Chapter V: Divine Worship, ‏עבודה‎

In the Midrash the following legend is related: When, at the conclusion of the seventh day, the sun had set and darkness had spread over the earth, Adam was afraid that the world was now coming to an end. But the Almighty caused him to find two stones, by means of which he produced light. On seeing this Adam was full of joy, and although he had himself produced the spark, he felt that it was to his Creator and Master that thanks were due, and gave expression to his feelings in the words, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who createst the light of the fire.”

Thus the legend traces the beginning of Divine Worship to the first man; and, in fact, the desire to commune with the Creator and to give outward expression to the inner feeling of reverence and allegiance is so general that it seems to be part of man’s nature.

In a different way this feeling was expressed by the sons of Adam, by Cain and Abel. They brought presents to the Lord, probably accompanied by words of praise and prayer. No essential difference is noticed by us in the offerings of the two brothers; each of them brought what seemed best in his eyes. And yet the offering of Cain was rejected, whilst that of Abel was received favourably. An important lesson it is that Scripture teaches here at the very threshold of the history of sacrifices. It is this: The value of an offering does not lie in its outward appearance, in that which is open to man’s judgment, but in something that is known to the Omniscient alone, in the heart of him who approaches his Creator with a gift, in the motives which prompt him to do so, and in the feelings which accompany that act. From these beginnings the two forms of Divine Worship, Sacrifice and Prayer, gradually developed.

SACRIFICE (מנחה, קרבן).

What was the main idea that prompted man to bring an offering to the Almighty? He felt, as it were, the existence of a higher Being, the Creator and Ruler of all things; he was conscious that his own life and welfare depended on the Will of the Being to whom in reality everything belongs that man believes himself to possess and to enjoy. In order to give expression to this feeling of allegiance man brought the first and best of what he had acquired to the true Owner, and thus introduced [139] himself by such gifts as a faithful subject who is anxious to merit the favour of his Master. That which was at first introduced by man voluntarily, was afterwards sanctioned and regulated by Divine command.

There were two kinds of sacrifices: bloodless sacrifices, minchah and nesech, “flour-offering” and “drink-offering,” and blood sacrifices: animal-offerings. But no difference is discernible between these two kinds with regard to their importance, sanctity, and efficiency. As a rule, the animal-offering was supplemented by minchah and nesech. The treatment of sacrifices varied according as they were intended to express the feeling of reverence, rejoicing, gratitude, or repentance, and special rules had to be observed in each case, the various kinds of sacrifice being עולה “burnt-offering,” or שלמים “peace-offering,” or תודה “thanksgiving,” or חטאת “sin-offering,” or אשם “guilt-offering.” The Law further fixed the place, the time, and the method of sacrificing, and appointed also the persons who alone were allowed to attend to this function, so that no strange element, no idolatrous or superstitious customs, could be introduced into the sacrificial service ordained by the Law.

Great stress is laid on the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice upon the altar. “The blood,” the Law says, “is the soul of all flesh; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for the soul” (Lev. xvii. 11). We are thus reminded that, in so far as the animal life is concerned, “the pre-eminence of man over the beast is nought,” and yet the Creator gave us the right to shed the blood of animals in order to save our life. Why? Because man has a higher mission to fulfil; he has been created in the image of God.

These and similar reflections were suggested by the different elements constituting the sacrificial rite. With the destruction of the Temple sacrifices ceased; with the Restoration of Israel and the Rebuilding of the Temple the Sacrificial Service will likewise be resumed. (Comp. Mal. iii. 4). There are persons who believe that the Sacrificial Service, implying much of anthropomorphism, could not have been intended to be permanent, and that it was only a concession made to the fashion and the low degree of culture of the age. Those who reject sacrifices on this account must also reject prayer, which is likewise based on a certain degree of anthropomorphism, though less strikingly than sacrifice. If the law concerning offerings were only intended for a certain age, such limitation would have been indicated in the Law. In the absence of such indication we have no right to criticise the Word of God, and to think that we are too advanced in culture to obey the Divine commands, It has been further argued that, according to Maimonides and his followers, the laws concerning sacrifices only served as a means of counteracting the idolatrous tendencies of the age. But Maimonides never went so far as to contend that these laws have served their purpose, and are now null and void. Even those laws which have been enacted by human authority remain in force till they are repealed in a regular and legal manner. But what human being can claim a right to abolish laws given by the Almighty? Whether any of the laws of the Torah will ever be abrogated we do not know, but we are sure that, in case of such abrogation taking place, it will be done by a revelation as convincing as that on Mount Sinai.

