Kol Isha III: In Context

When is a woman’s voice subject to the halachot of kol isha?

In this final installment of our series, we first explore how context in general contributes to the definition of kol isha and then hone in on religious contexts. Rulings based on context can sometimes enable a woman to sing while remaining supportive of men’s observance.

Previously, we saw Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein’s argument that the prohibition of kol isha applies only when there is either kiruv da’at (emotional connection) or physical expression of femininity. This argument allows for room to be lenient when there is no inherent kiruv da’at.

However, halachic authorities who prohibit men from hearing a woman’s singing voice even absent concern of kiruv da’at may still view the prohibition as dependent on context, in one or more of the following ways:

I. Visible or Known Woman A Talmudic statement highlights the role of seeing in inciting arousal:

Ra’aviyah cites a view that limits kol isha based on this principle:

A man’s inability to see the woman singing reduces the potential for inappropriate thoughts and feelings, and may at least reduce the severity of the prohibition.¹ Tzitz Eliezer cites this argument as grounds to permit a man to hear a recording of a woman’s voice:

However, Rav Ovadya Yosef argues that a man who knows the woman singing, or even just knows what she looks like, may be forbidden from hearing her sing even if she is not visible to him at that moment:

When a man is not familiar with a woman’s appearance, Rav Ovadya sees no kol isha constraint on his hearing her recorded voice. According to this and other views concerned with hearing a woman’s voice when she is visible, a woman singing over video could present a man with a question of kol isha, even though an audio recording would not.

II. Unmodified Voice The halachic status of a man hearing a woman’s voice may also depend on whether he hears her voice itself, or a modified or recorded version of it.

In the first installment of this series, we saw Rav Ya’akov Breisch argue that song over the radio is fundamentally unlike song heard in person. When it comes to kol isha, however, he rejects the idea that the technology would make a difference, since a man’s enjoyment of a voice over radio may be the same as that of a voice heard in person:

We saw above, though, that Rav Ovadya Yosef is more lenient regarding kol isha over a radio or recording, allowing for listening when the listener is unfamiliar with the singer’s appearance. So, too, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg writes that the technological element of a woman’s voice being transmitted over the radio can be partial grounds for leniency, though he makes this contingent on a man’s intent.

Generally speaking, an obligation that requires hearing cannot be fulfilled by sound transmitted over the radio. A voice over radio may not have the full halachic status of a human voice.

Discussing the use of amplification for megilla reading, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach argues that a voice heard over a microphone may also have less than the full halachic status of a regular voice, since a microphone alters the voice through electric current.

Rav Shemuel Haber suggests that this may provide grounds for some leniency with kol isha when necessary (e.g. a man’s attendance is required at an event in which women sing):

Those who are stringent regarding hearing a woman’s voice over radio or recording would not accept the microphone as grounds for leniency either, because, as Rav Breisch argues, the man may still enjoy it as much as an unmodified voice.

On the other hand, those who do maintain that kol isha technically applies only to an unmodified voice might also use this argument as a basis to be lenient regarding men watching videos of women singing.

III. Solo Voice A woman’s voice sounded as part of a group, in which it can be difficult to pick out, has less impact than her voice sounded solo.

This may relate to the Talmudic principle, originally taken from the discussion of shofar, that two voices cannot be heard simultaneously. On the one hand, two people cannot read the Torah at once because neither voice will be heard clearly. On the other hand, the Talmud also recognizes special cases in which the listener would be able to distinguish between the voices.

Based on the principle that “two voices are not heard” a man hearing a group of women sing might not violate kol isha, since he is not hearing any one of their voices distinctly.

However, acquaintance between the man and woman may make a difference here as well. The Talmud suggests that we can successfully make out the sounds of matters that are dear to us to which we pay careful attention, such as Hallel and megilla. Similarly, a man might be able to pick out a woman’s voice for which he is listening.

Additionally, Rashi interprets the Talmudic passage decrying men and women singing responsively after churban as describing a violation of kol isha, even though the women described sing as a group:

Following Rashi, adding other women’s voices does not ameliorate kol isha, at least not when men listen to them in order to respond. For these reasons, in a responsum we revisit at greater length below, Rav Yechiel Ya’akov Weinberg attests to disagreement as to whether a man may rely on women singing together with others as grounds for leniency with kol isha.

Many communities rely on the ruling of Rav Hildesheimer and Rav Hirsch, notwithstanding Rav Weinberg’s discomfort. Rav Yehuda Henkin, for example, lists women singing together as a consideration toward leniency. He adds, though, that a man joining creates additional grounds for leniency:

Summary Previously, we saw that questions of content, context, and purpose determine whether or not any Jew should engage in song. With respect to kol isha, Rav Henkin points out that we can derive a number of contextual factors from the verse in Shir Ha-shirim that the Talmud cites as a basis for the prohibition of kol isha:

One last question to investigate is how sacred context or content affects the application of kol isha. To lay the groundwork for this discussion, let’s explore sources on the nature of religious song, with an eye to their relevance to kol isha.

