ מ‬..]. There arc changcs and acf,ditions - scasonal o‫ת‬cs diat are recited on specific occasions - in odicr ben:e dictions .ofdie.Amidah.) lt would also appcar that Rav Saadya Gaon's position on this issue of standardization was vcry similar to that of.Rambam~• Hc says so in ·‫ו‬d.e intro . . duction to his SidJur (1): 1 saw .fit to coUe,c t in this. siddur thc p‫ י‬raycrs; praiscs and bencdi:ctions, wh.ich are cssc‫מ‬tial, in thcir pri• mary· charactc:ristics .as, th:ey were in their formuJ.a. .

‫רי לאם· רף כסרמ הז את‬r‫וראי‬

tions bcforc rh;c cxilc and aftcr ic. and. to plaoe ·thcm in the siJdur~ And I havc .madc thc additions or omissions to them tha[ 1 heard about. such as [wer‫ד‬e addcd or omittc,d] in accordanc·e wid‫ ו‬thc will of such

‫כפי השיו צרדרחןהי‬

who actcd on thcir own i‫ת‬itiati·ve,. ·villagcrs or city. . dwcllers‫ י‬or [pcople] from a district or a land. 1 havc also forbiddcn ·die rccication of anything that annuls ‫(י‬or conRicts with)‫ י‬the pr.imary in. te‫מ‬t (of thc praycr or blessing). Rcgardin.g that whic,h doc·s not, 1. h,avc no:ne·thelcss n.otcd d‫ו‬at in any case, it is n.o t part of the basic ‫ז‬radition ....

‫ר רוני ~חידם‬r‫ר‬: ‫םהן יד'םי וא‬,

‫כרת‬.‫ וררכ‬m‫התפילרת הרתשחב‬ ‫ נרככרןתנ‬.‫קר‬,‫שיש ןהר עו‬ 11

‫הקדוםו‬

‫ו ואחיר כן• ישלרםן‬r‫ילםני הנלו‬

‫ו ·םה‬,

r'

‫וםיף‬r--r:, ,. ‫דרר‬-‫ילם‬

‫נשסם‬: ‫·ששםעתי שמסף כהן אר‬

‫ אניש‬,‫ ענםם‬.‫עהישום ·על ערח‬ ‫ והם‬.‫כופ אר עיר או פךל אר אח‬ ‫ ·!יםרדת‬1 ‫כוהנ‬,‫שכפלט את ה‬ ‫אסרתיי דלםר י רהם שאוני מכסל‬:

‫רי ככל זאת אשןי‬r‫אןח·ה היעח‬

• •.•‫ם יעקר םהםםרהר‬

Wc sec, d‫ו‬en, that Saadya did not forbid additions th.a t did not conBict

widi the theme of the prayer o.r blessing. He merely note‫י‬d that they were not parr of d‫ו‬e original tradi1:ion. (Sec Wiede~, Hitgabihut 1s7; Liebrich, HUCA 34 1[1963]: 1s1.•)

4,

Scc Y. Hcinemann, l‫ח‬uM T~ll‫ו‬lb (edited by A. Shi‫ת‬.an, 11,o -·112..Jerusalem.: 1981) and Kadish., :164. Sce Y. Shilat1s pcnctrati‫ת‬g disc‫ש‬si.o,n ‫ת‬i his .Rosh Devarecha (M,aaleh Adum.mim: 19,96,.~‫ב‬:‫ו‬-‫נ‬.‫ן‬o.). He funher points out (ib.id., .‫נ‬.2‫י‬7-‫ג‬3:1) that th,e Rashb,a, 'R. Shlomo ben Adere‫י‬t,, is of the opinion that onc may iniriall.y (le-chath.ilah) add ‫ז‬o sub.s tract withi‫ ת‬the body of a benediction,, unlike Rambam who sees this as valid only after h‫ז‬:e fact ( bt•di-a·vad).

