The Movement for Reform Judaism

We have now provided congregations with two experimental editions of the Prayerbook – the Shabbat morning draft and a compilation of services, including Erev Shabbat and Daily Services, which was used initially at the RSGB conference in June 2004. Feedback from the Shabbat draft led to a number of changes in the second volume, and as more congregations send us the results of discussions and questionnaires we continue to address the positive and negative comments. The Editorial Board is most appreciative of the enormous trouble that a number of congregations have gone to so as to give these drafts a fair exposure and then collect opinions.

On the whole the results have been positive about the general re-structuring of the services and the inclusion of more traditional material. There has also been a request for more new material, some of which will be available in the study anthology that is currently being developed. Perhaps the greatest challenge is finding or composing new prayers that speak to our needs today but which will continue to be relevant or helpful throughout the lifetime of the new prayer book. Those composed in the seventies for the current prayer book have lasted well, so we have included them in the draft versions. We welcome subjects that people feel need to be addressed today and examples that we can consider and edit.

Publication Date  

In the light of the feedback which is carefully evaluated by the Editorial Board, and which will doubtless lead to a number of changes, we feel it important to allow more time for the editorial process to be completed. In practical terms this means that publication date will probably be postponed for a year, so that the prayerbook will appear in 2007, which would be exactly thirty years since the current volume was published.   

The following are some of the issues that have arisen and which we are in the process of considering:

‘Ancestors’ ‘Avoteinu’ or ‘Doroteinu’

While ‘Avoteinu’ can mean ‘ancestors’ as a generic term for people of either gender, its basis in the word ‘Avot’, ‘fathers’, makes it problematic. In the first paragraph of the Amidah, where we include both the patriarchs and matriarchs, it is logical to use the formulation ‘avoteinu v’immoteinu’ (‘our fathers and mothers’). However that does effectively define the word ‘avoteinu’ as applying only to males.   (Incidentally in the 1977 edition we chose to translate the word as ‘fathers’ rather than as ‘ancestors’ throughout on the grounds that the word ‘fathers’ was more euphonious and less harsh than ‘ancestors’ with its sibilants. It is interesting that different periods bring different perspectives and criteria.)      

While ‘doroteinu’, ‘our generations’, seems a good alternative to ‘avoteinu’, especially as it fits in rhythmically with the prayers, it has been argued that for Israelis the term today does not make clear that past ‘generations’ are intended. A phrase like elohei kol ha-dorot, ‘the God of all generations’, would be clearer, but would not fit the rhythm of the prayers! Moreover it has been argued that there were some problematic generations (of Noah’s flood, for example) which were pretty ‘godless’! (Even worse, the proposed alternative, ‘kadmoneinu’ ‘our early predecessors’ apparently suggests ‘neanderthals’! It has been dropped!)      

Ben Yehudah’s classic Hebrew-Hebrew dictionary explains ‘dor’ as ‘Generation’:  ‘the father, son and grandson are three “dorot”’. One of his proof texts is Job 42:17 - Job lived after this 140 years and saw his sons and son’s sons, four ‘dorot’, generations. Ben Yehudah defines the plural form as ‘the collectivity of living people at one time, time after time.’ His proof texts are Judges 3:2; Isaiah 41:4; Gen 9:12, the latter concerning the covenant that God makes ‘with you and with all living souls with you, l’dorot olam, for all generations to come.’ Joshua 22:27 again refers to generations to come, as does Exodus 12:14;  Lev 23:31;  Gen 17:7. The thrust of all these is to point forward to future generations. It is possible to use the word, relying on the context to make it clear that past generations are intended. Nevertheless others who have wrestled with the problem have tended to go back to ‘avot’, sometimes standing alone, sometimes adding mechanically ‘v’imahot’ wherever it appears.   

A final decision on which term to use has not yet been made.

Universalism and Particularism

How are we to express the universal beliefs of Judaism within the framework of the statutory services? The structure consciously moves from the universal picture of God as Creator of the entire cosmos (yotzer or) to God’s special concern with the Jewish people, in the Shema and Amidah, returning to the universal theme at the end of the service with the second paragraph of the Alenu with our hopes for the universal recognition and acceptance of God. That is to say the construction of the service preserves the tension that we are both a unique people, but at the same time part of a wider humanity. (The same twofold identity has to be addressed by all faith communities.) Understood in that way there is no need to add ‘universalising’ elements within the service, since the challenge is clearly expressed, nevertheless it is legitimate to seek out more explicit universal expressions.      

