Out of sight, out of mind
Ah, Jewish prayer. Let's start from the beginning.
Our G-d
The grammatical structure of the Hebrew language creates a problem with "G-d language." Hebrew has no neuter. (Even the Hebrew word for parent is a masculine noun.) So it's either G-d Himself or G-d Herself. There's no Oneself.
Intellectually, it works, but on an emotional level, my personal feeling is that, once you start calling G-d "He" one minute and "She" the next, well, it just doesn't sound as if you're talking about the same Being, which is a bit of a problem for a monotheistic religion. So "B'ruchah, Aht," the feminine form of "Baruch Atah," (Praised are You), just doesn't feel right to me.
B'ruchah Aht, Shechina, Praised are You, Hashem's Spirit (or however one translates Shechina, a feminine noun) doesn't feel right, either—unless there's something in the Kabbalistic (Jewish mystical) tradition of which I'm unaware, we Jews are not in the habit of praying to G-d's Spirit separately.
Our Ancestors
Here's a quote from page 298 of Entering Jewish Prayer, by Reuven Hammer (reviewed here):
"Suggestions have been made that there be more feminine references in the prayers through the inclusion of the mothers along with the fathers. In some cases this is not a radical change, but in others, such as the opening section of the Amida, it is. Here the objection is twofold: first, that the line is a specific quotation from the Bible. When God reveals Himself to Moses at the burning bush, He says, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exod. 3:6). The mothers do not appear in any such quotation. The second theological objection is that God "chose" the fathers specifically, granting them a unique blessing, which was passed from father to son, but not the mothers, so that the factual basis for mentioning them is lacking. To include them in that context requires a rewriting of sacred history. The problem is not one of how we view the role of women and their place in current Jewish practice, but one of preserving the integrity of a historical tradition. This problem is not easy to solve, but it is important that we be aware of it and develop sensitivity to it."
So since Hashem, as portrayed in the Tanach/Bible, did not mention our Mothers when He introduced Himself to Moshe, and did not "choose" them, (gee thanks, G-d), we're not allowed to honor them, either? My apologies to the author, but I'm not impressed with his "sensitivity."
Ourselves
"Ashrei ish sheh-yishma l'mitzvotecha," Happy is the man who hears Your commandments." This is a quote from part of the blessing after the Sh'ma that's said shortly before the Amidah in the Shacharit (Morning) service. Since there is no footnote to that sentence in the ArtScroll siddur (prayer book), I assume that that sentence was written by the rabbis (whoever "the rabbis" are, in this case). How fascinating. Ya know, instead of the word "ish," they could have chosen the word "adam," which is as close to the word "human" or "person" as Hebrew gets, to the best of my knowledge. But no, they just had to pick one of the Hebrew words that means "man," thereby forcing those of us who don't fit that description to reinterpret. As usual. [Grumble.]
Our "clothing"
I put that word in quotes because some say that, since the hand tefilla is described as an "ot" (rhymes with "oat"), a sign, and the head tefilla is described as "totafot”—I 'm not sure anyone really knows what "totafot" means—tefillin are not garments.
A tallit (prayer shawl), on the other hand, most certainly is a garment, and is described as such in the Sh'ma.
So let me get this straight: When the rabbis of the Talmudic era were compiling the basics of the siddur, they chose, as perhaps the most important quotations in the entire prayer book, three paragraphs two of which refer to "garments" for which, even in Talmudic times, there were discussions about whether women should wear them or not. How many women do you know who bind tefillin as a sign upon their hand and use them as "totafot" between their eyes? And when the Sh'ma tells us to look at the fringe in order to remember and perform Hashem's commandments, what are we women supposed to look at? My half of the Jewish people has to take half of the Sh'ma, arguably the most important Biblical quote in the entire siddur, metaphorically.
Our "privilege"
Courtesy of an anonymous commenter to this post :
"The beracha women recite, "she-asani kirtzono" ["who has made me in accordance with His will"] is nearly a thousand years newer than the other berachot, which date to the 3rd or 4th century. "
According to my anonymous commenter, the beracha/brachah/blessing that men recite, "she-lo asani isha" ["who has not made me a woman"], is a thousand years older than the corresponding brachah for women. Exactly what brachah were women expected to recite in the intervening thousand years?
Or did it take a thousand years for it to occur to any liturgy-writing rabbi that we women might actually wish to use a prayer book?
Conclusion
For lack of an alternative, I've come to the conclusion that, much as I love the siddur and davvening (the prayer book and praying), fundamentally, the siddur was written by men for men. We women are just the folks behind the mechitza, or home taking care of the kids, literally out of sight and out of mind. To quote (to the best of my recollection) a rabbi interviewed in Tamar Ross's Expanding the Palace of Torah (reviewed here), "Women are guests in the synagogue. They are welcome guests, but they're guests." Given the structure of the siddur, we hardly need to be reminded.
posted by Shira Salamone at 10:36 PM
44 Comments:
Shira- check out http://jewess.canonist.com/?p=203
This is a very biased piece of work.
