 |
| Photo credit: Dan Keinan in Haaretz |
Of course I was insulted, especially if I had intended to perform for my companion. But I also understand the concept of "giving the benefit of the doubt." The insult wasn't intended, and nothing negative had been directed at me. I talked over my feelings with anyone dear enough to me, always to find out that my assumption was correct: the radio had been flipped on as a result of my voice reminding the listener that a little music would be nice. Once they were made aware, people were always effusive in their apologies, and practiced finer midot in the face of future outbursts of song.
I don't like the Jewish prohibition called "kol isha." Briefly, kol isha -- a reference to the singing voice of a woman -- means that observant Jewish men have certain restrictions placed on them about hearing women sing. (There are variations in how this law is interpreted: some men will avoid only live performances; some will avoid all female singing, even recorded. There are leniencies and strictures, all of which must be discussed with one's own personal rabbinic authority.)
I express myself in song. So feeling that I have to watch where I sing and when cramps my style. But I have to say to myself, "Tough. Being an observant Jew means I don't get to do everything I want to do, whenever and wherever I want to do it." I don't have to stop singing. But if I want to work in partnership with men in our work to live a Torah lifestyle, I have the obligation to avoid sabotaging their efforts. It doesn't matter if I love the law or not (any more than it matters if I love not eating lobster, or if I love covering my hair on beautiful, windy days, or if I love turning off my computer before Shabbat begins). It doesn't matter if my 21st Century American sensibilites argue against the reasonableness of the law. ("Oh, puh-leeze. Did the rabbis think that men have no self control, and are going to lose all sense of decorum, just because a woman sings in their vicinity? Get a grip! And why am I responsible for their thoughts?") Argue away, holy Jews! That is part of what we are about. But like it or not, approve of it or not, keeping the Law is our job.
What matters is that I keep the Law, to the best of my ability, and that I don't hamper someone else's ability to keep the Law. If I don't feel like keeping kosher at the highest possible level, and I can find a rabbi to support my position, fine. But if I throw a simcha at which even one invited attendee feels he must keep the highest level, I should be sure that the food provided will feed him as well as the rest of my guests. He is not trying to insult me by not eating food prepared at my level of observance. He simply cannot eat it, due to his level of observance. Keeping the highest standard for my most observant guest is not a halacha, a law, to the best of my knowledge. It is simply nice manners.
The idea that observant soldiers must be punished by being forced to pretend they are not listening to a woman singing, rather than being allowed to discreetly absent themselves for the duration of the performance, is beyond unfortunate. Such a rule says that the singer has more rights than the listener. It places potentially hurt feelings over religious obligation.
My sons are soldiers. I have been told that they are good at their jobs. Will they be punished if they choose not to remain in a room where women are singing? Will they be fined, or go to jail? How will removing my sons from their job of protecting the country affect a woman's right to sing one way or another?
It would be easy, if Israeli life weren't so politically-charged, to find a solution. Women could sing their hearts out for their adoring fans -- female and male -- and men who feel they must remove themselves from the performance could be given that privilege. Everyone could retain his or her dignity.
No female singer should be told to shut up. No man should be forced to listen.
27 comments:
Ruti dear, I think the time has come for you to run for national office. You would fulfill the task with level-headed thinking, clear explanations of your stance on issues and, most of all, much-needed compassion. You've got my vote. (And I'm a citizen so I really can vote!!!)
This is one of the most articulate and reasonable expressions of this perspective around. It is not without merit. Yet I remain unconvinced. First, at a certain point the defense of a right to discriminate against a group on the basis of identity, or even to appear to so discriminate, becomes IMO undefensible. Even if the defense is, "but it's the law." Second, I am not convinced by the widely assumed premise that "nice manners" always dictates that the strictest observer in the room must set the bar.
The challenge, I think, and I don't passionately feel I have *the* answer, is that it is one thing to discreetly not eat at an inadequately kosher event. It is impossible to discreetly not hear a forbidden performance. Nevertheless, in my view the values of kol isha erva and gadol k'vod habriyot shedocheh lo ta'aseh shebatorah are in conflict. One cannot systematically walk out on women performing without running afoul of k'vod habriyot. The strictest level of observance does not have a monopoly on feeling insulted and hurt. It may be that causing offense, even in the name of The Law, is worse than experiencing it.
Hooray Horrah (not sung of course due to male readers). You captured the issue beautifully. Well said. I vote Ruti 2012
If I may add, I should have included in the comment I made that it is not even necessarily clear what the strictest observance is. The one who walk out is "strictly observing" kol isha, but the one who holds by kol isha but nevertheless decides not to walk out is "strictly observing" k'vod habriyot. Both are being machmir, just machmir on different issues.
In the movie "Blast From the Past" Sissy Spacek tells her son to "put your fingers in your ears and hum." It works, you know. It amazes me that frum people will make a chillul HaShem over this inyan. Isn't there enough sinat chinam - senseless hatred - amongst Jews already? Must frum boys make a scene over THIS??
This reenforces my contention the one cannot be frum in the military - any military.
If two laws come in to conflict, then someone who knows Torah deeply enough to consider all the various factors would be asked for a halachik decision.
I wonder if, in the future, soldiers who wish to absent themselves from a female performance could be warned ahead of time, so that they could leave before it starts, there could be an intermission or break before and after, and maybe that would lead to less hurt feelings.
Just a thought.
I like the balanced view you express Ruti.
Some of my friends say that I fell off of the derech so long ago I can't remember what it looked like.
But I know that I haven't ever agreed with Kol Isha. My thoughts are my thoughts and it is up to me to control them.
I can relate to your personal feelings on kol isha. It was the hardest halacha for me to start observing (partially because I measured my self-worth by my singing ability. Something which observing this halacha cured me of.) But I agree that a man should have the right to observe his religious beliefs, certainly in this arena. I disagree with the commentor who brought up kavod habriot. It is my understanding that this is an oft misunderstood concept. Kavod habriot refers to not doing disgusting things (like going months without showering) out of respect for those around you. However, I could be wrong.
The trouble, as I see it, is that kol isha is not a black and white topic, as you mentioned, and there are a lot of extremely respectable rabbis who don't agree that what these soldiers are walking out on is kol isha at all. My husband's rosh yeshiva says that kol isha only applies to women who are singing particularly sensuous love songs, and also says that men singing those songs in front of women is equally problematic! With that in mind, I just think that if you have to balance the two - hearing women sing and walking out, you have to consider that the hearing is possibly (safek) problematic, whereas walking out is very likely to offend someone, and an issue of k'vod habriyot.
Just my two agorot :)
Right on, Mama Mizrachi.
I agree with you Ruth.
Kol Isha Erva means that a woman's voice is treated as something sexual ie, as "erva". It doesn't matter what affect Erva has on someone. Whether or not it arouses one, it is forbidden except within a marital context. Outside of marriage, women and men are responsible to Hashem and to other Jews to dress and act in a Tzinus fashion. Both are responsible to Hashem and other Jews to avoid Erva if at all possible.
Whatever a man does to avoid Kol Isha will be experienced by some women as insulting as long as they believe it's their particular voice or their person which is offensive or vulgar. But it's not about them. It's about Hashem and Torah If they chose to sing to a mixed audience they need to understand that observant men will choose to leave or cover their ears.
Nosson - that's definitely true if you accept that what these women are doing is kol isha - which many well respected, Orthodox rabbis do not. Like so many things in our wonderful religion, it is not clear cut and accepted across the board.
If you don't mind me asking, which Rabbis have issued this psak?
I happen to be familiar with Rav David Bigman, who gave the pask that I mentioned earlier about men and women having similar prohibitions. On this particular topic, some of his views are written here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/rabbis-jewish-law-prohibits-walkouts-at-idf-ceremonies-1.386691
Additionally, Rav Moshe Lichtenstein (from Yeshivat Har Etzion) said: “Women should have significant personal and religious self-expression, including non-sexual singing; and for those who want to, it is perfectly legitimate to rely upon the lenient halachic opinions in this regard. When the important values of national service and national unity are combined with halachic considerations, it is clear that to provoke unrest and enmity over commonplace singing by women in army ceremonies, and to disconnect oneself from the public, is a mistake. Fanaticism on this issue sets off alarms in every sinew of my body.”
I've taken up too much space already, but off the top of my head I know that Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Sherlo have said similar things. And hey - what about all the chief rabbis for the past 63 years who stayed happily and proudly in Yom Haatsmaut celebrations?
Toby: All good points. Mine is that -- with discretion and education -- guys could leave the room in a way that would not need to be offensive, if they did not wish to hold by the various leniencies. I know men who do not allow themselves to have the password to their computer internet connections, preferring to leave that information in the hands of their wives. It doesn't mean that all men should have that imposed on them; but these men have made the decision that this is an area of temptation for them. Why do we have to force men who are uncomfortable hearing the female voice in song, for the reasons explained by Rav Nosson above, to listen? Isn't there a way to make everyone comfortable in this situation?
Dunno, I just feel like we are in such strong, immediate need of achdut in this nation, and we should be looking for ways to communicate better, understand each other and accept each other for the Jews that we are, no matter the shape, size or gender. I think we should be looking for creative ways to stay in the same room, not creative ways to duck out of the room. But that's just me :)
I spoke with a Rabbi to try to understand how there could be such differing opinions in this case. This person, while not being my Rabbi, is who I would ask if my Rabbi didn't know the answer. He is a Rosh Kollel and is more familiar with halacha than I am.
