Historical Antecedents
Visual T’filah is the natural result of independent yet interrelated developments which can be traced throughout Jewish history:
- The nature of Jewish communal prayer has undergone many transitions,
depending upon the prevailing conditions and technological possibilities. - Judaism has regularly adopted new technologies for use as sacred text containers1,
each offering benefits over the previously used medium. - Art has consistently been an important aspect of Jewish worship,
as can be seen in synagogue and liturgical art.
Development of Synagogue Services
The roots of the synagogue service known today grew out of the destruction of the Second Temple, and were nurtured by the rabbinic leadership. At each stage of development there were often conflicting considerations that had to be balanced. Immediately following the destruction of the Temple, those contradictory desires included maintaining a connection to the Temple rituals, thereby continuing the chain of tradition and authenticity, and establishing a prayer service that met the contemporary spiritual needs of the community.
Rabbinical interpretations guided the transition from Temple rituals to synagogue practices. For example, according to the rabbis, the biblical command “You shall serve Adonai your God”2 (Exodus 23:25) refers to the Temple service in which the sacrificial ritual was performed during mornings and afternoons. By reciting synagogue prayers at these same times, Jews fulfilled their duty to “serve Adonai.”3 There were also a number of prayers recited in the Temple that were included in synagogue services.4
Synagogue services and prayer practices continued to develop during this time. “By the turn of the first century of the Common Era the essence of the synagogue service was already in a coherent and recognizable state. The general order and contents of the synagogue prayers had already become a tradition, albeit an oral one. But there was no authoritative formulation, and even the order of the prayers was still in a fluid state. Great variety was the rule.”5 This flexibility allowed a wealth of liturgy to flourish, easing the transition and ushering in an innovative style of prayer.
While this value was important, it had to be balanced with communal norms and liturgical consistency. The Sanhedrin, under the leadership of Rabban Gamliel II, sought to do so by determining a basic structure and language of the synagogue service.6 After examining and comparing parallel versions of prayers, this rabbinic body declared their preferred phrasing. Additionally, the eighteen prayers of the amida were given their official order, and the individual prayers within were given their general formulations.7
Despite codifying particular liturgical regulations, the rabbis also valued the ability of prayer to remain dynamic and meaningful to worshipers. It was understood that the most effective way of ensuring that texts, teachings, and prayers retained their flexibility to grow and develop organically over time was to maintain their status as an oral tradition.9 The rabbis had to ensure that liturgy remained as fluid and adaptable as possible; this meant worship had to remain an oral tradition in order to balance the limits they placed on prayer.
A Talmudic passage demonstrates this rabbinic principle at work:
“R. Judah bar Nahmani, the interpreter of R. Simeon b. Laqish, expounded: matters that are to be memorized you have not got the right to state in writing, and those that are to be in writing you have not got the right to state from memory.”10 (Gittin 60b)
While this statement was in the context of a discussion regarding the oral and written Torah, it also directly applied to prayer. This perspective was stated even more clearly and decisively in the Tosefta:
“They who write down benedictions commit as grave a sin as those who burn the Torah.”11
(Tosefta Shabbbat 13:4)
The comparison can be drawn between destroying the Torah through fire and destroying the liturgy through fixing it in writing. To preserve the effectiveness and impact of prayer, it had to remain dynamic (i.e., oral).
Thus, for many centuries, synagogue liturgy was strictly transmitted orally. Service leaders recited the prayers from memory and were joined by members of the community who also knew the prayers. Those who were not as knowledgeable followed the leader according to their ability, and occasionally joined those who did not know the prayers by saying “Amen” after each blessing.12
During this time, prayer blossomed into a wide variety of expressions and local customs as the Jewish community continued to disperse. Each community developed a particular set of preferred prayers and additions that were not necessarily identical with the practices of other communities. The value of maintaining liturgical relevancy to individuals and communities began to overtake the value of liturgical unity and consistency, once again. This imbalance was brought to a head in the late 9th century when a community in Spain sent a letter of request to Rabbi Amram Gaon asking for an official guide to worship. The ban on committing liturgy to writing that had been followed for centuries was lifted.13 His response was the first sanctioned and authoritative written form of Jewish liturgy since synagogues were born. His letter was subsequently copied and served as the official guide for Jewish communal worship. This first siddur, listing the specific order of the prayers and their content, was used by Jewish prayer leaders throughout the Jewish community.
