cellio | JWC Shabbat service

Entry tags:

JWC Shabbat service

This morning I participated in the annual Shabbat service held by the (Pittsburgh) Jewish Women's Center. I'm not really a member of the group (been to a couple functions, on the mailing list, don't pay dues), but several women in my congregation are and they recruited some of the rest of us.

I chanted torah, and it was the longest portion I've done to date (about three-quarters of a column in the scroll). I was a little worried about that, but apparently I wasn't the only one so they told us "do as much as you can and we'll fill in from a chumash as necessary". However, I really wanted to meet this challenge.

It went pretty well. I had told Aya (who was acting as checker) in advance that I was confident of the text -- but that this didn't mean I had it right. What it meant is that if I made a mistake I would make it with confidence and she would have to interrupt me. There were a few places where I was a little uncertain of the trope, however, and I warned her that if I paused she should give me a moment before assuming it was a text failure. (It didn't occur to me to ask her to name the trope symbol if that happened.) As it turned out, though, I did make a couple text errors that she corrected, and I didn't have to pause and contemplate the trope. I don't think I made any trope errors, actually. Oh, and that spiffy section I mentioned a while back, part of the motivation for learning the whole thing? That went off splendidly; I got compliments.

I was a little nervous, but this didn't really show until I got to the end of the portion and noticed that my hand was shaking while I was pointing to the end of the portion. I think this was not actually caused by the reading per se; when I got up there I found that the calligraphy on this sefer torah was much smaller and sloppier than I'm used to, and there were cases where I would not have known what a letter was or where a word boundary was if I hadn't practiced this a gazillion times. If I do this again, I should ask if they have access to a different scroll. Oh, and next time I'll know to ask to see the scroll before the service starts if it's an unfamiliar one. :-) (I know the two scrolls most likely to be used in my congregation's morning minyan, and the one used for weekdays at the other congregation I visit. I have read from all of those without incident.)

There were seven assigned readers. One did not show (!) and was replaced by someone reading from a chumash on very little notice. (Even the one person I know to be fluent couldn't read directly from the scroll cold.) One chanted half and read half, two read but not the whole thing, and four of us chanted the whole thing. (Actually, now that I think about it, one of those might have chanted most but not all of her part. I'm not sure now.) As I predicted, I think I was solidly middle-of-the-pack in terms of skill.

The service overall went pretty well. There was a lot of singing, and I knew about two-thirds of the melodies (but picked up most of the others trivially). They handed out percussion instruments; next time I will do predatory choosing and take the large loud tambourine to keep it out of the hands of someone sitting next to me. :-) The song leader was very good (she's a pro) and the service leaders in general were good.

We used what I gather is the latest draft of Mishkan T'filah, the forthcoming Reform siddur. (Y'know, the economics of publishing have really changed. They've published a bunch of draft editions; I don't think that would have been feasible a generation ago.) They were on loan from URJ so I couldn't borrow one for a few days to look it over more closely; oh well. They've fixed some of the things I considered to be bugs in earlier drafts, but they've introduced some things that really annoy me. Oh well; I guess that's an inevitable consequence of committee-produced products.

The service was long (almost three hours, without musaf), and also started late. It was funny -- at 9:30 (the scheduled start time) the organizers were huddling in the front of the room, and all of the people from my congregation were exchanging glances. We start on time, always (barring something really unusual). Others present made comments about "Jewish standard time" and thought nothing of starting (ultimately) 15-20 minutes late.

Some semi-random notes on the liturgical details:

Music was used very well in the opening sections of the service. The "service proper" really begins with Barchu, the call to worship, but that's about an hour into a traditional service. The stuff up to that point is preparation to get yourself in an appropriate state for prayer. I find that music really, really helps me with that.
One of the leaders always feminized the blessings (that is, made God female), and I found that this really, really grates on my nerves. I suspect I'm in a minority among those likely to attend a women's service.
There is a style I have encountered a few times (once from a visiting scholar, once at HUC, here) that I find disconcerting: chanting a blessing half in Hebrew and half in English (bracha formula -- the opening six words -- in Hebrew and the rest in English). Some congregations do this for accessibility (not everyone can read Hebrew), but that's not a factor when everything is transliterated.
Ok, almost everything is transliterated in this siddur. They did not transliterate Ashrei, which is conventionally done responsively. When my congregation test-drove an earlier draft, we actually pasted the transliteration in over top of the English "alternate reading" (which is really, really lame). In a siddur that is 90% (or more) transliterated, it is unconscionable that they didn't do it for this. I raised that point two years ago, but obviously it didn't help. Bah.
As long as I'm ripping on the siddur: they still have some deliberate mistranslations. This is dishonest, especially in a book where 95% of the translation is accurate. Give me the real translation and footnote it if you have commentary! But don't lie to me!
Right before the Sh'ma, they paused and asked us to study some commentary with a partner for a couple minutes. It was an interesting idea, though I'm not sure how well it worked. But I did learn some interesting explanations for why two letters in the Sh'ma are written larger than the rest in the prayer book.
We chanted the v'ahavta (almost) correctly according to the trope symbols, which is not how most people do it. Basically, the melody used for this has been affected by the folk process, and a lot of siddurim don't print the trope symbols so even if you know what they mean you can't necessarily do it. (I should mention in passing that there are a couple dozen systems of trope out there, so there is not one right way to do this. But the common chanting is not self-consistent, and that's a no-no in all of them.)
We did the Amidah (central prayer) thus: the first three blesisngs together (through Kedusha), and then silently to the end (coming together for the singing of Oseh Shalom). I find I like this better than all-together or all-silent.
The leaders were a mix of Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist. We did not do a chazan's repetition of the Amidah, nor did we do musaf. So we followed Reform practice, mostly. Except for the part about running almost three hours.
In an early draft of Mishkan T'filah they did something daring: they (mostly) restored the traditional text of the g'vurot (second blessing of the Amidah), specifically the part about resurrection of the dead. (The Reform movement removed that early on, replacing "ha-meitim" with "ha-kol" from the holiday Amidah.) This set off something of a firestorm, and when we got to it today I noticed that it was back to "ha-kol". Well, until I glanced at the facing page and saw the other version offered as an option. No, no, no! The point of this siddur is to provide one service (with lots of flexibility). If you're going to make a change, stand by it. If you're not ready to stand by it, don't offer it as an alternative -- the current siddur doesn't, so you're not taking anything away. If the Reform movement is not ready for resurrection, that's fine -- just skip it. But the "include both" reasoning leads to, for example, three different versions of Aleinu in this siddur, when there should be one. If these things are important enough to justify alternate texts, then what else is? Don't open that can of worms! (This fight is lost, I'm sure, but I'm going to send mail to the editors anyway.)
They did something interesting with the aliyot during the torah reading. Before each reading, the leader summarized the contents of that particular section and then invited "all who feel moved" to come up for an aliya based on some link to that text. For example, in the part about treatment of slaves, she invited people up who feel that they are enslaved by some circumstance (family, routine, job, whatever). I usually hate this sort of "all who will" approach to aliyot, because an aliya is something you're offered, not something you take IMO, but tying it to the torah portion made it more attractive. Alas, most of the criteria were more negative than positive, which meant that going up could be seen as embarrassing, which I do not think was their intent. Actually, this may have worked better in an existing congregation (like our Shabbat morning minyan) where everyone knows everyone else and is more likely to open up; it didn't work so well in an insta-congregation like we had today.
I think a 20-minute d'var torah was longer than I would have done were I organizing this, especially when the person reading haftarah was separately doing commentary (only about 5 minutes that time, though).
The kavanah (intention, mindfulness) was pretty strong in the room. This is harder when people don't know each other and the liturgy has unfamiliar bits, so the leaders deserve a lot of credit.

All in all, it was a pretty good service, with some things I liked and some I didn't care for. People were very friendly and everyone was working together, which made a big difference.

If they ask me to participate in a future service I'm not sure what I'll say. On the one hand it was fun, but on the other, it was a lot of work to learn the portion and I didn't get to put that work to use for the benefit of my own congregation. Maybe that means I should focus on chanting torah in my own congregation and ask to lead a part of the service if JWC invites me again. Leading doesn't require nearly the preparation that chanting torah does.