On the other hand, the revival of the Sacrificial Service must likewise be sanctioned by the divine voice of a prophet. The mere acquisition of the Temple Mount or of all Palestine by Jews, by war, or political combinations, or purchase, would not justify the revival. It is only the return of the Jews to Palestine, and the rebuilding of the Temple by Divine command and by Divine intervention, that will be followed by the restoration of the Sacrificial Service. And however contrary the slaughter of animals, the sprinkling of their blood, and the burning of their flesh be to our taste, we ought to look forward with eagerness and pleasure for the revival of the full Temple Service as an event that will enable us to do the Will of the Almighty revealed in the Torah. Instead of modelling the Divine laws according to our liking, we ought rather to regulate the latter according to the teaching of Scripture, and suppress it when contrary to the express Will of God. We therefore give expression to our hope “for the restoration of the Temple with its ancient Service” in frequent and fervent prayers, and in accordance with the exhortation of Hosea (xiv. 2) we read each day during the Service Scriptural passages referring to the sacrifice of the day.

“Sacrifices have been condemned by prophets and psalmists”! But in the passages which seem antagonistic to sacrifices only those sacrifices are referred to which are brought in a wrong spirit or from bad motives. (Comp. 1 Sam. xv. 22; Isa. i. 11–13, xliii. 24, lxvi. 2; Jer. vii. 21; Hosea vi. 6; Amos v. 25; Ps. l. 8.)

PRAYERS, תפלה [140]

Prayer is the general name for that form of Divine Worship which is expressed in words; it has a wider scope than sacrifices, for it is not limited to a special place, or to a certain time, or to one privileged family. It is accessible to all, in all places and at all times. All alike are addressed by the Psalmist, “Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord” (Ps. cl. 6).

There is no direct commandment in the Torah concerning prayer; it is rather assumed as a matter of course, and as inseparable from our belief in God. According to Tradition (Sifre on Deut. xi. 13), the exhortation to serve God with all the heart implies the duty of prayer. “What duty depends on the heart? It is the duty of prayer.” (Comp. Maim. Mishneh-torah, Hilchoth Tefillah i. 1.) The following are a few of the general rules laid down by our Sages with regard to Prayer:—

“Better little with devotion (כונה) than much without devotion” (Shulchan-aruch, Orach Chayyim i. 4).

“During prayer bear in mind before whom you stand” (Babyl. T., Berachoth 28b).

“The value of the words uttered with the lips is determined by the devotion of the heart” (Babyl. T., Berachoth 15b).

What is devotion? The concentration of all our attention upon the words we utter, the banishment of all foreign thoughts from the mind, and the consciousness that we stand in the presence of the Almighty, whom it is our duty to love, fear, and obey. A prayer uttered in this frame of mind is called “a prayer without lips of deceit” (Ps. xvii. 1). Comp. Maim., l. c., iv. 15.

It is a matter of course that indecorous conduct, unbecoming attitudes, and the like cannot harmonise with true devotion. With regard to language, form, time, and place of prayer nothing was fixed originally; all was regulated by the momentary impulse of the heart of the worshipper. But people who considered themselves incapable of giving adequate expression to their devotional feelings borrowed the words of those more capable than themselves and followed their leading. Such a course was also necessary for common and united devotion. When a certain prayer or a certain order of Service was frequently repeated at the same season and in the same place, the form, the time, and the place of prayer became to a certain degree fixed by custom—minhag—and that which had in the beginning been voluntary (רשות) was subsequently made law or duty (מצוה or חובה). [141]

The minhag is a most important element in Jewish religious life. What one has been accustomed to do for a long time, or even from his earliest youth, is deeply impressed on the heart, and is not readily surrendered. Such customs are sometimes more cherished and more firmly adhered to than express precepts. [142] It is the outcome of this respect for custom that in all countries the Jews pray in Hebrew. But nevertheless the general principle remains in force that it is not the language that determines the value of prayer but “the devotion of the heart,” and those who do not understand Hebrew may give expression to “the devotion of their heart” in the language they understand and speak. Women, who as a rule were not expected to be Hebrew scholars, used to read translations of the Hebrew prayers in the vernacular instead of, or in addition to, the original; they had also prayers composed for them in the vernacular (תחנות). And in more ancient times, when the Jews of Babylon had adopted the Aramean dialect spoken in that country, and retained it also after their return to Palestine, many prayers were composed in the more familiar language, although Hebrew was retained for the principal prayers. Hebrew has a special claim to privilege and distinction among the Jews. It is our national language, which our forefathers once spoke; it is the language in which the Almighty addressed the prophets, and through them the Israelites; the language in which God revealed His Will to the Israelites on Mount Sinai; the language in which the holy Psalmist sang the praises of the Creator, the priests blessed the people, and worshippers prayed in the Temple at Jerusalem. It must be the pride of every Jew to be enabled to pray at home, and especially in the Synagogues, in that same language, and if Hebrew be not the language of his every-day life, he should seek to perfect his knowledge of it to such an extent that he shall be able to understand the prayers and to pray with his whole heart. Those who seek the abolition of Hebrew in our Services aim, consciously or unconsciously, at the destruction of our nationality as the people of the Lord, by breaking asunder one important link which connects us with the wonderful past of our nation.

