Eytz Chayim Hee - The Torah of Idolatry

בס''ד


BS"D


New York City's underground fashion's latest darling, bad-boy wild child Levi Okunov, is dressing women up as Torahs.

Now, I'm not the smartest person in the world. Sometimes it takes me a while to fully get an idea. I need time to process so I can fully appreciate the impact of a situation or an event. But not with this. This I got right away. Just not in the way you think.

For a little background, please see Jay Michaelson's Jewcy article and this 1:22 minute film on YouTube.

Okay, it's interesting - sort of. As for his actual auto-didactic fashion designs, nothing special there. It's a bit of a simplistic rebellion, and therefore boring. And empowering the Torah as a focus of fetish (in the religious or veneration-of-the-animal sense) is not new, as Michaelson's article pointed out. Neither is heresy new - nor necessarily offensive or threatening. "Heresy", after all, is just a Greek word for "choice".

So Okunov is a nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn who was raised in a Chassidic family which he has broken away from for the sake of expressing his art (hello, Asher Lev!). And he obviously has issues - but don't we all? What he's done here isn't as simple as it appears.

So because I'm a Jungian-influenced Jewish Orthodox Feminist, or rather, a Femandrist (a neologism I coined earlier this year), you're expecting me to write a long rant about how women's bodies should be covered and certainly not drawn attention to with objects and designs normally reserved for awed worship, blah, blah, blah. Well, yeah, that's the p'shat, the surface reading, but there's more to it than that. I'll leave the modesty rant up to the fundamentalist "Tsni'us Police".

The problem here is this:
Levi Okunov is exiling the Shekhinah.

What?
Isn't that a little far-fetched? I mean, everything we do in this world must be Be-Shem yichud Qud'sha B'rikh Hu u-Sh'khinte for the sake of the unification of The Holy One and His Shekhinah. So isn't Okunov using these female models wearing his designs to connect us to his conceptions of the Divine Feminine? Is this not a way of re-imagining the sacred, humanity, and re-awakening a sense of awe? The reclamation of Shekhinah, the Divine Mother?

No, that's what Leonard Nimoy achieved with his 2002 book, "Shekhina".

But these are just revealing outfits made from Torah covers. Aren't they? He's only expressing שכינה, the Shekhinah, the Feminine In-Dwelling Presence of G@d, associated primarily with feminine imagery, such as the Shabbat Queen, and the Bride. Okunov is simply letting her rise to the surface of Torah like a powerful wave of subconscious breaking on the shores of our minds, reminding us she's always just there under the facade we've built over G@d to enable us to commune with the Divine. Okunov is liberating us from the Patriarchal male-only G@d through iconoclasm.
Isn't he?

But is this really iconoclasm, image-breaking, or is it actually image-building? Isn't it avodah zarah, idolatry? Isn't this a reincarnation of הָאֲשֵׁרָה, (the) Asherah? Yes, that's it. Levi Okunov has turned his models into Asherah trees.

Asherah, or עַשְׁתֹּרֶת Ashtoreth, was a Middle-Eastern goddess also known as Astarte or Ishtar, and she was all about love, sex and fertility. All nice and necessary stuff. She was very popular with us before the days of the Nevi'im, the Prophets, to the point where King Solomon set up a place of worship for her outside of Jerusalem, where her ritual equipment included large carved poles, or even living groves of trees. An Asherah pole was even featured in our Holy Temple until King Hezekiah destroyed it. Why? Because Asherah was sometimes regarded as Y-H-V-H's consort, but the official Y-H-V-H religion was not regarded as purely male, so did not need a female partner. This compromised our worship of Y-H-V-H for a very long time, so her worship is repeatedly condemned in the Bible.

What I see in Okunov's art is the whole person/image/Torah being split into components (deconstruction) but also the transfer of an idea of Shekhinah plastered superficially onto a place where it doesn't belong (construction). Kind of like Asherah. Asherah wasn't idolatry because she was female and the "real" G@d of Israel was male, she was idolatry because she was pulled out of G@D (who is everything and all, there is nothing else but G@d) therefore weakening the whole אל-והות G@dhead - not in actuality, but in people's minds, which damages the holy I-Thou relationship.

