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

[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.