Equally indifferent with regard to the value of prayer are its length and its form. The Bible offers examples for all kinds and lengths of prayer. If one wishes to pray in a few words, he need only follow the example of Moses, who in the moment of anguish uttered nothing beyond the words, “O God, heal her now” (Num. xii. 13). If one prefers a long prayer, he may also take Moses as a guide, who prayed forty days for the forgiveness of the Israelites after they had made the golden calf (Deut. ix. 18, 25). Both prayers were equally efficacious. Miriam was healed, and the Israelites obtained pardon. With regard to the form, we have in the Bible prayers in prose and in poetry; some uttered in simple speech, others in song; some with musical accompaniment, some without it. All of them seem to have been at first the response to a momentary impulse, but were afterwards repeated on similar occasions in the original or in a modified form.

Among the various motives that impel us to seek communion with our Father, is the desire for certain things which we have not, and the conviction that it is solely in His hand to fulfil our wishes. [143] A genuine prayer of this kind—for the fulfilment of certain wishes of ours—is impossible without the belief in the efficacy of prayer. We cannot with certainty expect that our petition will be granted, but we hope that it will; we submit our wishes to the Will of the Almighty. The Hebrew name for prayer תפלה implied the idea of judgment, as if we judged whether the concession of our petition might fairly be anticipated. Such judgment, however, is not to be considered as decisive; and if our request is to be granted, it will be as an act of mercy and grace (רחמים ותחנונים), and not because it is a claim fully proved (קבע). [144] We hope that our prayer will be granted, but never lose sight of the condition “if it please God.” There are a few exceptional cases. Prophets like Moses (Exod. viii. 6), Samuel (1 Sam. xii. 17), Elijah (1 Kings xviii.), Elisha (2 Kings iv. 33 sqq.), and others, men inspired by the Almighty, were, on certain occasions, sure of the effect of their prayer. In the Mishnah (Taanith iii. 8) the case of Choni (חוני המעגל) is mentioned, who spoke with certainty of the result of his prayer. It must, however, in the latter case be added that the head of the Sanhedrin, Shimeon ben Shatach, blamed him for his conduct.

This we know for certain, that whenever and wherever we respond to an inner impulse by the utterance of a prayer, God is near us, for “He is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth” (Ps. cxlv. 18); that we and the place on which we stand are hallowed by the Divine Presence. Places once hallowed by such devotion, whether of our own or of our fellow-men, we like to visit again and again for the same purpose. The spot of Jacob’s first communion with God thus became “the house of God;” and even during the period when there was one central Sanctuary for the Sacrificial Service in Israel, at Gilgal, Mizpah, Shiloh, and later in Jerusalem, there were houses of God throughout the country for devotion unaccompanied by sacrifices. These were “the meeting-places of God” (Ps. lxxiv. 8), in which the Israelites assembled to meet their Creator. Such houses of God were established wherever Jews settled; their main purpose was united devotion; but they served also many other purposes—in fact, every holy, good, and noble cause. The house of God was the Assembly-house, Synagogue (בית הכנסת), in which the affairs of the community (צרכי צבור) were settled; the young had there their school, adults came there for religious instruction, and found there opportunity for the study of the Law, and the poor and stranger received there support and hospitality.

In a Jewish Synagogue there were two important features, the platform (בימה) and an ark (תבה) containing scrolls of the Law. From the platform in the middle of the Synagogue, the lessons from the Pentateuch and the Prophets were recited, and everything else that was directly or indirectly addressed to the congregants. But prayers addressed to the Most High were offered up from a lower place near the Holy Ark, [145] in accordance with the words of the Psalmist (cxxx. 1), “Out of the depth have I cried unto thee, O Lord.”

The Ark, or Holy Ark (ארון or ארון הקדש), in almost all modern Synagogues—in places west of Jerusalem—occupies the middle of the east side of the Synagogue. In the time of the Talmud the Synagogues were to some extent made to resemble the Tabernacle which the Israelites built in the wilderness or the Temple in Jerusalem. The entrance was from the east, and the Ark, which was to represent the Most Holy, was in the west. The Ark was, like the original one, movable. It was called tebhah, lit. “box,” in order to distinguish it from the original. The recess in which it was kept was the Hechal or Kodesh, “The Holy.” The tebhah seems to have served both as a receptacle for the scrolls of the Law, and as a desk on which these were put whenever they were required for the reading of the Torah. On certain extraordinary occasions, when, on account of the absence of rain, a general fast was ordered, the tebhah, with a Sefer-torah on it, was carried into the street, [146] where a special service was held.

