"Hem u-n’sheihem (them and their wives)" . . . : A woman’s place—if any—in the siddur
I’ve been thinking about this for a good while and debating whether to blog on the subject. I was rather hoping that I’d get a chance to continue to discuss this and related issues at GoldaLeah’s blog, Go West, Young Jew, after she published her Wednesday, November 09, 2005 post, Standing Again at Sinai I (Feminist Judaism). Unfortunately for the Jewish blogosphere, GoldaLeah decided to retire from blogging, and therefore, her series on Feminist Judaism was never continued. So I guess I’ll just have to pick up where she left off.
Therefore, without further ado . . .
First of all, let’s get the obvious out of the way. The prayer recited by men thanking Hashem “who has not made me a woman” has, frankly, been beaten to death already. Besides, one of my unfortunately anonymous commenters from my Thursday, October 14, 2004 post, "Men in Halachah—Shirking their responsibilities," already answered the question, in my opinion:
“The trio of blessing God for not making "me" (e.g. a Jewish man) a woman, gentile or slave may well have been instituted to directly contrast with Pauline Christian theology, wherein there exists "no man nor women, Jew or Greek, free or slave, for ye are all one in Jesus Christ" (my own paraphrase of the verse). In other words, the purpose of these blessings is to asssert that there are differences between groups which Christianity, then on the ascent, sought to abolish. And we are not all "one in Jesus Christ". The beracha women recite, "she-asani kirtzono" is nearly a thousand years newer than the other berachot, which date to the 3rd or 4th century. So you cannot ask why the formula for men did not read "she-asani ish". It would have necessitated other affirmative declarations for consistency, such as "for making me a Jew" and "for making me free". Then the point that this was in contrast to Paul's doctrine would not have been apparent. You can surely ask why the woman's formula was written as it was. But that is not a question on Talmudic sages, it is a question on whomever it was that composed that blessing in the 11th or 12 century.”
Okay, that’s enough of that. But that still leaves us with this beauty (from the Torah-reading part of the weekday Shacharit/Morning Service): “May it be the will of our Father who is in heaven to preserve among us the sages of Israel, them, their wives . . .”
The writer of this prayer obviously takes it for granted that there’s no such thing as a female scholar. Otherwise, why would he bless the wives separately, as if it were unheard of for a wife, or an unmarried woman, to be a scholar in her own right? (Beruriah [the scholarly wife of Rabbi Meir] and the 20th-century scholar Nechama Leibowitz are both turning in their graves.) The solution is to skip the word “u-n’sheihem,” “their wives,” leaving the word “them.”
And here’s another beauty, from the Torah-reading part of the Shacharit/Morning Service of Shabbat (Sabbath): “He who blessed our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—may He bless this entire holy congregation along with all the holy congregations; them, their wives . . .”
Since many of us are of the opinion that wives are already included in the term "holy congregations," the solution, again, is to skip the word “u-n’sheihem,” “their wives,” leaving the word “them.”
However, I pose this question to my Orthodox readers: Given the fact that women are not counted for a minyan (quorum needed for certain prayers and ritual actions such as reading from the Torah scroll) and that they do not participate in a public way in the prayer service, neither leading any part of the service nor participating in the reading of the Torah scroll, the Prophets, or the Writings, are women, halachically speaking from an Orthodox point of view, part of the congregation? I’m trying to understand whether, from an Orthodox perspective, mentioning the wives separately includes those who would otherwise be assumed to be excluded or excludes those who would otherwise be assumed to be included.
Then there’s the question of which individuals should or should not be mentioned in the first paragraph (Avot/Fathers/Ancestors section) of the Amidah prayer. On GoldaLeah’s aforementioned post, David commented, "Hazal say several times that we would have no right to daven if not for God teaching us how. By all right, we should not be allowed to address God at all. The only reason we may say 'God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob' is that God calls himself 'God of Abraham...'
GoldaLeah replied, “This might explain why people aren't willing to change things, but it doesn't explain why it's right for it to be that way. Look again who you are relying on...Hazal...male sages. I wonder if a woman sage would have come up with an equally tennable reason for including the matriarchs in our prayers, had she been given the chance to do so.”
