Bilhah and Zilpah
Listserv Postings
As many of you know, at our next minyan meeting on Sunday,
December 2nd, we will be voting on whether to include Bilhah and
Zilpah in the communal recitation of the Amidah. In advance of that meeting,
the study group’s findings are posted below. These were shared at services a
few weeks ago, but we appreciate that not everyone was able to attend.
I would like to encourage the community to discuss this on
the listserv and on this bloc so as to share your perspectives. Earlier, I had
asked people to e-mail their comments to me, and that had the unintended
consequence of making me the sole recipient of everyone’s views. I would like
to rectify that now.
This exploration grew out of one of our principles: a
commitment to liturgical innovation and the right of the service leader, within
very broad guidelines, to introduce new materials in order to expand learning,
deepen spirituality, or heighten attention to issues. For example, the traditional Aleynu
says, "Who has not made us like other peoples of the world or families of
the earth, and not made our lot like theirs or our fate like any
others'." When the community decided to use the Reconstructionist
version that replaces the phrase with "who gave us true teaching and
planted eternal life in our midst," we originally paused to allow time for
those reciting the traditional Aleynu to finish because it takes longer to say.
Over time, that pause fell by the wayside when no one seemed to be doing
the traditional Aleynu.
The intention of the study group has been to use this question
as an impetus for Jewish learning and to create an avenue for communal
discussion and to deepen our connections to each other.
As a brief background, Bilhah and Zilpah are the
“handmaidens” of Leah and Rahel who birthed sons considered leaders of four
tribes of Israel. The sons born to Zilpah (Leah’s shifhah) are Gad and Asher; the sons born to Bilhah (Rahel’s
shifhah) are Dan and Naftali.
The reason we chose to focus on the possibility of including them in the recitation
of the imahot is that their children account for one third of the tribes of
Israel.
Below are the opening comments from the d’var we shared:
Through study and consultation with many members of our
community, we have identified a number of reasons both to include and not to
include their names in the listing of the imahot. As we formulated our approach
to learning, we agreed that, despite what our personal inclinations might be,
we would be open to hearing whatever our search brought to us. We do not have a
recommendation one way or the other but have come to the conclusion that
including them or not including them in the community recitation of the Avot
v'Imahot section of the Amidah is a matter of personal and community
conviction. And as a matter of process, more important than coming up with an
answer, is using this exploration as a way to get to know each other in a
deeper way and build community.
We chose four avenues for data collection: rabbinic text
(Michelle Greenfield), the Hebrew words by which Bilhah and Zilpah are
referenced - “amah” or “shifchah” plus the concept of pilegesh (Chana Dickter),
the processes of other communities that have wrestled with this issue, and
feedback from our community as we included Bilhah and Zilpah in the community
recitation of the Avot v'Imahot section of the Amidah (Naomi Klayman). Further,
the chapter, Attitudes, Beliefs, and
Values from David Teutch’s book, AGuide to Jewish Practice was a valuable resource for us as we grappled with
the question of how this inclusion might or might not support our communal
values.
This study was not meant to be exhaustive, but rather an
initial exploration, limited by our time and energy.
Rabbinic Text
Search
A review of
Rabbinic sources (talmud and midrash) on the Imahot and on Bilhah and Zilpah
led us to sources which, not surprisingly, contradict each other.
Although
there is a strong early tradition of there being four mothers, we also found a
Midrashic tradition (attested to in Song of Songs Rabbah as well as other sources)
that specifically claims there are 6 mothers, including Bilhah and Zilpah on
the list. In these midrashim, the inclusion or exclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah
is likely not driven by values. It would
seem as though when the rabbis were looking for things that added up to four,
there were four mothers. When they
wanted seven, they added the four mothers and three fathers. And when they
wanted six, Bilhah and Zilpah were included.
Other
sources contribute to a sense that these two women were important in the life
of Joseph. Midrash on Geneses 37:2
imagined them as having been Joseph’s caretakers, as his mother had died. There is even a Midrash that imagines Joseph
referring to Bilhah as his mother.
No texts
were found about Bilhah and Zilpah's faith or religion, though one obscure
Midrash does imagine them as the product of a relationship between Lavan and
one if his maidservants which, in a system of Patrilineal descent gives them
the same status as Rachel and Leah.
