This CNN video reportedly shows Fort Hood shooting suspect Major Nidal Malik Hasan wearing "traditional garb" while shopping in a convenience store early yesterday morning about seven hours before the shooting.

A CNN producer’s narrative from 2:25 to 3:25 in the video describes concerns Hasan reportedly expressed to the store owner about a week ago about his upcoming deployment and his possibly having to shoot, kill, injure or fight fellow Muslims in the future.

From 4:00 to 4:36 in the video, a CNN editor reports that the Arabic-speaking store owner said that Hasan had told him that he’s "from Jordan" but was born here. 

From 5:10 to 5:55 in the narration, the CNN editor reports that the store owner said that Hasan was a "devout" Muslim who regularly attended Friday prayer. 

According to an AP report in the Detroit Free Press, "Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Ft. Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted ‘Allahu Akbar!’ — an Arabic phrase for ‘God is great!’ — before opening fire, the base commander said today."

Rabbi Michael Broyde discusses this issue and Jewish law.

Joseph Kaplan comments on Hirhurim: As always. R. Broyde’s clear and rigorous analysis is extremely helpful, certainly to me, in thinking through important issues, and we should be grateful to him for allowing Gil to share this analysis with us.

One question that I have about his analysis relates to the question of motive/sincerity. People are complex and they often do things for complex reasons. In this area, for example, a woman may want to be a shul president (to take a particular issue R. Broyde mentions) because (a) she believes as a general principle that woman should be allowed to perform in the public arena to the best of their abilities on an equal par and in the same way as men, (b) she believes that there is no halachic impediment to her doing so, and (c) her talents are such that her being president will be a true service to the Jewish community at large and the particular halachic community of which she is a part, and will thus be a true part of her avodat Hashem. Is this a sincere motive, non-sincere, or mixed? And if it is mixed, how do we parse out the different elements?

It seems to me that the issue of motive/sincerity is a very difficult and tricky one, and may sometimes say more about the rabbi who is deciding the issue presented than the woman/women involved in it. I would be interested in some additional explanation or guidance of how R. Broyde would deal with this aspect of his analysis.

MYCROFT WRITES: It would appear that Rabbi Broyde is downplaying the importance of tradition. On a purely halachik issue it is atleast possible that a women could lead Kabbalat Shabbat in schul-it is not Tfilah, there is nothing bikdusha so why not? Or onYizkor which also has no minyan required let a women lead the service-there is no halacha against it. Both could be led by a monkey. But I submit that the Rav would not have tolerated such behavior in a schul because of tradition-women leading any parts of what appears to be a service have no place in a schul
One can’t overestimate the importance of minhagim and accepted behavior to the Rav.

NACHUM LAMM POSTS: The Rav didn’t seem too thrilled about women wearing tallit and tefillin, which is certainly a mitzvah.

SETH GORDON POSTS: My first reaction to the essay was surprise and disappointment that it even had to be written; why don’t rabbis consider the halakhic angle first as a matter of course? Isn’t that what they were trained to do?

Is this a consequence of the modern tendency for poskim to make decisions that are yotzei kol de’os instead of picking one shita and standing behind it?

FRIEND POSTS: Following up on Joseph Kaplan’s comment, a fairer judgment is that the hypothetical individual’s only MOTIVIATION is "(C)," her belief that "her talents are such that her being president will be a true service to the Jewish community at large and the particular halachic community of which she is a part, and will thus be a true part of her avodat Hashem." Just as this hypothetical individual views item "(B)," the absence of a halchic impediment, as just that — the absence of an impediment, not an affirmative motivation — the fairer articulation of her "feminist" sentiments in item "(A)" is likely also a mere absence of impediment — "she believes as a general principle that there is no reason that women should not be allowed to perform in the public arena to the best of their abilities on an equal par and in the same way as men."

An analogy: I believe that Jews should be eligible for any public office in the United States. If I choose to run for public office, however, my motivation is not to make that point, but, rather, to get elected.

REUVEN POSTS: n my experience it is not the "equality" that many women are looking for, rather it is the notion that they have relatively little to do in terms of active performance in their religious lives. They no longer want to be bystanders, and prefer a more active role.

It is more personal and not motivated by feminine equality.

