my rabbi and the morning minyan

[cellio]

I talked with my rabbi today about my leading services at the other shul. He already knew that I've been going there for shacharit for years (not every day); I told him that this was because of ties to a particular group of people, not to that synagogue or movement in general, and if that minyan were to disband I would not seek out another. I'm committed to my movement, my synagogue, and my rabbi; I just don't see a conflict with also participating elsewhere in small doses. (My synagogue does not have a daily morning minyan.) I then told him that I'm leading that service once a week, that this was because they had asked me (I didn't initiate), and that I'd said "no" for a good long time before agreeing. I asked if this was a problem for him. (I also apologized for not coming to him about this much earlier.)

The discussion went in two main directions. There were the liturgical questions -- how do I feel about praying for the restoration of the temple sacrifices, resurrection of the dead, and so on? I work around the first [1] and am comfortable viewing the second metaphorically, so those aren't problems. We are going to discuss the liturgy more next time, when I actually remember to bring a copy of that particular siddur along.

The other part of the discussion had to do with appearances. How large is this minyan? Could I be seen as being the leader of the group in general, which has implications beyond the service? We concluded that there is not an issue here; I'm one of several people who leads (and I'm not the main one), I'm on a short leash liturgically, I'm not doing anything else in that congregation, and the group is small (we usually have a minyan by Barchu, but usually not by Kaddish d'Rabbanan).

We also talked about my motivations and whether this fits with my educational path; everything appears to be fine there after discussion.

So everything's fine, but I really should have had the clue to talk with him when it first came up. I find it really hard to initiate conversations sometimes; with luck I'll get better at this. I really feel close to my rabbi, but there's also this professional arm's-length separation that prevents us from just being friends who talk about things. I wonder how I can change that.

[1] Ok, this is going to be surprising for a Conservative morning service, but: we don't do a chazan's repetition of the Amidah. Everyone does the first three brachot together, and then after Kedusha everyone completes it individually. When I get to R'tzei, I use the Reform text (which I have memorized). [2] Also, Sim Shalom has toned that passage down somewhat, at least in translation.

[2] This is one of the reasons I said "no" for a while: could I legitimately be sh'liach tzibur (prayer representative) for the congregation if I did not say exactly the text in the siddur? The primary concern here was actually abbreviation, not substitution -- I pointed out that I am much slower with the Hebrew than most of them are but that I could use the alternative text for the intermediate blessings. The folks in the minyan seemed to care not one whit what I did during the individual reading. So ok.

Comments

Re: forgive my ignorance

[cellio]

Yeah, I really should have said that C and O hold that this happens, not that they believe it. For one thing, movements don't believe things; people do. For another, not all people in a movement believe the same way. But resurrection is part of the liturgy in both movements, and that counts for something.

As another point of reference, the Reconstructionist movement also changes the Amidah to take out most of the resurrection bits.

Thanks; I didn't know that. I've been to a few Recon services, but I didn't remember one way or the other on this point.

I, personally, was convinced by a professor in college of the necessity of physical resurrection of the dead

I'm curious. Care to elaborate?

Re: forgive my ignorance

[goljerp]

I'll try. I should note that the professor in question might not have personally believed this, but he was teaching what Philo thought about it. It might not be as convincing for you, but Here's how the argument goes, basically:

At some point, there will be a "Yom Din" (day of judgement) for all people. At that point, resurrection is a necessity: if this doesn't happen, then the soul will be called before G-d and will be able to say "Well, I wanted to do good things, but the body was always giving into those baser needs, and I never got around to it." And is it just to punish (or reward) the soul for what the body did? Likewise, if the body alone were called before G-d, it would be able to say "I was willing to do good things, but the soul just wasn't with it". So if things are going to be just and fair, you have to reunite body and soul at Yom Din, which is another way of saying resurrection.

Of course, if you don't buy the 'Yom Din" part, then the rest of the argument doesn't hold water...

Re: forgive my ignorance

[cellio]

That's an interesting perspective. Thank you.

But... but... isn't the Almighty capable of accurating judging the soul based on the soul's merits alone? Surely God can tell what came from the body and what from the soul?

If you carry this argument farther, it seems to mandate that the Yom Din be a time of strife and difficulty, because you have to judge the body and soul in proper context. Is that consistent with our teachings? (I will admit to being somewhat weak on messianic theory in general, because I'm much more focused on this world.)

Re: forgive my ignorance

[geekosaur]

That's actually an argument from the Gemara, IIRC.

And the point, as I understand it, is that the soul is not the only thing judged; the body and the soul are created together and affect each other, and neither is whole or functional without the other, so both must be judged together as they functioned together. Thus the resurrection is essential for Yom Din to happen at all. </gemara>

This does not, however, imply that it will be a time of strife; since it's occurring during the Messianic Age, neither strife nor difficulty is supposed to be possible. And while it's considered necessary (again, by the Gemara) for the body and soul to be judged together as they lived together, that doesn't mean the circumstances of their shared life need to be recreated during judgement.

(Again, as I understand it. And as usual I'm probably wrong somewhere :)