Digitized by

Go ··. . e

69

Original from

INDIA A UN VERSITY

10

The Dyna‫ז‬nic Process of Change in Our Lirurgy The .position.that I have pre·se.n ted on the consta‫מ‬t dy.nam‫ו‬c process ofchange in prayers is sunun.arized 'by Y.. Heincmann in his classic essay in Ha-T~.h hA•Yehudit ‫(י‬P‫י‬rayer in Juda1sm: Continuity and Change, edited by G. H. C•ohc.n,Jerusalem: 1978, 79-81.)·. Because of its im.p ortance:. 1shall quote scctions from i·t in translation: '[79-80·] Furthcrmore, when the mandatory .a nd fixed prayers were for11.1ulated ‫ הכרח (עכקר‬,)‫ליפת‬m ·the·y [the sages] di·d not determine· chcir cxact form·ulati;ons

(unlike what:i.s acce·pted in popular books on pr.ayer). The sagcs established a fram.cwork: thc number of b),ess,ings in each kind of praycr, such as eighteen in. the wcekly Amidah, sevcn in those ,o f Sa:bbaths and festivals, and ‫ס‬s• on. They also establi.shed the basic contcnt of each bless.ing, such ,as a .requ.est .for th:e· rebuildin.g ofJemsaJcm or thc ing.athering of the exiles.,But they did ‫ח‬:ot deter. . min,e, or wish to dctem‫ן‬ine, the litcral formula‫ז‬ions of.any blessing or prayer si‫•ח‬ce, generally speakin,g, this is in the hands of rhc w,o rshipper - or, more cxacdy, th.e shaliah tz.ibbur ‫(י‬prayer leader) (81) .. So ·we· le;am that a great deal of tim.e .aftcr the mandatory and fixcd prayers werc ,establishcd in thc Yavnc generation:, d‫ו‬c acn‫נ‬al for.mulation )‫ (חסונ‬stiJ.l rcmaincd frce an.d flcxibl,‫י‬e not mcrcly becausc thcrc were no writtcn prayc.r-books. but beca‫ט‬se this is what thc creators of the lirnrgy wan.tcd; for at no time did they consi,dcr doing away wjd‫ן‬ or·limiting the elemcnt of dynamism and vitality in the ve·rsions of our praycr‫י‬ Even afrer the versions began to be crystallized and became familiar to ‫ו‬d.c worshippers of.m ost communiti.es, dynamic crea‫ז‬iviry conti‫ת‬. ued in the formulation •Of the mandatory praycrs. lt was.approximately thcn tha.t thc p·iyyut wa.s

Digitized by

Go

g ,e=------··- -

Original from

INDJANA UNIVERS TY-

THE DYNAMJC PROCESS OF CHANGE JN OUR LITURGY

bom, first in thc 1.and of lsracl and latcr on in many othcr countrics. lt scrvcd to bring varicty into what was bccoming sta‫ת‬dardizcd, to cxchangc onc fixcd vcrsion for many othcr altcrnativcs. Thc carly piyyut was not mcrcly an a‫ו‬idition to thc fixcd praycrs, but cventually took thcir place .... (82.). By means of thc piyyut, thc elcment ofdynamism was reintroduccd into thc prayer book, which undcrwcnt continuous change ....

Rabbi Samuel David Luzzato (1800-186s, an imponant ltalianJewish scholar known by his acronym "Shadal•), had stated much the same opinion in the previous cenn‫ג‬ry: Our prcdcccssors of blcsscd mcmory sct thc forn1at of blcssings for us to thank God and pray to Him. But thcy did not mean by their dccree that thc tcn of our praycrs should bc cntircly fixcd likc a nail that can‫ת‬ot bc movcd, that onc may ncithcr add [to praycr] nor subtract from it ! Rathcr, thc purposc of thcir dccrcc was to sct thc mancrs about which we must thank God and pray to Him for all of lsracl, and to fix thc gcncral ordcr of blcssings .... This was so that thc major part of praycr and the thcme of cach blcssing and their openings and closings would bc thc samc for all Jews, wherevcr they may bc. But our predcccssors of blcsscd memory never wrotc thc blcssings and praycrs in a book . . . . lnstead, thcy lct each individual or shaliah tzibbur lengthen or shorten thcm according to his undcrstanding. That is why they instituted the silent shnnonth tsrth - so that thc shaliah tzibbur could rchearse his praycr to himsclf bcfore reciting it for the congregation. Rabbi Eliczcr said, "Onc who makes his prayer ktva - his praycr is not tahanunim" (Bt‫יו‬achot 4:4). His collcague, Rabbi Shimon ben Netancl, ofi:cn said, •‫ס‬o not make your prayer wa. lnstead, makc it rahamim and tahanunim before God" (Avot 2.:13). The meaning of leeva is that one prays with fixed words and says nothing ncw, as Rabba and Rav Yosef explained (Bt‫יו‬achot 2.9b). And Rashi said that the term ktva means "Just like today - it was the same yesterday and it will be the same tomorrow!•

