Karov Hashem l'chol kor'av?
[Note: I guess this post might be a late addition to my recent "Thoughts on prayer" series."]
In the military, if one wishes to state one's mind, one must request authorization to do so: "Permission to speak freely, sir?" Is the same true of prayer?
(I do take exception to changing the text of brachos—that would be a brachah l’vetalah, which is an Torah prohibition. What do you gain by praising Hashem in a way that’s more personally meaningful by transgressing on one of the Ten Commandments—Don’t take His Name in vain!)
. . .
The psalmist tells us, "Karov Hashem l'chol kor'av, l'chol asher yikrauhu v'emet," Near is the L-rd to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon him in truth." (Psalm 145). Is that true? Or must one have authorization?
"Permission to pray freely, sir?"
I have only my "baby Birnbaum" at work, so please forgive me if my memory fails me, but I'm pretty sure that these are the words of an optional addition to the brachah (blessing) for the sick (Baruch . . . rofei choley Yisrael) in the ArtScroll Siddur (prayer book): "May it be your will, L-rd my G-d and G-d of my ancestors, to send from heaven a complete healing, a healing of the spirit and a healing of the body, to (fill in the blank with the names[s] of the ill), among the remnant of the sick of [the People] Israel." When I add the words "v'cholei kol yoshvei teiveil, and the sick of all the inhabitants of Earth," I'm committing a sin? Someone wrote a prayer a thousand (or more) years ago, and I'm not at liberty to add or change a single word, because praying my way is taking Hashem's name in vain?!
If we're committing a sin by using our brains to think for ourselves, then is "Baruch chonen hadaat, Blessed is the One who gives us knowledge," a brachah l'vatalah*?
*Brachah l'vatalah: a "wasted" blessing, a form of taking G-d's name in vain.
posted by Shira Salamone at 11:53 AM
12 Comments:
When it comes to the shmoneh esreh, there are rules as to where various personal interpolations can be made, and where the official nusach must be adhered to. Outside of that, I can't imagine any kind of halachik objection to personal prayer.
That yehi ratzon is inserted at that point in that berakha, so if you want to add your own personal addition after the YR, before returning to the standard berakha, that'd probably be fine.
Elie and Steg, perhaps by choosing, by way of illustration, a "Yehi ratzon/May it be your will" insertion into a standard brachah/blessing, I didn't make my point clearly enough. I guess I'm having a bit of a problem with the um, inyan (?--concept?) that "the official nusach must be adhered to."
Am I truly taking Hashem's name in vain when:
A) I thank G-d, during the Birchot HaShachar (Morning Blessings) for making me a Jew, a free woman (bat chorin), and a female, rather than thanking him for not making me a non-Jew or a slave, and for making me in accordance with His will?
B) I add the Mothers, Sarah, Rivka (Rebecca), Rachel and Leah to the Fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak (Isaac), and Yaakov (Jacob) in the first line of the Amidah prayer's Avot (Ancestors) section?
C) I thank Hashem, in the second paragraph of Birkat HaMazon/Grace after Meals, for the covenant that's sealed in our flesh (bi-v'sareinu) *and in our hearts (u-vil'vaveinu)* ? (In all seriousness, how can a female thank Hashem for the convenant that's sealed in her flesh--isn't *that* a brachah l'vatalah???!!!)
Er, make that "covenant."
My unlearned (Reform Temple Hebrew School catched up with you in the Orthodox world) understanding is that the problems are not necessarily taking Hashem's name in vain, but disobedience and wastefullness.
Why are you changing the words of the morning blessings, and why are you adding the mothers? I ask that because many feminists take the additions/changes for granted without thinking why.
You are changing the morning blessings to be more meaningful to you, but it may fall into the positive/negative description issue. We thank Hashem for not making us things that he could have made us, not for what we are, because we are grateful for the extra mitzvot.
You're not supposed to be grateful for being a Jew, you're supposed to be grateful that by not being a gentile (with only 7 Mitzvot to keep), you have more opportunities for Mitzvot. It's a subtle difference, but the traditional text thanks Hashem for the opportunity to do more, your version thanks Hashem for your personal station... you've made the bracha about yourself instead of about Hashem's gift.
Adding the mothers, to me, is extremely problematic. You aren't mentioning the Patriarchs out of respect for them, but to identify Hashem. You are praying to Hashem, Blessed be He, God of the Israelites, King of Kings, God of our people, as opposed to a different god (gods of the Egyptians, perhaps).