Finally, as a native speaker of English who’s not fortunate enough to be fluent in Hebrew (yet—that’s why I’m in an Ulpan Hebrew class), I run square into the unavoidable problem that the Hebrew language has no “neuter”—even the words for “parent” and "ancestor" are masculine. Under the circmstances, I’m forced to ask myself whether I might not be seeing sexism where it wasn’t necessarily consciously intended. Does ish, man, automatically include woman? Does ben, son, also include daughter? Does avoteinu, our fathers, automatically include our mothers?
Years ago, I made the following decision: When davvening (praying), I would consider any quote from anywhere in the Tanach/Bible to be sacrosanct, but any prayer written by the rabbanim (rabbis) would be fair game. So I’ve been adding the words imoteinu (our mothers) to avoteinu (our fathers), and b’noteinu (our daughters) to baneinu (our sons), in prayers written by the rabbanim, such as the blessings after the Sh'ma quotations and the blessings in the Amidah prayer. Ish, man, has become adam, human (which is, as I was saying, also masculine, but about as neuter a word as Hebrew can provide). The problem is that, of late, I’ve come to wonder whether I’m excluding people who might otherwise be assumed to be included. What’s your opinion? Should I drop the extra words and assume that the original text includes them? Or should I continue along my present path on the assumption that the text was written by and for men and that, therefore, the masculine terminology can be assumed to have been chosen thoughtlessly at best or deliberately at worst?
Was the standard traditional prayer book written for all Jews?
Or this a classic case of “Pay no attention to that woman behind the curtain?”
January 10, 2006:
1) I neglected to mention that I'm leading a discussion on this subject at a chavurah (layperson-led) service this coming Shabbat. So I'd appreciate all the input I can get, as it helps me clarify my thinking. Thanks for your support.
2) I forgot this beauty, from Birkat HaMazon (Grace after Meals)—Nodeh l'cha . . . al britcha she-chatamta bi-v'sareinu, We thank You . . . for the covenant that You sealed in our flesh. As GoldaLeah was saying in her post, there are some texts that simply don't apply to women. I'd be happy to give credit to the person from whom I picked up this one years ago, if I could remember who the person was: To the phrase "al britcha she-chatamta bi-v'sareinu, We thank You . . . for the covenant that You sealed in our flesh," add the word "u-vi-l'vaneinu, and in our hearts."
Therefore, without further ado . . .
First of all, let’s get the obvious out of the way. The prayer recited by men thanking Hashem “who has not made me a woman” has, frankly, been beaten to death already. Besides, one of my unfortunately anonymous commenters from my Thursday, October 14, 2004 post, "Men in Halachah—Shirking their responsibilities," already answered the question, in my opinion:
“The trio of blessing God for not making "me" (e.g. a Jewish man) a woman, gentile or slave may well have been instituted to directly contrast with Pauline Christian theology, wherein there exists "no man nor women, Jew or Greek, free or slave, for ye are all one in Jesus Christ" (my own paraphrase of the verse). In other words, the purpose of these blessings is to asssert that there are differences between groups which Christianity, then on the ascent, sought to abolish. And we are not all "one in Jesus Christ". The beracha women recite, "she-asani kirtzono" is nearly a thousand years newer than the other berachot, which date to the 3rd or 4th century. So you cannot ask why the formula for men did not read "she-asani ish". It would have necessitated other affirmative declarations for consistency, such as "for making me a Jew" and "for making me free". Then the point that this was in contrast to Paul's doctrine would not have been apparent. You can surely ask why the woman's formula was written as it was. But that is not a question on Talmudic sages, it is a question on whomever it was that composed that blessing in the 11th or 12 century.”
Okay, that’s enough of that. But that still leaves us with this beauty (from the Torah-reading part of the weekday Shacharit/Morning Service): “May it be the will of our Father who is in heaven to preserve among us the sages of Israel, them, their wives . . .”
The writer of this prayer obviously takes it for granted that there’s no such thing as a female scholar. Otherwise, why would he bless the wives separately, as if it were unheard of for a wife, or an unmarried woman, to be a scholar in her own right? (Beruriah [the scholarly wife of Rabbi Meir] and the 20th-century scholar Nechama Leibowitz are both turning in their graves.) The solution is to skip the word “u-n’sheihem,” “their wives,” leaving the word “them.”
