Tefillah 012

Before we continue with the next part of the Shabbat Morning Service I present here, as promised in our last shiur, the comments that participants sent to me concerning the use of translations in the diaspora. These comments were prompted by a response I gave to a query by Michael Epstein in Tefillah 010. Clearly, some of the comments overlap, but I feel that in most cases the arguments put forward would be harmed if I try to edit out that which has already been said, so I leave all the messages whole and just add my comments here and there. The messages are presented in the order in which I received them.

Alan Jay Gerber writes:

Just a slight correction: the Matzudah siddurim, and other liturgical publications are not nusach ari-chabad. They come in ashkenaz and sephard. They are the first orthodox liturgical works to utilize a linear format with English and Hebrew on the same page. The editor is Rabbi Avraham Davis, a noted translator here in the states. His translations also include the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, the Kuzari, the Midrash Tanchumah on the chumash, all the chumash and all the Rashi, as well as all liturgical works for all holidays. Matzudah is the leading competitor to Art Scroll. The Birnbaum siddur is the alternative to Sim Shalom in moderate Conservative and most traditional shuls in the states. Birnbaum publications were the liturgical works of choice for most modern orthodox shuls until the advent of Art Scroll. Art Scroll eclipsed Birnbaun siddurim, Hertz chumashim and the Soncino Talmud, in all orthodox shuls, even among the most modern among them. This fact marks a major watershed in American Jewish publishing history. As for Sim Shalom, it eclipsed the Silverman and the lesser used Ben-Zion Bokser siddurim in almost all main line Conservative shuls and the movement's chumash Etz Hayyim is replacing the Hertz chumash in most consevative shuls.

Jerry Langer writes:

Your response to Michael Epstein's comment on Conservative siddurim in the US is correct: Sim Shalom is used most often. Before the ascendency of the Artscroll, many modern orthodox synagogues (and a few Conservative synagogues) used the siddur edited by R. Philip Birnbaum. While R. Birnbaum's English is not fancy, his English translation is often among the clearest, most straightforward and accurate. While translation, by its nature, requires interpretation, I think R. Birnbaum did among the best jobs in representing the "p'shat" of the tefillah texts. It is available in a "travel size" and is relatively inexpensive.

Michael Lewyn writes:

In my experience, the reason some Conservative worshippers prefer Artscroll (not just over Sim Shalom but also over most other Orthodox-oriented siddurim) is that it does have explanations of the prayers. By contrast, the
Sim Shalom used in most Conservative synagogues does not. (To be fair, Reuben Hammer recently wrote an annotated version of Sim Shalom that remedies this defect – but most shuls do not have enough of those to go around).

I respond:

It should, perhaps, be noted that the Masorti siddur, Va'ani Tefillati, also contains explanations of many prayers and worship rituals. But this siddur would not be of any use to those who need an English translation.

Lawrence Charap writes:

You ask about the use of ArtScroll by American Conservative Jews in the US. This is something I have seen in many places, and there are several reasons for it, I think. One is the tendency, as you have noted, of Sim Shalom to provide inexact translations into English. I appreciate (and use) Sim Shalom, but at a certain stage of liturgical knowledge – for
those who are trying to match their thoughts while davening with the Hebrew they are reading, and who don't know Hebrew well enough for translation to be a non-issue – ArtScroll's translations are more literal and "feel" more direct to many. I'm not saying they don't have a bias, just that this is how it comes across to many novice laypersons.

Second, although I agree with you that the point of view in ArtScroll is disturbing, it exposes many Conservative Jews to a coherence in philosophy of prayer that our movement simply has not usually provided. The inclusion of very specific directions (bow here, do this there) and laws, the commentary, and the literalism – these are all of a piece and suggest a "praxis" to integrate worship with belief. To many Conservative Jews trying to deepen their understanding of prayer
while they pray, ArtScroll fills a need because it suggests the richness of traditional understandings of the liturgy. A Conservative siddur that does this does not yet exist.