1) Male is the inclusive/neutral form in Hebrew. Ex. Yeladim. Just because in singular it can really only apply to God, doesn't mean its not inclusive. At most, its only the female words that exclusive.
2) It's quoting the torah or mimicing what the torah says. If you're orthodox and accept the torah is divine and from heaven, this shouldn't be an issue.
3) Don't have a concordance handy, but my bet is that Adam is used as man in the bible more so than human.
4) better argument
5) better argument
Howdy, neighbor. Thanks for the URL.
"This is a very biased piece of work." True, but not any more biased than the siddur. :)
1) Male is the inclusive/neutral form in Hebrew."
Granted. The same is true of every foreign language I've ever studied (Hebrew, French, and Spanish).
". . . doesn't mean its not inclusive." Okay, maybe the "He, She, Him, Her" business is not a particularly good example. Perhaps this is a better one: Despite the fact that I've been attending Yamim Noraim/High Holiday services for over 30 years as an adult, I have no idea how to say "Our Mother, Our Queen" in Hebrew. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable saying that even if I knew how, but this is, I think, a better illustration of the manner in which masculine-only language can exclude.
2) I have no problem whatsoever acknowledging and quoting from the Torah. My problem is with the idea that we quote from the Torah *only.* Just because the Torah records G-d speaking to only two of our female ancestors (Sarah and Rivka, to the best of my recollection, does that mean that, literally thousands of years later, *we* can't acknowledge them in the most important prayer in the prayer book? Doesn't the modern world have any say in the matter. Doesn't half the community have anything to say about the prayers we pray?
3) "And G-d created Adam in his image, in the image of G-d He created him, *male and female He created **them.** And G-d blessed *them*, and G-d said to *them* be p'ru u-rv, be fruitful and multiply." B'reishit/Genesis chapter one, verse 27-28. I don't know what percentage of the time the word "adam" is used in this manner, but certainly, we have a precident set here, where Adam seems to some interesting combination of neuter and plural.
Glad you see some merit to my last two arguments. Thanks. And thanks for giving my points a hearing.
How exactly does "Elokei Avot" disenfranchise females?
"How exactly does "Elokei Avot" disenfranchise females?" The Fathers are mentioned *by name,* the Mothers are not. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, the only time that the Mothers are mentioned by name is in the blessing of girls on Erev Shabbat/Sabbath Eve.
The same problem appears in Birkat HaMazon/Grace after Meals, by the way. It's as if the folks who wrote Birkat HaMazon didn't really expect us women to say it, even though, if I understand correctly, that's one of the prayers that women are as obligated to say as men are. Again, we're just along for the ride.
I'm makin' myself late for work, but I really have to mention this: I was stunned by your question, "How exactly does "Elokei Avot" disenfranchise females?" How could such a glaring omission completely escape your notice? Or does one have to be female to have the almost complete absence of women's names from prayer register as something serious missing from one's radar screen?
I just checked the ArtScroll siddur--not even in the prayer for a woman who's just given birth or in the naming of a baby girl is there any mention of the Mothers.
Agnoxodox said:
This is a very biased piece of work.
1) Male is the inclusive/neutral form in Hebrew. Ex. Yeladim. Just because in singular it can really only apply to God, doesn't mean its not inclusive. At most, its only the female words that exclusive.
Umm, excuse me? When women write about their perceptions of being excluded, it's BIASED??
Male is "inclusive" only because culturally, in gendered languages, women were the subordinate "other" which was included in the larger class. Male was normative, female a deviation. Since men defined all official speech and recorded that which is in the Torah, of COURSE it accepts this bias.
Imagine if we only used female pronouns and adjectives for prayer, and g-d language. Would you feel excluded, or uncomfortable? Maybe invisible?
Why do you expect women to feel comfortable being subsumed in a different gendered category, or to be able to imagine an incorporeal G-d when gendered language is used, especially in a heavily gender-differentiated religion/culture such as Judaism??
You never answered the question. How does not mentioning the mothers disenranchise females. The "fathers" are mentioned, presumambly jewish females should have as much connection to the "fathers" as they do to the "mothers". Unless you are sexist and say that each gender is only fully connected to their same gendered ancestors.
also note, I didn't ask originally why the statement is "sexist", i asked why it "disenfranchises" them.
Again, Agnoxodox, the issue is that the Fathers are repeatedly mention *by name,* whereas the Mothers are almost never mentioned *by name.* (And when were women ever "enfranchised" in the first place--we don't count for a minyan, remember?)
"Modeh ani l'fanecha, melech kel chai v'kayam, sheh-hehchehzarta bi nishmati b'chemlah--rabah emunatecha. I thank You, King, G-d who lives and endures, for You have returned my soul within me with compassion--great is your faithfulness."