(lntroduction to his edition of the ltalian version of the siddur "Mavo leMahzor Benei Roma." 1n Mahzor kol ha-shanah keji, minhag ltaliani (Livorno: 18s8) [ reprinted in a critical edition by Daniel Goldschmidt. Tel Aviv: Devir, 1966]. See Kadish, 2.60-261.) Also, see Appendix s below ad fin.

Digitized by

Google

71

Original from INDIANA UNIVERSl‫ד‬Y

11

The Main Reasons for Change Indeed, R. David Y'itzhaki. in his introduction to R. Yaakov Emden's Luah Erez (Toronto: 2,.0 01, 47-48.), lists nine main reasons for changes in thc ver-· sions ofprayers and ben.e,dictions, giving numerous rypes ofexamples for eac.h rype. His list runs as follows: • Corre,ctions fo.r halachic reasons ‫(י‬see Appendix I bclo‫י‬w for an.cxam.ple) • Addi.tions of psalms, piyyutim and tehinot 1 • Bringing prayer· .a nd piyyut into accord with diffcri.ng and changing 11

•

s1‫ז‬ua.‫ם‬ons

Abbrcviating bec·ause ofl.ack.of time [in the· synagogue] 2 • Addi.tions and changes under the .influence of the Kabbalists 3 •

1 2,

3

Sec chap•. 1, n. 3 and B.erliner. :‫ג‬s-33, and app. S· See Berli‫ת‬er·, s:i; Zunz,, R.i‫י‬tus, 141-.rss. In fact, Maimoni,des shone·n ed th•e service by ruJing that thc ca‫ת‬tor's repc:ti‫ז‬ion of'the Amidah (hazarat hA-shatz) was unnecessary" Sce his responsum no. ‫ב‬,s6 (vol. .‫נ‬:, edited by Blau, 46,-41•6 .J'e rusalem: ‫נ‬:96-0) a‫ת‬d ‫ז‬he responsum of thc Radbaz ‫( י‬R" David ben Zimra. sixteenth ce‫ת‬tury) (vol. 4, ‫ת‬o" .SJ4 [116s]). lt .is well kn•own th,a t .Maimo,nidcs did away with the ca‫מ‬tor's repe.t ition of the Amidah because he believed p·eople couJd not con,centr.a t•e so long and paid little attentio‫ ת‬to t.h,e cantor. 'Rather, he said,,"Th,ey ‫ז‬urn away t·o chatter with their friends, in ·worthless goss.i.p, and tur‫ ת‬their back to th,e east,, and spit ..., and when his fricnd.who is not acq·uaintcd [wlth the·liturgy] s,ees ‫ו‬:his, hc too,acts thus .. ,. .." (Resp,o nsum 35; cited by 'W iedc·r, Hitgabshut, vol .. ‫נ‬., ,68‫ ;נ‬sec the whole section on.680-68:2,, tirst published in his 'book Hashpaot lslamiyyot 11.l ha•pul,ha:‫ מ‬ba. .Yehudi [Islamic Influences on.Jewish Rit‫ע‬al, Oxford: ‫ נ‬.947• :‫נ‬.6-28]. See ‫י‬also A. M. Haberman, A.l ha-tefi'llah (edited by Zvi Malachi, 72..-73~ Lod: 1987)~ Also s,ee the discussion in Tziuberi• .Kenesset ha"Gedolah, vol. 3, 32,6-· 3:‫ג‬B. Se,e also his ,discussion ‫(י‬ibid.• 314 et seq. ) on. why, in Ye.me‫ת‬, t.her·c wcrc. no‫ ז‬two te.fillot for

