Liturgical issues -- in the spirit of Conservative Judaism
joe_b...@my-deja.com
Our Conservative shul, believing in pluralism (at least within the
factions of the denomination), allows the shaliach tzibbur (prayer
leader) to decide which version of the 'amidah (with or without the
Matriarchs) to use when repeating the prayer aloud. Ever since we
adopted the new siddur "Slim" Shalom (for Shabbat and Yom Tov only, so
there's less biblio-bulk), most of our davenners have switched to
including the Matriarchs, as indeed our rabbi not only allows, but
personally prefers. However, a few of us still use the older formula.
Now there is a discussion to make use of the Matriarchs mandatory.
If you had asked me about this 10 years ago, I would have thought this
was great, but lately, I've had my doubts. I've learned stuff about
the structure of the prayer that make me think that the changes as made
in the new version are the literary equivalent of sticking an ugly
concrete Modernist slab as an addition to a fine old classical
building, or penciling in a moustache on the Mona Lisa, or adding rock
and roll rhythms to a Beethoven symphony.. you get the idea. In
addition, I understand that the prayer makes theological points that
get muddied when the Matriarchs are added.
Now what's interesting is that, typically in Conservative synagogues,
the opponents to such liturgical innovation are the old guys who don't
like any changes, especially feminist-type change, yet their appeals
to tradition are a bit hard to swallow becuase in other parts of their
lives they aren't always the most observant folks around. Then there
is the observant right wing of Conservative Judaism, who feel like
they're being pushed aside, and are becomming Orthodox. Neither of
these approaches appeals to me -- I've read all the arguments on botrh
sides, and most of the egalitarian stuff is fine by me, and I can even
accept the halachic argument allowing inclusion of the Matriarchs as
being reasonable. And on other halachic and theologic issue, I most
definitely am closest to Conservative Judaism, but I choke on the
liturgical stuff.
In fact, the more I consider it, I'd like to see the Conservative
liturgy reclaim and include the material regarding the sacrificial
service, not that I'm red-hot top start barbequing animals as part of
my religious life, but as a way to reconnect to history and celebrate
the many ways we have worshipped God.
So some dicussion on the pros and cons of these liturgical variations
would be very helpful. But be warned, I am not interested in those
whose point is that "the Shulcha Aruch (or their favorite commentary on
the Shulchan Aruch) FORBIDS such and so." Nor do I want to hear
insinuations that opposition to liturgical innovation means I'm
Orthodox, and probably a right-wing male-chauvinist pig to boot.
And, of course, I have no interest in OCR flame wars, though I'm sure
the O's on the list may have things to contribute.
I'm interested in reasoning to show how one can be opposed to these
(what I think are) wrong-headed innovations, in a manner within the
spirit of Conservative Judaism.
Joe
--
Pray for the welfare of the Government, for without it,
people would swallow each other alive. - Avot 3:2
http://www.radix.net/~jbachman
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jay Lapidus
joe_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Our Conservative shul, believing in pluralism (at least within the
>factions of the denomination), allows the shaliach tzibbur (prayer
>leader) to decide which version of the 'amidah (with or without the
>Matriarchs) to use when repeating the prayer aloud. Ever since we
>adopted the new siddur "Slim" Shalom (for Shabbat and Yom Tov only, so
>there's less biblio-bulk), most of our davenners have switched to
>including the Matriarchs, as indeed our rabbi not only allows, but
>personally prefers. However, a few of us still use the older formula.
>Now there is a discussion to make use of the Matriarchs mandatory.
>
>If you had asked me about this 10 years ago, I would have thought this
>was great, but lately, I've had my doubts. I've learned stuff about
>the structure of the prayer that make me think that the changes as made
>in the new version are the literary equivalent of sticking an ugly
>concrete Modernist slab as an addition to a fine old classical
>building, or penciling in a moustache on the Mona Lisa, or adding rock
>and roll rhythms to a Beethoven symphony.. you get the idea. In
>addition, I understand that the prayer makes theological points that
>get muddied when the Matriarchs are added.
All of this is why Rabbi Jules Harlow, the editor of the original Sim
Shalom, objected to the addition of the Matriarchs and resigned from
the committee.
>Now what's interesting is that, typically in Conservative synagogues,
>the opponents to such liturgical innovation are the old guys who don't
>like any changes, especially feminist-type change, yet their appeals
>to tradition are a bit hard to swallow becuase in other parts of their
>lives they aren't always the most observant folks around.
Such religiously-conflicted individuals are pains. They often find
their way onto ritual committees.
>Then there
>is the observant right wing of Conservative Judaism, who feel like
>they're being pushed aside, and are becomming Orthodox. Neither of
>these approaches appeals to me -- I've read all the arguments on botrh
>sides, and most of the egalitarian stuff is fine by me, and I can even
>accept the halachic argument allowing inclusion of the Matriarchs as
>being reasonable. And on other halachic and theologic issue, I most
>definitely am closest to Conservative Judaism, but I choke on the
>liturgical stuff.
>
>In fact, the more I consider it, I'd like to see the Conservative
>liturgy reclaim and include the material regarding the sacrificial
>service, not that I'm red-hot top start barbequing animals as part of
>my religious life, but as a way to reconnect to history and celebrate
>the many ways we have worshipped God.
I believe this was why the late Prof. Rabbi Seymour Siegel, former
CJLS chairman, davened the traditional wording of the Musaf.
I too daven with the traditional wording because I don't think that
qorbanot were "primitive", "pagan" or anything to be embarrassed
about. (Also, a preference for the traditional wording is a distinct
advantage in the 2 synagogues to which I now belong. <g>)
>So some dicussion on the pros and cons of these liturgical variations
>would be very helpful. But be warned, I am not interested in those
>whose point is that "the Shulcha Aruch (or their favorite commentary on
>the Shulchan Aruch) FORBIDS such and so."
