In Jerusalem, women are voiceless at a decidedly womanly event ????

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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..

Your sources were not good for the points you were trying to make.  Which is why I attacked your reasoning, not you.

[Chai]

Yea but its taken out of context. However if you have a real sexual addiction problem these "suggestions at best" may help you as in individual not as a community. It reflects poorly on the males self control within it. Its very insulting to males as well. Men are not animals, we were made in the image of G-d.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Here is a lenient view of Kol Ish from Torah.org.... KWRBT will find this definition to his liking:

Find it to my liking?  How so?

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

Actually, this goes against you.  See here

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.

[/b]

[Chai]

Find it to my liking?  How so?


Actually, this goes against you.  See here  [/b]

Yea I saw this too I don't get it.

I mean I get it but I don't see why people that do not share my views come up with these things.

[muman613]

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?

You did not read that there are Rishonim who have forbidden listening to a womans speaking voice... But that is Ok... What else is new..

[muman613]

Yea but its taken out of context. However if you have a real sexual addiction problem these "suggestions at best" may help you as in individual not as a community. It reflects poorly on the males self control within it. Its very insulting to males as well. Men are not animals, we were made in the image of G-d.

Explain the laws of Yichud then?

[Chai]

You did not read that there are Rishonim who have forbidden listening to a womans speaking voice... But that is Ok... What else is new..

Rabbi Kahane thought its ok to listen to a woman's voice , that's good enough for me.

[muman613]

Once again what I posted clearly says that there are some opinions that listening to a womans speaking voice is prohibited.

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.

Let us not argue about this any longer...

We will see what reasons come out from the conference... I have said all along I am just speculating based on my understanding...

[muman613]

Rabbi Kahane thought its ok to listen to a woman's voice , that's good enough for me.

Not many Jews keep Rabbi Kahanes Oral laws...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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}.

The problem is when none of these have any relation to the Puah conference which is what this thread is about.

The question is:  Should women professionals give talks to the audience at the event, or should only male doctors present to the audience?
1. is not related and I NEVER DISPUTED THE LAWS OF KOL ISHA.
2. is not related because no one is ever in control of what individuals do in their spare time or what kind of stupid sinning they get themselves caught up in.   The seating is SEPARATE seating by gender, so this issue is not even tangentially related.   Puah is going out of its way to make sure this is a cultural environment that haredim are used to so that they can benefit from the conference.
3. is not related because men are always forbidden to lust over women, and no one can control what individual men do, and women cannot be hidden in cardboard boxes to prevent men from sinning.    A man could just as easily lust over a woman in the crowd as much as a woman giving a talk, so this clearly has no relevance to the question of should women professionals/experts give a speech or not.    You could say women should not do anything in society or anything outside of the kitchen because a man might lust over her, but that is truly a warped way of thinking.   Men need to get themselves under control and do what God says.
4. I NEVER DISPUTED SEPARATION OF SEXES    I don't think anyone here did.    Nonetheless, there is no "mixing of boys and girls" at the Puah conference, so that is again something not related to the question at hand.


So I hope that clarifies, you were disputing a lot of straw men but very few things I actually said or believe.  And very few things related to the actual subject matter of this thread.

[Chai]

Once again what I posted clearly says that there are some opinions that listening to a womans speaking voice is prohibited.

Let us not argue about this any longer...

We will see what reasons come out from the conference... I have said all along I am just speculating based on my understanding...

Ok, I think something like this is not halacha. But I wont argue it. Ps you knew what I meant by "if its ok for Rav Kahane". I don't think he wold be lenient on a halacla like that if he didn't think it was rubbish.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

We will see what reasons come out from the conference...

Will you be attending?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Not many Jews keep Rabbi Kahanes Oral laws...

huh?

[muman613]

Ok, I think something like this is not halacha. But I wont argue it. Ps you knew what I meant by "if its ok for Rav Kahane". I don't think he wold be lenient on a halacla like that if he didn't think it was rubbish.