אל-והות El-ohut, the G@dhead or אין סוף Ain Sof Infinite Divinity, is G@d expressed fully who S/He is. Y-H-V-H. IS-ness. The verb To Be. The Self-Existent One. And Shekhinah is a part of that name: she is the last letter Hey in G@d's Four-Letter Name, the Yud being the Supernal Father, the first letter Hey representing the Primordial Mother, the Vav being the Son/Groom, and the last Hey the Daughter/Bride. She is Shekhinah. Not Asherah.

Shekhinah is Internal to G@d, intrinsic, while Asherah is redundant. Not external, as nothing exists outside of G@d, but excessive.

The reason why Asherah poles and trees were considered avodah zarah, idolatry, and why they needed to be destroyed is not because they represented a different small-d deity competing with our Big-D Deity, but because Asherah was meant to be representative of the feminine aspect of G@d separated out - and the whole purpose of Creation and for Tiqun Olam, Repair of the World, is to re-unite the masculine and feminine aspects of G@d.

We weren't allowed to plant trees in the Beit Ha-Miqdash (Temple) courtyard because they represented Asherah. Not that all female energy is considered "bad" in Judaism, but because to put the feminine there - Outside, in exile - would imply that only the masculine was in the Qodesh Qodashim (Holy of Holies), that only the male aspect was behind the curtain - on the Inside.

But the K'ruvim (golden winged figures facing each other atop the lid of the Ark who were of one form) themselves show us that there were both male and female in the most sacred physical space that G@d occupies, and that they embraced sexually (Talmud Bavli Masekhet Yoma 54a, Bava Batra 99a). So it's not that appreciating of the feminine is wrong or that femaleness is lesser or that recognizing that G@d is half female is idol worship - indeed, the undermining of the Feminine is a chilul Ha-Shem (diminishment of G@d's Presence in the world) and to claim that G@d is exclusively masculine is also.

It's that any human's mental separation of G@d's unification is harmful to not only that person's soul, but to all of Creation. Either gender acknowledged in a vacuum is a misrepresentation of Divinity. The direction of the Universal flow is toward total yechidut - unification. But the way things have been translated and interpreted through the generations, well, this is how it comes across. It's damaged all the Abrahamic faiths. Time to heal that and thereby move a little closer to a planet of shalom.

וְהָיָה יְהוָה לְמֶלֶךְ, עַל-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ; בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה יְהוָה אֶחָד--וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד.
"Ve-ne'emar ve-hayah Ad@nai le-melekh al kol ha-aretz, be-yom ha-hu yihiyeh Ad@nai echad u-shemo echad."
"And it is said: And the L@RD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the L@RD be One, and His name one."
- Zechariah 14:9

Let's work to reunite G@d's El-ohut, G@d's Self and G@d's Name with Shekhinah, the true Etz Chayim, Tree of Life, not the transgressive counterfeit Asherah, so G@d and all humanity can be fully who we are.

In the meantime, don't call me for any repairs or alterations to your parchment and Hebrew embellished clothing...


Cross-posted as "Okunov and the Asherah" at Jewschool and as "Eytz Chayim Hee - The Torah of Idolatry" on Facebook

Par'shat Ki Tetze - תמחה את זכר עמלק

בס"ד

Tim'cheh et zeykher Amaleyq...
Blot out the remembrance of Amalek...
Devarim/Deuteronomy 25:19, parshat Ki Tetze

This is said by a congregation, together with the sofer, at the Siyum Ha-Torah held to dedicate a new Torah scroll (sometimes to re-dedicate a repaired scroll, too!).


According to the minhag, the custom, of Ha-Rav Ha-Ga'on Heschel of Krakow*, this is also what a scribe must say each morning as he (or I) begin/s work. As the qulmus, quill or reed, must be tested and sometimes re-shaped each morning. This test must also be performed each time the qulmus is cut or sharpened, as no writing of any STaM (Sifrei Torah, Tefilin and Mezuzot) may be commenced until the writing implement has passed this check. So what is the test?


Dip your nib into your bet d'yo (inkwell), and write the name עמלק, Amaleyq. As you speak the words "Tim'cheh et zeykher Amaleyq", cross it out.


