The siddur of the Golden Gate gays: a review

Crossposted to Jewschool

I previously reviewed a siddur created by a gay congregation here

I’ve been sitting on this copy of Siddur Sha’ar Zahav, kindly sent to me for review by Congregation Sha’ar Zahav months ago. With my apologies for the tardiness of the review, here it is.

As a Reform gay shul, we should expect a siddur that does not shy away from playing with the liturgy and rushes straight in to right perceived liturgical wrongs. Reform siddurim are adept at this and, if Siddur B’chol L’vavcha is anything to go by, so are siddurim created by LGBTXYZETC (LGBTQIQ, according to this siddur) communities. That’s exactly the kind of eclectic siddur we get here.

As with any thoughtfully constructed congregational siddur, SSZ is full of references to the history of the synagogue, unique minhagim and character. In terms of liturgical structure, it follows recent Reform liturgies such as Mishkan T’filah quite closely, while delving further into the gender politics of the liturgy than mainstream Reform siddurim do. At the same time, some of their theological gender posturing falls short, perhaps defeating the purpose of the liturgists. And as for the size and ease of use of the siddur, it is the largest, most unwieldy siddur I have ever seen.

Let’s deal with the physical nature of SSZ first. Like I said, it’s gigantic. I’ve heard older congregants complain till kingdom come about the size of Gates of Prayer or MT. I can’t imagine what they would say about this tome. It’s large enough to prevent me from using it. Praying the Amidah with this thing might send you to a chiropractor. As you can see in the image below, it is thicker than its Manhattan gay siddur counterpart (a Friday night volume anyway) by far and even noticeably thicker than the not-so-inconsiderably girthy GOP and Plaut Torah commentary.

You’ll also notice that it’s purple–a bit gimicky, perhaps? The cover, of course, visible above, is gorgeous, featuring some really beautifully stylized type. Inside, you’ll find a clear, if airy layout, with some lovely images throughout, an image of Sifrei Torah on page 303, for example. There are also some fairly inexplicable photos inside–page 274, for instance, is the first page of the Amidah and includes a photo of some leaves. I can’t figure out why. Also an interesting move with the type in this siddur, is the decision to render biblical quotes in what looks like either blue of purple ink. It’s not hard to read and pretty obvious way of denoting biblical passages. It looks a tad goofy, but it works.

The aspects of this siddur that make it truly unique, the things that make this truly the siddur of a particular synagogue, also make my wanna gag a little bit. They come off a tad woo-woo, though their value in explaining the history and eccentricities of this community is immeasurable.

The most woo-woo thing I’ve discovered in SSZ so far is on page 59, where, in preparation for Hineih Mah Tov, the siddur asks the congregation, “Please rise and link arms.” Ack. A footnote explains:

In the early days of Congregation Sha’ar Zahav, the world was a less friendly place for LGBTW people. Those who came to pray longed to be accepted and embraced. As a physical response to his [sic] longing, the congregation instituted the minhag of rising and linking arms…

OK fine. Hineih Mah Tov in the siddur is a three verse affair. The first says, “achim/brothers,” the second, “achayot/sisters” and the third “kulanu/together.” OK fine.

From there, the gender maneuvering in this siddur starts to defeat its own purpose. Some prayers, such as Barchu, include both masculine and feminine forms (the usual is supplemented with “N’vareich et B’eir hachayim hamvorechet etc”). Others, such as Maarivah (ah!) Aravim, get only a feminine form (“Bruchah at Sh’chinah, tiferet haolam, asher bid’varah ma’arivah aravim etc”). Ein Keloheinu gets two versions, the usual as well as the feminine (“Ein k’Imeinu, k’Voroteinu, k’Malkateinu, k’Yishua’einu etc”). In the case of both Maariv(ah) Aravim and Ein k’Whatever, gender roles get reinforced, something I imagine these socially gender conscious liturgists did not intend. Is the role of creator and nurturer a female role, while redemption (prayers focused on redemption, despite their inclusion of Miriam [or course], don’t get female versions) is a male endeavor? How did they choose what gets the man treatment in this siddur and what gets the lady treatment?

