Continuing Thoughts On Inclusive Liturgy: The Imahot

[debka_notion]

I've been very slowly pondering the whole issue of the inclusion of the imahot (the matriarches) in the Amidah. The lines of reasoning that hotshot2000, hatam_soferet and shirei_shibolim have shared with me over the last semester have been rather persuasive. Between them, it is hard to argue that the benefit that making that change would have/has is more powerful than the combination of the halakhic arguments against making the addition and the lesser tradition that we have regarding the matriarchs' relationships with G-d. I'm still not sure that I quite stomach the second argument, no matter how clear it may be from the actual text: much like my classmates who still don't quite like to believe that the story of Abraham smashing his father's idols isn't in Tanakh, I still have this very egalitarian image of G-d's relationships with the Avot and Imahot based on the way I originally learned those stories, even now that I know the real text. But that in combination with the myriad halakhic concerns- well, I've mostly given up the practice in that context. I tried out the short piyyut that Rabbi Golinkin suggests, and it somehow does not carry very much liturgical power for me. Somehow the idea of entering into the matriarchs' tent is less relevant and less powerful than invoking G-d as the G-d of someone. The former is still very human-based: it's emulation-based, while the latter is theocentric, at least in the way that I've always seen it- at the very least, it's about the explicit connection between our people and G-d. Maybe there could be a more effective short piyyut waiting to be written, I don't know. I still feel like there's a little bit of a hole in my liturgy, but I'm adjusting.

On the other hand, I'm quite happily keeping my matriarchs in bentshing whenever I do the full text. I looked at the words that are paired with the matriarchs there and the words paired with the patriarchs, and those for the matriarchs seem just as fitting and no more of a stretch to select than those used for the patriarchs. And well, there are fewer concerns in that piece of text. So I guess if I want more chances to use women in liturgy, I just need to eat more bread/say All of birkat hamazon more often rather than stopping after the mandatory section. Somehow I have a feeling that this combination of practices will probably get me some funny looks someday, but oh well.

Comments

[jonahrank.livejournal.com]

Have you tried your own hand at piyyut-ing up a version that works for you?

[margavriel.livejournal.com]

Um... how about get five to ten years of training in the field of piyyut, and then start trying to write your own? Piyyutim are very difficult to write in such a way that both accords with the tradition and is halakhically fittable into the `Amido, which is theoretically an uninterruptable text. Note that the later Sepharadi posekim prohibit recitation of ANY piyyut during the `Amido. Yes, we Italo-Ashkenazzim disagree, but we should be very careful that said piyyut is acceptable. So, no piyyut-writing by novitiates.

[jonahrank.livejournal.com]

Mar, I am a bit hesitant to agree with you here. I am under the impression that the first person to compose a piyyut didn't receive 5-10 years of training in the field.

Furthermore, where and how does one receive training in the field of piyyut? Moreover, in a world that economically barely has a place for Jewish clergy and Jewish academians, how can one reasonably spend 5-10 years devoted to a specialized study that will earn them no financial security in life?

That said, I still would be curious to know who of the Sephardi פוסקים prohibit piyyutim during the Amidah and why.

[margavriel.livejournal.com]

That said, I still would be curious to know who of the Sephardi פוסקים prohibit piyyutim during the Amidah and why.

Who: The Rambam, followed by the Mehabbeir (i.e. the Shulhon `Orukh), and henceforth, pretty much every subsequent Sepharadi authority.

Why: Hefseik (forbidden interruption within the Tefillo).

[jonahrank.livejournal.com]

Would you happen to know where their prohibitions are recorded?

[margavriel.livejournal.com]

Rega`. I have to meet a friend at Pardes, and check out their curriculum, so I've gotta run. (Yes, I'm in Jerusalem, not NYC, so it should take me only 30 minutes, and not 14 hours, to get to Pardes. Ahem.)

I'll get you the sources later this evening.

[jonahrank.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

[margavriel.livejournal.com]

Mind you, my previous comment may have sounded a bit too arrogant and opposed to the writing of innovative prayer. I have no problem with the writing of innovative prayer, even by non-scholars-- but (unless written by an expert), it should be limited to the Tahanun section of davvenen / ohren.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

So where do you put an innovative piece of liturgy that you'd like to be a praise of G-d, or a thanksgiving, rather than the sort of thing appropriate for tahanun? I dislike the idea that, even if only due to the structure of the service, we can only innovate in supplications, not in praise- I don't like what that says about how we're supposed to communicate with G-d: it's very one-sided.

In any case, tikhines were historically inserted/substituted in other parts of the service than tahanun, although not that I know of in the Amidah... Is language a relevant factor here, somehow?

[margavriel.livejournal.com]

I did not mean to suggest that a novice could compose only supplications, and not praises. (Though, frankly, I see less reason for an individual to have eneed to compose the latter. But that's just me.)

I meant תחנון more in the technical sense of "personal prayers recited after the `Amido" than in the lexical meaning "supplications". (In any event, if you're concerned about lexical meanings, the word that you used, namely תחינות, is no more helpful than the one I used, for they both are denominatives from the Hithpa`el of חנן. Anyway...)

Perhaps praises of God would not work so well in the unstructured-part-of-the-service-after-the-Shemône-`Esrê-which-shall-remain-nameless, but why not? `Amido, private supplications and praises, and then Kaddesh. What's wrong with that?

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

Aha. I, however, am familiar with tahanun indicating a specific section of liturgy as its most prevalent usage, while tkhine, which yes, I did know came from the same root, is generally a term indicating prayers in Yiddish.

In your meaning, that works just fine- it was just unclear.

[jonahrank.livejournal.com]

First off, I apologize for having not seen this response before responding to your initial response to mine.

But, I am curious to know in this day and age though who is an expert in writing prayer.

Furthermore, though I may just be lost in the transliteration, but what is "ohren"?

[margavriel.livejournal.com]

ohren: The Western Yiddesh term corresponding to the Eastern Yiddesh "davvenen". (I don't know the Judaeo-Arabic, Ladino, or Judaeo-Italian terms, though I should probably lern them.)

[jonahrank.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the clarification.

I should let you know though for future reference (to save time and typing effort) that I do not speak Yiddish (currently anyway).