Much Ado About Nothing: Scholem on the Star of David

The latest sacred cow to be slaughtered, ostensibly, is the Six Pointed 'Star of David.' A book wriiten by Gershom Scholerm over sixty years ago has recently been published, though his basic findings were reveraled around that time. The findings? To quote YNET:

In his article Prof. Scholem stated that, "The Magen David is not a Jewish symbol, and therefore not the 'symbol of Judaism'." ....The official usage of the Star of David as a Jewish symbol began in Prague. Prof. Scholem writes that it was either chosen by the local Jewish community or by the Christian rule as a means of branding the Jews, who later adopted and embraced it. In 1354 Emperor Charles IV granted the Jews the privilege of raising a flag of their own, and this flag contained the Magen David. One of these flags can still be found in Prague's Old-New Synagogue. From Prague, where the Magen David was printed on book covers and engraved on cemetery headstones, the symbol spread to the rest of Europe and gradually became known as the symbol of Judaism.

During the first Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897 the Zionist flag, which bears a blue Star of David, was chosen. But Prof. Scholem claims that the symbol only became truly meaningful during the Holocaust, after the Nazis used it to mark the Jews, and thus sanctified it. According to Scholem, this gave the graphic symbol a spiritual sense of sacredness it never had before.

So we're supposed to get bent out of shape that a powerful Jewish symbol isn't Jewish. The flag is illegitimate and who knows what else. (Yawn)

I seem to recall Professor Scholem mentioning this insight when he taught at BU in the Spring of 1976. At the time I was a bit distraught, but over the years I've come to realize that this kind of reductionist argument (x is documented outside of Judaism, entered from the outside and is therefore illegitimate) is both excruciatingly superficial, as well a silly.

Everyone is influenced by the outside world. It's inevitable.The questions that one should ask when discussing thigs like this are: What was absorbed and what was rejected? (That will be determined by the essential fabric of Judaism.) If something was accepted, what previously developed, inner need did it (or does it) fill? Finally, how was it interpreted, modified and adjusted to the Jewish value system? (For if it wasn't, it would not have lasted.)

So, who really cares when the Star of David became a Jewish symbol? If it was adopted as a powerful vehicle of Jewish memory and indentity, if it moves Jews to tears, and if it passes muster with Jewish Law and values; then ahlan ve-sahlan, (and spare me, PLEASE, the silly cow shechting).

Sobering Thoughts, or Why Obama's Naivte Could Destroy Israel

In 1938, the entire West couldn't do enough to make friends with Adolf Hitler, in order to avoid war.
The direct result was World War II and the Holocaust.

In 2009, the entire West, 'led' by Barack Obama (and his post-modern, ostensibly Jewish minions), can't do enough to curry favor with the mullahs of Teheran, led by Hatami and Ahmedinajad. They spare no effort to force Israel to self-destruct by creating an irredentist, jihadist state and not attacking Iran's nuclear weapons.

Is there no one in power who sees that Obama and Co. are leading the world unspeakable disaster?

One journalist who does is Caroline Glick. Required Reading for Yom ha-Zikkaron.

Yom HaShoah 5769

(Hat Tip for the Video: Jameel)

After so many years in Israel, כן ירבו, I still am profoundly moved when the sirens sound on Yom HaShoah and Yom haZikkaron. There is something overwhelmingly profound in its understatement. The moment is ineffable in the way wherein the individual unites with his own thoughts, and simultaneously melds into Jewish collective consciousness and memory; past, present and future.

Of course, as is well known (and over emphasized), Israeli Haredim are known to refuse to stand at attention when the siren goes off. Their argument is that such behaviour is inappropriate since it constitutes a willful act of imitating the gentiles, it constitutes a violation of the Torah's injunction against 'Walking in the Ways of the Gentiles' (חוקות עכו"ם). [Lev. 18, 3 and Rambam, Hil. AKuM 11, 1-4]. The argument, in my informed opinion, is extremely specious.

Yet, it is not of that I wish to write. Over the past few years, there has been an interesting shift among some Haredim. First, in order not to be provocative, many try not to be outside when the siren sounds. More significantly, the practice has developed to stand and recite Psalms while the siren blasts. I suspect that this started as a way of not ascribing significance to the siren, per se. However, as time goes on, I believe that this is the first step toward the integration, the Judaization, of the siren and its transformation into an ongoing Jewish ritual.

A tragic unity obtained among Jews in the death pits and in the creamatoria. I believe there will be unity also in the way in which they will be remembered.

Erakat's Half Truth

The news today reported that PA negotiator, Saab Erakat, summarily rejected the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. according to the report on Israel radio, he added that even President Truman refused to do so. Erakat is a well-known dissembler, and it's said that no one in the Israeli media knew the truth, that Truman explicitly described Israel as a Jewish state, in his statement recognizing Israel on May 15, 1948.

The original document is on line here:

To quote CAMERA:

Pres. Truman, did in fact, cross out the words “Jewish State” in the sentence which originally read, “The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new Jewish State.”

After Pres. Truman's changes, the sentence reads: “The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.”

The document in question, however, begins with the following sentence:

This government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the [provisional] Government thereof.” (Emphasis added. Pres. Truman inserted by hand the word “provisional.”)

[According to Collins and Lapierre, (O Jerusalem, p. ) the words 'the new Jewish State' were originally there because no one yet knew the name of the new country.]

Erakat knows he's a liar. The tragedy is that most Israelis and, a fortiori, everyone else, don't know.

Pesach Post-Mortem (I): Streits and Other Unseemly Matters

Pesach is a full time occupation, even after the house is prepared and the Seder properly celebrated. Hence, my Hol ha-Moed שינוי was not blogging. Herewith, then, the first of several observations now that we're back to normal.

1) I am still outraged by the decision of certain New York area Rabbinic Councils to withdraw their kashrut recognition of Streits products for Pesach. Never mind that the underhanded manner in which they did so is, per se, worthy of condemnation. What is even more outrageous is the facile manner in which they dismissed an established hekhsher, headed up by R. Moshe Soloveitchik (following standards set up by his father, Rav Aaron Soloveitchik, זצ"ל).

Now, I admit that I do not know R. Moshe Soloveitchik personally. However, people I know and respect, and who are (or were) outstanding Talmidei Hakhamim, do know him and have made it very clear to me that there is no legitimate reason to impugn his integrity or his Kashrut supervision.

This inexcusable act fully justifies excommunicating the offenders (נידוי). According to the Shulhan Arukh, anyone who humiliates an established rabbinic scholar can be anathemized by him, or one of his students (YD 334:16). The full implications are spelled out by Maimonides (Hil. Talmud Torah VI: 11-12):

11) It is a great sin to hate or humilate a sage. Jerusalem was not destroyed until people started despising the sages, as it is written, "But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets", i.e. they scoffed the people who taught Torah. In a similar vein the Torah said, "And if you shall despise My statutes", which refers to humilate those who teach these statutes. Anybody who humilates Sages loses his share in the World To Come and is included in the verse of, "Because he has despised the word of the Lord, etc".

12) Even though someone who humilates the Sages doesn't have a share in the World To Come, nevertheless, if witnesses state that someone has despised even just their words, that person is punishable by excommunication. The Bet Din should publicly excommunicate him, and he is fined a pound of gold....Someone who humilates a sage after his death is taken to a Court of Law, and should have his excommunication removed only after he has repented. If, however, the sage himself is still alive, then he is taken out of excommunication only if the sage agrees to it....

This incident highlights the dangers inherent in centralized kashrut supervision. While such supervision has many salutary features, it also has very serious downsides. It takes the onus of personal responsibility off of the supervising agency. This actually vitiates the value of rabbinic supervision. Furthermore, it creates an atmosphere of fear, which can often lead to unjustified and often insipid stringencies (חומרות). These, in turn, can harm observance of the dietary laws by making them more difficult to observe than necessary (see my next post on קיטניות). Finally, as in the present instance, they can impugn reputable השגחות, like that of Streits, humiliate תלמידי חכמים and destroy a person's livlihood.

Finally, I can help but wonder what would have happened if the recent statements (slightly altered) had been offered thirty years ago:

'No one wants to mess with the Soloveichiks in general,” he explained. “There’s a feeling of reverence [for] the family”...The problem with Morrison and Schiff's lack of a national hashgacha is that “we don’t know enough about Rav Soloveichik.” “He just doesn’t swim in the kashrus world … we’re not saying he’s bad; not at all. We just don’t know.”

For Those Who Defended Obama....

Sober Warnings from Haetzni:

Beware our American friend
Saying ‘no’ to Obama won’t necessarily undermine our friendship with US
Elyakim Haetzni

Barak Obama has a lovely personality, and moreover, the holiday of freedom brings together the blacks and the Jews, who were among the greatest fighters for African-American equality. Still, we were hurt by Condoleezza Rice, who identified us with the white people who persecuted her during childhood, while viewing the Palestinians as the persecuted party.

American Interests

Meanwhile, Obama’s rivals referred to him as “Hussein,” his middle name, in order to slam him. Yet in his recent visit to the Turkish parliament, his hosts happened to emphasize his “Hussein-ness,” and such things are coordinated with the guest. Obama, who has urged us to put ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, not only backs them; he also identifies with them.

We shall fee the difference soon. Barack Hussein Obama’s policy cornerstone is the establishment of “Palestine,” on the assumption this will extract the Americans from the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, destroy the Taliban in Pakistan, and appease Iran.

Often when referring to cancer, people prefer to talk about “this disease, you know.” Around here we talk about “the price, you know,” in order not to go into detail about what shall be left here after Palestine is established. They speak cautiously, as one would address a patient before amputation.

Yet in the face of the razor-sharp ultimatum we can expect from Obama, enough with the hints: Imagine a border at Jerusalem’s Jaffa gate, with armed Palestinians standing on the Old City’s wall. Imagine a Dead Sea that is half in Jordan, and 50% of the remaining half belonging to Palestine.

Imagine a Negev divided into two near Kiryat Gat by a Palestinian bridge, and a Gazan demographic flood pouring into Jerusalem and the doorstep of our cities. Imagine Ben-Gurion covered by shoulder-held missiles deployed in the ruins of the Beit Aryeh settlement, thereby prompting us to move our international airport to the Negev.

Imagine Israel without the Jordan Rift Valley and without the Golan Heights.

300,000 new refugees

We shall have 300,000 new expelled citizens, with fears of a minor civil war, in addition to a “Return from Palestine” tax in order to finance homes and jobs for the Jewish refugees. Some of them will move into the apartments of Israelis who will leave the country once the terror and missile fire resume.

We shall have bars and their girls making a living off NATO troops, who shall be deployed here in a dual capacity: Serving as a security prosthesis for our amputated land, and defending the Arabs from us. Their deployment would symbolize the new status of Israel and Palestine as areas under the auspices and monitoring of the International Quartet, in line with the original goal of the Road Map – both of them shall be sovereign just like Kosovo is.

And so, the independence of our “third Temple” would turn out to be shorter than the independence of the Hasmoneans, who ruled between the bouts of Greek and Roman control, and many would choose to live in modern-day Rome – that is, America – instead of being occupied by it here.

An Israeli author, who lamented the rightist camp’s elections victory, comforted himself with the hope that Obama would force us to compromise. This author is not scared by the frightening outcome, only a small part of which was described above.

However, the vast majority of people in this nation are not deterred by the warning issued by the peace camp – that is: if we refuse to accommodate Obama, we shall lose his friendship. Because what kind of a friend is the one who shoves a shovel into your hand so you can dig your own grave?
On the contrary: Golda, Rabin, and Begin were able to say “No!” to America, and the friendship was preserved.

Sheikh Palazzi: חסיד אומות האיסלם

Fisking Bronner on Religious Soldiers

[There is so much wrong with this piece, I decided to pull an Augean Stables.]


A religious war within the Israeli Army

By Ethan Bronner
Sunday, March 22, 2009

JERUSALEM: The publication late last week of eyewitness accounts by Israeli soldiers alleging acute mistreatment of Palestinian civilians in the recent Gaza fighting highlights a debate here about the rules of war. But it also exposes something else: the clash between secular liberals and religious nationalists for control over the army and society.

[Comment: The ceredibility of these charges has since been seriously impugned and they are, in any event, extremely distorted. See here.]

Several of the testimonies, published by an institute that runs a premilitary course and is affiliated with the left-leaning secular kibbutz movement, showed a distinct impatience with religious soldiers, portraying them as self-appointed holy warriors.

