Liturgy:Egalitarian changes that I do or don't accept
First, my ground rules:
- I never change quotations that come from any book of Tanach/the Bible. We take Tanach as it is--we may argue about the text, but we never change it.
- On the other hand, any prayer written by the rabbanim/rabbis is fair game (in my personal opinion).
- On the third hand (you should pardon the expression :) ), I concluded some years ago (see my post "Hem u-n’sheihem (them and their wives)" . . . : A woman’s place—if any—in the siddur") that, since the Hebrew language does not have a neuter, any word in the masculine can be assumed to include the feminine unless otherwise specified. The most common form of specification is "Avraham, Yitzchak, v'Yaakov (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)," which clearly excludes women.
So, what changes do I make?
- I say "Modah ani (I thank you)" using the feminine form of the verb, wherever the text says "Modeh" the masculine form of the verb.
- I go for the positive in the Birkot HaShachar/Morning Blessings, praising HaShem for having made me a Jew (sheh-asani Yisrael), a "bat chorin/free daughter" (it's actually somewhat difficult to say "free 'person'" in Hebrew), and a woman (sheh-asani isha).
- When praying silently, I add the Imahot (Mothers), Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, v'Leah (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah) to the Avot ("Fathers"/Ancestors) section of the Amidah prayer, and, in addition to "Magen Avraham (Shield of Abraham)," I say "u'Fokeid Sarah." (I not sure of the exact tranlation--"the One who keeps His commitment to Sarah"--but it comes from Tanach/Bible, B'reishit/ (Genesis), I think from Parshat Vayera--"HaShem pakad et Sarah kaasher diber," quoth she from memory, having heard her husband lein/chant that Torah reading on Rosh HaShanah, not to mention practice leining it, for many years).
- When praying Birkat HaMazon/Grace after Meals silently or leading a group in which changes are acceptable, I add "v'al mitzvotecha sheh-chatamtah b'libeinu/for the commandments that you have sealed in our hearts." I swiped this phrase from the birkon/bentcher/Grace after Meals book Shaarei Simcha/Gates of Joy, edited by Adena K. Berkowitz and Rivka Haut. I mean, get real folks, Judaism doesn't believe in "circumcision" for women (thank heaven), so how can we women thank G-d for the covenant sealed in our flesh when it just isn't?
- When praying Birkat HaMazon/Grace after Meals silently or leading a group in which changes are acceptable, I also add "v'imoteinu Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, v'Leah, heitiv tuvat malei tov/and our Mothers, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah" (um, don't know the exact translation, but it has to do with goodness and is based on biblical quotes--I think a former rabbi [male] taught me this one.)
And what changes don't I make?
- I don't say that "Moses and Miriam and the Children of Israel sang a song to You/Moshe u'Miriam u-v'nei Yisrael l'cha anu shira. . . " because the mention of Miriam occurs a paragraph or two later in the original biblical text, and, to me, it seems somewhat forced to say it here.
- I don't feel entirely comfortable with the Kos Miriam/Miriam's Cup at the Seder table, because, as a former rabbi pointed out, the Haggadah emphasizes our liberation from slavery by HaShem--if even Moshe/Moses barely warrants a mention, why bring in Miriam?
posted by Shira Salamone at 12:54 PM
15 Comments:
When praying Birkat HaMazon/Grace after Meals silently or leading a group in which changes are acceptable, I add "v'al mitzvotecha sheh-chatamtah b'libeinu/for the commandments that you have sealed in our hearts." I swiped this phrase from the birkon/bentcher/Grace after Meals book Shaarei Simcha/Gates of Joy, edited by Adena K. Berkowitz and Rivka Haut. I mean, get real folks, Judaism doesn't believe in "circumcision" for women (thank heaven), so how can we women thank G-d for the covenant sealed in our flesh when it just isn't?
The same way a blind man says the b'racha of pokeach ivrim -- he's referring to the general, not the specific individual.
You'll note the bracha doesn't say "sheChasamta bivsari" -- in my flesh, but rather bivsarainu -- our flesh.
The Wolf
Thank you for your inclusive perspective, Brooklyn Wolf. But I'm afraid that that logic works much better with a blind person than with women, in my opinion. Blind persons are a minority. Women, on the other hand, constitute half the Jewish people. How can this phrase refer to "the general," when it's not true of half of that "general?" I suspect that I'm not the only woman who's not happy with the view that men are the default in Judaism, and that we women are just along for the ride.
"I never change quotations."
What about allusions? The opening line of Avot (v'Imahot) is a direct allusion to God's list of ancestors given to Moses at the bush.
