Date:    Fri, 12 Jul 1996 10:08:54 -0400
From:    LILITH magazine <LilithMag@AOL.COM>
Subject: MINYAN

Hello all,

This is Sara Meirowitz, longtime TOR-CH lurker and occasional poster, writing
out of the LILITH account (where I am a summer intern).  2 points intrigued
me in the recent discussion:

1. "who has not made me a woman"--being a woman, I naturally find this
bracha, and its counterpart "who has made me according to his will," very
disturbing. It is the one chage I consistently retain from the Conservative
siddur wherever I am davenning.  Yet I am a firm believer in keeping the
liturgy consistent. In the case mentioned, I would be hard-pressed to say
that the woman's (justified) anger should override the principle of keeping a
consistent liturgy and honoring the congregation by keeping prayers
respectful (kavod hatzibur).

An interesting note on personal obligation: I had a friend, very Orthodox,
who was quite disturbed by this bracha. He took upon himself the minhag to
say "who has made me in his (God's) image" in all services.  Since then, he
has not permitted himself to lead shacharit services for a traditional
congregation, so as not to compromise either his personal beliefs or the
congregation's liturgical integrity.

2) levels of obligation: R. L. Smith's comment that the "obligation test"
should be taken by males in Conservative congregations is weirdly logical.
 Yet I disagree with an assumption he makes.  Just because these men have not
accepted upon themselves the obligation to pray daily does not mean that the
obligation has not been imposed upon them by the very virtue of having been
born male Jews.  And without some system of taking a vow to pray daily (such
as R. Joel Roth advocated), it is very difficult to match the level of a
woman's obligation to pray daily to that of a man's.  Whether a woman who has
taken this obligation upon herself, either by an actual vow or by an implied
one (i.e. regular assumption of a minhag over a long period of time is
tantamount to an actual vow), can be counted on the level of a man is an
interesting question (which I'm not going to tackle).

From a personal standpoint, I think that knowing that I am not obligated does
indeed make me lax in my davvening keva (regularity).  This year I was an
habitual minyan attendee at Yale (often the only person on my side of the
mechitza), coming more frequently than many of the males in the Orthodox
community.  Yet if I overslept one day or had a paper to write, I might miss
a day without feeling the same guilt of having done an aveyrah (sin) as if i
had eaten trayf, for example.  I think the very fact that I knew I didn't
need to daven but was just doing it for my own spirituality and relationship
w/God meant that I took it less seriously than some of the men I knew did, or
then I should.

Sara Meirowitz

(the opinions expressed here are merely my own and do not reflect editorial
sentiments of LILITH magazine.)

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:38:16 -0400
From:    Bob Smith <Bob_Smith@ISR.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: MINYAN

        Reply to:   RE>MINYAN


> "who has not made me a woman"--
>that the woman's (justified) anger should override the principle of >keeping
a consistent liturgy and honoring the congregation by keeping >prayers
respectful (kavod hatzibur).

Some of the pros and cons of this issue, from an Orthodox perspective can be
found in  Tradition 29:4 (1995)  61- 74.  The discussion is fascinating,
reflecting as it does some of the same issues that appear in other movements
in different guises.

>  Just because these men have not
>accepted upon themselves the obligation to pray daily does not mean that
>the obligation has not been imposed upon them by the very virtue of >having
been born male Jews.

I agree that the obligation is there whether one knows it or not. The
question I tried to raise was whether one could fullfill it for others if one
didn't know it was an obligation.   This is the whole question the role of
ones state of mind when performing a mitzvah.  For example, if you walk by a
shul on Rosh Hashana when the Shofar is being blown, and happen to hear it,
does that fullfill your obligation?
 >
From a personal standpoint, I think that knowing that I am not obligated
>does indeed make me lax in my davvening keva (regularity).  This year I >was
an habitual minyan attendee at Yale
>  Yet if I overslept one day or had a paper to write, I might miss
>a day without feeling the same guilt of having done an aveyrah (sin) as if
>i had eaten trayf, for example.  I think the very fact that I knew I didn't
>need to daven but was just doing it for my own spirituality and
>relationship w/God meant that I took it less seriously than some of the >men
I knew did,