A soldier, identified by the pseudonym Ram, is quoted as saying that in Gaza, "the rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles and their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war."

[Comment: The quote is second hand, therefore, suspect. Even if accurate, though, Ram obviously did not understand that מלחמת מצוה does not mean jihad. It refers to a war to defend Jews from attack or to conquer the land of Israel. The booklets do not stress the latter, only the former. Furthermore, since when is it bad to believe in God, in His Providence or in His promise of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel?]

Dany Zamir, the director of the one-year premilitary course who solicited the testimonies and then leaked them, leading to a promise by the military to investigate, is quoted in the transcripts as expressing anguish over the growing religious nationalist elements of the military.
"If clerics are anointing us with oil and sticking holy books in our hands, and if the soldiers in these units aren't representative of the whole spectrum of the Jewish people, but rather of certain segments of the population, what can we expect?" he said. "To whom do we complain?"

[Comment: Danny Zamir is a radical Leftist, who goes around the world preaching that Israel is a racist, apartheid state. See here. Notice the unctious rhetoric he employs in describing the IDF rabbis and religious soldiers. The man's agenda is anti-religion, period.]

For the first four decades of Israel's existence, the army — like many of the country's institutions — was dominated by kibbutz members who saw themselves as secular, Western and educated. In the past decade or two, religious nationalists, including many from the settler movement in the West Bank, have moved into more and more positions of military responsibility. (In Israeli society, they are a growing force, distinct from, and more modern than, the black-garbed ultra-Orthodox, who are excused from military service.)

[Comment: One might think there had been a putsch or a purge of secular soldiers. The truth is: a) secular families have few or no children b) the percentage of secular Israeli emigres is very high c) the percentage of secular Israeli kids who dodge or avoid army service is the highest in the country (after Haredim and Arabs, who don't give lip service to Zionism) d) The Kibbutzim have gone bankrupt, both fiscally and ideologically. Finally, the country has, for almost twenty years, been in the midst of a renewal of Jewish identity and the consequent decline in doctrinnaire secularism. The morale building materials distributed by the IDF Rabbinate were snapped up by huge numbers of soldiers, both religious and so-called secular.]

In many cases, the religious nationalists have ascended to command positions from precisely the kind of premilitary college course that Mr. Zamir runs — but theirs are run by the religious movements rather than his secular one, meaning that the competition between him and them is both ideological and careerist.

[Comment: So, if you serve in the army and perform your duties, you should not be promoted. Unless, of course, you pass Zamir's thought police.]

"The officer corps of the elite Golani Brigade is now heavily populated by religious rightist graduates of the preparatory academies," noted Moshe Halbertal, a Jewish philosophy professor who co-wrote the military code of ethics and who is himself religiously observant but politically liberal. "The religious right is trying to have an impact on Israeli society through the army."
For Mr. Halbertal, like for the vast majority of Israelis, the army is an especially sensitive institution because it has always functioned as a social cauldron, throwing together people from all walks of life and scores of ethnic and national backgrounds, and helping form them into a cohesive society with social networks that carry on throughout their lives.

[Comment: It is true that the religious community is increasingly involved in career army service. It is also true that religious soldiers are highly prized and contested over by commanders. The way this comment is framed further demonizes and distorts the highly nuanced and multi-variegated political and religious positions within the Religious Zionist community. The implication of the end of the paragraph is that the army is aimed at homogenizing Israeli society, and that's just not the case. Of course, if all the religious soldiers came out non-religious leftists, that would be fine, in their not so humble opinion.]

Those who oppose the religious right have been especially concerned about the influence of the military's chief rabbi, Brigadier General Avichai Rontzki, who is himself a West Bank settler and who was very active during the war, spending most of it in the company of the troops in the field.
He took a quotation from a classical Hebrew text and turned it into a slogan during the war: "He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful." A controversy then arose when a booklet handed out to soldiers was found to contain a rabbinical edict against showing the enemy mercy. The Defense Ministry reprimanded the rabbi.

[Comment: See my previous posting.]

