Notes.
1. On Page 424 sqq.
Among the different minhagim observed in the Synagogue the following are noteworthy:—The head is kept covered, the hands uncovered; gloves are generally taken off before the beginning of the Service. It was customary to spread forth the hands during prayer, and the phrase “spreading forth the hands” is used in the Bible in the sense of “praying.” The priests still raise their hands when pronouncing the blessing. Isaiah, rebuking those who prayed to God without seeking purification from evil deeds, says, “And when you spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers I will not hear; your hands are full of blood” (Isa. i. 15). Following the example of the Psalmist, “I will wash my hands in innocency, so will I compass thine altar” (Ps. xxvi. 6), we wash our hands [[445]]before prayer, as a symbol of the duty of purifying our conscience from guilt before approaching the Almighty with our petitions. We thus uncover our hands as if to say, “The reproach of Isaiah does not apply to us; we have tried to free our heart and our hands from guilt.”
A custom frequently animadverted upon is the habit which many Jews have adopted of swinging their bodies forward and backward during prayer. We consider it a more decent way to stand or sit still when communing with the Supreme Being. Both ways find support in the Talmud (Babyl. T., Berachoth 31a, and Shabbath 10a); whilst the one stands like “a servant in the presence of his master,” the other gives way to his emotions and excitement. The Magen Abraham, on chap. xlviii. 4, says: “He who follows the one example is right, and he who follows the other is likewise right: all depends on the devotion of the heart.” Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi in his Cuzari (Book II. chap. xli.) mentions and explains the custom of shaking during prayer. The habit of accompanying the emotions of our heart by corresponding motions of our body has produced the custom of raising the whole body upwards when uttering the word “holy” in the kedushah.
During tefillah we remain standing in the same place; at the end, when we have finished our petition, we retire slowly a few steps backward; the same is done by the Reader during the last paragraph of the kaddish. It is as if, our petition ended, we reverently withdrew from the heavenly King who has given us audience during the prayer.
We bend the knee, incline our head, and bow down on certain occasions during the Service, but we do not kneel during prayer.—It has perhaps been avoided as an idolatrous practice, with reference to Judges vii. 5.
When the Ark is opened and the Sefer is taken out or put back, we stand and show our respect for the Word of God in various ways. Some bow the head; others, considering this as worship, kiss the Sefer, or otherwise express their reverence.
The traditional way in which the kohanim proceed to bless the people is this: they remove their shoes, as the priests did who ministered in the Temple; water is then poured over their hands by the Levites, the ablutions of the ancient priests being thus imitated to some extent (see Exod. xxx. 20). It is a holy act, and is done in the Synagogue generally in front of the Ark. [[446]]The priests ascend the steps of the hechal and wait till called upon by the Reader to pronounce the blessing. They turn toward the congregation, spread forth their hands in the traditional manner, and cover head and face with the talith, in order not to be disturbed in their devotion by the sight of the congregation before them; the Reader dictates the words of the benediction to them to guard against any mistakes being made by them. The congregation, giving special importance to each word, add Biblical quotations and special supplications during the interval between one word and the other. Of greater importance, however, is respectful listening to the words uttered by the priests, and chanted by them in a peculiar traditional tune. The priests turn to all directions while pronouncing the blessing, expressing thereby that they would have no one excluded from the blessing.
Some kohanim refuse to perform this duty, pretending or believing that they are unworthy to bless the congregation. This is a mistake. Those who feel that they are unworthy must try by improved conduct to render themselves worthy, but disobedience to the direct commandment of the Divine Law is certainly not the beginning of improvement. Others object to the singing, in which they are unable to join; others to taking off their boots. The excuses are certainly insufficient. But as these two elements are less essential, they might, if necessary, be dispensed with if the fulfilment of the commandment is secured thereby.
2. On Page 439.
There are various parts in our Service which originally seem to have formed a substitute, under certain circumstances, for a section of the Service or for the whole of it, but were subsequently, when the circumstances altered, embodied as an integral part of the Service in addition to the sections which they had replaced.
In the Morning Service there is in the section called ברכות השחר a prayer beginning לעולם יהא אדם and concluding לעיניכם אמר יי. This prayer, preceded by an exhortation to be God-fearing in secret—when persecution prevented public worship of God—contains an expression of pride in our history, and of gratitude to God that we have the privilege to proclaim the [[447]]Unity of God in the words, “Hear, O Israel,” &c., and a petition for the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies.
In the Maaribh the part beginning ברוך יי לעולם and ending על כל מעשיו was originally a substitute for the Amidah, and the conclusion of the Evening Service for those who considered the tefillah in the evening optional. Similarly, on Friday evening the contracted tefillah was originally a substitute for the tefillah for those who came late. In both these and similar cases the substitute and its original have been retained as integral parts of the Service.
