Friday night

[cellio]

At the oneg I received a rather effusive compliment on my torah reading on Rosh Hashana. I'm impressed that this long after the event someone sought me out to praise me. Nifty.

During the service I realized why I have a reaction that I do to one small bit. Our service leaders almost always face the congregation. There are points in the service where one is supposed to bow toward the ark (which is at the back of the bimah); the norm is for the leader to turn around at that point and do so. Someone on our bimah (not my rabbi) sometimes does the bow but doesn't turn around (so bows toward the congregation). This bugs me. I understand why it was happening (the reasons no longer apply but the pattern persists), but it still bugs me.

Last year after the Sh'liach K'hilah program there was a discussion in comments in my journal about which way the chazan faces, though not this particular detail. The article I'd read (that started the discussion) asserted that when the chazan faces the ark (to lead much of the service, not just these bowing bits) it facilitates more private prayer than when he's facing the congregation. That may be true, but it's just part of it.

When the chazan stands in the front of the room, faces the ark, and bows, he is leading us in prayer. He is our representative, our sh'liach tzibur, almost our stand-in, before God. Whose representative is he when he bows toward us?

I had this epiphany Friday night. It is as if the person bowing toward the congregation is representing God in the transaction. And that's just wrong. We do not presume God's participation and response in our prayers.

I don't mind the chazan conducting most of the service facing us; I understand how seeing a back for the entire service could be alienating to some. But there are parts where I'd rather the person turn around and be our representative.

Comments

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

Wow, it's interesting to hear your thoughts on this. There are similar liturgical lines of thought to consider when one talks about which way the priest should face during the consecration. In my one class on liturgy we are reading Pope Benedict's The Spirit of the Liturgy and he also speaks a lot about liturgical structure in the Temple and in the synagogue (which he then moves into how those structures lead to practices in Catholic churches). There is such a richness to liturgy. I'm almost ashamed to admit that I barely grasp it.

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

I personally think that the "richness" in liturgy is somewhat like those infamous layers on onions -- as one comes to enough understanding to peel of another layer, one begins to see that underneath is another layer, to be studied and felt and analyzed. I also think that rather than having nothing when one has peeled back all the layers, one has a more complete sense of understanding, and a glow of realization (and incarnation, if one is of the belief that a bolt of the lightning of intelligence and insight flashing down the tree strikes the container and the contained and Poof! the magic of incarnation is accomplished).

And then, of course, the universe opens up and we see that we have more layers yet to our understanding. ;-)

Oops, sorry, that was my "philosophy of life and understanding" soap box. I'll put it back under the desk now...

Is this book the current Pope Benedict's work, or an/the earlier one?

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I think you have a good point about there being many layers in liturgy. It's the current Pope's work. He wrote it a few years ago.

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[cellio]

I am but a neophyte when it comes to the study of liturgy, but I suspect in a lot of cases the key question boils down to "what exactly are we doing here?". That is: are we petitioning God? Are we having a conversation with God? Are we having a conversation about God? Gesture, body language, use of liturgical items ("rite aids" :-) ), physical placement -- all are tied up in this to greater or lesser degree.

In the case of our forward-facing bow-er, I think the question hasn't been asked and that other practical considerations entered the picture. First, until we modified our sound system recently, turning around meant not being amplified, which made it hard for some people to hear. (Inserted by reference: commentary on whether a service leader ought to be able to fill a sanctuary without amplification.) Second, I think there was an effort to explicitly model this behavior (to get more people to bow at the right times), which works better if people can see you do it. I don't think either of these is a factor now, but by now the habit has set in. I wonder if I should talk with someone about it.

There are similar liturgical lines of thought to consider when one talks about which way the priest should face during the consecration.

Interesting! I didn't realize there were differences of opinion there, but it makes sense that there would be a split between "standing before God" and "showing the people".

Another factor I wonder about: if God is everywhere, at some level it doesn't matter which way you face. Some might argue that. But to me it does matter because we have established the conceit that we address God by facing a certain direction; of course God will still "see" us if we're pointed the wrong way, but doing so introduces ambiguity ("am I facing God, or the congregation?").

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

You opened (but didn't spark) one of my favorite pet peeves-- Celebrants in a religious service who haven't a clue what's going on beyond what's in the lines of the script (or the "what do we do next and and Oh? is it supposed to represent something?" folks).

Not only do they need a cluex4, but as part of the liturgy is to create a communal energy (otherwise, why are we there as a community/congregation?) to use in some way (praise upward, communion, sending the dead off with comfort for us and them, invocation of the Holy, blessing of a child, or whatever) I find that their leadership leaves the participates unfocused, each with their own little celebration/ritual going on, which defeats the purpose of coming together altogether. No communal energy, no communion.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I guess it's the layers thing that was mentioned above. If someone only looks at the surface, it might appear to not matter. However if one looks at deeper meanings, stuff like that matters a lot.