Songs of Joy

Song can be a powerful tool for joyously praising God. Tanach records several instances in which religious leaders glorify God in song. We opened this series with reference to two of the most significant: Miryam at the Song of the Sea, and the Song of Devora. These songs are among the precedents for recitation of Hallel,² when we praise God with Tehillim (Psalms) at times of miraculous deliverance and on festive days.

The Torah commands the Levi’im in song as part of the daily sacrificial service, and the Talmud describes that song as a unique vehicle for joyous worship.³ In this spirit, Sefer Tehillim urges us repeatedly to sing new songs to God.⁴ God’s song is with us, and we respond by singing our own songs of thanks.⁵

As early as medieval times, we learn of singing as an essential part of the Shabbat meal.

Joyous singing in praise of God features prominently at synagogue, as well, so much so that our sages refer to it as mekom rina, a place of song.⁶

It follows that a sweet voice, a “kol areiv,” is a consideration in choosing a prayer leader:

Halachic authorities warn us, though, that a prayer leader’s musical expression should serve as a means to praise God. It must not become an end in itself, or take precedence over more essential qualifications such as fear of Heaven:⁷

Songs of Sorrow

Song also has its place at times of sorrow. Ancient religious rites of mourning include the kina, or dirge. Yirmiyahu, who himself composed dirges, suggests that women typically led the chanting of them:

A mishna in Mo’ed Katan teaches us that women continued to lead dirges in call and response in mishnaic times, as mekonenot, and also had the role of me’anot, chanting dirges in unison.⁸ On Rosh Chodesh, Chanuka, and Purim, limitations were put on this intensity of mourning:

We’ve seen a number of contextual factors that arguably mitigate concerns of kol isha. Does the halacha of kol isha apply differently to songs with religious content or songs sung in a sacred context?

Our first thought might be to look to Miryam’s song or Devora’s or to the mekonenot as precedent for relaxing strictures of kol isha for religious singing in the presence of men. None of these cases, however, provides a clear halachic precedent.

In general, the term “shira” in Hebrew is extremely broad, so we often have no clear indication whether a song or poem was spoken, chanted, or sung.

Additionally, in accordance with a simple reading of the verse, a midrash explains that Miryam led specifically the women in call and response,⁹ and thus might not teach us about kol isha, which does not apply when no men are present:

In the cases of the Song of Devora, Rav Ya’akov Eilenberg rejects its potential to serve as precedent for women singing religious songs because Devora, as a prophetess, may have received unique Divine approbation:

Lastly, the dirge of the mekonenot may have been more chanted or spoken than sung. The mishna above notes that one “speaks” and the others answer. If so, it would not provide us with a basis for leniency with kol isha for religious song.

Opposing Effects

Treating religious contexts as distinct from others with respect to kol isha can cut in the direction of leniency or of stringency:

I. Leniency On the one hand, religious songs constitute a unique halachic category in the halachot of music , treated more leniently than other song.

One reason for this is that we expect more controlled behavior and impulses in a sacred atmosphere, perhaps leaving room for less concern regarding kiruv da’at and for greater leniency with kol isha as well.

Chida makes this type of argument, drawing on a Talmudic passage that implies that a man is not susceptible to inappropriate thoughts while the fear of the Shechina (Divine presence) is upon him:

Chida takes this statement another step, suggesting that kol isha does not apply when one is acutely aware and in awe of the Shechina:¹⁰

Although his logic could in theory extend to non-prophetic female solos, Chida applies it practically here only to permit men and women to sing together.¹¹

II. Stringency for the Sacred On the other hand, a sacred atmosphere is also one in which we are particularly concerned about matters of erva. That’s why the gemara emphasizes modesty specifically in the context of keri’at Shema. This is the basis for perspectives such as Yere’im’s, that view kol isha as uniquely or particularly at issue when a man recites keri’at Shema, learns, or prays.

A man may recite Shema or the like when a woman’s singing is audible only if there is no other realistic choice: it is “et la’asot,” a “time to act for God [and thus] abrogate strict law”.

This school of thought may also rebut Chida’s line of argument. The Shechina is said to be present in any minyan, or at any time that an individual studies Torah, and keri’at Shema is considered an act of learning Torah. Yet there is still concern about a man hearing a woman singing.

Halachic authorities who have particular concerns about kol isha when a man recites Shema, prays, or studies (alone or in a minyan) do not usually quote the passage about fear of the Shechina impeding inappropriate thoughts as presenting a mitigating factor for kol isha.