Of course... I fully respect whatever Rabbi Kahanes interpretation of Halacha is... I greatly admire the Rabbi..

[muman613]

huh?

Again I was trying a little humor... But apparently not at the right time... I was just saying that Rabbi Kahanes Torah is not being kept at this time... I would be interested in any insight on what he thought about the issue of separation...

[muman613]

Will you be attending?

No... If I were in Israel I would just to find out what their opinion of this attention is... But I am stuck out in California with a ton of work to do, no time to travel...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Btw, there are probably zero men in the entire world who have never heard a woman speak or never spoken with a woman other than their wife or daughter.   So how can anyone actually claim that that is one opinion which is followed.  I have yet to see even one person on earth who really follows that opinion.   Certainly not the crowd of haredim who will be attending this event.

It is my interpretation that it is simply a cultural stringency adopted by many haredim and many haredi societies/communities that women do not generally give talks publicly to mixed audiences, and men do not attend events with women speakers.    That is what underlies this whole issue.   A stringency within modesty, which has become common practice and a cultural norm amongst haredim in society.  Not some obscure "man d'amar" or "hava ameena" within halacha that suddenly everyone claims to follow which no one actually follows and no poskim really rule in favor of.

for what it's worth...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Again I was trying a little humor... But apparently not at the right time... I was just saying that Rabbi Kahanes Torah is not being kept at this time... I would be interested in any insight on what he thought about the issue of separation...

?
But many people went to him for rulings and followed his psakim, and still do follow rulings of his to this day.

[muman613]

?
But many people went to him for rulings and followed his psakim, and still do follow rulings of his to this day.

Yes, this is true but I am talking about a majority of Jews... Do you think Kahanists are a significant portion of the Jewish population... Believe me I try to spread the word of Rabbi Kahane to everyone. Just last Shabbat I had a few moments alone with my Rabbi when I discussed Rabbi Kahane with him. My Rabbi {who is a Chabad rabbi} had only good words for Rabbi Kahane.

[muman613]

Btw, there are probably zero men in the entire world who have never heard a woman speak or never spoken with a woman other than their wife or daughter.   So how can anyone actually claim that that is one opinion which is followed.  I have yet to see even one person on earth who really follows that opinion.   Certainly not the crowd of haredim who will be attending this event.

It is my interpretation that it is simply a cultural stringency adopted by many haredim and many haredi societies/communities that women do not generally give talks publicly to mixed audiences, and men do not attend events with women speakers.    That is what underlies this whole issue.   A stringency within modesty, which has become common practice and a cultural norm amongst haredim in society.  Not some obscure "man d'amar" or "hava ameena" within halacha that suddenly everyone claims to follow which no one actually follows and no poskim really rule in favor of.

for what it's worth...

I agree that I don't expect everyone to try to keep these. I don't intend to try to force it on anyone. My point is that if this is their way and nobody except the media have a problem with it, then I say let it be.

The best advice comes from our Shema in the Third Paragraph:

And G-d said to Moses saying: Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them that they are to make themselves tzitzit on the corners of their garments, throughout their generations. And they are to place upon the tzitzit of each corner a thread of blue (techelet). And it shall constitute tzitzit for you, that you may see it and remember all the mitzvot of G-d and perform them; and not explore after your heart and after your eyes after which you stray. So that you may remember and perform all My mitzvot; and be holy to your G-d. I am G-d, your G-d, Who has removed you from the land of Egypt to be a G-d to you. I am G-d your G-d... it is true

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2008/parsha/rwil_shlach.html

"'You shall guard yourself (vnishmarta) against any evil thought' (Devarim 23:10). A man may not gaze upon a beautiful woman even if she is unmarried" (Avoda Zara 20a).

