There is no need for a rabbi at a funeral. This action exhibits a naked lust for power.

antagonize them in their grief. "Men walk first, women behind; women do not deserve to express their grief to the departed:" WHY?? Who made THAT up?? I pity this woman. This Rabbi is not worthy of his title if his priority is to preserve ritutal over the spiritual wishes of the family and could not offer the least bit of compassion. Ritual must NEVER take precedance over spirituality. Ritual devoid of spirituality HAS NO MEANING.

You can't, on the one hand, live in a democracy and offer full citizens rights to all, and then, on the other, demand that some groups must be treated as second class citizens. Segregation or intolerance of race, religion, or gender goes against the basic tenets of a free society. If you prefer Sharia to Enlightment ideals, then you and your stupid, irrational chauvanistic attitudes should move the hell out of the land of Blake, Newton and Locke and back to the ignorant, barbarian desert lands, where, I'm sure, you'll be much more comfortable.

it's Vodun you ignoramus! Go educate yourself and stop insult other people's cultures.

In my opinion I think that for the Rabbis, the Halakha = Sharia. All that discriminations seems like the racial laws of Mister Adolf.

Rivkah: read #3 Sagi- he said it all.-

Rabbis today often mix mystisism with law. When that happens - the law always wins. There are clear laws about embarassing someone. There is no LAW about a woman speaking at a funeral. According to the law - he is like a murderer. Rabbis must leave their ivory towers and deal with real life. If there is a Satan, that Rabbi will surely meet him.

Who is he to prevent someone from mourning a father according to his sick view of what society should be like. He's just a nasty old miscogenist who should be removed from office.

funny how this was printed on Shabbat when orthodox couldn't respond!

Organized religion is one of the greatest causes of pain and suffering. It's no different than politics. Its leadership is in it for power.

As sorry as I am for anyone who has lost a loved one, women should respect the authority of men, especially at such a sensitive time as a funeral.

In many communities the eulogies are said at the niftar's home or in a meeting place and only the men then proceed to the cemetery for the burial. Even those communities where women attend the burial, there is a strong tradition against women speaking over the body. The family gather before the public eulogies and perhaps then, or during the shiva it might be better for her to speak. Although we bury the body the neshama remains in this world for some time and she can still speak to her father.

Who invited these rabbis to her father's funeral? If they were rabbis her father looked to, then she should respect their advice. If it is a 'family only' funeral there is a limited amount of freedom, but once it becomes public then the Halacha kicks in. Halacha fgrowns on women being at burials and frowns very heavily on women speaking in cemeteries. Perhaps there should be a 'memorial service' at the end of the shiva or sheloshim and then she can speak to an inner circle of family and close friends. The rabbis were twechnically correct, if rather tactless.

Unfortunately my father got caught up with the ultra-orthodox in Minneapolis. He died and the funeral was in January in a frozen Minneapolis cemetery. I was asked to speak and did so - In eloquent Israeli Hebrew and even those who knew no Hebrew were moved by the oration. The casket was lowered into the grave and then the religious animals began heaving large chunks of frozen dirt until one came crashing down and broke the top half of the casket. Another chunk dislodged one of the two pieces that formed the top half and soon after another lay the entire top half of the coffin bare. I pushed the animals away, took the shovel, and carefully and methodically placed the dirt around the coffin until it was entirely covered. I literally threw out the animals and buried my father that day. The leader of the animals, "Rabbi Lieff", asked about Shiva and I clearly stated that the Shiva and all activities must be in Sepharadit, the official Hebrew pronunciation of Israel. When it came time for Mincha I asked to lead the service since it was my Chiyuv and obligation. But I was not "Kasher" enough for him and he put in a Moroccan from his group to compromise. After Mincha, he started his "Drash" and as soon as he began uttering his non-sense in Ashkenazit, I threw the bum out and told him not to return. Pirkei Avot says "Derech Eretz Kodmo La-Torah". We do not need "Jewish" Taliban. They should be put in their places and I am not afraid to do so.

I read the Tanaakh. I read (stop with the BS about studying instead of "reading" read it. Stop fawning over the shapes of the Assyric letters) the Talmud. This is not halacha. Stop rewriting the law. What are you Christians and Muslims?

merriment which has been missed on YNET. Surely you know you have a following of readers who look for your posts. Don't stay away such a long time. Is your son heading back to Iraq? So many US Marines go to war zones again and again. David Meyer's "Last Trumpet" newsletter for April said US GI's are having a tough time getting the education benefits promised to them since Obama took office. Hope your son does not have that problem if he wants to go back to school one day.

