Israel > Save Israel
In Jerusalem, women are voiceless at a decidedly womanly event ????
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 12, 2012, 01:29:28 AM ---Now you are getting personal... What 'set of facts' are you implying?
You know as well as I do that when men and women are together there is flirting going on, whether they are frum or not... It is human nature. I have experienced it...
--- End quote ---
It seems maybe you are thinking of negative scenarios, but this is a health conference and the question we are examining is about WOMEN DOCTOR SPECIALISTS PRESENTING AS PART OF THE CONFERENCE, (OR ON THE OTHER HAND, ONLY MALE DOCTORS PRESENTING), - to a mixed haredi audience (with separate seating for men and women). Whether women professionals also give talks or just men give talks, there is still a haredi audience of men and women. Flirtation (chas veshalom) has nothing to do with any of this. The other tangential issues you brought up about frivolous talk do not have any relation to the question we're considering.
What you now seem to be saying is, men and women will be there, therefore bad things could happen, because some men and women do bad things with each other, therefore women should not speak at the conference? If the sick things you imagine were really going to happen between audience members, then it wouldn't matter if aliens were giving the talks and presentations. Should we also forbid the male doctors from talking because men will be there and women will be there? And should we forbid the poskim from presenting too, because afterall, there are men in the audience and women in the audience, and maybe some guy will flirt across to the women's section to some lady. I mean really, how did you get to this place from this discussion?
Chai:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 12, 2012, 01:33:23 AM ---Yes, wow... But do you take the word of Shmuel HaNavi or do you just disregard it?
--- End quote ---
No but you are taking it out of context, Women talk to their little boys too, there is no sexuality in talking. The first temple didn't even have a mahcitza this was something that was picked up in Bavel. This is exile mentality.
muman613:
Here is a lenient view of Kol Ish from Torah.org.... KWRBT will find this definition to his liking:
http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=185
--- Quote ---Why is a male not allowed to listen to a female singing? Why is talking permitted?
The Talmud states, based on a verse in Shir HaShirim (the Song of Songs, 2:14), that a woman's voice is to be considered Ervah, and should not be listened to except by males she has a close relationship with. This applies only to singing, not to talking. Perhaps this can be understood in the following manner:
Song is the language of the soul. The pleasure derived from song is not a physical pleasure, it is spiritual, like the pleasure derived from art. The pleasure we derive from music and art is a proof that an everlasting soul exists within the physical body.
A person who sings to another is "baring his or her soul"; a relationship is being developed between the singer and the listener. This may be even more true when the singer is female, because female souls are regarded as on a higher level than male souls. It is inappropriate for a woman to "expose" her soul in this manner to a non-related man, just as it is inappropriate for her to expose her body to anyone other than her husband.
This prohibition applies only when the male is attentively listening. If a male is in a room and a female starts singing, he isn't obligated to leave; he should only try to avoid listening attentively, if possible.
--- End quote ---
But I also found something to support my position that a man should not listen to a woman speaking...
http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/vayeira.shtml
--- Quote ---Rabbeinu Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his commentary on Rashi on this Posuk (Ibid. s.v. L'Ish), questions how one is allowed to ask a woman about her husband when the Gemara in Berachos (24a) states, based upon a PoSuk in Shir HaShirim (2:14), that a woman's voice is considered Ervah, sexually enticing, implying that it is improper for a man to listen to a woman speak. He explains that indeed this statement in Rashi (Ibid.) that one should ask a woman about her husband's welfare is incorrect, and appears due to a textual error. The fact that the Midrash (Ibid.) states clearly that the Malachim asked Soroh about Avraham does not imply anything; this was permitted specifically because they were angels, and were thus not subject to human desires and urges. An ordinary man, however, should not listen to a woman speak, according to this view.
