Tradition 46:1 Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein presents an Halakhic analysis as to why there is room and perhaps an obligation to be lenient is certain aspects of female singing in the Jewish community. Here are some of the sources and comments I gleaned from his article
Three 'Sugyas'
1. Sotah 48a (Not about a woman's voice but the place of 'song' in our world).
Mishna Sotah 9:11
When the Sanhedrin [highest court, charged with deciding cases and appeals that had national significance. It was comprised of 71 scholars who had received the full traditional rabbinical ordination, and its decisions fixed Jewish practice for subsequent generations.] ceased, song ceased from the places of feasting, as it is said, “They drink their wine without song” (Isaiah 24:9)
Talmud 48a
Rav Huna said: the song of sailors and farmers is permitted, [and the song] of the weavers [which, according to Rashi, is only for laughter] is forbidden… Rav Yosef said: men singing with women answering [constitutes] immodesty; women singing with men answering is like [setting] fi re to sawdust. What is the practical distinction [between the two]? The abolishment of the [latter] should precede the [former]. Rav Yohanan said: Anyone who drinks accompanied by four musical instruments – brings upon the world five punishments, as it is written (Isaiah 5:11): ‘Woe to those who rise early in the morning, pursuers of strong drinks, who stay up late into the night; wine will inflame them, and it will be that the fiddle and the harp, the drum and the pipe, and wine at their parties, and they will not behold the actions of God’…
1. Sotah 48a (Not about a woman's voice but the place of 'song' in our world).
Mishna Sotah 9:11
When the Sanhedrin [highest court, charged with deciding cases and appeals that had national significance. It was comprised of 71 scholars who had received the full traditional rabbinical ordination, and its decisions fixed Jewish practice for subsequent generations.] ceased, song ceased from the places of feasting, as it is said, “They drink their wine without song” (Isaiah 24:9)
Talmud 48a
Rav Huna said: the song of sailors and farmers is permitted, [and the song] of the weavers [which, according to Rashi, is only for laughter] is forbidden… Rav Yosef said: men singing with women answering [constitutes] immodesty; women singing with men answering is like [setting] fi re to sawdust. What is the practical distinction [between the two]? The abolishment of the [latter] should precede the [former]. Rav Yohanan said: Anyone who drinks accompanied by four musical instruments – brings upon the world five punishments, as it is written (Isaiah 5:11): ‘Woe to those who rise early in the morning, pursuers of strong drinks, who stay up late into the night; wine will inflame them, and it will be that the fiddle and the harp, the drum and the pipe, and wine at their parties, and they will not behold the actions of God’…
2. Berakhot 24a (Concerning Kriyat Shma)
R. Yitshak said: An [exposed] handbreadth (tefah) of a woman is erva. With regard to what? If in regard to looking, did R. Sheshet not say: Anyone who gazes even at a woman’s little fi nger, is considered as if he gazes at her private parts? Rather, regarding one’s wife and reciting the Shema. R. Hisda said: A woman’s leg (shok) is erva, as it states (Isaiah 47:2), ‘Reveal your leg (shok), pass over rivers,’ and it is also written (ibid., v. 3), ‘Your erva will be uncovered and also your shame will be revealed.’ Shmuel said: A woman’s voice is erva, as it is written (Song of Songs 2:14), ‘since your voice is pleasant and your appearance is attractive.’ R. Sheshet said: A woman’s hair is erva, as it is written (4:1), ‘Your hair resembles a herd of goats.’
R. Yitshak said: An [exposed] handbreadth (tefah) of a woman is erva. With regard to what? If in regard to looking, did R. Sheshet not say: Anyone who gazes even at a woman’s little fi nger, is considered as if he gazes at her private parts? Rather, regarding one’s wife and reciting the Shema. R. Hisda said: A woman’s leg (shok) is erva, as it states (Isaiah 47:2), ‘Reveal your leg (shok), pass over rivers,’ and it is also written (ibid., v. 3), ‘Your erva will be uncovered and also your shame will be revealed.’ Shmuel said: A woman’s voice is erva, as it is written (Song of Songs 2:14), ‘since your voice is pleasant and your appearance is attractive.’ R. Sheshet said: A woman’s hair is erva, as it is written (4:1), ‘Your hair resembles a herd of goats.’
A debate amongst Rishonim (medieval rabbinic scholars) ensued concerning whether this law applied only when reciting kriyat Shma or at all times.
3. Kiddushin 70a (Kol Isha in general)
"Can you send regards to my wife Yalta? He responded, this is what Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is 'erva' (nakedness).
