Bewildered by some brachot (blessings)
I've taken Larry Lennhoff's advice (see the comments to A mourner missing in action) and am trying to get in the habit of doing a bit of Torah study every day in memory of my father, since, being frequently a bit under the weather in recent months, I've found it quite difficult to commute half an hour to a minyan (there being none within walking distance) so that I can say kaddish for my father. So I was reading Torah.org today and ran into some interesting difficult with the following passage from this page:
"Almost all of the morning blessings are in the positive, except for three: “who did not create me as a member the other nations of the world” "who did not make me a slave" and (for men) "who did not make me a woman." Why are these blessing phrased negatively?
Our Sages saw fit to establish these three separate blessings in order to give us the opportunity to express our appreciation for every facet of Hashem's kindness. If I would simply thank the One "who made me a Jew," thanking Hashem for not making me a slave or a woman as well would seem superfluous. Additionally we should not say the blessings in reverse order, for the last blessing implies the praise of the first two. Saying these blessings in the negative allows us to recite all three blessings, thus increasing our praise of our Creator (Mishna Berura 46,15)."
I always reverse these blessings, which I always recite in the positive (which is what we Conservative Jews do) because I could be a woman and a free person and still not be a Jew. Why should thanking HaShem for making one whatever gender one happens to be and thanking HaShem for making one a free person preclude thanking HaShem for making one a Jew?
"Almost all of the morning blessings are in the positive, except for three: “who did not create me as a member the other nations of the world” "who did not make me a slave" and (for men) "who did not make me a woman." Why are these blessing phrased negatively?
Our Sages saw fit to establish these three separate blessings in order to give us the opportunity to express our appreciation for every facet of Hashem's kindness. If I would simply thank the One "who made me a Jew," thanking Hashem for not making me a slave or a woman as well would seem superfluous. Additionally we should not say the blessings in reverse order, for the last blessing implies the praise of the first two. Saying these blessings in the negative allows us to recite all three blessings, thus increasing our praise of our Creator (Mishna Berura 46,15)."
I always reverse these blessings, which I always recite in the positive (which is what we Conservative Jews do) because I could be a woman and a free person and still not be a Jew. Why should thanking HaShem for making one whatever gender one happens to be and thanking HaShem for making one a free person preclude thanking HaShem for making one a Jew?
posted by Shira Salamone at 5:52 PM
33 Comments:
So this is where knowing where the blessings come from and why they're phrased the way they are is important.
The source for these blessings is in the Talmud. The Talmud tells us at one point that it would be better for man (and they mean men and women) to never have been created but since he has been created he should do the best he can with the limited time he has.
As a result, you cannot phrase the blessings positively because that's like thanking God for doing something lousy (ie. creating you) when He should have just left well-enough alone.
The next thing to understand is that there are different classes of halachic observance. An adult male has the highest level being responsible for all positive and negative injunctions. An adult female is responsible for all negative injunctions but just some positive ones. A slave (which is a legal class, not just a term) has the same level of obligation as a woman but lacks personal freedom.
Therefore the three blessings as written are saying "Well now that you've created me, thank you for not making me a non-Jew who only has 7 mitzvos to connect to you, nor a slave who has only some mitzvos and no freedom because he has a master interposing between himself and God, nor a woman who doesn't have an obligation to fulfill all the mitzvos..."
And that's why the Conservative version, while it sounds nicer, totally misses the point.
Okay, I'll concede that the Conservative version may miss the *Talmud's* point, but I'd rather we do that than insult half the Jewish people, myself obviously included, just to make that point. "Blessed is the One who made me according to His will" is nothing but apologetics. I have no interest whatsoever in being compared to a slave on a daily basis. I'm a Bat Chorin (literally, a free woman, meaning that I'm not a slave), and I intend to stay that way. Baruch sheh-asani isha.
In case my point is not clear, putting women into the same halachic category as slaves raises the rather interesting question of whose slaves we are. And since *all* non-male personal halachic categories--women, slaves, minors, and (heaven help us) persons with certain disabilities--are described in comparison to the default, which is almost always male . . .
Let me try this in a calmer tone.
I'll start with a quote from a previous post of mine:
"Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Parshat Matot
. . .
It's rather sad that a woman of the biblical era had to be protected from the right and ability of her father, or, after marriage, her husband, to prevent her from keeping her vows. But I suppose that her being excused from keeping a vow was better than being held responsible for actions that she was not allowed to take. Apparently, the only females of any age who were considered independent agents free to make and carry out their own decisions were widows and divorcees. (See Numbers, chapter 30, verses 2-17.)"
