So I guess I’m not the only one who hates ArtScroll. More so each day, I hate additional things about ArtScroll. And I’m glad that other people see this too. I hate that “Hashem” is written in a siddur—especially since everything is all laid out on the Hebrew side anyway. What are they hiding from? I hate that it’s so ideologically right—I just learned that the ArtScroll only recently won out over the Birnbaum, which featured a more centrist approach. And ArtScroll totally has over-crowded pages. Furthermore, now that I think about it, I really do hate that ArtScroll is under the impression that women need a separate siddur. Someone further offered that even in the women’s siddur, “modeh ani” is written instead of “modah”—who writes this thing? In the Koren siddur, of course, both modeh and modah are included, and this was actually a major factor in my decision to pick that one way back in September.
And ArtScroll really does see itself as the “last word“, making me hate it even more. And it was annoying to see, when I looked at it, that the pages of the women’s siddur are pretty much filled with “although women don’t need to say this one, here you go” and “women are exempt, now let’s turn the page”. And as someone else writes,
The siddur states firmly that women are generally not obligated to go to shul and the assumption is that when they do go they will be late and “will therefore need to decide which prayers to recite”….
Every time Mourners Kaddish appears, rather than saying that there are different opinions, the notes say clearly, “Although reciting Kaddish is a comfort for the soul of the departed, even silent recitation by a woman is generally frowned upon.”
I’m so glad that I’m not the only one. Someone else writes:
ArtScroll wants to have their cake and eat it, too. They’ve created an entirely new genre, an entirely new custom for women’s prayer, and taken it upon themselves to present complex and disputed issues in a one-sided manner, ignoring age-old customs and halakhic positions, and yet market the thing as though it’s something that your alter bubbe davened from. This isn’t ‘old wine in new vessels’. On the contrary (adderabbah!), it’s new wine in old vessels.
I have to admit, since I don’t have a lot of exposure to any real-life minhag outside of my synagogue…and the Reform temple…and books from the 70′s, it’s good to see that there is opposition toward a very…er, inflexible company.
Ha! Great post. (And thanks for linking to one of mine!)
Yes, they are part of an invented notion that Orthodoxy is monolithic and has always been the way it is now. For further evidence of how different two Orthodox Ashkenazi liturgies can be, take a look at Birchot Hashachar in your Koren and in ArtScroll side-by-side. The differences in order are surprising.
Pingback: Never a bad time to complain about ArtScroll | The Reform Shuckle
It’s so true. I will look at this when I am near another ArtScroll on Saturday morning. Why will I be near one? Because my Conservative synagogue is also on the ArtScroll train.
Oh, and the Koren Talpiot siddur is in my Amazon shopping cart as we speak.
The anti-Artscroll antipathy continues to fascinate me. I tend to agree with the objections raised, but for whatever reason, they just don’t bother me. The product is high-quality, but it has annoying polemics attached, which I feel free to ignore. Perhaps if I were female and trying to use the Ohel Sarah I would take it more personally? (And I think I’m lenient since I learned hebrew from their siddur, so it holds nostalgic value for me.)
Davar Acher:
Usually the objections I see are to the siddurim, especially the translation and the commentary. My siddur of choice these days is the travel complete Artscroll, hebrew only (to save space). So the translation doesn’t bother me. It has stage directions, but no commentary, so that doesn’t bother me either. Furthermore, differences the Kol Yaakov siddur harps on (e.g., “peh” v. “pi” in Baruch She-Amar, “mi-tuvekha” v. “mi-tuvah” in the Amidah) are simply given a footnote noting that the alternative text is used in other nuschaot. It feels very different, like maybe they’re not trying to prosyletize, because if you’re using the all-hebrew, they aren’t “worried” about you?
I believe in the Ohel Sarah they also removed the cantillation marks that appear with the Shema in the standard siddur, presumably on the theory that women shouldn’t be thinking about leyning in the first place.