(That rules out Josh!)
>Nor do I want to hear
>insinuations that opposition to liturgical innovation means I'm
>Orthodox, and probably a right-wing male-chauvinist pig to boot.
>And, of course, I have no interest in OCR flame wars,
(Then why do you read SCJM?)
>...though I'm sure
>the O's on the list may have things to contribute.
>
>I'm interested in reasoning to show how one can be opposed to these
>(what I think are) wrong-headed innovations, in a manner within the
>spirit of Conservative Judaism.
Jay Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is
a very important science." -- Prof. Saul Lieberman
Russell Steinthal
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>><joe_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
>>> If you had asked me about this 10 years ago, I would have thought this
>>> was great, but lately, I've had my doubts. I've learned stuff about
>>> the structure of the prayer that make me think that the changes as made
>>> in the new version are the literary equivalent of sticking an ugly
>>> concrete Modernist slab as an addition to a fine old classical
>>> building, or penciling in a moustache on the Mona Lisa, or adding rock
>>> and roll rhythms to a Beethoven symphony.. you get the idea. In
>>> addition, I understand that the prayer makes theological points that
>>> get muddied when the Matriarchs are added.
>
>>the matriachs jarring in a literary fashion? It seems to me to simply
>>expand a listing in the opening prayer? And what theological points are
>>getting "muddied" by this addition? I don't follow either point.
>
>The prayers were carefully constructed thousands of years ago to convey
>certain ideas. The Avos are mentioned, each with an individual "elokei"
>prepended, to show us how each of the Avos related to God in a different
>way, and thus they are archetypes for different ways of relating to God.
>
>One good place to start is the notes at the end of Micha's siddur
>Ashirah Lashem, starting on page 33 (PDF page 35); see
><http://www.aishdas.org/siddur_pg.pdf>
First, so that people understand where I am coming from: I am not in
the habit of adding the Imahot to the Amidah, although I would if I
were a shaliach tzibbur at a congregation, such as my parents', which
required it.
That being said, I find the argument above somewhat unavailing. Even
if one accepts as true all of its premises, the fact remains that it
was quite likely that external considerations of the relative
positions of men and women in traditional society influenced the
composition of the Amidah. As far as I can tell, nobody denies that
God was the God of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, and moreover,
that each related to God in a unique way (as each of us probably
does). Had the Rabbis felt the desire to include the matriarchs, they
could have, and they would *still* have been able to "carefully
construct" the Amidah to "show us how each of the Avot [broadly
construed] related to God in a different way, and thus how they are
archetypes of different ways of relating to God."
One can, of course, respond that the text of the Amidah itself is
divine, and can't be altered in any case; I don't know if that is the
traditional position, but if it is, it seems to contradict the notion
that the prayers were "carefully constructed." One could also argue
that there are, in fact, only three (rather than seven) archetypal
ways to relate to God, but that seems a bit short-sighted to me; just
as I have no doubt that the commentators could have listed 614
commandments had that been the traditional number of commandments in
the Torah, I suspect that if they had been inspired to count to seven,
they could have composed seven perfectly coherent types of
relationship.
>>I have no personal ax here as I am not bothered by the addition but prefer
>>the traditional way simply because that's the way I learned it and stop
>>trying to confuse me. That's not a very strong argument -- except on a
>>personal level -- so I'd be interested to hear the more serious objections.
>
>Understanding the meaning behind the prayers, both words and structure,
>enhances the praying experience.
Agreed. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the words and
structure can't be subject to change, in a manner consistent with
their overall logic and intent.
Shabbat Shalom,
Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
joe_b...@my-deja.com
jlap...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2000 01:25:02 GMT, in article <8tt45g$74e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> joe_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >In fact, the more I consider it, I'd like to see the Conservative
> >liturgy reclaim and include the material regarding the sacrificial
> >service, not that I'm red-hot top start barbequing animals as part of
> >my religious life, but as a way to reconnect to history and celebrate
> >the many ways we have worshipped God.
>
> I believe this was why the late Prof. Rabbi Seymour Siegel, former
> CJLS chairman, davened the traditional wording of the Musaf.
>
> I too daven with the traditional wording because I don't think that
> qorbanot were "primitive", "pagan" or anything to be embarrassed
> about. (Also, a preference for the traditional wording is a distinct
> advantage in the 2 synagogues to which I now belong. <g>)
>
You mean I'm not the only one out there? :-) I guess that's a
reassurance.
> >Nor do I want to hear
> >insinuations that opposition to liturgical innovation means I'm
> >Orthodox, and probably a right-wing male-chauvinist pig to boot.
> >And, of course, I have no interest in OCR flame wars,=20
>
> (Then why do you read SCJM?)
Hey, I thought that the "M" in SCJM meant that this would be the
Promised land of respectful discussions, and no OCR flame wars! :-)
Eliot Shimoff
>
> On 3 Nov 2000 01:25:02 GMT, joe_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Our Conservative shul, believing in pluralism (at least within the
> : factions of the denomination), allows the shaliach tzibbur (prayer
> : leader) to decide which version of the 'amidah (with or without the
Micha:
> Another point of difference.
>
> O recognizes a pluralism of versions of the Amidah: Ashkenaz, Chassidish
> "Sfard", Sefarad, Lubavitcher "Ari", Morrocan, Yekkish, Yemenite, Syrian,
> Nusach haGra, Iraqi, Italki (Italian), etc...
>
> However, we believe that halachah mandates that each congregation have
> a custom and stick to it. Complete with responsa about what to do when
> a congregation's demographic changes and they now want to change versions.
But there still can be room for some variation within the congregation's
standard nusach. The more-or-less standard words at the end of the "Et
Shem
haKel" in Shacharit is
b'nachat ru'ach, b'safah b'rurah, u'v'n'imah,
K'duusha kulam k'echad ...