And here’s another beauty, from the Torah-reading part of the Shacharit/Morning Service of Shabbat (Sabbath): “He who blessed our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—may He bless this entire holy congregation along with all the holy congregations; them, their wives . . .”
Since many of us are of the opinion that wives are already included in the term "holy congregations," the solution, again, is to skip the word “u-n’sheihem,” “their wives,” leaving the word “them.”
However, I pose this question to my Orthodox readers: Given the fact that women are not counted for a minyan (quorum needed for certain prayers and ritual actions such as reading from the Torah scroll) and that they do not participate in a public way in the prayer service, neither leading any part of the service nor participating in the reading of the Torah scroll, the Prophets, or the Writings, are women, halachically speaking from an Orthodox point of view, part of the congregation? I’m trying to understand whether, from an Orthodox perspective, mentioning the wives separately includes those who would otherwise be assumed to be excluded or excludes those who would otherwise be assumed to be included.
Then there’s the question of which individuals should or should not be mentioned in the first paragraph (Avot/Fathers/Ancestors section) of the Amidah prayer. On GoldaLeah’s aforementioned post, David commented, "Hazal say several times that we would have no right to daven if not for God teaching us how. By all right, we should not be allowed to address God at all. The only reason we may say 'God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob' is that God calls himself 'God of Abraham...'
GoldaLeah replied, “This might explain why people aren't willing to change things, but it doesn't explain why it's right for it to be that way. Look again who you are relying on...Hazal...male sages. I wonder if a woman sage would have come up with an equally tennable reason for including the matriarchs in our prayers, had she been given the chance to do so.”
Finally, as a native speaker of English who’s not fortunate enough to be fluent in Hebrew (yet—that’s why I’m in an Ulpan Hebrew class), I run square into the unavoidable problem that the Hebrew language has no “neuter”—even the words for “parent” and "ancestor" are masculine. Under the circmstances, I’m forced to ask myself whether I might not be seeing sexism where it wasn’t necessarily consciously intended. Does ish, man, automatically include woman? Does ben, son, also include daughter? Does avoteinu, our fathers, automatically include our mothers?
Years ago, I made the following decision: When davvening (praying), I would consider any quote from anywhere in the Tanach/Bible to be sacrosanct, but any prayer written by the rabbanim (rabbis) would be fair game. So I’ve been adding the words imoteinu (our mothers) to avoteinu (our fathers), and b’noteinu (our daughters) to baneinu (our sons), in prayers written by the rabbanim, such as the blessings after the Sh'ma quotations and the blessings in the Amidah prayer. Ish, man, has become adam, human (which is, as I was saying, also masculine, but about as neuter a word as Hebrew can provide). The problem is that, of late, I’ve come to wonder whether I’m excluding people who might otherwise be assumed to be included. What’s your opinion? Should I drop the extra words and assume that the original text includes them? Or should I continue along my present path on the assumption that the text was written by and for men and that, therefore, the masculine terminology can be assumed to have been chosen thoughtlessly at best or deliberately at worst?
Was the standard traditional prayer book written for all Jews?
Or this a classic case of “Pay no attention to that woman behind the curtain?”
January 10, 2006:
1) I neglected to mention that I'm leading a discussion on this subject at a chavurah (layperson-led) service this coming Shabbat. So I'd appreciate all the input I can get, as it helps me clarify my thinking. Thanks for your support.
2) I forgot this beauty, from Birkat HaMazon (Grace after Meals)—Nodeh l'cha . . . al britcha she-chatamta bi-v'sareinu, We thank You . . . for the covenant that You sealed in our flesh. As GoldaLeah was saying in her post, there are some texts that simply don't apply to women. I'd be happy to give credit to the person from whom I picked up this one years ago, if I could remember who the person was: To the phrase "al britcha she-chatamta bi-v'sareinu, We thank You . . . for the covenant that You sealed in our flesh," add the word "u-vi-l'vaneinu, and in our hearts."
posted by Shira Salamone at 3:21 AM
19 Comments:
Thanks for the scholarship, Shira.