Digitized by

Go . . e

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

THE MAIN REASONS FOR

CHAN ‫י‬G· E

• Ch.anges made out of fear of the cens.or4 mus‫נ‬af of Rosh ha-Sha‫ת‬ah

and only one recirario•‫ ת‬on the pan of a shtluih tzibur, who rccited the praye.r by hean. He explains that ‫ז‬he mussaf.AmitLtb of Rosh haShanah is very long·and the commu‫ת‬ity, which had few prayer books, d.i d.not know it 'by hear‫ ז‬and t:h creforc could .n ot rccite it ‫ת‬o. thcir own. Hcnce, t·hey rcl‫נ‬cd •‫ םת‬thc pri‫ת‬cipl.c o, fsh‫י‬omea lce-oneh (heari‫ת‬g is tantan‫יו‬O·u‫ת‬t to rcsponding) whc‫ ת‬listcning ·t o thc lcadcr of the congregation" ‫ת‬1 effcct, this also shortcned thc mussafscrvicc·. Tzube·ri shows the sources for this practicc· in the Rambam and 01:her author.itics. Furrher on (ibid.., 3,‫ב‬l-340 ), he d.iscusses ·t he custom found already among somc·of the geonim rhat withi‫ ת‬a quorum, one says .n ine benedic:‫ז‬io‫ת‬s ‫ת‬i the Amid‫ו‬d‫ נ‬,o f mus• s•/Rosh .h,a--Shanah, but a si‫ת‬glc indi.v idual praying on his ,o wn says o,n ly seven, or· ·t hat in th,e tqill4h sbel .lahash, the sllcnt prayer of th,e individual in the congregat‫נ‬on o‫ת‬e says only scvcn. whilc in thc cantor's rcpe't ition t·h ere are ni‫מ‬e. T.his abbrevia• tion‫ י‬which w·a s strongly co,ntcstcd by .s ome, was the resul.t of people's inability to r,e member aJI thcsc .l ong ben•e dictions .g ivcn thc absencc of prayer books, a‫ת‬d thc ‫ת‬eed for rccitation by·hean. A further possible enmple .may be ·t he fact the .U-Va le-Tziyyo.‫ מ‬scc.ms to havc b·e en moved from mussafto minhah. This according o‫ ז‬geonic: source.s and Sef,r ha-ittim (‫נ‬.,S‫)נ‬, wh.o explai‫ ת‬that ‫ת‬i the former c‫ט‬stom there was cnensive study by scholars aftcr th e mussil/scrvicc (on Shabbat). but·1:his study and a:he·rccicat.ions of .ludu.shah de-sidra (U-V‫ו‬i lt·-Tdyyo‫ )מ‬had to· bc given up, or moved to minh‫ו‬th owing to cconomic reasons so that thc wors,hippers would not 'b e de‫ו‬ain,ed too long when they had to go tO work (.M aan, HUCA 4 (192.7]: ~69-‫נ‬.‫ ;·סך‬but see his whole discussion [ibid.,, i67·-27s, and cf. ibid., .z. (19‫ו‬.s): ‫נ‬.17), whcrc his i‫ת‬tcrprctatio‫ ת‬i.s somewha‫ ז‬different) . Scc also ‫ו‬:he Aticrword, note 4, below. Scc Berlincr, 3J-·39;. A . 1. Sch,echter, Ltctures on J:e‫ו‬uish L:iturgy (Philadclphia: 19J3, 39·-6‫ ;)•ס‬andn. 36 bclow. Zu‫ת‬z, Ritus 147. z‫נ‬.‫נ‬.; idcm Synagogak Poesi.e, 437; Berl. i‫ת‬er, 47· -s .,‫ ב‬and B•erli‫ת‬er, Cmsu, and Confiscation b,tbrliisch.er Buthn- im Kirchnzstaate, 18 91. 'The:whole .issue of censorship ‫ת‬i gcncral, and its cffect upon pray:er boo:ks ‫ת‬i p.arricular, requires additional study, ·t hough much has already bee‫ ת‬wri.a en abou‫ו‬: the s‫ט‬bj, ect. Se,e, for exam.ple‫ י‬M. Benayahu, Hasluunah u•reshut be•aefusei V~n.n;iah ‫(י‬Copyright, A.u th.o ,.rizatio,n and lmprimatur for Hebrew Boo.ks P.ri‫ת‬ted .‫ת‬i Venice) 1 Jcrusalem:·1,971,158 et seq.; Am‫ת‬on Raz•Krakotzin,. H1‫~נ‬Zmsor;. ba-Orech ‫ש‬e-hA•Text: 1