At the time, in January, Avshalom Vilan, then a leftist member of Parliament, accused the rabbi of having "turned the Israeli military's activity from fighting out of necessity into a holy war."
Immediately after Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 and then from several West Bank settlements, there was a call to disband certain religious programs in the army because some soldiers in them said they would refuse to obey future orders to disband settlements. After the rise of Hamas in Gaza and the increase in rocket attacks on Israel, that discussion died down.

But Yaron Ezrahi, a leftist political scientist at Hebrew University who has been lecturing to military commanders, said that the call to close those programs should now be revived because what was evident in Gaza was that the humanistic tradition from which a code of ethics is derived was not being sufficiently observed there.


The dispute over control of the army is not only ideological. It is also personal, as all politics is in this small, intimate country. Those who disagree with the chief rabbi have vilified him. Those who are unhappy with what Mr. Zamir did by leaking the transcript of the Gaza soldiers' testimonies last week have spread word that he is a leftist ideologue out to harm Israel.
In 1990, Mr. Zamir, then a parachute company commander in the reserves, was sentenced to prison for refusing to guard a ceremony involving religious Jews visiting the West Bank city of Nablus. For some, that refusal is a badge of honor; for others it is an act of insubordination and treason. A quiet campaign began on Thursday regarding Mr. Zamir's leftist sympathies, to discredit the transcript he publicized.

At the same time, Rabbi Rontzki's numerous sayings and writings have been making the rounds among leftist intellectuals. He has written, for example, that what others call "humanistic values" are simply subjective feelings that should be subordinate to following the law of the Torah.
He has also said that the main reason for a Jewish doctor to treat a non-Jew on the Sabbath, when work is prohibited but treating the sick and injured is expected, is to avoid exposing Diaspora Jews to hatred.

[Comment: Three points. First, it is true that contemporary humanism is purely subjective. It maintains no clear values and no objective criteria. Second, who says the Torah's values aren't humane? Is any attempt to compare them undertaken? This is pure demagogy. Third, as Rav Soloveitchik once noted, this formal reason for allowing Sabbath deseceration to save a non-Jew is, albeit, morally troublesome. However, the result is genuinely salutary and should be added to the extensive egalitarian legislation on behalf of gentiles made by the Talmudic sages. Highlighting this isolated point is more demagogy. In addition, legal systems work within their own frames of reference. Thus, the humanistic impulse behind extension of Sabbath desecration to save non-Jewish lives had to be legally based in purely halakhic terms. That says absolutely nothing about the genuineness of the impulse or the autonomous life of the legal license.]


Mr. Halbertal, the Jewish philosopher who opposes the attitude of Rabbi Rontzki, said the divide that is growing in Israel is not only between religious and secular Jews but among the religious themselves. The debate is over three issues — the sanctity of land versus life; the relationship between messianism and Zionism; and the place of non-Jews in a sovereign Jewish state.
The religious left argues that the right has made a fetish of the land of Israel instead of letting life take precedence, he said. The religious left also rejects the messianic nature of the right's Zionist discourse, and it argues that Jewish tradition values all life, not primarily Jewish life.
"The right tends to make an equation between authenticity and brutality, as if the idea of humanism were a Western and alien implant to Judaism," he said. "They seem not to know that nationalism and fascism are also Western ideas and that hypernationalism is not Jewish at all."

[Comment: The information here is moot and warrants separate treatment. As an historian, I categorically reject Prof. Halbertal's imputing fascist or hypernationalist motivations to the mainstream, right wing of the religious community.]

Der Ewige Jude: The Charges Against the IDF

In the past twenty four hours, I've come encountered the controversy raging over the allegedly illegal actions by some IDF soldiers during the Gaza operation. Some places were to be expected (e.g. here). Some, I should have expected, like one of the historical list-servs to which I subscribe. One, which surprised me, was a rabbinic forum that discussed collateral damage in a very learned fashion but, understandably, showed no understanding of what it is like to be under fire.

My remarks on the subject are formulated in the full understanding that the committed, on either side (especially the Left) will not be swayed either by reasoned argument, or alternate proffered opinions.

Let's begin with the charges themselves, which are baseless.

First, the sources of the charges are either Palestinian or Leftist fellow-travellers. IOW, the people who brought you Pallywood, are providing the charges against the IDF. So much for the sources.

