RE: Kol Isha

[Reyzl Kalifowicz-Waletzky <reyzl...>]

Jordan,

>Not anti women, not to protect the men. It's simply a matter
>of distraction while engaged in another mitzvah. One that
>requires verbal involvement. What is so hard to understand
>about that?

If it is only a matter of distraction, then how come small children are not 
forbidden to sit with their fathers during prayer?  If it is only a matter 
of distraction, then how come cantors with great operatic voices who like 
to embellish in order to show off their beautiful voices are not considered 
distractions in Orthodox synagogues?   Do you know how much non-prayer, 
non-spiritual, small talk goes on among the men in an Orthodox shul?  You 
should read Sam Heilman's book about synagogue discourse during prayer 
services in an Orthodox Jerusalem shul and you will see that the whole 
distraction argument is 100% pure horse manure, if both experience and 
logic failed to inform you on this subject.  Have you heard the joke about 
how someone sells his used car in an Orthodox shul before musaf, all by 
beginning every sentence with the magic formulaic expression which 
basically means "Not to sin on the Sabbath, but ..."?   A lot of political, 
social, economic, etc. business gets done in an Orthodox shul every day 
besides car selling, and this gets only the smallest complaints from the 
rabbis.  In fact, rabbis have devised a whole array of methods to enable 
men to do whatever they want/need to do in shul, but somehow in 800+ years 
they haven't figured out how not to be distracted by women.  For example, 
you would think that wine would be forbidden in shul, but it isn't.  In 
fact, it is often encouraged, even before services.   Have you seen the 
wild, silly, often drunken dancing that goes on in hasidic shuls and at 
farbrengns, which are somehow not spiritual distractions, but women's 
voices somehow are?

That people have general problems focusing in prayer is well known and that 
is why the rabbis devised the method of 'shokling' to help people 
concentrate.  Well, why not tell the men to shokl a little stronger, if a 
woman voice arouses them, because squelching the spiritual needs of 51-53% 
of the population is a horrific hillul hashem.  Teach the men biofeedback 
or a type of Lamaz for davenning so that they can control their reactions 
to their own bodies, but don't put the onus on women or prevent their 
participation.   Maybe they should devise a way of giving men some mild 
form of ritalin in shul before services begin or else take on the ways of 
dancing dervishs, because this kol isha truly is hillul hashem.  Had the 
women not been kept out of legal discussions all these centuries, none of 
this kol isha would even been heard about.

>Jeez...

You write/say "Jeez" and you are arguing for halakha?!?!  You don't know 
that Jews are not allowed to call his name in this way?   Your rabbi would 
say "shame on you!"
But I am sure you have a whole bunch of excuses prepared for that one too. 
 I am no longer Orthodox, but I still would never ever use this word this 
way for halakhic reasons.

>The man is not required to shut the woman up. He is required
>to avoid the distraction. Not from an evil woman, just a singing
>woman.

This is just a rhetorical device and a very dishonest one, because there is 
no way in the world that you do not know that any woman who would sing in 
an Orthodox shul, would be thrown out, screamed at, insulted, her 
parents/husband/family insulted, and she/they would be made into social 
pariahs.  Probably spit at too.  The husband would be made into mud, 
because he could not control his wife and she would always be prevented 
from returning to the shul until she proved that she has "changed her 
ways".  No matter how religious and pious she was, she would be made into 
an "evil woman".  Exactly that phrase "an evil woman", (what a great 
example of a Freudian slip), because she would be seen as someone 
threatening the social-political order and that is evil in the Orthodox 
community.  Her family would be pitied and she would henceforth be open to 
every kind of gossip in the world.  Aroused men, even if there were some, 
would NOT feel that they should be the ones to walk out.

If you want to have a civil, respectful, informed discussion on this 
subject, you have to avoid rhetoric and dishonesty.


Reyzl Kalifowicz-Waletzky
Bais Rivka graduate, Stone Avenue, Brooklyn.


----------
From:  TROMBAEDU (at) aol(dot)com [SMTP:TROMBAEDU (at) aol(dot)com]
Sent:  Wednesday, February 21, 2001 7:38 AM
To:  World music from a Jewish slant
Subject:  Re: Kol Isha

<<File: ATT00012.htm>>In a message dated 2/21/01 12:39:19 AM Eastern 
Standard Time,
nusach (at) hotmail(dot)com writes:


> Yes Kol Isha issue is anti woman...(like how the
> orthodox always turn it around to say it is really to protect the
>

Not anti women, not to protect the men. It's simply a matter of distraction 
while engaged in another mitzvah. One that requires verbal involvement. 
What
is so hard to understand about that? The man is not required to shut the
woman up. He is required to avoid the distraction. Not from an evil woman,
just a singing woman.

Jeez...

Jordan

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