I have always said:
b'nachat ru'ach, b'safah b'rurah, u'v'n'imah k'doshah
Kulam k'echad ...
When I was a chiyuv (saying kaddish for my father, a'h, and thus
leading prayers almost every day), I asked my LOR whether I should
continue my practice, or adopt the more standard version. He told
me that my version was an acceptable variant within the shul's own
accepted nusach.
--
Eliot Shimoff
UMBC Psychology
Baltimore, MD 21250
410 455-2973 (lab)
410 455-2567 (dept. office)
410 455-1055 (fax)
http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
shi...@umbc.edu
toi...@my-deja.com
> I'm interested in reasoning to show how one can be opposed to these
> (what I think are) wrong-headed innovations, in a manner within the
> spirit of Conservative Judaism.
>
> Joe
Impossible.
toichen
Dan Kimmel
<joe_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tt45g$74e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> If you had asked me about this 10 years ago, I would have thought this
> was great, but lately, I've had my doubts. I've learned stuff about
> the structure of the prayer that make me think that the changes as made
> in the new version are the literary equivalent of sticking an ugly
> concrete Modernist slab as an addition to a fine old classical
> building, or penciling in a moustache on the Mona Lisa, or adding rock
> and roll rhythms to a Beethoven symphony.. you get the idea. In
> addition, I understand that the prayer makes theological points that
> get muddied when the Matriarchs are added.
I think you framed the discussion just right and I hope participants will
approach this as a serious discussion rather than as an excuse to flame.
That said, I'm a bit baffled by the paragraph above. How is the addition of
the matriachs jarring in a literary fashion? It seems to me to simply
expand a listing in the opening prayer? And what theological points are
getting "muddied" by this addition? I don't follow either point.
I have no personal ax here as I am not bothered by the addition but prefer
David J. Greenberger
> I'm interested in reasoning to show how one can be opposed to these
> (what I think are) wrong-headed innovations, in a manner within the
> spirit of Conservative Judaism.
I don't know if this would help, but one point of interest would be
Birnbaum's introduction to his siddur. He makes it clear that he did
not publish a siddur for a particular movement; it was to be a siddur
for Jews.
--
David J. Greenberger
Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
joe_b...@my-deja.com
rm...@columbia.edu (Russell Steinthal) wrote:
> In article <8tv1o0$muc$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
> Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In <> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >><joe_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
Dan:
> >>That said, I'm a bit baffled by the paragraph above. How is the
addition of
> >>the matriachs jarring in a literary fashion?
Me:
Here is a work of literature whose wording is being changed. What
would you think of an edition of "Romeo and Juliet" in which it was
said, "A flower by any other name smells as sweet?" More or less ame
meaninmg, but it isn't Shakepeare.
Dan:
>It seems to me to simply
> >>expand a listing in the opening prayer? And what theological
points are
> >>getting "muddied" by this addition? I don't follow either point.
> >
Jonathan:
> >The prayers were carefully constructed thousands of years ago to
convey
> >certain ideas. The Avos are mentioned, each with an
individual "elokei"
> >prepended, to show us how each of the Avos related to God in a
different
> >way, and thus they are archetypes for different ways of relating to
God.
> >
Russell:
> First, so that people understand where I am coming from: I am not in
> the habit of adding the Imahot to the Amidah, although I would if I
> were a shaliach tzibbur at a congregation, such as my parents', which
> required it.
>
> That being said, I find the argument above somewhat unavailing. Even
> if one accepts as true all of its premises, the fact remains that it
> was quite likely that external considerations of the relative
> positions of men and women in traditional society influenced the
> composition of the Amidah.
Me:
Why is it "quite likely" that the liturgy was influenced by "external
considerations," etc.?
And, it wasn't mentioned here, but has been mentioned to me by others
that "God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob," is a quote
straight of of Tanach (Exodus 3:15). Of course, I suppose we can
believe that "external considerations of the relative positions of men
and women in traditional society influenced the composition" of the
Tanach. Does this mean we should change the text of Tanach? Or perhaps
Tanach is not a suitable guide to life because many of the laws were
influenced by such "external considerations of the relative positions
of men abd women..."
Russell:
> As far as I can tell, nobody denies that
> God was the God of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah,
Me:
(and don't forget Bilhah and Zilpah, although none of their descendents
have survived as part of the Jewish people.)
Russell:
> and moreover,
> that each related to God in a unique way (as each of us probably
> does). Had the Rabbis felt the desire to include the matriarchs, they
> could have, and they would *still* have been able to "carefully
> construct" the Amidah to "show us how each of the Avot [broadly
> construed] related to God in a different way, and thus how they are
> archetypes of different ways of relating to God."
Me:
I suppose they could have, but they didn't.
Russell:
>
> One can, of course, respond that the text of the Amidah itself is
> divine, and can't be altered in any case; I don't know if that is the
> traditional position, but if it is, it seems to contradict the notion
> that the prayers were "carefully constructed."
Me:
Why is that a contradiction? Isn't God capable of "carefully
constructing" a literary work, or at least inspirong someone to write
such work?
Russell:
>One could also argue
> that there are, in fact, only three (rather than seven) archetypal
> ways to relate to God, but that seems a bit short-sighted to me;
Me:
Yes, but if there were seven ways, and these ways are rooted in our
tradition, how come no one thought of these seven (or nine, if you add
Bilhah and Zilpah) archetypes until now?
Russell:
> just
> as I have no doubt that the commentators could have listed 614
> commandments had that been the traditional number of commandments in
> the Torah, I suspect that if they had been inspired to count to seven,
> they could have composed seven perfectly coherent types of
> relationship.
>
Jonathan:
> >Understanding the meaning behind the prayers, both words and
structure,
> >enhances the praying experience.
>
Russell:
> Agreed. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the words and
> structure can't be subject to change, in a manner consistent with
> their overall logic and intent.
