![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It's because people are all saying different things in that section, and no one quite knows what exactly to say, so everyone slows down to a mumble before picking up again.
From:
no subject
In my home, the mevoreikh (always a guest) says the entire text of ברכת המזון out loud, and everyone else merely says "Omein". כדינא דגמרא. Interesting, I rarely get any opposition from guests.
Since the mevoreikh is always a guest, Mmeile, when we get to the blessing for the host, only the guest is blessing the host. Which is the only way it makes sense. (Why should I be asking God to bless me? "Dear God: Thanks for the mediocre meal that I just quickly ate alone, before I rush off to the laundromat to do laundry. And please bless the fellow who made that meal. Oh, wait? That's me? Then please bless the master of this house. Oh, wait-- that's me, too? Well then, God, forget it. Lemme just omit this paragraph, and go do my laundry. Or whatever else I have to do." See how absurd this is? When parents are blessing their children on Friday night, do the children simultaneously bless themselves? Or do they bless their parents? Aaargh...)
From:
no subject
Your question why everybody says it all - why of course because that's the vogue. Everybody must say every word of the haftore, kaddish, benshen, chazores hashatz...
It makes a lot of what the one actually leading the part says, unnecessary or senseless, and makes people say Omein after their own broches and stuff.
At the seider, we had a friend who isn't "personally observant" but smoothly fits into an MO environment if necessary (he's not pretending to be frum). He said every syllable of the Haggode along with me.
A similar phænomenon concerns the remnants of responsary texts. Anem zmires often and increrasingly isn't said one vers chazzen - one verse the others, but aloud/quitely. So, for the Hallel's Ono hashem, we have several layers. Probably, originally the chazzen said it once, and the tzibber repeated/answered. Then, the chazzen said it, the tzibber repeated, the chazzen said it again ("as is printed"), and the tzibber repeated again. Nowadays, I hear it more and more often that the tzibber says the chazzen's parts along with him in a lower voice, because otherwise it wouldn't be kosher, would it? (A mix of "I'm frummer" and "You sure the oven is switched off? Better press again.")
So, it's quadrupled by people who're scrupulous not to repeat words for a tune, and people think if they don't, they said the broches before and after Hallel in vain.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject