Kol Ishah: some primary texts

[Sam Weiss <samweiss...>]

I've been following the Kol Ishah messages with a mixture of pain and 
dismal amusement -- though chiefly pain, reflecting the anguish felt by 
Shirona no less than the pain caused by the careless bludgeoning of Jews 
and Judaism in many of the postings. The meager amusement stems from 
observing the role that mistranslation, misunderstanding, anachronism, 
and the vagaries of history, economics and culture play in all of this. 
The discussions, and the realities they deal with, also remind me of the 
kind of pain that can come from actually believing and wanting to act 
upon that UJA slogan from the last century, "We Are One."

Indeed, I think "the core of the problem," to use a phrase from a recent 
message by Shirona -- or at least the core of the one potentially 
soluble problem -- may be the unrealistic expectations that result from 
the cultural and economic intersection of the various Judaisms that are 
no longer set up to function well together. Say, for example, "we" have 
the female artists and "they" control the airwaves. What can be done to 
change "them"? Very little. The best "healing" in this situation might 
be to nurse our wounds and use them as a spur to set up our own radio 
program or to wield whatever coercive or persuasive power we can muster 
over "their" management. This is obviously easier said than done, but it 
makes eminently more sense than embarking on a Quixotic journey to 
"straighten 'them' out."

As far as contributing my own two cents worth of healing, perhaps I can 
remove some of the sting from today's Kol Ishah barbs. Perhaps I'll make 
them hurt even more. I don't know. Anyway, I want to offer a perspective 
on the etiology of this mess, by addressing this segment of the original 
posting -

 >When in Jewish History did this practice begin?
 >Obviously not in the days of the Bible - or else
 >we wouldn't have Shirat Hayam, no? Was there
 >any "ervah" in Miriams voice back then?
 >I really want to know - WHO was the first Rabbi/s
 >to introduce this mysogynistic decree?

and by presenting the context of the original Talmudic passage 
concerning Kol Ishah.

The Shirat Hayam passage in the Bible is very much in tune with a 
society that segregated singing groups by gender. After Moshe concludes 
his singing with the <B'nei Yisra'el,> it is Miriam's turn to sing with 
the women, apparently =the same song that Moshe had sung= judging from 
the identical opening lines (Ex.15:1 & 15:21) and from the fact that the 
rest of the song is not quoted. In fact the phrase (Ex.15:20) "...all 
the women went out after [Miriam]" implies that the women were 
heretofore within some enclosure or compound. In this context, it makes 
sense that the ambiguous <B'nei Yisra'el> (Moshe's audience) denotes 
Israelite males, rather than the inclusive "Children of Israel" of the 
translations that we are used to reading.

A few chapters later, in the description of the preparations for the 
great Revelation at Sinai, we read (Ex.19:14-15), "Moses went down from 
the mountain to the people; he sanctified the people, and they washed 
their clothes. And he said to the people, 'Prepare for the third day; do 
not go near a woman'." Painful as it is to admit, on a literal level 
"the people" in this passage obviously does not include women. We find 
here, moreover, a Biblical expression of the equation 
"segregtaion=holiness."

The fact that the Bible is a patriarchal document is an ineluctable 
fact, so there is really no need to conjure up "misogynistic rabbis" to 
explain the troubling chauvinistic aspects of Judaism. The commonplace 
is for cultures to perpetuate themselves; the radical and revolutionary 
is for cultures to reinvent themselves. So why the profound shock when a 
religious group that purports to cleave to its Biblical roots fosters 
sexist categories? We are free to attribute patriarchal cultural norms 
and their attendant developments in Judaism to sinister psychologies and 
ulterior motives, but we should not feign surprise when male and female 
members of such thriving patriarchal cultures - current or historical, 
Jewish or not -- feel no outrage, pain, injustice or any kind of "What's 
wrong with this picture?".

The Talmudic phrase that we have been discussing in this thread, <Kol 
Isha Ervah> originally appears in a review of contexts and situations 
that are considered <Ervah>, or "nakedness," for the purpose of not 
reciting the Shema prayer in them. [Parenthetically, the phrase is 
slightly misquoted; the original statement in Berakhot 24a is "Kol 
B'isha Ervah."] The context in which this list of "nakednesses" appears 
makes it very clear that the translation of <Ervah> should be limited to 
its core meaning of "bare" or "naked," and not to any derivative 
meanings related to "licentiousness," "lasciviousness," or even "sexual 
incitement" as the Soncino Talmud mistranslates it. These latter 
concepts of <Ervah> that "tear at the fabric of [Shirona's] soul" when 
erroneously applied to the female voice, derive principally from such 
euphemistic idioms as <L'galot Ervah> "to reveal [a forbidden person's] 
nakedness" or <Davar Sheb'ervah> "an indecent act." Of course, as the 
term <Kol Isha> functions today, the latter interpretations may be 
closer to the mark. The original discussion of the Talmud (quoted at the 
end of this post), however, has absolutely nothing to do with any moral 
attributes of the woman, and not even anything to do with inappropriate 
thoughts of the man; the focus is on =the dignity due to the prayer=, 
i.e. not to recite it in an "indecent" context or location. Thus 
reciting the Shema when one is improperly clothed ("his heart sees his 
nakedness [='Ervah']" is the phraseology in Berakhot 24b) falls into the 
same category.