Don't women wake up in the morning, too? Is "Modeh ani" considered a time-bound prayer, that it never occurred to anyone to print *Modah,* the feminine form, for *women* to say, first thing upon waking up?
Same problem here, in the blessing "hamachazir n'shamot. . ., who restores souls . . .: "Kol z'man sheh-ha-n'shamah v'kirbi, modeh ani l'fanecha . . . No "modah?" Women *never* say this blessing?
If you ever needed serious proof that the prayers written by the rabbis of old were written with men alone in mind, you need look no further than Birkat HaMazon. Winner and all-time champion: "Nodeh l'cha . . . al britcha sheh-chatamta bi-v'sareinu . . .We thank You . . . for the covenant that You have sealed in our flesh . . ." Say WHAT?!!! Exactly how is a woman supposed to say *that* one?!
It seems to me that one of the chief differences between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism is the almost automatic assumption on the part of many within the Orthodox community that things can't be changed. For example, a couple of years ago, a former colleague expressed surprise that I didn't have a practice of eating or drinking something hot for lunch on Shabbat. I wasn't aware that that was an issue, and asked her to explain it. "It's an [er, inyan?--forget what word she used] against the Tzadokim (spelling?) At that point, it was *my* turn to look at *her* cross-eyed: "But there haven't been any Sadducees for 2,000 years!" While it's true that all references to Temple sacrifice have been changed from the future to the past tense, and the words "v'ishei Yisrael, and the fire-offerings of Israel" have been eliminated from the Conservative siddur, you may be pleasantly surprised to know that many of the changes that Conservative Jews have made in prayer, either formally (printed in the book) or informally (some of us just do it anyway) consist of additions rather than substractions. No one takes Avraham, Yitzchak/Isaac, or Yaakov/Jacob out of the prayers, we just add Sarah, Rivka/Rebeccah, Rachel and Leah. We add the word "u-vi-l'vaveinu, and in our hearts," to bi-v-sareinu, in our flesh." I can have a meaningful prayer experience, one in which I feel included, with just a few tweaks of the wording of the prayers. But how on earth can one have, within the Orthodox community, a discussion about such a *serious* issue as using inclusive language in prayer when even such a trivial issue as the question of whether a woman should be permitted to make announcements from the bima/pulpit brings up charges of violation of Jewish tradition (see here).
1. "Our mother our queen"--"imenu malkateinu"?
2. I also have the same question: when did "totafot" become "tefillin"?
3. Since women have an obligation in mezuzah, and mezuzah is mentioned in the Shema, why are we not obligated in tefillin, which are in the same bunch of psukim? Yes I am familiar with Torah she b'al peh which says that women are exempt from positive time bound mitzvot. So why are we then obligated in birkat hamazon?
4. B'nei Yisrael is a generic term (if I am not wrong) which can be used to refer to men, women and children. So why not tzitzit for women?
For the record, I am Orthodox and accept the Torah as binding. But I do agree with Shira that liturgy is fluid (by implication) and is separate from Torah she b'ktav/b'al peh. Who we address (I'd have a serious problem with imenu malkateinu for instance) is one thing--God himself is who He is. But how we address Him and how we stand before Him in prayer is a very private and individual matter. So I say--amend liturgies to make your PERSONAL prayers more resonant if you need to. With regard to corporate prayer, (eg. repetition of Shemonei Esrei) I can see the use of the male default as making sense. Since some prayers were meant to replace the Temple sacrifices and the kohanim and leviim who served in the Temple were men, makes sense that the male gender is used as representative and the prayer leaders should also be men.
My two pennies on things. Yasher koach Shira on your thought provoking posts!
Rivkayael, thanks for the Hebrew lesson.
I think the issue with tefillin is that one is only permitted to put them on at certain times of the day. (I've never seen the Chabad/Lubavitch "Mitzvah Tank" guys try to get men to put on tefillin after dark, so I assume it's not allowed). That's why the laying of tefillin is considered a time-bound mitzvah/commandment, from which women are exempt. My real issue is this: When, and why, did this exemption come to be accepted by many as a prohibition?
To the best of my admittedly-limited knowledge, Birkat HaMazon is not considered time-bound because one is permitted to eat bread at any time of day or night.
Indeed, why not tzitzit for women? We're on the same page on this: See my "not Beged Ish" argument here.
You made my point, standing on one foot: "liturgy is fluid (by implication) and is separate from Torah she b'ktav/b'al peh." Amen!
"amend liturgies to make your PERSONAL prayers more resonant" I always do, even when I'm praying behind a mechitzah at an Orthodox minyan. As long as I'm careful not to pray loudly enough to be heard, I can't offend anyone by adding words.
There hasn't been a Temple for, what, 2,000 years? And if it were restored, we'd still davven/pray in addition to making sacrifices, as was done in the days of the Second Temple. So I don't see why we should limit ourselves to male language and leaders for prayer. Prayer may have originated as a substitute for sacrifice, but it's long since taken on a life of its own, in my opinion.