I line up, usually, on the Right side of the issue, but it just seems that the root of the problem is that many women yearn to have an active, participatory religious life, and many feel our current state does not fulfill that yearning.

RABBI GIL STUDENT WRITES:

I am in the middle of reading David Gelernter’s eloquent new book, Judaism: A Way of Being. From what I understand, the core of this book is in a series of essays the author published in Commentary a few years ago.

One chapter addresses the following questions:

• Isn’t normative or Orthodox Judaism inherently anti-woman, insofar as its public ceremonies are conducted by males?
• Assuming we reject the idea that women are in any way inferior, aren’t we forced to make basic changes in Judaism?

His discussion is profound and provocative. Later in the chapter, he addresses specifically the issue of women rabbis. Here are some of his thoughts. Note that his discussion is not about the strictly halakhic issues. They have already been addressed on this blog and in my book, although there is always room for further discussion.

Here is a relevant excerpt from Gelernter’s book (pp. 109-111):

Still, the nonexistence of female rabbis in normative Judaism has unquestionably taken on (for some women) the force of tragedy. Judaism can sympathize but can’t do anything about it: if you create woman rabbis, you not only break the law, you break the poetry. And law and poetry are all there is…

Times change. But people don’t go to synagogue to study social trends… Those who long to keep religion up to date miss the point. Religious practices do change, but must be moved as slowly and gently as a brimful glass of wine. Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai tells us in a midrash not to change our ancestors’ customs, and cites: "Remove not the ancient boundary stones, which thy fathers have set up" (Proverbs 22:28). Rabbi Yohanan agrees, and cites a different verse: "Heed the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the teaching of your mother" (Proverbs 1:8).

The woman who yearns to be a rabbi resembles the openly practicing homosexual who wants the same thing. Both cases suggest a man who yearns to be a hazzan but lacks the ear or voice for it, or hopes to be a rosh yeshiva (the head of a yeshiva is an honored leader of the community ex officio) but lacks the temperament or brains, or wants to be a poet but has nothing to say. In none of these cases can Judaism wave a wand and make the obstacles disappear. Opportunities and limitations are innate in who you are; accepting that fact is one of the stiffest trials of growing up…

In the end, such issues have little to do with Judaism and much to do with character and personality. In Persuasion, Jane Austen describes a woman who had once been rich, married, and happy but is now, though still young, a poor and ailing widow. She ought to be miserable but isn’t. She has been given every reason but has declined them all. "Here was that elasticity of mind, that disposition to be comforted, that power of turning readily from evil to good, and of finding employment which carried her out of herself, which was from Nature alone. It was the choicest gift of heaven."

It’s buried deep in this Washington Post profile:

Hasan is an avid Redskins fan. "That was his main entertainment," his aunt said. "He was not a movie watcher. He worked hard and had been studying for years. He buried himself in his work."

Nobody should have to suffer like Redskins fans are suffering this year. It can be too much for even the gentlest of men.

This Elizabeth Lambert should be banned from soccer for life. She’s a dirty vicious player. What kind of person is she? I wonder who dates her? I wonder what her parents think of her? Her pastor or priest?

From Sportingnews.com:

Soccer can be a rough game, especially in the top-flight European leagues, where jersey pulls and raps on the shins are basically part of the fabric of the game. But it’s apparently roughest in the Mountain West Conference’s Women’s Soccer Tournament, where BYU beat New Mexico 1-0 in the semifinals and probably only scored a draw in the battle royale.

The two teams combined for what would seem like a stunning 25 fouls, but that’s actually not a huge number: In the three games of last year’s Women’s Final Four, there were 23, 24, and 33 fouls. The shocker is that only one yellow card came out in this game, which seems wildly out of proportion to the amount of brutality in the above video.

But that yellow card did at least go to Elizabeth Lambert, the Lobo who does the dirty work in the above video. Her bio says she "is fearless when making a challenge," which is a nice way to say she will rabbit punch you, yank you down by the ponytail, and slap your face while you are in mid-air. I don’t know why, exactly, she got carded for a fairly routine trip outside the box instead of the other chippiness.

HER BIO SAYS: "Born Elizabeth Ann Lambert on December 29, 1988, in Lancaster, Calif. … daughter of Clark and Diane Lambert … has three siblings, Christine, Keith and Samantha … enjoys camping and surfing in her spare time … favorite food is tacos … sister Christine played college volleyball at the University of Connecticut, while brother Keith played college soccer at Humboldt State University … is majoring in University Studies with a focus on Occupational Therapy."

I’m not going to forget about this woman until she’s brought to justice.

Kyle Koster blogs: Today is not a good day to be Elizabeth Lambert.

The New Mexico women’s soccer player has to wake up with the realization that a large portion of sports-loving America has seen her on-field antics against BYU on Thursday.

And by antics, I mean hair-pulling, punching, slapping, squeezing and anything else that would fall under the umbrella of dirty play.

USA TODAY UPDATES:

Amid a hoard of attention from the blogosphere today, New Mexico announced that Lambert has been suspended indefinitely from all team practices, competition and conditioning activities.

"I am deeply and wholeheartedly regretful for my actions," Lambert said in a statement posted on the school’s web site. "My actions were uncalled for. I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation. I take full responsibility for my actions and accept any punishment felt necessary from the coaching staff and UNM administration. This is in no way indicative of my character or the soccer player that I am. I am sorry to my coaches and teammates for any and all damages I have brought upon them. I am especially sorry to BYU and the BYU women’s soccer players that were personally affected by my actions. I have the utmost respect for the BYU women’s soccer program and its players."

The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Born and reared in Virginia, the son of immigrant parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, he joined the Army right out of high school, against his parents’ wishes. The Army, in turn, put him through college and then medical school, where he trained to be a psychiatrist.

But Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the 39-year-old man accused of Thursday’s mass shooting at Fort Hood, Tex., began having second thoughts about a military career a few years ago after other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim, he told relatives in Virginia.

…The former imam at a Silver Spring, Md., mosque where Major Hasan worshiped for about 10 years described him as proud of his work in the Army and “very serious about his religion.” The former imam, Faizul Khan, said that Major Hasan had wanted to marry an equally religious woman but that his efforts to find one had failed.

“He wanted a woman who prayed five times a day and wears a hijab, and maybe the women he met were not complying with those things,” the former imam said.

Click here to watch in High Definition (HD)

I think that’s a fair question in light of yesterday’s murderous shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, which authorities have attributed to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39-year-old Army psychiatrist who reportedly was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

According to The New York Times, Hasan was "born and reared in Virginia, the son of immigrant parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem."  The Times said "he joined the Army right out of high school, against his parents’ wishes. The Army, in turn, put him through college and then medical school, where he trained to be a psychiatrist."

The Times reported that "Major Hasan had two brothers, one in Virginia and another in Jerusalem, his cousin said…The former imam at a Silver Spring, Md., mosque where Major Hasan worshiped for about 10 years described him as proud of his work in the Army and ‘very serious about his religion.’”

On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made an elaborate but false presentation to the U.N. Security Council about purported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

On Oct. 19, 2008 — a little more than one year ago — in an appearance on "Meet the Press" in which he endorsed then-Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat, for President over fellow Republican John McCain, Powell, a retired four-star Army general and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former National Security Advisor, said:

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

Robert Rickover writes in vol 2 issue 1 of Direction Journal:

London teacher Kri Ackers said: "The thing to remember about Alexander teachers is that we’re all insecure as hell."

Why is this?

Alexander’s lack of formal training and his low status origins (Tasmania, Australia).

Lack of legal standing for the alexander teaching profession: anyone can call himself an Alexander teacher.

Divisiveness within the Alexander world: after Alexander’s death, several of his students established their own training courses. These men and women had very different interpretations of Alexander’s work, and very different approaches to teaching. These differences have led to bitter disputes with members of the various "lineages" disparaging each other’s work.

Alexander’s racism: a source of profound embarrassment for all of us are his many derogatory remarks about Germany ("as a nation she has no mobility, no poise… We must treat her as mad."), American blacks (called cowards for running away from klu kklux klan lynch parties) and indigenous peoples (ruled exclusively by "savage instincts and unbridled passions").

Probably the biggest cause of our insecurity is that our own standars of use are constantly on display. Whenever Alexander teachers and students get together, you hear putdowns such as "He’s pulling down" or ‘"She’s stiffening."