Think about it, God of Avraham isn't distinct enough, you want to separate whether it was the gods of Avrahm's youth. God of Yitczhak solves that dillemma, (Heaven forbid your prayers appear to be towards the god of Ishmael), and Yaacov makes it clear that you are recogonizing Hashem, God of Israel, that brought us out of Egypt.
Adding the mothers is problematic because you are taking the focus away from Hashem, and onto the people. Identifying Avraham and Yitczhak are the minimum necessary that I can think of to identify Hashem, but perhaps Yaacov is necessary as well.
In our modern world, where most of the world recognizes the divinity of the God of Israel, especially throughout western society (even Atheists know that when you reference the Almighty, it is the God of Israel, not Baal or some other false god), but it's clear that we aren't worshiping any of the idols of the old world with the wording.
Are you adding the Mothers because you want to recognize them, or because you think it is proper. Focus on the wording of the prayer, you aren't worshiping the fathers, you are identifying whom your prayers are dedicated to.
Adding or changing prayers depends on two parts, what and who. There are set aspects of tefilla such as the silent amidah, the saying of shma and the brachot around them, and not so set aspects, like yehi ratzons, mi shebarach, etc. The set aspects according to tradition were set by the Men of the Great Assembly, and at the very least put together in the Talmud, and as such cannot be changed. Obviously there are differences in traditions(sephardic vs. ashkenaz vs. yemenite etc.) but each tradition has to stick with its tradition. The only modern change was in Israel, when by neccessity, some of the traditions were combined in order that there be one common davening in the army. If one is going to believe in tradition, one needs to daven with the traditional words, in the traditional order, just as one wouldn't change the laws of Shabbat or kashrut.
Traditional prayer does have places for personal requests. Some siddurim have notations as to where to put requests for certain things, and in general in the last paragraph(eloki, nitzor lishoni..) one can insert any prayer or request. In fact, that paragraph was the personal prayer of one of the amoraim, and was inserted. It was not originally part of the silent amida.
In summary, the set parts of the prayers are set by tradition, and have the 'stamp of approval' from way back, and cannot be changed. There are plenty of other areas where changes and additions can be made.
Noam
Alex, you said, “You're not supposed to be grateful for being a Jew, you're supposed to be grateful that by not being a gentile (with only 7 Mitzvot to keep), you have more opportunities for Mitzvot. It's a subtle difference, but the traditional text thanks Hashem for the opportunity to do more, your version thanks Hashem for your personal station... you've made the bracha about yourself instead of about Hashem's gift.”
Here’s a word-for-word copy of a comment to this ancient post of mine:
“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.”
My anonymous commenter is of the opinion that those brachot were written as a polemic against Christian theology. I guess that my personal point in changing them is that I have no interest in a theological war against another religion, I have an interest in making my own religion more meaningful by making it more inclusive.
“Are you adding the Mothers because you want to recognize them, or because you think it is proper. Focus on the wording of the prayer, you aren't worshiping the fathers, you are identifying whom your prayers are dedicated to.”
If anything, I think it adds to the clarify of Hashem's identity to say that He’s the G-d of *both* halves of the Jewish People. Is Hashem not also the G-d of Sarah? Did He not tell Avraham to listen to her voice? Is Hashem not also the G-d of Rachel, to whom He spoke of the destiny of the twins in her womb? Is Hashem not the G-d of Léah, destined to be the ancestor of the Mashiach/Messiah, and of Rachel, who stole and hid her father’s idols? The way that the prayers are written identifies Hashem as the G-d of Jewish males only, which, to my mind, implies the exlusion of half the Jewish People, putting the lie to the Tanach and detracting from Hashem's glory and holiness.
"In summary, the set parts of the prayers are set by tradition, and have the 'stamp of approval' from way back, and cannot be changed. There are plenty of other areas where changes and additions can be made."
Sorry about the standing-on-one-foot quote, Noam.
The consensus seems to be that one does not, in fact, have permission to pray freely except in certain places in the prayers. In other words, the text that I find problematic can neither be added to nor changed.
The first thought that comes to mind by way of response is a song (lyrics from Pirkei Avot, or maybe not): "Kol ha-olam kulo gesher tzar m'od, All of the entire world is a very narrow bridge . . .
. . . v'haikar lo l'fached klal, the important thing is not to be afraid at all."
All I see is the narrow bridge. It's difficult for me not to fear that the Mothers have been left to fall off. The notion that Hashem is also the G-d of our our Mothers is rarely, if ever, acknowledged in any "official" prayer.
