Kol Isha

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Kol Isha

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #602862
    gefen
    Participant

    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.

    #869282
    dash™
    Participant

    Berachos 24a and Kiddushin 70a. If you need a Passuk, Song of Songs 2:14.

    #869283
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    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.

    #869284
    gefen
    Participant

    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.

    #869286
    simcha613
    Participant

    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.

    #869287
    ovadiayosefrocks
    Participant

    the gemora saids kol beisha erva

    #869288
    Chacham
    Participant

    Brachos 24a ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???’ ?? ???? ??? ????? ????

    Shulchan aruch OC 75:3

    shulchan aruch Even haezer 21:1

    ayin shum bchol hamiforshim vdoik

    #869289
    ItcheSrulik
    Member

    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.

    #869290
    ZeesKite
    Participant

    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.

    #869292
    Sam2
    Participant

    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.

    #869293
    Chacham
    Participant

    sam please read the gemara again

    #869294
    Toi
    Participant

    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”.

    #869295
    Sam2
    Participant

    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.

    #869296
    gefen
    Participant

    “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?

    #869297
    sam4321
    Participant

    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.

    #869298
    Chacham
    Participant

    sorry sam i misunderstood you but the biur hagra does bring the gemara as the source

    #869299
    sam4321
    Participant

    Gefen: Sisters is a machlokes poskim

    #869300
    Sam2
    Participant

    Gefen: Mother/daughter is a B’feirush Heter for touching. Presumably seeing and hearing is the same too. Sister… is an interesting issue.

    #869301
    lesschumras
    Participant

    Simcha613, why do you call that body part obscene?

    #869302
    ItcheSrulik
    Member

    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?

    #869303
    oomis
    Participant

    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.

    #869304
    rabbiofberlin
    Participant

    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)

    #869305
    shmoel
    Member

    Oomis, Al tarbe sicha im isha specifically does include ones wife.

    #869306
    oomis
    Participant

    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…

    #869308
    shmoel
    Member

    The Mishna specifically states, without any dissent, that it applies to a wife.

    #869309
    Chacham
    Participant

    pirkei avos 1 mishna 5 ??? ???? ???? ?? ????.

    ????? ???? – ?? ???? ???? ????.

    ???? ???? ?????: ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????,

    ????? ????? ????,

    ????? – ???? ?????:

    #869311
    Toi
    Participant

    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.

    #869312
    oomis
    Participant

    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.

    #869313
    Sam2
    Participant

    Chacham: Didn’t you leave a word out of the Mishnah?

    #869314
    shuli
    Participant

    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

    #869315

    There is an extreme deah that kol isha is even stam talking.

    #869316
    Patri
    Member

    Mochoh – Which deah is that?

    #869317

    My rosh Hayeshiva told me about it he never told me who it is or where to find it.

    #869318
    sam4321
    Participant

    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

    #869319
    Chacham
    Participant

    sam2 -which word did i leave out? i took it from wikisource

    #869320
    Avi K
    Participant

    Rabbi J. David Bleich discusses it in an article in “Contemporary Halachic Problems” volume 2.

    #869321
    adams
    Participant

    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?

    #869322
    Patri
    Member

    Listening to female recorded singing is prohibited according to all leading poskim.

    #869323
    rabbiofberlin
    Participant

    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?

    #869324
    sam4321
    Participant

    Patri: incorrect

    #869325
    Sam2
    Participant

    Chacham: Doesn’t the Mishnah say Al Tarbeh Sichah Im Ha’ishah Bashuk? Am I imagining that?

    #869326
    Chacham
    Participant

    sam2 – not in my mishnayos. could be there is another girsa

    #869327
    Patri
    Member

    Sam4321: Name a posek who is mattir.

    #869328
    sam4321
    Participant

    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.

    #869329
    Chacham
    Participant

    sam4321- is this your brkiyus?

    #869330
    Patri
    Member

    None of them provide any blanket heters.

    #869331
    sam4321
    Participant

    Chacham : not sure what you mean

    Patri: You read all of those tshuvos in 3 minutes or you read them before.

    #869332
    sam4321
    Participant

    Patri: The consensus is it seems that one should stay away from it but it is not prohibited which you stated it is.

    #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.

    #869334
    Sam2
    Participant

    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.)

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 92 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.