"Can you send regards to my wife Yalta? He responded, this is what Shmuel said: The voice of a woman is 'erva' (nakedness).
Gemara does not address crucial question: What kind of voice? Any voice? Or a voice which elicits feelings of intimacy?
3A Position of Rashba (and Meiri) that hearing a voice is prohibited only when leading to feelings of intimacy
Rashba (Berakhot 24a) distinguishes between different situations of hearing a voice and rules that the passage indeed forbids speech, but only speech that can lead to feelings of intimacy, and his words are indeed compelling. The Meiri (Berakhot, ad loc.) writes similarly on this matter.
Rashba (Berakhot 24a) distinguishes between different situations of hearing a voice and rules that the passage indeed forbids speech, but only speech that can lead to feelings of intimacy, and his words are indeed compelling. The Meiri (Berakhot, ad loc.) writes similarly on this matter.
3B Support from Rambam in Issurei Biah (Prohibited related to Sexual laws) 21:1-2
Anyone cohabiting with one of the arayot by way of the limbs, or if he hugs and kisses in a lustful manner and benefi ts from the proximity of skin – he is subject to lashes from the Torah, as it states (Leviticus 18:30): ‘to avoid acting in the abominable customs’ and so forth. And it states (ibid., v. 6): ‘do not come close to uncover [their] nakedness’ – namely, do not come close to the things that lead to the uncovering of nakedness… And it is forbidden for a person to signal with his hands or feet or to wink with his eyes at one of the arayot, or to laugh with her or act frivolously, and even to smell the perfume that is upon her or to look at her beauty - is forbidden. And we strike one who intends to do these things with [rabbinic] lashes of rebellion. And one who looks even at the little finger of a woman and intends to derive benefit, is as if he gazes at her private parts. And even to hear the voice of an erva or to see her hair is forbidden.”
Anyone cohabiting with one of the arayot by way of the limbs, or if he hugs and kisses in a lustful manner and benefi ts from the proximity of skin – he is subject to lashes from the Torah, as it states (Leviticus 18:30): ‘to avoid acting in the abominable customs’ and so forth. And it states (ibid., v. 6): ‘do not come close to uncover [their] nakedness’ – namely, do not come close to the things that lead to the uncovering of nakedness… And it is forbidden for a person to signal with his hands or feet or to wink with his eyes at one of the arayot, or to laugh with her or act frivolously, and even to smell the perfume that is upon her or to look at her beauty - is forbidden. And we strike one who intends to do these things with [rabbinic] lashes of rebellion. And one who looks even at the little finger of a woman and intends to derive benefit, is as if he gazes at her private parts. And even to hear the voice of an erva or to see her hair is forbidden.”
3C Support from Raaviah (Prohibition does not apply to a 'recognized voice')
Ra’aviah (Berakhot, 76) “And I say that the reason [for the prohibition] is that, even though the voice is not perceived by the eye, it nevertheless causes sexual thoughts. And all of the things [mentioned above relating] to erva specifically apply to what is not normally revealed, but [regarding] a maiden who normally reveals her hair – we are not concerned, since it lacks [the causing of] sexual thoughts, and so too regarding her voice [to one who is accustomed to it].
Ra’aviah (Berakhot, 76) “And I say that the reason [for the prohibition] is that, even though the voice is not perceived by the eye, it nevertheless causes sexual thoughts. And all of the things [mentioned above relating] to erva specifically apply to what is not normally revealed, but [regarding] a maiden who normally reveals her hair – we are not concerned, since it lacks [the causing of] sexual thoughts, and so too regarding her voice [to one who is accustomed to it].
Summary from Rav Moshe:
In summary, Rambam, Rashba and Ra’aviah – the major Rishonim who dealt with this topic, are all of the opinion that not all voices are prohibited and that there is no decree forbidding a woman’s voice as such. Moreover, they take the position that we should distinguish between a voice associated with pleasure, feelings of intimacy, and concern for resulting sexual thoughts, on the one hand, and a voice which neither comes close to sin nor invites sexual thoughts, on the other.
4. Halakhic Applications
Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 21:1
A person must distance himself from women very, very much. And it is forbidden to signal with his hands or feet and wink with his eyes at one of the arayot… and it is forbidden to hear the voice of one of the arayot or to see her hair. And one who intends to [transgress] one of these things – we strike him with [rabbinic] lashes of rebellion. And these things are also forbidden with regard to [women who are not classified as arayot but are nevertheless] forbidden from a negative [biblical] commandment.
Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 21:1
A person must distance himself from women very, very much. And it is forbidden to signal with his hands or feet and wink with his eyes at one of the arayot… and it is forbidden to hear the voice of one of the arayot or to see her hair. And one who intends to [transgress] one of these things – we strike him with [rabbinic] lashes of rebellion. And these things are also forbidden with regard to [women who are not classified as arayot but are nevertheless] forbidden from a negative [biblical] commandment.
5a. Divrei Hefets Rav Aharon Toledo Salonika 1798 (quoted by Sde Chemed)
Sedei Hemed states that while most posekim forbid it, the author of Divrei Hefets permits it “so long as it is not a voice of lust-provoking songs and the listener does not intend to derive pleasure from her voice” and “there is no issue so long as he does not intend to derive pleasure from her voice.”
Conclusion of Sde Chemed: “One who sees [Divrei Hefets’] words… will rightfully deem them cogent. And even though it is surely correct to act stringently not in accordance with the aforementioned words of Divrei Hefets, in any case [they] are not, Heaven forbid, classified as inscrutable words.”
Sedei Hemed states that while most posekim forbid it, the author of Divrei Hefets permits it “so long as it is not a voice of lust-provoking songs and the listener does not intend to derive pleasure from her voice” and “there is no issue so long as he does not intend to derive pleasure from her voice.”
Conclusion of Sde Chemed: “One who sees [Divrei Hefets’] words… will rightfully deem them cogent. And even though it is surely correct to act stringently not in accordance with the aforementioned words of Divrei Hefets, in any case [they] are not, Heaven forbid, classified as inscrutable words.”
But it is clear that this position is a minority one in a sea of rabbinic authorities who are strict. What to do?
5b. Summary of the position of Rav Yechiel Yakov Weinberg (Seridei Esh 2:8) by Rav Chaim Jachter
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.
Rav Weinberg writes that he does not find this explanation satisfying (perhaps because the Gemara (Sotah 48a) writes that men and women singing together is a major impropriety). Rav Weinberg instead defends the German Jewish practice by citing the Sdei Chemed (Klalim, Maarechet Hakuf, 42) who quotes the Divrei Cheifetz who asserts that the Kol Isha prohibition does not apply to women singing Zemirot, singing songs to children, and lamentations for the dead. This authority explains that in these contexts men do not derive pleasure from the woman’s voice. In fact, the Pasuk (Shoftim 5:1) records that Devora the prophetess sang a song of praise to Hashem together with Barak the son of Avinoam. According to the simple reading of the text, Devora was married to Lapidot and not Barak. The Sdei Chemed writes that he believes that it is proper to be strict and not follow the approach of the Divrei Cheifetz, but he regards the lenient opinion as a viable approach.
Rav Weinberg writes that we should not pressure women who wish to follow the traditional practice to join Zemirot in a mixed group. Indeed, many Poskim oppose this practice of German Jewry (see Otzar Haposkim E.H. 21:1:20:3). However, some cite the Gemara (Megila 23a) that states that women are forbidden to receive an Aliyah to the Torah because of Kavod Hatzibbur as proof to the German practice. They argue that the fact that the Gemara does not mention Kol Isha as the reason to forbid women’s Aliyot proves that the Kol Isha restriction does not apply when a woman sings sacred texts. Others reply that the Gemara might be speaking of a woman reading the Torah to her immediate family members or may be speaking of a female child reading the Torah (see comments of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, and Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv cited in Nishmat Avraham 5:76-77). These suggestions might also explain the Gemara (Berachot 57b and Rashi s.v. Kol) that states that hearing a woman’s voice is a soothing experience
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.
Rav Weinberg writes that he does not find this explanation satisfying (perhaps because the Gemara (Sotah 48a) writes that men and women singing together is a major impropriety). Rav Weinberg instead defends the German Jewish practice by citing the Sdei Chemed (Klalim, Maarechet Hakuf, 42) who quotes the Divrei Cheifetz who asserts that the Kol Isha prohibition does not apply to women singing Zemirot, singing songs to children, and lamentations for the dead. This authority explains that in these contexts men do not derive pleasure from the woman’s voice. In fact, the Pasuk (Shoftim 5:1) records that Devora the prophetess sang a song of praise to Hashem together with Barak the son of Avinoam. According to the simple reading of the text, Devora was married to Lapidot and not Barak. The Sdei Chemed writes that he believes that it is proper to be strict and not follow the approach of the Divrei Cheifetz, but he regards the lenient opinion as a viable approach.
