debka_notion (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
debka_notion) wrote2007-05-08 11:33 pm
debka_notion) wrote2007-05-08 11:33 pm
Continuing Thoughts On Inclusive Liturgy: The Imahot
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 ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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).
no subject
no subject
I'll get you the sources later this evening.
no subject