Why Can't We Change The Prayerbook?

After all, it contains blessings that are problematic – especially blessings that seem to insult women and non-Jews. So shouldn't we change it?

 

There are three problematic blessings in the daily prayerbook [siddur]: “Blessed are you God, King of the Universe, Who has not made me…” 1. “a goy [non-Jew],” 2. “a slave," and 3. “a woman."

Yehuda Mirsky at Jewish Ideas Daily writes:

…The three blessings in particular seem to have originated outside Jewish circles. From the third century B.C.E., we find written record of a quip, ostensibly attributed to Socrates, that expresses gratitude for having been born human and not a brute, a man and not a woman, Greek and not barbarian. An analogous one-liner circulated in Zoroastrian circles. The Jewish formula, a version of which first appears at about 200 C.E., was unconnected with the dawn blessings and was recorded in a different tractate of the Talmud (Menahot 43b).

That changed during the centuries known as the Geonic period, when the great yeshivas of Babylonia emerged as the leading institutions of Jewish learning. The first text featuring both sets of blessings is the Sefer Halakhot Gedolot ("Book of Major Laws"), circa 750-825, and soon thereafter they were amalgamated into a single set. Although the details of the liturgy remained in flux for centuries, by the early Middle Ages the basic text had stabilized into what we know today: the full complement of blessings, recited not at home but in the synagogue.…

So, if the origin of the three blessings is from ancient non-Jewish society, and if they weren't really fixed as part of the siddur (prayerbook) until the Middle Ages, we should be be able to change the blessings or eliminate them altogether, right?

Haredim and many Centrist Orthodox Jews would immediately say no. After all, we resist all change. The Hatam Sofer's aphorism, there's nothing new in the Torah innovation is forbidden by the Torah, should prevail unless there is an extremely pressing need. And accommodating women and non-Jews are not truly pressing needs. So we will not do anything new.

The problem?

All of the changes feminists and others want to make today were already made in some communities long before the Hatam Sofer lived.

Yehuda Mirsky continues:

…In the 13th century…when it came specifically to the goy of the dawn blessings, Jews also took positive action to alter the text: either substituting a euphemism (like "Samarian"), employing the affirmative statement, "Who has made me a Jew," or skipping the line entirely.…

The "slave" blessing was problematic for another reason. The Hebrew word eved means not only slave but also servant and, more to the point, serf—which is just what many Jews in medieval Europe were.  Some therefore eliminated the blessing altogether, some embellished it (as in: "Who did not make me a slave to humans"), and some replaced the troublesome word with "boor" or "beast."

What about "Who has not made me a woman"? The first real alternative phrasing for women at prayer was "Who has made me according to His will," which appears early in the 14th century in the authoritative code of Jacob bar Asher. It seems to have been intended as an expression more of acceptance than of empowerment, though it also testifies to the engagement of women in the religious life of the time. In southern Europe in the 14th-15th centuries, women using the Judeo-Provençal vernacular adopted a more assertive stance, intoning "Who did not make me a man" or "Who made me a woman."…

So why can't we change the prayerbook?

I don't see a valid halakhic reason not to.

Comments

[Office of the Chief Rabbi]

If you'd wander into a pluralistic Jewish book store, one that furnished siddurim other that fArtscroll, Tehillas haShem, or Rinat Yisrael, you'd see that Sim Shalom of the Conservative movement and the Reformim's Gates of Prayer and now Mishkan T'fillah do indeed say "...who has made me a Jew שעשני ישראל" "who has made me free בן-בת חורין" and "who has made me in the Divine Image בצלם אלהים"

The Orthodox are all looking over their right shoulders and are afraid to make changes.

[Deremes]

Without even reading this garbage i will say that that's what the Jews who wanted to reform Judaism were saying at that time too.And they were successful because most them if not all of their descendants assimilated and by now they don't even know that their grandparents from generations back were Jewish.

So while Orthodox Judaism is flourishing you cant say the same on Reform Jews. Because very few who are Reform Jews now,most probably if not for sure their children will marry a shiksa/shaigetz

[R. Wisler]

The whole Jewish religion stems from (the earliest) 200 AD. From what I've seen, there is absolutely no resemblence whatsoever between what is practiced today in Orthodox Jewish circles and what Josephus, the Apocryphal books, and Philo describe as Jewish life at the time of the Temple.

The Jews of today are not observing the Torah as was observed in Temple times, but rather they observe a religion invented by the Babylonian rabbinical academies which invented all of this stuff (including the morning blessings) between the 3rd and 9th centuries. In fact, one could argue that Islam and Judaism were concurrently developed.

[Orthoprax not Orthodox]

R. Wisler - you are correct in your general point, but you are about 1,000 years too early. The Judaism practiced by the Central to Right Orthodox was largely codified in 16th and 17th century CE. Innovation has always been a hallmark of Judaism, but several factors combined at that time to freeze the innovative spirit out of Orthodoxy, resulting in the stultified and stagnant practices of today's Orthodox.

[tooclose2detroit]

seems like semantics to me-if you say "who has made me a jew" you are thanking him for not making you a goy-same for woman-if i were a goy (an since i know something about drugs, maybe I am) i would be as offended by "who has made me a jew" as "who has not made me a goy".

[Pinchos B Elozor]

I love *read detest* these pseudo intellectuals posing as learned sages. I further detest and pity all you self hating, ignorant and pathetic members or contributers of this blog. I suggest trying harder at concealing your pathetic attempts at soothing your consience in your miserable company.. Its pathetically transparent. I am certain the ribbono shel olom has reserved a special place "next door gan eden" for you all.
Next time I look for news in the Jewish world, ill be sure to skip this sorry address.

Rachmomno Litslon Mahai Daytachem

[Yona]

1. Then God says, "And they're asking I should heal the sick; of whom, of Jews. Of course, they don't care about anyone else. Well, I'm not interested."

2. Tefilin, Mezuzah, Learning Torah, Meat & milk, Shchitah, reading Parshas Amalek etc etc, are all later inventions. No where mentioned in Tenaach.

[Shmarya]

Without even reading this garbage…

Posted by: Deremes | March 23, 2011 at 01:41 PM

Of course.

Reading this "garbage" forces you to confront an inconvenient truth.

By all means, continue to wallow in your ignorance. It suits you.

[Shamariya Gershon]

I thought the Chatam Sofer reinterpreted a mishnaic dictum rather than invent a new aphorism. I thought the original dictum is from Mishnayot Masechet Orlah 3:9, and says that "Chadash assur min ha-Torah b'chol makom," that new grain is forbidden by Torah command everywhere. Then, in a t'shuvah, the Chatam Sofer reinterpreted "chadash" (new grain) to mean "innovation," in his case, specifically referring to moving the Ba'al Korei's place from the middle of the congregation to the bimah up front in the fashion of Reform synagogues who were imitating Protestant church choreography. Thus, the Chatam Sofer's reinterpretation would read, "Innovation is forbidden by the Torah," rather than, "There is nothing new in the Torah," as stated above.
This was clearly a reactionary response against the then nascent Reform Movement. But reactionary responses have a long history in rabbinic Judaism, seen most clearly in the Talmud as dicta issued against "heretics," forbidding us to do things we formerly did because it looks like something "they" do. There is value in this; it is a powerful way to draw boundaries between "us" and "them." I am not trying to suggest that all boundaries be erased. Just the opposite; I appreciate identity boundaries.
Perhaps the question is more along the lines of how do we know which Torah values argue more strongly for a conservative, reactionary response and which Torah values argue more strongly for an innovative response in any given situation or context? For example, in the case of these b'rachot, does minhag avoteinu hold more weight, or does the concept of, say, kavod ha-briyot or even Tzelem Elokim hold more weight in determining appropriate worship behavior?