After I got home Dani and I headed out to an SCA event. More about that later, but I will mention the Jewish tie-in here. Halacha holds that if a negative consequence of keeping Shabbat is merely financial (and not of the will-be-out-on-the-street-if-this-goes-wrong variety), you keep Shabbat. This is one of the reasons that we don't conduct business on Shabbat even though you could make more money by keeping your store open on Saturday. More personally, it was the basis for my agreeing to let Dani drive my car -- with its previously-pristine clutch -- to the event, though Dani normally drives an automatic. Ouchy ouchy ouchy. :-)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

There is a style I have encountered a few times [...] that I find disconcerting: chanting a blessing half in Hebrew and half in English (bracha formula -- the opening six words -- in Hebrew and the rest in English). Some congregations do this for accessibility (not everyone can read Hebrew), but that's not a factor when everything is transliterated.

If it's something where just the leader is doing this, it doesn't bother me too much... because, personally, my hebrew is very lousy. On the other hand, I usually daven at a service where they don't do this...
How do you feel about the related practice of saying a brucha in English but in the sort of chanty melody used for the hebrew brucha? (Actually, now that I think of it, the Rabbi at my shul does a variation of this when he leads some brachot, e.g. for healing: he starts with Hebrew, and then says the gist of the bracha in English with the same melody (something like "May the holy one grant healing, body and soul, to all those mentioned, and to all those who are ill..."), and then repeats himself in Hebrew. I guess I've gotten used to that enough that I didn't even think of it immediately.)

We did the Amidah (central prayer) thus: the first three blesisngs together (through Kedusha), and then silently to the end (coming together for the singing of Oseh Shalom). I find I like this better than all-together or all-silent.

I think this is called a "Hecha Kedusha"; traditionally this is something which can be done when there's an issue of time (i.e. shacharit needs to be done by noon; if things are going late, you can do this to shorten stuff up). In my shul, we often do this for both Shacharit and Musaf Amidah, even if there isn't a real time urgency. In this case, technically speaking, individuals are supposed to go back to the beginning and do the whole Amidah silently for themselves; Singing Oseh Shalom at the end is just singing a song which just happens to be at the end of the Amidah as well. :-)

Re starting on time or expecting to be late: My family always stressed being on time, and most of the minyanim that I have really felt part of made efforts to start on time. The phrase "Jewish standard time" has always annoyed me as it seems to excuse rude behavior (keeping others waiting).

One of the leaders always feminized the blessings (that is, made God female), and I found that this really, really grates on my nerves. I suspect I'm in a minority among those likely to attend a women's service.

How did she feminize "elokenu" - or didn't she? What about verbs? Feminizing god grammatically in Hebrew has always struck me as silly, given that in Hebrew every noun has grammatical gender even if it has no biological gender (books do not mate and procreate, no matter how it sometimes seems).

We did the Amidah (central prayer) thus: the first three blesisngs together (through Kedusha), and then silently to the end (coming together for the singing of Oseh Shalom). I find I like this better than all-together or all-silent.

My high school did it this way too, and I've seen it done that way elsewhere, I think as a compromise to save time but still have the Kedusha out loud.

(The Reform movement removed that early on, replacing "ha-meitim" with "ha-kol" from the holiday Amidah.)

From where in the holiday Amidah? To the best of my knowledge (i.e. Orthodox background) the first three Brachot don't change at all during the year except for Rosh Hashana through Yom Kippur, and that's not a change I've ever seen.

The phrase "Jewish standard time" has always annoyed me as it seems to excuse rude behavior (keeping others waiting).

I agree with you. It is never appropriate to institutionalize rudeness.

How did she feminize "elokenu" - or didn't she?

At least some of the time, she rephrased the last three words as "ruach ha-olam" (or maybe there's some other prepositional connector there; I don't remember), so she got rid of the idea of kingship entirely. I had forgotten that until you asked this question.

She did feminize the verb -- something like "barhi at ...". (I don't remember exactly, and my Hebrew grammar isn't good enough for the first word. The second I know. :-) )

I agree with you about feminizing God being silly. Like it or not, "he" can mean either "male" or "unknown gender" but "she" can only mean "female". They need to get over it. If they could remove the gender (as happens in many English translations) that would be fine, but it is even more wrong to make God female than male because (1) you're still doing gender and (2) you're making a change without fixing the problem you claim to be addressing. I imagine that some people out there would really like to institutionalize a female God, and the "gender-neutral" claim is just a cover for the real agenda.

