Berakhot 079

My response to Jacob Lewis' questions about the inclusion of the First Mothers into the first berakhah of the Amidah has caused no small amount of mail. I can only include here what is, I hope, a representative selection of your comments, with my own response kept to the barest minimum.

Jeff Silver writes:

You state that many "modern" congregations in the Conservative movement have adopted this custom [of including the Matriarchs] . I am somewhat disturbed by the implication that this represents an evolution, and that therefore those of us who prefer the text we learned from our grandparents are therefore less evolved. One is tempted to ask why respect for women requires a "tit-for-tat" accounting of liturgical verbiage. The traditional role of women in Judaism, while in many ways offensive to our modern sensibilities, is indeed an exalted one. Interpretations of niddah, for example, are possible that enable women (several of my acquaintances included) to be both ardent feminists – with successful careers in learned professions and decidedly progressive political views – and traditional Jews in matters of halakhah and liturgy. Nor is there unity within the Conservative movement on this issue. JTS has two daily minyanim – one traditional (separate seating included) and one "progressive" – mixed seating and "egalitarian" liturgy. So, for those who need this liturgical innovation in order to feel that women are given their due, more power to them. But for those of us comfortable that the traditional liturgy and modern respect for the rights and status of women are fully compatible.

David Bockman first quotes part of my explanation: The addition of the names of the Matriarchs to those of the Patriarchs in "Avot" is in no sense petitionary and does nothing whatsoever to affect the laudatory nature of the passage. He then comments:

True. I still do not feel comfortable adding the names of the Matriarchs [imahot] into the Avot section, or even the word imahot. I have this reluctance particularly because I find it to be a misreading of the original text, as if Avot meant only masculine parents. To me, this perverts the sense of the text. It is in no way talking about the sex or gender of the ancestors, but rather their ancestorhood and their close relationship to God, who is also genderless. It seems to me that our attempts to PC-ize texts does violence to them because we lose sight of deeper issues.

I respond:

I'm probably wrong in reading into Jeff's opinion a modicum of apologetics. I most certainly agree with David that the Hebrew term Avoteinu designates the female of our species as well. However, surely he is glossing over the fact that in the traditional text of Avot it is only the Patriarchs who are mentioned by name. I think both Jim and David are breaking down an open door! I wrote quite specifically: "There is ample justification for the inclusion of the "First Mothers" alongside the "First Fathers" as their spiritual partners in every sense – for those who wish to do so." Furthermore I specifically cautioned: "The fact that something is permitted does not make it mandatory." (In my own worship I do not (yet?) avail myself of this innovation.)

The following message comes from Jim Feldman:

On the issue of whether the Mothers of Israel were essential partners in the passing of the word of God to the people of Israel, I think that there is no more important act than Rivka's choice that Jacob rather than her first born should get the blessing as well as brides of her people. That this was without Yitzhak's knowledge and approval need not be said. What must be said is that her choice has determined who we are today. The "blessing" that Jacob "stole" was the mantle that Yitzhak got from Abraham. Who but God would have determined the bearer? And who but Rivka received and carried out that charge? Rivka saw to it that the tradition was maintained. A less powerful case can be made for Rachel. She was clearly party to Jacob's decision to move west and break with her father. Once again, this was a choice that was momentous for our people. My view is that in the original Torah version, the ladies carry their own weight. We need not apologize for including them in our prayers.

Leif Knutsen writes:

I thought it is interesting to note that both Abraham and Isaac had non-Jewish descendants, whereas all of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah only had offspring that were chosen to carry the Covenant. In other words, it was through the righteousness of the matriarchs and not the patriarchs that the Covenant was inherited.