I'm glad Nooch started his 'singing thread' because I've been wanting to post this for a while, but being that it's usually Shabbos when these things come up - I always forget.

Let's say there's a couple who are hosting a few female guests. What do you think is the place of the female host while her husband is singing? I'm talking hashkafically, halachically, social ettiquetly, etc. Remember, we are only talking about a couple hosting females, not a family hosting females.

After the meal, the husband should go to sleep and then the females can sing if they want to.

I don't think that was her question.Respectfully keep quiet. What's the difference?

Yep, looks like I read the question wrong.
What's the question. What are her choices other than talking or not talking?

Uch, blah. Why did my other poll question disappear?

I had another question besides for sure there be singing -
which was what should the women do. Sing along regularly, sing quietly, just sit quietly, or talk to her guests. Sorry that the poll didn't come out.

If you don't mind writing why that would also be helpful.

What do you think is the place of the female host while her husband is singing?

why can't she sings if she wants and can? out of solidarity with the female guests?

I think it's fine for her to sing, but I can understand why it might make things a little uncomfortable for the guest. Or the husband. I'd probably sing in a quieter voice. And the reason I find it's different with a family is because then there's a whole chours, not just two people.

I know husbands who feel uncomfortable singing more than a few zemiros when there are just women present, because he's singing alone (which, if he sings badly, is....ummm...awkward. for everybody.) If the wife can back him up and wants to, and he appreciates it, go for it. If she's uncomfortable singing by herself when there are other women there, or uncomfortable singing zemiros in general (I've met more than one woman who I wished would just sit quietly or shmooze ), don't. As a guest, I wouldn't care either way and would prefer that my hostess be comfortable with whatever she's doing.

Am I incorrect in holding the view (which I seem to recall learning somewhere) that if more than one woman is singing (i.e. a group of three or more), then qol ishah is not an issue?

That's indeed a legitimate view, famously espoused by the Seridei Eish, but which many of the Rightists don't accept. This thread, like many on h.com, are Rightist-orientated so the assumption in the thread [and nooch's thread as well, although not necessarily of the opening post in this thread, which I suspect was willing to entertain the possibility that "it depends whom one asks"] is that view is not to be relied on. In other words, given that one does not accept the lenient view of the Seridei Eish [and many others], what are potential solutions?
Obviously if one holds the women don't need to be silenced and disempowered and can sing along with the men, the issue is moot.

She should be entertaining the female guests; to do otherwise would make them very uncomfortable. (there are exceptional situations, but as a general rule.)

First of all, why is the host the only guy there. If he doesn't have sons, bochrim, or other male support why would he invite all these women? Why would he even want to be in this henfest.

I for one would feel MOST uncomfortable being the only person singing with 3+ women watching me silently.



I was always under the impression that the sfardim were more stringent with kol isha, except for that ullulating throat youyou thing.

Sepharadim or Mizrahim (or, if you will, Must'arabim)? There is a difference, you know (IIRC, Haham Ben-Zion Hai Uziel was the last, truly Sephardic Rishon l'Zion). Sepharadim certainly don't ululate.

It's quite common young couples wife to invite a couple of friends of either the husband or wife.
Thus the situation arises where he can sing, the girls can't and I wonder what the wife's role is. (According to the Rightist's opinion as Shemmy and Melech have pointed out).

ROY is sfardi?



Tell that to the womans section of virtually every moroccan synagogue ive been to

No, I believe he's either Persian of Babli (Baghdadi). He most certainly is not Sepharadi.




Most Moroccan Jews aren't Sepharadi either, they're Must'arabim/Maghrebi.

There are those, colloquially known as Sephardim, who ululate.

He was born in Basra.

Tell that to most Moroccan Jews who consider themselves sefardi or sepharade.

Sociologically what you're saying probably makes sense, but practically speaking most non-Ashkenazis identify themselves under an umbrella of sefardi (morocco, tunisia, turkey, greece, italy, France) and mizrachi (iraq, iran, yemen, syria,) and both groups identify more with each other then with Ashkenazim.

And so when people use the term sefardi they usually are mistakenly encompassing anyone who follow Bet Yosef (minus chassidim).

The Bene Roma (Italqim) and Temanim are their own, unique groups. But now I'm just being pendantic for the hell of it.

Does the kulah of the Seridei Aish include a situation where you know the women in question and can see them while singing? Or is this specifically when you can not discern who is singing what? Does his kulah even include women singing on a different key (harmonizing for example) where the woman's voice now becomes more distinct and recognizable? Because typically a man and woman singing while singing the same notes are on different scales.

I will let you make your own judgment call about the limud zechut of the Seridei Eish. The famous teshuvah is 1:8 [although there's also relevant comments in 2:9]. If you need it scanned, let me know.

Here is a selective snippet:
"...As far as the custom of men and women singing religious songs together, when I came to Berlin and saw men and women in devout homes singing sabbath melodies together, I was shocked, for it goes against an explicit law. Since unmarried women are assumed to be ritually impure, it is forbidden to hear them sing. On these grounds, I pretested against this custom of religious german jewry. After careful investigation, however, I became aware that both R. Azariel Hildesheimer and RSRH of Frankfurt had allowed men and women to sing such songs together. Someone told me that the reason for this is that "two voices cannot be distinguished." Since they sing together, ther is no sin. Even so, my mind was not at rest. I then searched and found sdei chemed who quotes a sephardic rabbi who allowed mixed singing of reelgious songs. I also found explicit scriptural support for this view in the verse, devorah and bark ben avinoam sang". Rambam wrote "...even to listen to a woman sing ...is forbideen". This implies that only if one listens for pleasure is it forbidden, except when reciting the shema. ...we must therefore conclude that with religious songs, men will not have the intention of deriving sexual pleasure from the women's voices. Such songs arouse a holy feeling, not erotic thought...Here, since the men singing religious songs with the women have the lofty intentions of arousing the women's religious feelings, and planting in their hears a love for our holy faith, we can rely upon the lenient view...."


As for your question regarding different keys, I have no idea, but it seems to me to be a red herring since one of the primary sources for trei kalei la mishtamei is the gemara in Rosh Hashanah regarding the shofar that was blown at the same time as the chatzotzrot, and I seriously doubt that the sound from a short, bent, organic, shofar would be the same as that as from long, straight, metallic chatzotzrot, yet nobody argued that because the sounds are different that trei kalei wouldn't apply. Rather, on Rosh Hashanah one had to stop the chatzotzrot short and continue only with the shofar.

By the way, Nooch, in your home, what are the expectations of female guests during shir hamaalot and bentching? Do they need to remain silent then as well?

Bump. Question open to others as well.

If you don't feel comfortable having the female guests sing in front of your husband, or if you know they won't be comfortable doing so, then I don't think you should have any zmirot in that situation.

None of the possible scenarios are comfortable:

1. Your husband will sing alone and you and the female guests will sit quietly and watch and listen to him. First of all it's not terribly modest for your husband (modesty does go both ways you know) nor is it terribly interesting for your guests. Unless your husband is a professional level singer, people are not going to want to listen to him sing solos all afternoon.

2. You and your husband will sing together and your female guests will sit quietly and watch and listen to the two of you sing duets. Again, not terribly interesting or pleasant for your guests, even if they are not polite enough to show it.

Call me crazy, but I come from the school that zmirot are actually meant to be sung and enjoyed by all present, not politely listened to. If someone is relegated to just sitting quietly and listening, they might as well just leave the table or go for a walk.

I agree with you, that is certainly what I was raised to believe and what we did in our home.

Agreed

Yes please!


If they played the same key, the notes blend together,making it difficult to discern one from the other. However, I think this is considering one is not looking at the players. Personally I find it easier to pick out a voice or sound from its source when looking at the player/singer.Despite being in a group.
I have not looked up the gemorah recently, but I seem to recall that the case was where the shome'a was only hearing the sounds from afar,not in the presence of the blower. I could be wrong.


Guests? Silence, or sing to themselves in a low undertone.(I've had female guests on occasion who joined in enthusiastically with both the zemiros and bentching. I just dont look up at them. I close my eyes and concentrate on my own singing.I would never humiliate them by telling them to stop. There are enough genuine poskim who are matir it,to let it go "unnoticed". ) My kids,wife,sisters or mother however can join in if they like.Provided that there are no other male guests from outside the family.