The reason why the entrance to the Sanctuary and to the Synagogues was from the east, and the worshippers consequently stood during prayer with their face toward the west, may, according to the Mishnah (Succah v. 4), be explained thus: The principal prayer of the day being that in the morning, the Jews, as a protest against the sun-worship of the idolaters, who at that hour were accustomed to greet the sun with their prayer, turned away from the east and offered up their prayer to the Almighty in the opposite direction. When sun-worship had ceased, probably after the destruction of the second Temple, the national grief and hope found expression in the custom of praying toward the Sanctuary in Jerusalem. Hence the Jews who live west of Jerusalem stand during prayer with the face toward the east, while those east of Jerusalem turn westward. This custom is, besides, supported by the following passage from the prayer of King Solomon: “And they pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name” (1 Kings viii. 48). [147]

In most Synagogues there is a continual lamp (נר תמיד) burning. It is a Biblical institution, but only designed for the Sanctuary; its presence in the Synagogue is of comparatively modern date. The ner tamid of the Sanctuary, however, is explained to be a lamp burning “from evening to morning” (Exod. xxvii. 21). A golden candlestick standing in the Sanctuary against the south side, with its seven branches arranged from east to west, served this purpose. According to Tradition it was the second branch, counting from east to west, which really burnt continually; but this was not considered as implied in the term ner tamid, which only meant “a continual lamp” in the sense of a lamp that burns regularly every night.

The ner tamid in the Synagogue, which burns continually day and night, is not mentioned by any of the earlier Rabbinical authors. It has been introduced as a symbol representing our conviction that from the Synagogue shall continually come forth the light of instruction, the light of comfort and blessing, and the light of love and peace.

In the Synagogue women are separated from men. There was also in the Temple an עזרת נשים “court of the women,” distinguished from the עזרת אנשים “court of the men,” to which women had no access. During the Feast of Tabernacles, when the great rejoicings in the Temple attracted a large assembly, special care was taken (תקון גדול היה שם) that the separation of the sexes should be maintained (Mishnah, Succah v. 2; and Talm. B., Succah 51b). This precedent has been followed in the Synagogue, and has been accepted as law up to this day.

Reservedness and modesty (צניעות) have always been the pride and ornament of Jewish women, both in their homes and in the Synagogue; hence also their taking a silent part in the public devotion is an honour to them, and by no means derogatory.

In addition to the above-mentioned points, a Synagogue ought to be distinguished by the greatest possible simplicity, by the absence of all kinds of images, portraits, or statues representing living beings, whether real or imaginary. The Jewish religion is void of every visible symbol; and the so-called magen-david (the double triangle) is probably not of Jewish origin, and has no connection with our holy religion. It is not a symbol of this kind, but some inscription of a passage from the Scriptures that in most houses of worship reminds us of the sacredness of the place. We enter it with due reverence, manifesting it outwardly, in our peculiar traditional manner, by keeping the head covered. It is our ancient custom to cover the head when engaged in prayers, in reading the Bible or Talmud and their commentaries. This outward sign serves to remind us that not only our Service but even our literature is something holy, and its study a religious act (מצוה). [148]

Before we proceed to describe the details of our ritual, we mention one important point in which the present Synagogal Service differs from the ancient Service in the Temple. From what we are told in the Scriptures and in the Talmud, we learn that instrumental music was an essential element in the Service, and that King David and his successors paid great attention to it, whilst, with a few exceptions, it is almost entirely absent from our Synagogues. The principal reason why instrumental music is excluded from the Synagogue is its prohibition on Sabbaths and Holy-days by Rabbinical law (Babyl. T., Erubin 104a). This prohibition, like many other enactments, did not apply to the Temple Service; for the sacrificial laws had to be obeyed, irrespective of the fact that they involved acts which, if performed apart from the Temple Service, would constitute a breach of the Sabbath laws. Apart from the Temple Service the Sabbath laws remained in full force for the priests as well as for the general public.

There were also other considerations that helped to keep instrumental music out of the Synagogue Service. Its absence, though not directly a sign of mourning, served to preserve the memory of the destruction of the Temple, and to strengthen our longing for its restoration. It is also urged that the introduction of instrumental music into the Service would not satisfy any real want of Jewish worshippers, but would merely be a concession to the desire to assimilate our Divine Service to that of our non-Jewish neighbours, contrary to the prohibition of chukkoth haggoyim contained in the words, “Ye shall not walk in their statutes” (Lev. xviii. 3), i.e., in the statutes of the Gentiles. But, on the other hand, it has been argued that the feeling once expressed by the nation in the words “This is my God, and I will worship him in a beautiful manner” (Exod. xv. 2), still animates us. It is said that it is our duty to make our Service as beautiful and as attractive as possible. This argument deserves consideration, and might even outweigh some of the above-mentioned arguments against the introduction of music into our Service, if we were sure of the result of such introduction. But this is by no means the case, for the experiment, where tried, has not been successful if judged by the most practical test. The number of worshippers has not been increased, and discontent has not been removed. Whether the devotion of the worshippers has been improved, refined, or intensified by music is a question that cannot be answered with certainty. Even if the answer were satisfactory, it could only apply to the introduction of instrumental music into our Service on week-days, on Friday evening before the commencement of Sabbath, but not on Sabbaths and Holy-days.

