That you didn’t make me a woman
Hello Rabbi, I am often asked about the blessing that I was not made a woman and the chauvinism that this blessing expresses. Of course, in my youth, I learned very beautiful and nice answers to questions of this type in yeshiva, but today I understand that the answers are far from satisfactory and I really have a hard time with the blessing. I feel no reason to be grateful for not being born a woman. What is Rabbi Choda?
Shalom Noam. The accepted explanation is that the woman is commanded with fewer commandments and therefore blessings are given (for this reason the man precedes the woman for salvation in the tractate of Horiot, just as the priest precedes Israel. And this is simply because of the number of commandments and not necessarily because of a fundamental priority). Perhaps there is also a background of disdain for her status and joy that I was not made like her, I don’t know. I might not accept that today, unless we were to symmetrize it so that the woman also blesses that a man did not make her (that way everyone is happy in their part and role).
If you are looking for symmetrization, it is also possible in the other direction. We will leave the blessing “I have done to you as you please” with them, and we men will bless: “I have not done to you as you please”.
By the way, here is something interesting on the subject:
Version=&dscnt=0&frbg=&scp.scps=scope%3A%28NNL%29&tab=default_tab&dstmp=1524590370508&srt=rank&mode=Basic&&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=I have not%20done%20to a woman&vid=NLI
Sorry, here it is:
http://blog.nli.org.il/%D7%94%D7%94%D7%95%D7%92%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%96-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A3-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9 B%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99/?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tochen8mar2018
In the 2nd chapter of the Omer chapter
It is difficult to believe that Rabbi Avraham Pritzol invented an alternative blessing text of his own accord. It must be assumed that the text “I am a woman and not a man” in the women’s prayer is an ancient text in the customs of Italy or Provence, and that Rabbi Abijah has preserved an existing text.
In his commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (edition by Rabbi Simcha Halevi Bamberger, Berlin, 1981, available in Hibrobox), Rabbi Abijah refers several times to the words of Ecclesiastes about women. On the other hand, Rabbi Abijah does not write against the “group of people who hate marriage,” and says: “For in all things two are better than one.” For when one helps his friend in the labor that is necessary and necessary for him, whether in a man and his wife or in a partner, both will have a good reward for their labor, and so will it be with both who labor wisely.
The words of Ecclesiastes, “I find death bitterer than a woman,” are interpreted by Ra’s father as a condemnation of the “persecution of the man who desires and has intercourse with her the most.” On the other hand, “He permitted to see life with a woman whom you loved, and desired to behave in a way that will prolong life and health in the intercourse.” And this is certainly the portion of man and his labor that he labors under the sun to stand in life with his wife and to give birth to offspring. And in this way the Sages said: He who takes a wife for her sake gains life, as it is written, “He saw life with a woman.” (p. Noah).
The words of Ecclesiastes ‘which my soul sought, and I found not; one man among these I found; and a woman among all these I found not’, interprets Ra”P (p. 5) as a wonder at the existing situation in which women do not reach intellectual perfection, and after all ‘she too is composed of matter and form like man… and why should woman descend to the wonders of intellectual perfection, because their minds are light, which a woman in all these has not found, R” in all the perfections with which every man will be adorned… and how can the sacred seed of the individual be transformed into light and weak females, into cooks and cooks and bakers, and without knowledge, who will exalt them?’
To this, Ecclesiastes responds, to the interpretation of Ra’s father: “God made man from the standpoint of what he is, upright and complete in his reality and to pursue the intelligence that is the essence of his creation.” But man and his wife confused the order of priorities and sought many accounts and thoughts, male and female together, accounts in the feminine language and many in the masculine language, contrary to the law of language, everything is mixed and confused together in the opposite direction of the uprightness of the divine creation’s intention to enhance form and intellect and to subdue matter and lust, and this is an allusion to the first man who was created upright and then with his wife or with the lust of his matter he sought accounts and sinned.”
I think what he meant was that when priorities changed and material desire became the main thing in relation to the mind, women were led to materialism, because men enjoyed her abilities to bring them material pleasure, and thus women lost the desire for intellectual transcendence. It is very clear that Ra'f would have joined the movement that R' Shmuel Arkwalti reached in the next generation, that it is fitting for rabbis to support and encourage women who desire to transcend in Torah.
On Ra'f's Torah work and thought, see the article by my late father, Prof. David Shmuel Levinger, 'Likutim from the Book of 'Magen Avraham' to Avraham Fritsul' (Hatzave Le-Chachmat Yisrael, 12 [1888], pp. 294-297), and in Rabbi Bamberger's introduction to Avraham Fritzol's commentary on Ecclesiastes (Berlin 1938). Both are cited in the links to the entry 'Fritzol, Avraham' on Wikipedia.
With kind regards, Sh. T. Levinger
In paragraph 6, line 3:
… He would have agreed with the conclusion he reached in the next generation…
The words of Rabbi Shmuel Arkwalti in his book ‘Ma'ayan Ganim’ mentioned the latter, and from them Rabbi Yitzhak Nissim quotes in his letter to Rebbetzin Farha Sasson, in which he writes in 1881: ‘And I, the poor, have written a long reply on this subject, with overwhelming evidence from the Rabbis and the first and last poskim, that women whose hearts are set on engaging in the Oral Torah, it is the duty of the sages of their generation to strengthen their hands and embrace their arms’. (To be specific and comprehensive – Hilchot Katzuvot, I, Jerusalem 577”8, p. 154).
Rabbi Nissim writes there: “I intend, without a vow, to print this answer as soon as possible.” Perhaps the Creator of the world will give the hearts of many women to engage in Torah, and to influence their surroundings and especially their family members with the light of their Torah.”
The aforementioned reply has been lost, but Rabbi Nissim cites important sources on the subject in his reply to Rabbi Akiva Tenenbaum in 1921 (Leclal and Particular, I, pp. 169-170), where the Rabbi mentions, among other things, the halachic opinion of Rebbetzin Mirkada Aruch of Alexandria, to which the Rabbi of Alexandria, Rabbi Avraham Israel, responds with great respect. A historical and halachic analysis of Rabbi Nissim's reply is provided in Dr. Yael Levin's article, "Rebbe Nissim's Reply on Women and Talmud Torah," Akademot 13, pp. 33-56.
The history and writings of Rabbi Shmuel Archivalti were compiled by Dror Schwartz, in his article "Rabbi Shmuel Archivalti: His History" and his writings, Responsorial Psalms and Letters, Collections 7 (5753), pp. 7-9.
With kind regards, Sh”t Levinger
My question is to what extent is it permissible to change the wording of the prayer?
For me personally, it makes me not pray because it is difficult for me to say something that I cannot identify with. That is why it is a bit unnecessary for me to ask whether it is permissible or not because I will either change it or not pray. And all the explanations that the man actually blesses because he is obligated to more commandments and the woman because she is made according to the will of God and therefore is not obligated to the commandments will not help. Because it does not matter what the intention is, what I hear is something different and every time I say it it offends me anew and I believe many women and girls do too.
The phrase “He did not make me a Gentile” also bothers me. Because it is not my nature to be an arrogant person. It is terrible to say a phrase every day that goes against my nature. And I would be much happier to bless “He made me an Israelite”.
I really don't think there's any room for offense here. But if this is your assumption and you're not putting it up for discussion, then I won't discuss it. Obviously, a change is better than not blessing at all. But why can't you bless “that I did it as he wished”? Why is that offensive?
That a Gentile did not do it to me is clearly because of the obligation of the mitzvot, and I don't see anything offensive in that. This is despite the fact that it's clear that the halakhic attitude toward a Gentile is discriminatory. But the blessing doesn't reflect that in my opinion.
I think character shouldn't be a parameter here. If it goes against your values, then there's a problem. But if it makes it difficult for you because of character, then you have to overcome it.
Again, in this case, there's no standard wording that can be used to bless it. That I did it as he wished is a change from the form of the blessing, and that's problematic. When a man blesses “that I did it as he wished” it's not a change of form, and therefore it's easier.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