Finally, there's one other aspect of this that you have touched on in your comments here and there when you wonder why people would follow traditional wordings if they don't agree with the theological point of view that produced those wordings. Right now the action of choosing this or that prayer, this or that wording, is done by Conservative
rabbis in our siddurs in the face of general lay ignorance of liturgical questions. For those who want to decide for themselves what they find appealing, ArtScroll is an accessible source of traditional Jewish liturgical vocabulary. Jews who want to take a "do it yourself" approach to Judaism – and they exist in all the movements – appreciate the literalness and even the commentary precisely because it is unapologetic. One takes it or leaves it.

To give a concrete example: in the US every year one reads in the news stories of orthodox Jews performing kapporot with chickens. This is about as remote a custom for Conservative Jews as one can imagine, and it's hard to imagine a non-orthodox Jew ("do it yourself" or not) who would want to bring it back. And for that reason it's not something you'll hear about in Hebrew school or in any Conservative text. But then, how is one to interpret a traditional Jewish custom if we don't even know what it consists of? You can respond on a gut level or you can look at the liturgical components of the custom and draw your own conclusions. That's what ArtScroll allows one to do.

Conservative Jews, especially in the US, need many more efforts that allow laypeople to engage with the liturgy from the perspective of Conservative beliefs. The study companion to Sim Shalom, Or Hadash, makes a start at this (with some telling omissions in the commentary, such as not addressing the issues behind using or not using the imahot). There's a hunger among our educated laity who want to grapple with these issues. That's why this study group is so important!

I respond:

The tendency … of Sim Shalom to provide inexact translations into English: halakhah recognises that almost all of our most important rituals may be recited in any language, but it also prescribes parameters in the use of languages other than Hebrew. We discussed this when we studied Tractate Sotah. (See Sotah 069 for the original text of the mishnah, Sotah 070 for the discussion of the Shema, Sotah 071 for the discussion on the Amidah. For the purposes of worship a translation must permit the worshipper to say in his or her language what is said by the original text. Interpretation should primarily be in the mind of the worshipper, not the translator. That does not mean that a translation must be slavish. This is what Rambam has to say about the art of translation and the duty of the translator:

Bow here: Again, siddur Va'ani Tefillati has extensive "choreography" for the less experienced worshipper.

"Do it yourself": It may, perhaps, be of interest to some to read of a personal change that I make in my own prayers. Many Conservative Jews feel that the 'atmospherics' created in the prayer 'Alenu' is derogatory to other religions. Even though this was not the intention of the original author – whoever the author may have been – it certainly is an almost inevitable 'vibration' created by the text:

Most Conservative siddurim have just omitted the first part of the sentence, but that makes nonsense of the clause that starts 'whereas'. Lately I have replaced this whole sentence with a quotation from the prophet [Micah 4:5]:

And then I continue "For it is He who stretched forth the heavens" etc. (I can make the words fit the tune, albeit rather inelegantly.)

Howard Schwartz writes:

In your Halacha study group of Sivan 3, you responded to Michael Epstein with the words "I am at a loss to understand why any Conservative worshipper would seek out a prayer-book 'closer to the Orthodox siddurim". I personally use 'Sim Shalom' on Shabbos, Friday evening and Saturday, but prefer 'Tehillat Hashem', the Chabad siddur, for daily Shacarit. As you indicated, you have never been to the United States. The additional unspoken implication is that Hebrew is your primary language, so English translation is somewhat irrelevant to you. For me and many American Jews however, who struggle with Hebrew comprehension, the translation is important, and Sim Shalom makes no effort to be particularly literally truthful to the Hebrew, but rather to give a "conservatively correct" feel for the original. Also, Tehillat Hashem provides choreography (sit, stand, bow this way, etc), which even if it is not exactly the minchag of my Congregation, provides me with appropriate cues to why certain prayers get said certain ways.

In our next shiur we shall, God willing, continue our journey through the Shabbat Morning Service with the recitation of Psalms called Pesuké de-Zimra.