אמר רב חסדא שוק באשה ערוה שנאמר (ישעיהו מז, ב) גלי שוק עברי נהרות וכתיב (ישעיהו מז, ג) תגל ערותך וגם תראה חרפתך אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה שנא' (שיר השירים ב, יד) כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה אמר רב ששת שער באשה ערוה שנא' (שיר השירים ד, א) שערך כעדר העזים:
Rab Hisda said : The calf of a woman's leg is to be regarded as nakedness; as it is said, "Uncover the leg, pass through the rivers" (Is. xlvii. 2) and it continues, "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen" (Is. xlvii. 3). Samuel said : A woman's voice is to be regarded as nakedness ; as it is said, "For sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely" (Cant. ii. 14). ab Sheshet said: A woman's hair is to be regarded as nakedness; as it is said, "Thy hair is as a flock of goats" (ibid. iv. 1).
Q'S
Is this an Aggadata, or does this have Halachik import?
Do we mean that the voice is always naked, or "ervah" in the context of Shma?
Are we talking about the singing voice or any voice of the women?
Is the obligation to guard the voice upon man or woman?
אמר שמואל...נשדר ליה מר שלמא לילתא א"ל הכי אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה אפשר ע"י שליח א"ל הכי אמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה על ידי בעלה אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ליה דביתהו שרי ליה תגריה דלא נישוויך כשאר עם הארץ.
One may not send greetings to a woman even with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately. Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings with her husband,which would remove all concerns. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all. Yalta, his wife,who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, sent a message to him: Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus.
אמר רב יוסף זמרי גברי ועני נשי פריצותא זמרי נשי ועני גברי כאש בנעורת למאי נפקא מינה לבטולי הא מקמי הא.
A single man should not be a teacher of young women, because of "Kol B'shah Ervah.
צריך לאדם שיזהר כשיקרא את שמע או יתפלל שלא יפנה עיניו לשום דבר המביא לידי הרהור אפי' באשתו אמרו חכמים ראיית טפח באשתו בכל מקום שאין דרכו להגלות אוסרת בק"ש אע"פ שאינה אוסרת לדברי תורה שהראייה גורמת הרהור וכן שוק באשה ושער באשה הראוי להתכסות וקול של זמר באשה ערוה לענין ק"ש.
The Rif does not bring this law down as a Halacha. Perhaps he felt the story was not Halachik.
אמר שמואל קול באשה ערוה שנאמר כי קולך ערב פירוש לשמוע ולא לענין ק"ש.
(ב) וְהַמִּסְתַּכֵּל אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לֵהָנוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁנִּסְתַּכֵּל בִּמְקוֹם הַתֹּרֶף. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִשְׁמֹעַ קוֹל הָעֶרְוָה אוֹ לִרְאוֹת שְׂעָרָהּ אָסוּר:
(1) Anyone who sleeps with one of the forbidden relationships "by way of limbs", or who hugs and kisses in a sexual way and takes pleasure in physical intimacy, receives lashes for a d'Oraisa transgression, as it says (Leviticus 18:30) "do not do any of these abominable customs etc" and it says (Leviticus 18:6) "do not approach to uncover nakedness", which is to say do not approach things which will bring you to transgressing Arayos.
(2) One who engages in these behaviours is suspected of committing Arayos. And it's forbidden for a person to intimate with his hands or feet or to hint with his eyes to any of the Arayos or to laugh with her or to engage in light-headedness. And even to smell her perfume or to gaze at her beauty is forbidden. And one who engages in this deliberately receives lashes of rebelliousness. And one who gazes even at the little finger of a woman intending to derive sexual pleasure is comparable to one who looks at her genitalia. And even to hear the voice of an Ervah or to look at her hair is forbidden.
(3) These matters are [also] forbidden with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden on the basis of [merely] a negative commandment. It is permitted to look at the face of an unmarried woman and examine her [features] whether she is a virgin or has engaged in relations previously to see whether she is attractive in his eyes so that he may marry her. There is no prohibition in doing this. On the contrary, it is proper to do this. One should not, however, look in a licentious manner. Behold [Job 31:1] states: "I established a covenant with my eyes; I would not gaze at a maiden."
(4) A man is permitted to gaze at his wife when she is in the Niddah state although she is an Ervah [at that time]. Although his heart derives satisfaction from seeing her, since she will be permitted to him afterwards, he will not suffer a lapse. He should not, however, share mirth with her or act frivolously with her lest this lead to sin.
(5) It is forbidden for a man to have any woman- whether a minor or an adult, whether a servant or a freed woman- perform personal tasks for him, lest he come to lewd thoughts. Which tasks are referred to? Washing his face, his hands, or his feet, spreading his bed in his presence, and pouring him a cup. For these tasks are performed for a man only by his wife. [A man] should not send greetings to a woman at all, not even via a messenger.