The way I look upon it is that I have trusted my mara d'atra since I am not so versed in the minuatiae of halacha. In tandem with that, C halacha now includes the matriarchs. I am cool with that, and that is what I daven. I don't find it that complicated.
But I would love to hear a nuanced answer to your query.
Since many of us are of the opinion that wives are already included in the term "holy congregations," the solution, again, is to skip the word “u-n’sheihem,” “their wives,” leaving the word “them.”
Curiously, while the Conservative Siddur Sim Shalom makes this alteration in the Hebrew paragraph of the blessing for the congregation, it leaves the Aramaic original intact.
Does ish, man, automatically include woman? Does ben, son, also include daughter? Does avoteinu, our fathers, automatically include our mothers?
The Conservative movement's approach to questionably gendered terms such as avot and banim has generally been to leave the Hebrew intact and interpret it inclusively. The advantage to this approach is that worshippers can include women in their prayers while retaining as much of the traditional text as possible. I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I certainly understand why some people find it objectionable.
Anyway, nice post. I don't think that there are perfect solutions for all these problems, but it's certainly worthwhile to think about them. Tradition and change -- always a balancing act.
I've been thinking about this same issue, mostly in the Aramaic passage in the Torah service. It seems to bring up the gender issue rather differently than other areas- we're not talking about ancestors, we're talking about Us. So why hasn't this passage gotten any rabbinic/scholarly attention? Because Aramaic is just more obscure than Hebrew?
Those are great questions.
I'm not Orthodox, so I'm probably not qualified from stating my opinion... but when has that ever stopped me?! : D
Anyway, personally, I always thank God for not making me a *man*. I think everyone is best in their own place, and it would probably be quite uncomfortable to be someone else. I'm pretty sure that centuries ago those words would have been taken literally, but I think nowadays, relationships between men and women have moved forward to such an extent, that the words in a prayer can be taken with a pinch of salt and a doze of good humor.
That goes for all the other archaic expressions. They are probably at least somewhat outdated, but I think that it would be appropriate to reinterpret them for a more appropriate and more inclusive meanings, given how much our social roles are changing.
I need to think about this some more, but wanted to say that I thought that it was interesting.
Hooboy, those are biggies. When I was Orthodox, my experiance was that women were not required to do any time-bound observances because their first duty was to husband and children---possibly even father if unmarried, and brothers if widowed without male children. Male children rule their adult unmarried sisters and widowed mothers. Not "children", of course, but males have the right to rule over females. Females do not inherit (except for the daughters of Zelofchad{sic} in the Torah, who had no brothers)---sons inherit and take care of their unmarried sisters and widowed mothers from the inheritance. One hopes the son(s) will be merciful, naturally, but that's the halacha, period! Husbands own whatever money (except for whatever the agreement is in the get, and even then the wife doesn't control it)their wives make, and if the husband dies the son owns the money.
Accordingly, therefore, women are part of the "holy congregation", but not counted in a minyan because of the above---specifically "time-bound observances". In ultra-Orthodox shuls (and I've been there), the mechitza is at least five feet high, and if not solid then curtained so as to almost completely block the women from sight.
My theory as to the separate blessing for the wives is that, as women are not commanded to do much of anything except obey husbands, they had to be specially included because only men really do the religious duties. Then again, there are several references in the Torah and Rabbanim that seem to suggest that women have higher spiritually than men, and so might not need blessing. It's confusing, to say the least.
I only know that, from my own experience in ultra-Orthodoxy, males come first---always. Girls in yeshivahs such as Bais Yacov are quite firmly discouraged from learning talmud, and one parent even worried aloud (I was there) at a PTA meeting that "we might be over-educating them, chas v'sholem!" That's what she said, folks. There is even a reference somewhere in Rabbonim that says women might not have an equally "holy" soul as men. And, of course, there's the story of what happened to Beruria as punishment for her "sin" (which I can attest is taught to every Orthodox girl in Bais Yakov): because she wouldn't hold to the "halacha" that women are easily seduced due to their "inferior" intellect, her HUSBAND (no less!) arranged for one of his yeshiva bachurs to tempt her and she (naturally) gave in, then committed suicide. How the bachur and Rabbi Meir (who is considered one of the greatest rabbis ever!) managed to emerge squeaky clean from THAT little "pecadillo" is beyond me. Personally, I doubt the veracity the story, but it's a great way to scare girls away from scholarship! There's a saying in the talmud, too, that "a learned woman is a monstrosity", so it's my contention that women are basically "add-ons"--- necessary for men's comfort, but "dangerous" enough to need the control of a master "for their own good". This is hilarious, in that husbands are expected to go to Kollel forever, while the wife works! Must be nice to tailor a religion to one's needs like this. How women buy this stuff amazes me, but that's their choice, I guess. Hope this helps.