THE RITUAL.

In the Bible there is no indication of a fixed ritual; there are, however, a few instances of forms of prayer prescribed for certain occasions. There is the priests’ blessing (Num. vi. 24–26); the thanksgiving on bringing the first-fruit offering to the Temple (Deut. xxvi. 3–10); prayer on distributing the tithes which accumulated in three years (ibid. 13–15). David (Ps. lv. 18) says, “Evening, and morning, and at noonday do I pray;” Daniel “kneeled upon his knees three times a day and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime” (Dan. vi. 11); but nothing is said about the form and the contents of these prayers. The Mishnah first speaks of certain fixed forms of prayer: the “Eighteen” (שמונה עשרה), the reading of Shema (קריאת שמע), and Benedictions (ברכות). The composition of the tefillah, “Prayer” par excellence, is attributed to the Men of the Great Synagogue (אנשי כנסת הגדולה), but only in its outlines. The number of the paragraphs, the theme of each paragraph, and the formula by which it is concluded may then have been fixed, the rest being left to be filled up by each supplicant according to his capacity. It was but natural that prayers uttered repeatedly by men eminent for their piety should be eagerly copied by others, and gradually become, to some extent at least, fixed forms of prayer. The tefillah, however, in the time of the Mishnah was by no means identical with the tefillah of the Men of the Great Synagogue. The destruction of the Temple necessitated several changes; e.g., the prayers for the welfare of Jerusalem, for the prosperity of Israel and of the Holy Land, and for the acceptance of the Service in the Temple were altered in accordance with the new state of affairs.

The Mishnah speaks of the tefillah as a well-known existing institution; it seems that it was the regular prayer in the Synagogue Service, and the discussion whether the tefillah should be repeated every day in extenso or in an abbreviated form (Mishnah, Berachoth iv. 3) refers probably to the prayer recited privatim (תפלת יחיד), and not to the Service in the Synagogue. The prescribed “Eighteen Blessings” were the framework, into which each man was expected to fit in his peculiar, individual supplications; whilst in the public Service the tefillah remained uniform. In the days of Rabban Gamliel of Jamnia, and with his sanction, an important addition was made by Samuel: a prayer for the discomfiture of those who by slander, denunciation, or other wicked means attempt to undermine the existence of the Jewish religion and community (ברכת הצדוקים or ברכת המינים). [149] In some congregations two other paragraphs (את צמח and ולירושלם) were at the same time combined into one, in order to keep to the traditional “Eighteen Blessings.” [150]

The reading of shema in the evening and in the morning, the three sections constituting the shema, and the order of these sections, are assumed in the Mishnah as fully established by law and usage. Only a few regulations are discussed concerning the time and the mode of the reading. There was this difference between the custom of the Babylonian Jews and that of their brethren in Palestine, that the latter omitted in the evening the passage referring to tsitsith. Later on, however, the Palestine Jews conformed to the Babylonian custom. Suggestions have been made to substitute other Biblical passages for shema, but they have been rejected. Several attempts have been made to introduce, as an addition to the three sections of shema, the reading of the Decalogue; the addition was disallowed, lest people should be misled to think that the Ten Commandments alone were to be observed, and that the other laws were not binding (Babyl. T., Berachoth 12a). [151]

The Benedictions which precede and follow the reading of shema were fixed in the time of the Mishnah as regards number, order, and form; but the contents were left unsettled for some time (Mishnah, Berachoth i. 4); in the Gemara their wording is still a subject for discussion. The same can be said with regard to the relative order of shema and tefillah. For the Evening Service the tefillah seems to have generally been considered as optional. As to Benedictions in general, their obligatory character is assumed in the Mishnah as admitted by all, and only their form seems to have been fixed by the regulations mentioned in Berachoth vi.–ix.

The Mishnah (Megillah iii. 4–iv. 10) includes a number of regulations concerning the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the Book of Esther. Detailed rules were laid down for the reader and the translator (methurgeman), pointing out which passages should be omitted in the translation, and which should be omitted even in the original. It seems that there was a regular, consecutive reading, which was interrupted on extraordinary days by the reading of passages referring to these days.