(6) When a man embraces or kisses any of the women forbidden to him as arayot despite the fact that his heart does not disturb him concerning the matter, e.g. his adult sister, his mother's sister, or the like, it is very shameful. it is forbidden and it is foolish conduct. [This applies] even though he has no desire or pleasure at all. For one should not show closeness to a woman forbidden to him as an Ervah at all, whether an adult or a minor, except a woman to her son and a father to his daughter.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12) Similarly, the sages forbade a man to have marital relations while thinking of another woman. Nor may he initiate sex while drunk, nor out of spite or hatred, nor may he rape her or initiate sex while she is afraid. Nor may they have sex while either of them are excommunicated nor after he has decided to divorce her. If [the husband] does any of those things, the children will not be proper [citizens] but brazen, rebellious [people] and criminals.
(ב) שֵׂעָר שֶׁל אִשָּׁה שֶׁדַּרְכָּהּ לְכַסוֹת, אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת כְּנֶגְדּוֹ: הַגָּה: אֲפִלּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲבָל בְּתוּלוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֵילֵךְ פְּרוּעוֹת הָרֹאשׁ, מֻתָּר:
(2) The hair of a woman that it is her practice (lit. way) to cover it, it is forbidden to read [the Shema] in front of it <rema> even his wife <rema>. But virgins that it is their practice to go with an uncovered head, it is permitted. <rema> And so too is the law with the hairs of women that regularly come out of their barriers and certainly foreign (detached) hair even if it is her practice to cover.
הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶצְבַּע קְטַנָּה שֶׁל אִשָּׁה וְנִתְכַּוֵּן לֵהָנוֹת מִמֶּנָּה, כְּאִלּוּ נִסְתַּכֵּל בְּבֵית הַתֹּרֶף (פי', עֶרְוָה) שֶׁלָּהּ. וְאָסוּר לִשְׁמֹעַ קוֹל עֶרְוָה אוֹ לִרְאוֹת שְׂעָרָהּ. וְהַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים, מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וְאֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים אֲסוּרִים גַּם בְּחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין:
(1) A person must stay very far from women. He is forbidden to signal with his hands or his feet, or to hint with his eyes, to one of the arayos. He is forbidden to be playful with her, to be frivolous in front of her, or to look upon her beauty. Even to smell the perfume upon her is forbidden. He is forbidden to gaze at women doing laundry. He is forbidden to gaze at the colorful garments of a woman whom he recognizes, even if she is not wearing them, lest he come to have [forbidden] thoughts about her. If one encounters a woman in the marketplace, he is forbidden to walk behind her, but rather [must] run so that she is beside or behind him. One may not pass by the door of a promiscuous woman [or: a prostitute], even four cubits [around 6–8 ft or 2–2.5 m] distant. If one gazes even at the little finger of a woman with the intent to have pleasure from it, it is as though he gazed at her shameful place. It is forbidden to listen to the voice of an erva or to look at her hair. If one intentionally does one of these things, we give him lashes of rebellion. These things are also forbidden in the case of ordinary Biblical prohibitions.
Both Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Yehuda Henkin (Teshuvot Bnei Banim 3:127) reject the claim that this prohibition does not apply today since men nowadays are accustomed to hear a woman’s voice. These authorities explain that since the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch codify this prohibition, we do not enjoy the right to abolish it. The Gemara and its commentaries do not even hint at a possibility that this prohibition might not apply if men become habituated to hearing a woman’s voice.
A woman's choir had performed at the kotel, providing the ire of the religious population, who were vocal in their opposition. One of the professors posed a question to the Rebbe "I hear women singing all the time, and it has no effect on me. Are you chareidim really so primitive that the voice of a woman disturbs you so?"
The Rebbe smiled. "You know", he replies "the Bedouins in the desert walk without shoes. They cross stretches of hot desert sand, filled with rocks and debris, yet it has no effect on their toughened soles. A sophisticated European, on the other hand, can't bare to walk barefoot, and the smallest particle will irritate his sensitive foot. I ask you, who is the primitive one, the Bedouin or the European?" After minutes of silence, the academic burst out, "Oy, Rebbe, you answered so well!"
Warmed by Their Fire, p. 132.
Zemirot Shabbat
תנו רבנן בתורה אחד קורא ואחד מתרגם ובלבד שלא יהא אחד קורא ושנים מתרגמין ובהלל ובמגילה אפילו עשרה קורין ועשרה מתרגמין מאי טעמא כיון דחביבה יהבי דעתייהו ושמעי:
Recordings and Radio Broadcasts
Twentieth Century Halachic authorities have also debated whether the Kol Isha prohibition applies to recordings and radio broadcasts. Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 5:2) rules leniently based on two considerations. The first is that the Gemara (Sanhedrin 45a) states, “The Yetzer Hara is not interested in what the eyes do not see.” The second is that technically he does not hear the woman’s voice because radio broadcasts and recordings are mere electronic reproductions of the woman’s voice. Rav Waldenberg writes that if we cannot fulfill Mitzvot such as Tekiat Shofar and Kriat Megila when hearing them on the radio, then the prohibition of Kol Isha does not apply over the radio. Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (cited by his grandson Rav Yehudah Henkin, Teshuvot Bnei Banim 2:211 and 3:127) agrees with this position. Rav Y.E. Henkin was unsure whether the prohibition applies to hearing a woman’s voice broadcasted on television (ibid.). This might be because only one of the two lenient considerations that apply to the radio question is relevant to the television issue. Rav Waldenberg cautions, though, that listening to a woman’s voice on the radio is prohibited “if his intention is to enjoy her singing.”
Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yabia Omer 1:6) and Rav Chaim David Halevi (Teshuvot Aseh Lecha Rav 3:6) adopt a compromise approach to this issue. They permit listening to a female voice on the radio only if the listener is not acquainted with the singer. They both rule strictly, though, even if the listener once glimpsed a picture of the singer. Rav Ovadia rules that the prohibition applies even if the singer is not alive.
Rav Chaim David Halevi asserts that there is absolutely no basis to permit Kol Isha merely because the woman is singing into a microphone. He writes that the prohibition applies even if the man is not, technically speaking, hearing the woman’s voice. Rav Waldenberg’s aforementioned lenient ruling applies only when the man does not see the woman. Rav J. David Bleich (Contemporary Halachic Problems 2:152) notes that no recognized Halachic authority rules that the use of a microphone alone mitigates the prohibition of Kol Isha.
A Young Girl
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C.1:26) and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit 2:270) rule (based on the Mishna Berura 75:17) that in case of need, one may rely on the ruling that the prohibition of Kol Isha does not apply to girls who are not Niddot. Rav Moshe writes (in 1947) that one may assume that there is no question with girls below the age of eleven. Rav Moshe writes that men must be strict regarding girls older than the age of eleven, since there are girls who “nowadays” become Niddot at the age of eleven.
Rabbi Shaman and Rabbi Bigman
Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (Teshuvot Seridei Eish 2:8) notes that traditionally women refrained from singing Zemirot when there were males who were not family members sitting at the Shabbat table. However, he records that the practice in Germany was for woman to sing Zemirot in the company of unrelated men. Rav Weinberg records that Rav Azriel Hildesheimer and Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (two great German Rabbis of the nineteenth century) sanctioned this practice. Rav Weinberg reports that they based their ruling on the Talmudic rule (Megila 21b) that “Trei Kali Lo Mishtamai,” two voices cannot be heard simultaneously.
Divrei Heifetz (113b): As long as a woman is not singing sensual love songs, and as long as a man does not intend to derive pleasure from her voice, there is no prohibition, such as if she is singing praises to God for a miracle, or is singing a lullaby to a baby, or is wailing at a funeral."
Rabbi Weinberg also cited the Sefer ha-Eshkol (Hilkhot Tefillah sec. 4 or 7), that listening to a woman sing is prohibited only where there is sexual pleasure. Rabbi Weinberg reasoned that if the Sedei Hemed could permit funeral dirges due to their lacking sexual pleasure, then he could permit Shabbat Zemirot on the same grounds. It is obvious that we today can likewise permit by the same logic any song which does not lead to sexual thoughts. Thus, this interpretation that kol ishah is like etzba ketana, i.e. permitted where sexual pleasure is absent, is not only apparent from the simple meaning of Rambam's words, but is also endorsed by Rabbi Yehiel Weinberg.
Rav Soloveitchek: “I agree with everything that he wrote, except for his permission to stun animals before Shechita.”
Habituation as a Source of Leniency
Maharshal: Yam Shel Shelomo, Kidushin 4:25 no. 4:
Shmuel forbids talking to women, even to ask her where her husband is, ... and the ruling that one does not use a woman at all, adult or child, we shall write, God willing, ... that nowadays we rely on the opinion opposed to Shemuel, who said that ‘everything done for Heaven's sake is permitted.'"
(ג) יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר מִשְּׁמִיעַת קוֹל זֶמֶר אִשָּׁה בִּשְׁעַת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע הַגָּה: וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל קוֹל הָרָגִיל בּוֹ אֵינוֹ עֶרְוָה (בֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֵׁם אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהַג''מ).
(3) One should refrain from hearing a woman's singing voice during the reading of the Shema. <rema> and even his wife. But the voice that is regular to him is not Erva (lit. nakedness).
"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 Shulhan Arukh.
"It is permitted to be lenient with regard to listening to the voice of a woman singing when there is a clear sense that the listening is innocent and the singing is innocent. Such an assessment is dependent on five conditions: 1. Context and appropriate atmosphere, 2.The lyrics of the song, 3. The musical style, 4. Dress, 5. Body language. ... do not make concessions of the refined foundations of Torah culture, and do not cooperate with the vulgar, commercialized aspects of the culture surrounding us.
Rabbi Saul Berman:
The importance of this position [of Rabbi Weinberg] lies in the fact that it constitutes a major departure from the treatment of a woman's singing voice as a form of [absolute inherent] nudity. It reinstates the tradition of the Rishonim, that the ban on a woman's voice is functionally motivated and is related to the likelihood of its resulting in illicit sexual activity."