It was actually only after reading the Ohel Sarah that this feeling started to swell within. I mean, when you’re confronted every other page with “If you try to do more than the minimum you can get away with, you will be frowned upon” and “The custom is that women don’t do this”, it starts to become grating, especially since I generally prefer notations proving why a certain thing is the case, instead of just throwing such things out there to an audience that may or may not know that there are other opinions. And I think the argument that it is using its own overwhelming influence to further its own views is a valid one. Not everyone is like me and wants to actually take the time to write a 45-page research paper on these various opinions, so to use ArtScroll as your #1 posek is dangerous.
Besides that, I just plain old don’t like the layout. Everything is running into another. This might not be so much the case with the all-Hebrew version, but Koren beats it in that respect.
“They’re not worried about you” if you’re using the all-Hebrew version…that’s an interesting thought!
Hm. I haven’t really looked closely at the Ohel Sarah, but it sounds pretty bad. I wonder if they’re even worse at providing sources there than in the Kol Yaakov, on the grounds that women shouldn’t be studying Mishnah Berurah (I’m sure that would annoy me no end).
If you look at their gemaras, OTOH, they tend to be so thoroughly sourced as to be overwhelming. Sure, they may pick and choose their sources, but they provide AMPLE support for their positions there.
And I can see the objection to the layout, but as a matter of personal taste I like it. Again, that’s possibly because it was what I started with. Koren is fine, and very well done, but not my preference.
Apparently, Rabbi Harry Maryles agrees with you about their hashkafic imperialism. Right on cue, he delivers a pointed criticism of Artscroll, saying essentially your very points above: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2010/12/truth-of-history.html
I guess it’s a more widespread ‘problem’ than I’d realized. Really, my opinion came from no precedent through which I was filtering judgment—I just picked up an ArtScroll one day and thought, “Wow, I really hate this, who are these guys?” I can see how my complaints about the siddur could easily carry over into their biographies too. He mentions that it is a chareidi company—I think it’s interesting and frightening to have such a monolithic figure come from an extreme position.
The thing that bugs me about Artscroll and Orthodoxy is – What if the woman is kid-free? The assumption is that you are too busy with your children to be able to daven. What if you do not have a brood of 10 you have to corral but a nice quiet house where you can study all you’d like? Am I supposed to still not daven? I will say that after trying both types of shuls, I opted for a conservative shabbat service so I wouldn’t be lonely. There was a no one but me on that side of the mechitza for HOURS!
I feel REALLY sorry for child-free women in that world.
Exactly! I also think that women see it as an excuse to come in late, if at all, and to pray less, and just all-around do less. I agree with you—there are way too many exemptions these days to the rule that women “need” that extra time (not to mention exemptions in what is actually time-based…for example, women are obligated in Kiddush and Birkat HaMazon, which are both time-based…not to mention lighting Shabbat candles and mikveh!)
But the argument is that we can’t distinguish between women who do obligate themselves in time-based mitzvot and those who don’t. The solution, of course, would be to obligate all women, but that’s rather radical (it’s easier to say that women should be included in the minyan, for example, than it is to actually convince women that now actually really ought to come to minyan!) I hope that one day this will be the case though, because I think that’s the rational conclusion to all of this. Even the Conservative branch will have work to do here, though, because if women really are obligated in all the mitzvot, we’d see a lot more women wearing tzitzit and tefillin—not just the brave ones!
How exactly is Birkat HaMazon a she-bi-zman-gramma? I don’t see how mikveh qualifies either, given that I don’t think there’s actually a mitzvah to go to mikveh (mikveh is a matir-a “permitter”-not a mitzvah, as I understand it). Kiddush and Shabbat candles obviously do, and some fancy footwork is required to make women obligated for positive Shabbat-specific mitzvot, but not the rest of them.
OK, this is going to be long.
Well, Birkat HaMazon is said after a meal. That’s a “time”. What if you are a woman and your child starts screaming? You can’t put it off for that long. What if you are the third person? You can’t make the other two wait three hours. And immersion in the mikveh is done, I believe, at night—sometimes an appointment must even be made. There’s nothing more time-specific than that!
That’s a good point about the mikveh, but if I’m not mistaken, there is a blessing accompanying immersion.