As to what constitutes "indecency," the Talmud, as usual, relies on 
contemporary mores, logic, and free association based on Biblical 
prooftexts. A reading of the text will show, I think, that the Talmudic 
rabbis were not hung up or "afraid of their sexuality," as a couple of 
posters implied. On the contrary, the earthiness of the discussion may 
surprise those unfamiliar with the Talmudic genre. While the scope of 
this posting does not include the state of current Halacha, I do want to 
point out that "contemporary mores" are an important factor in Halachic 
rulings throughout the ages in this and other matters, and they 
represent one reason for the variability of practice that seems to 
bother some who have posted on this topic. In this connection, the great 
variability in Western cultural mores pertaining to what is "indecent 
exposure" for women in the last 150 years does not need to be belabored. 
A woman's voice seems to enter the "indecent" category by free 
association based on a Biblical prooftext - a hermeneutic device that 
will be familiar from the Aggadic portions of the Passover Haggadah. But 
what is simultaneously interesting and galling, is how this one category 
of "indecency," Kol B'isha, has evolved over the centuries from its 
limited context into a sprawling Halachic Golem that today is causing 
considerable religious, cultural, economic and personal pain and confusion.

Following are lightly edited excerpts of the Soncino translation of 
Talmud Berakhot 24a. Deleted passages are indicated by elipses (... 
...). I have also replaced occurrences of "sexual incitement" in the 
last two paragraphs with "nakedness," as discussed above. Even Soncino 
adds the following footnote to the first occurrence of 'sexual 
incitement': "Literally, 'nakedness'."

    
    R.Joseph the son of R.Nehunia inquired of Rav Judah: If two persons 
    are sleeping in one bed, how would it be for one to turn his face 
    away and recite the Shema, and for the other to turn his face away 
    and recite? He replied: Thus said Samuel: It is permitted even if 
    his wife is with him. R.Joseph demurred to this. You imply: he said 
    'His wife', and needless to say anyone else. On the contrary: His 
    wife is like his own self, another is not like himself! ...
    
    ...The Master has said: "One turns his face away and recites the 
    Shema". But there is the contact of the buttocks? -This supports the 
    opinion of R.Huna, who said: Contact of the buttocks is not in the 
    category of nakedness {Soncino: 'is not sexual'}. May we say that it 
    supports the following opinion of R.Huna: A woman may sit and 
    separate her hallah bread [and recite the prescribed blessing] 
    naked, because she can cover her "nakedness" in the ground [although 
    her posterior is exposed] but a man cannot!- Said R.Nahman b.Isaac: 
    It means, if her nakedness was well covered by the ground [covering 
    her posterior as well].
    
    The Master said: "If his children and the members of his house-hold 
    were minors, it is permitted". Up to what age?-R. Hisda said: A girl 
    up to three years and one day, a boy up to nine years and one day. 
    Some say: A girl up to eleven years and a day, and a boy up to 
    twelve years and a day; with both of them it is up to the time when 
    <Thy breasts were fashioned and thy hair was grown> (Ezek.16:7) ...
    ... R.Mari said to R.Papa: If a pubic hair protrudes through a man's 
    garment, what is the rule?- He exclaimed: "It's but a hair, a hair!"
    
    R.Isaac said: A handbreadth's width exposed in a woman [with whom 
    one may not cohabit] constitutes "nakedness". In what regard? Shall 
    I say, if one gazes at it? But has not R.Shesheth already said: Why 
    did Scripture [in listing the ornaments taken by the Israelites from 
    the women of Midian (Num. 31:50)] enumerate the ornaments worn 
    outside the clothes along with those worn inside? To tell you that 
    if one gazes at the little finger of a woman, it is as if he gazed 
    at her secret place [let alone an entire handbreadth's width]! -No, 
    it means in one's own wife, and when he recites the Shema.
    
    R.Hisda said: A woman's leg [alternatively: 'thigh'] constitutes 
    "nakedness", as it says, <Uncover the leg [Heb.'shok']; pass through 
    the rivers> and it says afterwards <Thy nakedness shall be 
    uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen> (Isaiah 47:2-3). Samuel 
    said: A woman's voice constitutes "nakedness", as it says, <For 
    sweet is thy voice and thy countenance is comely>(Shir Hashirim 
    2:4). R.Shesheth said: A woman's hair constitutes "nakedness", as it 
    says, <Thy hair is as a flock of goats> (Shir Hashirim 4:1).


_______________________________________________________
Cantor Sam Weiss === Jewish Community Center of Paramus, NJ


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