>
Ah, but that that mean that such changes are _required,_ and that the
original way is inferior?
Joe
Dan Kimmel
<joe_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u56a7$9mo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8tv85j$qf9$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>,
> rm...@columbia.edu (Russell Steinthal) wrote:
> > In article <8tv1o0$muc$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
> > Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >In <> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > >><joe_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > >
> Dan:
> > >>That said, I'm a bit baffled by the paragraph above. How is the
> addition of
> > >>the matriachs jarring in a literary fashion?
>
> Me:
> Here is a work of literature whose wording is being changed. What
> would you think of an edition of "Romeo and Juliet" in which it was
> said, "A flower by any other name smells as sweet?" More or less ame
> meaninmg, but it isn't Shakepeare.
Sorry, I have to shoot down this particular analogy. I go to "Romeo and
Juliet" to sit back and listen to Shakespeare's words, getting caught up in
the artistry of his plotting, characterization, and dialogue. The words ARE
the point. I go to services to talk to G-d (i.e., daven). We use the words
we use because of tradition or because of their source (e.g., Psalms) but
they are not magic formulas or incantations. I can change the words and
STILL authentically communicate with G-d.
I'll go further than Russell. It's not even a matter of "quite likely."
It's a near certainty. The siddur is a manmade construct. OF COURSE it
reflects who those men were and the times in which they lived. And there's
nothing about the Amidah that makes it beyond change. It HAS been changed.
If you're not familiar with the book TO PRAY AS A JEW by Rabbi Hayim Halevy
Donin, you might find it of great interest. In his section the Amidah he
notes that it is also popularly known as the Shimoneh Esreh because it
originally contained 18 blessings. Then a 19th was added. We also change
the Amidah for Shabbat and for holidays. The rabbis also came up with a
condensed version (known as Havineinu) for those unfamiliar with the full
version or for those distressed or pressed for time.
> And, it wasn't mentioned here, but has been mentioned to me by others
> that "God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob," is a quote
> straight of of Tanach (Exodus 3:15). Of course, I suppose we can
> believe that "external considerations of the relative positions of men
> and women in traditional society influenced the composition" of the
> Tanach. Does this mean we should change the text of Tanach? Or perhaps
> Tanach is not a suitable guide to life because many of the laws were
> influenced by such "external considerations of the relative positions
> of men abd women..."
Hmm, and when we read Ashrei we add verses from three other Psalms. What's
wrong with Psalm 145 that it needs additions from three other places to make
it suitable for the siddur? Why was the author of Adon Olam allowed to make
a contribution to the prayer book instead of simply using Psalm 118? (The
last line is a quote from that Psalm. The rest is the author's creation,
attributed to Solomon ibn Gabriol.) Clearly additions and and changes are
of quotations from Tanach are ALREADY in the Siddur.
And the change in the Amidah adding the matriarchs is of the same nature.
It leaves the quotation alone and then adds additional material.
I'm surprised to hear a claim that the prayer book is now to be considered
at the same level of holiness as the Tanach. In fact I believe Jewist
tradition is quite the contrary. I
But the notion that the prayer is a construct of men reacting to their times
can be quickly resolved simply by looking at Aleinu. Aleinu was written in
the 3rd century C.E. (attributed to Rav) and was originally said only in the
Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashonah. How did it come to be one of the closing
prayers of every service? A millenium later, in the 13th century C.E. it
was included elsewhere because of the persecutions of the Middle Ages, and
the longing for the Messianic Ages. Here's a manmade prayer that had a
thousand years of tradition behind it for use only in one service on one
holiday and yet because of the place and times the Jews found themselves in,
they CHANGED the tradition by adopting it for every day use.
One can argue with a proposed change, such as the addition of the
Matriarchs, but the notion that change in the prayer book is not appropriate
or that we do not respond to the times we live in in how we pray flies in
the face of the historical evidence.
> Russell:
> >One could also argue
> > that there are, in fact, only three (rather than seven) archetypal
> > ways to relate to God, but that seems a bit short-sighted to me;
>
> Me:
> Yes, but if there were seven ways, and these ways are rooted in our
> tradition, how come no one thought of these seven (or nine, if you add
> Bilhah and Zilpah) archetypes until now?
Why did American women not get the vote until 1920? Why did we not pass the
Voting Rights Act until1965? It is because times change and people change.
Things we took for granted -- such as the relative invisibility of women in
the prayer book -- are no longer looked at in the same way. Again, you can
question the particular proposal, but the notion that the prayer book is
immutable is invalid.
> Russell:
> > just
> > as I have no doubt that the commentators could have listed 614
> > commandments had that been the traditional number of commandments in
> > the Torah, I suspect that if they had been inspired to count to seven,
> > they could have composed seven perfectly coherent types of
> > relationship.
> >
>
> Jonathan:
> > >Understanding the meaning behind the prayers, both words and
> structure,
> > >enhances the praying experience.
> >
>
> Russell:
> > Agreed. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the words and
> > structure can't be subject to change, in a manner consistent with
> > their overall logic and intent.
> >
>
> Ah, but that that mean that such changes are _required,_ and that the
> original way is inferior?
So we should go back to doing the Aleinu only during the Rosh Hashonah Musaf
service? We should read Psalm 145 without the additional quotes? We should
drop the 19th blessing of the Shimoneh Esreh?
It would be more helpful to address your objection to the particular change
rather than trying to argue that change itself is antithetical to the
construction of the prayer book.
Russell Steinthal
Hadass Eviatar <evi...@superhwy.net> wrote:
>joe_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm interested in reasoning to show how one can be opposed to these
>> (what I think are) wrong-headed innovations, in a manner within the
>> spirit of Conservative Judaism.
>
>Birkat Hamazon. A few years ago we started adding the Matriarchs to it.
