Re: sources on kol isha--and then some

[Robert Cohen <rlcm17...>]

It was I who, in a longer post, recommended these excellent sources on the 
nature and breadth (or various breadths, depending on the authority) of the 
kol isha restriction.

I seem to have deleted my own posting--I may have printed it out--probably 
because I (foolishly) never imagined it coming up again!  Bob, if you have 
the entire posting, I wish you would sent it to me.

I remember (I think) bracketing the original posting with two comments that 
I'll share again:

1) I myself have little patience for the kol isha restriction--among other 
reasons, because in my experience and knowledge, women (certainly in this 
century, in this country) are far more likely to feel "uncontrollable lust" 
listening to men whose voices stir them than the reverse--far more.  Vide, 
in a secular context:  Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, the Stones, virtually 
*every* rock group, Tom Jones (!!!), etc., etc., etc. And vide examples from 
personal experience that I won't elaborate on.

2) That being said, I wince at the narrowness and colossal, even proud 
ignorance displayed by those who are angry at the prohibition (or what they 
understand of the prohibition) and/or disdain it.  As with much in our 
magnificent, awesomely deep and rich Torah (I'm not saying, and don't 
believe, that kol isha exemplifies this tradition at its richest or 
deepest--far from it), studying this torah (micro sense) can be rewarding 
and, at least, enlightening even if one is put off by it.  That's why I 
originally recommended the sources Bob re-posts here.  Saul Berman may or 
may not have said that this halacha should simply be junked--I'm very 
interested to know, and will try to confirm with him, if he did--but his 
exploration of the concept as elucidated in the halachic literature 
(see--*and read/study* below!--is, at least for me, a lot more rewarding, 
and deepening of one's Jewish rootedness, than simply saying (as some are on 
this list; if Berman said it, it wasn't simply), "This offends me--Let's 
junk it.  Out it goes!"

Zalman Schachter--the rebbe and zaide of so-called Jewish Renewal in our 
time--once said that if a halacha or a part of Torah offends you or you have 
problems with it, don't just discard it--study it, wrestle (as Arthur Waskow 
is wont to say) with it.  (That's a loose paraphrase, but the gist--likely 
more eloquently put--is exactly right.)  His adherents--I'm sorry to say not 
with any obvious/evident/public rebuking from Reb Zalmen--rarely if ever 
follow that principle, at least in their public gatherings and 
congregations; they just junk what they're uncomfortable with (e.g., to pick 
just one example, the condemnation of male homosexual coupling in the 
Torah--plus, certainly, much in re women and men).  I can, in many cases, 
understand that impulse, as I understand that someone (esp. a woman singer 
who's been disadvantaged by it) might feel anger about the kol isha 
prohibition.  (I'm often angry myself at the narrow self-righteousness with 
which it's defended--all too similar, I'm sorry to say, to the narrow 
self-righteousness with which it's sometimes attacked.)

But the Torah is a tree of life, according to our Bible and prayerbook, and 
the branches have to stay connected to a tree.  Which doesn't mean that the 
branches don't have to be cleared and cut, continually, as part of the 
maintenance and nourishment of the Tree. (I don't think Orthodoxy is very 
much in touch, today, with this imperative.) Our Torah tree, though, needs 
to be tended to with care and loving, thoughtful deliberation--not in the 
"SMASH CAPITALISM" spirit of the Weathermen--echoed, right down to the 
all-caps (which some always seem to think underscores the self-evident 
righteousness of their position) in some recent postings.  "Scholarly" notes 
(I am sorry that one poster saw fit to surround the word with quotation 
marks, suggesting ... what?  That scholarship when considering a matter of 
Torah is, ipso facto, bogus?  Or only bogus when the poster thinks the 
matter not worthy of discussion?  What if another poster--it would not be 
I--thought the *objections* to kol isha not worthy of discussion?  Would 
that make scholarship, say, about the sociological dimension of this law's 
origins and applications bogus?  Referring to scholarship in demeaning 
quotation marks is not how to discuss, or approach, Jewish scholarship on 
this, or any list--or in any medium or forum, for that matter).

That was quite a digression.  Let me resume:  "Scholarly notes, footnotes, 
and quoting other people"--that's the full (dismissive) quote from another 
poster, minus the internal demeaning quotes--*is* how we tend our Torah tree 
of life in our tradition--or it is certainly one of our principal ways.  In 
all of the ways we do so, we need, I think, to manifest that awe, reverence, 
and humility that one poster referred to (or two of these, at least)--but 
that I don't see or hear in many of these postings.

The Torah, our tradition teaches, is a tree of life--for those who cleave to 
it.  I hope for all of my fellow Jews on this list that we can all find ways 
of staying connected to our Torah even when parts of it anger us, or 
distance us, or leave us alienated or uninspired, or do not call to us, at 
any given time, to observe them.  Speaking in an ugly, demeaning way about a 
piece of the Mesorah (Tradition)--even a perhaps very problematic piece like 
this one, and a perhaps tangential or marginal piece--undermines, I think, a 
relationship of awe and humility (those are the two words that the poster 
used)--just as speaking in an ugly or demeaning way to a friend or 
relationship or life partner undermines *that* relationship.  I wish people 
would stop doing it--stop speaking in that fashion--even if they want to 
express anger or forceful disagreement or rejection with respect to a 
particular teaching.  (In this case, they will not find a defender of that 
teaching in me!)  And I wish, too, that our fellow Jews would feel a 
fraction of the obligation that they would feel before speaking out about 
almost any other field of knowledge or practice to *learn* something about 
the teaching they're rejecting.  That's why I suggested these sources to 
begin with.

May each of us come, in time, to experience and understand the Torah as a 
tree of life that, as our prayerbook says of G*d, lifts our spirits, heals 
us, and frees us from everything that constricts us.

--Robert Cohen

>From: wiener (at) mindspring(dot)com
>Reply-To: jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org
>To: World music from a Jewish slant <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
>Subject: Re: Fw: Kol Isha
>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 05:49:07 -0500
>
>For those who would like to read more on the topic, here are some readings 
>that have been recommended to the list before with annotations  (by whom?  
>I didn't note the source, so please re-identify yourself.)  I have not yet 
>collected, let alone read them.  Perhaps one of our librarians can comment 
>on their availability.  There is no entry for Kol Isha in the index to 
>Rachel Biale's Women and Jewish Law.
>
>1. Berman, Saul, "Kol Isha," article in the Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein 
>Memorial Volume?I will look into wider availability.
>
>A comprehensive treatment of the exegesis of this concept; Rabbi Berman, 
>with characteristic subtlety and lucidity, explores the precise nature, 
>context, and scope of what restrictions have been imposed, when, by whom, 
>on what basis, and w/ what (often substantial) dissent and (quite liberal 
>to quite restrictive) variability--as well as possible grounds for 
>suspension of such restrictions altogether. R. Berman elucidates the thin 
>basis in the Talmud, and in the history and origins of kol isha, for the 
>restrictions that have developed (and, indeed, perhaps, for much or most of 
>the accreted law of kol isha) and refers to the existence of substantial 
>dissent re such stringencies as listening to recorded women's voices and 
>mixed choirs.
>
>2. Bleich, David, Contemporary Halachic Problems, volume II, pp. 147-52
>
>elucidates the substantial variability of Orthodox halachic opinions in re, 
>e.g., mixed choirs, mixed singing of zemirot, and listening to women's 
>voices on recordings or on the radio. (Thus, the otherwise genial radio guy 
>who would only play tracks from Wolf's CD that had no women's voices--even 
>on background harmony vocals--was catering to a very stringent, far from 
>normative, view.) Bleich is, laughably, far from a liberal voice in such 
>matters (unlike, e.g., R. Berman), but does expound halacha, in my 
>experience, w/ unyielding integrity (as opposed to pandering to whatever 
>right-wing political trend has swept the Orthodox world--e.g., in re 
>capital punishment); that he demonstrates a wide range of proscriptions 
>_proves_ that there is such a range.
>
>3. Kimelman, Reuven: cassette recording of presentation at 1997 
>International Conference on Feminism and Orthodoxy
>
>a typically (for this brilliant teacher) rigorous analysis of the exact and 
>variable meanings and implications (e..g, for zemirot, Megilat Esther) of 
>the sources for kol isha. Funny in parts, too.
>
>Bob
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+