Females were placed in the same halachic category as slaves because they, like slaves, were not "independent agents free to make and carry out their own decisions." It's no accident that the real meaning of the Hebrew word for husband--baal--is actually "master."
(Tangent: The word "baal" is also used in the bible to mean a pagan god. So calling my husband "baali" would be tantamount to calling him my lord and master. :( A man calls his wife "ishti," "my woman." Why doesn't a woman call her husband "ishi," "my man"? *I* certain do!)
Bottom line: One can say that the b'rachah/blessing "Baruch . . . sheh-asani ki-r'tzono, Praised is (the One who) made me in accordance with His will" means that a woman is so close to HaShem that she doesn't need to perform as many mitzvot/commandments as a man does, and/or that putting her husband's and children's needs first and maintaining a bayit b'Yisrael/Jewish home is a cherished role for women. Those are classic explanations/apologetics. But the biblical evidence leads me to interpret "Baruch sheh-asani ki-r'tzono" as a b'rachah in which a woman thanks HaShem for making her the functional equivalent of a slave.
From what I've read, some Orthodox women who do not wish to change the traditional wording of this blessing by saying "sheh-asani b'tzalmo/Who has made me in His image (the Conservative version) or "sheh-asani isha/Who has made me a woman," but find this b'rachah offensive simply skip this b'rachah completely.
Wow, so much to respond to.
1) If you don't like the blessings you don't have to say them but saying you'll conceded the Talmud's point but change the blessings is contradictory. You're only saying any blessings at all because they're prescribed by the Talmud. In addition the only blessings we have are those mentioned in the Talmud. No one has made up any blessings since the Talmud was finished 1400 years ago and it's a rule that we don't make any new ones up.
2) You might not be happy with how women are classified in the Torah and Talmud but many of those rules are reflective of those societies in which only men owned property which means that women relied on a man in their life, father or husband, to provide them with their needs. It is not required that a woman be financially and social dependent on her husbands. In halacha women can own property, have jobs, etc. just like men so the laws in this case are there for protection. Men, interestingly, have no similar protection.
3) Baal means "master" and in Talmudic Hebrew the word for "husband" is "ish". It's modern Hebrew that made the change.
4) You're not in the same category as a slave, otherwise it would be a combined blessing. Yes, you're a "bat chorin" but you still have a different set of mitzvah obligations from a "ben chorin".
The notion that a single woman was an independent single entity from her father is relatively modern in common law too. The idea that a married woman is a separate legal entity from her husband is < 60 years old in common law.
Do you and your husband sleep in the Master bedroom? The idea of a man as master of his domain is pretty entrenched in secular speech as well.
1)a. "If you don't like the blessings you don't have to say them but saying you'll conceded the Talmud's point but change the blessings is contradictory." I'll concede that the Conservative version of the blessings doesn't make the Talmud's point, but, with due respect, I don't accept the Talmud's point. Are we truly expected to believe that it would have been better for us human beings if we had never been created?
1) b. "No one has made up any blessings since the Talmud was finished 1400 years ago and it's a rule that we don't make any new ones up."
You get the benefit of my being home taking care of the hubby after yet another round of lithotripsy surgery (non-invasive, thank goodness)--since I'm home, I can check our siddur/prayer book collection.
Birnbaum Siddur (prayer book), 1949, p. 17, commentary: "Sheh-asani ki-r'tzono is mentioned by David Aburdarham (fourteenth century) as a recently introduced blessing to be recited by women."
Hertz Siddur, 1941, p. 20, commentary: "who hast made me according to thy will. These words were introduced when, in the Middle Ages, many women began to recite the whole of the Morning Service."
Birnbaum Siddur , p. 17, commentary: "HaNoten la-yaef koach (who givest strength to the weary) is not derived from the Talmud but is found in Mahzor Vitry, the liturgical work which was compiled in the eleventh century by Rabbi Simhah of Vitry, France, a student of Rashi."
Not only I do not concede this point, but the evidence indicates that the very b'rachah being discussed is the b'rachah that was written the most recently! Sorry, Garnel, but methinks you've shot yourself in the foot. :) (Don't worry--it happens to me more often than I'd like to admit).
2) The b'rachah certainly reflects the status of women at that time. This might also explain why "men have no similar protection"--they didn't need it. The women had to be protected from the men, not the other way around, because the men were the one who had the power.
3) If that's the case, I guess I have the developers of modern Hebrew too blame. What a rotten idea! :(
4) Why it isn't a combined blessing is a very good question.
"The notion that a single woman was an independent single entity from her father is relatively modern in common law too. The idea that a married woman is a separate legal entity from her husband is < 60 years old in common law."
My point precisely, Miami Al--this b'rachah reflects the status of women at the time it was written, rather than the status of women in our day.
"The idea of a man as master of his domain is pretty entrenched in secular speech as well."
That's true enough, but it's not a good reason for reciting an insultingly-worded b'rachah.
I find it interesting when people concede that blessings (and/or other things like halacha) were written when women's and men's statuses were different than they are now, and yet they still don't think they should be changed.
Judaism has a long and successful history of changing with the times. Why stop now?
> Are we truly expected to believe that it would have been better for us human beings if we had never been created?
Well that's exactly what the Talmud says. Yes, it's a pessimistic view that essentially says "Better to not try then to try and fall short". If we were never created we'd never sin. We live in a world where sin is so hard to avoid and repentance so hard to achieve. Chazal clearly felt the gains weren't worth the risks. Also keep in mind that this was not some off the cuff statement but the result of thirteen years of debate between the most brilliant minds our nation has ever produced. We can disagree but on what authority should that opinion be taken seriously by anybody? What are our qualifications?
Machzor Vitri is also not an innovative book but simply the oldest known siddur. As the Birnbaum notes, it was produced as the results of a question sent to Rav Vitri: how do we pray? As the Gemara in both Berachos and Megilla demonstrate, many of the prayers we take for granted today well predate the destruction of the Temple. Further, the machzor itself references material way back to the Gaonim.
As for "she'asani kirtzono", if it's a "recent" innovation it's because it was a response to a situation that simply did not exist in the times of the Gemara. I will therefore adjust my statement: we don't alter blessings as brought in the gemara.
> Why it isn't a combined blessing is a very good question
No, it's not. Slaves and women have different standings in halacha. A woman can own property, she has freedom of movement, etc. These are things a slave doesn't have and therefore it's demeaning to include women in a blessing with them.
Finally, refuah shleimah.
"Judaism has a long and successful history of changing with the times. Why stop now?"
Susan B., I agree. I think it's just a matter of timing. Orthodox Judaism does change, but changes occur much more slowly than within non-Orthodox Judaism. Just a few months ago, an Orthodox rabbi published a suggestion that men stop reciting the b'rachah/blessing "sheh-lo asani isha/who has not made me a woman" because it was insulting. This caused a major uproar in the Orthodox community. On the plus side, the idea is clearly being discussed, albeit mostly in the negative at this point, among the Orthodox. I'm not sure that I, myself, at 63, will live to see it, but I suspect that this b'rachah will eventually, either disappear from Orthodox siddurim/prayer books or simply not be recited. I went to one Orthodox synagogue in which all of the Birkot HaShachar/Morning Blessings, which include both the blessing in which men praise HaShem for not making them women and the blessing in which women praise HaShem for making them according to His will, were recited silently. This practice enables everyone to avoid the problem, because no one knows who's saying, or not saying, what blessings. :) It's a start.
Chabad services traditionally start at Pesuki D'Zimra. I doubt feminism was the cause for starting the custom, though.
Maybe not, but at least there's a precedent. :)
"Judaism has a long and successful history of changing with the times. Why stop now?"
Judaism also has a long and successful history of resisting change. Several times in Jewish history rabbis (some quite prestigious) attempted to remove the Kol Nidre prayer from Yom Kippur because it looked to people like it made Jews untrustworthy. Most people today know and accept the idea that the revocation of vows in Kol Nidre apply only to vows between a person and Hashem, not between people.
A number of posters here have pointed out that in context (whether the context is of the time the blessing was formulated or the context of being educated in what the reasons(*) behind the brachot are) the brachot are not misogynistic. The question (and I think it is an open question, not something with an obvious answer one way or the other) is whether the hurt feelings of those who either do not know the reasons behind the bracha, or those who know the reasons but feel hurt but it anyway outweigh the value of keeping our prayers intact.
