- This topic has 91 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Can anyone tell me exactly where to find the source(s) of the prohibition of Kol Isha? I know it’s somewhere in the story of Dovid and Batsheva in Shmuel and Yehuda and Tamar maybe in Malachim. But I need to know the exact Perek, Pasuk, and specifically the MEFORSHIM from where we learn this halacha.
We are trying to prove to someone that it really is an issue.
Thank you for any help you can give us.
A guten moed.
Berachos 24a and Kiddushin 70a. If you need a Passuk, Song of Songs 2:14.
Shulchan Aruch is an insufficient source to demonstrate that it really is an issue???
I didn’t see that in gefen’s question. I saw her curious as to the original sources.
From a piece by R’ Gil student-
1. Berachos 24a
Rav Yitzchak said: A tefach of a woman is nakedness (‘ervah).
For what? If you say for looking at it, Rav Sheshes said: Why did the Torah count outer ornaments with inner ornaments? To tell you that anyone who looks at the small finger of a woman is as if he looked at the obscene place. Rather, [Rav Yitzchak is talking about] one’s wife an kerias shema.
Rav Chisda said: The thigh of a woman is nakedness as it says (Isaiah 47:2) “expose a thigh to cross a river” and it says (ibid. 3) “your nakedness will be exposed and your embarrassment will be seen.”
Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) “for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely.”
Rav Sheshes said: The hair of a woman is nakedness as it says (ibid. 4:1) “you hair is like a flock of goats.”
2. Kiddushin 70a
[Rav Nachman said to Rav Yehudah]: Would you like to send regards to Yalta [Rav Nachman’s wife]?
He [Rav Yehudah] said: Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness.
the gemora saids kol beisha erva
Brachos 24a ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???’ ?? ???? ??? ????? ????
Shulchan aruch OC 75:3
shulchan aruch Even haezer 21:1
ayin shum bchol hamiforshim vdoik
Patri: “shulchan aruch” isn’t a good enough source. There are 10 volumes in the normal edition (more in the oz v’hadar). A citation would be helpful. I’ll give you a hint, it is not in Yoreh Deah 87.
I remember hearing it’s a pasuk in Shir HaShirim (2:14) ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????. This implies that the voice of a female is also a pleasing, attracting beauty of her, not to be shared with a strange male. That is the source. It’s complete application and halachos are discussed in Shulchan Aruch, as any other Jewish laws.
The source in Shir Hashirim is not the source. We don’t hold like the Shittah of the Rabbeinu Yonah that everything mentioned L’shevach in Shir Hashirim is an Ervah. If we did, then eyes, lips, and I think teeth would be an Ervah as well.
Neither is Kiddushin 70a the source, as we hold that Kol Isha only applies to a singing voice and not normal speaking.
The source is Brachos 24a and SH”A O.C. 75.
sam please read the gemara again
Rabbeinu Tam says on the chazal that parshas eikev is mitzvos she’adam dosh bi’akavo, that eikev is roshei teivos “kol b’isha erva”.
Chacham: What am I misreading? That Gemara assumes that Kol Isha applies to a talking voice. We Pasken that it only applies to a singing voice. We have to either not Pasken by that statement of Shmuel or we have to hold that the Hemshech is a rejection of that statement. Either way, that Gemara is not a source for our Issur of Kol Isha.
Gefen : it is a Rashba in brachos. It is a machlokes if kol isha is a dorasia or rabbanan. Saying devaim of kedusha while family is singing is a dispute.
sorry sam i misunderstood you but the biur hagra does bring the gemara as the source
Gefen: Sisters is a machlokes poskim
Gefen: Mother/daughter is a B’feirush Heter for touching. Presumably seeing and hearing is the same too. Sister… is an interesting issue.
Simcha613, why do you call that body part obscene?
Mods, Patri’s post got deleted. This thread would be a lot easier to read if everyone responding to him got deleted too. Could someone take care of that please?
It must refer ONLY to the singing and not speaking voice, because if it referred to merely a woman’s speaking, there would have been no need for certain rabbanim to say not to be marbeh sicha im isha, as it would already be assur to have ANY sicha with an isha. Presumably the “isha” is not one’s own isha, because it would be very poor form to tell a husband not to converse too much with his wife. I mean, are they supposed to stare at the four walls instead of talking? And when she is in niddah, the conversation is virtually the ONLY thing they can do together.