Ah yes, here it is.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Mikveh.shtml
So, there are lots of time-based things from which women are exempted. And the reason I’m reaching so far to include things as time-based is because, well, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 17:2) attempts to make such a thing as tzitzit time-based. (I’ve thought and thought, but I really can’t see how it is time-based. Especially since it is not an individual obligation [Rambam, Laws of Tzitzit 3:11], but rather it is praiseworthy that a person wears it. There is no set time that tzitzit is worn.)
Anyway, here goes. Women are obligated in:
1.) Kiddush (Berachot 20a)
2.) Fasting on Yom Kippur (Sukkah 28a)
3.) Lighting Hanukkah candles (Shabbat 23a)
4.) Hakhel (Deut 31:12, Kiddushin 34a)
5.) Simcha offering—well, back then, anyway (Deut 15:14)
6.) Tefillah (Berachot 3:3; Rambam, Laws of Prayer 1:1-6, 6:10)
7.) At least the first paragraph of the Shema (Berachot 20b)
8.) Eating matzah on Pesach (Kiddushin 34a)
9.) Drinking four cups of wine on Pesach (Pesachim 108a)
10.) Reciting Hallel on Pesach (Sukkah 38a)
11.) Seuda Shelishit
12.) Birkat HaMazon (Berachot 3:3)
13.) Megillah on Purim (Megillah 4a)
Whether or not you agree with each and every one of these being time-based, it’s telling to remember that things such as residing in the sukkah and counting the Omer are exemptions! These things are not really any more time-based than anything else in this list. Further, various things were said to be off-limits to women gradually and later on. For example, Isserles prohibited women from wearing tefillin (as opposed to exemption), and the Shulchan Aruch changed “ten people” needed for a minyan to “ten males” (Orach Chayim 55:1). (I don’t believe that had a precedent…not a textual one, anyway.)
Anyway, the point is that there are too many exemptions to the rule. Too much “fancy footwork”. It’s just not a stable precept.
Awesome response. Had you done research on this for a paper, or did you just bust it out on cue (citation of hakhel and all)? Your overall point is well taken, that it’s not exactly a principle that can be taken at face value and applied to give the currently accepted answers.
I don’t think the Mechaber was going out on a limb by saying that tzitzit are time-bound, however. Tzitzit are a mitzvah by day only (even though they may be worn at night) because the pasuk (Deut. 15:39) says “ur’eetem otoh,” so that you shall SEE them, which was read as making it a daytime mitzvah. Thus, e.g., if my tzitzit on my talit become posul before dawn, I can technically still walk around wearing it, because there is no mitzvah of tzitzit at night. But once it becomes light, it’s a violation of the mitzvah to wear that garment. (Yes, I always thought it was a weak reason for exempting women, because exactly how hard is it to put on tzitzit??? But it definitely is confined to a specific time.)
Hey, thanks! Alas, the answers came from research. I wrote my Honors thesis on this last semester. So I’m still pretty worked up about it. (I tell people I wrote it with blood and tears for a reason.) But I’m glad I wrote it, because there really are a lot of convoluted arguments out there that are nearly impossible to navigate unless you know what they’re trying to quote and so on. The current answers are really weak, and this is so coming from both Orthodox and Conservative branches. I think the only solution is one in which women are given responsibilities, and it would be then and only then that women could ask for the corresponding privileges.
Of course, neither are the relationships there what they seem to be, either.
I see tzitzit as something not that must be done at a specific point, but rather not during a certain point. Tzitzit isn’t an individual obligation (i.e. “You must wear tzitzit from sunrise to sunset.”), because we don’t really wear four-cornered garments these days. But if you do have one, you should attach tzitzit. (And that wouldn’t be time-based, either.)
If someone were to say that tzitzit (for example) is most definitely time-based, even though it takes almost no time to put it on…it can’t be said that time-based exemptions are given to women so that they won’t have to drop their babies to do a mitzvah. There are other suggestions: That women don’t need time-based mitzvot, that women are “spiritually superior”, that the rabbis simply codified what was a lack of observance by women, or that women were codified out of the public sector.
But I really think we’re just groping in the dark for a justification for an exemption that really just does not logically work.
Pingback: MJ Passages . . . › More Bad Vibes About Artscroll