Comments from TBS members on the question

of including the Matriarchs in the Amida prayer.

To add your thoughts, email Rabbi Plavin.

1. Helen Ross - Our former Congregation instituted the inclusion of the Matriarchs some years ago. To me, this felt like a bow to political correctness, i.e., gender equality, rather than a mark of spiritual growth and inclusion. Perhaps this is an indication merely of what I'm comfortable with, but the flow of the language with the imahot has always sounded stilted to me. I appreciate that there are women who are very spiritual and also strongly feminist, such as those quoted in the mailing, for whom the inclusion of the Matriarchs has a profound significance, but I believe that for many Conservative Jews it's more a matter of patting ourselves on the back and saying, "Aren't we 'with it'!" So, if it comes to a vote, my tendency is to say, "Not now." Nevertheless, in the final analysis I believe that this is a decision that should be determined by the rabbi of the congregation as our religious leader and teacher.

2. Sharon Woodley - I know that you believe TBS should pray to the Matriarchs alound in our service. With all due respect, I am saying that is not the biggest issue TBS is facing...

3. Arnie and Sandy Dashefsky - Two thousand years ago, the predominant mode by which Jews worshiped was to sacrifice offerings of animals and today the method by which Jews worship is to deliver offerings of the mouth (or prayer). More than a thousand years ago Jewish men were permitted to marry four women; but, for more than a millennium thanks to the takkanah of Rabbenu Gershom, the practice has been monogamy. Less than a hundred years ago, girls did not participate in a Bat Mitzvah ceremony. Ever since the 1920's when Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan called his daughter up on a Friday night to recite the haftarah, girls have the opportunity to participate in the Bat Mitzvah ceremony. About 30 years ago, this practice changed so that girls, like boys, were typically called up to the Torah on Shabbat morning. A generation ago, only men were ordained as rabbis in the non-Orthodox movements and today both men and women are ordained as rabbis. It is easy to reflect on the changes in the past and more difficult to recognize the need for change in the present. Clearly, the inclusion of the Imahot is a change from tradition, which strikes me as much less challenging than any of the preceding changes that I have enumerated. All of the above changes were in response to broader social, political, and economic conditions. Likewise, the addition of the Imahot represents a minimal but necessary modification in the liturgy in response to the contemporary need for inclusiveness and I urge that such a practice be adopted for our service.

4. Richard Levy - I am a traditionalist and women are certainly an important part of our history but I do not favor changing the existing prayers. The Torah has a certain order and structure and since the prayers are based on the Torah I don't feel they should be changed. This does not diminish the contribution females have made to our history and our congregation.

5. Ira and Anne Fink - Please include us in the "in favor" column concerning inclusion of the Emahot in the Amida.

6. Diane Wasser - While openness to the idea of change is part of the Conservative movement, it does so only when there are compelling reasons of justice or community survival, etc.. I don't believe that the inclusion of the Imahot in the Amidah rises to that level of urgency.Tampering with the wording of a an ancient prayer destroys the continuity that links the generations. Our congregation has been fully egalitarian for decades. Women at TBS have taken the opportunity to daven, chant from the Torah and pursue all levels of Jewish learning. In other words, our women can and do connect to the tradition, which may be rooted in a particular time but also transcends any particular society and era. Prayers have been added and subtracted from the services over the ages, but wholesale change of the wording and concepts of a particular core ancient prayer weakens the carefully guarded authenticity of our tradition. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared to modern texts, scholars were amazed at the identical correspondence to texts copied over the generations for thousands of years. A change in our reading of the Amidah is not a good idea, in my opinion.

7. Laurie Bayer - While I think some change is good, I would vote against this. As a woman I don't feel excluded from the traditional prayers. Rather, I appreciate that these are ancient words, passed through millenia (some of it) and through generations. I think it's arbitrary that we would want to change just a few pages of the text, with the remainder containing only the male word forms. If women want to feel more included, then my suggestion would be to study Torah, chant portions on the Bimah and search for other, constructive ways to participate in the service. Thank you.

8. Mimi Witkin - I am in favor of inclusion of the matriarchs in the Amida. It brings another item of equality in our congregation.