(*) Another reason suggested by Rabbi Micha Berger is that the triad of prayers is a polemical response to Pauline Xtianity. Where Paul says that 'there is neither man nor woman, free nor slave, Jew or gentile, but all are one ...' the Rabbis reply - No. There are distinctions, and those distinctions are worth preserving.
Mighty Garnel Ironheart said:
" We can disagree but on what authority should that opinion be taken seriously by anybody? What are our qualifications?"
I don't believe that I need any qualifications to use my own intelligence and think for myself. What's the point in thanking HaShem for giving me knowledge (chonen ha-daat) if I don't have the right to form my own opinion?
"Machzor Vitri is also not an innovative book but simply the oldest known siddur." Thanks for the information. Next time I use the Birnbaum Siddur as a reference, I'll pay closer attention to the introduction.
" I will therefore adjust my statement: we don't alter blessings as brought in the gemara." Okay, I'm not crazy about that idea--as I said above, I think I'm entitled to form my own opinions--but at least it makes more sense.
"A woman can own property, she has freedom of movement, etc. . . ." Again, thanks for the information. My knowledge of halachah/Jewish religious law is pretty limited.
I forgot the most important part--Garnel, thank you for wishing my husband a speedy recovery. I'll be happy to convey your "refuah shleimah" to him. I'm delighted to report that the lithropsy procedure took place with no complications at all--my husband was even able to teach his accounting class last night, and is back to normal today.
"Judaism also has a long and successful history of resisting change."
Larry, good point. Judaism has always performed a balancing act between tradition and change.
"The question (and I think it is an open question, not something with an obvious answer one way or the other) is whether the hurt feelings of those who either do not know the reasons behind the bracha, or those who know the reasons but feel hurt but it anyway outweigh the value of keeping our prayers intact."
I think only time will tell. It's likely that this question will not be answered in my time (though it may be answered in yours).
"Where Paul says that 'there is neither man nor woman, free nor slave, Jew or gentile, but all are one ...' the Rabbis reply - No. There are distinctions, and those distinctions are worth preserving."
I'm not convinced that reciting these blessings in the positive negates their expression of gratitude to HaShem for having created distinctions among people.
Shira, that is wonderful news about your husband. I'm glad his recovery was speedy - may it also be complete.
Thanks, Larry. We hope so. The surgeon said that, if this round of lithotripsy doesn't do the job, he'll just leave (what's left of) this kidney stone alone, as long it isn't creating any problems (which it isn't, at the moment).
>>I don't believe that I need any qualifications to use my own intelligence and think for myself. What's the point in thanking HaShem for giving me knowledge (chonen ha-daat) if I don't have the right to form my own opinion?<<
As an American, you certainly need no other qualifications.
As a non-Orthodox jew, you certainly need no qualifications, but the more well-reasoned your position, the more weight it carries.
But from an Orthodox perspective, you are wholly unqualified to think for yourself. Not because of any particular deficits in your religious education, but because there are rules about these things. It's simply not yours to decide. As I understand it, one such rule prohibits you (and any individual) from "paskening" for yourself -- an extraordinarily un-secular concept. If you have a question, you must present it to your appropriately qualified [Orthodox] rabbi. If he feels unqualified to answer, then he seeks out another rabbi who is. And when you get the answer, you are obligated to follow it (so chose your posek carefully).
For the most part, this is unknown outside of Orthodox judaism. You and I are free to make these determinations on our own, with or without consulting an appropriate person, which you clearly do on a regular basis in these matters of fundamental theology. This maybe perhaps the biggest reason why Conservative judaism has lost any real claim to being a halachic movement. As one of my teachers recently put it, in a slightly different context but related to changes in halacha, in the absence of a "pious laity" none of this means very much.
First of all, great news about the husband. Just remember - lots of fluids! (Beer doesn't count)
> I don't believe that I need any qualifications to use my own intelligence and think for myself.
See, here's the thing. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it isn't. For example, when you see a medical professional do you rely on your qualifications or the advice of the physician? When you go to your lawyer do you tell him how to do his business? How about your tax accountant?
In America there is a strong sense of self-reliance and egalitarianism and that's sometimes a good thing. Certainly it's a big part of the country's greatness. But sometimes you need the help of a professional, you can't just decide for yourself. And halachic Judaism is one of those areas because of its complexity. It's completely analagous to doctors, lawyers and accountants. You can interact, ask questions but ultimately you need the professional to guide you.
"This maybe perhaps the biggest reason why Conservative judaism has lost any real claim to being a halachic movement."