Just to clarfiy matters and side with sam2 and oomins1105- the gemara speaks about “kol be’isha ervah’ without specifying what “kol’ means but in the shulchan aruch it says ; ” jesh lezoher mishmyas kol ZEMER isha be-shaas kerias shemah””. It is clear that the shulchan aruch spoke about song (zemer) and not just talking. Additionally, the original prohibition dealt with hearing the “kol isha’ during “Krias shema” but later acharonim have expanded it to include any song, even not at krias shema.
See also be’er heitav on siman 75 (3)
Oomis, Al tarbe sicha im isha specifically does include ones wife.
Shmoel, that is so sad. That’s not a majority held opinion, is it? If so, there would be some wives who feel very ignored today. Oh wait…
The Mishna specifically states, without any dissent, that it applies to a wife.
pirkei avos 1 mishna 5 ??? ???? ???? ?? ????.
????? ???? – ?? ???? ???? ????.
???? ???? ?????: ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????,
????? ????? ????,
????? – ???? ?????:
theres a maaseh with the chazon ish that a lady came to him really mad at hubby cuz he no want to talk to her he ask why and hubby say al tarbeh so the Chazon Ish answer that applies to wht you do for you but what she needs isnt. that is your chiyuv.
Shmoel and Chacham, I cannot (and DO not) argue with Pirkei Avos. But who is being quoted there, and is his opinion considered THE one and only final opinion? Not everything we learn in Mishnah and Gemarah is meant as unquestioned Halacha l’maiseh for everyone, it is there to teach us the PROCESS by which the final p’sak is reached. Did ALL the Tanaim agree with that statement that it means the man’s wife? If so, then why do men and women who are married to each other have conversations? Would it not be just as assur as it is to eat chazir? Clearly this is not as glatt as you make it out to be. I am not trying to bait you here. I find that there is a difference of consensus, and I am trying to understand why. Clearly it does not benefit a married couple for the husband to withdraw from conversing with his wife in a normal manner. Certainly in this day and age, that could be a source of a lack of Sholom Bayis.
Chacham: Didn’t you leave a word out of the Mishnah?
no offense to posters here, and i understand they are trying to help, but this is disgusting.
according to some people, you might think that women shouldnt be seen or heard. ever. whether single or married.
i am truly disgusted
There is an extreme deah that kol isha is even stam talking.
Mochoh – Which deah is that?
My rosh Hayeshiva told me about it he never told me who it is or where to find it.
Never seen a deah or heard one like that,unless your talking about stam talking to a women or single girls which does exist.
interesting tshuva: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1876&pgnum=135
sam2 -which word did i leave out? i took it from wikisource
Rabbi J. David Bleich discusses it in an article in “Contemporary Halachic Problems” volume 2.
This is for live singing or even from a CD? Does it make a difference if one listens to a CD in private rather than in public, I work in a kosher Rest. and play female vocalist is this an issue.
Is thre any heterim for Parnassa reasons, if a musicians needs to learn a particular song?
Listening to female recorded singing is prohibited according to all leading poskim.
patri : source, please????
according to the gemoro and shulchan aruch , the reason for not being able to listen to a woman singing is because you may be tempted by her. Kind of difficult with a CD, don’t you think?
Patri: incorrect
Chacham: Doesn’t the Mishnah say Al Tarbeh Sichah Im Ha’ishah Bashuk? Am I imagining that?
sam2 – not in my mishnayos. could be there is another girsa
Sam4321: Name a posek who is mattir.
See the post where I say interesting tshuvah,then see the tzitz eliezer 5:2 I believe, and then the Yabea Omer 1:6:11.
sam4321- is this your brkiyus?
None of them provide any blanket heters.
Chacham : not sure what you mean
Patri: You read all of those tshuvos in 3 minutes or you read them before.
Patri: The consensus is it seems that one should stay away from it but it is not prohibited which you stated it is.
As you can undoubtedly glean from your nearest Orthodox Gadol, to quote verbatim from one who belnged to the previous generation of Gedolim ZT”L, as heard from multiple close highly regarded Talmidim, “There is no such thing as a chumra by Tzenius”. Enough said. Also see Shaarei Teshuva chelek gimmel num 3 where he talks about the imeeasurable benefit and greatness of Rabbinic safeguards.
MT: I’m not sure what your point is. That means we can force everyone to have to hold by things that aren’t necessarily Halachah in any category related to Arayos? Why aren’t all women wearing Burkas then? Saying “There’s no such thing as a Chumra by Tznius” doesn’t mean that we have to Assur everything we can possibly think of. (But yes, I hold that recorded women is Kol Ishah and Assur.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.