HaRav David Bigman<\/strong><\/p>\n Trans. Yedidya Schwartz<\/span><\/p>\n \n There is no prohibition whatsoever of innocent singing; rather, only singing intended for sexual stimulation, or flirtatious singing, is forbidden. Although this distinction is not explicit in the early rabbinic sources, it closely fits the character of the prohibition as described in different contexts in the Talmud and the Rishonim, and it is supported by the language of the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Arukh.<\/p>\n \n 8\/4\/2008<\/p>\n \n Q: We have a practice in our school, in ceremonies organized for various events, that a female student sings as part of the ceremony. Is this practice halakhically acceptable?<\/p>\n \n A: The issue of \u201cKol B\u2019Isha Erva\u201d (the voice of a woman is nakedness) is discussed extensively in many contexts, mainly in the responsa of the great rabbinic figures of the past generation. Even, so this issue has not been discussed in relation to communities that already have an established practice of leniency and allowance of women to sing publicly. The premises of this responsum will be thus:<\/p>\n A) <\/span><\/span><\/span>The tradition of the poskim (halakhic arbiters) of examining existing practices and investigating whether the community has legal ground on which to stand.<\/p>\n B) <\/span><\/span><\/span>The assertion of the Maharshal, (accepted as practical halakha) that psychological and spiritual need is considered an important concern that justifies reliance upon a lone or minority halakhic opinion. And according to reliable accounts, there are women in certain communities who are so offended by the ruling forbidding them to sing in public that they turn away from the Torah and commandments due to it.<\/p>\n We will investigate the topic of \u201cKol B\u2019Isha\u201d according to its principal sources. For clarity\u2019s sake, these sources will be investigated topically, without tangential digressions, and not in chronological order.<\/p>\n \n What is the subject of the original saying \u201cthe voice of a woman is erva<\/em> (nakedness, lewdness, or sexual impropriety)\u201d?<\/strong><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The Talmud in Masekhet Berakhot 24a relates:<\/p>\n \n Rabbi Yitzchak said: \u201cA handbreadth of a woman is erva<\/em>.\u201d With respect to what [does it constitute erva<\/em>]? If we should say that it is for looking [at a woman], had not Rav Sheshet said: \u201cWhy does the scripture list the outer adornments together with inner adornments? To teach us: anyone who looks at even the little finger of a woman is as if he were looking at her genitalia!\u201d Rather, it refers to his wife, and for the recitation of Shema.<\/span><\/p>\n \n As is often the case with the Oral Torah, there is almost no word in this passage that has not merited much interpretation. For clarity\u2019s sake we will deal only with the interpretations that are important to the halakhic issue at hand.<\/p>\n The Talmud presents Rav Sheshet\u2019s statement as opposed to that of Rabbi Yitzchak, thus creating a conflict between the two statements. The Talmud resolves this by claiming that the statement \u201cthe handbreadth of a woman is erva<\/em>\u201d was said only in the context of the recitation of the Shema: it is forbidden to recite the Shema in the presence of a women who has a handbreadth of customarily covered flesh exposed, and this ruling applies even to one\u2019s own wife. In contrast to this, the words of Rav Sheshet \u2013 that one must not look for pleasure[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> at even the little finger of a woman \u2013 are meant to apply in general circumstances. Even though it would have been possible to explain Rav Sheshet\u2019s statement as a simple moral injunction, the Talmud in Masekhet Avoda Zara defines it as a prohibition of looking at a woman in an inappropriate way.[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Thus, the statement of Rav Sheshet finds its way to the Rambam, the Tur<\/em>, and the Shulchan Arukh<\/em> as practical halakha \u2013 there is even a disagreement among the poskim as to whether the prohibition is deoraita<\/em> (biblical) or derabanan<\/em> (rabbinic).[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n The next section of the Talmud leads to differences of opinion among the Rishonim, as it is unclear with regard to what context the following sayings are presented:<\/p>\n \n Rav Hisda said: \u201cThe shin of a woman is erva<\/em>, as it is said: (Isaiah 47) \u2018Bare your shin, wade through the rivers,\u2019 and it is written: (ibid.) \u2018Your nakedness shall be uncovered\u2019 and your shame shall be exposed.