TOTJ Steve, this may also be the biggest reason why I can't really claim to be a halachic Jew. While I take the masorah/tradition quite seriously, I'm not always ready to accept whatever it says as binding. I'm just too cussedly independent to give up my right to think for myself and make my own decisions.
"Just remember - lots of fluids! (Beer doesn't count)"
:)
Don't worry, Garnel--my husband's beverage of choice is now water, with green tea coming in second. His "cheat" is usually coffee. :)
" . . . sometimes you need the help of a professional, you can't just decide for yourself."
I guess that I just don't see choices regarding religious belief and/or observance in quite the same way as I see choices in such unavoidable matters as death and taxes, so to speak. :) My health, my taxes, and my legal situations often choose me, rather than the other way around. I'm simply not traditional enough in my beliefs to see Judaism as something that's a given, dictated to me from the outside, rather than something that I choose of my own free will.
Well, in theory, the result of your mitzvah observance, or lack there of, will be judged by the heavenly court. You wouldn't go into a Court of Law facing a capital charge without an attorney crossing the bar with you, you shouldn't go before the great Beit Din without a Halachic Counselor (qualified) Rav before you.
So while you are free to make your own decisions in the area of medical, legal, tax, accounting, or halacha, any actual judgement you face will be based upon how you comply with it.
There is no requirement that you consult a CPA to file your taxes, but if you do it wrong from lacking the expert, you are liable for the punishment.
Same thing with averot.
There is an interesting and particularly Israeli take somewhat related to this issue in Jewish Ideas Daily's article on Datlashim.
Miami Al, maybe it helps (or hurts, depending on your point of view) that I'm not convinced that an afterlife exists. So worrying about the judgment of a heavenly Beit Din that I'm not sure I believe in . . . I guess I'll take my chances.
Larry, thanks for the link. That's interesting reading.
Speaking of averot, what's the difference between an aver, a chet, and an avon? A sin by any other name . . . :)
Shira - it is amazing how many of your question I've had myselfonce upon a time.
First, a correction--that should be "avera."
Thanks for the linked explanations, Larry. I forgot all about the category of sin called pesha.
Rabbi Hertz (of Hertz Chumash fame) had the following to say in his commentary on the prayerbook (published after his death in 1946):
In his comments to the blessings in the early morning service thanking God who “has not made me a heathen,” “not made me a slave,” and “not made me a woman,” Hertz quotes a Prof. Abraham Berliner, who urged that these three be eliminated and replaced with the words “who has made me an Israelite.”
Hertz concludes, “He has rightly maintained that ‘to be filled with gratitude to God for having allotted to me the distinction of participating in Israel’s mission and destiny, is surely far more expressive than the present negative formula’” (page 21)
shira: You run in patterns.
1) Let me rant about my conservative shul, how it's hypocritical, not observant enough, too far, takes advantage of my husband.
2) Let me fantasize about the ideal community that I'll move to after my husband. Modern feminist orthodox/observant conservative egalitarian.
3) When people suggest of communities that come close, let me explain why they can never be.
4) Then I'll swing around and point to things that keep me from ever being orthodox.
You're not orthodox. You use a Conservative prayerbook. Nothing personal, but you have no dog in the fight of what Orthodox Jews do or say. You would be a lot happier if you just focused on yourself and your own observance rather than anything else.
Prof. Abraham Berliner, according to Wikipedia, was Professor of Jewish History and Literature at the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary (Orthodox) in Berlin. Nice credentials.
"You would be a lot happier if you just focused on yourself and your own observance rather than anything else."
I'll get there eventually, JDub.
Wow, mighty garner is very insightful. Thank you for so gently presenting your info, and really peeling away at all the questions with very sound logic. I'm in the process of becoming an orthodox rabbi and so is a lady acquaintance of mine, a conservative,. I just don't get it becoming a rabbi is learning certain halachic info, mostly to do with kashrut. A tradition for decades. And she seems like she just has to argue certain points against Judaism and learn some philosophy and phycology. So veered. It seems that conservative started to keep Judaism going for modern times but all my friends I grew up with who had conservative parents seem to have completely drifted from any tradition whatsoever and possibly in the running to marry non-Jews (G-D forbid). So the whole movement is running the opposite course in the words of rebbe Yosef issac of Lubavitch on such compromised movements " one wants to put out the fire using kerosene"
Post a Comment
<< Home