Quotes
| Is There an Issur of Qol Isha Regarding Tora Reading? |
 |
 |
 |
| Sunday, 27 February 2011 23:39 | ||||||
|
Is There an Issur of Qol Isha Regarding Tora Reading?
Question: Hello rabbi, Is there an issur of kol isha for leining? Answer: 1. In TB M'ghila 23a a B'raytha is quoted that all may be called to read from the Tora, including a minor or a woman. It should be pointed out that the intention was that a person called to the Tora was expected to read himself. At the present time only the Temanim (Yemenite Jews) read from the Tora in the way originally intended. Both S’pharadhim and Ashk’nazim appoint a “reader” who reads for everyone – a most unfortunate practice. But I digress. 2. In the same B’raytha it goes on to say that the Hakhamim taught that a woman should nevertheless not read because of "K'vodh Ssibur". However we understand this statement - the Rishonim do not elucidate this concept - it is clear that we are not dealing with an issur but rather with something to be avoided, and that Qol Isha was not an issue. The t'shuva of MaHaRam of Rottenburg z'l (T’shuvoth Maharam, Mosadh HaRav Kook, Vol. I no. 47, quoted in Mord’khai Gittin 404) in which he recommends that women read from the Tora in a schul where there are only male Kohanim is proof positive of this understanding. (It should be noted that Maharam z’l referred to a case where there is no choice, for not doing so would mean not reading from the Tora altogether. Normally, Maharam z’l did not allow women to read – but not because of Qol Isha.) 3. One might still wonder why Qol Isha is not an issue. To me it seems clear that a woman reading from the Tora in schul is most unlikely to cause even the most red-blooded male to have licentious thoughts. 4. In spite of the above, "K'vodh Ssibur" is still an issue. It seems that Hazal considered it unseemly for a woman to be the centre of attention. One can extrapolate from this to a woman speaking in front of a male or mixed audience. It might be argued that in this regard standards and sensibilities have changed, and this is undoubtedly true. 5. I must admit, however, that I would feel uncomfortable with a woman reading from the Tora, and I suspect that I am not alone. Even if something is in principle mutar, the fact that part of the community feels uncomfortable with it is sufficient reason to refrain from doing it.
Rabbi David Bar-Hayim
|
||||||
| Last Updated on Monday, 28 February 2011 23:36 |
Add comment
No profane language. No flame wars. Posters must be civil in their comments and treatment of each other. Stay on topic. Login to post or use a nickname, Anonymous is not a permitted nickname. All posts are moderated. If you do not meet our requirements your post will not be seen and will be deleted.
To get email notice of additional comments or responses to your comment use your real email address in the form below. Your email will not be revealed to anyone.
To use Wiki, Youtube or other link click the button and enter the unique identifer from the site that points to your item. An example URL would look like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsJGxA5kGWc You only need provide the SsJGxA5kGWc IDENTIFIER in the popup box, not the whole URL.
Cite your sources.
Comments
You state above: 5. I must admit, however, that I would feel uncomfortable with a woman reading from the Tora, and I suspect that I am not alone. Even if something is in principle mutar, the fact that part of the community feels uncomfortable with it is sufficient reason to refrain from doing it.
Rabbi David Bar-Hayim
Now, in fact, doesn't it depend on who the TSIBBUR is. And consider this: what if part of the community is uncomfortable/unhappy that women are not permitted to lein???? Shouldn't we refrain from prohibiting that for which there is not halachic issur, in order to be inclusive????
Thank you.
1. Were שמואל’s statement קול באשה ערוה “his view of the world” rather than an Halakhic position, it would not be recorded in the Talmudh. Were it שמואל’s Halakhic position to which other Amoraim did not subscribe, the Talmudh would have mentioned an opposing view; no such view is recorded.
2. שמואל’s statement also appears in תלמוד ירושלמי חלה ב, ד, and there it is even clearer that this is a statement of Halakha.
3. The fact that the G’onim (הלכות גדולות, מכון ירושלים, עמ' מד) and the Rishonim (המאור, רא"ש יראים, רשב"א, רי"ד, ריא"ז, ריטב"א, ראב"ד, תר"י et al) quote all aspects of the sugya (TB B’rakhoth 24a)- טפח, שוק, שיער וקול - as Halakha confirms the above. Rambam mentions טפח in one context (הל' ק"ש ג, טז), and קול ושיער with specific reference to 'arayoth (הל' איסורי ביאה כא, ב) – a difficult position. (רי"ף omits to mention all of the above – a fact that has never been adequately explained.)
4. קול באשה ערוה refers only to singing – see תר"י (יז, א מדפי הרי"ף), יראים (שצ"ב), ריא"ז, ראב"ד, רשב"א, השלמה et al. The מעשה in TB Qidushin 70a uses the term קול in a borrowed sense and refers to an exchange which leads to endearment as explained by the Rishonim.
5. The only argument one can make in order to deflect this prohibition is to claim that societal standards have changed – an entirely different discussion. The sources do not support what you write.
6. See תר"י and יראים who write that in certain situations the sound of a woman singing may be overlooked.
I agree that the Tosephta’s (M’ghila 3:11, ed. Lieberman p. 356) version of the B’raytha is more authentic, as is almost always the case. In my view, the TB’s version is a restatement of the Tosephta; the additional explanation compliments the Tosephta’s text by providing the underpinning for the Halakha. I believe the two versions are in agreement. I am aware of Rav Lieberman’s interpretation of the Tosephta, but consider it unlikely. My understanding is similar to that of R. Dawidh Fardo in Hasdhe Dawidh, the Minhath Bikurim and R. Ya’aqov Emden in his note to TB M’ghila 23a.
On the subject of כבוד הצבור, the parallel passage in the Tosefta does not have that line at all. It does have another (pretty cryptic) qualification about when you may not call a woman to read. It seems that the Tosefta is the original (as one would expect), and the Babylonian version represents a later tradition of this text, where the cryptic qualification has been rewritten into something easier to interpret. As usual, the Babylonian versions of Tannaitic texts are of inferior quality to that of the Tosefta and the Palestinian Talmud. As such, it would seem that ‘אבל אמרו חכמים’ is not a statement of history but the result of a Babylonian game of Telephone.
RSS feed for comments to this post