[YbM]

i understand that minhag italia's nusach (neither sefardi, nor ashkenazi) is something along the lines of
"...who has made me a Jew שעשני ישראל" "who has made me free בן-בת חורין" and "who has made me in the Divine Image בצלם אלהים" or something like that.

[theman]

look how far change has gotten the reform,conservative and reconstructionist.... they are all going bankrupt--- i understand how someone might get insulted but education as oppose to reform usually works best

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Shamariya Gershon | March 23, 2011 at 02:23 PM

I think what this post proves is that the Hatam Sofer and his followers were wrong because these specific changes already existed pre-Reform and were in fact still in use in some communities.

[tooclose2detroit]

look how far change has gotten the reform,conservative and reconstructionist.... they are all going bankrupt--- i understand how someone might get insulted but education as oppose to reform usually works best
theman
Mr Man-even though their changes havent done them alot of good in the long run, I still have never dug the words of these brochos-they have always seemed insulting and i have never bought the arguments that they are not.

[Reb Barry]

There are indeed many different approaches: a typical Conservative siddur is VERY similar to an Orthodox siddur, changes mostly limited to the three brachas you mention plus some fiddling with the wording in Musaf. A Reconstructionist siddur, on the other hand, is so different from a standard siddur as to be almost unrecognizable: Kaplan's philosophy was "if you don't believe it don't say it" so they really chop up the siddur.

Personally, I prefer to stick with the traditional wording and struggle with how to make it meaningful for me. Rambam also was not a big fan of korbanot, yet I'm sure he still said the traditional nusach for Musaf. If everyone makes their own siddur, soon we don't have Judaism, but rather everybody's own "ism"...

[Deremes]

""Reading this "garbage" forces you to confront an inconvenient truth.

By all means, continue to wallow in your ignorance. It suits you.""

The truth? a pre- April fools day

I cant stop laughing. Go into a mental institution and see how many there believe that today is New years and they are now on Mars.

Not worth even responding to this joke

[Shmarya]

Not worth even responding to this joke

Posted by: Deremes | March 23, 2011 at 02:56 PM

You can't respond to it because you are far too ignorant.

[Loshon Hora]

I always was taught those brochos to mean Sheloi Asani Isha, because she has less mitvos than I, she doesn'have mitvas asei shehazman Grama or Pru urvu, same on eved reffering to an eved knaani, who is half a convert & has Pru Urvu . & a Goy who has only & mitzvos.& the order they are said
Those brochos are thanks that I have more mitzvos.
They are not to degrade or discriminate. Unfortunatlt the Artscroll has gotten away with making up their own transalations and explanations as they please, & have forced the Rabbis to accept & not act.
If Hatam Sofer was living in my opinion he may well have banned Artscroll & branded them in the reform package, but I may be wrong.

[tooclose2detroit]

You can't respond to it because you are far too ignorant.

Posted by: Shmarya | March 23, 2011 at 03:02 PM

Shmarya-you always use the word ignorant incorrectly, in my opinion-ignorant means to IGNORE something that you already know-you seem to use it commonly as an attack on someone who says something that disagrees with you-they MAY be wrong, but that doesnt make them "ignorant", ya know what I'm sayin?

[theman]

shmarya---- why are you so angry and vicious with your replies?????

[jay]

S: (adj) ignorant, nescient, unlearned, unlettered (uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication) "an ignorant man"; "nescient of contemporary literature"; "an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issues"; "exhibiting contempt for his unlettered companions"
S: (adj) ignorant, illiterate (uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field) "she is ignorant of quantum mechanics"; "he is musically illiterate"
S: (adj) ignorant, unknowledgeable, unknowing, unwitting (unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge) "he was completely ignorant of the circumstances"; "an unknowledgeable assistant"; "his rudeness was unwitting"

[Yochanan Lavie]

The Italian nusach, as far as I know, says "she'asani ish" and "she'asani isha." Anyway, not that anyone asked, I say "she'asani ish." The Conservative bracha is nice, but changes the whole meaning of the bracha- IMO, that we're gendered beings.

