Is there room for real change in the traditional synagogue service?

Rabbi Johnny Solomon

A. INTRODUCTION
In this shiur, I would like to raise the question of whether there is room for real change in
the traditional synagogue service. However, before we examine some fascinating source
material, I would like to explore the meaning of the word shul which we often use in place
of the word synagogue.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings I p. 193) has pointed out that we call our
houses of worship Schulen *the German word for schools+ and that is what they are meant
to be: schools for adults, for those who have entered the mainstream of life. In explaining
this comment, Judith Bleich (Liturgical Innovation and Spirituality: Trends and Trendiness in
Jewish Spirituality and Divine Law ed. A. Mintz & L. Schiffman p. 397) notes that R.
Hirschs perceptive comment that the shul is our school for adults points to the truism that,
to the extent that belief can be taught, the liturgy and the synagogue are designed to
instruct and to inculcate fundamentals of belief. Ideally, the shul becomes a crucible of
faith. The implication of the above is that the shuls structure and content are not just a
means by which we connect to God. Instead, they are the means for us to learn about
fundamental Jewish values and beliefs. For example, from the centrality of the Aron in the
synagogue architecture we learn about the centrality of Torah study in our lives; from the
fact that all our synagogues face towards Jerusalem we learn about the centrality of Israel in
our lives, and from the fact that the Bimah is placed in the centre of shul, we learn that
there should be equal access for everyone to hear the reader of the Torah.

However, there have been numerous periods in Jewish history where communities have felt
that either the structure or content of the synagogue service have not reflected what they
believe to be fundamentals of Jewish belief, and consequently, changes have occurred. To
take a few examples, while there was initial opposition to the calls in the early 19
th
century
for sermons in the English language, this is something that we now take for granted.
Additionally, since the establishment of the State of Israel there was a desire to make
reference to what many considered a turning point in the history of the Jewish people, and
numerous synagogues therefore add a prayer for the State and for the IDF. As Rabbi Sacks
writes in his introduction to the siddur (p. XI-XII), almost every age and major Jewish
community has added something of its own: new words, prayers, customs and melodies..
[and] each tradition has a character of its own, to which Jewish law applies the principle
nahara nahara upashtei: Every river has its own course. Thus, it is precisely due to the fact
that the liturgy that we recite and the synagogues where we pray are designed to instruct
and to inculcate fundamentals of belief that gives licence to permit minor changes in the
structure and content of the synagogue service, so that what are seen as core values or
beliefs which may have become more prominent in recent years are also reflected in the
shul.
Given this introduction let us now present what appears to be the conundrum which has
caught the attention of many within anglo-Jewry and especially those who align themselves
with Modern Orthodoxy. Over the past 50 years there has been an exponential rise in the
learning opportunities for women in the Jewish world. Many young women attend
seminaries as part of a gap year programme, while many adults now attend learning
programmes such as this to further their Jewish knowledge. However, while there have
been changes in the sphere of womens learning, there have been no noticeable changes
other than the institution of Bat Mitzvah concerning the involvement of women in the
synagogue service. However, over the past year, a number of Partnership Minyanim. These
services claim to provide a greater opportunity for women to participate in the synagogue
service by making changes both to the content and structure of the service, specifically, they
provide an opportunity for women to lead services and lein from the Torah within the main
synagogue service. There is no doubt that the reason why such changes have been sought is
because there is a sense amongst participants that a fundamental Jewish belief is the
equality of men and women in the eyes of God, and while society may not have fully
adopted this value until recently, we are now at a stage where such beliefs can and should
be expressed. Consequently, the structure and content of the synagogue service should be
changed to reflect these core Jewish values.
However, there has been opposition to such moves. Some claim that the very concept of
equality as understood as sameness is not a Jewish value, and therefore it is entirely
improper for the synagogue service to change on this basis. Others, however, are less
dismissive about the motivations for such change, but at the same time, assert that there
are limits to the amount of change that can occur in the traditional synagogue service, and
while halachic sources may permit minor changes in the structure and content of the
synagogue service, the changes that have been adopted by partnership minyanim are a
dilution, rather than a distillation, of Judaisms core values or beliefs. Therefore, for those
who are sympathetic to the growth of womens learning and involvement in the Jewish
world, the key question regarding the acceptability or otherwise of partnership minyanim is
whether there is there room for real change in the traditional synagogue service? In order
to answer this, we will look at some case studies from the classic responsa literature
regarding changes in the structure and content of the synagogue service, and by doing so,
we will try and gauge the possibilities and limitations of change. We will then look at some
of the sources which have been offered to defend the establishment of partnership
minyanim and discuss whether these are robust arguments, and we will conclude by
reflecting on the possibilities and limits of change in Jewish law.

