Top Sephardi rabbi rules women may chant Scroll of Esther for men

 

May 12, 2009 Iyyar 18, 5769

By Yair Ettinger
HaAretz

 

Women are allowed to chant the Scroll of Esther on behalf of men if no competent men are available, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of Israel's Mizrahi community, ruled last week in a landmark decision.

Esther is traditionally read in synagogue on the holiday of Purim, which this year falls next week. While some rabbis have long permitted women to read the megillah, or scroll, for other women, most do not allow women to read on behalf of men.

In his weekly Torah class on Saturday night, however, Hakham Yosef discussed the rules of reading the megillah and ruled that not only may women read it in front of men, but the men will thereby have fulfilled their obligation to hear the scroll read.     

"It is permissible for a woman to fulfill this obligation on behalf of men," he said, because the obligation to hear the megillah falls equally on men and women.

Hakham Yosef said that most rabbis forbid women to read the megillah on the grounds that men are forbidden to listen to women sing, because a woman's singing voice can stimulate sexual arousal. However, he said, he does not agree that a woman chanting a sacred text is the kind of singing that stimulates sexual arousal. The analogy rabbis have drawn between singing and chanting sacred texts has "no value," he declared.

Hakham Yosef said women should not read for men if there are men capable of doing the reading. But in a "small community" where there are no men capable of chanting the text properly, it is permissible to bring a woman to read, he ruled.

Hakham Yosef also said that women could write a kosher Scroll of Esther - another task that most rabbis say can be done only by men. He said that ancient megillahs written by women have been found in Yemen, and it would be permissible for women to do so today as well, "to earn a living for their household," since women "were part of the miracle" that the megillah describes.

However, he admitted wryly, it is an open question "whether anyone would buy it."

In both cases, Hakham Yosef's rulings were specific to Megillat Esther and do not necessarily apply to other sacred texts, such as the Torah.

But please, no microphones.

Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

    

I’m ashamed

 

I'm ashamed to admit that I am a taxpaying citizen of one of the riches nations of the world and yet we have people who are hungry, who lack shelter, who are sick and can't get medical care, who are ignorant because they have no school, and who lack work when there is work to be done.

Prior to World War II the country was still in the throes of the "Great Depression."

The federal government, mostly I think at the urging of Eleanor Roosevelt, became the "employer of last resort" and the "welfare state" as we know it was born.

The government developed many "make-work" projects, some of lasting value, some of artistic worth.

It created the Works Progress Administration, later the Works Projects Administration (WPA) that "employed millions of people and affecting almost every locality in the United States. Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost 8 million jobs. The program built many public buildings, projects and roads and operated large arts, drama, media and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing. Almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. Expenditures from 1936 to 1939 totaled nearly $7 billion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

It also created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). According to Wikipedia, "the CCC was designed to aid relief of high unemployment stemming from the Great Depression while carrying out a broad natural resource conservation program on national, state and municipal lands." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps).

I understand the current administration is trying to generate jobs with its stimulus packages, but trying to "fix things" with more borrowed money alone just extends the pain.

When Uncle Sam went into the Employer of Last Resort role, it was "all inclusive." It "fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing."

I think this country needs, not a good 5-cent cigar, but a comprehensive program to help Americans help themselves.

Since I am not a "bleeding heart liberal" I would object to helping people too lazy or shiftless to help themselves.

On the other hand, I think we need to care for those people unable to care for themselves for any of many reasons. At the same time, I remember my medic days when patients – enlisted, officers, and $1.75-a-day dependents were expected to work to their abilities while "guests" of the hospital. I have seen colonels' wives folding linens next to Navy strikers' wives doing the same job – and telling stories among themselves (stories, they made it clear, not fit for a male's ears).

The U.S. has military installations going to ruin from disuse. Barracks, medical facilities, mess halls (dining halls) – all are available. Surely there must be surplus clothing for people of all sizes and shapes. I'm not talking about Dior gowns or Seville Row silk suits; actually, fatigues are more in line with my proposal.

In addition to the closed bases, we have thousands of current and former military personnel – some of whom probably are looking for work – who could provide training in in-demand job skills: mechanics, HVAC, air conditioning & heating, plumbing, barbering – the list is nearly endless.

Bring un/under-employed people who are willing to work to the bases. Singles, marrieds, and families.

Provide them with housing, basic medical (emphasis on preventive) care, education, both academic (to GED level) and job skills, decent, healthy meals – smart food managers make excellent, tasty meals from government surpluses (Gerber California's school had such a food wizard circa 1972) – and suitable clothing, from shoes to hat.

When the person completed training, provide some decent "civilian" clothes and, if necessary, relocate the person (and family, if any) to a waiting job.