(books do not mate and procreate, no matter how it sometimes seems)

:-)

From where in the holiday Amidah?

I went looking for confirmation before posting, and bumped into some confusion. I may be confusing this with the two r'tzeis problem. Because I thought "ha-kol" came from holiday musaf, but when I looked in Artscroll I didn't find it there. That prompted me to consult some old notes, which led to the entry I just linked, which mentions some textual differences among traditional sources (Artscroll, Birnbaum, others). So now I'm confused. I though ha-kol came from holiday musaf, and maybe it does in some other source that I don't own (like Birnbaum), or maybe I'm dreaming it. I do remember distinctly my rabbi telling me that ha-kol came from somewhere in the tradition, but I'll have to ask him about it.

How do you feel about the related practice of saying a brucha in English but in the sort of chanty melody used for the hebrew brucha?

It makes me twitch, but possibly for personal reasons. You see, the only place where I've heard that style of liturgy consistently is in churches, where after Vatican II they switched from Latin to English but tried to keep the chanting. (Not everywhere, of course; I can only talk about what I've seen personally.) So maybe it triggers subconscious associations for me that wouldn't apply to someone who's never attended church.

On the other hand, I think chanting is strongly bound up in liturgical tradition, and that tradition also includes language. So in either Judaism or Christianity, if you're going to switch from the traditional language to the vernacular, I would prefer that you also switch from chanting to reading.

There's a practical concern in Judaism, too: Hebrew is a more compact language than English, so melodies that work in Hebrew are going to involve a lot more repeated notes in English. That gets tiring to my ear.

One exception to all of this: I have sometimes heard a service leader insert a "stage direction" (like "please stand") between chanted sections and chant that English. Because it is bracketed by chanting, it seems to work.

I think this is called a "Hecha Kedusha"

Thanks for the information. I didn't realize that this could come into play under time crunch, but it makes sense.

According to my Elbogen (history of Jewish liturgy) the core of the 2nd bracha is mechayei hameitim. I am pretty sure that mechayei hakol is a modern, i.e. Reform wording. It's certainly not in any orthodox source.

I can help you with the two rtzeis problem as well, I think, but I'll do so there.

The origin of the heiche kadisha is that some communities would, under time crunch, do it this way for the afternoon service when time was short. (You can read a good overview of the history and Conservative responsa on the subject at this site, under volume 5, "Abbreviated Repetition of the Amidah."

The thing about the Amidah is that it's supposed to be silent devotion. The repetition really only made sense in a time before printed prayerbooks, ie. there was a good chance that someone didn't know how to do a private prayer. The only reasons we do a repetition today are a) so the public knowledge of the nusach won't be lost, and b) to do the Kedushah together.

So in this sense you can do the heiche kadisha with the congregation for mincha or musaf and then say the whole Amidah by yourself individually. What I object to is doing it during shacharit, because you're not supposed to introduce any introduction between the blessings over the Shema and the Amidah itself, so it becomes very complicated. Another instance of my liturgical antediluvianism.

d'oh, I meant "interruption," not "introduction".

I understand what you mean about interruptions.

Since we don't need the repetition now at all, is there any halachic problem with beginning together and then continuing silently? That is, not going back to the beginning as you described (making the group readings of the first three brachot an interruption), but rather just picking up with "atah chonein" and continuing on after the kedusha. Or, if the kedusha would be technically invalid doing that, pick up with "atah kadosh". The bar on interruptions is really between "ga'al yisrael" and the "baruch" of avot. (And speaking of that, what is the deal with "...s'fatai tiftach" in that case? You can't get much more blatant of an interruption than that! I'm a little amused that my morning minyan deliberately skips that for that reason, but gives a page cue. Umm... I haven't tried to change that minhag yet, but give me time.)

Thanks. When my rabbi is back on the job, I've got to remember to ask him what the source for hakol is, as I have clearly misunderstood the history.

Thanks for the help with r'tzei.

