THE FACT that the liturgy is tacitly exempted from exegesis, even though it is the most familiar accompaniment to daily life, suggests that more lies behind the withdrawal of curiosity than historical accident. Although every word of classical texts is considered significant in rabbinic Judaism, in the case of the prayer-book the question of understanding seems to be raised—when it is raised at all—only in a half-hearted way. In this survey of possible causes we shall consider the most important factor last.

The Ritual Factor

The idea that worship might be a matter of ritual performance as much as of sincere petition appears as early as the Mishnah, the primary source of rabbinic law, and talmudic discussions even express regret that so important an activity is commonly neglected. But these texts leave it uncertain whether emotional engagement—kavanah (derived from a word meaning ‘aim’)—is essential even to the recital of the Shema, the central credal statement. A similar ambivalence can be seen in the tension between the demand that the Amidah (the petitionary prayer par excellence) must be read regularly with complete sincerity and the implication that it might be best to avoid habitual prayer altogether since this tends to lead to inattention on the part of the worshipper. Mishnaic rabbis themselves relate to this prayer as a formal composition, referring to its component blessings by titles or opening words5 rather than focusing, even by implication, on their meaning. Some prayers which are recorded in full in talmudic texts and have been incorporated in the liturgy are presented in their original context without interpretation, as though performance, rather than understanding, is the essence of prayer. This preference is also evident in the view that study, in which comprehension is all, is superior to prayer, here regarded as a performative act. This is clear from the argument that one may not interrupt study for worship, although others claim that these categories are too enmeshed to be distinguished.

Post-talmudic writings reflect the continuing primacy of procedure over content by concentrating on details of performance, perhaps because commentary of a more interpretative kind was not in demand.