Rav Weinberg writes that we should not pressure women who wish to follow the traditional practice to join Zemirot in a mixed group. Indeed, many Poskim oppose this practice of German Jewry (see Otzar Haposkim E.H. 21:1:20:3). However, some cite the Gemara (Megila 23a) that states that women are forbidden to receive an Aliyah to the Torah because of Kavod Hatzibbur as proof to the German practice. They argue that the fact that the Gemara does not mention Kol Isha as the reason to forbid women’s Aliyot proves that the Kol Isha restriction does not apply when a woman sings sacred texts. Others reply that the Gemara might be speaking of a woman reading the Torah to her immediate family members or may be speaking of a female child reading the Torah (see comments of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, and Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv cited in Nishmat Avraham 5:76-77). These suggestions might also explain the Gemara (Berachot 57b and Rashi s.v. Kol) that states that hearing a woman’s voice is a soothing experience
6. 'Changing Sociological Realities' Rav Moshe presents two reasons to consider the lenient position in modern times
First, in a generation worthy of women who wish to actively participate in giving praise and thanks to God at the Shabbat table, the Passover Seder and in many other settings, and in an era when women personally express themselves in all general areas of life, it is highly obligatory to enable them to express themselves in religious contexts as well. Inasmuch as it is possible to encourage the inclusion of women in the service of God in the context of legitimate halakhic pesak, it is both our privilege and duty to do so. The order of the day is pesak confining the prohibition of kol isha when we are dealing with the inclusion of women in religious contexts.
Secondly, the question of women’s song is forcefully distancing entire communities that are living in a culture where the concept of “kol be-isha erva” is both foreign and strange and where women’s song is an everyday phenomenon. They are not capable of understanding halakhic and cultural norms that crystallized within a different social reality, and they do not understand why Halakhah restricts the expression of women. Stringent pesak in this matter causes the alienation of these communities from the entire halakhic system, since for them the question of women’s song is just one example that refl ects upon the whole. A policy of stringent pesak desiring to satisfy all halakhic opinions is liable to harm rather than help.
First, in a generation worthy of women who wish to actively participate in giving praise and thanks to God at the Shabbat table, the Passover Seder and in many other settings, and in an era when women personally express themselves in all general areas of life, it is highly obligatory to enable them to express themselves in religious contexts as well. Inasmuch as it is possible to encourage the inclusion of women in the service of God in the context of legitimate halakhic pesak, it is both our privilege and duty to do so. The order of the day is pesak confining the prohibition of kol isha when we are dealing with the inclusion of women in religious contexts.
Secondly, the question of women’s song is forcefully distancing entire communities that are living in a culture where the concept of “kol be-isha erva” is both foreign and strange and where women’s song is an everyday phenomenon. They are not capable of understanding halakhic and cultural norms that crystallized within a different social reality, and they do not understand why Halakhah restricts the expression of women. Stringent pesak in this matter causes the alienation of these communities from the entire halakhic system, since for them the question of women’s song is just one example that refl ects upon the whole. A policy of stringent pesak desiring to satisfy all halakhic opinions is liable to harm rather than help.
This lenient position should not be classified as an 'et laasot laHashem' where one in extreme circumstances may uproot Halakha for the sake of a higher purpose; rather it is to be understood in the context of 'sheat hadechak' which is based on the needs of the time which includes the ability to rule leniently in cases of pain, loss, sickness, compromised oneg Shabbat, compromised conjugal onah rights, compromised domestic peace, and a host of other examples familiar to any posek.
7. Philosophical Underpinnings
Chagiga 16a Duality of Human Existence
Six things are said concerning human beings; three [describe them] like the ministering angels, three [describe them] like animals. Three [describe them] like the ministering angels – they have knowledge like the ministering angels, and they walk upright like the ministering angels, and they speak in the holy tongue like the ministering angels. Three [describe them] like animals – they eat and drink like animals, they procreate like animals, and they defecate like animals.
Rav Moshe
"What is stated about human existence in general is also true regarding the relationship between man and woman. On the one hand, a biological relationship exists between male and female as creatures of nature, including instinctive physical intimacy, sexual desire, and the drive to conquer and suppress, to engender and procreate. With that, a spiritual and emotional relationship exists between man and woman, one that is unique to the human race. Deep love, the sharing of fate and destiny, mutual responsibility, and joint dreams characterize the relations between a couple and coronate the union with the crown of sanctity.