Barefoot Jewess said... "Thanks
for the scholarship, Shira."
Thanks for the compliment, Barefoot. I've never considered myself much of a
scholar, but it's really nice to be *called* one now and then. :)
elf said...
"The Conservative movement's approach to questionably gendered terms such as *avot* and *banim* has generally been to leave the Hebrew intact and interpret it inclusively."
elf, I'm experimenting with that now. It feels a bit weird not adding "b'noteinu" (our daughters) after all these years, but it does make a certain amount of sense, in that Hebrew has no neuter. For me, it's a question of whether I should give the authors of the prayers the benefit of the doubt and not assume that it was their intention to exclude half of the Jewish people.
debka_notion said...
" . . . the Aramaic passage in the Torah service . . . seems to bring up the gender issue rather differently than other areas- we're not talking about ancestors, we're talking about Us."
debka, that's why I think it makes sense simply to exclude any term that clearly indicates that women were not originally included. There *are* women scholars--on that score, it could be argued that there always have been woman scholars since the days of Beruriah--and women *are* part of the congregation, so why mention the wives separately if they should have been included in the first place?
Irina Tsukerman said...
". . . personally, I always thank God for not making me a *man*."
Irina, I used to use the Conservative favorite, Baruch . . . sheasani b'tsalmo, Praised is [the One Who] made me in His image, which isn't a bad way to go, given that it's swiped straight from the first parsha/weekly reading of the Torah, but lately, I've been trying out "Baruch . . .sheasani
isha, Praised is [the One Who] made me a woman." As far as I'm concerned, it's time to stop basing some of our morning blessings on a polemic against
Christianity--what's the point, at this late date?--and substitute positive brachot/blessings for negative ones.
Reva haShotah said...
Okay, let me get this straight:
Women are part of the congregation because their fathers/husbands/brothers
are responsible for their support.
Unless, of course, the men are learning in Kollel all day, in which case the women's income supports the men, but said income still belongs to the men.
Ouch.
"My theory as to the separate blessing for the wives is that, as women are not commanded to do much of anything except obey husbands, they had to be specially included because only men really do the religious duties."
Yes, that's pretty much my theory as well, when I try to look at that brachah from an Orthodox perspective.
"How the bachur and Rabbi Meir (who is considered one of the greatest rabbis ever!) managed to emerge squeaky clean from THAT little "pecadillo" is
beyond me. Personally, I doubt the veracity the story . . ."
I find that story hard to believe not only because of what it says about Beruria, but also because of what it says about Rabbi Meir. Would such a great Torah scholar as Rabbi Meir have stooped that low just to prove a point?
"How women buy this stuff . . ."
Um, Reva, take it easy. You're skatin' a bit close to the edge here. While I certainly don't always share my commenters' points of view, I have a strong preference for keeping the comments on my blog respectful. Please try to find a different way of phrasing your opinions in the future.
"My theory as to the separate blessing for the wives is that, as women are not commanded to do much of anything except obey husbands, they had to be specially included because only men really do the religious duties."
Yes, that's pretty much my theory as well, when I try to look at that brachah from an Orthodox perspective.
Not any Orthodox perspective i know.
Anyway to get back to the topic, i've seen Liberal Orthodox shuls in Jerusalem replace the mentions of individual family roles (wives, sons, etc.) with "them and their families" in order to be gender-neutral as to the sex of the scholars.
