Written by Rabbi Heller
Following the request of the ritual committee, I offer the following thoughts on the philosophy and implementation of offering the option of adding the Imahot (matriarchs) in the reader's repetition of the Amidah.
A. Background
The addition of the names of the Imahot (matriarchs) to the Amidah has been an option in the Conservative movement for over 30 years. Our congregation has not permitted this option in our main service in deference to our general commitment to the traditional liturgy and also in consideration of the relative strength of the teshuvot for and against doing so. For the past few years, addition of the Imahot has been permitted for use in some of our alternative services that already diverged from the traditional liturgy. Two things have changed in the past year that caused us to reconsider this policy:
1. A new teshuvah in favor of including the names of the Imahot was approved by a majority of the CJLS. Even as the writer of the dissent against that teshuvah, I must concede that while I still object to some of the specific arguments and outcomes of the teshuvah (and indeed, I voted against it and authored the dissent), several of its key arguments withstand halachic objections.
2. While there are many congregants who prefer the traditional language, there are a significant number of congregants who are interested in the change who are not peripheral figures or outsiders. These include long time members, several potential future service leaders, and a number of our Bar and Bat Mitzvah students.
The Ritual Committee took up the question in March of 2024 and asked that we explore the change. I sent out links to a number of teshuvot on the topic and offered the community three sessions to study the halachic arguments for and against as well as the opportunity to share feedback with the Ritual Committee in person and vi email. About 50 congregants attended these study sessions and many offered their opinions in person. Additionally, about 10 members of the congregation sent written feedback which was shared with the committee. At its meeting on June 10, the Ritual Committee reviewed the communal responses. I shared with the Ritual Committee that I had no halachic objection in the abstract, though I did have specific concerns that would need to be addressed in its implementation. The committee asked that the Imahot become an option in our main service, but not a mandated default, and that I should offer the community a clear explanation of what our practice would be moving forward.
B. Halakhic and Philosophical Considerations
Key teshuvot are available at these links:
Absolutely In Favor (Rabbi Joel Rembaum)
Absolutely Opposed (Rabbi David Golinkin)
Permitted with Specific Hesitations (Rabbi Heller, Rabbi Ethan Tucker)
Below are key points of my analysis:
1. There are clearly situations in which it is permitted to add words to the Amidah. In the middle blessings it is actually considered meritorious to add whatever might be on one’s mind, even at length. While the first three and last three blessings are considered to be more fixed, it is still permitted to add supplemental language as long as this language reflects a communal practice rather than an individual request. This is evident in that we add extensive insertions for the high holidays, as well as seasonal prayers for rain and dew.
2. There are arguments to be made that the first sentences of the Amidah have a particular sensitivity, and thus should not be changed, because they have been a staple prayer for so long and because of a Talmudic assertion that the first blessing should only include praises of God that are already found in the Bible. However, these arguments also have strong counter-arguments, among them the fact there are already words found in the first blessing of the Amidah which are not found in the Bible.
3. One could debate whether, from a philosophical perspective, including the matriarchs is well-needed representation or tokenism. If we are going to include women, why would it specifically be these four women and not others? In fact, there are many Biblical figures from whom we might draw inspiration and therefore we might want to incorporate into our prayers. Indeed there are other places where many other female or male role models are already included or might be added (so, for example, in prayers that talk of the song at the sea, it is logical to mention Miriam alongside Moses). However, in this case there are specific rabbinic teachings that place Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the figures to be mentioned in the first blessing of the Amidah, because they have the specific role of “Patriarchs.” Some of the same texts also present Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah specifically as their counterparts, the “Matriarchs.”
4. While the body of a blessing may be fluid, the “Hatimah,” the closing phrase which comes after the final “Baruch Atah,” is intended to have a more set nature. Indeed, in some cases, only a very specific formulation should be kosher, to the exclusion of variant versions. In this case there are three reasons why I would prefer the Hatimah to retain the traditional language, mentioning only Abraham, and not Sarah.
a. Ideally, the Hatimah should refer to a single phrase or theme, not multiple concepts, actions or individuals.
b. In addition, there are texts that specify why even though all three patriarchs are mentioned in the body, only Abraham is singled out for mention in the Hatimah. Sarah should not be added there for the same reason that Isaac and Jacob are already omitted from the closing.
c. The phrasing commonly used to include Sarah, “Who remembers Sarah” “u-foked Sarah” uses a verb with negative connotations.
As such, while I support offering the option of including the Imahot in the body of the Amidah, I believe that it would still be preferable to close with the traditional phrasing of “Magen Avraham.” Indeed, while the Lev Shalem includes “U’foked Sarah, the version of the text which mentions the matriarchs in the body, but does not include this phrase in the conclusion, is used in a number of more traditional communities in the Conservative movement and beyond.
5. Some have asked whether it is appropriate to permit the leader to choose which version to recite. I would note that everyone is free to say whatever they want in their private recitation of the Amidah. In almost all circumstances when the Amidah is done with a repetition, this private Amidah is “real” Amidah for the members of the congregation. It is only for the prayer leader that the repetition is the “real” Amidah. Even when there is not a repetition, most of the time (all services except for Shacharit) the members of the congregation should in fact go back and recite the first three blessings on their own privately before continuing with the remainder of the Amidah. As a result, allowing the leader to choose from two accepted options maximizes the ability of each member of our community to pray in a way that is most meaningful to them without impacting the validity of anyone else’s Amidah.