(Would the U.S. court allow this? When the first Haitian influx flooded Miami Florida, the government wanted to resettle the immigrants, mostly illegals, in the mid-west; Idaho, I think. The Haitians or some liberal group went to court complaining that the Haitians were not used to the cold and that it would be unfair to send them to a cold, less populated area of the U.S. The court agreed. On the other hand, it was OK to draft an American lad in Florida and send him to Thule Greenland or Seoul Korea where it is MUCH colder than Idaho, or to Vietnam where the American life expectancy was much lower than in Idaho.)

Must the government be the "employer of last resort"? In some cases, probably. Hopefully only for the short term.

There already is, or was, a government subsidies program for organizations that hire the hard-to-employ.

Meanwhile, everyone's favorite Uncle is well advised to "discourage" U.S. companies from sending jobs across the borders and from inviting foreign workers for jobs American can do. I understand this nation's greatness is in a large part due to its immigrants, but for the short term, can't we limit immigration to the physically oppressed and, temporarily, close the doors to those simply desiring a better financial opportunity. (As long as I'm offending people, let's stop rewarding illegals with citizenship and all the benefits for which taxpayers foot the bill – and that applies to ALL illegals, regardless of country of origin.)

I proposed something similar maybe 20 years ago and was promptly dubbed by a bleeding heart in Texas as a "nazi." Now, as then, I am not proposing that we FORCE anyone to take advantage of the program, but I AM suggesting that anyone who CAN work and refuses the program should forfeit any benefits.

That may take away my "liberal" label (whilst leaving my "fiscal conservative" badge tattered but intact), but it certainly does not make me a "nazi."

Yohanon Glenn
Yohaanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Picking on the big kid

 

I am at a loss to understand countries such as Iran and North Korea.

Here are two insignificant nations threatening, if not the world then at least major powers, that they will attack (in North Korea's case) with nuclear weapons.

Of course, the threat always is prefaced by "if threatened by (the big kid)."

Both North Korea and Iran are noted for cowardice - when The World (to them, The Bullies) tells them to do something, they agree. As soon as The World looks away, the promises to comply turn into lies as these rogue nations thumb their political noses at the others with whom they share the globe.

Don't these countries' leaders - Kim Son Il and the Ayatollah al-Uzma - the madman Ahmadinejad is little more than a marionette whose strings are pulled by the equally mad "supreme leader" ayatollah * - understand that if they initiate a nuclear conflict with Russia or the US that they, their people, and their counties will be relegated to the ash heap as were Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Perhaps they think that the U.S. administration will have pity on the populace and spare the country on their account. I doubt Russia would be so gentle; China certainly would not. Different mentalities.

The U.S. is burdened by a Euro-Christian mentality of "turn the other cheek" (until there is no "other cheek" to turn). Neither of the two blustering leaders have that burden. Israel, because its leadership is in the hands of those with a European mentality, hesitates.

Funny enough, while middle east Islamic-ruled countries understand Iran's threat to them - both directly and indirectly (e.g., nuclear fallout from an attack on Israel) these fellow Moslems are hesitant to act against a fellow Islamic state.

The problem with North Korea and Iran is that they are like an infection. If not removed in the early stages, it becomes stronger. When medicines finally are tried, the infection develops an immunity.

Iran, funding terrorists throughout the world - including its neighboring states - has become a very strong "infection." An attack on it by, say, Saudia,, would result in attacks on Saudia from inside the kingdom by Iran-paid operatives. Saudia already totters politically as different Islamic sects and modernists vie for political power. Egypt and North African nations are hardly better off.

North Korea has China as its protector; even when China publicly disagrees with its neighbor, it still behaves like a parent with a naughty child. Iran, with its well-placed terrorist cells throughout Islamic lands, likewise is protected from punishment.

That leaves the U.S. and its self-perceived role as Policeman to the World. (Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine - "you keep your nose out of our business and we'll keep our nose out of yours"? Was it ever, is it now, legitimate ? The coin has two sides.) I don't think the U.S. should wait around, advertising its intentions while it waits for its "allies" to make up their political minds to take a role or not - we should have learned THAT doesn't work in the run-up to the last Iraq invasion.

What can be done? Given the present mentality, probably not much - and the madmen of North Korea and Iran know it. They are betting on it - betting the lives of their countrymen and the future of their countries.

If either crazy orders an attack the U.S., their leaders are assured a place in history - right alongside Haman and Hitler, but a mention none-the-less.

Here we sit, between hammer and anvil.

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader

---

Yohanon
Yohanon . Glenn at gmail dot com

Moslem vs. Moslem

I went to check my Web-based mail today and was greeted by the following link: Suicide bombers strike Pakistan mosque, seminary (AP).

I am accustomed to Islamic rage when a non-Moslem kills or injures a Moslem and I can sympathize with some whose relatives are collateral causalities of war.