3. On Page 442 (2).
In the public Service the tefillah is repeated by the Reader after the silent prayer (בלתש) of the congregation. This minhag must have been introduced very early. In the Talmud (end of Rosh ha-shanah) it is spoken of as a regular institution, its purpose is discussed, and the reason stated why we should not dispense with the Reader’s repetition or with the silent tefillah. It seems that there was, on the one hand, a desire on the part of the congregants to have an uninterrupted silent tefillah in which they could give suitable expression each one to his personal and peculiar wants and wishes. On the other hand, there was also a desire felt by many to be guided in their devotions by the Reader. Our minhag satisfies both requirements. But it is a grave error to think, as unfortunately many do, that, while the Reader repeats the tefillah, the congregants may turn their heart and mind to other things, however holy these be. The congregation and the Reader must be united in devotion during תפלה בצבור, and where the continued concentration of thought during the tefillah and its repetition seems unattainable, it would be better to sacrifice the minhag of repeating the tefillah rather than to have the repetition of the prayer without the participation of the congregants, or even without decorum.
In the repetition of the tefillah the kedushah forms an important addition. The essential idea of the kedushah is repeated thrice during the Morning Service, viz., in the first of the benedictions preceding the shema, in the tefillah or Amidah, and in the concluding section commencing ובא לציון.
In the first kedushah (called קדושה דיוצר), while praising God [[448]]as the Creator of light and of the heavenly luminaries, we introduce these, as proclaiming, as it were, the holiness and glory of God in the words of the Prophets. In the last kedushah (called קדושה דסידרא or סידרא דקדושה) we merely read, among other passages from the Prophets, those verses of Isaiah and Ezekiel which contain the chief sentences of the kedushah. In the kedushah of the tefillah the Reader summons the congregation to proclaim the sanctification of God in the manner of the angels above; it has therefore its place only in Public Worship, whilst as to the other two kedushoth there is no difference whether a person prays by himself or in a congregation of worshippers.
As regards קדיש וברכו, two prayers generally united, it must be remarked that in their meaning they are disunited: the half-kaddish is the conclusion of the mizmorim or pesuke dezimrah, and ברכו is the commencement of the next section: shema, with its benedictions. The half-kaddish, wherever it occurs, concludes some section of the Service. In shacharith, after Amidah, or after “Supplications,” or after the Reading of the Law; at Musaf, Minchah, Neïlah, and Maaribh after the introductory psalms. The half-kaddish before the Amidah in the Maaribh is probably a remnant of the whole kaddish that used to be said when the Service ended there and the Amidah was considered optional (רשות).
4. On Page 442 (3).
An important element in the Service is religious instruction. The means adopted were the reading of the Torah and Haphtarah, the introduction of moral lessons, principles of faith, exposition of Divine precepts into the Service, and lectures containing various lessons, exhortations, and explanations of the Biblical and Post-Biblical Sacred Literature. These lectures are an ancient institution. The prophets instructed the people, especially on New-moon and Sabbath (2 Kings iv. 23); the Scribes and the Rabbis of the Talmudic age expounded the Torah and other Biblical and Post-Biblical writings; they were followed by darshanim and maggidim, the modern preachers and ministers. The aim of these lectures is to create, maintain, or intensify the fear of God and the love of the Torah (אהבת תורה ויראת שמים).
The Sermon has lost much of its original force and influence. The cause of this fact is probably to be sought chiefly in the [[449]]materialism and scepticism of the age, but to some degree also in the character of the sermon. It cannot be denied that the pulpit, instead of being made a place from which Love of Torah and Fear of God receive life, encouragement, and strength, is frequently turned into a platform for discussing communal or personal quarrels or theological controversies, or creating a discontent with existing institutions, without sufficiently considering the result of such discontent. Themes like these are not outside the province of the preacher, but they must not be the staple of his discourses, which must principally seek to foster אהבת תורה ויראת שמים in the hearts of the congregants. As to the history and literature of this branch of the Service, see Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1832.
5. On Page 420.
The question is frequently asked whether special meetings and Services may be arranged with a view of improving the religious status of the Jewish community. There is no reason why attempts should not be made in this direction. By all means let everything be done that is conducive to a revival of religious feeling and religious practice. But in such attempts care must be taken that nothing be done that is contrary to the precepts of the Law, both Written and Oral; that the teachers, preachers, or lecturers do not themselves display a disregard for recognised religious authority, and by such conduct undermine the existing reverence for the inherited traditional Religion.
On this basis meetings on Sabbath for the purpose of reading the Bible, praying, and singing, in whatever language this be done, and special Services for the pupils of Religion Classes at the close of the session, must be welcome to all who have a love for our holy Religion.