B. CASE STUDY 1 CHAZARAT HASHATZ
The first case study I would like to examine concerns what is referred to as Chazarat
HaShatz, which is the repetition of the Amida by the Chazan during the morning, additional
and afternoon services. But what is the purpose of repeating a prayer that the congregation
has already recited?
The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 34b) explains that the reason the Chazan repeats the amida is
so that he may discharge *the obligation of+ one who is not competent and the mechanism
of this is further explained by Rambam (Hilchot Tefillah 8:9) who writes that the leader of
the congregation can fulfil the obligation [of prayer] on behalf of the congregation. How so?
When he prays and they listen and respond "Amen" after each and every blessing, it is
considered as if they prayed [themselves]. To whom does this apply? To one who does not
know how to pray. However, one who does know how to pray, only fulfils his obligation by
praying himself.
But what happens if all your community are competent and know how to pray. In such a
situation, should we refrain from Chazarat HaShatz?
In one responsum (Peer Hador no. 148), Rambam addressed such a question and
emphatically ruled that even in such a situation, the amida should be repeated. This is
because when our Sages instituted synagogal enactments, they did not make these
conditional on time and circumstance and consequently, the enactment should be
maintained notwithstanding this particular situation.
However, in a different responsum (Teshuvot HaRambam, No. 36) which was addressed to a
specific community in Egypt, Rambam grants permission for Chazarat HaShatz to be
omitted. In this case, the members of the community capable to recite the amidah quietly.
However, in addition to this, when the amida was subsequently repeated, they used this
time to speak with their friends. Rambam explains that this practice had been observed by
non-Jews who then reported how Jews behaved in a disrespectful fashion during the
synagogue services. Consequently, given the fact that not only was the repetition not
achieving its goal but in fact creating opportunities for people to disturb the prayer service,
Rambam ruled that it should be omitted. However, Rambam was also clear in pointing out
that this permission was granted just to this shul and only during this period in the history of
the community when talking during Chazarat Hashatz was considered common practice.
However, he also pointed out that if ten people were able to pay attention to Chazarat
Hashatz, then the amidah should be repeated.
As time went by, most shuls continued to repeat the amidah while the Egyptian shul to
which Rambam directed his ruling did not. Around 300 years later, Radbaz (Vol. 4 no. 94)
was asked whether a different community could change the structure of the service and
omit Chazarat Hashatz. He responded by explaining that Rambams ruling was specifically
directed towards a particular community at a particular time, and that the community in
question had a membership who would show greater regard for Chazarat Hashatz, and
consequently, they could not adopt Rambams ruling.
In considering these sources, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yechave Daat 5:12) confirmed that where
there is a community that disregards Jewish law which forbids talking during Chazarat
Hashatz (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 124:7) then, if there is less than ten men
responding to the repetition, it can be omitted. However, he then reiterated that such a
change to the structure of prayer stems from improper halachic behaviour, and that ideally
we should discourage people from talking in shul rather than adopting such a change.
What we see from these sources is that if we have a recognised structure of prayer, we
generally avoid making changes even if such changes are totally logical in a particular
situation, and where changes are permitted, these are often done so reluctantly and for
the purposes of preserving the decorum within the service and maintaining a sense of
value towards synagogal prayer. The corollary of this is that the structure of the
synagogue service is designed to instruct and to inculcate values of the past, and where
contemporary norms do not conform to those of the past, we still try and maintain the
status quo unless circumstances compel us to make temporary compromises for the sake
of maintaining an atmosphere that is conducive to prayer.

