JTF.ORG Forum
Israel => Save Israel => Topic started by: Chai on January 10, 2012, 09:53:13 PM
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/in-jerusalem-women-are-voiceless-at-a-decidedly-womanly-event/article2297159/
The controversial exclusion of women from various settings in Israel because of pressure from ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders reached a new level this week with a major conference on gynecological advances that is permitting only males to address the audience.
The conference on “Innovations in Gynecology/Obstetrics and Halacha [Jewish law]” is being held by the Puah Institute this Wednesday in Jerusalem. It will include such topics as “ovary implants,” “how to choose a suitable contraceptive pill” and “intimacy during rocket attacks,” in which there are many qualified female professionals, but none will be permitted to speak, at least not from the podium.
More related to this story
Harassment of young girl deepens Israel’s debate on ultra-Orthodox Jews
A holy racket rages on in Jerusalem
Israeli-Palestinian talks end without breakthrough
Women are allowed in the audience, in a section separate from men.
Several Israeli human rights groups have protested the men-only nature of the conference. While it is considered a private rather than a public forum, and therefore not subject to Israeli policies against discrimination, Puah receives considerable funding from the Health Ministry, these complainants point out.
Such complaints are unlikely to make much of an impression, however. The Health Minister, to whom they are addressed, is actually the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, owing to another sop to the Ultra-Orthodox.
The United Torah Judaism party refused to formally join the coalition cabinet since doing so would signal an acceptance of the Zionist state, something its beliefs preclude. So its representative was given the post of Deputy Health Minister, a non-cabinet position. It is this ultra-Orthodox man who really runs the department, while the PM represents it at the cabinet table.
At least two male Israeli doctors have withdrawn from making presentations at this week’s Puah event once they were made aware of the exclusion of women, or at least once public outrage over the exclusion became apparent.
Puah – ironically named for one of the ancient Hebrew midwives believed to have refused the pharaoh’s order to kill all male babies in Egypt at the time of Moses – has held many other conferences with male-only speakers. But this one comes on the heels of several other incidents in which women, or their images, have been excluded from public places under pressure from ultra-Orthodox leaders and their enforcement squads.
Until two years ago, public buses did not run through such religious neighbourhoods as Mea Sharim, in Jerusalem, and Beit Shemesh outside the city, because of frequent attacks on the buses in which windows were smashed by rocks.
Having been ordered to resume service in all these communities, many buses carry security guards and most adhere to the practice demanded by the rabbinate of seating women only at the back of the bus. Recent attempts to break this practice have resulted in well-reported altercations with male passengers.
As well, pictures of women are not displayed in the posters and ads carried by the bus in these areas, nor are they shown in ads at bus stops in religious communities.
As far as Puah is concerned, it operates on a strictly kosher basis, as required by the ultra-Orthodox rabbinate. While there are women on its board of directors, its public face is strictly male, and the two sexes are not allowed to mix at its events.
To be sure, not all sectors of the ultra-Orthodox community support these exclusionary tactics, explains Nachman Ben-Yehuda, a Hebrew University sociology professor and author of the recently published book Theocratic Democracy. “But most people are too afraid to speak out.”
-
It's really bad in my opinion to limit the free exchange of ideas between medical professionals.
-
It's really bad in my opinion to limit the free exchange of ideas between medical professionals.
It's not a medical professional convention but a conference on “Innovations in Gynecology/Obstetrics and Halacha". And still I think it is very bad that women aren't allowed to speak on the podium. This is not Judaism but bigotry.
-
It's not a medical professional convention but a conference on “Innovations in Gynecology/Obstetrics and Halacha". And still I think it is very bad that women aren't allowed to speak on the podium. This is not Judaism but bigotry.
How does one get around Kol Isha even in a medical conference? This is a tough call...
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/new-hearing-kol-ishah
However, the preceding understanding is in need of careful anaylsis. On three separate occasions in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a, Kidushin 70a, and Sota 48a), statements are made about the sexual (`erva -or peritzuta) nature of a woman's voice. The one which will concern us is the primary one, in Berakhot 24a, where we read,
"Shemuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness ( kol b'isha `erva) as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) 'for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely.'"
This passage occurs during a discussion of reciting Shema in the presence of `erva. One might interpret Shemuel as continuing that discussion, or as beginning a new one about just what is `erva irrespective of Shema. As is apparent from the discussion, a woman's exposed handbreadth (tefah) is forbidden to be seen during Shema, while her little finger (etzba ketana) is forbidden to be gazed upon with sexual intent at all times. Thus, kol ishah must be like either of these two paradigms. There is a range of authorities on either side of this dispute, but the Rambam and Tur-Shulhan Arukh rule that kol ishah is a general prohibition, not linked to Shema. This is thus the practical halakha to be taken for granted in this essay. It is an undeniably clear principle that gazing upon a woman's little finger is prohibited only where there is sexual pleasure, as is shown in Avodah Zara 20a-b. If kol ishah is like a little finger, then the implications are obvious. (Also note that Shemuel says only kol, "voice", with no mention of singing per se.)
-
How does one get around Kol Isha even in a medical conference? This is a tough call...
Kol Isha is about woman singing. No one says women aren't allowed to speak in public. Even the conference itself allows for women from the audience to ask question the male speaker on the podium.
-
Kol Isha is about woman singing. No one says women aren't allowed to speak in public. Even the conference itself allows for women from the audience to ask question the male speaker on the podium.
Technically it is a womans voice which may be considered alluring. In general it refers to singing but the basic idea concerns the voice specifically.
I do not keep this command as well as I should although I do not often listen to women singing...
I do agree that concerning womens health there should be forums for women doctors to speak. I don't know about this conference but some more thought needs to take place to explain why they have no women speakers.
-
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.
-
How does one get around Kol Isha even in a medical conference? This is a tough call...
KOL ISHA? NO ONE SINGS AT MEDICAL CONFERENCES! Kol isha has nothing to do with this.
-
Technically it is a womans voice which may be considered alluring. In general it refers to singing but the basic idea concerns the voice specifically.
The halacha kol isha deals with women singing. Please do not make up new laws.
-
As I stated above the Halacha was determined from Shmuels statement:
"Shemuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness ( kol b'isha `erva) as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) 'for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely.'" (Berachot 24a)
What is the meaning of the word Kol? Is it not 'voice'? Is not the word for Singing Shirah?
I don't want to argue because I know the law concerns singing but also listening to a woman who is not your wife has been frowned on by the sages. See Pirkei Avot...
http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html
Pirkei Avot Chapter 1 Mishna 5
5. Yosi ben Yochanan of Jerusalem said: Let your house be wide open and let the poor be members of thy household; and do not talk much with women. This was said about one's own wife; how much more so about the wife of one's neighbor. Therefore the sages have said: He who talks too much with women brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Torah and will in the end inherit Gehenna.
For commentary see : http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-5b.html
.
.
.
For all of the above reasons, Judaism has always placed paramount importance on the separation of the sexes, in such areas as synagogue service, schooling and general social interaction. This does not stem from a sense of inequality between men and women, and certainly not from any kind of notion that sex and marriage are in any way "sinful". To the contrary, G-d says, "It is not proper for Adam to live alone" (i.e., unmarried) (Genesis 2:18), and the Torah sets this as a precedent for all future generations: "Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife" (2:24).
Rather, knowing the unique quality of the husband-wife relationship, the Rabbis took every precaution that such potential for good and beauty not be compromised. The more we spread ourselves out -- the more we enjoy interaction and good chemistry with other members of the opposite sex -- the less special and unique our relationship will be with our spouses. Thus, our mishna exhorts us: Do not become overly light and frivolous, not with your own wife and certainly not with another man's. We are quite literally dealing with fire: with human passions and with the most delicate and precious of human emotions. And only with the most caring and sensitive nurturing can man and woman, in spite of -- or perhaps because of -- their differences, merge into a sacred and sanctified whole.
-
As I stated above the Halacha was determined from Shmuels statement:
"Shemuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness ( kol b'isha `erva) as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) 'for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely.'" (Berachot 24a
What is the meaning of the word Kol? Is it not 'voice'? Is not the word for Singing Shirah?
I don't want to argue because I know the law concerns singing but also listening to a woman who is not your wife has been frowned on by the sages. See Pirkie Avot...
http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html
For commentary see : http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-5b.html
Muman, if you "know the law concerns singing" then why are you arguing that it doesn't? Why are you disputing that it concerns singing and suggesting that it extends to other things? We go by the Talmudic conclusion and the halacha derived from it which clearly labels a prohibition to hear a woman sing in person based on that statement from Shmuel. There is never any prohibition derived from that discussion on listening to a woman's voice in person. So how you "darshan" Shmuel's linguistics is really not a relevant matter. We are not permitted to make up our own prohibitions. Only the amoraim and saboraim intitiate the gemara, and this process was sealed. Are you trying to create a new Talmud?
What you are citing from Pirkei Avot is a different matter entirely. Either you are confused or.... Well, I think you are confused.
-
To be clear, there is absolutely zero connection between a professional medical conference/presentation and the cited warning in Pirkei Avot.
These things have meaning, but not just any meaning you want to assign to it. The type of frivolous talk the sages frowned upon has nothing to do with an educational event produced by medical and halachic experts! Not to mention, in listening to a speaker, there is not even "talking" going on, it's just listening. The sages in Pirkei Avot are referring to conversation between people (and frivolous in nature). I think that really cannot be clearer.
-
Muman, if you "know the law concerns singing" then why are you arguing that it doesn't? Why are you disputing that it concerns singing and suggesting that it extends to other things? We go by the Talmudic conclusion and the halacha derived from it which clearly labels a prohibition to hear a woman sing in person based on that statement from Shmuel. There is never any prohibition on listening to a woman speak in person. So how you "darshan" Shmuel's linguistics is really not a relevant matter. We are not permitted to make up our own prohibitions. Only the amoraim and saboraim intitiate the gemara, and this process was sealed. Are you trying to create a new Talmud?
What you are citing from Pirkei Avot is a different matter entirely. Either you are confused or.... Well, I think you are confused.
No, you are missing the picture KWRBT...
There are those who keep the 'letter of the law' and there are those who are Chassids, who go beyond the letter of the law.
A Chassid attempts to understand the reasoning behind the Halacha. Indeed a Jew is meritorious for keeping the letter of the law, but the Chassid is attempting to be more than the ordinary. The Haredim, whom you have pointed out this conference was intended for, are keeping more than the letter of the law.
The basic reasoning for discouraging men listening to the voice of women is to prevent impure thoughts. I have been to 'COMDEX" computer shows when I was younger. I went to Las Vegas for these shows and inveritably I would end up listening to women who ended up going out for drinks with our group. Indeed a meeting of young doctors would present many opportunities for men and women to 'kibbitz' and 'schmooz' and go out for drinks, etc.
You are right that the 'law' is concerning listening to women. But you miss the mark when it comes to understanding the reason for the 'law'. As such you are meritorious, in my opinion, but there is more to just doing what the law says... Those who attempt to keep a stricter interpretation should be allowed to...
-
To be clear, there is absolutely zero connection between a professional medical conference/presentation and the cited warning in Pirkei Avot.
These things have meaning, but not just any meaning you want to assign to it. The type of frivolous talk the sages frowned upon has nothing to do with an educational event produced by medical and halachic experts! Not to mention, in listening to a speaker, there is not even "talking" going on, it's just listening. The sages in Pirkei Avot are referring to conversation between people (and frivolous in nature). I think that really cannot be clearer.
Sure that is all they will talk about... But you are entitled to this opinion...
-
Sure that is all they will talk about... But you are entitled to this opinion...
MUMAN! It's a medical presentation. With poskim and doctors speaking to an audience of frum Jews. It's a professional setting given to an audience, in public. What kind of sick thing are you implying here?
People are entitled to their own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts, sir.
-
KWRBT,
You said that this conference was intended for a Charedie audience, did you not?
If so, and they have done this before, it was a matter of custom for them to do it this way.
I believe I have offered a good reason why they may believe that there should be separation of men and women.
I did not profess to know because I am not Charadie and all I know is what I have read so far.
-
MUMAN! It's a medical presentation. With poskim and doctors speaking to an audience of frum Jews. It's a professional setting given to an audience, in public. What kind of sick thing are you implying here?
People are entitled to their own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts, sir.
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...
-
Technically it is a womans voice which may be considered alluring
Wow, Just wow.
I guess I must be gay because when I hear a woman talk the last thing im thinking is wow this is so freakin, hot im gonna record this convo for later.
-
Wow. Just wow.
Yes, wow... But do you take the word of Shmuel HaNavi or do you just disregard it?
-
KWRBT,
You said that this conference was intended for a Charedie audience, did you not?
If so, and they have done this before, it was a matter of custom for them to do it this way.
I believe I have offered a good reason why they may believe that there should be separation of men and women.
I did not profess to know because I am not Charadie and all I know is what I have read so far.
You made up prohibitions that don't exist, and you made disgusting slanderous connotations about what will go on at this conference. (how dare you claim that frivolous conversation between men and woman would be promoted by Puah?) None of that explains the point of view of anyone, and in fact it only manages to disparage all parties involved.
-
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...
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?
-
Yes, wow... But do you take the word of Shmuel HaNavi or do you just disregard it?
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.
-
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
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.
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
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.
-
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..
-
Yes, wow... But do you take the word of Shmuel HaNavi or do you just disregard it?
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 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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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..
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
We will see what reasons come out from the conference...
Will you be attending?
-
Not many Jews keep Rabbi Kahanes Oral laws...
huh?
-
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..
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
?
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.
-
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.
-
My previous post has nothing to do with the conference... It is just advice for guys...
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.