“We are here because we institutionalized creativity.”

(Cross-posted on True Ancestor)

So Said Larry Hoffman, our most recent teacher in the Wexner Heritage Program, who last night began leading us into a deep exploration of the Siddur, the Jewish prayer book.

Hoffman has a PhD in Liturgy and is also a rabbi. He teaches at Hebrew Union College in New York, and is pretty geeked out about the complexities of Jewish prayer and the marvels of the Siddur.

He pointed out that, unlike most books, the Siddur isn’t bought to be read. You never start it at the beginning, and you never get to the end. What’s more, it’s made, unlike most books, to be used in a public, communal, ritualized setting.

Professor/Rabbi Hoffman said the Siddur takes something from all forms of literature, but is perhaps most like Drama: it is the script of the Jewish people’s relationship with God through time. We all have roles to play in the drama, the central one being “to change you and make you a better person and a better Jew.”

After leading us through the basic structure of many blessings in the SIddur, and applying it to the Shema, Professor/Rabbi Hoffman pointed out that, in its historical context, the Siddur arose along with the Rabbinic tradition as a way of institutionalizing creativity — the central, oxymoronic challenge of Jewish observance. Hoffman said that Jewish prayer, before the advent of the Rabbis, was most akin to the extemporizing of gospel preachers, who use practiced rhetorical devices applied to Scripture, in dialogue with a rapt audience, to create something that is (one hopes) radically new each time.

The rabbinic tradition and the printing press, however, conspired (along with other historical events, like the destruction of the Temple, Diaspora and the need to survive) to lead us down the path toward setting the means and methods of our prayer in stone. That has, said Hoffman, been both our continuity and our undoing.

When you get beneath the surface of any Jewish practice, you see that it is an improvisation dropped in a pool of amber. You are both forbidden and encouraged to set it free. You have to adhere to a set of standards and traditions. You have to make it radically new. You have to be yourself; you have to be counted in, and counted on by, the community.

And your ’self’ is a core sample of continuity — fresh and individuated at the top, rooted in eons of debate and discussion and persecution and fervent prayer. The only way to begin to make sense of it all is to understand that the Siddur is the script of centuries of improvisation, telescoped into your moment of encounter with it.

You’re in the orchestra — musician and instrument, playing and being played; no two performances the same, never the same musicians in the pit; the score, the sounds and you a triple-helix of Jewish inventiveness that never changes and yet never holds still.

About the Author

David

David was born and raised with a vague understanding that, as a Jew, he was the proud inheritor of a dead spiritual tradition. The synagogue (Reform) was the forlorn museum of that tradition. He didn’t mind supporting the museum, but being forced to attend school in it every Sunday seemed, in childhood, to be harsh punishment for a circumstance of birth. Read More

2 Responses to “ “We are here because we institutionalized creativity.” ”

  1. David,

    Thanks so much for passing on some of your Wexner lore to the rest of us. This sounded like a profound and inspiring event and gave me a new way to look at the siddur.

  2. Hi David,

    It’s really interesting that you posted on this topic, because I ran across something similar just yesterday. I was preparing to lead the Shabbat AM Torah study at my shul, and I came across some teachings by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth. He juxtaposed the prophetic role of Moshe with the priestly role of Aharon, and how those two orientations are represented in the forms of Jewish prayer - liturgy and free, unscripted prayer. He associates the former with the priestly role - three daily services mirroring the duties of the Kohanim in the Mishkan, offered on behalf of the nation. And associates ad hoc, personal prayers to the crying out of the prophet. It was really a beautiful teaching, and I think it speaks to some of the issue of the need for both freedom and boundaries. Rav Sacks argues we need both priestly and prophetic flavors in our prayer lives, and this seems pretty similar to the idea that we have the Siddur but must bring adaptation and growth to our use of it.

    I think this is where I break from my Reconstructionist brethren a bit. The Reconstructionist siddur rewrites a huge percentage of the prayers (where the USCJ siddur alters 2-3 or something, and only minutely), and often in ways that may mean something to some but mostly alienate me. I would rather use traditional language, but rethink it. It’s too easy to rewrite the Siddur; the challenge - and the responsibility I think - that we have is to wrestle with this aspect of our tradition in the same way we wrestle with Torah.

    Anyway, another great post!
    kol tuv,
    Yair

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>