November 18, 2008

In honor of the Jubilee celebration of Fifth Avenue Synagogue, Rabbi Kermaier continued with the theme of teshuvot related to synagogues. This morning’s teshuva dealt with a community in transition and whether it may change its traditions to accommodate a new reality.

The question, circa September 2000, came from the central synagogue in Munich. For the time being, the synagogue was conducting services in Nusach Sefard. Only a few members, most of them elderly, know how to daven in Hebrew. Most members do not know how, and appear in synagogue only on holidays and for semachot. Thus, the majority of members need a siddur with a German translation, but the only siddurim translated into German are in Nusach Ashkenaz. It was also important to the questioner that there be one standard siddur in the synagogue, to facilitate page announcements.
In the past year, the synagogue used a new Nusach Ashkenaz machzor with a German translation, designed for Ma’ariv on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. The questioner felt this machzor was appropriate because the differences between nusacha’ot are minimal at Ma’ariv. The people who did not know how to daven in Hebrew were very happy with the German translation.
The questioner mentioned four additional points that might be relevant:
(1)     Until 30 years ago (i.e., the early 1970s), the synagogue davened in Nusach Ashkenaz, despite the Polish origins of the majority of the congregants. He did not know why the synagogue changed from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sefard.
(2)     The questioner said he has heard of, but not seen, a ruling that synagogues in Germany should stay with Nusach Ashkenaz.
(3)     A positive aspect of the change to Nusach Ashkenaz would be to grant access to the davening to those who do not know Hebrew. Those worshipers do not care about nusach. On the other hand, the regular daveners will have a problem changing.
(4)     There are minyanim in Nusach Sefard available in town for those who do not like the switch.
The teshuva said that in a new synagogue the nusach should be set in accordance with that followed by most of the members. Once the nusach is established, it should generally remain in place so long as the synagogue retains a significant minority who daven in the original nusach, even if the community’s demographics have changed.
In the case of Munich, the questioner should try to find out why the synagogue originally switched from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sefard. Footnote 3 explains that if the change was made for insufficient reasons, then the synagogue should change back to Nusach Ashkenaz. The footnote cites a ruling of the Tzitz Eliezer that a community that lost its initial custom of reserving Kaddish for a single individual should return to that custom. Rabbi Kermaier noted that Fifth Avenue Synagogue has done just that with its restoration of the Kaddish reserved for those observing Yahrzeit, after Aleinu in Shacharit. (He also noted that there is a disagreement over the history of the Synagogue and whether or not the Kohanim duchened on Yom Tov, or Yom Kippur, falling on Shabbat.) If the questioner cannot find out why the change in nusach was made, then Nusach Sefard is the synagogue’s official nusach, and other solutions should be sought. Footnote 5 identifies possible solutions: (a) finding a siddur in Nusach Sefard with a German translation (which, presumably, had been tried unsuccessfully); (b) using siddurim from both nuscha’ot and having pages announced in both; (c) photocopying sections of the available German translation of Nusach Ashkenaz and distributing them to the congregation.
The teshuva continues, however, that if there are no practical solutions other than a return to Nusach Ashkenaz, then the synagogue may make the switch, because of the pressing need of outreach. The change may be made over the objections of those who prefer the status quo.
In support of its conclusion, the teshuva, in footnote 6, cites a ruling of the Chelkat Yaakov that one may change nuscha’ot in order to make a larger congregation. If this applies in general, how much more so for the spiritual exigency of outreach. The footnote also cites the Maharshdam (1505-89), who permitted a change in nusach if this will facilitate understanding or be easier for the congregation. (It should be noted that the Maharshdam was generally lenient on the question of nusach.) Furthermore, because it is not known why the congregation switched to Nusach Sefard in the first place, it may be that the original switch was illegitimate and a switch back to Nusach Ashkenaz would be required. Finally, footnote 6 cites a controversial ruling of Rav Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), who said that an Ashkenazi may always switch from Nusach Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz, even without a special reason. Rabbi Kermaier explained that Rav Moshe held that Nusach Ashkenaz and the original Sephardic nuscha’ot had legitimate ancient foundations, but Nusach Sefard was a more recent creation, the legitimacy of which is in question.

The teshuva concluded by saying that any decision reached should not cause strife in the congregation and that one should speak gently to those who disagree with the change to Nusach Ashkenaz and to explain the importance of the matter. Footnote 9 added that the synagogue should retain siddurim in Nusach Sefard for those who prefer to daven in that nusach. But, citing Rav Moshe, the footnote adds that the shali’ach tzibbur should always daven in the nusach of the synagogue, regardless of which nusach he is accustomed to using on his own.