Re: sources on kol isha--and then some

[Sandra Layman <sandralayman...>]

Thanks to all the contributors to this discussion. For various reasons, some
of us may not be contributing to it, but that doesn't mean we don't have a
passionate interest in the subject.

I searched the archives and came up with this old post of yours, Robert. I
hope this helps.

Best,
Sandra


found at: http://www.shamash.org/listarchives/jewish-music/990930

<<
>From rlcm17 (at) hotmail(dot)com Thu Sep 30 18:17:40 1999
Message-ID: <19990930221443(dot)88278(dot)qmail (at) hotmail(dot)com>
From: "Robert Cohen" <rlcm17 (at) hotmail(dot)com>
To: World music from a Jewish slant <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
Subject: Kol Isha:  excellent sources in English
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:14:43 PDT
Reply-To: jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org
Sender: owner-jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org

Though I've enjoyed (after catching up) the discussion on kol isha--and,
frankly, I find the idea that such a discussion doesn't belong on this list
a little bizarre!--I've also been struck by the considerable ignorance
reflected of the actual Jewish legal background on this issue.  "There is
[no] room or opportunity for discussion"--Wrong (or, as the kids say,
"NOT").  "This is an inflexible ruling and there are no mixed choirs for
Orthodox"--wrong on both counts.  Jonathan has helped, much, w/ some
sources, and Bob W., in his usual sensitive fashion, discerned that there
was apparntly "some differentiation" (even) within Orthodox circles.
Indeed. Though I'm decidedly _not_ an apologist or defender on this issue,
about which I'm in reality quite impatient (it seems to me that in my
lifetime, women have been far more unhinged by the singing of Sinatra,
Elvis, the Beatles, David Bowie, Tom Jones [!!], etc., etc., etc., than
_any_ man has been by a woman's singing!)--and, though, obviously, those
objecting to (variably applied--see below) kol isha restrictions, or
personally injured  by them, may well retain their objections and anger,
still, our discussion should be an informed one. Herewith, three superb
sources in English on the sources and diverse interpretation and application
of kol isha:
                                                    1) Saul Berman, "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) Reuven Kimelman,
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.

                    3) David Bleich, 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.

                              I hope these sources prove useful for those
interested in studying the issue--and I may have one other one to supply in
a few days.--Robert Cohen
>>

_______________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Cohen" <rlcm17 (at) hotmail(dot)com>
To: "World music from a Jewish slant" <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: sources on kol isha--and then some


> 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

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