The Maharal of Prague, however, in his commentary on this Rashi, (Gur Aryeh Ibid. s.v. She'Af) quotes this same question, but responds quite differently. He says that there really is no question at all, because the statement of the Gemara in Berachos (Ibid.) refers to a case when a man wishes to listen to a woman speak specifically for the sake of deriving pleasure from hearing her voice; only then is it improper to listen to her voice. But simply to hear a woman speak, without any intent to derive pleasure from her voice, was never forbidden. It is thus permissible for any man to speak to a woman and ask her about her husband's well-being, as Rashi (Ibid.) says. The Maharsha, commenting on the above cited Gemara in Bava Metzia (Chiddushei Aggados Bava Metziah Ibid. s.v. Lamdah), likewise writes that the prohibition to hear a woman speaking exists only if there is intent to derive pleasure from her voice, otherwise there is no problem. He then supports this view by citing several examples from Tanach where ordinary men (not angels) spoke with women, implying that there is nothing wrong with doing so. The Chayei Adam (Klal 4 Sif 6) thus rules clearly that the speaking voice of a woman is not considered Ervah, sexually enticing, and is thus not referred to in the above cited Gemara in Berachos (Ibid.). He adds, though, that it is nevertheless forbidden to listen to a woman speak with the intention of getting pleasure from the sound of her voice.
Both the Maharal (Ibid.) and the Maharsha (Ibid.), however, point out, as do others, that there is a Gemara in Kiddushin (70a) which states that one Amora was reluctant to send greetings to the wife of another Amora when the latter asked him to do so, because this would involve hearing her speak, which he felt was forbidden. This source seems to imply that even listening to a woman speak is indeed prohibited. The Maharal (Ibid.) explains, however, that the point of this Gemara is to teach that a man should generally avoid talking with women if there is no real purpose to it, as the first Amora felt was the case in his situation. But if there is a purpose, such as to inquire about her husband's welfare, which is a way of being polite, there is certainly no prohibition to talk to and listen to the speaking voice of a woman. Similarly, the Maharsha (Ibid.) explains that the type of greeting referred to in this Gemara (Ibid.) was an intimate one, and the first Amora thus considered it improper. An intimate conversation with a woman which could lead to inappropriate closeness is indeed forbidden, but an ordinary conversation which is necessary and where one simply hears a woman's speaking voice is permitted.
It should be noted that among the Rishonim, there are authorities which indeed forbid men to listen to even the speaking voice of a woman, but many disagree. The Meiri, commenting on the aforementioned Gemara in Berachos (Beis HaBechirah Ibid. s.v. Tzarich L'Adam), entertains the possibility of this broader prohibition, but seems to conclude that hearing the normal speaking voice of a woman is permitted. The Ra'avad, as cited by the Rashba there in Berachos (Chiddushei HaRashba Ibid. s.v. V'Ha), likewise writes that the prohibition implied by the Gemara in Kiddushin (Ibid.) applies only to warm greetings which generate inappropriate closeness; the ordinary speaking voice of a woman, however, may be listened to. Both of these authorities, however, like many others, clearly prohibit a man from listening to the voice of a woman singing. This may be based, at least in part, on a Gemara in Sotah (48a and see Ibid. Rashi s.v. K'Aish) which forbids men and women to sing together and, even more so, prohibits men from listening to women sing and answering them in song, because this will lead to sexual impropriety.
--- End quote ---
muman613:
You guys are incapable of having a constructive discussion without attempting to be destructive against someone who doesn't share your views. I have given several good sources and explained the reasoning for my opinion.
You both have only attempted to attack my character... This is your style..
You have not changed my opinion...
I will state again my opinion in case you have forgotten:
1) I understand and defend the laws of Kol Isha
2) I also understand the Pikei Avot which forbids 'idle talk' with women, even your wife.
3) I understand the prohibitions which prevent a man from looking lustfully at a woman
4) I understand the reason for separation of the sexes because when boys and girls mix there will be flirting {no matter how frum a person is}.
I am not casting any aspersions on the Puah conference... I am simply offering a reason as to why they have separations of the sexes. It seems some people want to argue for the reason of arguing..
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 12, 2012, 01:33:23 AM ---Yes, wow... But do you take the word of Shmuel HaNavi or do you just disregard it?
--- End quote ---
None of the sages disregarded Shmuel HaNavi's statement, and yet none of them derived a prohibition that you now claim to be deriving from his statement. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version