I just got the pre-Friday morning class davenen email. So- the usual kvetch, which usually doesn't get written, but my usual audience is in Germany, so...
Ok, fine, they aren't doing P'sukei D'Zimra unless you do it on your own before coming or if you come at 7:45 instead of 8:00 to do so. I worry about the halakhic validity of this, as some folks will probably do neither. Myself, I'll probably show around 7:45 and such. And sure, niggunim and some silence are pretty, but couldn't we do Those before PdZ rather than after? Silent meditation is nice too, and even less problematic, although I'm iffy on the "speak up if you have something to say" thing that they'll be doing during it.
But well- I'm currently still fine with including the imahot in the amidah, although having been given a quick rundown on a list of problems with it, well, I'm sort of thinking about trying to find some other way of including my feminism in my davenen: I'm thinking a trip to the library to play with tekhines might be in my future. Maybe even tonight. So much more interesting than my homework... But, they're promising an alternative list of imahot. I'm wondering what this is going to include, and I'm sort of worried that this is going to involve Bilhah and Zilpah, and well- somehow that feels like it's pushing too far even conceptually, let alone halakhically.
Ok, off to the library. We'll see what happens.
Ok, fine, they aren't doing P'sukei D'Zimra unless you do it on your own before coming or if you come at 7:45 instead of 8:00 to do so. I worry about the halakhic validity of this, as some folks will probably do neither. Myself, I'll probably show around 7:45 and such. And sure, niggunim and some silence are pretty, but couldn't we do Those before PdZ rather than after? Silent meditation is nice too, and even less problematic, although I'm iffy on the "speak up if you have something to say" thing that they'll be doing during it.
But well- I'm currently still fine with including the imahot in the amidah, although having been given a quick rundown on a list of problems with it, well, I'm sort of thinking about trying to find some other way of including my feminism in my davenen: I'm thinking a trip to the library to play with tekhines might be in my future. Maybe even tonight. So much more interesting than my homework... But, they're promising an alternative list of imahot. I'm wondering what this is going to include, and I'm sort of worried that this is going to involve Bilhah and Zilpah, and well- somehow that feels like it's pushing too far even conceptually, let alone halakhically.
Ok, off to the library. We'll see what happens.
From:
no subject
The whole thing strikes me as odd. They don't want to force people who want/need/are indifferent to the standard/traditional pseudo-Ashkenazic davening model, fine. But why force people who like that model to daven something else? If it's because they want them to experience such a thing, that's fine -- but to do it in place of allowing them to daven as they see fit, is coercive and yucky. (I've gone to my share of Reform/Reconstructionist/joint/pseudo/whatever davenings -- on my own terms, and having chosen whether to daven in a different tzibbur first, daven privately first, or try to cram my halakhic requirements into the structure of their davening. The key is that I had the space to choose those things, and was not made to feel unwelcome by having done so.) Moreover, there are so many options within traditional Jewish cultures -- maybe someone should suggest a Karliner shouting service, or a Sephardic-style service (heck, try even try Nusah Sefarad or Edot haMizrah) where the sha"tz chants everything out loud (and/or different people chant the various psalms in pesukei dezimra).
I'll stop before I start ranting, but you get my drift. Good luck anyway (and I'm sure WLSS will need luck to get a minyan as well).
From:
no subject
What's the requirement for number of kaddishes? That one's new to me.
Well, in theory we could go to WLSS, daven shacharit, and then go to class and daven shacharit again, if we don't feel that class davening will fulfill our obligations. But we have to daven there anyways, so that makes it kind of off putting to go, do a full davenen, and then repeat most of it. I too have done some of the non-traditional davening things, and sometimes they're very nice. But being told that that's what I have to do gets irksome, and well, as a matter of opinion, most of my classmates need the experience with a standard traditional service, not with the experimental stuff. It's the traditional stuff that they need to learn to appreciate and feel comfortable with first and foremost, and a number of them clearly don't.
Those are good ideas, and totally within the realm of what we could do. The problem is that no-one knows how to lead them, while making up what you want to do makes it easier to lead. And those would be interesting and well, potentially useful experiences. (Certainly more so than playing music during davenen or journalling.) Somehow I think that a few fieldtrips would be more useful than this. But they want us to bond...
Thanks.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
got piyyut?
By the way, do you happen to recall where/when Rabbi Golinkin says/said this?
From:
Re: got piyyut?
Golinkin's teshuva on the subject can be found here (http://www.schechter.edu/responsa/0702.htm).
From:
Re: got piyyut?
There's probably a bunch of people (especially within a JTS social circle) who'd be willing and/or eager to write this piyyut if they understood the significance of it.
From:
Re: got piyyut?
From:
Re: got piyyut?
From:
Re: got piyyut?
I'd be happy to make suggestions though for people who possibly would be capable of writing a suitable piyyut for this purpose - in fact, people who are probably far more qualified than I am (since I - at least currently - have no degree in liturgy or some apprenticeship in piyyut and am pretty much self-taught).
From:
Re: got piyyut?
Appendix
A Piyyut about the Imahot
for Inclusion in the Avot Blessing
by Rabbi Dr. Einat Ramon
to be inserted after the words “l'ma'an shemo b'ahavah” :
Navo'ah oholei Sarah, Rivka, Rachel v'Leah.
Utehi gemilut hasdeihen lefaneinu b'khol eit u'v'khol sha'ah.
Translation:
Let us enter the tents of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. May their acts of loving-kindness be an example to us at all times.
From:
Re: got piyyut?
From:
Re: got piyyut?
From:
Re: got piyyut?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
feminism and immahot pt 1
For me personally, I say the immahot when and if they're on the page I've turned to (or in the case of Va'ani Tefillati [or other books where the option of the immahot is on the same page as the option without the immahot], whichever way I end up reading it - fairly randomly). When I am leading in WLSS, I say the immahot out of deference to those to whom including the immahot matters as they have no other outlet at JTS generally for davenen with a community where the immahot would be included. Generally my own inclusion of the immahot is cyclical in that nature. The only reason I recite it is because either it's there to be recited or to cater to somebody else for whom it is important.
I have simply never understood the absolute importance of adding in the immahot. Clearly without the immahot, there would be no lineage/heritage. But the lineage/heritage would also be lacking without Bilhah and Zilpah. It is important for Jewish women to be able to look at Jewish(-ish) female role models, but the Matriarchs are not used in the Amidah as role models per se - and I don't think that the Patriarchs or the Matriarchs as groups qualify as great role models. If the question of the immahot refers back to history, I still think it is historically bereft to ignore Bilhah and Zilpah.
Perhaps the next possible level would be to preserve any of those ideas as concepts working within monogamous relationships, but Jacob was not really in such a monogamous relationship with Rachel and Leah. Then we get to the idea of perhaps simply the institution of marriage (regardless of polygamy), and then I think we might be catching onto something, something that could build a second level to the section known as Avot (Ve'immahot): that we must see a monotheistic marriage as a relationship that is not divorced from God.