The ritual which was adopted for the priests in the Temple was an abridged form of the ritual then in general use. It was as follows: They commenced with a benediction—the first of those which precede the shema (יוצר אור); then they read the Decalogue, shema (the three paragraphs), and three further benedictions, אמת ויציב, עבודה (corresponding to רצה in our prayer), and the blessing of the priests (Mishnah, Tamid v. 1).

A special ritual is also mentioned in the Talmud (Mishnah, Taanith iv. 2) for the Maamadoth and the Fast-days. [152] There were four Services daily, as on the Day of Atonement. The principal feature in the Service of the Maamadoth was the reading of the first chapter of Genesis.

At the conclusion of the Talmud (about 500 C.E.) the essential parts of our present ritual were already in a settled state; the shema with the benedictions preceding and following, the tefillah with its variations for New-moon, Sabbath, and Holy-days, the reading from the Law and the prophets, and Hallel. The Seder evening Service was complete in its main parts. Of the Benedictions (Berachoth) on various occasions both form and contents were fixed, and the rule was laid down by Rabbi Meir (Berachoth 40a) that he who uttered a berachah in a form different from that fixed by our Sages has not fulfilled his duty (or, according to Maimonides, Hilchoth Berachoth i. 5, is in error). Notwithstanding this rule, however, changes were made; new benedictions were introduced and old ones discontinued. [153]—Kaddish and Kedushah seem to have formed part of the Service; of the latter the Talmud mentions the name, of the former the response: “May his great Name be praised” יהא שמו הגדול מבורך or יהא שמיה רבא מ׳ (Comp. Babyl. Talm., Berachoth 3a).

In the next period, that of the Geonim, we meet with the complete Siddur, “Arrangement” or “Order” of Service for ordinary days, for Sabbaths and Festivals, Benedictions for all occasions, and Piyyutim as optional additions. Such a Siddur was arranged by the Gaon Rabbenu Saadiah (892–942), and another by the Gaon Rabbenu Amram (about 880). Henceforth the principal prayers underwent only insignificant alterations. Of the next period the most important Siddurim are those included in the Mishneh-torah, at the end of the second book, and that contained in the Machzor Vitry. [154]

The additional prayers and piyyutim, being optional, varied according to the taste of each congregation and its leaders; in course of time these variations became permanent; the same was the case with minor changes, especially in the less essential elements of the Service, and thus the various Minhagim (Rites) of the various congregations came into existence. The principal Minhagim of importance for us are: the Polish, the Sephardic, the German, and the Italian Rites. [155] In the following description of the Ritual only the two rites adopted in the principal Synagogues of the Anglo-Jewish congregations in England will be noted.

PRAYERS AT FIXED TIMES.

Although we constantly enjoy the blessings of God, the very breath we breathe being the gift of our Heavenly Father, yet certain seasons of the day, of the week, of the month, and of the year have been selected as especially fit for reminding us of God’s kindness, and predisposing our heart to devotion. Thus in the day, morning, noon and evening have been fixed for prayer; in the week, Sabbath; in the month, New-moon; in the year, the Festivals.

We have three daily Services: Maaribh, “Evening prayer;” Shacharith, “Morning prayer,” [156] and Minchah, “Afternoon prayer.” On Sabbath, New-moon, and Festivals an “Additional prayer,” Musaf, is inserted between the Morning and the Afternoon Services, and on the Day of Atonement, Neïlah, “Concluding Service,” is added after Minchah.

The two most essential elements in these Services are: (1) the Reading of Shema (קריאת שמע), in the Maaribh and the Shacharith; (2) the Tefillah or Amidah, common to all the Services.

1. THE READING OF SHEMA.

In obedience to the precept, “Thou shalt speak of them,” i.e., of “the words which I command thee this day—when thou liest down and when thou risest up,” three sections of the Law are read daily in the morning and in the evening, viz., (1) Deut. vi. 4–9, beginning שמע “Hear;” (2) Ibid. xi. 13–21, beginning והיה אם שמע תשמעו “And it shall be if ye will diligently hearken;” (3) Num. xv. 37–41, beginning ויאמר יי “And the Lord said.” The first section teaches the Unity of God, and our duty to love this One God with all our heart, to make His Word the subject of our constant meditation, and to instil it into the heart of the young.—The second section contains the lesson of reward and punishment: that our success depends on our obedience to the Will of God. This important truth must constantly be kept before our eyes and before the eyes of our children.—The third section contains the commandment of tsitsith, the object of which is to remind us of God’s precepts: “Ye shall see it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray, that you remember and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.”