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Shmuel said: \u201cThe voice of a woman is erva<\/em>, as it is said: (Song of Songs 2) \u2018For your voice is sweet and your face is comely\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Rav Sheshet said: \u201cThe hair of a woman is erva<\/em>, as it is said: (Song of Songs 4) \u201cYour hair is like a flock of goats.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n After the Talmud has suggested a different context for each of the two opening, \u201cconflicting,\u201d statements of the previous section, it is difficult to ascertain to which context it is appropriate to attribute these following statements. The saying that is relevant to our discussion is that of Shmuel: \u201cThe voice of a woman is erva<\/em>.\u201d[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Does this refer to the specific, narrow prohibition regarding the proper recitation of the Shema, or is it a broader prohibition similar to that of inappropriate glances? A third possibility is that the relegation of the prior statements to their specific contexts was simply due to the Talmud\u2019s need to resolve seemingly competing statements, and that Shmuel\u2019s statement can therefore be applied to both domains.<\/p>\n All of these interpretive options are raised by the Rishonim and the Acharonim:<\/p>\n HaRav Yitzchak MiVienna, the author of the Or Zarua<\/em>, holds that \u201cKol B\u2019Isha\u201d applies, like the prohibition of gazing at women, only in general circumstances, and has no bearing whatsoever on the recitation of Shema.[5]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> This also seems to be the opinion of the Rashba in his Chidushim<\/em>,[6]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> as well as the stance of the Rosh: \u201cShmuel said: \u2018The voice of a woman is erva<\/em>, as it says \u201cfor your voice is sweet and your face is comely\u201d\u2019 \u2013 to listen to, and not with regard to the recitation of the Shema<\/em>.\u201d[7]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n This also seems to be the position of the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAnd it is forbidden for a man to \u2018wink\u2019 using his hands or his feet, or to hint with his eyes at a woman forbidden to him, or to joke with her or to act light-headedly, and even to smell the perfume she is wearing or to look at her beauty is forbidden, and willful violators are to be beaten as upstarts. And he who looks at even the little finger of a woman to take pleasure in it is like one who looks at her genitalia, and even to hear a voice of an erva<\/em> or to see her hair is forbidden.\u201d[8]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n \n From the equation of the prohibitions regarding voice and hair to the general prohibition of looking, we can infer that their presence does not necessarily imply sexual stimulation \u2013 rather, what is problematic is the inappropriate interaction with them by the looker or the listener. Therefore, in the laws of the recitation of the Shema, the Rambam does not list the voice of woman as one of those things that detract from the proper recitation of the Shema: \u201cAnd the whole body of a woman is counted as erva<\/em>; therefore, he should not look at the body of a woman when he is reciting; even if it were his wife and even if only a handbreadth of her were exposed, he should not recite in her presence.\u201d[9]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n The Tur<\/em> as well ruled, in accordance with the Rambam, that \u201cKol B\u2019Isha\u201d is limited to the topic of general modesty: \u201cand it is forbidden to listen to a voice of erva<\/em>,\u201d[10]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> making no mention of a connection to the recitation of the Shema.<\/p>\n In contrast to this, the Raavya rules, in accordance with precedent opinions, that the central prohibition of \u201cKol B\u2019Isha\u201d specifically regards the recitation of Shema.[11]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span>This is also the opinion of the Ritva in his Chidushim<\/em> on Masekhet Berakhot. This position can be supported by the stylistic similarity of Shmuel\u2019s statement to the first statement \u201ca handbreadth of a woman is erva<\/em>,\u201d which is relegated by the Talmud itself to the topic of the recitation of the Shema. We find a similar (though somewhat broadened) ruling in the Mordechai, who states that not just the recitation of the Shema, but even learning Torah is forbidden in the presence of a woman singing:<\/p>\n \n It is prohibited to recite the Shema in the presence of an unclothed non-Jew, and it also says in the Talmud that a handbreadth of a woman is erva<\/em>, even his wife, meaning a handbreadth of flesh that is customarily covered, and likewise the shin and voice of a woman are erva<\/em>. And Rav Hai Gaon explained that this is all with regard to the recitation of Shema<\/em>. And Rabbi