April 9, 2012 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm #602862
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.April 9, 2012 11:36 pm at 11:36 pm #869282dash™Participant
Berachos 24a and Kiddushin 70a. If you need a Passuk, Song of Songs 2:14.April 9, 2012 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #869283popa_bar_abbaParticipant
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.April 9, 2012 11:41 pm at 11:41 pm #869284
Patri – of course Shulchan Aruch is sufficient, but we just want to know the original Torah source.
Dash – thanks. we will look it up.
Popa – thanks for understanding and explaining my question.April 9, 2012 11:56 pm at 11:56 pm #869286simcha613Participant
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.April 10, 2012 12:02 am at 12:02 am #869287ovadiayosefrocksParticipant
the gemora saids kol beisha ervaApril 10, 2012 12:05 am at 12:05 am #869288
Brachos 24a ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???’ ?? ???? ??? ????? ????
Shulchan aruch OC 75:3
shulchan aruch Even haezer 21:1
ayin shum bchol hamiforshim vdoikApril 10, 2012 12:06 am at 12:06 am #869289ItcheSrulikMember
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.April 10, 2012 12:33 am at 12:33 am #869290ZeesKiteParticipant
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.April 10, 2012 1:06 am at 1:06 am #869292
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.April 10, 2012 2:03 am at 2:03 am #869293
sam please read the gemara againApril 10, 2012 2:20 am at 2:20 am #869294ToiParticipant
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”.April 10, 2012 2:26 am at 2:26 am #869295
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.April 10, 2012 2:51 am at 2:51 am #869296
“Neither is Kiddushin 70a the source, as we hold that Kol Isha only applies to a singing voice and not normal speaking.
So I still don’t understand, where do we get that it refers to only a singing voice and not speaking as well?
I have another question. It says in Brachos 24a (one of the footnotes) that “it is forbidden for a man to listen to the singing of any woman with whom he is forbidden to cohabit”. My question is, does this mean he can’t listen to his daughters, sisters, or mother etc. also?April 10, 2012 3:29 am at 3:29 am #869297
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.April 10, 2012 3:31 am at 3:31 am #869298
sorry sam i misunderstood you but the biur hagra does bring the gemara as the sourceApril 10, 2012 3:40 am at 3:40 am #869299
Gefen: Sisters is a machlokes poskimApril 10, 2012 3:58 am at 3:58 am #869300
Gefen: Mother/daughter is a B’feirush Heter for touching. Presumably seeing and hearing is the same too. Sister… is an interesting issue.April 10, 2012 9:46 am at 9:46 am #869301lesschumrasParticipant
Simcha613, why do you call that body part obscene?April 10, 2012 2:18 pm at 2:18 pm #869302ItcheSrulikMember
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?April 11, 2012 1:39 am at 1:39 am #869303
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.April 11, 2012 3:22 am at 3:22 am #869304rabbiofberlinParticipant
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)April 11, 2012 5:23 am at 5:23 am #869305shmoelMember
Oomis, Al tarbe sicha im isha specifically does include ones wife.April 11, 2012 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm #869306
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…April 11, 2012 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #869308shmoelMember
The Mishna specifically states, without any dissent, that it applies to a wife.April 11, 2012 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #869309
pirkei avos 1 mishna 5 ??? ???? ???? ?? ????.
????? ???? – ?? ???? ???? ????.
???? ???? ?????: ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????,
????? ????? ????,
????? – ???? ?????:April 11, 2012 8:32 pm at 8:32 pm #869311ToiParticipant
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.April 11, 2012 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #869312
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.April 11, 2012 9:52 pm at 9:52 pm #869313
Chacham: Didn’t you leave a word out of the Mishnah?April 11, 2012 9:59 pm at 9:59 pm #869314shuliParticipant
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 disgustedApril 11, 2012 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #869315
There is an extreme deah that kol isha is even stam talking.April 11, 2012 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #869316
Mochoh – Which deah is that?April 11, 2012 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm #869317
My rosh Hayeshiva told me about it he never told me who it is or where to find it.April 11, 2012 11:44 pm at 11:44 pm #869318
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=135April 11, 2012 11:56 pm at 11:56 pm #869319
sam2 -which word did i leave out? i took it from wikisourceApril 12, 2012 7:52 am at 7:52 am #869320Avi KParticipant
Rabbi J. David Bleich discusses it in an article in “Contemporary Halachic Problems” volume 2.April 12, 2012 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm #869321adamsParticipant
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?April 12, 2012 4:19 pm at 4:19 pm #869322
Listening to female recorded singing is prohibited according to all leading poskim.April 12, 2012 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #869323rabbiofberlinParticipant
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?April 12, 2012 5:10 pm at 5:10 pm #869324
Patri: incorrectApril 12, 2012 5:12 pm at 5:12 pm #869325
Chacham: Doesn’t the Mishnah say Al Tarbeh Sichah Im Ha’ishah Bashuk? Am I imagining that?April 12, 2012 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #869326
sam2 – not in my mishnayos. could be there is another girsaApril 12, 2012 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm #869327
Sam4321: Name a posek who is mattir.April 12, 2012 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #869328
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.April 12, 2012 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #869329
sam4321- is this your brkiyus?April 12, 2012 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #869330
None of them provide any blanket heters.April 12, 2012 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #869331
Chacham : not sure what you mean
Patri: You read all of those tshuvos in 3 minutes or you read them before.April 12, 2012 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #869332
Patri: The consensus is it seems that one should stay away from it but it is not prohibited which you stated it is.April 15, 2012 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #869333
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.April 16, 2012 3:27 am at 3:27 am #869334
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.