The way my high school did it (and I've done it elsewhere) never involved going back to the beginning of the Amidah. We just kept going silently from the beginning of the 4th Bracha.

I think the feminine for the beginning would be "brucha at"; the verb I was thinking of is the one at the end of the bracha, i.e. "creates", "gives", etc, which also needs to agree with the subject...

"ruach ha-olam"

*blink* That translates as "spirit of the world" - Gaia-ism? The only other prepositional connector I can think of that would fit here is "b-" but "spirit in the world" doesn't sound much better to me. Why get rid of the idea of kingship?

...and it still is a noun, so it still must have grammatical gender, so yeah, as you said, problem not solved.

Btw, I put a note in your "two r'tzeis problem" entry.

"ruach ha-olam"

That translates as "spirit of the world"

Ruach can also mean "wind", and I think it has a breath connotation. So you're sort of calling God 'the source of inspiration of the world' ...

Why get rid of the idea of kingship?

Well, I'm probably not the best person to answer this, but here goes: does it makes sense to use kingship as a metaphor for God, in our current world, where there aren't really that many kings who have real power? And, let's face it, a king is a male image, not just a grammatically male noun.

Another example: there's a poem (piyyut) which is read in the evening on Yom Kippur - la brit ha bet, vel tefen la yetzer - which uses the images of different craftpeople: (Translation from the Silverman machsor):

As clay are we, as soft and yielding clay
That lies between the fingers of the potter.
At his will he moulds it thick or thin,
And forms its shape according to his fancy.
So are we in Thy hand, God of love;
Thy covenant recall and show Thy mercy

It goes on like this, comparing God to a mason, blacksmith, glass blower, tailor, silversmith... but, for the most part, these are metaphors which don't really speak to me: I don't see a blacksmith or glass blower work too often... I'd like to rewrite this someday, with modern professions: IRS agent, sys admin, airport security guard...

Thanks for the information. Yes, what you did is what I was proposing doing. (It's also what the weekday morning minyan I attend does.)

I think the feminine for the beginning would be "brucha at"

Thanks. Yes, that was it. (So the rule is: replace the first vowel with a shva and add an "ah" at the end? What's that, a kametz or a patach?)

the verb I was thinking of is the one at the end of the bracha, i.e. "creates", "gives", etc, which also needs to agree with the subject...

Oh, good point. I didn't notice what she did. Most of the time when she did this, actually, was during the morning blessings ("...who gives sight to the blind", etc), where she was also doing that half-Hebrew half-English thing. So it didn't come up there, but she also did this later in the service in pure-Hebrew sections and I just didn't notice whether and how she changed the verbs.

*blink*

It took me by surprise too. I assumed it was a reference to the "ruach" in the early part of B'reishit, which might be wind rather than spirit and might be less pagany. I saw no other evidence of anything like Gaia in the service, so I think she was trying to be "modern feminist" rather than soemthing else. But I didn't ask her after the service. Maybe I'll send her email and ask -- and confirm that I'm remembering this correctly, too.

Btw, I put a note in your "two r'tzeis problem" entry.

Thank you!

is there any halachic problem with beginning together and then continuing silently?

Well, this is something I've always been unclear on. It would seem to me that for Shacharit, unless you say everything aloud together with the leader, and don't say amein, through the end of the kedusha, you're creating a "hefsek," a break. And no one does it that way -- the kedusha is done responsively, and there are always people who say amein, and so on. So it's ambiguous.

The other thing is that the Amidah is supposed to be said silently and not aloud, so if you don't go back to start over again, you're not saying the Amidah properly.

So it would seem to me that for shacharit you really should never do a heiche kadisha. The responsum I sent you doesn't address the point. But Isaac Klein (Conservative halachist) seems OK with the heiche for shacharit in the manner you suggest, and the new rabbi, who is a stickler on some other issues, seems OK with us doing it as a minyan. (My reign of terror as religious services chair began with me mandating that we do a heiche only for musaf and never for shacharit on shabbat, so the problem is just with morning minyans.)

I would like to try to do away with the shacharit heiche for morning minyan too, except that S---- can't do a full repetition, so would fight it. And I don't know if the others would accept what is a significant lengthening of the service.

