seekingferret: Two warning signs one above the other. 1) Falling Rocks. 2) Falling Rocs. (Default)
I write a bunch here about Artscroll, the biggest name in Orthodox Jewish publishing. Their Siddur has become the standard in American Orthodox shuls over the past few decades, though in the past five or so it's faced a challenge from a Siddur published by Koren, edited by Rabbi Sacks.

There are many editions of the Artscroll Siddur with different features and page layouts, but in the main Ashkenazi liturgy version of the siddur, there are two main versions: The brown version and the black version.

The brown version is the ostensible standard version, the black version is the RCA edition, issued in partnership with the Rabbinic Council of American, the mainstream Orthodox Rabbinical organization. There are only two differences between the two Siddurim- the Prayer for Israel and the Prayer for the American government only appear in the RCA edition. For some reason the creators of the original Artscroll siddur felt they could not sell it in some charedi communities if it had these prayers in it.

Anyway apparently it was news in the Orthodox text nerd community that a few months ago the RCA retracted its authorization for the Artscroll RCA edition siddur and is presenting a new Siddur, edited by Rabbi Basil Herring and published by Koren as the RCA edition. The new siddur attempts in various small but IMO significant textual ways to be more inclusive of the Orthodox woman's experience, to not make women feel like second class citizens in the synagogue. Artscroll's response was "We already print a women's siddur separately," because Artscroll is first-class at missing the point on women's issues.

I didn't learn any of this until yesterday when Artscroll sent an ad out for its new 'Synagogue Edition' prayerbook, which is the RCA edition minus the word RCA. It was such a strange ad that I had to seek out the story behind it. Here's a version of that story, anyway: https://www.jta.org/2019/01/15/culture/artscroll-prayer-books-have-dominated-in-orthodox-synagogues-for-decades-is-that-ending

I've ordered a copy of the new Siddur, Avodat Halev, and I am looking forward to exploring it. More on that when I've had some time with it.


Daf 71

Having discussed whether a stillborn calf inside its mother's womb transmits tumah if a midwife reaches in and touches it, where it ruled that it does not transmit tumah because of the rule of ben Pekuah, the Mishna discusses the identical case for a human stillborn, which does transmit tumah.

Rabbah cites a general principle of taharah that seems to imply the opposite, called tumah b'luah, enclosed impurity. If you swallow an impure object, the act of handling it before swallowing it may render you tamei, but once you cleanse yourself and become tahor, the swallowed object, even if it is itself still tamei, does not make you impure from the inside.

And likewise the Gemara learns from a kal vachomer that tumah does not transmit outside in- If you are in a room with a corpse and become tamei, the thing you've swallowed that could absorb tumah does not become tamei. How? Since we know that something inside a clay vessel can transmit outward, but can't receive inward, kal vachomer that a stomach which can't transmit outward also can't receive inward.

And Rabbah goes one step further and teaches that two swallowed objects, one tamei and one tahor, do not transmit tumah one to the other inside the stomach. He learns this from a Mishnah that says that if one swallows a tamei object, they are still permitted to eat terumah.

You would think this would apply to the case of the midwife, then. The womb is an enclosed body like the stomach, so even if the stillborn has tumah, it should not transmit it to the hands of the midwife. But the Mishnah teaches that it does. What is the reason? To be continued on Daf 72.


Daf 72

Rava answers in the name of Rav Yosef in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel that this Mishna that the midwife's hands become tamei is d'Rabbanan, so we are more machmir than the straight rule of tumah b'luah. Why did Shmuel make this ruling? Rabbi Hoshaya says it's as a gezeira lest the stillborn exit the womb. Rava says it's as a chumra because Rabbi Akiva thought the hands being impure was a D'oraysa halakha and Rabbi Yishmael thought the hands were tahor. The halakha seems to be that we hold by Rabbi Yishmael as a theoretical matter, but practically hold by Rabbi Akiva since he's more machmir.

There have been a lot of debates in this perek that seem to ultimately root in a broader disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael about general hermeneutic principles.