Sara Meirowitz

Sara, I think you should investigate with an appropriate Rabbinical
authority,  the nature of your obligations, as a women, to pray.  As I
understand it, both men and women are obligated to  pray daily.  There are
questions as to exactly what prayers and how many times.  However, the
traditional major division between men and women, as I understand it, is the
question of public prayer.  For a man, public prayer, in minyon, is viewed as
more meritorious than private prayer, whereas for a women public prayer is
not a factor, there is not an operational halachic difference between a women
praying alone or praying in the presence of a nearby (on the other side of
the mechitzha) minyon.   As I understand it, it is not a sin for a man to
miss the minyon, the man can pray alone, it is advantagious for a man to pray
in a minyon. Even in the local Young Israel that Rabbi accepted, perhaps even
recommended, that new fathers not be expected to attend the daily minyon as
it was more important that they attend to the home front.

Shabbat Sholom
Robert L. Smith

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:35:24 -0400
From:    Leah Weintraub <LBW001@AOL.COM>
Subject: "She lo asani Isha"

I understand and respect everyone's comments as regards this particular
b'racha (... who has not made me a woman).  I also not that noone has come
forward to decry the "she lo asani goy" (... who has not made me a non-Jew)
or "... aved" (... who has not made me a slave) b'rachot.

It is mu understanding that:  (1) the Talmud (somewhere in Tractate B'rachot)
discusses these very inclusions in the daily regimen.  The Rabbis group them
together because none of these individuals has the obligation to daven thrice
daily.  They understood these b'rachot to mean that they (men) should be
thankful for the privelege of the added obligations (because, as has been
alluded to, fulfilling obligations is of higher merit than voluntary
fulfillment of same).  Not that there was (necessarily) anything inheritly
"bad" about being a woman, non-Jew or slave.

(2)  I believe that the first changes of these b'rachot took place when the
"Silverman" edition of the Siddur was published.  The change was to place
each b'racha in a positive light; therefore, "...who has made me in his
image" (which is traditionally said by the women when the men are saying the
other), "... who has made me a Jew", and "... who has made me free".

(3)  Should those who have taken on the obligation replace all of these with
"... who has obligated me to daven three times a day" ? ;-)

Shabbat Shalom, Leah

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 13 Jul 1996 23:20:35 -0400
From:    Arthur Waskow <Awaskow@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: she-lo-asani isha

In the Fabrangen, a Conservative-inclining havurah in Washington DC, for
20-some years the morning brakhot have been done this way: --

If the davvening leader is a woman, she leads all the women in ""sheh-asani
isha" (that is, praising God "who has made me a woman"), and all the men say
"Ameyn." Then she pauses, the men do "sheh-asani ish," and all the women say
"Ameyn." (If the davvening leaders is a man, it goes in the reverse
direction.)


Then the whole community says "Sheh-asani b'tzalmo" or "b'tzelem Elohim,"
"Who has made me in the image of God," which if you go back and look at
Genesis is directly connected with "zakhar u'nekevah," "male & female."

The power of this affirmation of being BOTH different AND all in God's image
is astoundingly strong, and holy.

(Some leaders avoid using "b'tzalmo" because it says"his" image, describing
God as male. Bad enough in most contexts, but especially so in this one.)

As for me, as a man I find the traditional brochas, BOTH for men and women,
and also for "not being a goy" and "not being a slave" overwhelmingly
offensive, and would find it somewhere between excruciating and impossible to
sit still in a congregation that used them.

The only defense of the goy & slave ones that have made any sense to me (as
against the positive version, thanking God for making me a Godwrstler and a
free person) is that God only makes me not-an-idolator and not-a-slave, and
that I have to make myself a real Godwrestler & a real free-person (but since
I see the spark in me that does this work as also being God, the distinction
doen't quite work for me any more).

Shalom, Arthur.

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:57:52 -0400
From:    the Cheshire Cat <alanacat@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: MINYAN

The thing I found odd about this is that the Conservative movement does
not use "who has not made me a woman" It has changed that prayer to all
positive brachot. I haven't seen a Conservative siddur with that in it
for a long time -you must be using extremely old siddurim.