I dunno, it just bugs me.

what is the deal with "...s'fatai tiftach" in that case?

I don't know the issue with that. I think it's considered an integral part of the amidah, basically, not a hefsek. The point is not that you have to say "ga'al Yisrael. Baruch..." but that you shouldn't separate those things with page announcements or something else that constitutes an "interruption" in the service. (That's why if you're the leader you're supposed to make "ga'al Yisrael" inaudible, so no one has to say "amein.") But I'm not sure of the logic behind that phrase, either. I could probably look it up somewhere, but I'm lazy.

It would seem to me that for Shacharit, unless you say everything aloud together with the leader, and don't say amein, through the end of the kedusha, you're creating a "hefsek," a break. And no one does it that way -- the kedusha is done responsively, and there are always people who say amein, and so on. So it's ambiguous.

It's more complicated than that. If you're praying it silently, you don't say the same Kedusha.

Our (Conservative) morning minyan says Avot and G'vurot together (no officially-sanctioned ameins), and then the Kedusha responsively in the usual way, and then the rest silently. It sounds like we'd be ok except for the Kedusha problem.

(Aside: when I've done something analogous at Reform services we've usually all said the Kedusha together -- that is, not responsively -- and then proceeded. We weren't particularly trying to keep to this halacha.)

The other thing is that the Amidah is supposed to be said silently and not aloud, so if you don't go back to start over again, you're not saying the Amidah properly.

Well, you're supposed to voice the words (not read in your head), but do so very quietly. Which raises the question of "how loud is 'out loud'?", to which I don't know the answer. You could probably say it along with the chazan at a level that makes it a valid silent amidah. Not that I know too many people who would try, but if you find yourself in that kind of service you could.

I would like to try to do away with the shacharit heiche for morning minyan too, except that S---- can't do a full repetition, so would fight it.

I take it S---- is your service leader? How would the idea of sharing the service -- having someone more capable step in for the Amidah only -- go over?

And I don't know if the others would accept what is a significant lengthening of the service.

Since it's one person going quickly, without worrying about people reading along, how much longer would it be? As much as five minutes?

I dunno, it just bugs me.

Understood. And I'm not trying to argue for the other position; I'm just trying to understand the issues.

(That's why if you're the leader you're supposed to make "ga'al Yisrael" inaudible, so no one has to say "amein.")

Hmm, hadn't heard that one before. We all say (sing) tzur yisrael together and eliminate the "amein" that way.

But I'm not sure of the logic behind that phrase, either. I could probably look it up somewhere, but I'm lazy.

Eventually, my rabbi and I will probably get to it in our talmud study. We're studying B'rachot and have gotten to joining ga'al yisrael to the amidah, but we're currently off in a tangent. (No! Really? A tangent in the talmud? :-) ) I expect to post about it when we finally bump into something resembling a resolution.

Oh, and just checking: I assume the non-liturgy-geeks who might have been reading this thread have bailed by now, but if not and someone reading this needs an explanation of any of this, just speak up!

It's more complicated than that. If you're praying it silently, you don't say the same Kedusha.

Yeah, that too. Though I think perhaps it's OK since the chazzan keeps going in an afternoon heiche -- so if the chazzan's amidah is good enough for him/her, maybe it's OK for everyone else.

How would the idea of sharing the service -- having someone more capable step in for the Amidah only -- go over?

He kvetches as it is about not getting to say kaddish when we have a minyan, as though that's some kind of prize. And he thinks he's quite the stylist when it comes to singing the kedusha. So he'd be ticked.

[h]ow much longer would it be?

You add the whole silent, plus the whole rep, plus a real period of tachanun, it could be 7-8 minutes, which would make some folks restless, sure.

It's funny, we were supposed to start a Talmud class tonight too -- doing Brachot! But there was a death in the congregation, so it didn't happen.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

JWC Shabbat service

no subject

several comments

Re: several comments

no subject

Re: several comments

heiche kadisha

Re: heiche kadisha

Re: heiche kadisha

Re: several comments

Re: heiche kadisha

Re: several comments

Re: several comments

Re: heiche kadisha

Re: several comments

Re: heiche kadisha

Re: heiche kadisha

Re: heiche kadisha