Eliezer from Mitz wrote in Sefer HaYireim<\/em>: \u201cTherefore it is forbidden to perform the core parts of communal prayer while listening to the voice of a woman singing, but due to our sins we are settled among the nations in a condition of imperfect observance, and therefore we are not careful not to learn Torah in the presence of non-Jewish women singing<\/em>,\u201d and so ruled the author of Halakhot Gedolot<\/em>, and so ruled Rabbenu Hananel\u2026\u201d[12]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Rabbi Yosef Karo rules in the Shulchan Arukh<\/em> according to the opinion of the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah<\/em> that we should understand the Shmuel\u2019s statement in the broader sense: \u201cand it is prohibited to listen to a voice of erva<\/em>\u201d[13]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> and he even <\/span>rules <\/span>to be stringent on the issue of the recitation of Shema as well: \u201cOne must be careful not to listen to the voice of a woman singing while reciting the Shema,\u201d[14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> and this ruling is in concert <\/span>with his words in his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef<\/em>: \u201cAnd with regard to the halakha, it seems that we side with the Rambam, but it is in any event good to be cautious before the fact not to see hair and hear the voice of a woman singing during the recitation of Shema.\u201d[15]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n In summary: there is a fundamental dispute among the Rishonim. Important Rishonim held that the main prohibition of listening to a woman\u2019s voice is only during the recitation of the Shema and other core parts of the prayer service, in accordance with the intuitive context of Shmuel\u2019s statement \u201cthe voice of a woman is erva<\/em>.\u201d In contrast to this approach, other Rishonim held that the prohibition is analogous to that of looking at a woman, though it is still appropriate to be stringent with regard to the recitation of the Shema as well.[16]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n \n What manner of a woman\u2019s voice is considered erva<\/em>?<\/strong><\/p>\n The poskim that hold that it is forbidden to hear the voice of a woman in general, and not just during the recitation of the Shema and the core parts of prayer, are divided as to what type of voice is prohibited \u2013 is <\/span>it forbidden only to hear a singing voice, or is listening to common speech proscribed as well? And what about a singing voice that people are already used to? Is every type of singing voice prohibited? Let us begin this discussion with a disagreement between the Rashba and the Raavad described by the Rashba himself:<\/p>\n \n And the fact that Rav Yitzchak said that a handbreadth of a woman is erva<\/em>, and that we hold that this applies to his wife during the recitation of Shema, the Raavad of blessed memory explained that it is possible that this refers to a normally covered part of her body, and Rabbenu Chananel commented on this, saying that the shin of a woman is a normally covered and sexually provocative part of the body, even to her husband, and even though it is not normally covered on men, but her face and hands and feet and the non-singing voice of her speech, and her hair that comes out of her braid that is not covered, one need not worry about these as he is used to them and not disturbed. And with regard to another woman, it is forbidden to look at anything, even her little finger and hair, and it is forbidden even to hear her speak, as we say we say in Masekhet Kiddushin: \u201c\u2019let your honor send a salutation to Yalta [Rabbi Nachman\u2019s wife]!\u2019 He said to him: \u2018thus said Shmuel: \u201cthe voice of a woman is erva<\/em>.\u201d\u2019\u201d[17]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> And nevertheless it seems to me that this refers specifically to the voice of a salutation, because there is intimacy in it.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n It is important to pay attention to the fact that even the Rashba did not prohibit hearing all speech of a woman, rather only speech that has \u201cintimacy.\u201d<\/p>\n In any event, his position is not ruled as halakha by the Shulchan Arukh<\/em>: \u201cone must guard against hearing the voice of a woman singing<\/em>.\u201d Even though this is said specifically in reference to the recitation of the Shema, the Magen Avraham<\/em> applies it to general rules of modesty as well: \u201c\u2019The singing voice of a woman\u2019 \u2013 Even an unmarried woman, and see the Even HaEzer<\/em> 21, which states that the singing voice of a married woman[18]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> is always forbidden to hear, but the voice of her speech is permitted.