Introduction
I would like to preface this entry with the fact that this is not the first time I have opened up a traditional prayer and suddenly become aware of this blessing. I have known about it for quite some time; it's just that this is the first time I am giving it any in-depth thought.
For those who are not traditional Jews (e.g., feminists, most 21st-century Americans), I would not be the least bit surprised that you would be offended at the notion of there being a blessing that says "Blessed are You, Our L-rd, Our G-d, who has not made me a woman." With a blessing like this, one cannot help but think that this blessing perpetuates the fallacious idea that Judaism is a misogynistic, patriarchal religion.
[There are also two other "'who has not made me' blessings" that are contentious, thanking G-d for not making me a slave (initially "ignoramus") and not making me a Gentile. Although I would like to primarily focus on "shelo asani isha," I will occasionally mention the other two since the ruling on the one blessing is going to have bearing on the (in)ability to modify the other two blessings.]
At this time, we should ask ourselves two questions. Should we change the blessing, and are we legally capable of doing so?
Should We Change the Blessing?
Hillel taught (Pirke Avot 2:4) not to judge your fellow until you are in their place. Although that is literally impossible to be in someone else's identical scenario, the lesson that Hillel was trying to communicate is when judging, imagine how it is to be in someone else's position and make your judgement call from there. Although I am not a woman, I nevertheless imagine how I would react to this blessing if I were hypothetically a woman. I would be miffed, to say the least. When you say "Thank G-d for not making me a woman," it is a statement that institutionally speaking, women are inferior to men. Insulting 51 percent of your congregation is not the smartest move, especially since the Talmud (Bava Mezia 58b) teaches that "whoever shames his neighbor in public (e.g., a synagogue), it is as if he sheds blood."
It could very well be that a simple, literal reading of the blessing might be taken out of its overall context. One of the apologetic reasons given is that men have more responsibilities than women, thus the blessing. The certainly lines up with the Talmud's (Tosefta Berachot 6:18, Menachot 44a) reasoning that it has to do with an individual's ability to serve G-d. If it's a matter of having more burdens, you would think that the blessing would be "thank G-d I'm not a man," not the other way around, but maybe I'm over-analyzing this. Rashi opined that the reason for the blessing is because men, much like freemen, had a superior social status. If the Talmudic creation had these three blessings (that of the ignoramus, Gentile, and woman) linked in their creation, we run into a problem since Jews have historically been oppressed.
On a side note, I recall hearing a drash that women are actually spiritually stronger than men because man was created from dust (Genesis 2:7), whereas women was created from bone (ibid, 2:21), which is a stronger substance.
I would argue that re-framing the blessing in a positive statement, as opposed to the current negative statements, is better. When you say these blessings in the negative, it implies that it is unfortunate to be a woman or a non-Jew. It comes off as a disdainful claim of superiority. Since the Talmud (Yevamot 65b) says that the Torah was created for the sake of peace, traditionalists really should consider changing the blessing. The Conservative movement has been innovative in this respect. They changed this blessing into "Thank you G-d for making me in Your image." They also changed "who did not make me into a Gentile" into "who has made me a Jew." Such positive statements also exist in secular culture. When one says "I'm proud to be an American," they are affirming their identity with pride while not denigrating others in the process. The same principle applies here. Even better, such positive thinking helps with one's well-being. If I maintain the essence of the blessing while preserving the dignity of others, why shouldn't I be able to do so?
Can We Actually Change the Blessing?
The question we now have to answer is whether the halachic system gives us the leeway to modify, add, or subtract blessings. In order to answer that question, however, one has to discern whether the liturgy has remained fixed and monolithic throughout Jewish history. We need to first realize that liturgy developed over the ages, a lot of which was developed prior to Guttenberg's invention of the printing press. The probability that a people can maintain a consistently monolithic liturgy while spread across the world in exile is highly improbable because so many cultural, societal, and political factors need to be taken into consideration. As such, R. Josef Tabory and R. Daniel Sperber illustrate that the short answer to this question is an unequivocal "no."
In the two responsa by Rabbis Tabory and Sperber, they give multiple examples in respects to variations of liturgy. The fact that R. Jacob ben Asher created the "for having created me according to His will" for women in the fourteenth century already shows us we can add liturgy. If we need another non-related example of new creation liturgy, just think of Lecha Dodi, which was added to the prayerbooks in the Middle Ages.
In fourteenth and fifteenth century Provence, the blessing was modified to "who has made me a woman." Abraham Farisol, a fifteenth-century Italian scribe, even went as far as to put in "who has made me a woman and not a man." R. Josef b. Moshe, a 15th-century German rabbi, modified it to "who has not made me a brute." During R. Moshe's time period, it was practice in Austria to say "who has not made me an animal." Keep in mind that these are not modern-day examples, but examples from the Middle Ages.
Sperber is of the opinion that one should not change the general framework of the blessing, although the formulations were not immutable. His responsum ultimately concludes that because this is a practice that has occurred throughout the ages by prominent rabbis, there is plenty of precedence, not to mention permissibility for modifications, additions, and subtractions in liturgy. The Conservative movement ruled on this matter over twenty years ago when they decided to add the names of the Matriarchs in the Amidah.
Conclusion
Jewish liturgy has historically been anything but fixed and unwavering. Since time immemorial, Jews have added, removed, and modified when needed. The practice is well-established in Jewish legal history. From what I have presented, this capability has already been realized and actualized in the more liberal Jewish communities. The issue at hand is the more traditional/halachic communities since they are, by nature, more resistant to change. This resistance is brought upon by the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. For a large majority in the Orthodox community, if we change one thing, then everything will change and it will all fall apart, even if it's something as simple as a few words in a blessing. It might be more difficult to maintain the dichotomy between tradition and change in one's daily life, but I can tell you it's worth the effort.
Once again, I have come across yet another case study that proves that Jewish practice is not stagnant, but rather an evolving corpus that takes both traditions and the current scenario into consideration. When we change the blessing of "shelo asani isha" into something more positive like "Thank You G-d for creating me in Your image," it keeps our traditions intact while considering modern sensibilities within the parameters set by Jewish law. It is this sort of adaptation that has kept Judaism alive all the centuries, and will keep it alive for centuries to come.
12-31-2017 Addendum: I came across this wonderful piece from Orthodox Rabbi Avi Weiss on the topic. I am glad to see at least some of the Orthodox community is willing to honestly tackle issues in a modern-day world.
No comments:
Post a Comment