Alana Suskin,
Mitnaggedet Mama

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, LILITH magazine wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> This is Sara Meirowitz, longtime TOR-CH lurker and occasional poster, writing
> out of the LILITH account (where I am a summer intern).  2 points intrigued
> me in the recent discussion:
>
> 1. "who has not made me a woman"--being a woman, I naturally find this
> bracha, and its counterpart "who has made me according to his will," very
> disturbing. It is the one chage I consistently retain from the Conservative
> siddur wherever I am davenning.  Yet I am a firm believer in keeping the
> liturgy consistent. In the case mentioned, I would be hard-pressed to say


------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 10:58:02 +0400
From:    Simchah Roth <siroth@INTER.NET.IL>
Subject: Re: Who has not made me a woman

Some recent postings to Tor-Ch have included discussion on the berakhot found in
orthodox prayer-books in which (men) thank God daily for not having made them a
non-Jew, a slave or a woman.  There were even posts (from women) which viewed
these berakhot with equanimity - unless I misunderstood the posts.  Possibly
this equanimity is born of lack of knowledge, so here are the facts.

In the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Menachot 43b, we learn in a baraita that
Rabbi Meir says that one is obliged to recite the following three berakhot
daily: "Who has made me a Jew", "who has not made me a woman", "who has not made
me an ignoramus".  The discussion after this statement is revealing: Rav Acha
once heard his son reciting the berakhah "who has not made me an ignoramus" and
responded (Rashi's explanation), "You are going too far with self-praise: I
could understand that you thank God for not making you a non-Jew or a woman
because they are not required to observe the mitzvot, but even the ignoramus is
required to observe the mitzvot!"  The son of course asked what berakhah he
should say in place of the one his father disapproved of.  His father advised
"who has not made me a slave"; the son objected that there was no difference
between the woman and the slave! (Rashi explains that the wife is her husband's
slave (sic SR).)  The father told the son that, despite the similarity, the
slave is of lower status than the woman (and he should be thankful that he is
not one).

It is clear from the above text that it derives from a time and place where
women were considered chattels, and that even a male ignoramus was of higher
status than any married woman.  There is a certain pride involved, a kind of
one-upmanship, for we must note that even the first berakhah suggested by Rabbi
Meir, which could be said with pride by any Jew, was changed from the positive
(who has made me a Jew) to the negative (who has not made me a non-Jew): "Thank
God I'm not a Goy, a slave or a woman!"  The surrogate version of the berakhah
"who has not made me a woman" - "who has made me as he pleased" - dates from the
late Middle Ages and is first found in the Siddur of David Abudrahm - and heaven
only knows where he got it from!  Under the circumstances it too has the smell
of condecension about it.

The Rabbinical Assembly presumably was anxious to preserve the three-fold format
of Rabbi Meir's original suggestion, and coined two new berakhot to be said in
place of the two odious ones (to all of us, hopefully, at any rate).  I have a
certain halakhic problem with that, but will not go into it here and now.  In my
opinion (and I see no reason to be humble about it in this context!) the
halakhic answer is ready at hand: in the Mishnah Berurah on Orach Chayyim 46:4,
the Chafetz Chayyim says that 'one should take care NOT to recite the blessing
"who made me a Jew", as erroneously appears in some printed prayer-books,
because some authorities say that after that berakhah one may not recite the
others' (slave and woman).  Since that is exactly the situation in which we
should wish to place ourselves, I have adopted the personal custom of reciting
the berakhah "she'asani Yisra'el" and omitting the other two.  (I also change
the order of the other blessings in this group of blessings in order to
accomodate them to our modern behaviour patterns - the order in the printed
prayer-books - including the RA - is grotesquely Medieval.)  My daughters, I
know, use the version "she'asani Yisra'elit" - a small change that is made
purely out of grammatical necessity.  Thus I thank God for making me a Jew and
make not denigrating statements about gentiles, the other sex etc.

I apologize for the length of this post.

Simchah Roth, Herzliyya, Israel
siroth@inter.net.il

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 10:38:35 -0400
From:    Leah Weintraub <LBW001@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: "She lo asani Isha"

In a message dated 96-07-12 18:22:05 EDT, you write:

<< As for not being a slave/not being a goy, well, I'm glad I'm not
 either one of those, so there's nothing hypocritical about that.  >>

True.  However, many among us are indeed converts, and were created as
non-Jews.  The Artscroll Siddur indicates that they are not permitted to say
the pertinent b'racha, and should instead say "... she asani ger/gioret", as
the case may be.  Presumably, should a Jew have been born into slavery,and
then freed, a similar situation would occur.