Halakhah regulates the relationship between man and woman, and it strives to transform it from a natural-biological relationship into one of love and human intimacy. This goal is achieved by channeling physical relations into the framework of marriage and by limiting contact between the sexes not in the context of marriage. One of these limitations is the prohibition of hearing a woman’s voice.
The halakhic significance of this is that the extension of the prohibition of kol isha, on the basis of concern for sexual thoughts, to a context where it is not justified to do so, is not just unhelpful – it is harmful. It brings about an emphasis on natural existence, and paints the human condition as one of sexual existence alone.
In this sense, out of place stringency in the laws of kol isha, based on far reaching concern for sexual thoughts, is not an ordinary halakhic stringency and enhancement but rather a leniency and disparagement regarding the nature of man. Therefore, we should rule stringently only where necessary and we should not favor a policy of stringent pesak.
Chagiga 16a Duality of Human Existence
Six things are said concerning human beings; three [describe them] like the ministering angels, three [describe them] like animals. Three [describe them] like the ministering angels – they have knowledge like the ministering angels, and they walk upright like the ministering angels, and they speak in the holy tongue like the ministering angels. Three [describe them] like animals – they eat and drink like animals, they procreate like animals, and they defecate like animals.
Rav Moshe
"What is stated about human existence in general is also true regarding the relationship between man and woman. On the one hand, a biological relationship exists between male and female as creatures of nature, including instinctive physical intimacy, sexual desire, and the drive to conquer and suppress, to engender and procreate. With that, a spiritual and emotional relationship exists between man and woman, one that is unique to the human race. Deep love, the sharing of fate and destiny, mutual responsibility, and joint dreams characterize the relations between a couple and coronate the union with the crown of sanctity.
Halakhah regulates the relationship between man and woman, and it strives to transform it from a natural-biological relationship into one of love and human intimacy. This goal is achieved by channeling physical relations into the framework of marriage and by limiting contact between the sexes not in the context of marriage. One of these limitations is the prohibition of hearing a woman’s voice.
The halakhic significance of this is that the extension of the prohibition of kol isha, on the basis of concern for sexual thoughts, to a context where it is not justified to do so, is not just unhelpful – it is harmful. It brings about an emphasis on natural existence, and paints the human condition as one of sexual existence alone.
In this sense, out of place stringency in the laws of kol isha, based on far reaching concern for sexual thoughts, is not an ordinary halakhic stringency and enhancement but rather a leniency and disparagement regarding the nature of man. Therefore, we should rule stringently only where necessary and we should not favor a policy of stringent pesak.
Conclusion of Rav Moshe
Under circumstances in which the song does not arouse sexual desire, does not emphasize femininity in a sensual manner, and the listener estimates that he will not come to have sexual thoughts – we should not forbid listening to a woman’s voice, whether in speech or in song. This conclusion not only relies upon the explicit stance of the greatest of the Rishonim – Rambam, Rashba and Ra’aviah; it appears in the literature of the Aharonim as a recognized opinion, and it has been applied in our generation by an eminent posek. This opinion takes into account the present societal reality together with its needs and constraints, while at the same time rules stringently regarding the obligation to preserve man’s dignity and embolden his image as a spiritual creature who is not controlled by biological drives alone.
In terms of day-to-day life, this means that we may permit women’s singing of Shabbat zemirot, participation in official ceremonies of a serious and formal nature, listening to random radio commercials, and the like. It is both possible and appropriate within the framework of Halakhah to permit these scenarios, and one who does so rules faithfully and legitimately.
Under circumstances in which the song does not arouse sexual desire, does not emphasize femininity in a sensual manner, and the listener estimates that he will not come to have sexual thoughts – we should not forbid listening to a woman’s voice, whether in speech or in song. This conclusion not only relies upon the explicit stance of the greatest of the Rishonim – Rambam, Rashba and Ra’aviah; it appears in the literature of the Aharonim as a recognized opinion, and it has been applied in our generation by an eminent posek. This opinion takes into account the present societal reality together with its needs and constraints, while at the same time rules stringently regarding the obligation to preserve man’s dignity and embolden his image as a spiritual creature who is not controlled by biological drives alone.
In terms of day-to-day life, this means that we may permit women’s singing of Shabbat zemirot, participation in official ceremonies of a serious and formal nature, listening to random radio commercials, and the like. It is both possible and appropriate within the framework of Halakhah to permit these scenarios, and one who does so rules faithfully and legitimately.