On Gender Inclusativity And Gender Neutrality, or on Liturgy in General

[debka_notion]

I tend to think a lot about various alterations and adaptations of liturgy: it's one of my favorite bits of mind candy, ever since in I think 6th grade, we were instructed to take the usual page 306 out of our prayer pamplets (those large-print sort-of bound copies of parts of the prayer-book that my shul used for it's 4-7th graders) and put in a new one- with the Matriarchs included. A fairly short while after that- a few years, I guess, they got the newer grey Gates of Prayer: the ones with "gender-sensative" language. And well, as ideologically happy as I am to have some of those additions, that version of liturgy just sounded really strange to me for a while. (This was before I really did All that much thinking about such things, so the ideology is a more recent overlay on the story, for one. Secondly, all that liturgy sounds a bit funny to me either way: the English is too darned flowery, but I'm talking about Outside of that.) Going from "Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our G-d, the Lord is one" to "Hear oh Israel, the Eternal is our G-d, the Eternal is one" was just strange (once again, ignoring the fact that sometimes I think it would work better to start off with "Listen Up, Israel", with perhaps the addition of "you there, stop talking in the back: don't you think G-d can hear you?"- ahh, too many formative years spent teaching religious school).

I've been happier since I swapped to a rather more traditional liturgy, to the point of getting annoyed with the Conservative shul at home where they cut most of Psukei D'Zimra, etc. Overall, I'm a traditionalist- I don't Like making changes, I think the usual Hebrew is pretty powerful, and albeit I've only been using this liturgy for a couple of years, but it still randomly amazes me. I have a tendency to think that anything that's worked this well for this long must be pretty good, and one should have a pretty strong reason to want to change it.

But still- there are some textual changes that I just can't bring myself to unmake. (I definitely have issues about asking to reinstate sacrifices, although I have no problem, and in fact like, mentioning what they were- I like the connection to the past as well as the future that that provides. But that's another issue.) At this point I'm comfortable adding the matriarchs to my prayers when the patriarchs are mentioned, and while I have no objection to other people not doing so- after all, I remember making that modification myself: it's hardly some ancient tradition, I have no desire to stop mentioning them. I do hold that since masculine plurals include the feminine in Hebrew, that's just the way the language works, that saying "Avot v'Imahot" (the Patriarchs And Matriarchs) is making it seem like the matriarchs weren't being included before in what is a fairly general term. I have similar issues with the idea of using the completely traditional liturgy for the morning blessings: I have no problems with thanking G-d for creating me in G-d's image, or with men thanking G-d for not creating them as women: I understand the reasoning behind the blessing, and in non-egalitarian contexts, it does make sense. But the idea of making the two equivalent bothers me, especially since as much as the apologetics about women being on a higher spiritual plane are pretty and flattering, I just can't believe them. If that were true, why couldn't everyone thank G-d for being made in G-d's image and also thank G-d for not being the other gender?- after all, either way, one has a reason to be glad. (I do know that it would break the train of logic, but I'm sure there's some explanation that would work just fine.)

But if I'm such a traditionalist in my general practice, why are there some changes I just can't quite stomach for my own use? I guess that at some level my general philosophy kicks in a bit too strongly. Luckily the liturgy used at most minyanim where I'd be most comfortable matches my preferences pretty well. When I go home- not so much, and when I go to Orthodox (capital O) shuls, no- but over all, it works. That said, I often find passages of the liturgy that I originally found difficult and hard to say the most meaningful, because I invested so much energy into them and how to make them meaningful rather than insulting or theologicaly disturbing. So what makes these different? Is there some line past which I can not make things workable for me? Or is it that I haven't tried hard enough? Not that I'm unhappy with the liturgy that I use- I'm not, but it does make me wonder.

That all said, (to change tracks a bit) there's a Big difference between making things gender-inclusive and trying to make them gender-neutral. Adding matriarchs, or making oneself more aware of feminine G-d imagery, or potentially feminine G-d imagery (since the Rekhem/Rakhamim connection is really only folk etymology, although on the other hand it's awfully convincing folk etymology, and that stuff leaks into Jewish theology all the time anyways) is rather significantly different from the efforts, mostly in English, to utterly remove gender from the text. It feels like a bumbling attempt to rob the liturgy of some of its meaning and power. Non gender-specific G-d language just feels forced, and it is often a bad translation, since that's a concept that doesn't really exist in Hebrew. I admire the idea, as I often do with innovative liturgy, but I find the use much less significant than the original text or something closer to the original text. I suppose I'm more comfortable adding material to the text than changing it- which, as I write this, seems like a particularly Jewish attitude.

Comments

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

Curiouser and curiouser. As time progresses I develop more and more qualms with liturgical alterations and I go to great lengths to avoid them.

I say sh'asani kirtzono

(1) Because I dislike alterations, in a very visceral way.
(2) I will use that moment to thank God for giving me the opportunity to face the extra challenges being egalitarian presents.
(3) It seems arrogant to me to say b'tzalmo. I'm not sure why. But it does.

I think that Rambam says that we will not offer sacrifices after Moshiah comes, and that instead we will pray. He holds that prayer is better than sacrifice.

Curiously, I don't have so much of a problem with attending a service that makes the alterations, just so long as my private words don't change.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I don't necessarily have a problem with she'asani kirtzono either- just that it carries the connotation that as G-d willed isn't as good. It isn't the words themselves, it's the comparison that goes on that irks me, still. But many thanks for the correction- I was misremembering the traditional actual liturgy.

I treat the "b'tzalmo" as a reminder that we Are created btzelem elokim, since it pairs well, as in the popular story, with the "vnafshi k'afar lakol t'hiyeh" at the end of Shmoneh-esrai.