--Leah

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 11:10:11 -0400
From:    Leah Weintraub <LBW001@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: she-lo-asani isha

In a message dated 96-07-13 23:35:26 EDT, you write:

<< In the Fabrangen, a Conservative-inclining havurah in Washington DC, for
 20-some years the morning brakhot have been done this way: --

 If the davvening leader is a woman, she leads all the women in ""sheh-asani
 isha" (that is, praising God "who has made me a woman"), and all the men say
 "Ameyn." Then she pauses, the men do "sheh-asani ish," and all the women say
 "Ameyn." (If the davvening leaders is a man, it goes in the reverse
 direction.)

 Then the whole community says "Sheh-asani b'tzalmo" or "b'tzelem Elohim,"
 "Who has made me in the image of God," which if you go back and look at
 Genesis is directly connected with "zakhar u'nekevah," "male & female."

 The power of this affirmation of being BOTH different AND all in God's image
 is astoundingly strong, and holy.
  >>

Thanks.  I really enjoyed reading this dilemma solver.

--Leah

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 11:10:45 -0400
From:    Leah Weintraub <LBW001@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Who has not made me a woman

I would like to thank Simcha Roth for his thorough discussion of this and the
"other two" b'rachot, as well as his (and his daughters') alterations to the
traditional list.

Because I've been participating in this conversation, for the record, I'd
like Simcha (and others who question, as Simcha does, my -- and others' --
comfort with the traditional b'rachot) to know that I do much prefer to say
the positively phrased b'rachot as they appear in the Conservative Siddurim.
 In fact, I do so when in attendance at an Orthodox minyan, too.

As to the distinction Simcha makes in regard to sequence of the b'rachot:  I
know there have been (in the Talmud, again) discussions concerning this.  I
also know that the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim use differing sequence.  I'm
not fluent enough in this to comment further.  Would someone please?

--Leah

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 10:52:36 -0500
From:    Rene Teague <toremigi@NEOSOFT.COM>
Subject: problems with morning blessings

I have one question about the morning blessings in general, and one question
about a specific one.

1. Why the Amen?
 When these are recited in a public setting, I don't understand why the
congregation answers "amen" to each one. I thought that amen was to be said
at times when the prayer leader said a blessing that applied to everyone.
Then the word "amen" means "Pretend I just said that blessing."

Blessings like the kiddush, the kaddish, the 3-fold blessing of the cohenim
etc, refer to everyone. But some of the morning blessings refer to one
person. "Who has made ME...(a Jew, in His image, free,) So why do we say
"amen" when a person is saying a private prayer, especially that problematic
Orthodox one. (she lo asani isha)

 Whether a man says "she lo asani ishah" or "she asani ben horin", a woman
is saying "amen" to an empty blessing. And a man is saying it to a blessing
specific to the prayer leader. If I am leading and say "bat horin" or
"Yisraelit"(thank you S. Roth), then men have the same linguistic problem
with agreeing with the blessing. Later in the series of blessings when
Israel is being blessed, it makes sense.

2.Blessing for converts:
 The second question deals with something Leah found in the Artscroll
Siddur. She found that a convert was to say "she asani gioret," since God
didn't make the convert a Jew. I haven't done this because I was taught not
to call attention to the fact that I'm a convert when I'm on the bimah.
Unlike this list where I do it all the time :>

In a conversation Leah and I had about this, she speculated that if God led
me to becoming a Jew, then the original blessing is appropriate. There is a
Chassidic attitude that converts were Jewish in previous lives and
accidentally got born into the wrong family. Another story states that all
future Jews were at Sinai, including converts.

What does everyone think? I know it was crowded at Sinai, and all that smoke
made it hard to see. But I was there. Can I legally say "she asani Yisraelit"?

'Rene

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 10:52:48 -0500
From:    Rene Teague <toremigi@NEOSOFT.COM>
Subject: she lo asani isha

I seldom hear this blessing since I seldom attend Orthodox shuls. But ever
since I read about it, I have thought about it. My most recent acceptance of
it was to realize that it's a good thing to be thankful for our gender.

 The negative phrasing is kind of "nyah nyah nyah," but I feel I could truly
say "Thank God I'm not a man" as easily as "Thank God I'm a woman."

We women may have been historically considered to be chattel. We may have
been excluded from ritual duties as rigidly as Hopi women were excluded from
kachina dancing. We may have painful childbirth, plumbing obviously not
designed with comfort in mind, a world traditionally run by men....

But men have traditionally been cannon fodder, saddled with the complete
support of their families (in American culture), required to be emotionless,
trained in communication skills that don't allow close friendships...I think
we each can truthfully say we'd rather deal with our own gender's problems
and strengths.

So it's kind of like being thankful for our existence the way we were made:
Gender, hair color, congenital disability, talents, weight tendency, height,
strength and everything!

So even John Denver can legitimately recite "Thank God I'm a country goy!"

'Rene
-----------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 16:11:25 -0500
From:    Seth Gordon <sethg@ACS.BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: "She lo asani Isha"

    [Leah Weintraub:]
    (2)  I believe that the first changes of these b'rachot took place when the
    "Silverman" edition of the Siddur was published.

    [Simchah Roth:]
    The Rabbinical Assembly presumably was anxious to preserve the
    three-fold format of Rabbi Meir's original suggestion, and coined two
    new berakhot to be said in place of the two odious ones (to all of us,
    hopefully, at any rate).

The rephrasing of these brakhot in the positive is *not* a
Conservative innovation.  The brakhot are read this way in "Nusach
Apa''m", the liturgy of a few communities on the Italian peninsula.
This nusach used to be more widespread--I believe it was originally
used by French Jews, but I don't have my copy of _Meditations on the
Siddur_ on hand, so I can't be sure.

By the way, there is one other morning blessing where the Silverman
siddur differs from the traditional Ashkenazi nusach: Silverman has
"Barukh ... asher heikhin mits`adei gaver", whereas Orthodox siddurim
have "Barukh ... hameikhin mits`adei gaver".  If my memory of the
translation is correct, both of these mean "Blessed ... who firms up
the footsteps of man".  I assume that this is another transplanation
from nusach Apa''m.

--
// seth gordon // sethg@bu.edu // bu deaf ed program // standard disclaimer //
Politics, n: From the word "poly", meaning "many", and the word
"ticks", meaning "blood sucking parasites".

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 14 Jul 1996 18:45:52 -0400
From:    Arnold Kuzmack <kuzmack@CPCUG.ORG>
Subject: Re: she-lo-asani isha

>  If the davvening leader is a woman, she leads all the women in ""sheh-asani
>  isha" (that is, praising God "who has made me a woman"), and all the men say
>  "Ameyn." Then she pauses, the men do "sheh-asani ish," and all the women say
>  "Ameyn." (If the davvening leaders is a man, it goes in the reverse
>  direction.)

Let me resume my role as linguistic pedant and make a non-substantive
grammatical comment about this.

In Hebrew, the word 'ish' is ambiguous as to whether it means 'adult male
human being' or 'adult human being of either gender'.  For example, in
Modern Hebrew, the statement 'ish lo yakhol lehavtiakh...' means 'nobody
can guarantee...' [e.g., some political outcome].  It does *not* that men
can't guarantee it but women can.  Similarly, the plural of 'ish',
'anashim' refers to people of either or mixed gender.

Therefore, I would suggest using 'gever' or 'zakhar' in place of 'ish'.

Arnie Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org
------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 15 Jul 1996 01:05:11 -0400
From:    the Cheshire Cat <alanacat@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: she-lo-asani isha

Well, I suppose one pedant deserves another ...:)
The word "man" in English, also supposedly is gender neutral (policeman,
fireman, yadda,yadda) however a number of studies have shown that in
fact, while the use of the word man is strongly defended by many as
gender neutral, it is not , in fact. Rather, it has been shown that use
of the word man makes an individual picking out photographs or pictures
from a group, based on a text using the word man, strong percentages (I
forget exaxtly how many, but more than 10, I recall, definitely) more
likely to pick out pictures using men in them  than if the words used
actually are gender neutral (so in English, passive constructions or the
word person). I see no reason to believe that this would be true in

English and not also in Hebrew.

Alana

 Alana
Suskin, Mitnaggedet Mama

On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Arnold Kuzmack wrote:

> >  If the davvening leader is a woman, she leads all the women in ""sheh-asani
> >  isha" (that is, praising God "who has made me a woman"), and all the men say
> >  "Ameyn." Then she pauses, the men do "sheh-asani ish," and all the women say
> >  "Ameyn." (If the davvening leaders is a man, it goes in the reverse
> >  direction.)
>
------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 15 Jul 1996 11:00:32 +0400
From:    Simchah Roth <siroth@INTER.NET.IL>
Subject: Re: Shelo Asani Ishah

Many thanks to Seth Gordon for providing the information which I lacked: what
the source was for the RA's innovatory blessings - or better, replacement
blessings.  However, the point that I wished to make was a different one: in my
opinion it was not necessary (or even desirable)to substitute other berakhot,
but that all three should be replaced by that one berakhah which was Rabbi
Meir's original.  Obviously I did not express myself adroitly.  Apologies to
all.

As far as Seth's surmize concerning "ha-mekhin mitzadei gaver" is concerned: I
would be surprised if the source of the machloket [divergence] was the customs
of the communities of Asti, Piemonte and Monsalvo [Seth's "Apam"].  There is
ample discussion among the later poskim [decisors] as to whether several of
these berakhot should be phrased in the past tense or the present tense - and
there are obvious theological implications.  For instance, DID God give the cock
the ability to distinguish night from day as a one-time gift at creation, or
DOES God do so endlessly and continuously for all time?  Ha-Mekhin and Asher
hekhin that Seth referred to are of the same ilk.

Simchah Roth, Herzliyya, Israel
siroth@inter.net.il

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:24:53 +0400
From:    Simchah Roth <siroth@INTER.NET.IL>
Subject: Re: Birkhot ha-Shachar (Morning Blessings)

Leah Weintraub: >>As to the distinction Simcha makes in regard to sequence of
the b'rachot:  I know there have been (in the Talmud, again) discussions
concerning this.  I also know that the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim use
differing sequence.  I'm not fluent enough in this to comment further.  Would
someone please?<<

The Talmud [Berakhot 60b] gives the following list for "birkhot ha-shachar"
[blessings to be said early in the morning upon rising] (for the full text you
will have to consult your own siddur):

Upon awakening:               Elohai neshamah
On hearing the cock crow:     Asher natan lasekhvi
On rubbing the eyes:          Poke'ach Ivrim
On sitting up in bed:         Mattir Assurim
On getting dressed:           Malbish Arumim
On standing up:               Zokef Kefufim
On feeling the ground:        Roka ha-Aretz
On walking:                   Ha-Mekhin Mitzadei Gaver
On putting on one's shoes:    She-asah li kol zorkhi
On clasping one's belt:       Ozer Yisra'el bi-Gevurah
On fixing one's turban:       Oter Yisra'el bi-Tif'arah

Then follow blessings to be said when putting on Tzitzit, Tefillin, On washing
the hands, and on washing the face.

Rambam [Maimonides] in Hilkhot Tefillah 7:6 adds the three blessings prompted by
Rabbi Meir (Goy, Eved, Ishah) and then says that these eighteen berakhot have no
set order and that each berakhah is made at the appropriate time and occasion
and adds "Any of the above blessings for which there is no occasion is not
recited".  Most interestingly, he also states [7:9]: "The people in most of our
cities have the custom of reciting these blessings in the synagogue,
consecutively, whether they are under an obligation to do so or not.  This
however is an erroneous practice which should not be followed: no blessing
should be recited unless there is an obligation to do so."  Rambam's son,
Avraham, states [Sefer ha-Maspik] that he and his father tried to abolish this
"erroneous" custom in Cairo and failed miserably!  All the commentators on
Rambam seem to agree with the people from Cairo - which doesn't mean that we
have to as well!

The order of the berakhot is also different from our habits, and reflects a
culture in which people would get dressed while still in bed under the covers
and so forth (there's modesty for you!)  Careful perusal will also reveal the
enormous influence of Kabbalah [mysticism] on the later order of the berakhot,
including the introduction of "modeh ani" and so forth - none of which is
anticipated in the Talmud (IMHO).

It seems to me that a more sensible order for the berakhot (assuming that one
would say all of them) should be:

Upon awakening:               Elohai neshamah
On hearing the cock crow:     Asher natan lasekhvi
On rubbing the eyes:          Poke'ach Ivrim
On sitting up in bed:         Mattir Assurim
On standing up:               Zokef Kefufim
On feeling the ground:        Roka ha-Aretz
On walking away from the bed: Ha-Mekhin Mitzadei Gaver
On getting dressed:           Malbish Arumim
On clasping one's belt:       Ozer Yisra'el bi-Gevurah
On putting on one's shoes:    She-asah li kol zorkhi
On fixing one's headgear:     Oter Yisra'el bi-Tif'arah

In my own congregation we start public worship with Barukh she'Amar, viewing
everything before that as private devotions to be said at home or as private
preparation in the synagogue.

Most sincere apologies for the inordinate length of this post.

Simchah Roth, Herzliyya, Israel
siroth@inter.net.il
------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:09:41 -0400
From:    SUSAN FENDRICK <sufendrick@JTSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: she-lo-asani isha

As a current member of Fabrangen, I was intrigued by this suggestion!  I
haven't noticed anyone doing this (when we used a traditional siddur; we
know use Kol HaNeshama, the Recon siddur, which has "b'tzalmo" for
everyone as I recall -- I switch between it and a  more tra. siddur so
don't remember it's nusach exactly) ... but it's an interesting idea!
Sue Fendrick

On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Leah Weintraub wrote:

> In a message dated 96-07-13 23:35:26 EDT, you write:
>
> << In the Fabrangen, a Conservative-inclining havurah in Washington DC, for
>  20-some years the morning brakhot have been done this way: --
>

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:17:48 -0400
From:    SUSAN FENDRICK <sufendrick@JTSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: problems with morning blessings

Replying to 'Rene:  we say "Amen" anytime sometime says a blessing, even
just for themselves.  If the intention of the sayer and of the listener
is that the person saying the blessing is fulfilling the mitzva for both
sayer and listener, then the Amen means "pretend I just said that
blessing" as 'Rene cleverly indicated.  Otherwise, it functions closer to
the way we use Amen in colloquial English, i.e. "right on!"

BTW, we say "baruch hu u-varuch sh'mo"  in response to the public
recitation of the words "baruch atah ha-shem" when they are part of a
blessing which does not "motzi" us/fulfill o ur obligation.  E.g. if the
sh'lichat tzibbur/prayer leader begins the public recitation of all or
part of the Amidah, we generally say "baruch hu u-varuch sh'mo" because
we are eithere about to daven the Amidah privately or have alreadly done
so.  By comparison, we don't (or shouldn't say it) in response to kiddush
because usually the person makingn kiddush is doing it for all of us.
(The exception would be if you m ade kiddush at shul, or will be making
kiddush later somewhere else but just stopped by to say hello!)

FWIW

Sue Fendrick

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:58:36 -0400
From:    Arnold Kuzmack <kuzmack@CPCUG.ORG>
Subject: Re: she-lo-asani isha

> The word "man" in English, also supposedly is gender neutral (policeman,
> fireman, yadda,yadda) however a number of studies have shown that in
> fact, while the use of the word man is strongly defended by many as
> gender neutral, it is not , in fact.....

I agree with this.  I did not say or even imply that 'ish' was gender
neutral. I said it can be used in a way that has gender neutral
implications, so it is not a good choice when one wants to clearly
indicate the male gender.

Arnie Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:11:30 +0400
From:    Simchah Roth <siroth@INTER.NET.IL>
Subject: Re: Blessings for Proselytes - Rambam's Responsum

Rene Teague asked:  What does everyone think? ... Can I legally say "she asani
Yisraelit"?

This question is very similar to a question that was asked of Rambam
[Maimonides].  I think it might be helpful to post both the question and the
(abridged) response.

Thus says Moshe son of the late Maimon, one of the exiles from Jerusalem in
Spain.  I am in receipt of the questions of the honourable and learned Ovadya,
the righteous proselyte - may God requite his deeds and may his recompense be
perfect before the Lord God of Israel in the shelter of whose wings you have
come to take refuge.  You ask concerning blessings and prayers, both when you
are praying privately and publicly: may you say "our God and the God of our
ancestors", "who brought us out of the Land of Egypt", "who performed miracles
for our ancestors" - and so forth [the point is that Ha-Shem is not the God of
Ovadya's ancestors etc - SR].

