Encore

In Defense of Liturgical Creativity

By Jane R. Litman 

Judith Bleich makes two dubious assumptions in her critique of newly created birth ceremonies for female Jewish infants. The first is that all parts of the Jewish community have the same difficulties with non‑Jewish traditions that she, an Orthodox Jew, has. The second is a far more serious error; it is her extremely narrow and halachically oriented definition of what is traditionally Jewish, and thus subtly hostile viewpoint toward innovation. 

It is factually true that Jews throughout history have adopted and incorporated non‑Jewish practices into Judaism. Greek philosophy brought about Jewish philosophy: Arabic poetry revolu­tionized Jewish poetry. The very multitude and variety of Jewish practice, ritual, and belief throughout the world is testimony to the obvious fact that Jews adopt non‑Jewish tradition without too much "repugnance." There is a synagogue rather close to my home in Los Angeles that focuses its prayer on a combination of Eastern meditation and traditional Hebrew liturgy. I don't view this as any great problem or threat to Judaism. In many ways, I see the flexibility of Jewish culture, including its habit of adopting what is best in the world which surrounds it, as an asset. 

Even, however, if the adoption of non‑Jewish practices were in every case a bad thing, the issue would not apply to the ceremonies described in Dr. Bleich's article. The immersion which she suggests should properly be called "baptism" is in all aspects part of Jewish tradition. The Christians adopted it from us. In fact, it predates their entire religion. We can't just give up on everything borrowed by Christianity or we would not even have the Torah left. The fact that Christians practice a certain ceremony does not in any way make that ceremony less Jewish. If this were true, we would not eat matzah, celebrate Shabbat, Passover, Shavuot, or possibly Chanukah, activities that have all been in various ways co-opted by Christianity. 

I find Dr. Bleich's discussion of brit rehitzah characterized by an attitude of almost deliberate prejudice and misunderstanding. The fact that Rashi expresses an opinion that Abraham washed his guest's feet in order to insure against idolatry within his dwelling in no way diminishes the suitability of this ritual for newborn daughters of Israel. I should think, rather, that it enriches the act's symbolic message. In addition to inviting our daughters into the covenant with the same graciousness that Abraham showed his visitors, we naturally cleanse them of any taint of idolatry while we welcome them into Judaism.

Innovation is a Sign of Dedication 

This ceremony obviously does not single out and relegate Jewish girls to the more minimal covenant of Noah as Dr. Bleich charges. The ritual clearly emphasizes the connection with Abraham and only adds on the Noahide brit as a nice extra meaning. This is not reductionist, rather the con­trary. Obviously, the whole point of these new rituals is to elevate and enrich the status of Jewish girls, not to debase them. The reality is that currently there is no normative practice to welcome daughters into the Covenant. Even a ritual which emphasized the Noahide brit would be a big plus in the status of women -‑ this ritual which underscores female acceptance into both the brit of Noah and Abraham can hardly be viewed as relegating girls to more minimal status. 

I believe that behind Dr. Bleich's circumlocutions and distortions is an underlying bias against creative liturgy. It is time to lift the siege on (in Yoel Kahn's words) our "bunker around the Torah." There is no great harm in experimentation. Early Reform Judaism came to the point of Sunday Sabbath services, but it has drifted back to a more centrist position. A much greater threat to Jewish growth is the disaffection of large members of Jews to a religion that is sexist, moribund, and fanatically particularistic. 

Creative ritual and liturgy are positive acts of commitment to Judaism. They are a way of ex­pressing our dedication toward building the kind of religion/culture that we want. Naturally, experimentation presupposes a certain number of errors. These will tend to be self‑correcting, especially over time. An attitude that over‑polices this creative growth is negative and counter­productive. It stifles the very elements that Judaism requires to meet the challenge of apathy and assimilation. 

We are especially interested in hearing your responses to what they have written. So after reading, you should click and go to CLAL Talk where you can join the conversation with CLAL faculty and other readers.

To join the conversation at CLAL Encore Talk, click here.

To access CLAL Encore Archive, click here.

To receive the CLAL Encore column by email on a regular basis, complete the box below:

Receive CLAL Encore!