>One member (a youth, BTW, not an old fogey 8-)) objected, because we
>were adding their names right after the names of the Patriarchs, and
>breaking the connection to "Bakol mikol kol", which is a subtle
>reference to the way G-d blessed the three Patriarchs (Avraham bakol,
>Yitzchak mikol, and Yaakov kol). We worked out that we could add
>"v'Imoteinu Sarah Rivka Rachel v'Leah" *after* "bakol mikol kol" without
>destroying the liturgical structure - it continues, after all, "ken
>y'varekh otanu" - thus should he bless us. Since we may assume that the
>Matriarchs were also blessed, it works for us.
Another solution to that issue, BTW, appears in the bencher Mizmor
Shir (Ktav Publishing House 1992). It provides the following text for
that Harachaman:
"Harachaman hu yevarech... otanu v'et kol asher lanu... [Some wish to add:] k'mo
sh'nitbarchu imoteinu Sarah, Rivka, Leah v'Rachel Heitiv Tovat Tov Tov
u'k'mo sh'nitbarchu avoteinu Avraham..."
(May the Merciful One bless... us and our households... [Some wish to
add:] as our ancestors- Sarah, Rivka, Leah, and Rachel were blessed
"dealt well" "goodly" "good" "better" and our ancestors...")
The footnote on that verse reads as follows:
"We have based this addition to Birkat Hamazon on an article by Harry
P. Solomon entitled "Including the Matriarchs: A Proposal for Birkat
ha-Mazon" in _Reconstructionist_ March 1988, pp. 12-14. However, we
have located a word for Leah using the root tov instead of malei as
proposed in the article. Readers may also refer to "On the addition
of the Matriarchs to the first blessing of the Amidah" by Rabbi Joel
Rembaum, adopted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the
Rabbinical Assembly. The following are the Biblical citations in
reference to the Matriarchs. The Matriarchs are Sarah heitiv
(Gen. 12:16), Rebecca tovat (Gen. 24:26), Leah tov (Gen. 30:20) and
Rachel tov (29:19)."
-Russell
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> joe_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> : Our Conservative shul, believing in pluralism (at least within the
> : factions of the denomination), allows the shaliach tzibbur (prayer
> : leader) to decide which version of the 'amidah (with or without the
>
> Another point of difference.
>
> O recognizes a pluralism of versions of the Amidah: Ashkenaz,
> Chassidish "Sfard", Sefarad, Lubavitcher "Ari", Morrocan, Yekkish,
> Yemenite, Syrian, Nusach haGra, Iraqi, Italki (Italian), etc...
And _none_ of them mention the Matriarchs in the Amidah. :-)
> However, we believe that halachah mandates that each congregation
> have a custom and stick to it.
Micha, I have news for you. In Israel, where many "communities" got
merged, it is common to find shules which daven "nusach hachazzan"
[whatever version the chazzan uses]. It goes without saying, that in
a place like the Central Bus Station, where there are _many_ minyanim
during the day, espescially in Jerusalem, any nusach is valid.
Even in a community like mine, Sanhedria Murchevet, you'll find it.
We do have many shules with a fixed nusach, but two of the "community"
shuls, allow the chazzan to have his way. (As long as it's a nusach
of "Ashkenazim") It can get very interesting on Rosh Chodesh. You can
end up skipping the SHir Shel Yom [the Psalm for the day of the week]
or saying it _twice_!
> Complete with responsa about what to do when a congregation's
> demographic changes and they now want to change versions.
Hmm, maybe it's because in Israel, the demography _started off_ as a
mixture of communities.
For the Army, Rav Goren put together a "nusach achid" [ a "standard"
version] but I haven't seen it used elsewhere.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Micha Berger
:> Complete with responsa about what to do when a congregation's
:> demographic changes and they now want to change versions.
: Hmm, maybe it's because in Israel, the demography _started off_ as a
: mixture of communities.
Actually, R' Ovadia Yosef points out that Israel has it's own minhag --
the Shulchan Aruch was written there. He therefore believes that the
presence of Ashkenazi minhag in Israel is an abberation, and if an
Israeli Ashkenazi wants to switch-over to minhag Sepharad, he has
grounds for doing so.
OTOH, it is argued by Agus and Ta Shma (see Jon's posts on scj from early
summer) the Ashkenazi minhag contains a richer mix of Israel to Bavel than
Sepharadi minhag does. IOW, if you go back to the Savoraic and Geonic eras,
the minhag of Israel was closer to Ashkenaz than Sepharad.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
wba...@panix.com
: In article <8tv1o0$muc$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
: Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
:>In <> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
:>><joe_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
:>
:>The prayers were carefully constructed thousands of years ago to convey
:>certain ideas. The Avos are mentioned, each with an individual "elokei"
:>prepended, to show us how each of the Avos related to God in a different
:>way, and thus they are archetypes for different ways of relating to God.
:>One good place to start is the notes at the end of Micha's siddur
: composition of the Amidah. As far as I can tell, nobody denies that
: God was the God of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, and moreover,
: that each related to God in a unique way (as each of us probably
: does). Had the Rabbis felt the desire to include the matriarchs, they
: could have, and they would *still* have been able to "carefully
: construct" the Amidah to "show us how each of the Avot [broadly
: construed] related to God in a different way, and thus how they are
: archetypes of different ways of relating to God."
To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
is Rivka, who drew water for the camels of Abahams servant (midrashically,
Eliezar)), Rachel, who met Jacob at the well, Zipporah, who drew wqter
from the well and needed Moshe to help her with the unruly shephards, and
especially, Miryam, who watched over her brother in the water, danced at
the Yam suf, who was associated with the "travelling " well in the desert
and whose very name contains water (Yam). For some reason this prayer,
with it's beautiful tune and verses, fills me with sadness over the
missing women who were connected with water.
