Dear Dr. Berger:
In my recent postings, I referred to the academic method of studying Tefila. I have come to learn that not every one who reads these posts is familiar with that method of study.
The academic method of study of Tefila begins with the premise that the Siddur we hold in our hands today evolved over the last two thousand years or more. That evolution can be divided into phases: the period before the destruction of the Second Beit Hamikdash, the period of the Mishna, the period of the Talmud, the period of the Geonim; the period of the Rishonim-both from Ashkenaz and from Sepharad, the influence of the Kabbalists of Safed and the reaction to the Reform Movement in Germany.
That we have multiple Nuschaot today including Minhag Ashkenaz, Minhag Polin, Minhag Roma, Minhag Teiman and versions of Minhag Sepharad is a testament to the multiple sources for today’s Siddurim; i.e. Minhag Bavel, Minhag Eretz Yisroel, the French Ashkenazic Rite, the Roman Rite, the Siddur of Rav Sa’Adiya Gaon and the Rambam’s Seder Ha’Tephilot.
It therefore follows that to understand a Tefila, you need to study more than the version of the Siddur you hold in your hands. You must examine all versions of that Tefila that are available to you and then ask why there are differences. I assure you that concerning most Tephilot, the Rishonim and Acharonim, and not academic scholars, provide those answers for you.
What academic scholars do reveal that Rishonim and Acharonim may not, is whether in their opinions, any historical circumstances influenced the development of the Tephilot. For example, why do not find a Bracha for lighting Shabbat lights in the Talmud but we do find one in the writings of the Geonim? Academic scholars suggest that the Bracha was introduced during the period of the Geonim to reinforce the position of the Rabbinates, in opposition to the position of the Karaites, that you may have a fire burning in your house on Shabbat.
We need to further credit academic scholars for taking the lead in studying and publishing material that was uncovered in the Cairo Geniza. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of that material to gaining an understanding of many of our Tephilot, particularly Shemona Esrei.
Perhaps there is a fear that academic scholars see their mission as advocates for changing the traditional Tephilot. From my experience, I can attest to finding few examples of academic scholars who advocated for changes to the Jewish Liturgy.
We live in an era in which Ashkenazim and Sephardim both in the Diaspora and in Eretz Yisroel live in close proximity to each other with their children often attending the same schools. That the Tephilot of each group differ should be viewed as a positive fact and a learning opportunity. Let me share an example that is relevant to the Yomim Noraim-the lines of Aveinu Malkeinu that are recited on Rosh Hashonah. Sephardim omit the line: Aveinu Malkeinu Chatanu Li’Phanecha and several others, while Ashkenazim do not. Underlying that difference is a very important issue: may we perform Viduy on Rosh Hashonah?
I think I can summarize what the academic method of study brings to our understanding of Tefila by presenting the following rule: I cannot understand my Nusach Ha’Tefila unless I study yours.
Abe Katz
Founding Director
The Beurei Hatefila Institute
www.beureihatefila.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2016 06:34AM by mlb.
