It is generally assumed that the reclaiming of mothers’ names within the context of traditional Orthodox liturgy is a modern phenomena which emerged out of a desire to bring an egalitarian spirit to ceremonies which otherwise have a distinct patriarchal tone. As such, practices such as mentioning mothers’ names in the context of memorial prayers, including them on tombstones, employing them in baby naming ceremonies and aliyot, may be criticized publicly or discouraged privately within Orthodox circles. Moreover, and perhaps even more damaging, many sincere Orthodox Jews recoil from using mothers’ names in many liturgical ceremonies for fear that they will be labeled in a certain manner, despite the fact that they find meaning in the use of these names within these contexts.
This article argues that the halakhic literature which addresses the introduction of mother’s names into texts and ceremonies encourages such inclusion. In fact, halakhists whose credentials clearly place them outside of the liberal arm of Jewish Orthodoxy even demonstrate a preference in many liturgical matters for the use of mother’s names, in certain circumstances.1
While surveys of the matronymic in the mi sheberakh prayer 2 or in other liturgical contexts 3 appear in rabbinic literature, a clear and concise analysis of the general issue of using mothers’ names is presented in the responsa, Betzel HaHohma by Rabbi Betzalel Stern.4 His responsum specifically address the use of a mother’s name on tombstones and in prayers. Central to Rabbi Stern’s analysis is a Talmudic statement (TB Shabbat 66b) that insists on the using of mothers’ names in the context of the writing of incantations. (In Talmudic times, incantations were regularly used for protective or medicinal purposes.)
Abaye said: Mother once told me, all issues of numbers (Rashi: i.e., incantations) should go after the mother…
Rabbi Stern notes that the Talmud is peppered with examples of incantations that utilize the mothers’ name. Although Abaye’s statement did not enter the halakhic canon, it was applied in two ways by various poskim (halakhic decisors). One approach sees incantations as a model for all prayers. Any time one seeks to pray on behalf of someone or in memory of someone, employing the mother’s name–in contrast to the father’s name–would be preferred. An alternative suggestion, made by a contemporary of Rabbi Stern, Rabbi Moshe Mordekhai Epstein (author of the Levushei Mordekhai) limits the scope of the Talmudic passage to the mystical magical world. According to Rabbi Epstein, had Abaye meant that mothers’ names ought to be employed for other liturgical functions, he would have included them in his statement.
Two possible explanations may be suggested for the approach that understands Abaye’s statement as creating an archetype for prayer. The first assumes that utilizing the mother’s name invokes the zechut/merit of the mother, or perhaps more broadly, the mystical dimensions of the feminine, which are particularly apt at moments of prayer. This explanation may equally be relevant to Rabbi Epstein’s position which limits Abaye to the specific mystical context.
However, a more compelling explanation relates to issues of identity, particularly vis-`a-vis prayer. From a legalistic–formal perspective, the knowledge of the identity of one’s mother is more accurate than the knowledge of the identity of one’s father. Generally the choice to identify a person by his or her father is based upon the legal principle of “rov“ or majority, (which assumes that most likely a married woman’s sexual relations are with her husband) rather than the certainty which with we may identify the mother.
In addition to this factor, it may be argued that reciting prayers on behalf of someone ought to be said utilizing the mother’s name, as to do anything other might constitute a falsehood. Inserting the wrong name in a prayer service of any sort would be inappropriate both because one ought not to utter untruths before God and additionally, one might in fact, not be praying on behalf of the individual he or she had in mind. This explanation accounts for the practice in Ashkenazi circles to utilize the mother‘s name when reciting the mi sheberakh for the sick. (Rabbi Epstein, in his responsum, questions this practice).
The interpretation that mothers’ names ought to be employed for proper identification in prayer is highlighted by a number of customs discussed or mentioned in responsa literature. In a responsum relating to the writing of mothers’ names in divorce documents (gittin), Hatam Sofer testifies to the fact that various tekhinot (traditional women’s prayers in Yiddish) recited in eighteenth century Hungary were recited in honor or memory of individuals who were then identified by their mothers’ names. Hatam Sofer also intimates that the usage of mothers’ names for gittin or other legal documents might sometimes might be advisable when the identity of the father is unknown.5 In addition, other rabbinic authorities suggest that the Kel Maleh Rahamim prayer should be said with the mother’s name (in Sephardic circles, the Hashkava prayer—an Kel Maleh equivalent—is in fact said this way).6
In contrast to each of these prayers, the calling up of men to the Torah in the synagogue is usually done by referring to the father’s name. This may be unique to the reading of Torah, perhaps because of the law that forbids calling a parent and child consecutively or perhaps because there is a critical issue of identifying someone’s tribal affiliation (Cohen/ Levi/ Yisrael) which is generally identified with the father.7 Essentially, one might distinguish between identifying someone for purposes of “calling” in its denoting sense which can be done using either the mother or father’s name and sometimes should include the father’s name, and “prayer” which should make use of the mother’s name. Legal documents would generally fall into the first category while liturgical texts would fall into the second.