"Yasher koach Shira on your thought provoking posts." Thank you so much. I appreciate the recognition.
You keep avoiding my point, why isn't the father's good enough? Cause its sexist to just include fathers and not mothers? Then you have to hate judaism in general as its sexist and classist.
You can blame the reformers for the fact that the Orthodox refuse to change the liturgy, as that was one of the first things they did.
On the issue of feminine forms, it doesn't bother me so much if you want to change them. Personally, I don't see the fact that the Consevative movement does that increasing the shmirat mitzvot of its congregants, but not the biggest deal either. My point was focused on the mentioning of the Avot as I believe that is indicative of a lack of values. i.e. you are essentially belittling the torah by doing it, with very little gain, which I believe does impact (in a negative sense) people's shmirat mitzvot.
"You keep avoiding my point, why isn't the father's good enough? Cause its sexist to just include fathers and not mothers?"
Uh, yeah. I think it's a shame that the prayers of my religion seem to exclude the history of half its adherents.
“Then you have to hate judaism in general as its sexist and classist.” I might as well hate my parents for not being perfect. This is *my* religion, the one into which I was born and raised. Warts and all, it’s still mine. I can’t deny what I am just because some aspects of my heritage are problematic.
“You can blame the reformers for the fact that the Orthodox refuse to change the liturgy, as that was one of the first things they did.” Bingo! I’ve been saying for years that I think that one of the reasons why Orthodoxy seems to be moving farther to the right is precisely that everyone’s looking over their shoulders, afraid that the slightest liberalization, however justified, will make them look, heaven forbid, Conservative. The Out of Step Judaism in Kfar Saba (sadly, “retired" as a blogger) once asked, for instance, why it’s considered laudable for women to gather as a group and say Tehillim (Psalms), the recital of which are not obligatory, but, in some circles, beyond the pale of Orthodoxy for women to gather as a group and say Tefillot (prayers), which *are* obligatory. (Sorry I don’t have time to look for that post, but, eventually, I do have to stop procrastinating and, ya know, clean the apartment. Pesach, anyone?)
“My point was focused on the mentioning of the Avot as I believe that is indicative of a lack of values. i.e. you are essentially belittling the torah by doing it, with very little gain, which I believe does impact (in a negative sense) people's shmirat mitzvot.” How does it belittle the Torah to insist on mentioning the Mothers by name? Are the Mothers not also included in the Torah? If anything, I would say that the exact opposite is true--it's *not* mentioning the Imahot/Mothers that diminishes the Torah. How can it not, when it cuts out half of the Torah's history?
Going back to an earlier point of your that I seem to have missed, "The "fathers" are mentioned, presumambly jewish females should have as much connection to the "fathers" as they do to the "mothers". Unless you are sexist and say that each gender is only fully connected to their same gendered ancestors." Why not both? Unless *you* are sexist and think that Jewish males don’t have as much connection to the “Mothers” as they do to the “Fathers,” and that, therefore, men’s connection to their female ancestors is not worthy of mention in the siddur. *Of course* we women are connected to the Fathers. I have no interest in exluding the mention of the Fathers, I just want to add the missing Mothers. I have no interest in *exclusion,* I have an interest in *inclusion.*
The Out of Step Judaism in Kfar Saba (sadly, “retired" as a blogger) once asked, for instance, why it’s considered laudable for women to gather as a group and say Tehillim (Psalms), the recital of which are not obligatory, but, in some circles, beyond the pale of Orthodoxy for women to gather as a group and say Tefillot (prayers), which *are* obligatory.
I have no problem with women teffilah groups, with one major exception. When they "Play Act". Which generally comes in as 2 things. 1) Kriyat Ha'Torah. 2) Chazarat Ha'Shatz.
Going backwards. Halacha says that Chazarat Ha'Shatz is only supposed to be said with a minyan, so the Women's Teffilah Groups say the chazanit wont do her amidah when everyone else does, but waits. Except, that halacha says that one's amidah is supposed to be done quietly. So they try to create a legal fiction which is also against halacha.
In regards to Kriyat Ha'Torah. Kriyat Ha'Torah is a mitzva on the Tzibur. There orthodox women tefillah groups are saying we have to withdraw from the tzibbur because we can have more kavana when davening only amongst ourselves. I can accept the argument having validity (doesn't mean I think its right, but its at least can have some validity, and as I'm not a women its hard to critique). However, how can you then do a mitzva which only a chiyuv on the tzibbur (no individual mitzva) when you've decided to withdraw from it? It's play acting, instead of creating something authentically female (I don't perhaps have some sort of dvar torah that relates to women in that part), they play act what the men do without realizing that from a ritual perspective they are accomplishing nothing. (yes, cr
Hence, tefilla is great, as there's no play acting going on, some of the other elements are problematic. It doesn't really matter if the women who participate don't feel like they are play acting, it matter what it really is. If a women whore a tzizit beged but without the tzizit, would she be accomplishing anything religious? Nope. If a women wore tefillin but without any parshiot inside (but she didn't know that), would she be accomplishing anything religiously?