Using a properly cut stylus is one of those "invisible things" I've referred to that sof'rim do in our work that are required for us to perform according to Qeset Ha-Sofer 3:6. Things that nobody can tell by looking at a scroll whether they have been correctly performed. This is why you need to have complete trust in your sofer/et. No different than your rabbi, your lawyer, your doctor, your taxi driver or your jeweller...


What's more, if your qulmus is not cut correctly before any writing or repairing of letters, then all of the work you do could be pasul. Not kosher. Bury it.

Torah-scribes may not write any part of a Torah-scroll, nor repair any of its letters, until the name of Amalek is written and completely blacked-out in fulfillment of the command in Deuteronmy 25:17. (ie. to blot-out the name of Amalek"...)
-- Rabbi Dr Eric Ray, z"l, Sofer STaM

Does this seem harsh? Perhaps. People I've met in my travels who have tried their hand at writing or correcting sofrut without being fully trained thought so. Maybe because the first they had heard of this was from me and it has severe implications for their product and their souls. But instead of brushing this requirement aside, let's unpack this both practical and vital practice...


Who was Amaleyq?
Jewish Encyclopedia.com gives a biblical-historical overview, while Wikipedia gives their own interesting version followed by religious, historical & philosphical links. Highly recommened before you read on :)


The name "Amaleyq", when you divide it up into two words, reads "עמ לק", am laq, a greedy people, a nation of takers. Am means nation or people, where laq indicates lapping something up greedily. We can extrappolate further by noticing that the Hebrew word amal - עמל - means trouble, misery, evil; the word laqah - לקה - means stricken, defective, blemished, flawed, spoiled.


These people, who preyed upon the fledgling Jewish nation as we crossed the Sinai, did so by picking off those who were bringing up the rear. The elderly, the children, the ill. They took advantage of other human beings who were weaker than they. A cowardly act, to attack the defenseless. G@d hates that.


So does this mean that Jewish scribes are responsible for committing a conscious ritual act of symbolic genocide with each test of the pen? That a xenophobic grudge is expressed in one of our most sacred practices? No.


There are three mitzvot connected to Amaleyq, all from mitzvah-book 14, Sefer Shofetim/the Book of Judges:
#598 - Blot out Amaleyq (Devarim/Deuteronomy 25:19)
#599 - Remember what the Amaleyqites did to the Jewish People (Devarim/Deuteronomy 25:17)
#600 - Don't forget Amaleyq's atrocities and ambush on our journey from Egypt in the desert (Devarim/Deuteronomy 25:19)


#599 and #600 are applicable at all times, anywhere in the world to all Jewish men and women above the ages of 13 and 12, respectively. #598 is equally applicable in all places at all times, but only adult Jewish men are obligated in this mitzvah. Adult Jewish women are free to choose to take this commandment on, if we wish.


How do we observe these mitzvot?
Rashi explains #600:
"From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amaleyq not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amaleyq".


#599 is fulfilled by Shabat Zakhor, which I already wrote about here and here [include links], the Shabbes before Purim when we chant passages relating to Amaleyq and his descendant Haman, who is the villain in the Purim story.


That leaves #598. The way we fulfill this mitzvah today is precisely what I described above: writing out his name to check your nib and crossing it out, making the verbal declaration, with three diagonal strokes.


So, nu? Why the big production?
On the one hand, this test provides a very practical, mechanical step to writing. All professional calligraphers, regardless of origin, test their nibs in between dipping and writing. It's the only way to make certain your fine strokes will be fine, your wide strokes wide, your edges sharp and that there will be just the right amount of ink (no blobs or streaks). So of course writing a Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, or Tefilin (and Megillot, for that matter), deserves this conscious process, out of respect and because of it's content.


On the other hand, this is in fact a mitzvah connected to a very high, spiritual exercise, calling us to change ourselves from within. Ourselves???


What or who is Amaleyq today?
You are. I am.
Amaleyq is the temptation to take advantage of others, to see only with your own eyes, to feed our appetites off the disempowered.
So with each test of the pen, a sofer is called to remember that very unfortunate human tendency, that it lies dormant within, and that it is his/her responsibility to keep it in check, if not destroy it.
To kill the predator inside.