What about lines that the Rabbis already futzed with? There's one I know of in Yotzer Or, where Creator of Good and Evil becomes Creator of All?
"I say Modah Ani."
Not much of a change. That's been pretty standard in Orthodox women's sidurim for some time and the newest Koren provides for it as well in all versions.
"She-asani Isha"
I'm a big proponent of that. I say She'asani Ish and think women should do the equivalent. It's about gender, which is why liberal standard alternatives, such as sheasani b'tzalmo is unsatisfactory.
"Fokeid"
I too prefer fokeid because of the biblical use of pakad. Magein is used in bible in relation to Abe, so it makes sense to use a verb that bible uses with Sarah as well.
"Miriam's cup"
Not to mention that the well the cup alludes to has nothing to do with the exodus narrative! That occurs much later once they're well established wanderers! The seder, however, ends its narrative much before that.
Great post!
http://davidsaythings.wordpress.com
i like the miriam fish instead. more traditional.
I strongly dislike changing the chatima (closing brachot) of the amida (i.e., magen avraham mechayay hamatim etc). While the text of the amida varies across all the nusach, as far back as the era of the Talmud there was universal agreement on the exat wording of the chatima of each blessing.
If I were to decide how to include the matriarchs I would add a sub paragraph to the avot mentioning the imahot and would leave the existing blessing structure, and especially the blessing magen avraham completely alone. I note that there have been several different changes(*) made to include the imahot, and none of them match my suggestion, so I am obviously out of step.
(*)In Temple Bnai Brith in Somerville, the approach is to include the avot and imahot togeher as family units to indicate that they were not two seperate influences, but rather one joint one. It was also the only version I have encountered that included Bilha and Zilpa. It did not include Hagar.
"I never change quotations."
What about allusions?
Okay, David, I confess that I ignore that allusion. I don't like the implication that I've heard has been suggested by some of the more radical folk, that, since G-d doesn't explicitly mention the Mothers and since there's no official brit ceremony for baby girls, we women aren't included in the covenant and aren't actually Jews. I'd rather ignore that allusion and add the Mothers than cede my right to consider myself a Jew included in the covenant.
"What about lines that the Rabbis already futzed with?" In that case, I'm content to let the Rabbis do the futzing. :)
""Miriam's cup"
Not to mention that the well the cup alludes to has nothing to do with the exodus narrative! That occurs much later once they're well established wanderers! The seder, however, ends its narrative much before that."
On the other hand, maybe I could give the Miriam's Cup advocates a break by reinterpreting the cup. Could it be said that the cup alludes to Miriam standing watch over the infant Moshe/Moses when he was floating in that basket on the Nile, rather than that the cup refers to the midrashic Miriam's Well?
Steg, love those references! Thanks! I particularly like the idea of bringing the Jewish women of Egyptian slavery days into the picture by referring to midrashim that the charoset represents the women giving birth under apple trees in order to try to hide their babies from the Egyptians. Could that be expanded to include other types of trees? In certain parts of the world, charoset is made with fruit other than apples. I've heard that the Jews of North Africa and West Asia (Sefardim and/or B'nei Edot HaMizrach) make their charoset with dates, and that Jewish residents of Hawaii use pineapple(!).
Larry, I have heard one suggestion to insert a piyyut (liturgical prayer) mentioning the Imahot/Mothers in the middle of the Avot section, before the chatima/closing brachah. There's ample precedent for that--the Amidah prayer for the Yomim Noraim/High Holidays, especially the Amidah in the Musaf/Additional Service, adds numerous piyyutim in the middle of brachot. That might be more acceptable for more traditional folks.
"the approach is to include the avot and imahot togeher as family units to indicate that they were not two seperate influences, but rather one joint one." Do you mean that they said Elokei Avraham v'Sarah, Elokei Yitzchak v'Rivka, v'Elokei Yaakov, Rachel, v'Leah (G-d of Abraham and Sarah, G-d of Isaac and Rebecca, and G-d of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah)? That's not a bad approach. I have heard Bilha and Zilpa included once or twice in my life, but I'll admit that I've never heard anyone include Hagar, an interesting point. Maybe it's because Hagar's son Yishmael/Ishmael did not remain a part of the family (whatever we may think of that fact) or his descendants a part of the Jewish people.
Do you mean that they said Elokei Avraham v'Sarah, Elokei Yitzchak v'Rivka, v'Elokei Yaakov, Rachel, v'Leah
Yes (except it was Yakkov, v'Rachel, v'Leah, v'Zilpah , uv'bilha).