In regards to the Avot/Imahot, the reason including the Imahot denegrates the Torah is that the Torah only uses the language of Avot, and we've already demonstrated that the Tefilla is mimicing the Torah's language. If one believes in the divinity and perfection of the Torah (as orthodox jews tend to do), then you're effectively saying the Torah is defective. It doesn't matter if it's a matter of inclusion or exclusion, you're saying the "Torah is Wrong" and that ends up being very problematic in orthodox theology. It's not even saying "we don't feel we can enforce a torah prohibition or obligation", but straight out that the torah is wrong.
Gevalt! I'm gonna have to take a raincheck on this discussion and get back to you tomorrow night--I've been trying to clean the apartment for over two hours, but I keep getting drawn back into responding to comments, instead! Enough procrastinating already--Pesach won't wait!
“In regards to Kriyat Ha'Torah. Kriyat Ha'Torah is a mitzva on the Tzibur. . . . how can you then do a mitzva which only a chiyuv on the tzibbur (no individual mitzva) . . . "
So you're saying that a minyan (by Orthodox definition, 10 males all of whom are at least 13 years old) constitutes a tzibur (community), with or without women present, but a group of women, no matter how many are in the group, does not constitute a tzibur unless there's a minyan present?
"It's play acting, instead of creating something authentically female . . . they play act what the men do without realizing that from a ritual perspective they are accomplishing nothing."
And if Orthodox women *did* create their own rituals that were "authentically female," would they be lauded, or would they be condemned for creating "davar chadash, something new," and/or for, heaven forbid, imitating the apikorsim/heretics?
So let me get this straight:
A woman may not have an aliyah in a service at which men are present because of kavod hatzibur/the honor of the community--I've already discussed my opinion of that approach here--and/or because of the separation of men from women.
A woman may not have an aliyah in a service at which only women are present because, without a minyan, a Torah reading is meaningless.
Therefore, even the most scholarly women--of the caliber of, say, Nechama Leibowitz--could, conceivable, go an entire lifetime without ever once getting close enough to a sefer Torah (rough translation: Bible scroll) to be able to read any of the words on the klaf/parchment.
I was under the impression that the entire Jewish people received the Torah at Sinai (literally or metaphorically--take your pick). When did it become the exclusive possession of men?
"Halacha says that Chazarat Ha'Shatz is only supposed to be said with a minyan, so the Women's Teffilah Groups say the chazanit wont do her amidah when everyone else does, but waits. Except, that halacha says that one's amidah is supposed to be done quietly. So they try to create a legal fiction which is also against halacha."
So let me get this straight:
The shaliah tzibbur/prayer leader's role originated in the necessity of saying prayers aloud for the benefit of those who either couldn't read or didn't have the prayers memorized (in the days before readily-available printed prayer books), and could only fulfil their obligation to say a blessing by saying "Amen" when someone *else* said the blessing.
Therefore, a woman may not lead the repetition of the Amidah because she would be assisting someone else in fulfilling a commandment that she, herself, is not obligated to fulfil (women being exempt from time-bound commandments), and one who is *not* obligated to recite a prayer is not permitted to lead a person who *is* obligated to recite a prayer.
But a woman is also not permitted to lead other *women* in reciting the Amidah.
So even the most pious woman--of the caliber of, say, Asenat Barazani , could go an entire lifetime without the privilege of leading her sisters in reciting the Amidah.
Same issue: "It's play acting, instead of creating something authentically female . . . they play act what the men do without realizing that from a ritual perspective they are accomplishing nothing."
And if Orthodox women *did* create their own rituals that were "authentically female," would they be lauded, or would they be condemned for creating "davar chadash, something new," and/or for, heaven forbid, imitating the apikorsim/heretics?"
In other words, it doesn't matter whether women are praying *with* men or *without* men--either way, we may neither read nor lead.
This reminds me of a story that I read somewhere. See my next post, as soon as I’m finished writing it.
1st. Do you have any evidence that Nechama Leibowitz was pained by the fact that she couldn't get an aliyah to the torah?
2nd. you didn't refute any of my posts, you just tried to bluster your way out of them, why should I respond?
but there's a very easy way to disprove your bluster, "the torah was given to all of bnei yisrael, yet only kohanim were able to do the avodah in the beit ha'mikdash"
the other point to make is, that you are basically incapable of arguing against ortodox notion of halacha because you don't accept it. Therefore, while your arguents have validity to you, they don't necessarily have validity to any person that accepts orthodox's conception of halacha. If you want to make arguments that an orthodox person will listen to you, you have to play by their rules. I couldn't convince a person that accepted conservative judaism's notion of halacha with orthodox arguments.