I'm aware of, and pretty happy with the Rambam's stance there- but standard liturgy doesn't seem to be. So- oh well. Not sure how that would all hold together. But that's one of the reasons I'm happy to put the sacrificial stuff in the past tense instead of future- there is an older source behind it as well.

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

The vast majority of those who say sh'asani kirtzono/sh'lo asani isha will tell you that sh'asani kirtzono is as least as good. Some say better.

In a fuzzy sort of way (I'm suddenly realizing that almost all of my liturgical decisions are on fuzzy grounds....) I dislike past tense on the sacrifices because implicitly it leaves the Temple in the past tense. Your take on the Rambam is curious....his position actually makes me immensely comfortable with na'aseh v'naqriv. Rambam is comfortable with the idea that there will be a third Temple, despite the lack of goat blood. He does not tie the Temple to actual performance of sacrifice. However, since davening does, I feel that past tense abandons the notion of the Temple.

blah blah blah....this is too incoherent. I'll try again tomorrow.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I think I'd be perfectly happy with kirtzono if both men and women said it. Aren't we all supposed to be thankful for being made according to G-d's will?

I didn't know that b'tzalmo was an alteration in the text until somewhere in my teenage years -- my siddurim always said b'tzalmo. Therefore, that bracha feels like perfectly traditional liturgy to me.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the first statement.

As for the second- I grew up in a reform setting: at this point nothing feels like it has quite teh weight of tradition and long contact that most people associate with traditonal liturgy. So maybe it all seems a bit more fluid to me than to most folks.

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

Of course, I can go you both one better.....

I've heard some say that an implication of the different b'rakhot is that men are not made according to God's will. That may not be a mainstream opinion, but it's definitely out there.

Perhaps one of the reasons I dislike liturgical changes so much is because I do not have a lifelong Jewish grounding of any sort. To make a change in some ways severs a tie to a past that I need to make mine, since I was not born to it.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I think we're approaching the same idea from two sides: the traditional liturgy is not our first liturgy, although to rather different extents, and therefore we might perceive it a bit differently from people who grew up with it- whether we are looser or more strict with it is almost irrelevant: in both cases we regard it as something we have to appropriate for ourselves in a way that they might not. Or maybe they do- I have no way of knowing if that's something that well-aware folks who grew up with their liturgy go through as well. I rather hope so.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I rather think that there used to be a really good word in English to translate shema, but it's gone.

Hwaet, O Israel!

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how old that version of English is, but if it the language in which you are most comfortable davening, go for it. If you tell me enough about this word to (1) pronounce it and (2) use it correctly I'll try to incorporate it into my speech.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

It's in Old English (i.e. pre-1066) -- it's actually the first word of Beowulf.

The beginning can be approximated "HWAET, I will tell you the story of the Spear-Danes..."

Pronounce the word as if you're saying "what", except get the [h]-sound before the [w], and make sure you end with an unvoiced [t].

A definition is rather tricky; in this context it means, very approximately, "Pay attention because I'm starting to recite an epic poem." People translate it "listen", or "so", or don't translate it at all.

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

Get me a spear....I'll try to use it tonight, preferably at dinner. The next time I need to recite an epic poem, I'll know how to attract an audience.

A First Round of Thoughts

[thevortex.livejournal.com]

To the best of my knowledge, p'sukei d'zimra was not originally designed to be said in its entirety (Shirei_Shibolim, any clue?). I would infer that, given that it can be said without a minyan, p'sukei d'zimra is meant to be a personal preparation for approaching God during shakharit. As such, one says what one needs to, and then joins the qahal at barkhu (I get so amused by the different transliterations, btw, especially my internal inconsistency with them).

When it comes to textual changes, I tend to go with what makes the prayer meaningful for me. Some people have a visceral need to feel the genderlessness of God, and also a need to overtly and concretely state that God is the God of both men and women. While I very much disagree with the principle, it is a personal choice, and one that each person needs to consider in his own prayer. The major issue in this vein has to do with leading the prayers, because then the shat"z is (by definition), representing everyone. I have no solution to that one, and I am not going to bother positing one.

Traditional prayers are useful insofar as they link us to the past and provide continuity for our people.

More on this soon...

Huzzah!

The Vortex

Re: A First Round of Thoughts

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I have no idea about exactly how Psukei D'Zimra came into its present form, but I do know that there are certain halakhically accepted ways of cutting it, and that yes, it is better to say some of it with intent than to rush through all of it- at least in some circumstances: I was never precisely sure on that, just that I'd rather have another moment on many of the psalms at the speed they're often read. But the shul I go to at home does not cut in the halakhic order: they do Baruch She'Amar, Yoshev B'Seter Elyon, Nishmat Kol Khai, and Yishtabach, and that's it (clearly this is for Shabbat- I ought to go during the week, I tend to daven on my own instead). In theory this is close to the correct minimum, substituting Ashrei for Yoshev B'Seter. I'm just picky- I really like Psukei D'Zimra, and really wish they'd do more of it, if not all. I often read more of it during the sermons, which are pretty darned bad- but still: it would be a nice thing to say at least a bit more of it.

[qianian.livejournal.com]

Maya, at first glance I thought for once you were going to talk about one of my favorite taboos.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

Sorry Qian, it was another weird Jewish shtick. Maybe I'll write about real society sometime. Taboos, though?

[qianian.livejournal.com]

you know, gender?

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

That's a taboo? Taboos are things you're not supposed to talk about/do. To quote my reading for class we '"do gender" all the time'. It's sort of hard to escape. And we talk about it too. So I'm still not sure where you're getting at.