Second, there were thousands of troops in Gaza. Civilians were used a human shields by Hamas. The tactics employed by the IDF often endangered our soldiers in order to avoid harming enemy non-combatants (many of whom were Hamas operatives masquerading as civilians). Tragically, real civilians were hurt. Some may have been hurt by over zealous, perhaps criminally so, soldiers. They will, no doubt be punished. HOWEVER, the number of violations of the rules of war are infinitesimal in light of the number of troops involved and the nature of the fighting.

Moreover, it's time to stop wringing hands and bending over backwards apologizing. We are at war. We have been at war for over 60 years. It is a war that we did not choose. It was forced upon us. It is a war in which the lines between combatant and non-combatant are purposely blurred by the enemy. It is a war that is waged by an enemy who has no red lines. And, sorry to say it (not), if it comes down to us or them. I choose us.

So much for the charges.

Now, not unexpectedly, the 'blame' for these 'crimes' is being placed squarely on the 'fanatic, right-wing, religious, settlers' who now 'dominate' the Israeli army. (Yes, a spectre is haunting the Left.) Singled out, especially, for opprobrium is Rabbi Rontzky, the Army chief rabbi. The critics, again in typical fashion, trot out a religious leftist philosopher to support the attack on religious soldiers and their morality. It's all very bon-ton. It's also skewered. It's so skewered, that I have decided to 'Fisk' the IHT article. See next post.

Much Ado: Women Reading Megillah for Men

Rav Ovadia Yosef has publicly ruled that women may read the Megilla for men, if competent men are not available. Haaretz has made a big deal about this, calling it 'a landmark decision liable to outrage many of his Ashkenazi counterparts.' Indeed, it may well outrage his Ashkenazi counterparts. However, it's hardly a landmark decision (except for the ignoramuses at Haaretz). On the contrary, it's perfectly consistent with Rav Ovadia's previously enunciated positions. (See the thorough, and insightful survey and analysis by Rabbi Professor Aryeh Frimer, here, and the parallel discussion by R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin, here.)

Briefly stated, Rav Ovadia's position is based upon the following considerations:

1) The Rambam states explicitly that women and men have the same level of obligation as far as מקרא מגילה is concerned.

הלכות מגילה וחנוכה פרק א
הלכה א:

קריאת המגילה בזמנה מצות עשה מדברי סופרים, והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת נביאים, והכל חייבים בקריאתה אנשים

ונשים א וגרים ועבדים משוחררים.

הלכה ב:
אחד הקורא ואחד השומע מן הקורא יצא ידי חובתו והוא שישמע ממי שהוא חייב בקריאתה, לפיכך אם היה הקורא קטן או שוטה השומע ממנו לא יצא.

2) Rav Ovadia maintains that the Rambam's ruling is endorsed by R. Joseph Caro in the Shulhan Arukh:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן תרפט
אחד הקורא ואחד השומע מן הקורא, יצא ידי חובתו; והוא שישמע ממי שהוא חייב בקריאתה. לפיכך אם היה הקורא חרש או קטן או שוטה, השומע ממנו לא יצא; וי"א שהנשים ה אינם מוציאות את האנשים.

3) Rav Ovadia, decades ago, ruled that there is no problem hearing a woman's voice chanting blessings, prayers and so on. (Resp. Yehaveh Daat IV, no. 15). Furthermore, over the years he emphasized that many of those who do not allow a woman to read the Megillah for men, do so largely out of concern for the unseemliness of a woman chanting for men. (Though, he obviously does note the opinion of the בה"ג, the alternative opinion cited by R. Joseph Caro, that the level of obligation for men and women regarding Megillah reading is different.)

In a word, Rav Ovadia's ruling is another of his assertions of the classic Sephardic position that women may read for men, and that Sephardim (if not everybody) should follow the opinions of R. Joseph Caro. The latter, for various reasons, should be given priority. However, if there is no qualified male, Spanish tradition is certainly comfortable with a woman reading for a man, especially since, in Rav Ovadia's opinion, there is no unseemliness in a woman's voice when she prays or chants prayers.

All of this, though, is only relevant for Sephardim. It has no implications for Ashkenazim, who accept the view of R. Simon Qayyara in the הלכות גדולות, that men and women are not equally obligated to read the Megilla. Therefore, an Ashkenazi woman cannot read for an Ashkenazi man.