Okay, I can't argue with you--I don't know whether Nechama Leibowitz herself was upset about not being able to have an aliyah.
"you didn't refute any of my posts, you just tried to bluster your way out of them, why should I respond?" Well, I *thought* I was refuting your comments, so give me an E for effort, at least.
"but there's a very easy way to disprove your bluster, "the torah was given to all of bnei yisrael, yet only kohanim were able to do the avodah in the beit ha'mikdash" True. One could make a case that Judaism has never been egalitarian even among men. Good point.
"you are basically incapable of arguing against ortodox notion of halacha because you don't accept it." True--I don't accept an Orthodox interpretation of halachah. That's why I'm not Orthodox. "Therefore, while your arguents have validity to you, they don't necessarily have validity to any person that accepts orthodox's conception of halacha." That's quite likely. It's worth a try, though.
I was a little cranky yesterday, lets attack your points one by one, even though you ignored a bunch of my points.
1st, you completely ignored my comment about avot/imahot.
2nd, you ignored my comment about tefillin w/o parshiot.
But a woman is also not permitted to lead other *women* in reciting the Amidah.
How exactly is she leading them? They all say it privately.
In regards to Kriyat Ha'Torah/limmud torah, it's not meaningless, BUT there are so many more things that should be more meaningful. The only reason why one would say that this modality is the most meaningful is because its what the men do.
1. With regards to prayer developing an identity independent of the temple sacrifices, I agree. However, the current day synagogue service can only be zecher l'churban and is recognized to be suboptimal--as even the liturgy itself admits. As such, I still hold by my opinion that prayers that were specifically designated to replace sacrifices (the shemonei esrei and all the korbannot) should be led by men. However I do believe that the Torah has created space for women in leadership--Miriam and shirat hayam for instance. What do you think of the Darkhei Noam model where the traditional model of minyan=10 men, but women participate in kriat haTorah and leading psukei d'zimrah?
2. That being said, I really *don't* agree that women take on limud Torah and kriat haTorah because they are men's territory (!!). There obviously were biblical precedents--for example, why can't women pasken when Devorah was a judge? The law itself does not change. Our understanding of it should increase with time, however. I don't understand why this should not lead to changes with regard to inclusion. The "shift to the right" is not really as protested as moves towards inclusion--which is quite an interesting irony because if I recall, we were not supposed to move to the right *or* to the left of Torah observance.
3. agnoxodox: wrt your comment about teffilin without parshiot, I'd like to remind you of something that Rambam said. (paraphrasing--I don't have the source in front of me) He says that if someone whispers words of prayer or puts tefillin on a wound, he is guilty of superstition and is not worthy of olam haba. However he also says that if it makes the person feel better and hence may have a role in his healing, it is permissible. Similarly, taking on of mitzvot which one doesn't have an obligation to may *not* have intrinsic value in and of themselves. But if it draws you closer to HaShem and helps you to direct your kavannah, it ought to be permissible. Ultimately who are we to judge the relationship between God and a given person?
What do you think of the Darkhei Noam model where the traditional model of minyan=10 men, but women participate in kriat haTorah and leading psukei d'zimrah?
I'm unsure its against halacha, but I'm also unsure why if its ok, the conservative model is not ok.
There obviously were biblical precedents--for example, why can't women pasken when Devorah was a judge?
I beleive that's an incorrect understanding of Devorah's role as judge. Tranlating Shofet as judge is probably incorrect, Chieften is probably a more accurate translation. i.e. she was effective Queen, not Dayan (in halachic sense)
in regards to your last point, could I say this?
"premarital sex brings me closer god and therefore who are you to say I shouldn't engage in it".
In general, I'm of the opinion that as long as one admits one can't be fully egalitarian in regards to ritual from a halachik point of view, breaking down barriers only leads to a starker difference.
If women never lead services, it can be because they are "separate but equal", but if a woman can only lead "fake" services, then it makes the fact that what they do has less meaning to be more evident. So its bad public policy halacha (in my lay person's opinoin) to allow many of these partnership type services.
Your analogy of premarital sex was inappropriate and rude. In addition, there are negative commandments governing yichud and negiah--however with respect to tefillin, tzitzit et al, there are no negative commandments prohibiting women from donning them.
With respect to services
1. There is still a mechitza, and there is a distinction between what women may or may not lead.
2. The root for shofet is the same root as mishpat--makes sense to think (linguistically) that the role of a shofet is closer to the role of a dayan than a ruler. Can you give me a source to substantiate your view?
3. It would be nice if we could all be a little more mindful of derekh eretz. After all, Shira was kind enough to host such a discussion on her blog. It's your imperative to convince her (if this is what you are setting out to do), not hers to accept your view.
hmm, thought I responded. I wasn't trying to be rude, but I was attempting to be provocative. why? Because I was trying to see where the logic goes, if the whole thing is about what a person find meaningful, then plenty of people find sex very meaningful (and I hope to find out one day).