Other Synagogue Practices
Three synagogues/minyanim were
identified in North America that include Bilhah and Zilpah in the Avot section
of the Amidah at some point in a service. What is unique about Dorshei Derekh,
is that we are the only community that I have found so far that is subjecting
this decision to a communal process; the others made a de facto decision by a
few people with little process. I know there are other prayer communities that
I have not been able to contact, and perhaps there are others that have gone
through a similar process.
Congregation Bet Simchat Torah, an LGBT synagogue in NYC appointed
a study/work group to develop their own siddur. The group included the
assistant rabbi at that time, Ayelet S. Cohen. The group decided to include
Bilhah and Zilpah in the Friday night recitation of the Amidah. No discussion
of weighing the implications was reported, but this is what appears at the
footnote:
“As a community of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and straight Jews, we have experienced the ways in which
families are excluded and erased from Jewish community and family life. Because
of the way we love, some of us have lost our children or have been excised from
their lives; many of us will never be legally recognized as the parents of the
children we have raised. Likewise, many of us are the children of parents who
are not legally recognized. Yet despite this, we know that our relationships
are holy and our families are real. Therefore, we acknowledge all our
ancestors, Avraham, Yitschak, Ya’akov, Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel, her handmaiden
Bilhah, Leah, and her handmaiden Zilpah. Our ancestors descended from all of
them, whether their relationships were celebr4ated or not, whether they were
regarded as equal or not.”
Congregation Adath Jeshurun, a Conservative synagogue in Elkins
Park, added Bilhah and Zilpah to the minhah service. When Rabbi Seymour
Rosenbloom was developing their siddur, he decided to add them to the minchah
service without consultation with the community. Their names are included or
excluded at the discretion of the service leader, and that is announced just
prior to the recitation of the Amidah. Rabbi Rosenbloom first became aware of
the possibility of included their names at a female baby-naming service
conducted by Rabbi Lenny Gordon.
Ahavat Olam, a progressive synagogue in Vancouver, CA, includes
Bilhah and Zilpah in the Shabbat morning recitation of the Amidah. Rabbi David
Mivasair explained that he shares leading services with one other person. When
that other person included Bilhah and Zilpah in the Amidah, Rabbi Mivasair
decided to continue that tradition. This was not discussed by the community.
Compiled Reflections on Values
Avadim hayinu bemitzrayim (We were slaves in Egypt [Deuteronomy 6:21]). "create empathy
with all who are down-trodden, victimized or in pain, and support for
them." Some of the rejection of Bilhah and Zilpah is due to class and race
issues. - Supports inclusion
B’tzelem Elohim
(Human beings are created in the image of God) "no human being should be treated
merely as an object" Bilhah and Zilpah should not be treated merely as
objects (wombs/surrogates) but as putting their lives on the line for Israel in
enduring pregnancies for the propagation of the tribes. - Supports inclusion
Darkhey shalom:
"utilizing ... resources in ways that create harmony. ... Applies to
conflicts between religious groups", A change to the status quo has the
potential to incite conflict within our community. - Could support exclusion
Diversity "We
benefit from our exposure to different ideas, cultures and ways of
being in the world." Recognizing the diversity of mother role -
Supports inclusion.
Egalitarianism
Although it speaks of equal treatment only for "women and men, homosexual
and heterosexual, and people of all races and ethnicities. This principle
to extend to socio-economic class. It recognizes the infinite worth of every
human life, especially as mothers of Israel. It also sends a message of
inclusion and respect to all members of our community. – Supports inclusion.
Emet (Truth
and integrity) Provides the
truth about our origins, recognizing all six mothers, voiding the untruth of
omission. – Supports inclusion
Inclusion and Pluralism "Welcoming all into our communities regardless of ... family
status". Supports embracing a wider range of people, strengthening the
community and encouraging it to serve all its members. – Supports inclusion.
Kehila (Commitment to community) and Klal Yisrael (Unity
and survival of the Jewish people) and Sh’lom bayit (Peace at
home) Some in our community
take offense at this and would find it distracting. However, the same could be
said of other minority groups that we feel compelled to include and other ways
that we have expanded our prayers, such as the Imahot and "yo shvay
tayvel" at the end of kaddish. -
Supports exclusion
K’vod hab’riyot (Human dignity) : "we are bound to respect the
dignity of each human being and act in a way consistent with that
dignity." - Supports inclusion.
Pluralism:
"We embrace pluralism not as a necessary evil but as a source
for creating vigor in Jewish life". Bringing the rare practice of
including B&Z enhances pluralism. – Supports inclusion.