The reading of the shema is preceded by two berachoth: (1) יוצר אור Praise of the Creator for the regular sequence of day and night, light and darkness; (2) אהבה רבה or אהבת עולם Praise of His goodness in giving us the Torah, and prayer for His assistance in the study of the Torah. The shema is followed by a berachah on the Redemption of Israel; it contains a reflection on the last words of shema, “I am the Lord your God,” an expression of our faith in the truth of these words, which strengthen our belief in the future Redemption of Israel. [157] In the Evening Service a second berachah follows, beginning השכיבנו, and containing a prayer for protection during the night. [158]

2. THE TEFILLAH OR AMIDAH.

The Tefillah, “Prayer” par excellence, is called Amidah (lit., “standing”), because the worshipper stands during the time he offers it up. It is also called Shemoneh-esreh, “Eighteen,” because it contains on most occasions eighteen (or nineteen, comp. p. 431) paragraphs, each concluding with a benediction.

The first three paragraphs contain praise of God’s goodness to us, the descendants of the pious patriarchs (1), His omnipotence (2), and His holiness (3).

The next thirteen paragraphs are petitions for our individual and national well-being. For our individual well-being (4–9), namely, for reason and wisdom (4), assistance in our endeavour to return to God (5), forgiveness of our sins (6), deliverance from trouble (7), from illness (8), and from want (9).—For our national well-being (10–15), namely, for the gathering of those who are scattered (10), under good leaders (11), protected from the evil designs of our foes (12), for the support of the faithful (13), the rebuilding of Jerusalem (14), and the advent of Messiah (15). The sixteenth paragraph is a prayer that our petition may be accepted.—The last three paragraphs include a petition for the re-establishment of Divine Service in the Temple of Jerusalem (17), thanksgiving (18), and prayer for peace and prosperity (19). When the prayer is finished we express the wish that our lips, from which prayer to God has come forth, may not be defiled by unworthy language.

On Sabbaths, Holy-days, and in every Musaph the thirteen middle paragraphs are replaced by one in which reference is made to the characteristic feature of the day; in the Musaph of New-year three berachoth (p. 404) are substituted for the thirteen middle berachoth of the ordinary tefillah. The thirteen paragraphs have been eliminated in order that we should not be reminded on Sabbath and Holy-days of our failings, wants, and troubles; that those seasons should be marked by a happier and more cheerful mood than ordinary days (supra, p. 354).

There are two shorter forms of the tefillah for urgent occasions: the one is a substitute for the “Eighteen,” in which the middle thirteen paragraphs are contracted into one; it is called הביננו (the first word of this middle section), or מעין שמונה עשרה “abstract of the ‘Eighteen.’” The other is a contraction of the Friday evening tefillah, and is called מעין שבע “abstract of the ‘Seven’” (scil., paragraphs forming the tefillah), originally intended for those who were too late for the full Service. [159]

Each of the above Services ends with a prayer called after its initial word alenu, “It is our duty.” In this prayer we thank God that we have the privilege of proclaiming His Unity, and express our hope to see the worship of the One God adopted by all mankind. It is omitted between two Services following closely the one upon the other.

In addition to the above, the Service contains the following parts:—

(1.) ברכות השחר “Blessings of the Morning,” forming the first part of the Morning Service. It contains benedictions, reflections, and prayers suggested by the change from night to day, from sleep to wakefulness, from rest to activity.

(2.) Psalms.—Our Service contains various groups of psalms: chief among them the mizmorim or pesuke dezimrah (“songs” or “verses of song”), and shir shel yom (“song of the day”), in the Morning Service. The former include Ps. cxlv. to cl., some other psalms, and the song of Moses (Exod. xv.). The latter correspond to the songs of the Levites in the Temple, and consist of Ps. xxiv. (for Sunday), xlviii. (for Monday), lxxxii. (for Tuesday), xciv. (for Wednesday), lxxxi. (for Thursday), xciii. (for Friday), and xcii. (for Saturday).—The repetition of Ps. cxlv. three times a day, twice during Shacharith and once during Minchah, is an old minhag (Babyl. Talm., Berachoth, p. 4b).

(3.) Supplications (תחנונים) added in the Morning and the Afternoon Services after the tefillah.

(4.) Readings from the Bible and Post-Biblical Sacred Literature, such as Num. vi. 22 sqq. (priests’ blessing); Gen. xxii. (binding of Isaac); Exod. xvi. (manna); Mishnah, Peah i. 1, and Babyl. T., Shabbath 127a, in the earlier part of the Morning Service; and words of comfort (beginning ובא לציון) from the Prophets after the “Supplications.” Originally an exposition of the Written and the Oral Law followed the “Supplications,” and concluded with Messianic prophecies, recited in Hebrew and in the Chaldee Version.

(5.) Biblical and Post-Biblical passages referring to the Sacrificial Service, in the Morning and the Afternoon Services.

In addition to the above Services, read either in the Synagogue or privately at home, there is a special prayer read by us before retiring to rest. The chief element in it is the first section of shema; hence the name קריאת שמע שעל המטה “Reading of shema before going to bed.” Some psalms and supplications are generally added.

PUBLIC SERVICE, תפלה בצבור. [160]

The following points mark off the Public Service from the various forms of private prayer:—

(1.) Kaddish, “Sanctification,” a prayer for the universal sanctification of God’s name, which will distinguish the age of Messiah. In the second part of the Kaddish we pray for the Messianic peace, and in the last sentence express our hope that it may soon be granted.

Formerly the Kaddish concluded the Service; at present it is recited at the end of the Service in its full form (קדיש שלם “the whole Kaddish”); the first half (חצי קדיש “half-Kaddish”) has its place at the end of a section of the Service—e.g., after the פסוקי דזמרה in the Morning Service; a third form is recited by mourners after עלינו and after special hymns or psalms; it is the whole Kaddish with the omission of the sentence beginning תתקבל. It is called קדיש יתום “Kaddish of the orphan,” and is intended to express the mourner’s faith in God and his resignation to His Will.—Sometimes a special Kaddish, called Kaddish dirabbanan, is recited after the reading of some Talmudic or Midrashic passages. It is the same as Kaddish shalem, except that the sentence beginning תתקבל is replaced by a prayer for the welfare of the scholars, the Rabbis, and their pupils.

(2.) Repetition of the tefillah by the Reader, with the addition of Kedushah before the third paragraph, and the Priests’ Blessing before the last paragraph, of the tefillah. The Kedushah, “Proclamation of the Holiness of God,” is based on the visions of Isa. vi. and of Ezek. iii., with citation of three verses, Isa. vi. 3, Ezek. iii. 12, and Ps. cxlvi. 10, in which the Holiness, Glory, and Kingdom of God are proclaimed.

The Priests’ Blessing, originally spoken by priests, descendants of Aaron, is now in most Synagogues included by the Reader in the tefillah by way of quotation; only on Holy-days it is pronounced by the priests.

(3.) קריאת התורה “the Reading of the Law,” and the “Lessons from the Prophets” (הפטרה), with the benedictions preceding and following (supra, p. 348).

OCCASIONAL PRAYERS—BENEDICTIONS, ברכות.

The feeling of our dependence on the goodness of God must constantly be present to our mind. Whatever we enjoy, be it in the form of eating or drinking, or some pleasing or remarkable sight, an agreeable smell, a festivity on a joyful event, or the performance of a Divine commandment (מצוה); whatever befall us, whether it be pleasant or unpleasant—all this we consider as sent to us by the Will of the Almighty, and we express our conviction by a suitable berachah. The general rule is thus laid down by our Sages: It is unlawful for man to enjoy anything on earth without previously acknowledging by a berachah that God is the source whence the enjoyment is derived. For different cases different forms of “blessings” have been fixed by our Sages. In some cases the enjoyment is also followed by a prayer of thanksgiving, the most important being the prayer after meals, called ברכת המזון “Benediction for food or Grace.” [161] In the Mishnah it is called “Three Blessings” (שלש ברכות), because it consisted originally of three paragraphs, each ending with a benediction. The three paragraphs are the following: (1) ברכת הזן (“Benediction commencing הזן”), in which we praise God’s providential care of all creatures. (2) הודאה “Thanksgiving,” or ברכת הארץ (Benediction referring to Palestine). In this paragraph we offer thanks for our individual sustenance, as well as for our national gifts: Palestine, the Covenant, and the Law. (3) Prayer for the restoration of Zion and the rebuilding of the Temple (בנין ירושלם).—Subsequently a fourth paragraph was added (הטוב והמטיב “who is good and causes His creatures to be good”) in commemoration of the relief given to the Jews after the close of the war with Hadrian. [162]—On certain occasions, e.g., at a wedding repast, suitable additions are made. Besides these, various supplications have been added in later times.

There are various short forms of this ברכת המזון; the shortest is that for children, “Blessed be the Merciful, the Giver of this bread.” [163]—When three grown-up male persons or more have their meal together, a special introductory form is used, called זמון “summons to prayer,” one of the company acting as Reader, and the rest forming the congregation.

Another form of thanksgiving is the “Abstract of the Three Blessings” (מעין שלש), consisting of one paragraph which contains the whole of the Grace in a contracted form, and is used after cake, wine, and the like.

No restriction is enforced upon us if we desire on our part to give expression to our feeling of gratitude and reverence toward the Almighty in our own words on occasions not provided for in the ancient forms of benedictions and prayers. In order, however, to make a distinction between the forms of obligatory berachoth fixed by our Sages and the optional ones introduced by ourselves, we do not employ the words, “O Lord, our God, King of the Universe,” which are essential in the former.

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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.

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, 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.”