4

ha-Ze:nzurab ha-Katolit ‫•ינו‬ha-Defiu ha-lvri b~-Meah ba"Sbesb-esnb (Ccnso.rs.lup, Editing and the Tcxt: ‫י‬Catholic Censorship and Hebr,e w Literarur·e in the S.i neenth Cen‫ז‬ury) ("J cnualem: .‫נ‬,oos), pass.; W. Po·pper, The Cmsorship ,o fHebrew Boolts (N•e w York: 1899) (reprinted Ncw York 1968), pass..• especially .11z; D .. Kahn, .Avraha.m YAgtl Yitzh,ik Y‫זי‬ani‫י‬n (B.rooldyn, NY: .z ooo,. 91-12.1), espccially 103., where we are told of a censo,r who ,cha‫ת‬ged fr,o m ‫ רםוש ירנ שודק‬to ‫ ם"וכע שודק‬,‫ רםוש‬and from ‫ינאו לרע‬ ‫ם‬:‫( ייתסש‬Exod" 6:12) to ‫ם ~חפש‬, ‫ ינאי יידבע‬and othe.r amusing c::‫ז‬amples of i,gnoranc:e, a‫ת‬d als 0 ·96. (This .is a rewor·k ing of his Ha~•lu‫נ‬v le·misbor [Jerusalem-Brooldyn, 1

Digitized by

Go . . e

7;

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

ON CHANGES IN JEWISH Ll 'T URG·Y

NY.: 199,3, ‫נ‬-4.1), but with.changes and a.ddi‫ ·ז‬ions.) On changes in t·h c Almu praycr, see Wi.e dcr's fascina‫ו‬:ing study in Hitgabsb‫ י‬ut, vol. 2.,, 4s·3 --468, and his anicle on

"Be-ft amo• ‫ת‬i Baru.cb sbe-A.mar, instcad of the grammat.ically correct "be--fi amo,• (ibid., 4.69-491), both of' which demonstrate h,ow changes We.r e made for fear of the Chr.istia‫ מ‬Chw‫י‬ch; and ibid. , 4.s 3-468, on chang:es,,‫ת‬i the Alti‫מ‬u prayer, wherc, for e:‫נ‬:ample, the phrase ‫יק‬1‫נ יר‬i'.‫תשם לב‬n‫ יםהש םיד‬was excised because ‫"( וקיר‬to n.othingness") bas t.he samegtmatrul (numer,ical value) as ‫( רשי‬J'esus) ‫= (י‬3 ‫ ז‬6). Similarly, ‫כשרםר‬ ‫ ררקי‬was changcd [O ‫בכ בשוםו חרה‬m. .‫כשוםר‬1 ‫רראפת‬u, ‫תחםכ בשדםד‬, ‫ י אסנו‬etc.,, becausc ‫חקי‬ ("His,grandcur•) = 316 .)‫ (רשי‬See also Tifertt Tzvi, vol. :z. (Brooklyn: 19:93, 4.8.‫י‬2,). Note t·h at the Aleinu praye·r w.a s forbidden to b,e rccited ‫ת‬i Pru.ssia by cdict into thc mideighteenth century. (Sec‫ י‬Encyclopa:edi4Jud•ica [J.e.rusalem: 1971], vol. 2.. ss·‫ד‬-s, sl.) One should fu‫ח‬her ta.kc into account wh.at Zunz, in Rit‫ז‬u (‫נ‬.‫ג‬4), wrote:: 1n fear o,f p·e rsecution, falsificd explanat.i on,s wcre w‫ז‬itt·‫מ‬c for falsified passages (of the prayer book) - if only in order not to sacrifice morc to thc scissor:s .. '‫י‬ .A1ready the Roman M‫נו‬hzo·r of ‫ נ‬s87 had such gloss,es ,o f pacification Friedt‫מ‬s­

c•

•

A‫מ‬nu‫י‬r‫א‬u‫מ‬gen•)‫י‬ ‫ת‬i

.... The .Sefaradi p·rayer book printed ‫ת‬i ViJna. in 1,8 40. movcs, thc same grooves. Wherever mentio‫ת‬. is ma,d e of' •yoke"' or •,e·nemies,-‫ י‬.i t is

e:z:plained in term,s ofthe incl.i nati.o n to do evil. U‫' י‬b ecomes ,‫ יתרכ‬a‫ת‬d is eq,lained as referring to ‫ת‬a·cient star worship,e rs.... ‫ הרורצ‬M‫ רי‬is si‫ ת‬- that is, the si‫ ת‬of this edition agains‫ ז‬be.a uty and Wissenschaft, against history,.right and.truth"