But I wonder why there is no Moslem outcry when Moslems kill Moslems.

The AP article went on:

LAHORE, Pakistan – Friday prayers had just ended when the suicide bomber walked into the seminary office of a popular anti-Taliban cleric and detonated his explosives.

The scenes of carnage Friday — the bombing was echoed within minutes at a mosque elsewhere in Pakistan — have become far too familiar in the violence-plagued country, and took the count of suicide bombings to five in eight days.

 

Genocide Against Muslims
Gadi Taub blog
September 27th, 2006

On the Jewish New Year’s Eve, Ma’ariv’s senior journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, published the first installment of a three part series about media representation of the Arab-Israeli conflict worldwide. The piece was entitled And the World is Silent. Yemini, a long time leftist, and supporter of Palestinian independence, has nevertheless been outraged, quite rightly, by the way that the criticism of Israel’s occupation, which he shares, has seeped, especially in Europe, into a wild array of attempts at delegitimizing the right of Jews to self-determination.

A central part of these attempts is the persistent myth about systematic “genocide” allegedly committed by Israel against Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular. Yemini did a simple thing: he collected the available numbers – they are staggering indeed – of Muslims murdered during the years of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some 10,000,000 (ten million!) Muslims were murdered, by the more conservative estimations. But only about 0.6% of these deaths were caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict itself. Read again: about half a percent. Here’s one finding from the margins of Yemini’s research: France is responsible for about ten times more Muslim deaths than Israel during the same years. Not something your average newspaper reader in Europe is likely to guess.

• Israel is responsible for about 60,000 Muslim deaths (all its wars and the occupation included).
• The USA is responsible for about 70,000.
• France is responsible for about half a million (in the 1950s alone, by the most conservative estimate).
• Russia (along with the former Soviet Union) over one million.
• About 8.5 million Muslims were murdered by Muslim regimes, internal Arab civil wars, and Arab tribal ethnic cleansing.

http://www.gaditaub.com/eblog/genocide-against-muslims/

 

Al Qaeda Addresses Muslim Deaths
Thursday, November 10, 2005

CAIRO, Egypt — In an apparent response to Jordanians who took to the streets to call for its leader to "burn in hell," Al Qaeda in Iraq took the rare step Thursday of trying to justify the triple suicide bombings that killed 56 people, mostly Arabs.

Al Qaeda's response: "Let all know that we have struck only after becoming confident that they are centers for launching war on Islam and support the crusaders' presence in Iraq and the Arab peninsula and the presence of the Jews on the land of Palestine," the group said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175235,00.html.

 

Zarqawi justifies Muslim deaths
AFP 2005-05-18 16:34

Dubai - Anti-US attacks in Iraq which also kill Muslim civilians, do not violate Islamic law, al-Qaeda's feared frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said in a purported tape posted on the internet on Wednesday.

The recording emerged as the US military said that leaders close to Zarqawi had ordered a recent car bombing campaign that has killed hundreds in Iraq.

Dubai - Anti-US attacks in Iraq which also kill Muslim civilians, do not violate Islamic law, al-Qaeda's feared frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said in a purported tape posted on the internet on Wednesday.

The recording emerged as the US military said that leaders close to Zarqawi had ordered a recent car bombing campaign that has killed hundreds in Iraq.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10- 1460_1707153,00.html

---

Sadly, murder of Moslems by non-Moslems also occurs, but in case anyone wonders why, read on.

 

Alameda County, California
Saturday, October 21, 2006

Killed Thursday by a single bullet to the head as she walked with her 3-year -old daughter on a well-to-do residential street, she was distinguished by a hijab, the head scarf worn by some devout Muslim women. The Afghan immigrant had no purse or money on her, family members said.

Local Muslim leaders and the victim's relatives attributed blame to an American culture of violence, propagated through movies and video games that reward players for killing. In addition, they said things such as talk radio, politicians and religious zealotry by some Christians had focused on Muslims since the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? f=/c/a/2006/10/21/BAGMTLTGM51.DTL&hw=hijab&sn=004&sc=695

 

What religion decapitates people before TV cameras? Islam.

What religion preaches hatred of all who are not one of its followers? Islam.

What religion kills its own people who dare to be different? Islam.

I will NOT claim that all Moslems are murders; I know it is not the case. But I will take exception when I'm told that Islam is a "peaceful" religion.

From what I see daily in the news, this can't be true.

Every religion has its extremists, but few - at least in the Western world - go about promoting murder of their coreligists or even of people outside the fold.

Only Islam.

The "bottom line" question then is: Why are Moslems so quiet when Moslems kill Moslems and absolutely silent when Moslems kill non-Moslems, but so vocal when a Moslem is killed by a non-Moslem.

Double standard, anyone?

 

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn @ gmail.com