Of course, being a Reform siddur, there are plenty of English readings sprinkled throughout. As with B’chol L’vavcha, the choices of readings in this siddur are better and less groan-inducing than those in mainstream Reform siddurim. One page 79, for instance, brief quotes from Begin and Sadat are paired with each other, which is a nice little touch.

This siddur also includes an all new prayer focused on the memory of the dead. T’filat Zachor Kehilla, as they call it, is included as a prelude to Kadish Yatom. Kadish Yatom, often called the Jewish prayer for the dead, doesn’t actually reference the dead so Reform prayer books often supplement it with English readings for the dead. This one is in Hebrew, which is cool. There’s a great footnote to it that is my favorite indication of this community’s unique history:

This prayer was composed from an amalgamation of sources in the earliest years of CSZ, by members who recognized the importance of remembering those for whom Kaddish may not have been said.

The phrase “in our own cities, in our own time” was added in loving memory of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected public official…

It’s a reminder of what it must mean to be a gay shul founded in San Francisco in the 1970s, composing their first siddur in 1982.

There are also some wonderfully unique pieces in the section “Festivals and Seasons.” In addition to the usual imaginary guests for Ushpizin, for instance, this siddur suggests inviting into your sukkah:

Ha-Adam, the very first person, was created as an androgynous being (Genesis Rabah 8:1)

Sarah and Abraham, who were originally tumtumim, or intersexed (Yebamot 64a/b)

Ruth and Naomi, daughter- and mother-in-law, beloved to each other (Ruth)

David and his beloved friend Jonathan, the son of King Saul (Ruth, I Samuel)

Daniel and his eunuch friends… (Daniel)

Rabbis Samuel Hanagid, Shlomo ibn G’virol, Moses ibn Ezra, and the many other medieval Spanish poets who wrote love poems to and about young men…

Some of these are a stretch, but it’s an interesting attempt nonetheless.  In this section, there is also, of course, material for LGBTQIQ Pride Shabbat and Transgender Celebration Shabbat.

All in all it’s an interesting, charming, pretty, gargantuan volume that I can’t see myself ever using. I can’t even say I’d recommend it to a community–gay or not–seeking a siddur because of its immense size.

13 Responses to The siddur of the Golden Gate gays: a review

  1. Ben Sternman May 26, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    Great review. Your discussion on gendered language reminded me of my freshman writing seminar taught by a grad student who was militant about not using male pronouns when referring to the third person neutral. It had to be “she” or rewrite the sentence to not use a pronoun. I rebelled against this because to me that was as sexist as requiring “he” and rewriting was clunky at best. On my first paper I wrote a footnote at the first use of a pronoun stating that third person neutral pronouns will be alternated to ensure equity and which gender it started on was determined by a coin toss. Some of the sentences switched gender two times in the middle.

    Honest to God, what ended up happening was the TA said that if I never said another word in class, then I would get a B. I did not learn much in that class, but I do have a good story out of it.

  2. S. June 1, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    That’s a nice cover. Can you post an image or two from inside?

  3. MKR June 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    The most woo-woo thing I’ve discovered in SSZ so far is on page 59, where, in preparation for Hineih Mah Tov, the siddur asks the congregation, “Please rise and link arms.”

    That doesn’t sound like anything that I would call “woo-woo” (see this page for something on that expression); more what I would call “hippie-dippie.”

    It sounds as though users of this siddur will need to use shtenders.

    • David A.M. Wilensky May 27, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

      i tend to use woo-woo on this blog as a catch-all term for liturgically fluffy things that I’m suspicious of

    • BZ May 27, 2010 at 8:56 pm #

      There’s anarchist fruity and fascist fruity, and this is definitely fascist fruity (despite the “please”; and why is a siddur saying “please” anything?).

      • David A.M. Wilensky May 28, 2010 at 10:14 am #

        You said it.

        • BZ May 28, 2010 at 10:24 am #

          Just to be clear (for the wider audience), “fruity” is NOT intended here as a slur specific to this congregation’s demographic, but is a less derogatory synonym for “woo woo”, etc.

    • Rich Furman May 29, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

      My experience shows a strong correlation between hippie-dippie minhagim and woo-woo hashkafa.

      • MKR May 30, 2010 at 12:10 am #

        LOL. Thank you for the further refinements, Rich.