Jeff says: "Luke, here is the next scandal to hit the Orthodox world. Even though this is a New York-based deal, Leonard Grunstein’s daughter, Ruchie Fried, lives in Los Angeles and is on the board of Beth Jacob. She was one of Steven Weil’s people. Her in-laws are part of the Orthodox Shaarey Zedek community in the Valley. They are Naomi and Ben Fried. Too many things are hitting home! And now we know why Rubin (Ruby) Schron hsa a mansion in Israel. Guess he was spending his share of the money."

Lou emails:

Weiling Your Life Away

Luke my man, no offense intended, but why does every scandal wind its way back to Rabbi Weil? Grunstein’s daughter was fond of Rabbi Weil when he was at Beth Jacob, so Weil’s name gets inserted into a story about shady business dealings in New York. David Rubin and Rabbi Weil support common causes, so Weil is injected into a nationwide municipal bond kickback scheme. If Ford recalls several million vehicles, I suppose you or one you of your sycophants will manage to work in the fact that Weil drives an Explorer (with a pick-up rear, no less). Perhaps President Obama will rescind the ban on Cuban cigars, and you’ll mention that cigar afficionado Weil finally approves of a decision made by this administration. He’s just a man, my man, and puts his trousers on one leg at a time like you and I.

CrainsNewYork says:

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against a New York real estate investor and real estate attorney Wednesday, accusing them of accepting $50 million in kickbacks from a pharmaceutical vendor that served nursing home companies in which they are principals.

Rubin Schron, an owner of the Woolworth Building, and real estate attorney Leonard Grunstein, a partner at Troutman Sanders, participated in the scheme, the government alleges. The complaint says the two men were part of a trio who received a $50 million payment from Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest nursing home pharmacy, so it could continue to provide services to their nursing home companies, Mariner Health Care and Sava Senior Care.

The government alleges the trio attempted to disguise the $50 million from Omnicare as a payment to acquire a business unit from Mariner that in fact only had two employees and was worth far less than $50 million.

The lawsuit was revealed as the Justice Department announced Wednesday that Omnicare will pay the federal government and several states a total of $98 million to settle Medicare and Medicaid fraud charges.

The suit also dovetails with the news that Mr. Schron and other owners of the Woolworth Building, including prominent real estate investor Steve Witkoff, are considering selling a 51% stake in the building to the Sorgente Group, an Italian firm that also owns a stake in New York’s Flat Iron Building.

During the second hour of his radio show today, Dennis Prager said that any woman anywhere in the world 2,000 years ago had more rights than women do today under the Taliban.

Dennis says he has only contempt for non-liberals who voted for Barack Obama because of a feeling. Obama was the most left-wing senator according to the National Journal. Anyone with a mind should’ve known that he would govern as a leftist. Why go nuts over the word "change"? Remember such vapid phrases as "We are the change we believe in?"

"The bubble needs to be cracked. That’s why I would like to run for president. I mean it. I would just like to have these things said at a Republican debate. Let these ideas be out there. Crack that bubble."

* A woman said to me the other day, "Do you think you choose emotionally unavailable women so that you can replay the loss of your mother?"

Dennis Prager writes:

Those of us who are not true believers in expanded government are certain of the following:

If the 1,990-page House Health Care Bill becomes law, the average American will receive worse health care, American physicians will decline in status and income, American medical innovation will dramatically slow down and pharmaceutical discoveries will decline in number and quality. And, of course, the economy of the United States will deteriorate, perhaps permanently.

However, we are also certain that there is one American group that will thrive — trial lawyers. The very existence of a 1,990-page law guarantees years of, if not more or less permanent, lawsuits. And the law actually specifies that states that do not limit attorneys’ fees in cases of medical malpractice shall be financially rewarded. What we are seeing here, therefore, is something unprecedented in our history: Many trial lawyers will earn as much as most physicians, and fewer and fewer physicians will earn as much as successful trial lawyers.

Nothing better illustrates the reorientation — indeed, the transformation — of values that will take place if the Democrats’ health care legislation is passed. Thanks to trial lawyer/Democratic influence, for decades, we have been moving in the direction of litigation-based society. But with a Democratic health care bill, the movement will accelerate exponentially.