Advertisement
Jewcy Book Club
Welcome Authors
Benyamin Cohen
& Matthew Rothschild
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
- 12/08: Seth Greenland
Blogroll
FAITHHACKER
New Siddur, Same Problem |
|
 by Tamar Fox, September 5, 2007 |
|
The New York Times has a nice long story about the new Reform siddur coming out soon. It’s called Mishkan T’filah, and it sounds pretty cool:
Synagogue Libraries: trust me, there's something good in here.
Full Story
I really do think this sounds great, but I have to say that I’m generally unmoved by creative services, and I think it’s because they feel like too much of a novelty, or a show. I don’t want a million things to choose from when I’m praying, and neither do I want an organ or interpretive dance. It’s not really because I’m so frum that I can‘t deal with these concepts, I just think they end up combining to make a really frenetic prayer experience, and to me that’s the antithesis of what prayer is supposed to be about.
If you’re over or underwhelmed by your siddur, here’s my suggestion—visit your synagogue’s library and snag something from there to read during services. Even though most synagogues’ libraries haven’t been seriously updated since the Carter administration, you can still find some interesting old novels, poetry or biographies to keep you occupied during davening. When I was 12 I read a steamy romance novel that I got from my shul’s library. I wouldn’t exactly call browsing the shul library praying, but it’s a nice way of staying engaged with Jewish text without having to wade through translations approved by HUC in the 1890s.
Synagogue Libraries: trust me, there's something good in here.Unlike the Reform movement’s last prayer book, “Gates of Prayer,” which was published in 1975, the new prayer book has a Hebrew title, “Mishkan T’filah” (which means a sanctuary or dwelling place for prayer). And it reads from back to front, like a traditional Hebrew text, which was only an optional format when “Gates of Prayer” was published. Rabbi Frishman thought up the innovative layout for the new prayer book, or siddur.
There are four versions of each prayer laid out on a typical two-page spread. (Since the book is read back to front, the right page is read before the left one). On the right page is the prayer in Hebrew, the transliteration of the Hebrew prayer into phonetical English, and a more literal translation. On the left-hand page is a more poetic translation of the prayer, followed by a metaphorical or meditative passage reflecting on the prayer, sometimes by a well-known writer like Langston Hughes or Yehuda Amichai.
Rabbis who prefer to lead a more traditional service can choose a prayer from the right-hand side of the page, while those who prefer a more alternative approach can choose from the left side.
“This is a way of having the best of both worlds,” said Rabbi Peter S. Knobel, president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the association of Reform rabbis, which is publishing the book. “You have the possibility of doing, if you want, an entire service in Hebrew, as traditional as you can be within the Reform movement. At the same time, you can do something extremely creative.”
Full Story
I really do think this sounds great, but I have to say that I’m generally unmoved by creative services, and I think it’s because they feel like too much of a novelty, or a show. I don’t want a million things to choose from when I’m praying, and neither do I want an organ or interpretive dance. It’s not really because I’m so frum that I can‘t deal with these concepts, I just think they end up combining to make a really frenetic prayer experience, and to me that’s the antithesis of what prayer is supposed to be about.
If you’re over or underwhelmed by your siddur, here’s my suggestion—visit your synagogue’s library and snag something from there to read during services. Even though most synagogues’ libraries haven’t been seriously updated since the Carter administration, you can still find some interesting old novels, poetry or biographies to keep you occupied during davening. When I was 12 I read a steamy romance novel that I got from my shul’s library. I wouldn’t exactly call browsing the shul library praying, but it’s a nice way of staying engaged with Jewish text without having to wade through translations approved by HUC in the 1890s.
 |
Tamar Fox has an MFA from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, but she still doesn't like sweet tea. Born and raised in Chicago, she's also lived in Iowa City, Dublin, Oxford, and Jerusalem. When she's not rocking out at honky tonks she teaches More... |
How, why, and where to hug trees (and otherwise save the planet)...
An abandoned synagogue haunts a kingdom
Dispatches from the Palestine Investment Conference
Why Jews love hip-hop (and try so hard to befriend black peopl...
| Dev Blog | Privacy | FAQ | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
zbird
But I can't blame them for trying.
In my (Conservative Temple) experience, the main problem was that the typical Saturday morning service took 4 hours. Whether you stay traditional or do an interpretive dance, there's no way to keep anyone engaged, week after week, for that much time. I think with Conservative you get the worst of both worlds as far as timing goes: the movement is too frum to skip anything, but its too worldly expect everyone to mumble through the prayers at light speed, like the Orthodox.
--Z
John
I agree with this -- "creative" services are disjointed and usually don't go well. If the issue is getting bored, reading something topical is a great solution. As for the previous poster's comment about Conservative shuls, the better ones are learning to move quickly through parts of the service (a full traditional service doesn't need to be longer than 2.5 hours if there's no bar mitzvah), and it's always appropriate to go late. I know plenty of people who go to shul from 11-12 and then stay for kiddush, even though the service starts at 9:30.
Mason Lerner
...more than some dude with a Jew-fro playing Ein Keloheinu on his guitar.
tarfon
I agree with the previous comments, but they're mainly addressed to a service that would actually _use_ those "poetic translations" or "meditative passages." What if the service sticks to the Hebrew text (or the "literal" translation) -- what are the merits of having those other features _in_ the siddur, for the reflection of the individual davener? Such a format is used (more or less) in the Nat'l Havurah Committee siddur, and in Joseph Rosenstein's Eit Ratzon siddur.
zbird
I'm glad to hear that some Conservative schuls have started to shorten things. as far as I remember, the services weren't so long because of "extracurricular" poetry or meditations, but simply because it took forever to say all the required, traditional prayers at a pace that people who did not pray 3 times a day could keep up with.
It also didn't help that the cantor thought every prayer with a tune was a chance to audition for the Ring Cycle.
As for poetic translations or meditative passages, I have no problem sticking them in the Siddur in case you get tired of the Amidah or the sermon and want something interesting to read, but I agree it shouldn't intrude on the service.
--Z
Gilanah Shoshanah
The NYT article would have you think this siddur is looming in the future, but lots of congregations been using drafts of this for a year or more, so it's not exactly a mysterious entity. At least one of the Reform congregations in Nashville should be using it, so you could have a look. Temple Emanu-El in Dallas has a Classical Reform reputation, but I was there last month and they used Mishkan T'filah and did silent standing Amidah, so all this is becoming rather mainstream.
A big advantage over GOP/Big Blue/Sharei T'filah (NYT would have you think giving the Reform siddur a name in Hebrew was an innovation) is that you can do an entirely-Hebrew service out of Mishkan T'filah.
There are a couple of odd changes in the Hebrew, like one spot that refers to God as a Shomer of something instead of as a Melech of whatever, but you can kinda skip over that--in fact, it's hard not to go on saying whatever you're used to saying. Translating is interpreting, but changing the Hebrew like that is jarring.
On the other hand, I do like Avot v'Imahot and other minor additions to the Hebrew to make it Matriarch-inclusive, and I also appreciate the gender-neutral translations.
And that's why there are different movements, different congregations, different siddurim, different service leaders, etc. It's good that we can all find somewhere to feel at home.
Anonymous
One advantage of the traditional siddur is thta you can follow the service anywhere. I have davened with small shuls in many countries where I did not know the local language. I was able to particpate in the service because they used a traditional hebrew siddur. If they had davened in their native language or used an alternative siddur, I would have been lost. It's nice to be part of a worldwide community. That's lost when you change the text.