Now, back to the party...
The completion of this ritual occurs each year on Erev/the day before Tish'a be-Av. On that day, I take all the accumulated scraps of q'laf, kosher parchment on which I wrote and crossed out literally thousands of Amaleyqim, and burn them. The sofer holds a public outdoor service for the incineration, which includes prayer, recitations from the Books of Nachum, Yishaiyahu (Isaiah), Tehilim (Psalms) and Ovadiyah (Obadaiah), then concludes with blessings specific to this mitzvah. At the end, everyone present says "ameyn!".

Then we eat :D

So as you can see, this requirement isn't harsh at all. This is a beautiful, consciousness-raising exercise that, when practiced regularly, aids the sofer/et to imbue his/her work with appropriate intention and awareness. The work becomes Work. It allows us to gradually and gently correct one of our most negative tendencies, thus bringing our best Selves to the Holy service of writing.


* much gratitude to my husband, Mordechai Pinchas sofer STaM, for teaching me the rabbinic source from which this minhag came.



Copyright A. Barclay

DELIGHT - Megillah - JOFA - 2006 - ענג

בס"ד
12 Sh'vat


I was very glad to get my copy of the JOFA Journal today in the mail & so happy to see that my former rabbi & constant friend, R' Ross Singer, had his article on women being permitted to write Megilot (Scrolls of) Esther published in the Winter 2006 issue. If you go here & click on the top link, Leadership, you can download your very own pdf! BTW, I always wanted to be that lady on page 5 when I grew up...
& yea, I am the female congregant mentioned in the piece.

So kol ha-kavod to the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, who has done much work in the service of Jewish women everywhere, helping us to not so much "think outside the box", as it were, but turn that box into more of a bag, as I like to say :)

The other TOTALLY cool thing is that they really did their own research on this & in the little box on the bottom left of page 4 names some of the women we know practiced sofrut - were copyists Jewish holy books & possibly wrote Sifrei Torah - & who appear throughout this blog. 3 cheers for an establishment of the existence of a historic soferet tradition!
(doing the wave...)

The original article (researched in 2002), much longer & full of Halakhic consideration, appears below:

"In the preface to his book, Women Jewish Lay and Modernity, Rabbi Joel Wolowelsky charts a new course for exploring the inclusion of women in religious ritual and practice. He states, “given the overall friction between ideology and halakhah, Orthodox leaders have been suspicious of arguable constructive suggestions for increased women’s participation in religious activities on the grounds that accepting them could legitimize feminism in the eyes of the halakhic community. It is now time to move past this fear of feminism. We are fast approaching a post-feminist age in which accepting specific proposals originally promoted by feminists no longer carries the implication that we accept feminist ideology as a whole... It is time for a lekhatehilah encouragement of increased women’s involvement in a wide spectrum of religious activities.” (pg. x-xii) Rabbi Wolowelsky welcomes his readers to “suggest additional areas to explore,’ with the proviso that these “should be explored in classical term, with reference to classic texts and recognized authorities.” (pg. xii) In the spirit of this approach, the following essay will explore the issue of women writing Megillot Esther for ritual use on Purim.

I. Talmud regards Women as Pesulot for the writing of Tefilin.

The key text from which to begin this discussion is a beraita that appears in Mesekhet Gittin (45b). We read, “Rav Hamnuna son of Rava from Pashronia taught a Sefer Torah, Tefilin, and Mezuzot written by an informer, an idolater, a slave, a woman, a minor, a Samaritan or an apostate are invalid, as it says ‘you shall bind them (tefilin) you shall write them (mezuzot)’ -- those who fall under the Mitzvah of binding them are those who fall under the category of writing them.” This passage serves as the source for the unequivocal halakhah that women are pesulot to write tefilin. This position is unchallenged in the classical rabbinic literature.