Petuchowski finds these ch.aracteristics evident in th.e ,Siddur Htgyo‫ מ‬Lev‫י‬, pubJ,ished by Hirsch Edelmann, in Koni.gsberg (184s), which included a commentary with marginal glosses entitled Me.kor Beracbab, by El.i ezer Lands.h uth. ‫ת‬1 this siddur, which was not strictly Onho,dox., Ed,elmann permitted himself some .l ibenies with th,e wording of som,e pr.ayers. Thus ‫ת‬i th.e Han.nukah praye.r .A..l ba-.Nissi.m, ‫תרכלם ןורי‬ bccomes ‫סרכרים‬,‫ בא‬,‫ םינווי תרכלם‬becomes ,‫ םףיהי‬and. in the prayer .recited aftcr rcadin.g: th,e Megill,ah on Purim. ‫ רשא אינה תצע םירנ‬becomcs ‫ת ןפה‬:.‫ צע‬This apologetic tmdenz is spelled :‫טז‬o in p-,e at detail .‫ת‬i a four"pagc disse.m‫ו‬tion by Edelmann, which follows the introduccion. 1n add,i tion to this in.t rodu,c tion, there· are nwnerous footnotcs, and margi‫ת‬aJia to undc.rsc,ore this tendtn,z , which .may be summed ~p as foUows: •-

Reject,i on of any i‫ת‬vidious comparis,o .ns between Jews,and non--Jews. Denial of thc ex1s:tencc· ofJewis.h su.ffcring at the presen·t·tim.c. Profession of patriotism and absolutc‫ י‬loyalty to th,e govcmmen·t.

-

"Spir.i‫ז‬uali,zation" of ‫ז‬hc

messianic hopc:.

This siddur must, c:hercforc, bc secn within thc traditjon of censorship p‫ז‬evennon. Pctuc.howski c:xplains that: Edelman‫'ת‬s

apparatus of"Fri‫י‬tU‫מ‬s•A‫מ‬m.erkunge‫ יימ‬and hi,s occasional ·tampering: with the prayer·t·e ns rhcmsclves.can, therefore, be accou‫ת‬ted for in t·e rms of the censorship laws prevailing in. Russia in 184‫י‬s and in. ‫ז‬er.ms of Ede.lmann;s •desire to expon his li‫ש‬rgj.cal publica‫ז‬ions which were printed close to the R‫ם‬ss.ian

Digitized by

Go . . e

74

‫·וס‬ig ina ‫ ו‬f‫·ו‬o m

JND ANA

UNIVERSJ‫ד‬Y

‫י~ • י יות‬

‫=‬

‫‪,‬‬

‫_‬

‫ירכ~ ~‪..‬‬

‫‪M‬‬

‫‪ :. :ri‬י‬

‫ירא~יר‪1‬‬ ‫‪m‬‬ ‫ו‪-r‬ו‬ ‫•‬ ‫‪:‬‬‫‪...‬‬ ‫ו‬

‫ל‪.‬יבו ד~~זד_ך~ר‪1‬ך ~ ‪.. ~ .:‬‬ ‫•‬

‫ג ‪.-‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫שלא‬ ‫‪:‬נראי‪u‬כת‬ ‫לצויר‬ ‫•‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫•‬ ‫• ••‬ ‫••‬ ‫•‬

‫‪...‬‬

‫~‬

‫•‬

‫•‬

‫‪i‬‬

‫‪.....‬‬

‫‪..‬‬

‫••‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫‪:-‬‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫‪:‬‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫‪:‬פרכ~ם "אהרחוב' ש ‪ ..‬שם חלז?~‪t‬‬ ‫שחם רב‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫בם‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫חוב‬ ‫ככל‬ ‫םורלנו‬‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.. ....‬‬ ‫‪... ·-. -.- . .. ... . ......‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫• •‬

‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬

‫•‬

‫ז‬

‫‪...‬‬

‫•‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫‪..,. -‬‬

‫‪...‬‬

‫••‬

‫ן•‬

‫‪:‬‬

‫••‬

‫יי~~ ' ~~זךנר ךםיע‪.‬ם ר~זנק~~רים‬

‫·‪·-‬יבם ח‬ ‫חר‪:‬פ‬ ‫יכ‬ ‫ובל‬ ‫ובלך‬ ‫ל!נ"נ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫‪...........‬‬ ‫ ‪. - ....‬‬‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫'שובים‬ ‫נ‬ ‫‪. - - .,‬‬

‫~‬

‫ה·‬ ‫‪ ..‬רחא• ‪., ~:‬‬ ‫‪..-‬‬‫‪~.: -·, ..‬ך ‪ ... :‬דר ‪~~ ~.;.‬ס~ ‪ p‬ל‬ ‫‪,..,‬ש‬ ‫רכם• • ארו'ונ‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫•‬

‫‪:• :‬‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫ז‬

‫‪:‬‬

‫••‬

‫ז ‪•• •..‬‬

‫•‬

‫אדבת דבלבכ~ארסם‬

‫~ן‬

‫\·&‬

‫‪y‬‬

‫‪-‬‬

‫‪.• :‬‬

‫‪:‬‬

‫‪y‬‬

‫‪y‬‬

‫‪t‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬

‫"‪Prague Siddur 1519: Non-censored "Alenu‬‬

‫‪o,·iginal from‬‬

‫‪INDIANA UNIVERSITY‬‬

‫‪Google‬‬

‫‪Digitized by‬‬

‫ת‪rt‬ל!)ו‪~ fmil‬‬

‫•חנ‪:‬ו‪ o‬ל~ רנחו‪~ ...,,w‬‬

‫י""ג‪i-.‬אל ‪',‬זו• גי"‬

‫~~•!סל~‬

‫~‬

‫‪.‬‬ ‫' __ ‪ ...,‬י~ ~\םךןי;בל‬ ‫~דדם‪: f‬ז?י~הך‪:‬ו ב ~~ ד ‪rm‬י‪~:‬‬

‫;‪,‬ןוןו‪,‬טה‪;:‬ר~דםיי"!תר~~ )ר;ו‪ u-‬נוד‪n:‬נ‪ ~.‬י‬ ‫ל‪, o‬ד‪,‬ן;‬ ‫לדא ך ר‪Qt-‬‬

‫‪,v',,,.,..f‬‬

‫ןרדבודננה‪ q11‬ךוג~ו‪11‬י דם ‪~• f‬ןן'נ‪ l‬םלד ~לינ‪.‬‬ ‫••ב‪q,‬זכ "?'!'!' ‪ ,,.,.‬נ‪ '!i "'11‬ם;ו;יריי‪ 1‬זו!דדם‪,‬וב‬

‫~ ‪>• "'1,;li‬ז‪1 "J:!!!f111111';o , ,‬ן ' "‬

‫י‪:m‬ן ‪"" po‬ק ‪1•~ 0 1‬ן‪:‬י‪ofl‬ו‬

‫·‬

‫‪ i‬נ‪ '! o‬נ רפ י‪ ep‬ה נ ~• גיד‪•r‬ם םנ ‪r 110‬ונכ‪o‬ם וויי‪ 0 1‬נכ ןו‪6‬‬ ‫י‪~u‬‬ ‫• ן‪c: • w,.‬ד גו} נ‪ ,‬ו ~ ‪1 O'J 11 ) 0‬נ נס ‪, e‬נ‪ \ s‬י‪~-"'°‬י'י‪'°‬י י ‪ 11J11)1‬ו‪p‬ו‬ ‫ע ~‪1‬כי ‪li‬ו‪J‬י>י‪1‬כ‪r 1‬יס ‪,-,‬יו‪,.,‬י! ~ ‪ r‬ייי ~ ‪ o fl‬ם ~‪» p‬י‬ ‫נ ‪ ,‬אי‪~ J'O‬נ‪m‬ייז‪,‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬נ ~ ‪l Op‬ו‪0111f\ •)T‬‬ ‫נ '‪f‬ס~ ‪ ) ,‬ן‪t‬י ‪r 'fi‬יכ•ו‪,,.. O‬ע ‪~ jlY) ~ i‬ל(‪~O‬‬ ‫‪ ~"'"'l ~~~ -ti‬נו‪ ,‬ן י‪f,i11U10~:‬‬ ‫כ~מ‪• r‬נ ‪f,‬ז'י‪"-r‬נן‬ ‫‪r‬ס~ גי• • ‪ · r‬נו'י~ נ ‪r r ,,.. 4o‬ו ‪ J' Of' ~ ' )O‬ן>‪c-J:‬ם ‪:‬י'י‪ t O‬כ • ‪1‬י‪r1‬‬