\u201d[19]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> The Maharshal had already asserted that there is no prohibition of listening to a woman\u2019s speech:<\/p>\n \n And that which it says that the voice of a woman is erva<\/em>, meaning that it is forbidden to speak with a woman, as Rashi explained, that if I should say hello, she would answer me \u2013 this seems to me to be strained, for they only prohibited listening to a singing voice<\/em>, as the scriptures say (Song of Songs, 2): \u201cFor your voice is sweet and your face is comely.\u201d Also, we do not find that the original great sages were careful not to converse with women, as we see from several instances in the Talmud and other works not referenced here. Rather one should not ask a woman how she is doing out of a sense of intimacy. And we do not hold according to Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, who forbids talking to women, even to ask her where her husband is, and I have already proved that his position is false, see in the chapter \u201cHasocher et Hapoalim,\u201d Siman 6, and the ruling that one does not use a woman at all, adult or child, we shall write, God willing, ahead in Siman 80, that nowadays we rely on the opinion opposed to Shmuel, that said that everything done for Heaven\u2019s sake is permitted.\u201d[20]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n This explanation of the poskim, that the voice prohibited because it might lead to immodest behavior is that of song, is supported explicitly in the Talmud in Masekhet Sota: \u201cRav Yosef said: \u2018when men sing and women respond \u2013 it is immodest; when women sing and men respond \u2013 it is like a fire in chaff.\u2019 What is the practical difference? That one should abolish the one before the other.\u201d[21]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Rashi explains:<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cLike a fire in chaff\u201d \u2013 because the responder pays special attention to hear the singer, and consequently the men will pay attention to the women\u2019s singing, and the voice of a woman is erva<\/em>, as it is written: \u201clet me hear your voice\u201d (Song of Songs, 2), and it will fire his evil inclination like a fire in chaff. But when men sing and women respond, there is a little immodesty, as the voice of a woman is erva<\/em> but it does not fire his evil inclination to the same extent, because the singers to not pay such close attention to hearing the responders.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n From the words of the Marshal and the Magen Avraham<\/em>, we can understand that there is a prohibition of listening to the voice of a woman singing; given this, the poskim advise several dimensions that allow us to be lenient in various ways:<\/p>\n \n A) <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>Everything here refers only to a lone voice and not to song in a group, as \u201ctwo voices are not heard.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n This distinction is widely accepted among different groups within the community, and it is therefore the custom to permit women\u2019s singing in a choir. This dispensation is extremely strained, alien to the character of the subject, and transferred from an altogether different context \u2013 hearing the sound of a shofar on Rosh Hashanah.[22]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Rabbi Yechiel Weinberg has already raised a serious difficulty on this avenue: \u201cWith regard to what is written that two voices are not heard, is it not explicit in the Talmud that because it is pleasant to listen to, one would pay more attention? And nothing is more pleasant to listen to than what our sages attested to, that the voice of a woman is erva<\/em>, from the verse \u201cFor your voice is sweet and your face is comely,\u201d see Berakhot 24.\u201d[23]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n B) <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>The prohibition applies only to listening in a manner similar to looking at a woman for sexual pleasure.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n This distinction can be taken from a simple reading of all the material related to the subject, from the language of the Rishonim and the ruling of the Beit Yosef<\/em> about them, although it is not stated specifically. According to this approach, my teacher, Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, ruled that there was no problem in public song when we, his young male students, were participating in the singing. Rabbi Aaron did not permit listening to women by themselves, even in a group, but at the heart of his position was the equation to the prohibition of looking, and the distinction between staring for sexual pleasure and general, innocent sight \u2013 and the difference is clear.<\/span><\/p>\n