II. The position of the Rishonim and Ahronim on women writing Sifrei Torah and Mezuzot.

While the pesul to write tefilin is not contested, there is a debate regarding the kashrut of women to write Sifrei Torah and mezuzot. A close examination of Rav Hamnuna’s beraita shows some ambiguity. The beraita does not make any distinction between tefilin and Sifrei Torah and Mezuzah. Yet, the reasoning of “those who are in the category of binding are in the category of writing” seems to apply only to Tefilin. Strikingly, in the Tur’s list of those who are pasul to write Tefilin, he includes women. Yet, when he lists those who are pesulot to write Sifre Torah , he omits women. One could infer from this that the Tur reads the beraitta’s exclusion of women as limited to Tefilin. Indeed, the Drisha suggests that not only the Tur, but the Rif and the Rosh all hold that this is the Halakah On the other hand, the Rambam does not omit women from his listing of those who are pasul to write Sifrei Torah and Mezuzot. The Shulhan Arukh explicitly states that women are invalid to write Sifre Torah.

This mahloket between the Shulchan Arukh and the Drishah has implications for the question of women writing Megilat Esther. According to the Derisha’s understanding, women’s exclusion is limited to Tefilin, therefore they would be considered valid for Sifre Torah and Mezuzot, and all the more so for Megilat Esther which is of a lesser status and in which they have an obligation to hear the ritual reading. For the Shulhan Arukh who states that women are pesulot to write Sifre Torah it is more complicated. It must be determined whether the strictures of writing a Sefer Torah apply to Megilat Esther. If they do, then according to the Shulhan Arukh women will be pesulot. If not, it will be possible to consider women kesherot to write the Megillah.

III. The Mahloket Rabeinu Tam and the Maggid Mishneh on the pesulim for Megilat Esther

The question as to whether the pasul stated in Rav Hamnuna’s beraita applies to Megilat Esther is not explicitly addressed in the Classical Rabbinic literature or in the Rishonim. However a related issue brought up by the Rishonim is exceedingly relevant to this matter. One of the requirements of a Sefer Torah is that its parchment must be dressed or worked lishmah. The Rishonim differ as to whether this requirement extends also to Megilat Esther. Rabbeinu Tam holds that the skin of the parchment must be dressed lishmah. He reasons that since the Megilah is called a Sefer, all the laws of a Sefer Torah apply to it except those that the tradition explicitly informs us are different. Given that the Classical Rabbinic literature never explicitly states that women may write a valid Megilat Esther, it is logical to presume that Rabbeinu Tam’s position would be that women are pesulot for writing the Megilah. However, the Rambam (Hilkhot Megilah 2:9) writes that one need not dress the leather of parchment lishmah. The Magid Mishneh commenting on this passage writes that “this is obvious for dressing was not mentioned with regard to it, and it (Megilah) is only like a sefer Torah with regard to those things in which(it megillah) was compared to it (Sefer Torah).” Here we find the Maggid Mishneh taking a position diametrically opposed to the view of Rabbeinu Tam. While Rabbeinu Tam suggests that Megillah is treated like a Sefer Torah unless Hazal instruct us otherwise, the Maggid Mishneh suggests that the Megillah is treated like a Sefer Torah only when Hazal explicitly tell us so. The Maggid Mishneh’s logic would lead one to conclude that women are valid to write Megilat Esther because Hazal never mentioned explicitly that they are Pasul. The Sdei Hemed cites the Radvaz as having the same understanding of the Rambam.

The Birkei Yosef uses this Maggid Mishneh to demonstrate that women are indeed valid to write the Megillah. He begins his line of reasoning by noting the Tosafot‘s discussion of the validity of women to prepare tzitzit and lulav. Tosafot conclude that the applicability of the derashah in Rav Hamnunah’s beraita is limited to Sefer Torah, Tefilin and Mezuzot only. This suggests that women may be kesharot to write other holy texts. Nevertheless, the Birkei Yosef suggests that this is an insufficient proof, since many regulations of the writing of the Megillah are identical to the requirements of writing of a Sefer Torah. He then notes the Maggid Mishneh’s position as one that would indeed allow women to write the Megillah. He observes that the Shulchan Arukh quotes both Rabbeinu Tam’s position on ibbud lishmah and the Rambam’s. The Rambam’s is brought first, stam while Rabbeinu Tam’s is brought as a yesh omrim. This the Birkei Yosef states is indicative that the Shulhan Arukh is deciding in favour of the Rambam. Therefore based on the Maggid Mishneh’s understanding of the Rambam, the Birkei Yosef concludes that the Shulchan Arukh is Paskening that women are kesherot to write Megilat Esther. He bolsters this by noting that the Pri Chadash validates bedeiavad a Megillah written with the left hand even though a Sefer Torah written that way is invalid.