6. On Page 420.
A question of equal importance that frequently disturbs the peace of the congregation is this: whether and in how far the established Ritual or minhag of a Synagogue may be altered. The Ritual is not the work of one man or of one age; it is the product of the thoughts and the feelings of our nation through many [[450]]centuries. Its foundation was laid by the Men of the Great Synagogue in the time of Ezra. Generation after generation were busy in the construction of the building; storey was added to storey; from time to time new wings made their appearance. Reverence and piety made successive builders reluctant to pull down what the same feelings of preceding generations had reared. The whole formed a Sanctuary every single stone of which was cherished and guarded against desecration. Notwithstanding the storms and tempests to which it was exposed, and which certainly caused a breach here and there, our Sanctuary stands still on its ancient foundations, and its walls retain their power of resistance.
What is the duty of the present generation with regard to this structure? Architects or would-be architects examine it minutely from foundation to top-stone; but they come to different conclusions. We will examine these conclusions, sine irâ et studio, assuming that the examination has been conducted bonâ fide, with a view of strengthening the Sanctuary, and that the reports are in accordance with truth and the examiners’ innermost conviction.
(1.) Some declare “the Building no longer attractive; there are so many other edifices full of points of attraction both without and within; these must in course of time draw away the visitors from our Sanctuary, and estrange those who used to fill it.” We admit the force of the argument. It has always been the aim of those who had the management of the Synagogue in their hands to make the Service attractive; there is no reason why it could or should not be done at present. Means of attraction are mostly of an external character: the art and luxury displayed in the building and its furniture, the eloquence of the preacher, the voice of the reader, the singing of the choir, introduction of novelties, such as instrumental music (scil., on week-days) and prayers in the vernacular. In themselves these things are harmless, and although they are not the essence of the worship, they may lead to it;[135] and, for this reason, it must be considered a condition sine quâ non, that the style of singing, reading, and preaching should be such as to please the majority, if not every one, of the congregants.[136] But there is this to be feared and guarded [[451]]against: viz., that the husk be mistaken for the fruit, and true devotion be lost. Besides, the experiment has been made, and the desired result has not been obtained. There are plenty of places for the enjoyment of vocal and instrumental music, with which the Synagogue would vie in vain in point of attractiveness, and novelties, as novelties, soon wear away, and bring no real improvement. Let the leaders of the Synagogue strengthen the faith of their brethren in God and His Word, maintain, by good example, their reverence for our ancient traditions and customs, and be themselves earnest and devout worshippers; they will then surely be more successful in drawing others to the House of God.
(2.) Another critic says: “The Synagogue Services are discordant;” that is, the feelings expressed in our prayers have no echo in the hearts of the worshippers. “Education and general progress have so entirely changed the whole life of man that he can no longer be edified by the prayers and method of devotion followed by our forefathers.” Those who assert this, of course, only assert it of themselves, and so far their statement may be accepted as correct. But on examining it more closely we find that there must be something misleading in it. For what is the central idea of the ancient prayers and hymns? The conviction that we address our Heavenly Father, who is the Creator and Ruler of the Universe; who is just, good, and holy; who alone can fulfil the wishes which we utter in our prayers, and “who is near to all those who call upon him in truth.” Does progress of education force us to abandon this principle? Certainly not. Those who do abandon it cannot be said to do so by force of education, for they are found among the educated and uneducated alike; and we should be false to our own Faith if we were to abandon this fundamental principle of our Divine Service.
The second of the fundamental Principles of our Faith, though less general than the preceding, is yet equally essential in Judaism, viz., the belief in Revelation, in the Integrity and the Divine origin of the Torah, and the truth of the Divine messages sent through the prophets. The Ritual is replete with references to this belief, and it would amount to a rejection of this essentially Jewish Principle, if we were to expunge such references from the Ritual in order to please a few unbelievers. [[452]]
References to the Sacrificial Service, and especially prayers for its restoration, are disliked by some, who think such restoration undesirable. Let no one pray for a thing against his will; let him whose heart is not with his fellow-worshippers in any of their supplications silently substitute his own prayers for them, but let him not interfere with the devotion of those to whom “the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord pure, enlightening the eyes; the judgments of the Lord true and righteous altogether” (Ps. xix. 9, 10), and who yearn for the opportunity of fulfilling Divine commandments which they cannot observe at present.[137] Prayer, in the true sense of the word, is impossible without the recognition of God as our Master, whom we are willing to serve, and whose commands we desire to do, whether the act implied in them be in other respects agreeable to us or not.
(3.) The Ritual contains many sections which owe their existence to particular circumstances that have passed away, and to local conditions which are different from those prevailing in the countries in which we live. Have these a right to be kept perpetually in the Ritual? Certainly not. There is no reason why prayers which have become obsolete and meaningless should not be modified or discontinued. But as a rule our prayers are free from references to the particular causes of their composition, and there is no need to expunge from the Service petitions, thanksgivings, or praises which were originally intended for a special occasion, if they are expressed in general terms, and have become in the Synagogue a source of devotion and edification. But as to the latter condition, it is difficult to decide whether a liturgical composition has become, and is still, an aid to devotion. Much depends on the individual character of the particular congregation in which the question has been raised, and each case should be decided on its own merits by a competent and responsible authority.
Many of the Piyyutim[138] and Selichoth belong to this class; also a few sections in the ordinary Ritual (see note 2), and the repetition [[453]]of the Amidah, and the Kiddush in the Synagogue on the eve of Sabbaths and Festivals.
(4.) It is further asserted that the Ritual was formulated in bygone times; our wants and tastes are different from those of former ages. We can neither pray for the same things nor in the same way as our ancestors. But what did our ancestors pray for? For the well-being of their body and of their soul; for the realisation of our national hopes and the ultimate triumph of our holy Religion. Just the same ends we wish to obtain at present, and these objects form the substance of our Ritual.—There are some petitions which seem to many out of place, and out of date. Such are petitions against cruel oppressors. Our fathers had good reason to cry to the Almighty for relief, for they were oppressed, whilst we, living in a free country, in the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens, have no cause whatever for complaint. If we were to separate ourselves from our brethren in distant countries, we could expunge all such petitions from the Ritual. This is, however, not the case; we feel deeply grieved at the sufferings of our brethren. We should like to see them relieved from oppression and persecution, and pray to God for His interference in behalf of the persecuted. When we use the term “revenge” (נקם) we do not associate with it any base desire to see the enemy crushed or annihilated; we use it rather in the sense of a just and merited penalty for evil-doers, and associate with it the idea of the ultimate victory and triumph of our holy Religion after long periods of oppression and persecution. It is their Faith for which our fathers suffered, and our brethren in some countries still suffer, and the triumph of which forms the centre of these petitions. Intense grief and sorrow sometimes suggested harsh expressions, such as “Destroy our enemies,” “Put an end to them,” but these are figurative expressions, and are used in the sense explained by Beruria, the wife of Rabbi Meir: “May the sinners cease from sinning, and sinners will be no more.” Similarly we pray in the Amidah: “Let our slanderers have no hope of success, so that evil-doers may soon vanish and disappear; break the power of the presumptuous, and humble them.” In these words we give expression to our feeling of indignation against the slanderers of our holy Religion, the revilers of Judaism, such, e.g., as from time to time renew the blood-accusations, [[454]]or by false and deceptive arguments or other means entice Jews to abandon their faith.[139]
(5.) We hear frequently the complaint that the Public Service is too long. This complaint is of a relative character; it is different from the feeling of joy expressed in the words, “Blessed are those who dwell in thy house;” it is different from the sentiment of those chasidim (Mishnah, Berachoth v. 1) who sat still a while before the commencement of the prescribed prayer, or those who after the conclusion thereof sit down again, saying, “Surely the righteous shall give thanks to thy name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence” (Ps. cxl. 14). As regards the length of the Service, we should bear in mind the principle of our Sages: It makes no difference whether the Service is long or short: only be devout. It is provocative of irreverence to protract the Service unnecessarily until it becomes wearisome; but it is equally unbecoming to hurry over it as though it were an unpleasant task. On the whole the Services, especially when they are well regulated, are not too long, unless too much time be spent in singing or in unnecessary interruptions.
In all cases in which a modification seems advisable and lawful it must be borne in mind that the Ritual is a Sanctuary every element of which is holy, and that hasty reforms may be less effective than is hoped. It may perhaps be easy to pull down, but it is not so easy to build up. Devout members of a congregation may easily be alienated, but not so easily will new members be attracted, or if attracted, permanently retained.
7. On Page 424.
Rabban Gamaliel said, “Provide thyself a teacher, and be quit of doubt” (Aboth i. 16). The rule laid down in these words for every individual applies also to the whole community. Questions like those mentioned in the preceding note frequently arise in Jewish congregations, and cause dissension where union is so much needed. A teacher must be appointed in every community, [[455]]who shall be able to guide and to instruct it as to what is right and wrong. In fact, such a teacher has, as a rule, been appointed in Jewish congregations; he is known by various names: Haham (חכם), Rav (רב “Teacher”), Rabbi (רבי “My teacher”), Teacher of righteousness (מורה צדק), and Judge (דין). The weight of his authority is less to be determined by the nature of his office or by written conditions than by his learning, piety, and personal influence. According to the rule, “Judge not alone” (ibid. iv. 8), he is generally assisted by two councillors (dayganim), with whom he forms a court of judgment—Beth-din—when questions of more than ordinary importance have to be decided. The congregation must accept his decisions as final, and must have confidence that he, like the high-priest of old, will give his answers according to “light and integrity.”