Here, Rabbi Yishmael learns from Bamidbar 19:16 "And whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by the sword, or one who dies on his own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days" that the midwife's hands are pure. How? Again from basadeh, like from a couple days ago, but this time it's a kula! Since the pasuk says 'basadeh', the stillborn inside the enclosed womb is not a neveilah that transmits tumah.

Rabbi Akiva learns something else from basadeh, but instead learns that the stillborn in the womb transmits tumah because of the pasuk slightly earlier, Bamidbar 19:13 "Whoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died, he will be impure” Banefesh implies the stillborn since it's a life inside of a person, says Rabbi Akiva. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yishmael learns something else from banefesh.


And... I have caught back up with the daf yomi cycle!
seekingferret: Two warning signs one above the other. 1) Falling Rocks. 2) Falling Rocs. (Default)
A continuing series, as I look at the subtle ways Artscroll has of positioning itself theologically on issues related to Orthodox feminism. See the previous parts here:Part 1 and Part 2

Shir Hashirim, the Song of Songs or Song of Solomon, is a famously challenging book for conventional Orthodox Judaism. Its inclusion in the canon was debated at length in the Talmud. This is partly because it verges on pornographic, but honestly that's not too huge a concern. There's lots of adult content in the Bible. The real concern is that it's not explicitly about God, it's about the relationship between a man and a woman. It's a love poem, demonstrably part of a long tradition of such poetry in the region, but it's not clear what its theological significance is. This is a big problem and traditional Judaism has generally solved it by claiming that the love described in the poem is that between Israel and God. Traditionally, Shir HaShirim and Shemos (Exodus) are the two major statements of God's special relationship with his Chosen Nation. Of course, this is yet another reason Shir HaShirim is challenging- Chosenness is not an easy thing to understand. Chosenness is really inexplicable and difficult, one of the great knots of struggle at the heart of Judaism. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient deity with a plan for all humanity single out one small nation for a special relationship of love and shared suffering?

Of course, Jews grow up with it. Both Shir HaShirim and Chosenness. It can be easy to take it for granted, to incorporate our relationship with Chosenness into our general sense of the Mesorah that constantly surrounds us and offers inspiration. But I've found that for me, becoming a Grown Up Jew involves a lot of internal struggle with those concepts, and I'm nowhere near comfortable with my answers yet. But Artscroll? Artscroll is no help at all.

Their translation of Shir HaShirim in the Stone Chumash is terrible. They made the decision that they weren't going to present the text to you. Instead, they were going to translate it according to the Jewish traditional interpretation, no matter how much they had to distort the plain meaning of the words. This is... I made that comment about becoming a Grown Up Jew mostly facetiously, but this is clearly whatever the opposite of Grown Up Judaism is. This is spoonfed Judaism at its worst. And no place is it more glaring than in Chapter 7, Verse 4. King James gives us "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins." Artscroll gives us "Your twin sustainers, the Tablets of the Law, are like two fawns, twins of the gazelle." The verse speaks of, in the Hebrew, "Shnei Shadayich." - Your two breasts. We traditionally read it metaphorically as a reference to the Two Tablets of the Law, but we read it metaphorically that way. We look at a verse about her breasts, interpret it according to our tradition, and then ask the question: What does it mean to compare breasts to the Tablets of Law? What kind of relationship are we expected to have with the Sh'nei Luchot and how does it compare to the relationship we have with the Shnei Shadayim of a lover? We can't ask those intelligent, theologically essential questions from Artscroll's translation. We're handed an answer pre-made and pre-interpreted and it comes to us devoid of all meaning.

And of course it's only in Shir HaShirim where we see that, to bring this back to "Adventures in Artscroll Feminism". They wouldn't dream of translating Ezekiel metaphorically, would they? No, Ezekiel's message is transmitted word for word, no matter how ludicrous it would be to take it at its face value. Obviously Ezekiel too is all metaphor about God's promise of salvation. But Shir HaShirim has a lot to teach about a woman's power, and translating it according to its metaphoric meaning is a powerfully effective way of denying femininity its place in Judaism.