[cellio]

Yes, I agree. Ritual, by definition, has intended meaning, and that means that "small" differences in ritual might signify big differences in either actual or perceived intention. This matters.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

This assumes that the conceit has been established. If your church/sect/congregation has done so, then I can well understand how introduciong the ambiguity would make one twitch.

I wonder how twitchy some folks get at a particular new church I've been to. My old parish in Williamsburg (St Bede's R.C.) built a new church a little while ago, and this spring I actually went to Mass there with my dad. The pews at the new church are arranged in a FULL CIRCLE around the altar at the center! (I suppose that in this situation it doesn't matter which way the celebrant faces...)

[cellio]

This assumes that the conceit has been established.

True. It's a traditional understanding across Judaism in general, though of course individual congregations or Jews might differ. Still, I think even the most secular Jews would, if asked, be able to tell you that we pray facing Jerusalem.

[cellio]

Oh, meant to say -- thanks so much for commenting. I find it interesting to compare and contrast liturgical traditions, and I enjoy hearing about yours.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

One difference here is just layout--when the priest turned around he also went to the far side of the altar, so everyone's still facing the right way in respect to the main physical focus at the time.

If you shuffled the ark to the side of the bimah and angled the chazan toward it you could probably get a similar effect, but I'm not sure how amenable people would be to that.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I think that you'd get a bunch of argument on the main physical focus thing. That very confusion is probably an indication of why the details of liturgy can be so important.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

Probably. "Toward the altar" wasn't my first choice either for where the focus was, but "up", which is where the prayers go toward, doesn't seem a useful direction for the purposes of furniture layout.

[cellio]

The ark isn't actually the focus; it's the place-holder and marker. We pray facing a certain direction, and we place the ark on that wall to make things easy.

The layout where I lead morning services provides an interesting illustration. The ark is in the center of the back wall; there are two reading desks at the front of the bimah, one on each side. If I simply turn and face the ark, I'm at an angle to the congregation -- which helps the sound bounce to them better. (There's a mike on the reading desk, but if I turn around I don't get that benefit.) Now as I understand it we're supposed to face east, not face the ark, so what I end up doing is pointing my body straight toward the wall but turning my head toward the ark enough to get the bounce off that nice hard wooden door. Sometimes I visualize a billiards table. :-)

[magid.livejournal.com]

Side thought: I think some of the difference between places where prayer-leaders mostly face the congregation or mostly face the ark has a lot to do with architecture (OK, also likely denomination, which is the cause of architecture...). In my (Conservative) shul growing up, the bimah is stage-like, raised above the rest of the room (with the ark even higher beyond that), and all the leader-stuff happened there, mostly facing the congregation. In most of the Orthodox shuls I've been in, the leader is usually at the front of the room, but not elevated, so it's less... necessary is the word that keeps coming to mind.... to have the person facing the congregation. Sometimes there's a bimah, but it's used only for sermons and (in some places) Torah readings.

I agree with the difficulties of facing the congregation while bowing, btw.

[cellio]

Yeah, architecture certainly affects this; good point. One of the things we did when we remodeled this summer was to remove some of the "1960s grandiose" by bringing the ark down to bimah level. It used to be that you had the elevated bimah and then there were more steps up to the ark. We kept the bimah but lowered the ark -- mainly for practical reasons (the bimah is now fully wheelchair-accessible) but also, I think, for theological reasons (the torah belongs to all of us and shouldn't be made inaccessible).

Both my congregation (Reform) and the Conservative one where I lead morning services have elevated bimaot, though only by about 4 steps in both cases. I think it was done for sight-lines and accoustics, but in neither case have I asked.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Da lifnei mi atah omeid. The thing that is really awkward about our bimah is that if you turn around for the amidah you need to turn the microphone toward one side, since the desk is really big and meant for torah reading. So for the last year we have been playing around with having a shtender in the middle of the pews at which the person leading services faces toward the ark. Some of the oldies don't like it and some of them still prefer to lead from the bimah. But gradually both our leaders and congregants are getting used to the leader facing toward the ark at all times. For all of my kvetching about my shul, this is something that really has improved (from my POV) over the last year.

I also think that most of the discomfort of congregants is not from looking at someone's back but from the fact that the rabbi and the president now don't sit on the bimah, so people have no faces to look at on this big, stage-like bimah. The eastern wall is supposed to be populated with the congregation's leaders, perhaps just for this reason. Oh well.

You will like this piece on synagogue architecture and how the direction of the prayer leader (really, the lectern) reflects the different movements' attitudes toward prayer and congregational participation. If you don't have an academic password somewhere or don't feel like going to the library I can email it to you.