Shalshelet
hakabbala (Preserving
the chain of tradition) PROBLEMATIC as Bilhah and Zilpah are
not seen as part of the dominant oral tradition in our prayer services. But
then neither was including the imahot until we started doing it.
Tzedek: "We live in a just society only
when every one of its members is treated justly." Inclusion of
Bilhah and Zilpah as equals with Rachel &Leah is a way of retroactively
treating them justly as mothers. - Support inclusion.
Hebrew Text Study
In the text, Bilhah & Zilpah are referred to as both
“amah” or “shifchah”. What types of
relationships do these terms imply when used in the Torah? Another
textual term is “pilegesh” How were these terms used and understood in
the ancient Middle East?
The brief citations below are not intended for anything
other than to provide a very broad, basic understanding for reference in future
discussions. They were collected during
a very pleasant hour spent lost in the internet.
1. Pilegesh/ פילגש
: A pilegesh was recognized among
the ancient Hebrews and enjoyed the same rights in the house as the legitimate
wife. Since having children in Judaism was considered a great blessing,
legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands so they could have
children with them when those women themselves where childless. According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh.
21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter
received a ketubah
and her marriage was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin"),
which was not the case with the former. Any offspring created as a result of a
union between a pilegesh and a man were on equal legal footing with children of
the man and his (ketubah owning) wife.
(no citation)
NB: anyone interested
in pursuing such a relationship is welcome to visit www.pilagesh.org
2. The following is
from a brief e-mail correspondence with Wil Gafney:
“Amah & shifchah are used completely interchangeably in
the corpus and it is no longer possible to distinguish them. Both types of
enslaved women and girls are sexually available to their owners for pleasure
and/or reproduction. For that reason I chose "womb-slave" to
emphasize that aspect of their servitude in those narratives in which they are
so used. The translation is semantic (womb) and philological (slave).
Here are some references for Amah in the Tanakh: Judg 9:18; 19:19; 1 Sam 1:11, 16; 25:24–25,
28, 31, 41; 2 Sam 6:20, 22; 14:15–16; 20:17; 1 Kings 1:13, 17; 3:20; Nah 2:7;
Psa 86:16; 116:16; Job 19:15; 31:13; Ruth 3:9; Ezra 2:65; Neh 7:67”
Shabbat Parashat Mishpatim, 29 Shevat 5764 - Torah: Exodus
21:1-24:18; Maftir: Exodus 30:11-16; Haftarah : II Kings 12:1-17
An amah is a girl sold to a man because of her family’s dire
poverty She becomes a servant to that man. Because her status is anomalous –
she is a part of the family but was acquired in the manner of slave – the Torah
here lays out her special prerogatives. According to Professor Nahum Sarna, the
“laws safeguard her rights and protect her from sexual exploitation.”
Biref4. Most intriguing was a summary from the book: Savina
J. Teubal. Ancient Sisterhood: The Lost Traditions of Hagar and Sarah. Athens,
Ohio: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press, 1997, in which she posits that Hagar
was a Naditu priest and argues that she may have been Pharaoh's daughter, or
his royal wife or sister. Teubal argues that Hagar's function was childbearing,
a rather important function that was of great significance for childless
priests like Sarah. Drawing a distinction between "shifhah" and
"amah" [slave, maid] terms that are both attributed to Hagar in the
Bible, Teubal links the first term to the function of a woman who bore children
for a barren priest and who served herself as a priest. That Hagar was
childless before coming into Sarah's service provides the likelihood that she
was a priest. Teubal argues that Hagar was Sarah's companion, a clan member of
equal status rather than a slave or a servant as the later interpretation of
"shifhah" and the term "amah" suggests.
·
It is possible that Bilhah and Zilpah were
initially excluded from the Imahot based on class and/or race prejudice.
·
It is possible that Bilhah and Zilpah were
initially excluded from the Imahot because their alliance to God is not evident
or because they do not explicitly represent Jewish spiritual values.
·
The inclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah could be
taking feminism too far, listing so many more mothers than fathers and could
alienate some men in our community.
·
The addition of Bilhah and Zilpah reminds us of
the contributions of so many nameless and voiceless people over the millennia,
especially women, who toil and care for their families and the children of
others.
·
We might put elipses after Rachel and Leah, and
pause in the davvening to indicate that we can never name in the prayer all the
ancestors in all the generations.
·
The inclusion of Bilhah and Zilpah could be
distracting to the point of discouraging participating in our service.