C. CASE STUDY 2 NACHEM
While our previous case study indicates that there are significant limitations on changes to
the structure of the synagogue service, numerous sources indicate that there is greater
flexibility concerning change in the content of prayer.
Perhaps the most famous source where this topic is discussed is Gemara Yoma 69b where
we read a discussion about why the Anshei KnessetHagdolah, literally, the Men of the Great
Assembly who were a group of 120 Sages who led the Jewish People at the beginning of the
Second Beis Hamikdash were given this name. The answer given is that they were given
this name because they restored the crown to its former glory. To explain this cryptic
remark, the Gemara then presents four biblical passages. We are told that Moshe referred
to Hashem as "Great, Mighty and Awesome." (Devarim 10:17). However, we read in
Yirmiyahu 32:18 that Yirmiyahu described Hashem as "Great and Mighty" but did not use
the term "Awesome." We also read that Daniel used the phrase Great and Awesome G-d"
(Daniel 9:4) but did not mention "Mighty." However, we finally read that the Anshei Knesset
Hagdolah returned to Moshe's full, original praise of Hashem by referring to Him as "Great,
Mighty and Awesome." (Nechemia 9:32).
But while we now understand the significance of the term Anshei Knesset Hagdolah, why
did Yirmiyahu and Daniel, each in his own era, delete one of the praises mentioned by
Moshe? The Gemara explains that when Yirmiyahu saw the Babylonian heathens noisily
carousing in the Sanctuary, he asked himself "Where is G-d's Awesomeness?" and he
therefore deleted "Awesome" from his praise. Similarly, when Daniel saw the Babylonians
and Persians subjugating the Jews during the seventy years of exile he asked himself "Where
is G-d's Might?" and he therefore deleted "Mighty" from his praise. However, the Anshei
Knesset Hagedolah offered another perspective in their time. "On the contrary," they said,
"G-d's might is expressed in the power to restrain Himself and allow the heathens to carry
out their oppression, and G-d's Awesomeness is expressed in Jewish survival amongst the
nations."
But while this explanation helps explain the prayers that we use today, was it not wrong for
Yirmiyahu and Daniel to change the content of the prayers? The answer given by the
Gemara is that they both felt that by using the terms awesome and mighty respectfully
that they were referring to God in an untruthful manner. Therefore, as a result of their
commitment to truth, both these changes were permissible.
Given this Gemara, there has been a fascinating discussion amongst halachic decisors since
the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967. As you may know, Nachem (literally, comfort us) is
the name of the special Tisha Bav insertion into the Amidah mourning the destruction of
Jerusalem, and the Nachem prayer describes Jerusalem as a city that is in sorrow, laid
waste, scorned and desolate.
However, following the six-day war, some Rabbis suggested that this prayer could no longer
be recited as such, in the same spirit that Yirmiyahu and Daniel felt that they could not use
the terms awesome and mighty. In August 1967, then-IDF Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren
altered the text in the IDF prayerbook to reflect the new reality. Basing himself on historical
textual variants, he removed the depictions of a Jerusalem scorned and desolate while
sitting in mourning like a barren childless woman, while Netanyas Chief Rabbi David
Shloush changed the bulk of the text to refer exclusively to the lack of religious worship on
the Temple Mount (Chemdah Genuzah 21). Notwithstanding this, while most Orthodox
scholars did not accept these changes, many of them claiming that such changes were not
appropriate as long as the Temple remained destroyed or that liturgical changes was now
associated with the reform movement, they generally refused to condemn those who
recited alternative texts, while proponents of the changes responded that this prayers text
has always had fluidity, allowing for certain alterations, especially if the crucial concluding
blessing formula remains intact. Furthermore, making reference to Gemara Yoma cited
above, they contended that a failure to change the text made our prayers dishonest.
What we see from these sources is that routes exist for at least minor changes to the
content of prayers if these prayers directly conflict with the reality as perceived by those
who utter such prayers, and while there remains opposition by some for any form of
liturgical changes, other halachic authorities are more sympathetic to such minor changes.
The corollary of this is that while the content of the synagogue service is designed to
instruct and to inculcate values of the past, it is an acceptable halachic endeavour to
challenge the inclusion of words or prayers that directly conflict with contemporary
reality.

