Innovation, Supplication, and the Fixed Liturgy

D'var Tefilah by David Sieradzki  November 1998

Mishnah Berakhot 4.3-4.4:

1. Rabban Gamaliel says: Every day one should say the eighteen blessings [of the Amidah].

2. Rabbi Joshua says: An abbreviated eighteen.

3. Rabbi Akiba says: If one knows it fluently one prays the eighteen, and if not the abbreviated eighteen.

4. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who makes his prayer "keva" (fixed), his prayer is not [genuine] supplications.

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhot 29b:

    "Rabbi Eliezer says: One who makes his prayer 'keva' . . . ." What is 'keva'?

1. Rabbi Jacob bar Iddi said in the name of Rabbi Oshaia: Anyone whose prayer seems like a burden to him.

2. The Rabbis say: Anyone who does not say it in the manner of supplications.

3. a. Rabbah and Rabbi Joseph say: Anyone who cannot innovate in it [Soncino: "insert something fresh in it"].

    [Rashi: "In his requests-thus the word 'keva' means the same today as yesterday and tomorrow."]

3. b. Rabbi Zeira says: I am able to innovate in it, but I am afraid to do so for fear I should become confused.

    [Rashi: "Perhaps I'll make a mistake and I won't be able to go back to the place where I broke off."]

4. a. Abaye bar Abin and Rabbi Hanina bar Abin both say: Whoever does not pray [Shacharit] at the first appearance of the sun [and Mincha] at the last appearance of the sun.

4. b. For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It is obligatory to pray with the first and last appearance of the sun. . . .

4. c. In Israel they curse anyone who prays [Mincha] at the last appearance of the sun. Why so? Perhaps he will miss the time [through delaying so long].

I have just a few observations about this fascinating selection from the Talmud, which I learned about through studying with Rabbi Seidel a few years ago.

First, I find the evolution from the period of the Mishna (around 100 to 200 C.E.) to the period of the Babylonian Gemara (several hundred years later) quite interesting. The way I read it, it seems that during the Mishnaic period, the liturgy was much less settled than it was during the later period. Apparently, there was still serious dispute about the number and format of the blessings contained in the Amidah. At that time, Rabbi Eliezer may have disagreed with his colleagues, who argued that the Amidah had to contain either 18, or an abbreviated 18 blessings. I imagine Rabbi Eliezer saying, "if you adopt a fixed liturgy ("keva"), it won't be adequately spiritual! It will take away from your ability to personalize the liturgy to address God in your own way" (or as the translation has it, "supplications"). Of course, if this was Rabbi Eliezer meant, his was the minority view and the majority in favor of a fixed liturgy won out. (The exact content of that liturgy, however, has changed a lot over the years-for example, we now have 19 blessings in the weekday Amidah, not 18, and the specific language of the blessings differs somewhat between Ashkenazi and Sephardi prayerbooks, not to speak of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.)

Three centuries later, the approach that I'm ascribing to Rabbi Eliezer-opposition to a fixed liturgy-was unthinkable, so ingrained was the fixed liturgy by that time. The difference between Rabbi Jacob bar Iddi and the Rabbis (i.e., the majority) is quite subtle and difficult to figure out-perhaps the majority would accept prayer that felt like a "heavy burden," as long as the person praying can manage to turn something burdensome into something heartfelt. The three views that I have grouped as 4.a., b., and c. seem to differ on whether it is optimal to pray at a "fixed" time of day, or whether it is preferable to pray whenever the spirit moves you, so to speak.

I am particularly fascinated by the discussion among Rabbah, Rabbi Joseph, and Rabbi Zeira (3.a. and b.). What did they mean by "innovate"? Could they have meant inserting new, personal prayers in between the fixed liturgy-as we sometimes do here at T.I., sometimes in the vernacular language rather than Hebrew? That meaning seems to be the plainest reading of both the comment of Rashi and the approach of the scholars who translated this text for the Soncino edition (who often follow Rashi). That's the only way I can make sense of Rabbi Zeira's concern that inserting something in addition to the fixed liturgy might make it difficult for him to find his way back to where he broke off. An alternative explanation might be that "inserting something fresh" means finding something fresh in a particular text, which helps us concentrate on the liturgy and make it meaningful each time we pray.

Clearly there are differences between innovation in individual prayer and innovation in communal prayer. On the one hand, communal innovations during services may help individuals make our prayers into "genuine supplications." (Of course, the fixed liturgy has changed in dramatic ways over the years, so communal innovations have been frequent and sometimes radical.) On the other hand, communal innovations may confuse some of us or make it harder to get back to the place where we broke off, as Rabbi Zeira points out. This is a difficult issue that I'm sure we will continue to grapple with, as Jews have been doing for centuries.

I hope this text helps shed some light on our recent conversations. The text shows that the discussion about the creative tension between the value of a fixed liturgy and the need to find personal ways to express one's supplications to God is not new at T.I., or even in the late 20th century. It is an issue that goes back at least as far as Talmudic times, and possibly further.

Presented by David Sieradzki at Tifereth Israel November 1998