Here are some notes on the Torah portion, Chayei Sarah, prepared in conjunction with Transgender Remembrance Day/Kabbalat Shabbat at Occupy K Street.
Chayei Sarah and Transgender Remembrance
And here is the liturgy
Transgender Shabbat Liturgy
Also Friday’s blog on Transgender Remembrance Day and Chayei Sarah
Language issues in early chapters of Genesis/Breishit include differentiating between “adam” — which may or may not carry a specific gender — and “ish” and “ isha,” who are always gendered.
Genesis/Breishit 1:27 involves a notable shift from singular to plural pronouns as ha-adam (a singular something) is created in what appears to be (plural) variety: “male and female.” Older translations use “man.” “Human” or “humankind” is favored in newer ones. “The earthling” — a gender-neutral term reflecting the relationship of ha-adam to adamah, “earth” — might be more profitably used.
Continue reading Breishit: Language and Translation
“You shall love GOD, your God, with all your heart.” Continue reading Va’etchanan: Great Source(s)
Part 2: Prayer Books, Gender and Sex
“Groundbreaking” as dialogue across the spectrum? Continue reading Groundbreaking, Part 2
The Torah: A Women’s Commentary is a great new resource, from women Torah scholars highlighting women in the Torah and women’s perspectives on the Torah. Continue reading Study Mechitza?
The Torah: A Women’s Commentary — published in 2008 by the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) — includes full English and Hebrew Torah texts interspersed with commentary; introductory essays; and an overview, poetic “voices” and “another view” for each weekly portion. It encompasses the commentary of 100 authors, from across the spectrum of Jewish practice and belief, and incorporates the work of 140 poets. The Torah: A Women’s Commentary is attractive and useful, but it is unclear whether it does — or should — meet its creators’ expectations.
I find this publication situation a bit reminiscent of the 1941 Cooper/Stanwyck movie, “Ball of Fire”: Professor Bertram Potts and fellow lexicographers are about to publish their long-researched dictionary when Potts realizes that language usage has changed — “cats” are spending “dough” — while they’ve been in their study. Much has changed between 1992, when the URJ commentary was conceived, and 2008, when it appeared — and those years are not clearly reflected in the new volume.
I was similarly struck when Alison Lavie spoke at the conference, “This is My Prayer–Va’ani tefillati: Jewish Women in Prayer,” on March 1 (2009). Her comments centered around her personal discovery of women’s prayer traditions from various points in Jewish history. To some Israeli audiences, “Why didn’t I know about the women’s traditions of my ancestors?” might have been a reasonable refrain; to a U.S. audience — one self-selected for an interest in prayer, and women’s prayer at that — the question drew many puzzled looks and mutterings long the lines of, “Good question. Why didn’t you know about women’s traditions?”
Various compilations of Jewish women’s prayers have been available in English for nearly 20 years. And, while Lavie’s recent English publication, A Jewish Woman’s Prayer Book, was a welcome addition, it was not “groundbreaking” for U.S. readers — and her remarks were not news to many in the conference audience.
Continue reading New “Ball of Fire”?