Could it possibly be that Batya is an exhibitionist? Just asking. I notice that even her own family kept their distance. Do they know something we don't? Rivkah speaks sense.

The Bible, as in everything, is right. Men should exercise G-d-given authority with gentleness and a woman should take care to not move out of proper 'covering'. She can be exposed to very negative influences if she does. For instance, I can't help but notice how bitter the talkbacks are over this item. I and my wife (Linda, above) have been happily married for 35 years. FOR US, THE BIBLE IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

The Rabbi had the courage of his convictions in this difficult situation which is more than can be said for a lot of people these days. It is interesting therefore that anyone who seeks to endorse their convictions (whether a Christian, as I am, or a Jew, as the Rabbi) inevitably stir up those people whose liberal, anti-biblical views are sour enough to curdle milk. Well put!

Day by day, case by case, the little of respect I still have for orthodox rabbis diminishes, apparently changing to the same hatred I feel for fundamentalist mullahs. I am proud to daven among more humanist Jews and this pride I'll teach to those who come after me B"H. To the self-hating female, Rivkah: have you ever considered becoming a frum Muslim and moving to Saudi-Arabia?

You are disgrace to western culture.

That man abused the family by turning its funeral into a political power play. Rabbi Amar committed theft. Instead of giving comfort to the bereaved, he stole the daughter's right to mourn; he pretended to own the funeral. What he did was clearly a chauvinistic, political misuse of power: "This funeral is My Boys' Club Event." Payment for the funeral should be withheld. He should be sued for damages.

Rabbi Amar, anther ignorant, superstitious man who should be sent to do his nasty work in a Shtetle, in The Pale.

Frankly, I think that this Rav was wrong to prevent her from giving a eulogy. On the other hand, I am against anyone who is too emotional and likely to gush out in tears giving a eulogy. Maybe I'm wrong, I just think that everyone gathered, and family members, feel awkward and embarrassed when that happens. Giving a eulogy is a public think for the person's memory. Weeping and sobbing should be mostly a private matter. I understand that historically women were much more emotional than today. They were also uneducated. Maybe the two are connected. This is likely the reason this custom originated, and I think that any really emotional person man/woman should be discouraged from giving a eulogy, but this should not be enforced.

A man of stone—he did no one any favour or any good by acting in such a bestial manner. Without compassion. Yes, like an animal.

Im afraid this kind of discusting behvior from the religious is becoming all to common these days. Naturally they have a monopoly on burials and do all they can to prevent people having an alteernative and a choice. i mean heaven forbid they they miss out on a chance to make a buck or two at someones funeral.

Your actions don't sound like "derech eretz" to me.

I've read somewhere that some Jewish Law is not given by G-d but by sages and/or rabbis. That they are like fences, meant to keep people from breaking Torah law. But I think these rabbis, who set down such laws, or interpretations of such laws (i.e. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai), at times built fences that don't protect people from breaking Torah Law, but keep people from drawing close to G-d instead. Many of the so-called interpretations of halachic law seem to fence people in so much that they have no freedom to be who G-d created them to be anymore. I think this story demonstrates an occasion wherein it shows just how fenced in some Jews have fenced themselves in, leaving themselves no room to experience the full joys of knowing G-d. Even if the Rabbi in question here had a correct interpretation of the halachic law, his manner of enforcing the law was inappropriate. From the story, as written, it apparently was not clear to the family in question the true nature of how the service was to be before they made the funeral arrangements, otherwise, the family might have made alternative burial arrangements. This is something that should have been made clear prior to the funeral to the family and others (discreetly) during the funeral just exactly what type of funeral service and customs were to be followed. I mean, not everyone attending the funeral would be a Rabbi and understand the total spiritual aspects that Rabbi Amar spoke to in this story. So why would there not be literature at the service people could have access to explaining the customs of the Jewish Burial service being followed? Was the family only provided one choice of burial service and no other? Was the family just supposed to know that a Jewish burial consisted of the family having no say what so ever in how the service should be run? Maybe the family would have liked the opportunity to have called in different Rabbis with a more liberal interpretation of things so the daughter could have spoke at her Father's funeral of her love for her father. And are men really that sick in the head that they couldn't control their thought processes long enough to tolerate a women lamenting the loss of a loved one at a funeral? Are men that selfish that they would only see a sexual object when observing a woman morning the loss of a loved one? Are men really that weak minded? Is Rabbi Amar going to become like one of the religious police in Saudi Arabia now whenever he attends a funeral so he can beat any other women that might think they can violate Jewish burial customs? I mean, who knows, a similar situation might come up in the future for the man and this time it might be with a woman who could lay him level if he wasn't armed with a baton to beat her with.