Sign In Forgot Password

Parashat Vayeitzei, 6 Kislev 5774

Parashat Vayeitzei, 6 Kislev 5774
by Cantor Phil Baron

“The Forgotten Imahot”

 

I occasionally continue learning with my young students privately -- beyond the age of bar or bat mitzvah.  These are usually highly motivated students who want to improve their Torah reading or davening skills.  What teacher would not welcome students such as these?  Besides being a joy to teach, they often ask the most creative and challenging questions.

One of these students, a young lady of 15, recently asked me how I felt about the addition of the imahot – the mothers of our people (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah) to the Amidah prayer.  Traditionally, only the patriarchs have been mentioned, but about 15 years ago the imahot were added as an option to the Amidah.  Page 115a in Siddur Sim Shalom has the traditional Amidah with only the patriarchs, and 115b has the more inclusive version.  In our main service here at VBS we always include the matriarchs.

I told her that I saluted the editors of our siddur because, rather than mistranslating the Hebrew as is often the case (“Master of the Universe” instead of “King”, some references to chosen-ness, etc.) to attempt to be more egalitarian, they faced the issue head-on and boldly changed the text.  This took courage, I told her.

To my surprise, she responded that she disagreed with the change, and that she planned to write a paper on why this alteration of the sacred text was not only incorrect, but also unnecessary.  I smiled amusedly and wished her luck.

Please understand that this young lady is far from “frum”.  She herself frequently reads Torah and leads services at VBS and other synagogues in our community.  This is a future leader of our community, and certainly not reactionary when it comes to equal roles for women.  But something bothered her about this.

Last Thursday morning she proudly presented her six-page footnoted paper to me, and this past weekend I had a chance to go over it.  There is no way to do justice to her well-reasoned and thorough arguments in this space, but perhaps someday soon she will publish her paper in one of our journals. In the meantime, here is a short review, and you will soon see the connection to this week's parasha.

Her arguments begin with quotations from modern scholars, as well as Rabbi Eliezer, Maimonides and others who warn against changing our sacred texts.  From her paper: “In his Laws of Prayer, 4:19, Maimonides writes, ‘...he must say the entire prayer [the Amidah] in its correct form, the nineteen berachot [blessings].’ There must be a correct form of the prayer, otherwise Maimonides wouldn't write about it.”

All well and good.  But I know our rabbis thought long and hard about this addition to the liturgy, and after all, times change, right?

She also made the “slippery slope” argument, referencing Rabbi Joel Rembaum's article “Regarding the Inclusion of the Names of the Matriarchs in the First Blessing of the Amidah.” This article she says "...convinced the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly to allow the inclusion of the Matriarchs in the Amidah. One of Rabbi Rembaum's main arguments in favor of adding the Matriarchs stated that because the Conservative Movement has already changed the language of some of the prayers in their siddurim, we should consider changing the Amidah.”  One change leads to another, and where to you stop?  Okay, I can see that.

She went on to put forth many more logical arguments, but one grabbed me and actually made me laugh out loud.  If we were going to include Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah in the Amidah, what about Bilha and Zilpah? 

Here is where my story connects to this week’s Torah portion.  Vayeitsei is where we learn about the problems and jealousies surrounding Jacob’s two wives, the sisters Rachel and Leah.  Rachel, despite being Jacob’s true love, has been unable to bare children. As chapter 30 of B’reishit unfolds, Rachel makes the remarkable suggestion that her husband Jacob consort with her maid Bilha so that Rachel may vicariously experience the joys of motherhood.  He does so, and Bilha gives birth to Dan (“to judge, vindicate or bring victory”) and later, Naphtali (from “contest”). 

Clearly, Rachel has proprietary feelings for these two sons of Bilha. Nevertheless, isn't Bilha a real mother of our people? Leah, once past child-bearing years does the same thing (in 30:11), and her maid Zilpah produces another of Jacob’s sons -- Gad.  Shouldn't Bilha and Zilpah be honored alongside the other four matriarchs, or do they not merit a mention because of their lower class ranking in the tribe?  Or, as my wife rightly points out, are they really surrogate mothers?   In any case, how do we gage the importance of individuals in a narrative so far removed from our own experience?   Again, my student:

“The Reform Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) has written a responsum which says that the motivation for their change of the Amidah was to include all Jews, male and female….(and) they chose to include Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel because these women played a ‘pivotal role’ in the events of the Bible. This may be true, but it is irrelevant. Many characters played a pivotal role in the Bible, so why don't we include them in the Amidah? Why not include Moses, who spoke alone with God “face to face”?  Why not include Adam and Eve, the first humans? If we want to honor women who did something important, why not honor Shifra and Puah? “

I found myself nodding in agreement. She went on to explain how our tradition already elevates women above men in many ways, and why we don't need to pander (my word) to women in this way. Very interesting.

Space and the effort to stick to the events of Vayeitsei prevent me from including more.  Still, the story of Bilha and Zilpah does raise some important issues.  Or should I say, some issues are raised by important students.

Thu, March 28 2024 18 Adar II 5784