I'm cynical about a lot of the contemporary justifications for the traditional role of women in Judaism, which typically involves running the household and raising the children while males are responsible for leading the family and providing for the family. I'm skeptical about the notion that women don't need to pray as often because they are naturally at a higher spiritual plane. It's clear that the exemption is a practical one. The traditional prayer times would be inconvenient for a woman with household responsibilities, and so the Rabbis decided that they should prioritize those household tasks over prayer. And in modern society, many observant women have decided that just as they overcome the inconvenience of managing (or ideally sharing) household responsibilities to hold jobs outside the home as well, they can also overcome the inconvenience to attend prayer services even though the exemption still holds. This remains laudable and it remains constrained by Judaism's traditional gender roles, which are unavoidable and deserve confrontation. Judaism offers many reasons for its traditional gender role system, from some contrived punishment for Eve's sin to contemporary biological explanations about the evolutionary mandates for the survival of the species. None of these should be taken as the exclusive explanation, and I don't believe any of them should be taken as entirely unproblematic. On the other hand, I know many, many women who have found happiness, comfort, and power within the constraints of the system. Constraints are not always bad. In fact, if someone asked me to stand on one foot and recite the whole Torah, I think I could do worse than to just say "Constraints are not always bad."

But my point is that though I'm leery of a lot of the way we understand traditional gender roles for women in contemporary Orthodox society, I like the way we understand Shir HaShirim. Shir HaShirim, despite its oddities, makes a huge amount of sense to me as part of the canon. It's something I look forward to reading on Passover. It's something I have found ways of incorporating into several of my stories. One of my Jessicas eagerly anticipates Passover as a time when she can read love poetry and dream of Lorenzo without rousing her Shylock's suspicions. The words of the song find their way onto Malca Palache's tongue as she follows her husband into a dangerous melee. Because the secret? The secret is that just as we can learn a lot about our intended relationship with God by considering the relationship of a husband and wife, so too can we learn a lot about the relationship between a husband and wife by considering our relationship with God. Shir Hashirim teaches us to pursue ecstasy in our personal lives, not merely in our religious lives. It teaches us that we are of the world, imperfect, flawed, and all the more beautiful because of it. It teaches us that earning the love of a woman, or the love of a man, is a sacred task. It teaches us that the relationship between a man and a woman is a partnership, built on love and admiration, that requires both parties to share in the work.

And Artscroll didn't take Shir Hashirim and spoonfeed a particular interpretation of it because it was worried about the sexual content. It did it because it wanted to keep that tradition out of the hands of its readers. It wanted to keep all that subverts the patriarchy in Shir Hashirim and hide it away from its readers, because it doesn't trust them with the wisdom of King Solomon. But the joke's on them. Artscroll renders Deuteronomy 29:28 as "The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of the Torah." And much as they try to shift the meaning of the verse with their parenthetical additions, sin has no place in that sentence. The verse is one of the rare ones that isn't about our deeds, but rather about our thoughts. We don't know which interpretation of Shir Hashirim is correct, but the nistarot, the hidden truths, belong to Hashem, our God. Eventually the day will come when he will reveal to us what we need to know. In the meantime, we must open ourselves to all interpretations, not shelter ourselves in the one that makes us feel safest because it limits us.
seekingferret: Two warning signs one above the other. 1) Falling Rocks. 2) Falling Rocs. (Default)
(A continuing series: See the last post back on my LJ)

Commentary on Genesis 2:18 (Full verse says, in Artscroll's rendition Hashem God said, "It is not good that man will be alone; I will make a helper corresponding to him.. Artscroll is asking a she'ilah on the last two words of the verse, "helper corresponding to him.")

עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ 18 A helper corresponding to him [lit. a helper against him]. If the man is worthy, the woman will be a helper; if he is unworthy, she will be against him (Yevamos 63a; Rashi). Many have noted the ideal marriage is not necessarily one of total agreement in all matters. Often it is the wife's responsibility to oppose her husband and prevent him from acting rashly, or to help him achieve a common course by questioning, criticizing, and discussing. Thus, the verse means literally that there are times a wife can best be a helper by being against him (see 21:10-12).

As usual, it's a fascinating trainwreck of good intentions and bad, almost unself-conscious patriarchally-oriented nonsense.

Profile

seekingferret: Two warning signs one above the other. 1) Falling Rocks. 2) Falling Rocs. (Default)
seekingferret

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags