Kol Isha: A Woman's Perspective

At the Orot College of Education (where I work in the admissions office and also teach), I teach a class on Halachah called, "Hanichnas Lapeh v'Hayotzei Mimenu", meaning, "What Goes into the Mouth and What Comes Out of It" - giving me free reign to teach kashrut, laws of prohibited speech - it's a pretty wide range of topics. When the controversy surrounding The Voice erupted, I decided to study the issue with my students.

The classes, given over two weeks, were volatile and invigorating. Orot students are, by and large, Religious Zionists (that's why they study here), but they also represent a broad spectrum within the RZ community.

None, to a person, agreed with the choice to perform on The Voice. But while some couldn't understand why performed in violation of halachah, others expressed a sense of identification with a lack of venue which would allow her to express her God-given talent.

In response to my first post on this issue, I share (with permission) the following email from Sarah Maslowe (formerly of Silver Spring, now of Jerusalem!)

When I was 16 yrs old, a millennium ago, I was very confused about the kol isha issue.  I had an especially beautiful voice & loved singing.  I went from Rav to Rav to get an understanding why I could not sing on stage or in front of any man.  I never got an answer, why G-d created me with a beautiful voice, but I couldn't use it.  The best I got was that I will be able to use it to sing to my children (who only enjoyed it when they were little.  Teenagers have no interest in it.:-)).  Of course that answer made me angry!  When I was 17 I had the opportunity to perform with a semi professional group.  I made the decision to go against that prohibition.  At the end of the program, I was very depressed because I saw that if I were to continue to perform, my shmirat Shabbat was going to be compromised.  

There is no greater thrill to sing well to a large adoring audience.  Of course, I made the right choice & now the grandchildren enjoy my voice when the sons-in-laws are not around.  

I am very moved by this young girls situation & I wish there was a better explanation why G-d would give such a gift that cannot be used fully.  Of course there are plenty of mitzvot without clear explanations that we must follow, & that was what convinced me as a girl.  Of course that advice did not come from the Rabbis, it came from my wise mother.  Perhaps, getting the Rabbis to address the issue better could help this girl.

Lastly, at least now there are women performing groups that young women can showcase there talent.  I even tried out for a show, & my daughter & grandaughter were very impressed with my skill.  I was not as good as the "Broadway" talent of the women who got the parts. But, I felt a part of the sisterhood who found the acceptable place for their talents.  They are amazingly gifted. 

This issue has deep ramifications, from the stage all the way to the Shabbat table.I recognize that I cannot understand or appreciate the restrictions of Kol Isha. I love to sing and do so whenever I choose, while my wife (and now daughter) always think twice before singing if anyone else is around. I recognize that I cannot fully appreciate Ofir ben Shitrit's struggle, having been born with a beautiful voice halachah prevents her from showcasing in public.

But I also challenged my students to be the ones to create those venues. 

Here in Israel, the religious community is large enough to create singing venues and even perhaps competitions that would allow women of all ages to sing, in public, for other women.

A PR Pic from the Noga Dance Company

Over the past ten years, Orot has built the only religious School for Dance Education in the world. Our graduates teach in schools across the country, and have created a dance company that performs for women-only audiences to rave reviews. At the day-long programs that I coordinate for visiting Sherut Le'umi students, Orot's dance students have given dozens of performances, of which I have never seen a single one, as well I should not.

If we can do it for dance, we can - and must - also create the venues to allow women and girls with beautiful voices to express themselves in a manner fully consistent with halachah. 

I am sure that one day soon, someone will.

Kol Isha and Modern Orthodoxy

In a previous post I wondered how the Modern Orthodox community seems to ignore the accepted halachic psak regarding the issue of kol isha. I received some thoughtful comments, including one from Noam Stadlan who wrote:

Many in the thinking MO community agree with the rationale, underlying assumptions, and thinking set forth by Rav Bigman, and certainly do not agree with Chareidi views of society and the place for women. Why should they adopt the Chareidi psak? If you think that Rav Bigman's view should not be followed, then in order to make a case that will fall on accepting ears you have to address the issues. For the thinking MO, it is the quality of the argument, not who said it (within reason) or how many said it, that matters. So if you oppose the action, you have to make an argument based on sources and logic, not a list of poskim.

Noam's comments concretized exactly why Modern Orthodox practice regarding kol isha bothers me so much. Since when has the Shulchan Aruch been appropriated by the Chareidi community? Suddenly, every rav and posek who doesn't conform to our values is now Chareidi? Even Seridei Eish, who allowed mixed groups to sing for kiruv purposes would never have permitted a public performance like "The Voice". Does that now mean that he was clearly Chareidi as well?
The comment suggests that the normative halachah of Kol Isha follows Modern Orthodox practice, and that some kind of Chareidi chumrah has crept into modern day Jewish life. Reading the sources (and I did); that is simply not the case, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. It's one thing for Rabbi Bigman to publish his position, which is of course his right. But at least he himself must acknowledge that his opinion contradicts normative halachic psak. It's quite another to suggest that someone who disagrees with him is "Chareidi" (i.e. radical), which can and should be easily dismissed. Noam wrote,

"For the thinking MO, it is the quality of the argument, not who said it (within reason) or how many said it, that matters."

Really? That's how halachah works? Every psak must be argued and debated and explained to the satisfaction of every individual? This entire line of thinking is precisely what bothers me (and to my understand, many, many others) about so-called "Modern Orthodoxy". It articulates the view that if a behavior or value that's explicit in the Shulchan Aruch and later poskim - and it is explicit and cannot be denied - doesn't match with my view, I can choose to ignore that view and attach myself to the da'at yachid I do like and do agree with, labeling anything more radical than myself as "Chareidi". Is there no notion of submission in Modern Orthodox thinking? Is everything subject to the litmus test of the individual?
That's not the way I learned that Halachah works. Rabbi Bigman is a moreh hora'ah, and can issue whatever psak he chooses. But Halachah isn't a poo-poo platter of choices for us to choose from, grabbing the ruling that we like and disregarding those that offend our tastes. Doing so flies in the face of the concept of Mesorah and an allegiance to the tradition that we believe can and must be transmitted through the generations. While the thinking you articulated certainly does match post-modern values which reject absolutes and demand that we only adhere to practices that match our personal, individual attitudes, that's not how Jewish law works.
If you want to follow Rav Bigman, then follow Rav Bigman. But don't just do it for kol isha. Do you know anything else about the piskei halachah that he issues? Do you follow his chumrot as well as his kulot, or does he too need to justify his thinking to you? (Clearly he does).
I'm not suggesting that I'm perfect. Far from it. I doubt that the Shulchan Aruch smiles on the fact that I watch "Top Chef" (not a good example, I know). But instead of suggesting that I'm really correct, and that anyone who thinks watching "Top Chef" is out of touch, and even worse - Chareidi - I'm mature enough to recognize that I probably shouldn't watch it, and this an issue that I struggle with.
A recent comment on Hirhurim about keeping two days of Yom Tov illustrated this point precisely. Joseph Kaplan wrote,

I was once told by R. Adler that there are Teaneck residents who daven in other shuls but are affiliate members of Rinat just so they can consider R. Adler their moreh deasra and follow his psak on observing only 1 day. We’re full members so it was slam dunk that all four of my kids observed 1 day during their year in Israel. And my sense is from speaking to friends that more and more MO observe only 1 day in Israel, some of whom observed 2 days not so long ago.

At least in Teaneck they some feel the need to affiliate with Rabbi Adler's shul in order to follow his psak. But according to Noam's way of thinking, who needs to affiliate? What difference does it make if he's your rabbi? After all, it's the arguments that count, which is precisely why "more and more MO observe only 1 day in Israel." They like the psak, so why not follow it?

This brings me to another comment regarding kol isha related to the Rav. Another commenter wrote that the Rav attended the opera. Sorry, that's not a psak to me, and the fact that individual rabbis allowed (or allow) individual people to attend the opera also doesn't convince me.
There's a concept in Jewish law of individuality, and not everything every rabbi tells an individual immediately becomes normative Jewish law. It's well-known that the Rav's wife did not cover her hair. Does that mean that the Rav also didn't believe in kisui rosh? Quote me a shiur, a written article, anything - where the Rav issued a psak allowing men to attend to opera. He was a very, very smart man, and knew his audience and the time in which he lived. He knew when he was speaking publicly, and when he was speaking privately, and the two are not the same.
I myself have issue piskei halachah for individuals that I would never write in public. Halachah is quite flexible in this manner. Yet, when every individual has a me-too attitude, and tells himself, "If he could do it, why can't I," the very foundation of halachah finds itself in peril of collapse.
Truth be told, this is where I fear a significant chunk of Modern Orthodoxy is headed. Without fealty to mesorah; when we can choose what appeals to us and reject authority when rulings do not - the very concept of shemirat hamitzvot finds itself on very shaky ground indeed.

My problem with a religious girl singing on The Voice isn't the fact that her rav allowed it. I know for a fact that he doesn't permit public singing. My problem is the fact that she never even asked the question in the first place. And that, as you wrote, is the very essence of Modern Orthodoxy.

Kol Isha and a Rabbinic Conundrum

In my class on Halachah this week at Orot, we studied the halachot of Kol B'isha Erva (the prohibition against hearing women sing) in the context of the recent appearance of a religious girl on the Israeli reality show "The Voice" (or, as they say here, "de voyce"). It's not an understatement to say that this episode has been a rather significant issue here in the religious community in Israel.
From my perspective, it's clear that the producers chose her in the competition not only for her voice, but specifically because she's religious. The issue comes up during her first tryout, and the words that they use to describe her singing ("pure", "modest") are clearly influenced by this issue. They even ask her to sing piyyut, which she gladly does.
Her appearance obviously raised the challenging question of how to respond when a member of the religious community does something that contradicts the values of Jewish law. (And her singing publicly clearly does violate halachah according to the vast, vast majority of poskim, despite arguments to the contrary. This episode reminds me of when the Maimonides grad who participated in a modeling reality show.)
How should her school - a religious Ulpana react? Educational institutions are not charged with policing the actions of their students, nor should they be. But when a student publicly acts in a manner that clearly contradicts the values of the school, she becomes a de-facto spokesperson and representative of that school. Other parents rightly or wrongly begin to wonder: "Really, that's how students at that school act? Maybe it's not the best place for my daughter." (We might not like it, but that is how things work). In this case, the school struggled mightily with this tension, and in the end the student agreed to leave school for two weeks voluntarily, allowing the school to express its displeasure with her performing without officially punishing her.
What about her rabbi? How should he conduct himself throughout the episode?

In my prep for the class, I came across a fascinating article describing what happened when the film crew came to the girl's yishuv to film hoping to conduct a joint interview with the rav of the Yishuv, Rav Zvi Arnon.
Rav Arnon refused to speak on camera, even after the camera crew literally ambushed him at shul during minchah. He explained his refusal by saying that no matter what he said, he would be portrayed as a villain, specifically because he represents a viewpoint that's against the underlying values of the entire television show.
Fascinatingly, the members of his community (a religious community), rather than supporting him, were angry with him for failing to support the budding television star.

The article raises fascinating and important rabbinic issues, including:
1. Dealing with a media hostile to religious values
2. Dealing with ba'alei batim who don't support a halachic viewpoint
3. Representing a Torah point of view unpopular in a modern Orthodox community
4. Interactions between religious and non-religious Jews: In her tryout, three different mentors vied for her to choose them, one of whom clearly had religious tendencies. She chose Aviv Gefen, apparently the most secular of the three. Is that something we should try to discourage? The clip I shared above is her visit with him to the shul in Nir Galim, as they talk about religion and faith. Can you create a Kiddush Hashem in the context of a larger violation of Jewish law?
5. Finally, why don't Modern Orthodox Jews, by and large, adhere to or seem to care about the halachot of kol isha?

Personally, I believe that Rav Arnon made absolutely the right choice. He found himself in a lose-lose situation, over which he'd have no control. But it cannot be easy to be the representative of an unpopular Torah value without even the support of the members of your own community.