This distinction can often lead to strange blends of customs, the sort of which we experience almost every week in standard Ashkenazi synagogues. Generally, men are called up to the Torah using their fathers’ names. Mi sheberakh prayers on behalf of the sick (and in today’s synagogues, prayers on behalf of the missing soldiers) invoke the mothers’ names. And yet, the same mi sheberakh prayer– when said for the person called to the Torah–utilizes the father’s name. It is possible that this strange practice was adopted simply to avoid confusion on the view that it would most certainly be odd to call a man up using his father’s name prior to his aliya, and then use his mother’s name immediately following the aliya in the mi sheberakh. 8 To the best of my knowledge, women’s prayer services call women up to the Torah using both parents’ names.
While most legal documents generally use the father’s name, the issue of putting mothers’ names on tombstones, either exclusively or together with fathers’ names, appears as a debate among authorities and is cited by Rabbi Stern as an open question. Conceivably, the debate around utilizing the matronymic for tombstones might hinge upon the way tombstones are viewed. The general formulation of a tombstone is פ“נ or פ“ט, or תנצב“ה, – fתהא נפשו/ה צרורה בצרור החיים, loosely translated as “May his/her memory be bound up in the binds of life”. The fundamental distinction between these two acronyms is that the first is a marker of sorts, and thus, would fit the pattern that utilizes the father’s name. The second is a prayer (perhaps to be recited by the visitors to the grave). Because of this, it would seem more appropriate to utilize the mother’s name. Nowadays, certain Sephardi communities utilize just the mother’s name while others use both.
If one accepts Rabbi Stern’s basic distinction, then it would appear that in liturgically based baby naming ceremonies, the mother’s name should be utilized, either independently or together with the father’s name. In fact, there is an emergent trend within some Orthodox circles to include both the name of the father and the mother at baby naming ceremonies.9 From the literature described above, it would seem that there is little halakhic objection (and to some extent, it may be preferable) to name children using their mothers’ names.
Another new practice has emerged of including mothers’ names in ketubot (marriage documents). Though the issue of using matronymics in ketubot appears in halakhic literature (when texts describe the writing of a ketuba for children of Jewish mothers and non-Jewish fathers), it is generally assumed that the father’s name takes precedence in marriage documents (unlike the prayer for the sick, and the mourning prayers and tombstones in Sephardi custom). Primarily, the choice of the father’s name in the ketuba emerges from the application of the biblical phrase used in connection with the census in the wilderness l’mishpahotam l’vet avotam (Numbers 1:2), which implies that a man is generally identified through the patronymic. However, in all likelihood, the insistence upon using the father’s name today emerges out of a conservative predilection and an aversion to change within Orthodox circles.
In contemporary Israel, the use of mothers’ names within each of the contexts is something with which I am familiar through my daily encounters with Jews from all walks of life who are celebrating life-cycle events. In general, there is little hesitancy to utilize a mother’s name in liturgical events, although there are some licensed mohalim (ritual circumcisers) who refuse to utilize the matronymic when naming a baby boy.10 The purchasing of tombstones is no longer controlled by the local hevra kadisha and thus the decision as to the wording of the text is left up to the family. On the other hand, in mourning prayers, only a few hazzanim are willing to allow mothers’ names to be included, even if the family requests this. The booklets published by ITIM: The Jewish Life Information Center encourage couples writing ketubot to consider including their mothers’ names. While few marriage registrars would promote such a practice, one marriage registrar – who is also a rabbinical court judge – has assured me that if a couple appeared before him and insisted on the inclusion of the matronymic, he would readily acquiesce. In fact, I am unaware of any rabbis who would render a ketuba invalid if the mothers’ names were included.
“”“The use of mothers’ names is a case study of halakha in evolution.”””
Ultimately the use of mothers’ names is a case study of halakha in evolution, and gradually, mothers’ names are gaining more currency across the Orthodox spectrum. As more and more people find meaning in the inclusion of mothers’ names, the practice may in fact become normative.