‫‪•r‬‬ ‫‪r‬‬

‫‪.‬נ די ם }נסן‪1‬י‪ r~ 1‬איינייו ‪or1‬‬

‫·'י"יי" ·‬

‫‪ M1‬נ ‪ p‬י'ני‪ 1!:~r‬םמ‪ lf‬ייי'ייזחיס‬

‫ד‪~ o‬ןנ ז‪r.:‬נ יר‪r o‬יו‪:‬זו~ ‪r 01lo‬‬

‫ף ם ‪ 11‬ני ם ' ז"''" ‪fi‬י ד םם יי"‬

‫‪r‬‬

‫‪:~{;~;:‬ג;;;ק‪: ,-:: ::::‬דגי‪- •~ :‬‬

‫‪,}qll‬‬

‫לע‪'P. .‬‬

‫ייתזית‬

‫‪ e,,,. _ ..,,‬מני‪'f‬י דז‪M'\.‬‬

‫‪o‬ם‪o.‬ו! ‪•-‬י‬

‫‪,‬ני נמ ‪,‬ו‪,,r‬ר‪-‬ם‬

‫‪m,i,‬‬

‫ו‪m:‬ן ‪,.,~,‬‬

‫!‪.‬ב‪f‬ז ‪.‬לז~‬

‫~‪ n‬הכך‪ ~rh n‬כ‬

‫‪-‬ג‪'t‬ח~כלסד‪v‬ד ~ד‪.‬ד~‬

‫;י~‪:‬ן‪~ ;:,‬רן~ז‪r‬ז‪,‬ם‪k‬י‪tt‬י'ט ~ ‪·,‬‬ ‫~~ם~_ רזםםךד ·‪~~ ,‬‬

‫‪ .‬י} ‪r>i' Ptl‬יג ס'~‬ ‫~~‪ ;,:. t‬זו ‪w‬‬ ‫‬‫‪.-.,;,‬‬ ‫‪P~~ .‬י~~ד~_‪.m-‬ג ‪O‬נ‪ p,‬נ~נ‪t‬ז•‬ ‫ר~ !‪11‬י‬

‫ני~ ס‪ ,1\ -:‬תיניינבנ‪1 Q‬נם;"»ז‪l‬א ‪' ppJUU‬וגפגו‪, o‬נ‪o,‬חורנ ‪po‬‬

‫‪Siddur Torino (Turin) 1515. The "Alenu" text is censored and has‬‬ ‫‪b (right) in‬סז‪t‬ס‪tes on the m‬ס‪iry. But the n‬ת‪ia‬ז‪t Chris‬ס ‪no reference‬‬ ‫‪ the "fuller" tat, by saying that one‬סז ‪cursive script have a reference‬‬ ‫‪t "but‬ס ‪, "and we" as opposed‬באל אונחנ ‪ and not‬ואונחנ ‪should read‬‬ ‫‪t . . . but we . ...‬ס ‪e themselves‬ז‪ra‬ז‪we," i.e. they pros‬‬

‫‪Original from‬‬

‫‪INDIANA UNIVERSITY‬‬

‫__‪Google‬‬

‫‪Digitized by‬‬

‫‪l‬‬

‫‪111‬סיוס‪./,‬ת‪p,,‬נ‪.,.......lr.‬‬

‫~‪'l'l'l .‬סתב‪trc‬ח‪'r‬ם 'י‪'I-‬א‪n‬ס'‪ICl‬נ‬

‫!ג‪q‬ג‪. ,‬‬

‫~½ ' ~;;;סריי~‪~r‬‬

‫ףס'!!י‪f‬נ‪!,‬ו ‪1~,‬‬

‫ל‪ ,~1‬זירםרר_רנ‪.‬ף ‪\ :‬כפרק ה' הלכה =