In regards to premarital sex, I'm pretty sure it's a d'rabanan and it falls into "don't do it", much like wearing tefillin and tzitit. Yes there are explicit things one can transgress, such as negiah, but the women can go to mikvah, as well as yichud (but again a d'rabanan, goes back to amnon and tamar, I belive).
Now, it actually doesn't bother me for Shira to distinguish between these two, as conservative's form of halacha gives them the ability to pick and choose. However, its a much bigger issue for people who claim to abide by the orthodox conception of halacha. Now, I always wonder, why do orthodox people who like things like Shira Chadasha reject conservative judaism? Why do they need a hybrid of sorts and why don't the reasons behind rejecting conservative judaism apply to their own hybrid?
In regards to Shofet, see wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shofet
"1st, you completely ignored my comment about avot/imahot."
I checked back to see what you were talking about, and you're right--I didn't want to touch this comment of yours with a 10-foot pole:
"In regards to the Avot/Imahot, the reason including the Imahot denegrates the Torah is that the Torah only uses the language of Avot, and we've already demonstrated that the Tefilla is mimicing the Torah's language. If one believes in the divinity and perfection of the Torah (as orthodox jews tend to do), then you're effectively saying the Torah is defective. It doesn't matter if it's a matter of inclusion or exclusion, you're saying the "Torah is Wrong" and that ends up being very problematic in orthodox theology. It's not even saying "we don't feel we can enforce a torah prohibition or obligation", but straight out that the torah is wrong."
I guess the best way for me to respond to this while trying to avoid offending any more than necessary is to say that, if I believed in the divinity and perfection of the Torah, I'd have to go with Tamar Ross's approach that I described this way here : "Halachah (Jewish religious law) is authoritative, but not all of halachah was given at Har (Mount) Sinai, nor did Matan Torah (the giving of the law) stop with the early and later scholars (rishonim and acharonim?)--Matan Torah is a continuous, and continuing, process. Hashem's will is revealed to each generation. We look to the scholars of the past for guidance, and accept their authority, but that which is revealed in each generation through scholarship is no less authoritative. Therefore, the questions currently being asked concerning laws regarding women, and the answers being given and/or sought, are as much a part of Matan Torah as what we inherited from previous generations. And the answers may very well change over time, as more and more women become qualified Torah scholars, and more and more women learn Torah from qualified female Torah scholars."
One of the principle problems I have in accepting the binding authority of Jewish tradition is the glacial speed (or lack thereof) at which change takes place. This idea that it's perfectly acceptable to omit mentioning the Mothers by name because they weren't mentioned by name in the Torah 2,000ish years ago is a classic example. Has not Hashem more recently revealed to us that women are perfectly capable of studying Gemara, a field that was forbidden to us as recently as a century ago? The same way that many see a right to privacy hinted at, but not explicitly stated, in the US constitution, I see a G-d who loves righteousness and justice "doing right" by women by adding our names. If such an honored personage as Avraham Avinu himself could ask whether the Judge of all the earth does righteously, so can we.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry about the deletion. I thought my comment didn't get published the first time.
"2nd, you ignored my comment about tefillin w/o parshiot."
From a purely halachic (Jewish legal) point of view, a tallit without tzitzit and tefillin without parchments are meaningless. But see my link (in this post) beginning with "when the Sh'ma tells us to look at the fringe." The sad truth of the matter is that traditional Judaism does not offer any prayer garments at all for women. So if a women chooses to wear a specific shawl, with or without tzitzit, when she's praying Shacharit, just so that she feels that she's putting on a special prayer garment to pray the morning service, she may not be performing a mitzvah, but she is trying to bring herself closer to Hashem.
"But a woman is also not permitted to lead other *women* in reciting the Amidah.
How exactly is she leading them? They all say it privately."
Part of the point of the repetition of the Amidah was to enable those unable to prayer for themselves to say "amen" to the blessings, and therefore fulfil their prayer obligations. That holds equally true for women, even though the Kedusha is omitted.
"In regards to Kriyat Ha'Torah/limmud torah, it's not meaningless, BUT there are so many more things that should be more meaningful. The only reason why one would say that this modality is the most meaningful is because its what the men do."
This modality is the only model *of prayer* that we have. Gemilut chassadim, acts of kindness, are meaningful, but they are not prayer. So, unless we invent a completely different way of praying, it's inevitable, in my opinion, that much of what a women's Tefillah group does will continue to be an imitation of what men do.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe Kriyat HaTorah as a study session included in a religious service, rather than as prayer. Either way, it's part of a relgious service. We don't have another model of a relgious service, so it's inevitable that we'll borrow from the men, in my opinion.
RivkaYael, sorry, but we don't see eye to eye on prayer. Non-traditionalist that I am, I truly don't believe that prayer is "suboptimal," despite what the liturgy says--I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see the sacrifical service in the Temple restored.