[aaa]

I think that the Bracha of Shelo Asani Isha is very much on the mark. When a man wakes up in the morning, and sees that he's a man and not a woman, he says Thank You G-d for not making me a woman. Do you realize how oppressed woman are around the globe and throughout history? Only in some societies are women held up to a high standard (and generally were as well by Chazal). But look at 'traditional' Muslim societies (and there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world), and see the standing of women. Go through Africa. Look at the trafficking of women throughout the globe. Chazal understood that this is the unfortunate existential existence of humanity (with the rare exception of some cases), and wanted us to recognize it and acknowledge it, and the brachos reflect this.

[Adam Neira]

The Pentateuch, five tools in Ancient Greek, is the primary base. The rest of the Tanach is secondary. All the intepretation, commentary and references later are of less importance. Getting lost in the forest of detail whilst ignoring the trees is a problem.

[Maple Bacon]

theman--are you M.B.?

[ah-pee-chorus]

Chazal understood that this is the unfortunate existential existence of humanity (with the rare exception of some cases), and wanted us to recognize it and acknowledge it, and the brachos reflect this.

Posted by: aaa | March 23, 2011 at 04:44 PM

so chazal endorsed, defended, promoted and accepted as holy a book which demands discrimination of women in almost every aspect of life, and then chose to acknowledge this as some unfortunate result of the way the rest of the world perceives women? you have got to be kidding.

[Jeff]

Shmarya, you seem to be getting more than the usual number of idiot trolls lately. It's as though you were putting out frum pheromones as bait.

[Jeff]

look how far change has gotten the reform,conservative and reconstructionist.... they are all going bankrupt-

And your world is committing mass suicide. Check back in a generation and we'll see who's still standing.

[x-reform jew]

I think the better question is: why should we change the siddur? While, the prayer maybe something that one struggles with, it does not mean that we should get rid of it. I think the reason that the other groups are losing jews and their connection to judaism is that we have lost our ability and desire to question. Now, if we don't like it, we change it....

[martin nerl]

shmarya. 1st i bought the hebrew english
siddur. then i bought the pocket siddur then i bought the interlinear one.then i bought the new hebrew english one. now you want to change it again. i cant afford to buy another siddur. do you work in artscroll's marketing department?

[theman]

shmarya--- rumor has it that you begged to get onto cnbc's show.... do u wish to comment???

[Yoel Mechanic]

In today's world: anyone who gets offended by these Brachot is probably someone who get offended easily. Hm... now where do we see this?

[Neo-Conservaguy]

There are indeed many different approaches: a typical Conservative siddur is VERY similar to an Orthodox siddur, changes mostly limited to the three brachas you mention plus some fiddling with the wording in Musaf.

Another notable change is the addition in the last brakhah of the Amidah to include mention of "everyone else" in the prayer for peace, following (as SMR is pointing out) a much earlier precedent by Rav Saadia Gaon.

There is a nice sequence of notes explaining the history of the siddur in the Conservative Movement here:

http://www.shalomkaiman.com/Entering%20Into%20Jewish%20Prayer%20IV.pptx

I'm no fan of the choice to screw with the Avot brakhah, but as for earlier changes, they were made by scholars at JTS at a time when that really meant something, scholars that forgot more than most modern rabbis - Orthodox and Conservative - will ever learn.

[Truth Pursuit]

Funny, I always understood these blessings as a way to bolster the man's resoluteness towards his own (larger) obligation. From childhood a boy looks around and realizes that his non-Jewish neighbors don't keep mitzvos, his sister can fulfill her obligation to pray without going to shul or even completing a full davening... so to boost his moral, instead of looking at the negative he thanks Hashem for his role.