"If anything, I think it adds to the clarify of Hashem's identity to say that He’s the G-d of *both* halves of the Jewish People. "
I apologize, I think that I'm being unclear here. Of course Hashem is God of both the men and women of the Jewish people, no question.
My point is that you have NOT added clarity. By identifying the patriarchs, we've identified that we are addressing our prayers to the God of Israel, not a Pagan god.
If you mention only the women, you have also identified Hashem (I believe that the Artscroll Women's Siddur has a Friday night prayer that mentions only the matriarchs, not the patriarchs), either is fine.
Adding both does NOT clarify the direction of your prayers. So you have added words that serve no purpose other than A) attract glory to humans, and B) take the focus off Hashem. If you have an extra four words to spare, you should use them to bless Hashem, thank Hashem for his blessing on you, etc., not complicate identification.
Given the women's prayer including the women, it certainly provides an Orthodox stamp of approval on identifying Hashem, God of the Matriarchs as EQUALLY legitimate as God of the Patriarchs, the point is to use as few words as possible.
In a setting of all women (the Friday night post-candle blessing), referring to the Patriarchs makes the most sense. In a setting of all men (Maariv, a set of prayers established as Minhag Klal Yisrael), clearly the wording should be for the Patriarchs.
In a mixed setting Morning blessings -> Musaf (when applicable) and Minchah for those that hold Minchah is obligatory upon women, we should probably continue to use the Patriarchs for the same reason that mixed gender plurals in Hebrew are masculine, just the nature of language.
Since group prayers in general are only obligatory upon men, as is the general siddur, it makes sense that the siddur track the men's ogligatory phrasing, as women aren't obligated to pray with the minyan and can read Thillim or an alternative service if they choose.
You trace the prayers to the split between Jews and Christians... you do so as a supposition, but without evidence. Jewish tradition would suggest that the prayers predate that period, so as a Jewish partisan I would suggest that it is AT LEAST AS LIKELY that Paul's phrasing is a response to the Jewish prayer service as suggesting that the Jewish prayer service is a response to Christians. In fact, the "addition" of the anti-heresy bracha is dated to the 1st centure CE, and it does NOT fit with the rest of the Amidah in style, which would suggest that the rest of the brachot were composed at a time that predates the Christian heresy, or at least before it gathered real steam in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. (Isn't it tragic that it is easier to date events in Jewish history by the Roman/Christian calendar than by the Jewish one...)
Have some pride in your people, we predate the Christians by quite a bit.
Is Hashem not also the G-d of Sarah? Did He not tell Avraham to listen to her voice? Is Hashem not also the G-d of Rachel, to whom He spoke of the destiny of the twins in her womb? Is Hashem not the G-d of Léah, destined to be the ancestor of the Mashiach/Messiah, and of Rachel, who stole and hid her father’s idols?
But on this logic, why stop there. Hashem is also the God of King David, who conquored Jerusalem and on whose thrown the Messiah will sit, Hashem is also the God of Ruth, who taught the gentiles how to join the Jewish people. Hashem is also the God of Alex, who posts unsolicited comments in your blog.
Hashem is God of ALL Israel. We use the patriarchs as the minimum recognition necessary to direct our prayers towards HaKodesh Baruch Hu, and not inadvertently send them towards a false god.
Most scholars on the development of Jewish liturgy concur that the precise content of the paragraphs of the Amidah have been somewhat fluid. You can see it in the differences -- slight but noticeable -- between the text in in the Sefardic versus the Ashekanzic nus'h.ot (modes). Likewise, medieval manuscripts of the liturgy differ from what we have today in various ways as well.
The Mishnah delineates the themes and the wording of the h.atimot (closing blessings) for much of the Amidah. This neither argues for or against changing wording -- but in the centuries prior to the mass-production of printed text, it's pretty clear that paytanim (liturgical poets) composed complete cycles which were inserted in the text of the Amidah. Fragments of these complete cycles are preserved in the High Holiday liturgy as piyyutim which interrupt the regular text.
Birkot hashah.ar (the morning blessings) as we have them in the siddur are a conflation of two Rabbinic opinions as to what blessings one should say each morning. They found their way into the communal service, but in fact are blessings originally to be recited by the individual.
Alex, if we're supposed to be keeping our words about humans to a minimum to focus on Hashem, why does birkat Avot repeat words? Why doesn't it just say "Baruch . . . Elokei Avoteinu, Avraham, Yitzchak, v'Yaakov?"
Thanks for the information, TroutBoy. It seems reasonable that the texts may have been more fluid in the days before the printed prayer book, when people prayed from memory.
Post a Comment
<< Home