D. PARTNERSHIP MINYANIM
The question we must now ask ourselves is what is the nature of the changes associated
with partnership minyanim? Are they changes in the structure of the traditional synagogue
service, or changes in the content of the traditional synagogue service?
Practically speaking, partnership minyanim do not claim to omit any element of the
traditional synagogue liturgy, and nor do they emphasise the fact that they add to the
liturgy. Instead, the fundamental change that partnership minyanim celebrate is structural
change wherein women lead the services and are called up and lein from the Torah. But
why is this problematic?
The Gemara (Megillah 23a) states that All are included among the seven *who are called to
the Torah on Shabbat], even a minor, even a woman. But the Sages said: A woman is not to
read from the Torah on account of kevod hatzibbur. This law is then codified by Rambam
(Hilchot Tefillah 12:7) and in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 282:3), both of whom stress
that this prohibition is about reading in public, implying that women may receive aliyot in
services that do not occur in a formal synagogue setting. However, what is clear that while
aliyot for women may be a theoretically acceptable practice, the rabbis enacted that this is
something that should not be done on the basis of kavod hatzibbur.
Now that we have presented this fact, let us reflect on our first case study. We examined
the rulings concerning Chazarat HaShatz and discussed whether the initial enactment of the
rabbis could be superseded in a community where everyone can recite the prayers quietly,
concluding that even in such an instance, there was little room for change. Notwithstanding
this, we did note that in an extreme situation and in order to maintain the functionality of
the entire synagogue service, Chazarat Hashatz could be omitted. In the same vein, Rabbi
Yaakov Emden writes in his notes to Gemara Megilla 23a that where there are not seven
men competent [to read] and there is one woman competent and it cannot be done
without her, then in such an emergency situation, there is a return to the original law and
women are counted among the seven." Here too, we see that the structure of the
synagogue service is designed to instruct and to inculcate values of the past, and where
contemporary norms do not conform to those of the past, we still try and maintain the
status quo unless circumstances compel us to make temporary compromises for the sake of
maintaining an atmosphere that is conducive to prayer. Consequently, authorities such as
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin (Qeriat Hatorah by women where we stand today, Edah 1:2)
respond to partnership minyanim with observations that regardless of the arguments that
can be proffered to permit womens aliyyot *Torah-reading] today that kevod ha-tsibbur
can be waived, that it does not apply today when everyone is literate, that it does not apply
when the olim rely on the (male) ba`al qeriah and do not themselves readwomens
aliyyot remain outside the consensus. If this is the case, then what is the basis to claim that
partnership minyanim conform with Halacha?
To answer this, I must introduce you to Rabbi Daniel Sperber whose articles and books are
considered to provide the halachic blueprint for such services. Simply put, while Rabbi
Sperber claims that the original Talmudic rules concerning womens aliyot were
recommendations rather than binding enactments, the main thrust of his argument that
that the failing to offer aliyot to women is itself an affront to women and consequently,
women who are restricted from receiving aliyot are being shamed simply on account of
their gender. Therefore, since rabbinic sources assert that we can turn a blind eye to minor
rabbinic infractions in order to enable others to be treated with dignity, so too, we should
give women aliyot and turn a blind eye to any mind rabbinic infractions that may come as a
result of such a decision. For Rabbi Sperber, every Orthodox congregation is to be
considered an extreme situation wherein halachic compromise is necessary to achieve a
greater good. However, while I fully recognise that there is a dissonance between the
gender equality that we see and promote in the wider world, and the traditional synagogue
service, I disagree with the halachic leap proposed by Rabbi Sperber because, while halachic
sources may permit minor changes in the content of the synagogue service, and may allow
for temporary or emergency changes in the structure of the synagogue service, in order to
employ the meta-halachic category of kavod habriyot, that is, the possibility to trump
certain laws on the basis of human dignity, Rabbi Sperber identifies all women as victims,
even if they do not consider themselves as such. In an ironic twist, in order to defend
changes in the structure of the synagogue service, Rabbi Sperber insists that we change how
we look at women. While the community must validate the active role of women in both
Jewish living and Jewish learning, I do not think that the path taken by Rabbi Sperber is
correct.

E. CONCLUSIONS
In my comments above, I quoted Judith Bleich who wrote that to the extent that belief can
be taught, the liturgy and the synagogue are designed to instruct and to inculcate
fundamentals of belief [and that] ideally, the shul [should] become a crucible of faith. Yes,
change is possible in the content of the synagogue service, and yes, change in the structure
of the synagogue service is occasionally possible. However, if all we see in a synagogue is an
institution that should be changed, were missing the point of prayer.
In his book Radical Then, Radical Now (p. 95), Jonathan Sacks writes that we can change
the world because we can change ourselves. That is the birthplace of hope. We are called on
to change the world. That is the imperative of faith. Where we speak about the shul being
the crucible of faith, we should reflect more on changing ourselves rather than changing our
shuls, and it is the fact that we are not doing so which points to a far greater crisis taking
place in our shuls, as Abraham Joshua Heschel writes (Mans Quest for God p. 83): The crisis
of prayer is not a problem of the text. It is a problem of the soul. The Siddur must not be
used as a scapegoat. A revision of the prayer book will not solve the crisis of prayer. What
we need is a revision of the soul, a new heart rather than a new text. So, in conclusion, is
there room for real change in the traditional synagogue service? In some ways yes, and in
some ways, no. But what we must ensure is that there is room for real change in ourselves.