There's also an internal problem with your logic--if the only ones who should be leading the korbannot (readings describing the sacrifices) and the Amidah should be those who led in the Temple, when only Kohanim (Priest, or, rather, descendents thereof) should be allowed to lead services!
On the plus side, by that logic, as long as all guys can lead for others (Kohen or not), why can't women at least lead among ourselves?
Er, *then* only Kohanim . . .
Obviously, my brains don't function very well when it's way past my bedtime. Laila tov/good night.
Last quick thought:
RivkaYael, you're right about us women having precedent for Torah study--see the Talmudic scholar B'ruriah--and for leadership--see D'vorah, Judge or Chieftain.
Shira, I don't disagree with you from your perspective. My main issue is those like Tamar Ross who try to make some sort of system that says its orthodox but is really conservative. Why is their hybrid ok but conservative judaism not? Why is there a need for a hybrid? Why can't it be part of the conservative judaism umbrella.
In some ways its selfish, instead of contributing to a larger community (be it conservative or orthodox) one separates themselves into smaller communities.
This machloket in terms of liturgical observance has been going on for some time--better minds than mine have said their piece (and nobody has a right to criticize another's hashkafa--that's the beauty of diverging viewpoints in klal yisrael). So let's agree to disagree. Shira--thank you for hosting this discussion! Maybe we'll see each other at YCT or something--I notice that you have gone to some of their shiurim.
With regard to the definition of "shofet"--Wikipedia is not a source, and the wikipedia article gives no Biblical, Talmudic or historical sources that would convince me that the shofet had a role similar to a dayan. Maybe as both a leader and arbitrator (like Shlomo haMelech) but I'm unconvinced that you can separate this role from psak.
(and nobody has a right to criticize another's hashkafa--that's the beauty of diverging viewpoints in klal yisrael).
Jews for Jesus?
Low blow, Agnoxodox. We're talking about *Jews,* here. By professing a belief in the divinity of Jesus, the so-called "Jews" for Jesus have removed themselves from klal Yisrael (approximate translation: the Jewish community). So let's leave them out of this discussion.
Concerning Tamar Ross, if she wanted to be Conservative, she would leave the Orthodox community--she's trying to stay *within* the Orthodox world, and I would hate to see her feel forced to leave just because she's trying to be frum and feminist at the same time.
As for the role of D'vorah, look at the text. This is straight from Haftarat Beshallach, Judges chapter 4, verses 4-5: "Hi shoftah Yisrael--she judged Israel . . . " and the children of Israel came up to her "lamishpat," "for judgement/justice." Sure sounds like a judge to me.
I'm with RivkaYael on this: "nobody has a right to criticize another's hashkafa--that's the beauty of diverging viewpoints in klal yisrael). So let's agree to disagree.."
"Shira--thank you for hosting this discussion!" You're most welcome. It's been quite a ride.
Oops typo in my last post--
With regard to the definition of "shofet"--Wikipedia is not a source, and the wikipedia article gives no Biblical, Talmudic or historical sources that would convince me that the shofet (add: DID NOT) had a role similar to a dayan. Maybe as both a leader and arbitrator (like Shlomo haMelech) but I'm unconvinced that you can separate the role of a shofet from psak.
Why is it a low blow? Why is belief in the divinity of jesus a red-line?
What's the difference between a jew believing in the divinity of jesus and a jew believing that the torah is not divine?
Of course I believe that believing in jesus as god puts someone outside the kahal, but the same belief system would place someone who denies the divinity of the torah outside the kahal (see almost any set of ikkarim).
In regards to shofet, it's relatively clear to anyone who looks into it that the role of "shofet" was a political leader not religious. It has religious significance in that it was a "divine monarchy" type of leadership. But even when Israel had kings, the king was not the religious leader! The King did not sit at the head of the sanhedrin.
Okay, maybe I don't know enough about "judges" to judge. :)
"What's the difference between a jew believing in the divinity of jesus and a jew believing that the torah is not divine?"
I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of halachah, but one belief denies central tenets of Orthodox Judaism, while the other belief affirms a central tenet of a completely different religion. One action is passive, the other is active.
I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of halachah, but one belief denies central tenets of Orthodox Judaism, while the other belief affirms a central tenet of a completely different religion. One action is passive, the other is active.
It's sort of similiar to affirming a central tenant of Islam that while the Torah was given by god, man (or specifically "The Jooz") corrupted it.
Personally, it would seem its less problematic on some level to affirm a tenant of another religion than to deny a central tenant of one's own. And I am unsure how one can deny that throughout the ages the divinity of the torah was a central tenant. It's a modern inovation to say that its not. In other words, it feels like your distinction is a major reach. (not that in halachik logic major reaches aren't made from time to time).
I never said that the divinity of the Torah wasn't a central tenet, I just don't think that heretics are expelled from the Jewish community anymore--unless they profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Many may not consider my beliefs legitimate, but I don't thing they'd say I'm not Jewish.
Post a Comment
<< Home