Why isn't the violation of "v'lo sasuru - you shall not stray" mentioned here? The Smak (30) answers that "v'lo sasuru" applies only when one stares for the purpose of an immoral act. If one enjoys the beauty of a woman, but has no intention to commit an immoral act, he violates "vnishmarta". This distinction is reached independently by the Igros Moshe (Even Hoezer 1:69)[3]. However, the Mishna Berura (75:7) states that staring at a woman to enjoy her beauty is a violation of "v'lo sasuru". Perhaps this is the Rambam's position as well (see Sefer Hamitzvos, Lo Saaseh 47), that one who is pulled after physical lusts and a preoccupation with them violates v'lo sasuru, even if no sinful act is contemplated.

III

"If women are not properly dressed near a river, one who has an alternate route but chooses the river route is termed a rasha. If there is no alternative, he must force himself to avert his gaze"(Bava Basra 57a).

This passage has tremendous relevance nowadays, especially in the summer months. Men must avoid, if possible, walking in places where women are not dressed properly. When a man must walk in such a place to reach his destination, every effort must be made to avoid focusing on forbidden sights. Unfortunately, in most workplaces this vigilance must be maintained all day. (This vigilance includes avoiding prohibited internet sites.)

It is important to note that women are also included in the prohibition of v'lo sasuru if they gaze upon men with the intention to sin (Igros Moshe, ibid.). In addition, women may not wear clothing that reveals their upper arms or thighs (Mishna Berura 75:2), and certainly not any part of their torsos. The ubiquitousness of low-cut garments does not permit one to wear them. Tight-fitting clothing, which accentuates a woman's figure inappropriately, is strictly prohibited (see Az nidberu by Rav Binyomin Zilber). These laws reflect the requirement of tznius (modesty), as well as the interdiction of placing a michshol (stumbling block) in the path of men. In choosing their wardrobe, women must summon the strength to be discerning, and not to slavishly follow current fashion.

Other methods of arousing the male sexual desire are also forbidden, and can produce disastrous results. The Gemara (Yoma 9b) relates that women would entice young men by releasing perfume in their presence. This was a cause of the churban Beis Hamikdash. Even excess conversation, which can lead to levity, can be disastrous (see Avos 1:5).

In sum, both men and women must focus on resisting these behaviors, so typical of general society, and must govern their thoughts, sights, words/conversations, wardrobes, and deeds according to Torah law.

"If one sees a provocative sight (dvar erva) and does not allow his eyes to enjoy it, he merits to see the Shechina, as it is written, (Yeshaya 33:15 - 17) 'One who shuts his eyes from seeing evil shall dwell in heights and see the King in His splendor'" (Derech Eretz Rabba, 1). If we control ourselves, and do not stray after our hearts and eyes, we will be rewarded for keeping this difficult, yet critical, mitzva.

[muman613]

My previous post has nothing to do with the conference... It is just advice for guys...

[Zelhar]

I think if they are going to invite secular doctors as experts they shouldn't restrict it to male speaksers only since there is simply no way a secular could understand what the hell is their problem (and they do have a problem).

[Masha]

From the point of view of political freedom, I would say that if this is a private conference, they should have a right to do what they want. On the other hand, women-professionals should also have a right to disassociate themselves from an organization that does not allow them to speak. To me this is more of a freedom of association question than a religious question.

[Rubystars]

Lol this is ridiculous. Another media slander and framejob.

Puah has conferences all the time and women professionals speak at them.  There is one yearly conference given to a haredi crowd (its to a man and woman audience covering male and female health topics and halacha) and out of sensitivity to the audience, they have only male speakers so that more people will attend.  Many haredim would not go to a woman's presentation because of MODESTY issues, not because they think women can't be experts or some other feminist lie.  I am not one of those people who would not attend but I understand those who would not.  Obviously Puah wants to have the biggest possible audience and make sure men are informed without modesty issues preventing them from learning about important issues.

This is a secular attack on haredim.

Thanks for explaining the issue I understand it a lot better now than when I read the original post.