This loses you the reference to the biblical quote from Hashem to Moshe, but avoids the gender separation of the alternative approach. You can look at that two ways - while Hashem talks to both Avraham and Sarah, he never does so at the same time, and similarly for the other Avot and Imahot.
Larry, that approach does have its advantages, in that, as you were saying (in different words), it doesn't put a mechitzah between the Fathers and the Mothers. :)
I have to ask about the other Imahot/Mothers, though--if I remember correctly, HaShem speaks to Sarah and to Rivka, but, for the life of me, I can't remember any instance of HaShem speaking to either Rachel or Leah. Is my memory unreliable (as usual)?
Off hand, I also don't remember any non-midrashic instances of Hashem talking with Rachel and Leah. He certainly never does in The Red Tent LOL.
Another wiseguy heard from. :)
actually, MODAH ani has been pretty standard in sephardic siddurim all along, and not for any feminist reasons- simply i think because they were more familiar with hebrew grammar and modeh for a woman just didn't ring right.
While we're at it the great chiddush of our generation, the female baby naming is also a traditional sephardic customs. It would be nice to see credit where credit is due
Kisarita, the Sefardi community has certainly been ahead of the Ashkenazi community in this regard.
Re "credit where credit is due," the Koren Sacks Siddur/prayer book states that, "There has long been a custom among Sephardim--increasingly adopted by Ashkenazim--to mark the birth of a daughter with a special ceremony known as Zeved Habat ("the gift of a daughter"), during which the baby is named and blessed."
You know, it occurs to me that all the folks who protest against changes to the liturgy, never do we see them protesting against the myriads of piyyutim in the Mahzor and the plethora of Kabbalistic additions to the entire Siddur.
I was checking out a Siddur Rav Amram Gaon (ninth century), and the entire siddur, including not only weekday and Shabbat but also Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur, was some 140 pages - for the entire year! So anyone opposed to changes to the liturgy must bear this in mind. I have ADHD, and have trouble concentrating for the entire Yamim Noraim services, and so I flipped through the Mahzor to see what I could skip. If you take a 1000 page Birnbaum Rosh ha-Shana/Yom Kippur mahzor and take out all the piyyutim, you'll be left with something like 100 or 200 pages.
Now then, I'm quite opposed to changes to the liturgy in general - I like to quip that if Rambam didn't make Aristotelian additions to the siddur, and Rabbi Hirsch didn't make German Neo-Orthodox additions, then neither should Kabbalists make Kabbalistic additions. But in truth, I say this disingenuously, only because frankly, I don't like Kabbalah. Therefore, in truth, for changes made to the liturgy in good faith, for valid reasons, it appears to me that it is quite possible to so make changes. Certain egalitarian changes could certainly fall into this category, I think.
Heck, the Modeh/Modah distinction sounds downright banal and trite, and anyone who protests is either braindead or a die-hard misognynist. In the Kriat Shema al ha-Mita, when it comes to forgiving others, I myself will replace "kol bar yisrael" with "kol bar enasha אנשא" (i.e. Aramaic for ben enosh אנוש) - as Rabbi Joseph Telushkin remarks, it makes no sense whatsoever to limit this forgiveness to other Jews.
Mikewind Dale, it is ironic that people oppose contemporary changes to the siddur despite the fact that everyone knows that it's already evolved over the centuries. Some of the changes are hard to miss, given that some piyyutim/liturgical poems clearly refer to progroms and other persecutions that certainly took place later than Talmudic times.
I think people (meaning scholars, including Haredi ones) do know they're post-Talmudic (after all, many of them we definitely know their authors, such as Rabbi Yehuda ha-Levi or Rabbi Meir m'Rotenberg).
Rather, the problem is fear of ruling, fear of the new. You know how posqim constantly refrain, "They could do it, but we cannot"? It's like that.
Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits says he went to one of the gedolim and proposed his suggestion for agunot, which involved tenai'im (conditions) in the qetuba and/or get. (Something along the lines of, "This get is hereby your get, and takes effect as soon as I become an abusive husband", or "I marry you on condition that I don't become an abusive husband", etc. Obviously, the conditions would be more intelligent than something as trite as what I've offered, but you get the point. The rabbis would stipulate conditions such that the wife would be guaranteed a divorce (or retroactive annulment of the marriage) in the event of the husband's abuse or recalcitrance, and the rabbis would refuse to perform any wedding in which the husband did not make these conditions.) Rabbi Berkovits offered his proposal, and this gaon replied that halakhically, it was perfectly valid, but that it was too daring and unconventional for the generation. Rabbi Berkovits was angry and dismayed, and walked out muttering to himself, "If these are our gaonim, we have no gaonim."
Post a Comment
<< Home