From:
feminism and immahot pt 2
Although I am egotistic and thus biased here, I think that this concept of viewing monotheistic marriages as relationships not divorced from God is a fairly nice read on the immahot. Yet, I am assuming that nobody outside of myself and possibly the 1 or 2 people taking the time to read this (yasher koach, by the way!) actually read the Immahot this way, and I highly doubt that the Immahot were ever included for this reason; I am more inclined to believe that the Immahot have come to be included for reasons similar to lineage or role models and such: hoping to egalitarianize a liturgical passage that is something of a silly passage anyway (as if Isaac was recorded doing so much that was so great aside from fathering kids, losing his senses [literally], and then mixing up the kids [although Jewish fathers have continued this threefold tradition for ages!], or as if a lineage is even possible with only men [the original reading of the Avot passage], or as if God had deep relationships with Isaac [besides calling for the akedah and then getting the angel to stop the akedah {and people wonder where Conservative Jews get mixed opinions from? Divine inspiration!}]) unless the names are read as little more than a chronology (because then you can't skip Isaac!); however, if the names are to be read as a chronology, then I believe that the names of the matriarchs - if included - should be included alongside (rather than after) the patriarchs (e.g. "Elohey avraham vesarah, velohey yitzchak verivkah, velohey ya'akov verachel veleah" [but the juxtaposition of two women alongside ya'akov, in its clear polygamous nature, might be considered a bushah too embarassing for a modern Jew's respect for human dignity/kevod haberiyot; so, the phrasing of this passage this way is questionable to the modern monogamous Jew {but so are references to sacrifices (which many modern monogamous Jews too omit)}]). However, perhaps the clearest reason that juxtaposition-by-relationship is not the way it is commonly recorded is that simply "elohey avraham, velohey yitzhak velohey ya'akov" is a quote from Exodus 3:6, and to insert any words in the middle of the quote would disrupt the quote, and from a specifically Jewish perspective, could be seen as disrespectful to the Torah as additions to the words of the Torah. So, I find myself uncomfortable with juxtaposing the matriarch names along the patriarch names in this format, and I find myself uncomfortable with reading the inclusion of the Matriarchs in a purely chronological sense.
In the end, my recommendation is that if one wants to read this as a chronology, then the matriarchs need not be included. If one wants to read this as a passage about monotheistic marriage, then the matriarchs must be included (unless you think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob actually married each other or something). Of course though, the chronology is only made possible in our story though via monotheistic marriage. Yet the words "magen Avraham", though based on Genesis 15:1, are anachronistic! In Genesis 15:1, Avraham is still Avram! So, for a passage based on chronology, the chronology doesn't even make sense in the traditional reading!
So, you are left with two options again:
1) the "Traditional" reading with an anachronism at the end
2) the "Immahot" reading that, has some new flavors to it, and may serve as an appeal to feminism or an attempt at egalitarianizing the prayer, but raises even more questions that the "Traditional" reading
If I would choose one over the other (rather than choose randomly when I daven), I would opt for the "Traditional" reading since it makes less sense less than the "Immahot" reading and is shorter: thus just a tad faster. History has shown what happens when people try to tweak a service by adding something in to appeal to modern tastes, and now we've got High Holiday Services that are longer than the films of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
From:
feminism and immahot pt 3 (speaking of long trilogies...)
Yet I follow what Hillel says in Avot 2:5 in my choice regarding immahot.
אל תפרוש מן הצבור
I follow the communal custom if I am the shatz or what seems most appropriate for the community in the situation.
ואל תאמן בעצמך עד יום מותך
I am actually quite sure that there is something flawed in either version of the Avot passage (yet I prefer one over the other).
ואל תדין את-חברך עד שתגיע למקומו
I do apologize if any of this has come across judgmentally. I am responding with my own stances on this and occasionally asking questions since I am curious for another perspective on all this.
ואל תאמר דבר שאי אפשר לשמוע, שסופו להשמע
Although I have not yet read a rendering of Avot including the Matriarchs which I feel is not flawed, I do believe that it is possible to compose a liturgical piece as such. If I'd stop reading blogs and realize that others are not picky about the same stuff of which I am picky, I'd probably try to do something of that sort actually.
ואל תאמר לכשאפנה אשנה, שמא לא תפנה.
Well, in writing this blog response, I did a fair amount of looking up different sources and such that allowed me to study now, so I'm not completely neglecting my obligations to study I suppose.
Yet I do have other studying to do and can't spend all day studying, so for the meantime I'll hold off on writing up a matriarch-inclusive version of Avot that makes more sense to me - unless there's popular demand for such a thing (which I would find ridiculous and amusing all at the same time).
Anyway, there's my two cents on the immahot and my beef (though I am vegetarian) with adhering to the inclusion of the immahot strictly.
(Fun fact: my favorite formula for the Immahot does come from Va'ani Tefillati.)