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]

On the other hand, I'm quite happily keeping my matriarchs in bentshing whenever I do the full text.

Where are our Ancestors mentioned in benshing at all? Aha, in the guest's blessing for the host. Sure, what the problem with adding anything you want in that paragraph (preferably in Classical Hebrew)? It's not part of the berokho, anyway. (As you call it: "after the mandatory section".)

I would add the matriarchs there (AFTER the words בכל מכל כל, since those refer specifically to the patriarchs), but I don't, lest I appear too liberal to my host.^*

*That is, if the host is more liberal than I, I don't want the host to think: "Aha, you're one of us."^** And if the host is less liberal than I, I don't want the host to think: "Aha, you're a heretic."

**Come to think of it, that's probably a stupid reason. Seeing as this is a blessing for the host, I should say whatever should make the host happy, as long as I don't find it offensive. I guess I should include mention of the matriarchs when the host is more liberal, and omit them when the host is less liberal.^***

***But what if I don't know the political/religious leanings of the host?