[masortiman]

"The Italian nusach, as far as I know, says "she'asani ish" and "she'asani isha." Anyway, not that anyone asked, I say "she'asani ish." The Conservative bracha is nice, but changes the whole meaning of the bracha- IMO, that we're gendered beings."

Perhaps because I also daven in orthodox shuls, when I read the Masorti brachot, I also have the older versions in mind - so I recall that I am created b'tselem elohim, and also as a gendered being.

But I wonder - in this time when people are killing each other around the world, sometimes in the name of (distorted and hijacked) religion, when our children's futures are endangered by climate change, when we seem to be losing the great hopes for human redemption that arose after the fall of communism - perhaps it is more important to be reminded that we are all created B'tselem elohim, than that we are gendered?

and since at that point I have just thanked hashem for making me a Jew, a universal reference is appropriate.

[masortiman]

"his sister can fulfill her obligation to pray without going to shul or even completing a full davening"

it hurts his morale to know she is home helping his mother prepare shabbas lunch?

[Ichabod Chrain]

Truth Pursuit,
Why would you thank Hashem for giving you an obligation and then allowing you to fulfill it? (I mean aside from the fact that it's the approach that's been handed down in some circles.) It would make more sense to be thankful for not having the obligation in the first place.

[corn popper]

If I take issue with portions of Shakespeare can I change them too?

[jay]

Is the siddur we use nowadays exactly the same as the prayer service of 300 c.e.? Of course not. So your question is specious.

[tooclose2detroit]

In today's world: anyone who gets offended by these Brachot is probably someone who get offended easily. Hm... now where do we see this?

Posted by: Yoel Mechanic | March 23, 2011

Cmon Yoel-if a Gentile religion had a blessing (Thanks for not making me a Jew!) then I think most Jews would go pretty apeshit.

[Loveandlivethetorah.blogspot.com]

What a ridiculous Article.
There are tens and perhaps hundreds of variations of the Jewish prayerbook/service.

Anyone who doesn't like one doesn't have to stick with that community.
If some rabbis don't want to change their prayerbook,May they live long and prosper,but why should we care?

You don't like it pick a different Nusakh,
I'm sure you can find one to your liking.

[Daniel Steinmetz]

As a Moses Sofer descendent I want to clarify his famous statement invoked by tres-traditionalists, which you translate as "Innovation is forbidden by the Torah."

Sofer himself was a warrior against the reform movement but was not a mindless traditionalist. His phrasing in Hebrew was, "chadash ossur min hatorah," a clever play on words. Chadash is the new crop which is forbidden at first. Hence the proliferation of Kosher notices,with word, "yashen," which tranlates as old, thus assuring customers.

Indeed, Chadash under certain circumstances is biblically prohibited. But Sofer was playing on "chadash" to insinuate "chidush" which you can translate as innovation. In fact of course, Sofer, a master halachist whose rulings are still studied throughout the Jewish world innovated himself as well as publishing many chidushim (new interpretations). For example, Moses Sofer approved replacing MBP (oro-genital suction during circumcision)with use of a gauze compress, whenever medical experts believed there was a health risk.

He certainly opposed any innovations of the reform movement because he rightly suspected that their motives and overall direction would lead to abandonment of halachah. Because he took this stance, he was championed by arch traditionalists who transformed him into someone who opposed all innovation.

In the intra-Hungarian fight to oppose change, ultra-traditionalists such as Hillel Schlesinger hijacked his reputation to turn him into their unequivocal champion. After all he was the most prominent rabbinical personality of his generation in central Europe. His yeshiva in Pressburg (now, Bratislava, Slovakia) was the largest of its time.

As his descendent I wince when young haredim of limited learning quote Moses Sofer as saying "chiddush assur min hatorah." That was not what he said. On the other hand, there is a grain of truth that his across-the-board opposition to Reform Judaism meant he did oppose all change that came from the Reform movement, even if he might have accepted or even advocated for it if it came from within the orthodox camp.