You may recite everything as prescribed and should change nothing.  As any
Jewish-born person prays so should you pray - both in your private devotions and
when you are acting as Sheli'ach-Tzibbur [Prayer-Leader - SR].

The main principle is that it is Father Abraham who taught our people the true
faith and Divine Unity, and repudiated idolatry ... and charged all that came
after him to observe the way of the Lord (Genesis 18:19).  Thus it is that
anyone who becomes a proselyte until the end of time ... is a follower [talmid]
of Father Abraham and has become a part of his household: just as he charged his
contemporaries so he charges all proselytes with that same charge that he gave
to the members of his family.  Thus we find that Father Abraham is the father of
all his direct descendants and also of his talmidim, every proselyte.  This is
why you should say "our God and the God of our ancestors", since Abraham is your
[spiritual] ancestor ...

As far as phrases such as "who brought us out of the land of Egypt" are
concerned - it's up to you: if you prefer to alter them and say "who brought
Israel out of the land of Egypt" and so forth - do so; if you prefer not to make
any change it makes no matter: from the moment that you took refuge under the
wings of the Shekhinah there is no longer any difference between you and us in
any matter whatsoever.

Of course you must say "who chose us", "who gave us the Torah" etc!  God has
most certainly chosen you and separated you from the other peoples and has given
you the Torah! ...

Do not take your 'geneological tree' lightly!  Whereas we trace our ancestry to
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, you are related to Him who spoke and the Universe was!
[There here follows a pertinent halakhic discussion on Mishnah Bikkurim 1:4 -
SR.]  So you see that you must say "the Land that God promised our ancestors he
would give us", that Abraham is your father - and ours and the father of all the
righteous that follow in his path.  This is the halakhah as regards all the
blessings and prayers: change nothing.

[You can find the original in Freimann, Maimonides' Responsa, Mekizei Nirdamim,
Jerusalem, 1934 - SR].

I hope this has been helpful.

Simchah Roth, Herzliyya, Israel
siroth@inter.net.il

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:12:39 -0400
From:    LILITH magazine <LilithMag@AOL.COM>
Subject: she'lo asani isha

Two points:

1. Just to clarify what Alana asked me: I meant that no matter what
denomination of service I attend or siddur I use, I always say the
"egalitarian" version of this bracha.  (If I'm using Artscroll or another
Orthodox siddur, I might follow their version of mussaf or tachanun rather
than be consistent w/a liberal liturgy.)


2.  In school, they taught us that if we weren't caught up with our own
brachot by the time the shaliach tzibur got to birchot hashachar, we could
just say "amen" to his bracha and fulfil our obligations to say them
ourselves.  Speaking traditionally, could I fulfil my "she'asani
kirtzono"/"she'asani b'tzalmo" obligation with a man's "she'lo asani isha?"

(I don't think this "amen" thing holds forth for all of davenning.  For
example, I couldn't fulfil my obligation to say shmoneh esray just by saying
"amen" to the shaliach tzibur's repetition. Could I, if the sha"tz just had
me in mind?  Or is there something unusual about these brachot?)

And BTW, thanks to Sue Fendrick for filling us in on the "baruch hu u'varuch
sh'mo" rules.  One of those things I always said & never knew why...

Sara M.

(All opinions expressed here are the writer's own and do not necessarily
reflect editorial sentiment at LILITH.)

------------------------------
Date:    Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:34:43 -0500
From:    Seth Gordon <sethg@ACS.BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: she'lo asani isha

    [Sara M.:]
    (I don't think this "amen" thing holds forth for all of davenning.  For
    example, I couldn't fulfil my obligation to say shmoneh esray just by
    saying "amen" to the shaliach tzibur's repetition. Could I,... ?)

According to the Mishnah Brura, you can only do this if you don't know
the prayers and can't read them from the prayerbook.  (I think.
There's probably more details to the law ... and I don't remember
exactly which section of the MB the law is in ... this was mentioned
at the halakha micro-lecture that occasionally follows weekday
shacharit at my shul, and there's only so much Torah I can learn
before breakfast....)

// seth gordon 

Go back to the TOR-CH sampler page

Go back to the TOR-CH home page

http://www.tor-ch.org/shlo_asani_isha.html