9. Lisa Plavin - I'd like to share with you some of my thoughts on the inclusion of the imahot in the Amida. I have heard or read many of the comments and will therefore not dwell on my visceral or emotional reactions nor my discomfort with deviation from the more traditional Jewish world. I would like to share the following: a. I approach the emendation of the Siddur with great seriousness. Language and linguistic fashion change so rapidly. Note the datedness of the English in our high holyday Silverman Mahzor, which is 50 years old or Siddur Hadash, which is 30 years old. And yet the traditional language of the Siddur has endured nearly unchanged for eleven centuries. I would not like to be among those tampering with and improving the classics. b. On the issue of inclusiveness - I often wonder about the predominance of women among our congregants - the ratio is often two to one at TBS services. We have women participating in every aspect of our service. Our hazzan is a woman. I hardly think this bespeaks a lack of empowerment. c. I am not a big fan of tokenism. I honestly feel that including the names of the matriarchs in the Amida can be construed as patronizing and condescending. Our Siddur, like the Tanach which it invokes, is framed by a patriarchal mindset. Emending one prayer to be more sensitive to women suggests that we are so ignorant of the language of tefilah as to be so easily assuaged. d.Finally I will share my objection to the addition of the term "poked Sarah" to the closing of the first paragraph of the Amida. I have always assumed that Avraham accepted the covenant on my behalf and not just on behalf of descendants of his gender. Therefore, God is my shield and protector as he is Avraham's. The emendation of the text would suggest that this is not so. In this new liturgy, God protects and shields male descendants of Avraham; Sarah and her progeny on the other hand are "remembered," a verb that in Biblical context evokes pregnancy. Talk about gender stereotyping!

10. Arthur Abramson - I have read the interesting material you provided, and I remain convinced, just as I was by the response of Rabbi Harlow, that we should stick to the traditional wording.9. Unidentified - I just wanted to add my personal support for including the imahot in the service. I think that if we are to be an egalitarian synagogue, then we must be consistent in this regard.

11. Ted Zupnik - I am uncomfortable with adding the Imahot. When I am at a synagogue that does so, I go back to the beginning of the Amida after the Kedusha and say it without.

12. Mimi Kalman - My question to you and the Ritual Committee is, Why not woman? Judaism is a matriarchal society. We are taught that our being Jewish depends on whether or not our mother is Jewish. In the Conservative movement, we have, for some time, recognized counting women for minyan and giving them Aliyot and other honors previously reserved for men only. We have women Rabbis and Cantors. We honor our women today, it is truly time to honor those women who came before us, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. Today we say "behind every successful man is a successful woman." I'm sure that without the support of our Emahot, our forefathers would not have been able to be the leaders that they were.

13. Susan Shongut - I am in favor of retaining the prayer in its original state. I see no reason to change it, as women in our synagogue already have equal status in the service and I prefer to maintain the prayer as originally designed in order to maintain tradition. Also, I see the verse as a biblical statement of history and fact, that God made a covenant with the patriarchs. While the matriarchs are an important part of history, I do not think it is stated that God made a covenant with the matriarchs.

14. Carl Mandell - If Conservative Judaism stands for egalitarianism on the bima then I think it should be in the service. As I have been a regular attendee at many synagogues during my tenure at Schechter, I have observed several changes in their services. At the very least, I would include the emahot in the daily service and the musaph amidah on Shabbat

14a. With such a divided opinion in regard to include or exclude the Matriarchs in the Amidah, the only win/win situation is to exclude them in the Shacharit service and include them in the Musaph service, or the other way around.  To be more specific, the Cantor or Shaliach Tzibur has to chant it that way. It should not be announced as optional but led in this fashion. It is then up to the educated congregant to recite the prayers the way they want to do them.

15. Anonymous - I support including them in the Amidah reading.

16. Arnie Keyser - Before we change an ages old tradition, we would need an overwhelming desire from the congregants. At this point, I do not see it present.

17. Dottie Snider - While I'm against adding the matriarchs, if you (meaning Ritual Committee) gets pushed to the wall, a suggestion is to say the Amida with the matriarchs during Shacharit and the Amida with only the Patriarchs during Musaf. That way, anyone who wants to hear the matriarchs would need to come earlier-which might drum up "business."

18. Michael Norman - I believe that we should include the matriarchs in the Amida. After all if it were not the mothers we would not exist. It is the mothers that make the Jewish home and by including them we honor our present women and remind us of our past.

19. Bruce Beck - Put me down for being opposed to changing the Siddur to include the Matriarchs.  One reason many of us stayed in our congregation, rather th`n switch to a congregation closer to home or more convenient is that it is "conservative".  This proposal sounds like another manifestation of political correctness.