Given the fact that women are not counted for a minyan (quorum needed for certain prayers and ritual actions such as reading from the Torah scroll) and that they do not participate in a public way in the prayer service, neither leading any part of the service nor participating in the reading of the Torah scroll, the Prophets, or the Writings, are women, halachically speaking from an Orthodox point of view, part of the congregation?
I've wondered about this myself, and have not come up with a satisfying answer. It may end up coming down to, like Jews who are Jewish but not halakhicly so, women in a traditional-gender-roles synagogue setting are part of the congregation, but not halakhicly so. Which may sound like a cop-out. And it might be. But it's all i can think of so far.
Steg, er, oops. Yes, you're right. Reva and I got a bit carried away, there. Thanks for the correction. Women may not be obligated to observe most of the *time-bound* mitzvot, but women are certainly obligated to observe all the others, and a few of our own (removing, when baking, the portion of dough that would have been used for flat-bread to be donated to the Temple; lighting candles on Sabbath and holiday evenings; going to the mikveh for purposes of maintaining the family purity laws). In point of fact, one of my favorite proof-texts for women wearing the tallit (prayer shawl) is "V'shamru v'nei Yisrael et haShabbat--the children (sons) of Israel will observe the Sabbath." One can't say that, in the verse "Daber el b'nei Yisrael v'amarta alehem v'asu lahem tzitzit al kanfei vigdeihem--Speak to the children of Israel and say to them that they will make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments," the word "b'nei," sons or children, refers only to sons unless you posit the same thing for the verse on Sabbath-oberservance--and no Jew in his or her right mind would ever say that women aren't obligated to observe the Sabbath just because the text says "V'shamru *v'nei* Yisrael!"
"Them and their families" (hem u-mishpachtam?) is a really good way of putting it. I'll suggest that to our weekday-minyan baalei tefillah. (The rabbi would have a fit if we made any changes not already in the old Silverman Conservative siddur [prayer book] on a Sabbath or festival.) Thanks.
". . . like Jews who are Jewish but not halakhicly so, women in a traditional-gender-roles synagogue setting are part of the congregation, but not halakhicly so."
You're not the only one who doesn't have a better answer. Have we any other takers for this question? Please remember that my discussion this Shabbat will reflect your responses, and have rachmones (mercy) on me.
Er, did I forget to mention to my blog readers that I'm leading a discussion on this topic at a chavurah (layperson-led) service this coming Shabbat (Sabbath)? Help!
"Them and their families" (hem u-mishpachtam?) is a really good way of putting it. I'll suggest that to our weekday-minyan baalei tefillah.
הם ומשפחותיהם
heim umishpechoteihem
Steg, thanks for the spelling lesson. :)
Reva- Certainly the talmud's view of women can be seen as somewhat schizophrenic, both very complimentary and insulting, and you have decided to focus exclusively on the downside. So let me present a bit of the other side. A wife keeps any property she brings into the marriage, even if the husband dies. It is true that unless other arrangements are made(and it is certainly halachically possible to make sure that a wife or female child or anyone else for that matter to inherit when the husband dies), the sons inherit. However, they also inherit the responsibility to provide for their mother and sisters, even to the point that they have to deprive themselves in order to support the females. So, at a time in history when widows and orphans were commonly poor and downtrodden, Judaism made the inheritors assume not only the goods, but the burden of supporting the female family survivors in the manner that they were accustomed.. And, nowadays, it is common and easy to write a will that assures the assets will be distributed per the deceased's wishes.
Now, on to the main topic. Women certainly have different obligations than men, and the usual difference is that they are not obligated in time bound positive commandments. However, they may voluntarily take on a number of them(sitting in the sukkah for example). All poskim(decisors) opine that women are obligated to pray at least once a day(some say more). However, synagogue attendance was usually not a priority and a study of old synagogue architecture reveals that many synagogues especially from the middle ages did not even have an area for women. If you think about it, without an eruv, and birth control, it would be hard for a woman to make it to shul, if she was caring for her children. Therefore, if a prayer was said in synagogue, the people present would naturally want to include their families in the request for a blessing, and naturally would include all those who weren't present. It was not meant to exclude, but to include. The word kahal in the mi'sheberach on Shabbat refers specifically to the people present in the synagogue. Now that women(and children, who, incidentally are also named specifically, along with wives) attend shul much more commonly, it is reasonable to change the wording to say families. If you want more proof, the next lines add other categories, those who come to synagogue to pray, who give candles for light, wine for kiddush...etc. If the word kahal specifically excludes women, then just from the phrasing, kahal excludes the people who came to synagogue to pray. It makes absolutely no sense to use kahal in that way. The meaning of kahal here is simply the people who are here in synagogue, men, women, children or whomever, except that commonly the women and children weren't there, and the authors wanted to make sure they were included in the request for blessing.
The weekday yehi ratzon in my siddur asks for Hashem to establish in our midst sages of Israel. The reality for the authors of this request is that when they thought of sages of Israel, they thought of men. That does not exclude women. When one thinks of football players, one usually thinks of men. That doesn't exclude women from playing(on a college level-Katie Hnieda). But would you think that a reference to football players and their girlfriends would exclude women from playing football? You have to keep in mind the social context that existed when the prayers were composed. It is not anti-women, it just reflects the reality of the time.
Women who are in synagogue are considered part of the congretation(except for a very minority opinion that holds that the mechiza essentially makes the women's section a seperate area-but this is not widely accepted among any group of Jews, as far as I know). They are expected to pray, answer amen, and participate in barchu, keddusha and kaddish, prayers that are only said when a minyan(group of 10 men) is present. So, absolutely, women in shul are totally included in the congretation.
As far as God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we certainly pray to that God, and that God is also the God of Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel. As well as the God of Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Joshua, yours, mine and many millions as well. It happens that this is how the prayer was handed down to us as established by (tradition tells us) the men of the Great Assembly. God does say(in Genesis, talking to Jacob) I am the God of Abraham and Isaac, and I think that God, when chatting with Moses, refers to himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so we are simply using God's words. Does that mean that God isn't the God of the matriarchs? no, of course not.
Grammer- Hebrew does not have a neuter, and usually male gender is used for neuter. Therefore, there are instances when male gender refers only to male gender, and instances where male gender refers to everyone. Usually, when refering to the people of Israel, it means everyone, but there are certain exceptions(in the first paragraph of Shema, where there is the commandment to teach your sons, 'bincha', the commentors explicitly say the word refers to sons, not daughters- I will admit this doesn't sit so well with me, but there it is).
Hope this helps withyour project
Thinking of congregational belonging on an Orthodox context, I was just reminded of a conversation I had just after Rosh HaShanah, where I inquired of a friend as to how many people had been at his minyan. He gave an answer, and we continued talking. Shortly later, he made a comment that indicated that he had considered only men in that estimated number. I asked what was his basis for that, and he answered that those were the only people who counted for the minyan, and since I'd used that word, that was what he gave a number for. I asked him if he would have considered a man in the process of converting but who had not yet finished that process in his number, and he had a hard time answering. So my impression is that there is some social confusion as to the matter of congregational belonging. But I'm basing that off of one person.
Dilbert, thanks for putting a positive spin on this. Some of us feminists do tend to dwell perhaps a bit too much on the negative side. It's there, but perhaps it might help if we looked at the positive side more often.
So the separate mention of "wives" was meant to include the women, who, in many cases, were/are not present in synagogue because they're home taking care of the kids. That makes sense. I have to admit, though, that I really love Steg's suggestion that we say "hem u-mishp'choteihem, them and their families." That includes *everyone* and excludes no one. (Singles don't have spouses, but they do have parents, perhaps siblings, and other relatives, so that version has them covered, too.)
debka_notion, it does makes sense that, in an Orthodox context, one would be referring specifically to males 13 and older if one spoke of a minyan. You would have to ask who was at *services* to get an answer that included women.
First, I absolutely LOVE your blog! Anytime I need to kick my brain in gear, I visit here, among a few other places.
Second, I experienced years of infertility before I finally (baruch HaShem) conceived and gave birth to the first of two children (so far). During that painful time when I wanted a baby and each month only brought with it defeat and disappointment, I coped by adding to my davening the positively-stated b'racha, "Baruch . . .sheasani isha, Praised is [the One Who] made me a woman." as you described. It was a way for me to acknowledge that each month brought with it possibility and hope.
While I know many women don't have the happy ending to infertility, that b'racha gave me the strength to continue on. Now I keep it as a statement of gratitude for ending years of infertility, among other things. And it reminds me to be sensitive to other women who are still waiting for their baby with empty arms.
Sheyna Galyan, welcome to my blog, and thanks!
I'm so glad that your story had a happy ending. I've said it here before, and I'll say it again: Everytime I say Hallel and I get to the words "Moshivi akeret habayit eim habanim s'meichah, Who turns the barren woman into a happy mother of children," I think of all the women (and men) who want children and can't have them, for whatever reason (infertility, the difficulties of adopting, waiting for the right person to marry, etc.), and make it my kavannah (intention) that Hashem should make those words come true for all who want children. May their empty arms soon be filled.
Baruch she-asani isha, Praised (is the One) Who made me a woman--and blessed me with a husband and a child.
I didn't have time to read all the comments, so I hope you'll all excuse me if i'm repeating someone.
My views are formulated from my own logic and observations, as i have not asked a rabbi concerning this subject.
Jewish sages, over the generations, have had very specific views of what is a 'man's job' and what is a 'woman's job'. The man's job being to support a family's monetary needs ad to pursue Torah studies; The woman's being to take care of the family's other needs (material, emotional, etc.) and to rear the next generation of Jews in a warm and Torah observant atmosphere.
The sages stress the differences because, otherwise (I believe), they would try to do each others jobs and ignore the ones that were their's in the first place. The man's obvious reminder that he is here to support the family cash and not let it wittle while he hangs out with the kids is obvious from 'sh'lo asani isha'- thank God that i am not a woman.
Meanwhile- if a righteous woman were in a place with 9 men looking for a tenth, and she was able to join the minyan, she would likely leave her kids behind and go- something that they would consider abandonment and that would wear away on them over years. If the Torah didn't stress a woman's job as a wife, they would likely- indeed, in America, many do- leave the house to earn some extra cash, or learn some Torah for her childrens' sake, not realizing that the children will grow better from her presence than her prayers.
I must cut this answer brief, as i'm out of time, but i hope I've been helpful.
30cal, welocme to my blog.
I appreciate your comments. You may be interested to know that I’ve already attempted to address the issue of traditional gender roles in two previous posts. In my September 5, 2005 poem/post “ . . . not in my job description” (http://onthefringe_jewishblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/not-in-my-job-description-poem.html#comments), I tried to get inside the traditional woman’s perspective on her role in her family and community. I also posted on trying to balance a child’s needs with those of his/her parents in my October 23, 2005 post, “Who’s on first—on raising a Jew (http://onthefringe_jewishblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/whos-on-firston-raising-jew.html#comments).
My personal preference is to try to arrive at a balanced view. If I wished to give up on Jewish tradition completely, I wouldn’t be writing about the siddur at all. I don’t wish to toss out tradition, simply to make it feel more “mine.” And while I respect those who choose to fulfill the traditional roles, I’m not personally entirely comfortable with those roles. I take a more nuanced view. Just because a man may be the main breadwinner for his family and be involved in talmud Torah (the study of sacred texts) doesn’t mean that he can’t also be the one to bathe the “baby,” drive the kids to music lessons, and, while we’re more or less on the subject, teach his kids to drive. Fatherhood is not only about making money and studying. Kids whose fathers are hardly ever home really lose out. As for women leaving the house to earn some extra cash, sometimes one doesn’t have many options when there are 6 kids to put through yeshiva and Yeshiva. But even if there are options, I do have a bit of a problem with your statement that a mother’s presence is always more beneficial to her children that her prayers, her involvement in talmud Torah, and/or her career. Please keep in mind that mothers are also adult human beings, and, as such, need to be in the company of adults and to do adult things sometimes. Praying, studying, and/or having a paying job can help contribute to a woman’s sense that she’s a person in her own right with her own rights, and can enhance her willingness and ability to give loving care to her family. If a man can be both a doctor and a good dad, certainly a woman can be both nurturing and a nurse. I would prefer to interpret the siddur in a way that reflects more expansive roles.
Post a Comment
<< Home