He said that the original question was:
Are soldiers, at military events, where women are singing, required to leave when women are singing?
In this circumstance, the question is not about if this is kol isha. It is kol isha. The question is if there is a heter to listen to kol isha in this particular instance. A heter is when doing something that is usually problematic is okay in a very limited circumstance. The hashkafa, approach to living your life according to the Torah, question is when do you rely on a heter? That is my understanding of the issue. I hope it makes sense, even if you don't agree.
I really miss the days when we Jews prided ourselves on being machmir on Ve'ahavta Lerei'acha Kamocha." That one is de'oraita! When I was young, we were taught stories about wise, learned Rabbis who would go to extreme lengths in order to make sure that their fellow Jews (even those who were "less" religious than they) felt honored, and weren't embarrassed or humiliated in any way.
Am I really the only one who finds this so very lacking in these recent rulings?
Sorry, I forgot to mention: even if you believe that this situation does qualify as kol isha, that is still an issur de'rabanan. It seems clear to me that ve'ahavta lerei'acha kamocha should prevail over it. And I thankfully haven't yet heard about a heter for that.
And why aren't rabbis insisting that we walk out on something if we hear lashon hara? As a close friend of mine pointed out, that one too is de'rabanan, and yet it's somehow not as popular an issue.
It does seem to me that we're being strangely selective about our halacha...
I really appreciate everyone's comments, and that the discussion has remained civil. The thing I feel is being missed in all of the debate is that it is possible for both sides to be happy, with a little love for the Jew on the other side of the discussion. Kol isha matters. So does k'vod habriyot and ve'ahavta lerei'acha kamocha. The great joy of being a Jew is in finding the moderate space between the parts, so that no one is punished for the values of another. Just as you can't tell a woman not to sing, you oughtn't bash a man over the head by forcing him into a position of setting aside his level of observance when it's not necessary. Why can't there be a discreet way to excuse the handful of young men who would like to leave the room? Why can't there be a short intermission, or a moment when a speaker comes and says a few words, allowing people to come and go without making a fuss? Why must our love of a fellow Jew and her honor be used as a cudgel?
Halevai! If you can find a way for everyone to be happy, that is obviously the ideal - and I will absolutely vote for you :)
The Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation has made an enourmous effort to educate the public about the severe transgression of lashon hara. One of the suggestions is to walk away, if you cannot redirect the conversation.
Oh, I'm glad to hear that! I guess until people actually start doing it, we won't hear about that on ynet.
I still do think that the greatest trouble in our collective Jewish community today is that of achdut. I wish we could find a way to get along through communication and dialogue, and not through walking out on each other. Here's hoping that it will be in our days!
I agree with you about the importance of achdut. A few situations that come to mind make me uncomfortable with the blanket statement, "It seems clear to me that ve'ahavta lerei'acha kamocha should prevail over it."
When performing the mitzvah of kibud av v eim, a child is not allowed to transgress any mitzvah. This includes d'rabanans. In each case, it is important for the child to make sure what is being asked is indeed problematic.
Another is the shaking of hands. The majority opinion, is that the shaking of hands is touch that conveys affection, and thus is prohibited between men and women who are not related. There are opinions which say it is permissable.
In any situation, it is important for the person who refrains from something to calmly and politely explain what they are doing. If someone asks their rabbi about this or any situation, what does the halacha say about x?, and their rabbi instructs them to do something that may be unpopular, the person can explain what they are doing.
If we can have a conversation about halacha, we sometimes will see that the practicle application may cause discomfort to ourselves and others. We need to do what we can to reduce this discomfort. However, just because something is uncomfortable doesn't mean we don't do it.
When we lived in Baltimore, I had to often decide in that split second, "Am I going to take this non-Jewish man's hand and shake it, and save him embarrassment? Or am I going to rebuff his proferred hand?" Over time, I developed an approach (with the guidance of wise rabbis). If I was unlikely to have regular dealings with him, I would shake his hand briefly. If we were going to do business often, I would decline, but explain. I found that most non-Jews think that distance between men and women that preserves marriage is a great idea.
I offer this example, Adina and Toby, to show that I don't hold hard lines of halacha over ahava. Each situation must be judged individually, with the Torah knowledge that we have. And no one who is trying her or his best to live a Torah life should be forced into a one-size-fits-all response. I can't believe that G-d expects us to be automatons. Our Torah is far too intricate and wise and deep for that.
Each situation is unique. Having access to a wise Rabbi to guide a person helps to balance between the sometimes conflicting obligations. I have sometimes been suprised how a situation that looked to be a potential problem, had a solution that I wouldn't have thought about on my own.
Post a Comment