In his shiurei Berakhah, the Hida brings another proof to bolster his claim that women are valid to write the Megillah. The gemara states that it is forbidden to read the megillah from a scroll that contains other sacred writings in public. From this it is deduced that in private one may read the Megillah from such a scroll. Since women are valid to write sacred writings other than Sifrei Torah as deduced in Tosafot, one must conclude that women are valid to write megilat Eshter. If not the gemara could not have allowed one to read privately from such a scroll, for it may have been written by a woman.

IV. Women’s obligation to read/hear the Megillah validates them to write it.

The Pri Megadim also holds that Rav Hamnunah’s beraita cannot be used as a source to invalidate women from writing the Megilah. This beraita excludes women from writing because they are not obligated in the Mitzvah of Tefilin. The Pri Megadim reasons that since women are obligated (minimally to hear ) in the Mitzvah of keriat Hamegillah they are valid to write it. This approach is echoed by the Sdei Hemed who quotes from Masekhet Sofrim. Masekhet Sofrim states the following rule: all who are eligible to fulfill the community’s obligation to read a sacred text are valid to write that text. Given that women are obligated in the Mitzvah of Megillah, one can draw the conclusion that women are valid to write the Megilah. However it is not so simple. The Ba’al Halakhot Gedolot (Behag) holds that women are obligated only to hear the Megillah read to them, but are invalid to read the Megillah for men. According to the Behag, the rule enunciated in Masekhet Sofrim would not validate women to write Megilat Esther. Indeed, the Ma’aseh Rokeach invalidates women using this very reasoning. Nevertheless, the Sdei Hemed finds reason to validate women to write the Megillah from another source. The Mishnah in Gittin (22b) states that women are valid to write gittin. The Sdei Hemed (eliyahu tzvi) reasons that their validity flows from the fact that the laws of gittin are applicable to women. Based on this reasoning, it is sufficient for women merely to be obligated in hearing the Megillah to render them valid to write it.

The Avnei Nezer raises a serious objection to this approach articulated by the Pri Megadim. According to the Pri Megadim women are valid to write sacred texts for which they have halakhic obligations. Yet, while women are obligated in the mitzvah of Mezuzah the beraita invalidates them from writing mezzuzot. The Arukh Hashulhan answers this difficulty. He explains that the pasul extends to Mezzuzot since they appear in the same paragraph with Tefilin, whereas Megillah is obviously not mentioned in that paragraph of the Torah.

V. The Megillah itself suggests that women are valid to write it.

Megillat Esther (Ch.9:29) states, “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Avihail, and Mordekhay the Jew, wrote with all emphasis, to confirm this second letter of Purim.” The Targum renders this verse as saying “Esther the daughter of Avihail and Mordekhai the Jew wrote all this Megillah.” Rabbi David Oppenheim deduces from the Targum’s suggestion that Esther herself wrote the Megillah that women must be valid for writing the Megilah. A woman wrote the very first one! R. Oppenheim notes that this verse is used in the gemara (Megilah 19a) to derive halakhot. There the gemara asks “from where do we know that the Megilah requires parchment and ink? For it says (in one context) ‘and Esther the queen wrote,’ (and in another context) it is written ‘and I write on the scroll (parchment) and with ink.’” Using the rabbinic hermeneutical device of gezerah shavah the gemara deduces that the scroll of Esther must be on parchment and ink. R. Oppenheim reasons that if the gemara learns the halakhic details of parchment and ink from this verse, certainly we can learn that women are valid from the fact that it says Esther wrote.”