[cellio]

The thing that is really awkward about our bimah is that if you turn around for the amidah you need to turn the microphone toward one side, since the desk is really big and meant for torah reading.

We had fixed mikes too. Still do, for extra people like those with aliyot. However, we've now moved to personal mikes on the service leaders, so they are no longer constrained by the sound system. I like your solution too.

If you don't have an academic password somewhere or don't feel like going to the library I can email it to you.

I'd appreciate that. I don't have a password and would like to read the article.

This is Murmur311

[(Anonymous)]

I'm at work, and so not logged in. But, I wanted to comment on this before I got home tonight and forgot.

I'm not real big on the bowing thing in general. My rabbi doesn't bow and the reason he gave for not bowing has always made sense to me: he doesn't want it to seem like (or even to be like) he is worshipping the Torah/ark and not God. The only part of the service that I bow during is the Aleinu when it specifically says "we bow." We've had a real cantor once a month and on RH and YK for the past year now who has had arguments with my rabbi about turning towards the ark and bowing. He's made concessions, as has she.

What triggered this response was your comment above that the chazan is our representaive, our stand-in before God, which strikes me as antithetical to Judaism. I've always viewed Jewish prayer as being a direct communication with God--we don't need an intermediary/stand-in/etc. We don't need a rabbi present to pray for us, we don't need a priest present to represent us. We represent ourselves to God.

Re: This is Murmur311

[cellio]

What triggered this response was your comment above that the chazan is our representaive, our stand-in before God, which strikes me as antithetical to Judaism.

Partly why I hedged with "almost". It's hard, because we are a religion of individual responsibility and direct access to God, yet we clearly delegate some of those responsibilities to our leaders. When the chazan recites the first line of barchu, he is acting as an agent (we do not say that line ourselves). That's the clearest case; in other parts of the service, like the Amidah and Aleinu, he's just one of the crowd. That said, he is the representative for anyone not able to represent himself; the reason Judaism has the chazan's repetition of the Amidah is to make sure everyone has fulfilled his obligation. (The chazan is the agent through which you are yotzei if, say, you can't read the text yourself.) Granted that Reform Judaism has set a lot of that aside, but historically the chazan was sometimes our representative, in small ways he still is, and traditions die slowly.

As for bowing specificially, I often nod to people on the street to acknowledge them (just a casual gesture), so I don't have a problem making a deliberate gesture in the case of God. But not everyone bows and that's fine. I'd rather have the chazan face the congregation and not bow, if facing the ark isn't going to happen.

Re: This is Murmur311

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

When the chazan recites the first line of barchu, he is acting as an agent (we do not say that line ourselves).

I'd say leader but not agent in this case: the first line of borchu is roughly "okay everyone, time to do this together now", so it makes sense that one person says it and everyone else responds.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I view him as himself when he bows toward you. I guess my analogue is aikido, which has some shinto/spirituality/icon worship built in. At the beginning of class, it is traditional for the sensei to walk out to an already-lined-up class, and bow toward O-Sensei (creator of Aikido), whose portrait hangs at the front of the dojo. There, we are all students before him. Then, sensei turns around and bows, and we bow back: we are his students today. In a way he's got O-Sensei "on his side", but he is also greeting us and inviting us to train with him.

In a congregation, it's like, when the speaker is facing away, he is speaking as a part of but also as leader of the congregation. When he faces, he is speaking for himself, but with his knowledge at his back, and God on his side. To me it's not like he is representing God, just interpreting or guiding; providing a human face so that all may progress together, not filtering or incarnating the Word from on high.

Just my gut feeling.

[cellio]

When it started happening I thought of martial arts too. (I've never been in a dojo, but I've heard of the practice.) And since we don't have a tradition of bowing to each other during worship services, it struck me as odd. I sat next to a gentile visitor once who commented on this custom that seemed very welcoming, and I decided it would be too complicated to set her right.

[goljerp]

It is as if the person bowing toward the congregation is representing God in the transaction. And that's just wrong. We do not presume God's participation and response in our prayers.

A bit of a digression -- this is one of the reasons why I don't like the "birkat cohanim" (blessing of/by the cohenim) and fought against my minyan starting it up. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, there's a part of the service where the cohanim (priests) get up in front of the congregation and say the priestly blessing, while facing the congregation and holding their hands in a way somewhat similar to the vulcan salute from Star Trek. (Nimoy didn't pick that at random.) Anyhow, although it's very clear that the cohanim are not blessing, but rather are acting as the conduit for God's blessing, it is as if they are, and I really don't like it. (In some Sephardic communities it's done every week on Saturday; in most Conservative congregations it's not done at all, or if it is, only a few times a year. I think Reform has probably dropped it.)