[HANASHIR:8240] Re: Some more Kol Isha clarification

[Meris Ruzow <meris...>]

This message is for Judah.   Would you please contact me privately.
Thanks,
Meris Ruzow
meris (at) nycap(dot)rr(dot)com

-----Original Message-----
From: Rachel Gurevitz <gurevitzr (at) lycos(dot)com>
To: hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org <hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org>
Date: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:47 AM
Subject: [HANASHIR:8238] Some more Kol Isha clarification


> I felt like adding a couple more comments, and clarifying a couple of
misconceptions about Kol Isha that I read in yesterday's postings.
>
>Unfortunately, I'm not able to get my hands on the original sources right
now, but I did look up the Shulchan Aruch and found a couple of references
on the web that suggest that the original texts on this matter are concerned
about something very specific that hasn't been mentioned here yet.  The
Talmud, and later the actual codes of law, seem to be particularly concerned
about things that might contravene the laws of Niddah (ritual impurity
around the time of menstruation).  Just to give you another quick e.g. of
the extremes that this will be taken to, in Pirke de Rabbi Natan there is a
whole midrash on why Moses adds to God's instructions, adding an extra day
of preparation and telling the 'people' to 'go not near a woman' before
receiving the 10 commandments (this past Shabbat's parsha - Yitro).
According to the midrash, this is to avoid any possibility of anyone being
ritually impure when they receive the law.  R. Natan goes as far as to tell
a story of a wonderful tea!
>cher, practicing Jew who died at a young age.  His wife is distraught and
none of his students can give her an adequate explanation.  Eventually
Elijah shows us (as he does) and explains that once the husband did not wait
the require number of days after his wife's period was finished before
sharing the same bed with her again, and this provides the explanation!
>
>Now, I know that many of us on this list will find this kind of theology
abhorrent - I certainly do, and feel no need to observe it in any way.
*However*, it would appear that the Mishna Brurah (a commentary on the
Shulchan Aruch) explains that the halacha on Kol Isha is *not* to do with
the fact that men shouldn't be aroused by women, or that women shouldn't be
heard, per se, but that, *if* a man who hears the beautiful voice of a woman
(which implicitly recognises the beauty of women's voices) and *if* it
arouses him, he may be tempted to approach her, flirt with her, and who
knows where that might lead... etc,  AND *if* she was in niddah at the time,
then the man would be in danger of contravening more central halachah that
could have severe consequences for his life.  So it seems to be a case of
putting an extra stringent and somewhat ridiculous legal fence around a more
important halachah.
>
>Now fast-forwarded into 2001, it is very possible that many people who will
quote 'Kol Isha' to you to explain why you can't do something will have no
idea of the reasons, making it even more frustrating.  Also, in a modern
Orthodox minyan in Jerusalem that meets once a month, they have a mechitzah
down the middle of the room, but women carry the Torah on their side and,
what's more, women layn from the Torah there!  I really want to find out how
the Rabbis there have managed to find a 'halachic' way to do that, but it is
fantastic (especially as the women know this incredible Torah trope that is
stunningly beautiful and which I've never heard anywhere else).
>
>Well, anyway, here endeth the lesson.  Personally, I find that when matters
such as these come up, I simply have to acknowledge a very different system
of doing Judaism to the Orthodox world and have to decide case by case
whether I can interact and participate in something that jars with my
Judaism.
>
>Rachel Gurevitz
>
>
>Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at
http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
>
>
>

------------------------ hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org -----------------------+