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 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; [164] 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. [165] But there is this to be feared and guarded
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.
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.
[166] 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 [167] and Selichoth belong to this class; also a
few sections in the ordinary Ritual (see note 2), and the repetition 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, or by false and deceptive
arguments or other means entice Jews to abandon their faith. [168]
(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.