While R. Oppenheim uses Esther 9:29 as a proof that women are kesherot to write the Megillah, R. Meir Pearles reads that verse as a support for his position that women are pesulot. In his Megilat Sefer, R. Pearles argues that the Megillah has all the strictures of a Sefer Torah. In taking this position, he alludes to a Talmudic passage from Masekhet Megilah (16b). There Rabbi Tanhum and some say Rabbi Asi states that passage “words of peace and truth” in the Megillah teach us that the Megillah requires marking lines (shirtut) like “the truth of Torah.” R. Pearles argues that just as the Megillah requires shirtut so to all laws of Sifrei Torah apply to Megillat Esther. To strengthen his position he takes note that Esther 9:29 explicitly mentions that Mordecai also wrote the Megilah. R. Pearles suggests that had Mordekhai not assisted Esther, then the Megillah that they wrote would not have been valid. Based upon this reading he suggests that women are valid if the write with the assistance of a man. He finds support for this approach in the halakhot pertaining to sewing the parchments of the Megillat together. While the Sefer Torah needs to be sewn together only with animal tendons, the Megilah is kosher if it has three sections sewn together with tendons and the rest sewn together with linen. R. Pearles understands this halakhah to teach us that the writing of the Megilah is to be done basically as the writing of a Sefer Torah is done. However for the writing of the Megillah, the regulations need not be adhered to as strictly as for the Torah. The Megillah needs to be sewn with tendons, but not in its entirety, so too the Megillah needs to be written by a man, but not in its entirety. Esther’s contribution mentioned in Esther 9:29 does not invalidate the Megillah.

Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg finds R. Pearles’ arguments unconvincing. He notes that the Megilat Sefer starts by suggesting that Megilat Esther has the same halakhot as a Sefer Torah. He then backtracks and suggests that megilat Esther does not quite have the same halakhic requirements as a Sefer Torah and may be written by a woman as long as she has help from a man. R. Waldenberg argues that wither the Megillah has the same requirements as a Sefer Torah or it does not. If it does not, then we must allow for the possibility that women are valid. R. Waldenberg finds R. Pearles’ reading of Esther 9:29 excessively casuistic.

V. An explicit mention of women being pesulot is absent in the codes.

Above we mentioned the Avnei Nezer’s objection to the Pri Megadim’s claim that women are valid to write Megillat Esther. Later the Avnei Nezer had second thoughts about his position. This change of mind was based on the fact that the Rambam omitted any mention of women being pesulot in his list of those who are pasul to write the Megilah. This Shulhan Arukh similarly omits women from his list of those who are pasul to write the megillah. Based on this other Ahronim also conclude that there is not pesul for women to write the megillah.

VI. Conclusion

A number of Ahronim write that women are invalid to write the Megillah. These include: the Maaseh Rokeah, R. Meir Pearles, R. Akiva Eiger, R Yosef Messas, Lishkat Hasofer , and the Shaarey Teshuvah. Nevertheless there is a strong trend in Halakhah to validate women to write Megillot. The Drishah would validate women to write all sacred texts save Tefilin. While the Shulhan Arukh disagrees with the Drishah, he omits women from his list of those who are pesulim to write the Megillah. A large number of major ahronim indeed rule either l’halakhah or l’ma’aseh that women are keshairot. These Ahronim include R. David Oppenheim, the Chida, the Pri Megadim, the Teshuvah Me’ahavah, the Sdei Hemed, the Arukh Hashulhan, the Avnei Nezer, the Beit Oved, and the Tzitz Eliezer. Given the number, stature, and compelling reasoning of these Ahronim, it seems that the weight of the halakhic discussion inclines toward permitting women to write megillot Esther for communal ritual use provided that they are competent in the requisite Halakhot."

This appeared in issue 42 of the Edah Journal in 2004 as well, followed by no less than 52 sources in his list of notes. He is truly the world authority on this subject. It's so great that his work is getting more attention & that both Jewish women & men are being duly educated about ways in which we can safely expand our practice while keeping our traditions intact.

Way to go, R' Ross!


Originally published at Netivat Sofrut February 2006.
Copyright A. Barclay

Orthodox Women Chanting Megilat Esther for Men OK for Sephardim -בסדר לספרדים: נשים אוֹרְתּוֹדוֹקְסִי מזמרות את מגילת אסתר

This article to be foud at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067910.html

Top Sephardi rabbi rules women may chant Scroll of Esther for men
By Yair Ettinger
Tags: scroll of esther, israel news

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 Sephardi community, ruled last week in a landmark decision liable to outrage many of his Ashkenazi counterparts.