Wendy Baker
Micha Berger
: To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
: is Rivka, who drew water ... Rachel, who met Jacob at the well, Zipporah,
: who drew water from the well ... and especially, Miryam, who watched over
: her brother in the water, danced at the Yam suf, who was associated with
: the "travelling " well in the desert and whose very name contains water
Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water. Primarily
wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you really want
to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a prayer for
rain?
OTOH, look how many selichos list "As you answered ... so answer us" that
include Sarah, Rebeccah and Hanna's prayer for chidren.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Russell Steinthal <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>: composition of the Amidah. As far as I can tell, nobody denies that
>: God was the God of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, and moreover,
>: that each related to God in a unique way (as each of us probably
>: does). Had the Rabbis felt the desire to include the matriarchs, they
>: could have, and they would *still* have been able to "carefully
>: construct" the Amidah to "show us how each of the Avot [broadly
>: construed] related to God in a different way, and thus how they are
>: archetypes of different ways of relating to God."
As someone pointed out, "God of A, God of I, God of J" is a verse
quote - better to use a verse quote than a mangled verse quote,
mangled by adding the extra people.
>To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
>is Rivka, [ Rachel, Tziporah, Miriam ]
Yeah. Like that. It's an early medieval piut, so why couldn't
the women have been included? It's not a verse quote. Also,
since we're trying to ask for rachamim, mercy, shouldn't we invoke
women by preference, like who was it who went to Chuldah to get a
more merciful interpretation of a prophecy than he would have gotten
from Yirmiyahu?
--
Jonathan Baker | Marches-wan, marches-two,
jjb...@panix.com | March the months all through and through
Web page update: Vidui, Siyum on Moed. http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
Simcha Streltsov
: Can someone explain to me the benefits of resigning in protest. It
: seems like a counter productive tradition.
you may be right about benefits -
but, benefits aside, it may be a simple-minded understanding of
the mitzva "stay afar from false matter"
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
sim...@bu.edu all punctuation marks in this article
are equivalent to (-:
wba...@panix.com
: On 6 Nov 2000 13:06:09 GMT, Wendy Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
: : To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
: : is Rivka, who drew water ... Rachel, who met Jacob at the well, Zipporah,
: : who drew water from the well ... and especially, Miryam, who watched over
: : her brother in the water, danced at the Yam suf, who was associated with
: : the "travelling " well in the desert and whose very name contains water
: : (Yam)...
: Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water. Primarily
: wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you really want
: to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a prayer for
: rain?
: OTOH, look how many selichos list "As you answered ... so answer us" that
: include Sarah, Rebeccah and Hanna's prayer for chidren.
: -mi
What of the reference to Jacob in this prayer, where his helping Rachel at
the well is the featured item? I am not asking to REPLACE the present
verses, just add to them. Also, that still water that is used all year is
replenished by rain and , except for Miryam's miraculous "travelling"
water, would disappear without the rain. In ancient times, and by
Biblical reference, water and the collecting of it was one of the main
duties of girls and women. They should be in a prayer asking for the
water of survival, in the form of rain.
Wendy Baker
Hadass Eviatar
>
> I'm interested in reasoning to show how one can be opposed to these
> (what I think are) wrong-headed innovations, in a manner within the
> spirit of Conservative Judaism.
I've not seen the Slim Shalom, but I can contribute a thought about
Birkat Hamazon. A few years ago we started adding the Matriarchs to it.
One member (a youth, BTW, not an old fogey 8-)) objected, because we
were adding their names right after the names of the Patriarchs, and
breaking the connection to "Bakol mikol kol", which is a subtle
reference to the way G-d blessed the three Patriarchs (Avraham bakol,
Yitzchak mikol, and Yaakov kol). We worked out that we could add
"v'Imoteinu Sarah Rivka Rachel v'Leah" *after* "bakol mikol kol" without
destroying the liturgical structure - it continues, after all, "ken
y'varekh otanu" - thus should he bless us. Since we may assume that the
Matriarchs were also blessed, it works for us.
I realise that you are bound hand and foot to the version in the siddur,
but I'm just wondering if this kind of discussion might help your
congregation work things out in a spirit of compromise.
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Hadass Eviatar
Winnipeg, Canada
http://www.superhwy.net/~eviatar
Russell Steinthal
" Wendy Baker " <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
>is Rivka, who drew water for the camels of Abahams servant (midrashically,
>Eliezar)), Rachel, who met Jacob at the well, Zipporah, who drew wqter
>from the well and needed Moshe to help her with the unruly shephards, and
>especially, Miryam, who watched over her brother in the water, danced at
>the Yam suf, who was associated with the "travelling " well in the desert
>and whose very name contains water (Yam). For some reason this prayer,
>with it's beautiful tune and verses, fills me with sadness over the
>missing women who were connected with water.
For *a* Conservative perspective on this, you may be interested in
http://www.jtsa.edu/lists/tor-ch/geshem96.html. It's a series of
verses written by Mark Freidenberg in English, translated to Hebrew by
R. Simcha Roth, for inclusion in the Geshem prayer on Shemini Atzeret.
It has verses for Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, and Miriam.
Jonathan J. Baker
>On 6 Nov 2000 13:06:09 GMT, Wendy Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>: To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
>: is Rivka, who drew water ... Rachel, who met Jacob at the well, Zipporah,
>: who drew water from the well ... and especially, Miryam, who watched over
>: her brother in the water, danced at the Yam suf, who was associated with
>: the "travelling " well in the desert and whose very name contains water
>: (Yam)...
>Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water. Primarily
>wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you really want
>to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a prayer for
>rain?
Wells, as well as reservoirs/cisterns, are fed by rainfall.
Also, many of the water images in the Prayer for Rain are dependent
on rainfall, but are not rain themselves: Moshe in the Nile (depens
on rain in the Upper Egypt), marah (an oasis, not rain), Yehoshua
at the Jordan: do you want an image of *impeding* water flow?
