Q&A: A Woman's Singing Voice
A Woman's Singing Voice
Question
Hello Rabbi, Is it permitted to listen to a female singer when it is not a live performance? Assuming I once saw a picture of her… I’d be happy to get sources.
Answer
Hello Noam. I apologize that this question slipped past me.
I’ll begin by saying that the request for sources reflects, in my view, an incorrect conception of this Jewish law. There are no real sources for this, because the entire rule that “a woman’s voice is nakedness” is the result of one interpretation or another and of factual assessments about which there are disagreements. Even the halakhic decisors who formulated a position on this did not really base themselves on sources (even if they cited sources for illustration). Of course, if you are looking for statements from contemporary halakhic decisors, you can find such things with an online search, but that is not what I deal with.
My starting point is that this is a prohibition whose rationale usually does not exist today. Listening to a female singer in today’s reality does not necessarily arouse sinful thoughts. It is part of our world. Therefore this is a formal Jewish law, and if there are grounds to be lenient then it is certainly reasonable to be lenient. In simple terms, this is a rabbinic prohibition, and therefore doubt regarding it can permit it. And even with a Torah-level prohibition, where there is a double doubt there is room to be lenient. When one does not see her, and when the voice passes through an electronic medium, there is room to be lenient. Even regarding an actual live performance, in my opinion there is room to permit it so long as it is not something provocative, and people are going in order to hear good music.
Discussion on Answer
The Rabbi assumes that the reason for the prohibition against hearing a woman’s voice is erotic thoughts. I’m not sure about that, because it is forbidden to hear a woman’s voice during the recitation of the Shema, even if she is his wife, so perhaps the voice itself is problematic regardless of the result it does or does not produce.
In a live performance, the sound is coming through a speaker.
I do not see any logic or source for a prohibition not based on erotic thoughts.
His wife also arouses thoughts in him, and during the recitation of the Shema it is forbidden to think even about his wife.
And in general, today women’s singing is something completely different from what it was in the time of the Sages and in earlier generations (it is a kind of art. And in general, I think artistic vocal performances were not really practiced there).
I did not understand your answer. After all, it is explicit in the Talmud, in the words of Shmuel, that a woman’s voice is nakedness. And the medieval authorities attributed the prohibition to something equivalent to the prohibition against looking. Among them are Maimonides and the Or Zarua. What does it mean to say, “the result of one interpretation or another and of factual assessments about which there are disagreements”? And how can one be so sure that a voice does not cause erotic thoughts? Can one say that a bit of exposed arm causes less erotic thought than a voice? Perhaps about that too you would say the same thing?
“A woman’s voice is nakedness” is of course a Talmudic rule, but what exactly that prohibition means is open to several different interpretations. Some prohibited even speech, while today it is accepted that it applies only to singing. But even singing can be interpreted according to the context: is it singing of frivolity and sexual licentiousness, or artistic singing, and the like. Either way, it is reasonable that the prohibition depends on erotic thoughts and is not an independent prohibition, and therefore the various contexts should be judged according to the thoughts they arouse.
As for certainty, even a telephone pole can sometimes arouse a thought. Someone looking for a completely safe situation will get nowhere. The question is what is the reasonable situation, not what is absolutely certain. In our present context, women’s singing is perceived differently than it was in earlier periods, and therefore it should be reconsidered.
If so, then those who agreed with the soldiers who walked out in the middle of a woman’s performance in a military setting were not right.
Why are you talking about those who agreed with them and not about the soldiers themselves?
Other people think differently than I do.
But I didn’t understand your question. I wrote my opinion on the halakhic issue.
See also here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xV5H_JtfiZ6pdFohetty08GIN_BEuUKH/view?usp=sharing
Just to understand the reasoning.
The Rabbi says this is a Jewish law whose rationale has lapsed, but on the other hand it is still Jewish law, so it must be observed.
I understand the claim that if its rationale has lapsed and it is a rabbinic law, and there is a halakhic way to get around it, then that should be done; therefore, according to this approach, listening through a speaker is not a problem.
But why does the Rabbi say this also regarding a live performance?
Seemingly, here the straightforward Jewish law of “a woman’s voice” would prohibit listening, and even if the rationale has lapsed, the law still stands.