One of the sentences that lends itself to ‘universalising’ is ‘Oseh shalom bim’romav’, ‘may the One who makes peace in the highest…’.  The problem is that where it occurs at the end of the Amidah we are at a point in the service that is focused on the Jewish people in its unique relationship with God, so it would make sense to retain the traditional text which concludes with ‘v’al kol yisra’el, ‘and upon all Israel’ alone. However where the same passage appears at the end of the Kaddish at the end of the service, with its messianic overtones, it would make sense to amend the text by adding one of a number of options:  ‘v’al kol yosh’vei tevel’ ‘on all who inhabit the world’, ‘v’al kol b’nei adam’ ‘and upon all human beings’, or ‘v’al kol ha-olam kulo’ ‘and on the entire world’.      

Nevertheless the current practice of adding such phrases when singing ‘oseh shalom’ at the end of the Amidah may mean that it is too late to make this contextual distinction.   If that is the case, then there is an argument for adding a phrase about seeking peace for ‘all the peoples of the world’ in the ‘sim shalom/shalom rav’ blessing at the end of the Amidah as well.

Musaf – Additional Service

We have already developed the Musaf service for Yom Kippur, and subsequently provided truncated Musaf services for the Pilgrim Festivals. Nevertheless there is some resistance to providing a Musaf service as an option for Shabbat. The arguments in favour tend to be that it is a traditional element that will be familiar to people with a more traditional background. The arguments against range from the pragmatic, the extra time it adds to a service already overly long, to a concern about emphasising the sacrificial cult, which Reform has long ago given up – especially as the traditional Musaf prays for the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of sacrifices. 

Nevertheless it must also be pointed out that the Amidah in the morning and afternoon services is likewise intended as a substitute for the sacrifices that were held at those times in the Temple, so in this respect the Musaf for Shabbat and festivals is no different and merely continues a system we have long ago accepted. Every traditional Amidah similarly calls for the restoration of the Temple sacrifice in the ‘Retzeh’ blessing. It may be that since in Reform circles we do not often hold daily services, there is no feeling of the need to provide something ‘additional’ to mark the distinctiveness of the Shabbat.      

The version that we have introduced uses an element from Israeli Reform liturgy emphasising that prayer has indeed replaced sacrifice, thus consciously subverting the traditional view. But we have added the hope that Jerusalem becomes a place of peace and a place for prayer for all peoples, a legitimate expression of our Reform ideology that is nowhere else so directly expressed in the liturgy.   

The problem of timing can be overcome, when Musaf is included, by cutting down on the introductory parts of the service and saving the choral parts of the morning Amidah, for the longer Musaf Kedushah.  A much shortened version of the Musaf Amidah is also available in which the opening three and closing three blessings are amalgamated. The question of the length of the service is very much dependent on local circumstances. There are synagogues that have to deal with many Barmitzvah celebrations which tend to require more time, while others are simply constrained by the problems of local parking and the need to finish by a fixed time. However it must also be pointed out that there are chavurah groups and examples of experimental minyanim, often with younger people, who enjoy the atmosphere that can be built over a long and more leisurely period of worship. Hopefully the prayer book will offer sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of such different ‘congregations’, some of which may even be meeting in the same building.

Rachel and Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah

The addition of the matriarchs to the Amidah has in turn sparked off a couple of questions.   Firstly, why the order ‘Rachel and Leah’, and not ‘Leah and Rachel’ since Leah was the older. Traditionally, as in the blessing of girls on Erev Shabbat, Rachel is listed first, presumably on the Biblical basis that Jacob loved her more and the special role she plays for the prophet Jeremiah, weeping as her children are led into exile (Jeremiah 31:15). Again there are arguments both for retaining the traditional order and reversing it. Perhaps it is worth preserving the traditional order on the grounds that it follows the frequently repeated Biblical practice of preferring the younger child to the older one, thus breaking the convention that the oldest automatically inherits. God, so to speak, repeatedly chooses the unexpected one, thus upsetting any conventional practices, and demonstrating that God acts in God’s own way. More controversial, apparently, is the question about the two handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, who were the mothers of four of the twelve tribes. A powerful rabbinic midrash asks the question why the children of Israel had to endure slavery in Egypt. It answers that the sons of Rachel and Leah dismissed the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on the grounds that they were the children of slaves and of less worth.   By experiencing slavery in Egypt all the descendents of Jacob were made equal in this regard.   

While it would be problematic to introduce two more names into the opening of the Amidah which is already somewhat long, it does seem important to note their existence and significance as founding mothers of the Jewish people, so we have introduced them into the blessing for the community which celebrates the entire family of Israel. Nevertheless there has been a strong reaction against this, which is puzzling in terms of our Reform commitment to pluralism and openness.   A final decision has yet to be made.

We welcome your views on these and other issues as they arise.

'Forms of Prayer' will be published in May 2008. If you haven't yet ordered your copy, please contact your synagogue office. The siddur is also available to people who are not members of synagogues. To place your order, please call 0208 349 9484 or click here to buy on-line.