I don't have an Artscroll to explain all the images here, but it is
by no means clear that wells are an out-of-place image.
>OTOH, look how many selichos list "As you answered ... so answer us"
>that include Sarah, Rebeccah and Hanna's prayer for chidren.
True, but having children is a different set of imagery than using
water. One can live without children. One cannot live without water.
meirm...@erols.com
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) posted:
>In <8u6dfe$g2h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>>On 6 Nov 2000 13:06:09 GMT, Wendy Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>>: To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
>>: is Rivka, who drew water ... Rachel, who met Jacob at the well, Zipporah,
>>: who drew water from the well ... and especially, Miryam, who watched over
>>: her brother in the water, danced at the Yam suf, who was associated with
>>: the "travelling " well in the desert and whose very name contains water
>>: (Yam)...
>
>>Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water. Primarily
>>wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you really want
>>to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a prayer for
>>rain?
>
>Wells, as well as reservoirs/cisterns, are fed by rainfall.
>
Please keep your eyes on your own paper. Just because these are
take-home exams, one should not feel free to copy off the papers of
family members. :)
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
Jonathan J. Baker
>On 6 Nov 2000 21:49:12 GMT, Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>:>Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water. Primarily
>:>wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you really want
>:>to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a prayer for
>:>rain?
>: Wells, as well as reservoirs/cisterns, are fed by rainfall.
>As I said, are you really going to mention your ability to live off reserves
>in the middle of a prayer begging for rain? "Oh, G-d, please give me rain
>because we sorta need it... eventually."
WHy do I feel like RRW, we're talking past each other?
They depend on rainwater, as do oases, and oases are mentioned in
the existing prayer. And Miriam's well was an open miracle, dependent
directly on God's intervention, so that is an exception to your class.
The land of Israel was never like Egypt, purely dependent on one river
for all its water needs - they always had cisterns, and the Jordan,
and Kinneret, and the Gihon spring (again fed by rainwater, no? Or
does it come from a confined aquifer?)
Water images in the piut as it is:
Avraham is drawn to H' like water
-"- saved from Satan in guise of a river
-"- pours out chassodim like water to everyone
Isaac's birth announced when Avraham served water to angels
offered up, blood to be spilled like water
dug wells (WELLS)
Jacob split Jordan river to cross
rolled stone off of well for Rachel (WELLS)
wrestled with angel, angels composed of fire & water
Moses drawn from Nile
draws water from well for Jethro's daughters (WELLS)
draws water by hitting rock (SPRINGS)
Aaron immerses 5 times on Yom Kippur (MIKVA-GATHERING)
washes hands for impurity (MIKVA-GATHERING)
sprinkles blood like water
remains apart from Israel, impetuous like water
12 Tribes
cross Reed Sea
sweetened waters of Marah (OASIS-SPRING)
our blood spilled like water
our foes engulf us like we are drowning.
I see 3 references to wells, two to springs/oases, two to mikvah
(which is a gathering of water).
Wells are NOT out of place in the piut, they are an integral
part of the piut, thus the wells of the Imahot (which are already
mentioned, albeit from the perspective of the Avot who did things
at the wells. If we can have Moses' miraculous whacking of the rocks
to draw water, a verse for Miriam's miraculous well would not be out
of place. The mothers are in here, but only passively. I can see
why my mother is annoyed by it - there is a place for an active female
role model here, and it was (consciously) avoided.
>:>OTOH, look how many selichos list "As you answered ... so answer us"
>:>that include Sarah, Rebeccah and Hanna's prayer for chidren.
>: True, but having children is a different set of imagery than using
>: water. One can live without children. One cannot live without water.
>A people can't live without children. An individual can, but the
>Shakers doomed themselves.
So? Asking for children is still a different type of need than
asking for water. If I don't (g"f) have children, I'll be disappointed.
If I don't (g"f) have water, I'll be dead.
Micha Berger
:>Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water. Primarily
:>wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you really want
:>to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a prayer for
:>rain?
: Wells, as well as reservoirs/cisterns, are fed by rainfall.
As I said, are you really going to mention your ability to live off reserves
in the middle of a prayer begging for rain? "Oh, G-d, please give me rain
because we sorta need it... eventually."
:>OTOH, look how many selichos list "As you answered ... so answer us"
:>that include Sarah, Rebeccah and Hanna's prayer for chidren.
: True, but having children is a different set of imagery than using
: water. One can live without children. One cannot live without water.
A people can't live without children. An individual can, but the
Shakers doomed themselves.
-mi
Jonathan J. Baker
>>To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
>For *a* Conservative perspective on this, you may be interested in
>http://www.jtsa.edu/lists/tor-ch/geshem96.html. It's a series of
>verses written by Mark Freidenberg in English, translated to Hebrew by
>R. Simcha Roth, for inclusion in the Geshem prayer on Shemini Atzeret.
>It has verses for Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, and Miriam.
<Contrarian mode on>
Isn't the darn thing long enough as it is? I'm the guy who leads it
in my shul, it's plenty long already.
It's slow & majestic, it's not one of these Yom Kippur piutim that
people rattle through quickly.
Hadass Eviatar
>
> In <> rm...@columbia.edu (Russell Steinthal) writes:
> >" Wendy Baker " <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>To me, I miss the women in the prayer for rain on Shmeni Atzeret. Where
>
> >For *a* Conservative perspective on this, you may be interested in
> >http://www.jtsa.edu/lists/tor-ch/geshem96.html. It's a series of
> >verses written by Mark Freidenberg in English, translated to Hebrew by
> >R. Simcha Roth, for inclusion in the Geshem prayer on Shemini Atzeret.
> >It has verses for Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, and Miriam.
>
> <Contrarian mode on>
>
> Isn't the darn thing long enough as it is? I'm the guy who leads it
> in my shul, it's plenty long already.