Worship services continued as they had in the past with the leader reciting the prayers, now from a written text rather than memory, with the community following according to their ability and others responding “Amen.” Although once the ban on writing down liturgy was lifted and a guide for prayer leaders circulated, it was only logical that a guide for the worshipers would also be created. Roughly a century later, Rabbi Saadia Gaon created the first siddur intended for use by members of the community. “Worship ceased to be the monopoly of those who knew the prayers by heart and became ‘the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.’”14
In his introduction to the siddur, Saadia justified his work because the liturgy was suffering from “neglect, additions, and omissions.”16 The value of preserving the liturgical heritage became more important than maintaining fluidity and creative additions. However, despite this limitation, the siddur continued to be “a living organism, sensitive to the religious needs of each generation.”17 Even though it was not permitted to alter the liturgical structure developed by the rabbis of the Talmud, “significant additions were made, reflecting the changing historic and intellectual climates of the passing centuries.”18 Synagogue prayer and the use of the siddur continued to find a balance between liturgical tradition and spiritual innovation.
The option for each member of the community to have their own siddur was a significant innovation, although hand-written manuscripts were still quite costly and could only be afforded by affluent worshippers. It was not uncommon for a synagogue to still only posses one siddur for the service leader.19 With the advent of the printing press, synagogue services were radically transformed. The printing press sharply reduced the cost of books, and eventually all members of the congregation were able to hold their own siddur.20 This model, in which not only the leader, but each participant as well, had direct access to the liturgy is still the practice today.
Once the printing press led to the establishment of the practice of each worshipper holding a printed siddur, liturgical creativity continued within the pages and layout of the siddur. The development of the printed siddur will be further examined in the following section. While the siddur has undergone dramatic growth since the early days of printing, the style of worship, in which members of the community each hold a siddur, has remained relatively constant.
Visual T’filah represents the potential next phase of Jewish synagogue worship. Visual T’filah continues important traditions such as each member of the community having visual access to the liturgy, but also emulates the period when the service leader was responsible for bringing the liturgy to the people at each service. Furthermore, the flexibility offered by dynamic digital content hearkens back to the time when creative interpretations and additions to the liturgy allowed for a sense of relevance and engagement among the worshipers, without sacrificing the traditional structure of the service or being bound by the fixed nature of the printed siddur.
Just as the innovations of the past (e.g., writing down the first siddur, illuminating manuscripts, and the printing press) allowed for the continued growth and development of synagogue services, so too can the technologies of today permit us to remain engaged with Jewish prayer and carry it forward to a new generation.
1 Any medium or technology which is used to contain and display sacred text, e.g., stone tablets, scrolls, books.
The concept and phrase “sacred text container” was coined by the author.
2 Biblical translations are adapted from Jewish Publication Society unless otherwise noted.
3 Millgram, 107.
4 Spero, 60.
5 Millgram, 86.
6 Millgram, 87.
7 ibid.
8 ibid.
9 Millgram, 88.
10 Translation from Jacob Neusner, “The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary”
©2005 Hendrickson Publishers. Electronic text hypertexted and prepared by OakTree Software, Inc. Version 1.1 (as found in Accordance 8.1.3)
11 as found in Millgram, 369.
12 Millgram, 368.
13 Millgram, 370.
14 Millgram, 385.
15 Millgram, 386.
16 as quoted in Millgram, 370.
17 Millgram, 391.
18 ibid.
19 Millgram 542.
20 ibid.