Esther is traditionally read in synagogue on the holiday of Purim, which this year falls next week. And 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, 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.
Advertisement
"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.

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.

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.

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

WOMEN TO EMULATE

The Alef-Bet as the Twenty-two Saintly Women in our history, each with a quality represented by a Hebrew letter inspired by Talmud Bavli Yoma 29a - Table of Correspondences:


1. Alef/א - Sarah - שרה - Genesis 11:29-23:19 – בראשית יא:כט–כד:יט

2. Bet/ב - Riv’qah – רבקה - Genesis 24:15-25:25 – בראשית כד:טו–כה:כה

3. Gimel/ג - Rachel – רחל - Genesis 29:6-35:16 – בראשית כט:ו–לה:יו

4. Dalet/ד - Le’ah – לאה - Genesis 29:16-49:31 – בראשית כט:יו–מט:לא

5. Hey/ה - Yokheved – יוכבד - Exodus 2:1, 6:20 - שמות ב:א, ו:כ; Numbers 26:59 – במדבר כו:נט

6. Vav/ו - Miriyam – מרים - Exodus 2:4-Numbers 20:1 – שמות ב:ד–במדבר כ:א

7. Zayin/ז - Machlah - מחלה - Numbers 27:1-7 – במדבר כז:א–ז

8. Chet/ח - No’ah - נעה - ibid.

9. Tet/ט - Chaglah – חגלה - ibid.

10. Yud/י - Milkah – מלכה - ibid.

11. Khaf/כ - Tirtzah – תרצה - ibid.

12. Lamed/ל - Devorah – דבורה - Judges 4:4-5:1 – שופטים ד:ד–ה:א

13. Mem/מ - Mano’ach’s wife/Shimshon’s mother –אשת מנוח/אם של שמשון - Judges 13:2 - שופטים יג:ב

14. Nun/נ - Chanah – חנה - I Samuel 1:2-2:21 – א שמואל א:ב–ב:כי

15. Samekh/ס -Avigayil – אביגיל - I Samuel 25:3-42 – א שמואל כה:ג–מ:ב

16. Ayin/ע - Woman of Tekoa - אשה מתקוע - II Samuel 14:2-20 – ב שמואל ד:ב–כ

17. Peh/פ - Widow of Tzar’fat - אלמנת צרפת - I Kings 17:9-24 – א מלכים יז:ט–כד

18. Tzadi/צ - the Shunamitess – השונמית - II Kings 4:8-8:6 – ב מלכים ד:ח–ח:ו

19. Quf/ק - Chuldah – חלדה - II Kings 22:14 - ב מלכים כב:יד; II Chronicles 34:24 - ב דברי הימים לד:כד

20. Reysh/ר - Naomi – נעמי - The Book of Ruth – מגילת רות

21. Shin/ש - Yehosheva - יהושבע - II Kings 1:2 - ב מלכים א:ב; II Chronicles 22:11 - ב דברי הימים כב:יא

22. Tav/ת - Queen Esther – אסתר המלכה - The Book of Esther – מגילת אסתר


---

Based on article originally published November 2004 at:
http://soferet.blogspot.com/2004/11/bsd-women-to-emulate-alef-bet-as.html
Copyright A. Barclay

Jewish Orthodox Feminism - יְהוּדִית אוֹרְתּוֹדוֹקְסִי פֶמִינִיזְם

BS"D

Goal: to be a radical figure in an orthodox tradition while exemplifying the orthodox tradition, thereby dismantling both the liberal feminist model of "working within the system" meaning "adopting a male gender role" and the radical feminist model of "curse it all, I'm going to worship a tree" (G@d forbid!).

A difficult balance to achieve, but well worth it.

May Ha-Shem guide me.


---
Cross-posted on Facebook

SOFERET S"M - סופרת ס''ם

BS"D
To read my blog about life, Torah, safrut & feminism, check Netivat Sofrut.
To learn more about Jewish scribal arts for women, please go to Sofrut Nation.
Blessings!