>
> It's slow & majestic, it's not one of these Yom Kippur piutim that
> people rattle through quickly.
So delete some of the guys. Nobody will even miss them.
Yitzchak Moran
>
> joe_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> : I'm interested in reasoning to show how one can be opposed to these
> : (what I think are) wrong-headed innovations, in a manner within the
> : spirit of Conservative Judaism.
>
> I see you sign your posts as Joe, but can I call you Bill?
> I assume you will not like it. Similarly, if you open Humash,
> Hashem introduces Himself as "God - of Avraham, Itzhak, Yaakov"
> on a number of occasions. It seems like a simple courtesy to
> use the Name He Uses.
>
> this argument relies on only one presumption- that cautiuous courtesy
> is always better than bold rudeness.
That doesn't seem like a good analogy to me, actually. A better one might
be, what if I introduce myself as "Doug, son of Joseph," but later someone
calls me "Doug, son of Joseph and Barbara?" Should I be insulted?
--
Yitzchak Moran | "...for what reason was the School of Hillel entitled
Professional Dad | to have the law determined according to their rulings?
from the Home Office | Because they were kindly and humble, and because they
dou...@earthlink.net | studied their own rulings and those of Shammai..."
joe_b...@my-deja.com
In article <8u9ldg$fdc$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
> In <8u9ee0$rbf$4...@bob.news.rcn.net> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
writes:
>
> >On 6 Nov 2000 21:49:12 GMT, Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com>
wrote:
> >:>Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water.
Primarily
> >:>wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you
really want
> >:>to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a
prayer for
> >:>rain?
>
> >: Wells, as well as reservoirs/cisterns, are fed by rainfall.
>
> >As I said, are you really going to mention your ability to live off
reserves
> >in the middle of a prayer begging for rain? "Oh, G-d, please give me
rain
> >because we sorta need it... eventually."
>
> WHy do I feel like RRW, we're talking past each other?
>
> They depend on rainwater, as do oases, and oases are mentioned in
> the existing prayer. And Miriam's well was an open miracle, dependent
> directly on God's intervention, so that is an exception to your class.
> The land of Israel was never like Egypt, purely dependent on one river
> for all its water needs - they always had cisterns, and the Jordan,
> and Kinneret, and the Gihon spring (again fed by rainwater, no? Or
> does it come from a confined aquifer?)
I belive all of the aquifers in the north of Israel have circulating
ground water, fed by current rainfall. As you move further south into
the Arava and Sinai, the rainfall drops off to less than 100 mm/yr
(Rainfall in the east coast USA is about 1200 mm/yr), and the aquifers
are filled with what is called "fossil" ground water, that is, it was
recharged many thousands of years ago, when the climate was cooler and
wetter.
Hoever, the ground water in the vicinity of Jerusalem (even the springs
that come forth at "ein Gedi) are from more recent recharge. I won't
hazard a guess as to how long the water flows underground, becuase I'm
not familiar with recent hydrologeologic research in the region, but
there are natural age-dating tracers (carbon-14, tritium/helium ratios,
Chloroflorcarbon concentrations) that can be applied to check the age.
But ultimately nearly all the water we use, no matter whether it has
come from a long-term storage reservoir, arrives on the land from
rainfall.
>
> Water images in the piut as it is:
> Avraham is drawn to H' like water
> -"- saved from Satan in guise of a river
> -"- pours out chassodim like water to everyone
>
> Isaac's birth announced when Avraham served water to angels
> offered up, blood to be spilled like water
> dug wells (WELLS)
>
> Jacob split Jordan river to cross
> rolled stone off of well for Rachel (WELLS)
> wrestled with angel, angels composed of fire & water
>
> Moses drawn from Nile
> draws water from well for Jethro's daughters (WELLS)
> draws water by hitting rock (SPRINGS)
This may also be considered a kind of well drilling.
>
> Aaron immerses 5 times on Yom Kippur (MIKVA-GATHERING)
> washes hands for impurity (MIKVA-GATHERING)
> sprinkles blood like water
> remains apart from Israel, impetuous like water
>
> 12 Tribes
> cross Reed Sea
> sweetened waters of Marah (OASIS-SPRING)
> our blood spilled like water
> our foes engulf us like we are drowning.
>
> I see 3 references to wells, two to springs/oases, two to mikvah
> (which is a gathering of water).
>
and only one reference to a river/stream, and none for rain, which is
amusing for a prayer called "geshem". (maybe they don't want to be too
explicit, becuase everyone still has to take down their sukka.) All
right! Ground-water rules! My former supervisor at the U.S. Geological
Survey will be very pleased. :-)
Joe
--
Pray for the welfare of the Government, for without it,
people would swallow each other alive. - Avot 3:2
http://www.radix.net/~jbachman
Micha Berger
: Also, many of the water images in the Prayer for Rain are dependent
: on rainfall, but are not rain themselves...
Point conceded. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
-mi
Yitzchak Moran
>
> On 6 Nov 2000 21:49:12 GMT, Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
> :>Note that all of these references are to still and gathered water. Primarily
> :>wells, but in Miriam's case also a sea (Yam Suf, Mir-YAM). Do you really want
> :>to mention one's ability to live off reserves in the middle of a prayer for
> :>rain?
>
> : Wells, as well as reservoirs/cisterns, are fed by rainfall.
>
> As I said, are you really going to mention your ability to live off reserves
> in the middle of a prayer begging for rain? "Oh, G-d, please give me rain
> because we sorta need it... eventually."
Without expressing an opinion on the main question...
Well, *yes*, Micha, that makes sense to me. We might put it:
Please bring us rain to water our crops,
fill our wells, cisterns, and aquifers
replenish our lakes and rivers,
make our plants grow,
and provide water for all animals.
Why not? I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Whether your need
is immediate or long-term, praying for it all at once seems sensible.
To me, anyway.