#Dafyomi (16a-b) Thought for the day:

Little did I know that the Talmud specifically criticises my personal practice of including Zilpa and Bilha among אמותינו (our mothers). In this daf, we are taught that only Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'acov are to be called "אבותינו" (our fathers) and only Sarah, Rivka, Rahel and Leah are to be called "אמותינו".
This point comes within a sugya (section) discussing our relationship to slaves and servants.
Henceforth, I will be even more "מקפיד" (careful) to include Zilpa and Bilha among the "אמהות" at the appropriate point in the liturgy. Not to thumb my nose at tradition or to be dafka to the Talmud - but because of the very point being made. The talmud does not really give answers but rather raises questions - it is asking us - how should we treat those whose "social status" is "lower" than ours? - do we double down on the division? Or is our job to remember that in fact we are all created בצלם אלקים (in the image of the divine) - and particularly in death - the great leveler - will we retain the social distinctions, or will we recognise the falsehood of these?
When we talk of אלקינו ואלקי אבותינו ואמותינו (Our G?d and G?d of our ancestors) we do so not to chronicle the past but to make a statement on the present - we remind ourselves of who we are now. And when we fail to mention Zilpa and Bilha, we exclude those in society most excluded. To include Zilpa and Bilha and give them their correct place as matriarchs is to say that we too include everyone, in our communities today - the shepherd, the princess and the sex worker - all are part of Am Israel, and all are family. To quote R' Zeira from later in our daf:

"יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלקינו שלא נחטא ולא נבוש ולא נכלם מאבותינו"

"May it be your will, our G?d, that we shall not sin, nor shall we be ashamed, nor feel disgrace because of our ancestors".