C. Strategic Questions
Just because something is permitted does not mean that it is a good idea. I have been asked whether this is strategically wise for the congregation. Is this a slippery slope?
1. The addition of the Imahot, in some form, is now the overwhelming norm in Conservative synagogues, and is also an accepted option in many traditionally minded communities that seek to occupy a spot between Conservative and Orthodox, including the “Hadar” movement.
2. Over the last 20 years, our congregation has gone through a slow and well-considered process of evolution. It took 15 years for us to go from women opening the ark to hiring a female rabbi. Along the way, we have made other, very selective changes to the liturgy, often without fanfare. We modified the morning blessings to eliminate “who has not made me a woman” and adopted versions of the prayers healing that included the matriarchs. We also changed our prayers regarding the sacrifices from the future tense (expressing a desire for the return of animal sacrifice) to a more general phrasing that incorporates the animal sacrifices but does not demand their return to practice. We have already permitted the Imahot in some of our special and alternative services. I expect that our congregation might continue to adapt to new circumstances over the next 20 years, with the understanding that the pace of change should remain measured.
3. While I personally prefer the traditional language, I recognize that the needs of our community continue to evolve, and our practice, while bound by Jewish law, must bend gently to meet the needs of each new generation. As I look at the next generation of potential B'nai Torah prayer leaders, a significant portion of that next generation sees the Imahot as part of their preferred prayer practice. Including Imahot in some form is also now the standard practice of new graduates of almost every rabbinical school outside of the Orthodox world. While none of our current rabbis has any plans to make a move any time soon, it is almost certain that the next time we need to hire a rabbi, many of the strongest candidates will be young people who see the Imahot as their normative practice, especially given that it is unlikely that we would be able to hire an Orthodox rabbi at B’nai Torah.
D. Implementation
1. Beginning Friday night, August 17, prayer leaders at specific services will have the option of adding the Imahot to the body of the first blessing of the Amidah or retaining the traditional language. However, the conclusion of the blessing will remain as it is currently: “Magen Avraham” (omitting the words “u-foked Sarah” that are in the Lev Shalem siddur). In order to ensure consistency, the rabbis will review these options in advance with anyone who leads the service. If appropriate, when we call the page for the repetition, we will indicate which version to expect. Individuals are always at liberty to use whatever language they please in their private worship.
2. This policy of “leaders’ choice” applies to our “primary” services. For completeness, we note that these include:
a. Shabbat evening, morning, and afternoon services, usually taking place in the main sanctuary (note, it is possible that a service might have two repetitions and the two leaders might choose different options).
b. High Holiday services taking place in the main sanctuary. In practice, on High Holidays, our current cantor uses the traditional languages, but our other service leaders may choose either option.
c. Other holidays, like Passover, Sukkot, and Purim
d. Daily morning and evening minyan whether in the chapel or main sanctuary.
3. As has already been the practice, at any of our “alternative” or parallel services, the organizers of these services (often Rabbi K or Rabbi Breit) will determine the most appropriate choice based on the target audience for that service. How some of our most common “alternative services” are likely to play out in the near future:
a. Rabbi Breit and Rabbi K run many different types of experiential, family, youth, and tot Shabbat services (not all of which include an Amidah altogether!). “Experiential” services and B’nai Torah Women-specific services are more likely to include Imahot. The rabbis will determine the most appropriate practice for each service on a case-by-case basis.
b. “BT Minyan” (the lay-led, family-friendly traditional service that meets in a tent on the High Holidays, and offers an occasional alternative service on select Shabbatot) will not be offering the option.
c. For shiva minyanim taking place in a private home, we will attempt to defer to the preferences of the mourners, within the logistical limitations of whether a leader who is comfortable with the family preference is available on a given night.
d. Almost all of our students who attend Jewish day schools and Jewish camp do so at institutions where Imahot are either options or the norm. Our BTLab curriculum will be updated so the sixth grade curriculum, in covering the Amidah, will give our students insight into both options.
4. At services where a Bar/Bat Mitzvah takes place, the family has priority in leading the service or requesting leaders. In practice, this may mean that a B’nai Mitzvah family might factor in Imahot practice in which leaders they request.
5. Some may be tempted to criticize or pressure prayer leaders regarding their choice of language. We will take whatever steps are needed to help our community resist that temptation. There are plenty of strong reasons why someone would choose to retain the traditional practice or embrace the innovative one, and we expect that members of our community will be respectful of the diversity of practice within our community. Members of our community should not set expectations on our prayer leaders based on their gender or age.
6. Based on the current attitudes of our most frequent prayer leaders, for the immediate future, the traditional option will be the version that is heard most frequently in the next while, but I suspect that the new version may be heard more frequently over time as new generations of congregants join the ranks of our service leaders.
7. Our rabbis and Ritual Committee will monitor the process and consult to tweak our implementation, if needed.
Respectfully, Rabbi Joshua Heller
Thu, May 1 2025 3 Iyyar 5785