Caution Beyond Kol Isha

The prohibition of kol isha usually only applies to a woman’s singing voice. However, some authorities call for an extra measure of caution and modesty, even with regard to a woman’s speaking voice, when in the context of a sacred space. Rav Efrayim Margoliyot, for example, argues that a woman may not recite mourner’s kaddish in synagogue (in his community, 18th-19th century Ukraine, this was done solo), in large part because the men would have to hear her voice, which would be a breach of tzeniut:¹²

Rav Margoliyot asserts that a woman’s voice creates halachic issues in synagogue even when kol isha is not involved. Not everyone advocates such caution, however. For instance, Kenesset Ha-gedola (Rav Chayyim Benveniste, 17th century Turkey) strikes a different note in his discussion of birkat ha-gomel:¹³

Neither Mateh Efrayim nor Kenesset Ha-gedola suggest that these synagogue rituals, which are not sung,¹⁴ present an issue of kol isha. Rather, Mateh Efrayim does not permit women to recite kaddish out of tzeniut concerns. Kenesset Ha-gedola, on the other hand, explicitly rejects excessive concern with tzeniut that prevents a woman from reciting a beracha in which she is obligated. He views her remaining in the women’s section– where she is audible but not visible– as sufficient grounds to permit her to recite a beracha publicly in synagogue, to which men give ear and respond.

In the synagogue, both the atmosphere of sanctity and the concern for detracting from it are heightened.

We begin our discussion of kol isha in the synagogue with the Talmud’s discussion of Torah reading. A minyan of ten men is required for Torah reading, and in mishnaic times, an aliya entailed reading from the Torah. A baraita records a dispute as to whether a woman may be counted as one of those called up to the Torah to read it:

Neither side raises the question of hearing a woman’s voice. The sages base their position on concern for “kevod ha-tzibbur,” lit. the honor of the congregation. (Learn more here). This baraita seems to imply that concern for kol isha is irrelevant to the question of a woman reading Torah for a minyan of men in synagogue.

Indeed, Rashi states that women can read megilla for men, without raising any potential halachic concerns such as kevod ha-tzibbur or kol isha:

Opposing this view, Kol Bo writes that a woman cannot discharge a man’s obligation in megilla reading because of kol isha, and raises the possibility that her reciting (or perhaps singing) the berachot on Chanuka candles in public could potentially raise concerns of kol isha as well:

Kol Bo does not explain how he reconciles his view with the baraita about Torah reading, though it could be based on the fact that megilla reading does differ from Torah reading in some respects. For example, it can take place without a minyan when one is unavailable.

Troubled by how these rulings fit with the general halachot of kol isha, halachic authorities offer a range of possible resolutions, each with potential implications for how we view a woman’s voice in the synagogue.

I. Speaking, Not Singing Rav Eliezer Waldenberg suggests that the baraita assumes that the woman would read the Torah in a spoken voice, to which kol isha would not apply, rather than chant it.

This position of the Tzitz Eliezer fits with the halachic consensus that a woman using her regular speaking voice (even in a synagogue ritual) does not present a problem of kol isha. However, there are other halachic concerns, and Rav Waldenberg’s discussion is theoretical, not a practical ruling. In practice, he sympathizes with Mateh Efrayim, who (as we saw above) calls for extra caution with women’s speaking in the synagogue, beyond the issue of kol isha.¹⁵

II. Chanting, Not Singing Kaf Ha-chayyim makes an alternate suggestion for understanding the baraita. Perhaps kol isha is not at issue for ritual reading such as megilla (or Torah reading) because chanting cantillations differs from singing, and thus does not fall under the rubric of kol isha:¹⁶

On this view, though there might be other halachic concerns, a woman speaking or chanting in synagogue ritual does not present a concern of kol isha.

III. Singing in the Presence of the Shechina Rav Ovadya Yosef discusses the baraita on women reading Torah in a responsum on the topic of women reciting birkat ha-gomel in synagogue. He seems here to understand cantillation as a form of singing, and cites Chida’s leniency with kol isha in synagogue to theoretically allow a woman to read Torah if no qualified man is available.

Rav Yosef accepts Chida’s position that awareness of the Shechina reduces our susceptibility to inappropriate thoughts. Therefore, he reasons that kol isha may not present a problem in synagogue, where God’s presence is strongly felt.

In practice, Rav Yosef acknowledges hesitation about relying on Chida to permit a man to hear an individual woman’s singing voice in synagogue. His responsum thus takes into account other factors to permit a woman to recite birkat ha-gomel there (even, if necessary, in the men’s section), including that the recitation is brief and spoken:

Leading Prayer

A woman leading prayer in the presence of men, as opposed to simply reciting a beracha, may raise kol isha concerns or special concern for tzeniut in the synagogue. (This raises other halachic questions as well, which we plan to discuss in a future piece.)

In recent years, a few congregations have invited women to lead pesukei de-zimra or kabbalat Shabbat, which are typically chanted or sung. To address the question of kol isha, some have referenced Rav Ovadya and Chida. However, neither of them issued a direct halachic ruling on these practices.

Prayer is sustained, may be chanted or sung, calls for attentive listening and response, and, as distinct from ritual readings, builds a sense of connection. The Talmud uses the same term, “kol areiv” (a sweet voice), both to describe the ideal prayer leader and to present the prohibition of kol isha. In a responsum unrelated to kol isha, Rav Moshe Sternbuch describes the prayer leader’s role:

This hints at some of the potential complexity the role presents for women, even setting aside the formal question of kol isha. As we will see, even those authorities who rule leniently on mixed singing of religious songs or prayers do not explicitly allow for a man to listen to a woman sing them solo, even outside of a prayer setting.

How do these arguments play out with respect to voices joining to sing in praise of God, whether at prayer or a Shabbat table, when not all present are members of the same family?¹⁷

I. Stringent Rav Yissachar Eilenberg takes a stringent approach to men and women singing religious songs together, arguing that the sanctity of the material sung makes this especially problematic.

Tzitz Eliezer adds that, in his view, Chida does not provide sufficient basis for mixed singing of religious song:

Tzitz Eliezer questions Chida’s assumption that the song of the prophetess Devora, accompanied by clear manifestation of the Shechina, can serve as a general halachic precedent. Even a mixed group that starts singing with pure religious intention may not feel a strong and sustained awareness of God’s presence, and are likely to find themselves inappropriately distracted as they continue to sing.

In the context of the synagogue, Chatam Sofer prohibits mixed singing of tefillot if the women’s voices are audible in the men’s section. He goes so far as to suggest that a man hearing women sing along with prayers in synagogue has nullified his prayer.

In softer terms, Rav Kook writes that ensuring that women’s voices don’t travel beyond the women’s section is part of maintaining the separation between genders in the synagogue:

II. Lenient Despite these concerns, men and women did sing zemirot together in the community of Rav Samson Rephael Hirsch. In a responsum on mixed singing within youth groups in the inter-war period (excerpted above), Rav Yechiel Ya’akov Weinberg presents a number of context-based reasons why this could be permissible:

Looking for a rationale to support mixed singing of religious songs, aside from the leniency of multiple voices, Rav Weinberg draws on Chida’s Shechina-based leniency for religious song and on an inference from a quotation in Sedei Chemed.¹⁸ He relies on Rambam’s position that a man violates kol isha outside of keri’at Shema only when he listens with intent to enjoy. He adds an original corollary to this principle: men who participate in joint singing in order to praise God and promote religious feeling are unlikely to have such intent.

Rav Weinberg himself voices some hesitation about this leniency, though he ultimately rules in favor because he sees the pressing situation of the Jews of France as a “time to act for God and thus abrogate strict law.” His hesitation notwithstanding, this responsum is often relied upon in communities where there is mixed singing of zemirot at the Shabbat table beyond the immediate family or of religious songs at a simcha or kumsitz, or in which men’s and women’s voices join in prayer. (For more on this, see the discussion of “Not Singing” in our previous installment.)

In addition to Rav Hildesheimer, Rav Hirsch and Rav Weinberg, more recent rabbinic luminaries reportedly were also lenient about mixed singing of zemirot, at least in a private home. Rav Eliezer Melamed cites a couple of examples, including Rav Ovadya Yosef, who was apparently lenient based on the woman’s voice being heard but not pronounced during mixed singing.¹⁹

Rav Melamed also notes that common practice is to be lenient about women’s voices from the women’s section carrying into the men’s section during prayer, even among some of those who are stringent at the Shabbat table, presumably on account of the gender separation at synagogue.²⁰

Summary

In this section, we’ve surveyed a range of views on kol isha in the context of singing songs of a religious nature when women sing solo or together with men.

Because the synagogue is a sacred space where issues of modesty demand extra consideration, there are those who are not comfortable with the idea of a woman’s solo voice being heard there at all, even her speaking voice. Others agree that there is no concern of kol isha when a woman speaks, but only when she sings, and some equate a chanting voice with a speaking voice. Rav Ovadya Yosef suggests that there may be room for further leniency with a woman’s solo singing voice in a prayer setting, but does not himself apply leniency so widely.

With regard to singing together, some prohibit it in any form, including a kumsitz, zemirot at the Shabbat table or tefillot in synagogue. Others permit singing as a group in such cases, or at the very least in a synagogue where there is gender separation and the voices meld into one collective group.

As with many other issues that concern modesty, community norms and customs play a significant role in determining appropriate practice.