What is imodest about singing solo?

As long as the zemiros are not disturbed, by all means.

B'n, but I'll need some time. I don't have it at home but it's in shul, and I'll need to photocopy it in the shul office.


Why are female guests allowed in your home to sing shir hamaalot in a low undertone but not other zemirot? What's special and unique about shir hamaalot?

Nothing. I feel the same way about the zemiros as well. I don't want to hear them. More importantly, I dont want them disturbing.

so why not ask your female guests to remain silent during shir hamaalot, the way you would during zemirot?

Surely you are joking!?
Have you lost all ability for independent thought completely?
Do you not realize that singing a solo song at one's Shabbat table (while not immodest according to halacha perhaps) is not a terribly modest thing to do???
If I had a meal or a party and then said - regardless of if I were a man or a woman "Guests, now everyone, listen to ME sing a SOLO of MY favorite song! EVERYONE look at ME and listen to ME! All eyes and ears on ME singing!"
That doesn't strike you as a bit immodest?
That is basically what you are doing when you sing a solo at your Shabbat table.

Is the Chazzan in shul or the Baal Kore "immodest"??? What about when the Rabbi stands up to speak, should he have a few others speak too so he doesn't look arrogant??? What about when the Baal Habayis makes kidush for everyone???

Right. Shoshi, the 'baal habayis' does things on his own that noone else needs to do, like the examples k-rebbe gave. Now, i would suggest if there were only female guests and the wife doesn't want to sing, for whatever reason, they keep the singing to a minimum. Shalom Aleichem and Aishes Chayil, and maybe Shir Hamalos at the end. And it's a little uncomfortable, but it's part of life and doesn't last all that long. Best case scenario is having another male guest who can sing along.

I think those are all a little different, than a single male belting out zemirot in his home. Even someone saying kiddush, if he does it in a certain way, yes, indeed that could very well display a lack of modesty and be a call for attention.. And yes, I think indeed some of your examples can have gayvah issues. I think chazanim for example can be prone to gayvah by the nature of their work, as can a ba'al koreh. Not to mention a pulpit rabbi.
Ve-hatznei'a lechet applies to both men and women. Just because not everything is an absence of tzniut doesn't mean nothing is.

That's for sure. Though I've found that the chazan types with the most ga'ava were the ones who were the least (though not un-) talented.

Yup. Even delivering a dvar torah can be a display of gayvah and a lack of modesty. Which is why women, who are properly educated about modesty, are often reluctant to deliver one, even in their own homes, and even if there is nothing halachically wrong with a woman delivering a dvar torah, simply because it is attention generating.
I have no idea why men seem to be ok with a lack of modesty.

So now zemiros and divrei torah are immodest. Great! So is eating in public.Well that takes care of the guests...

Thats ridiculous and patently absurd.
To borrow from the kula of the Seridei Aish as quoted by Melech, "...we must therefore conclude that with religious songs, men will not have the intention of deriving sexual pleasure from the women's voices. Such songs arouse a holy feeling, not erotic thought...Here, since the men singing religious songs with the women have the lofty intentions of arousing the women's religious feelings, and planting in their hears a love for our holy faith, we can rely upon the lenient view...."
I would say the same applies for the person singing zemiros,even if they happen to be doing it solo. It is not for ga'avah nor is it a lack of tznius.

Why are some young ladies reluctant to deliver divrei torah in their own homes in the presence of guests if modesty isn't an issue?You're playing both sides of the fence here. The question isn't whether someone will have erotic thoughts. The question is whether delivering a dvar torah can be act of gayvay.

Probably for the same reason they are discouraged from doing so in a shul in front of men. So as not to upstage the ignorant men there.

ETA: I would say the same evidently applies when having NY yeshivah bochurim and discussing secular education.
B'didi havei uvdah! We had a bunch of NY high school educated yeshivah bochurim over for a shabbos meal and my eldest daughter, who at the time was in 2nd grade, was upstaging these guys with basic rules of grammar. I was embarrased for them. They were to stupid to be.

I underlined the points of the kula that I was stressing. Namely that when done to arouse feeling of kedushah and d'veykus to Hashem, the notion that it is being done for the wrong reasons are put to rest.

That's not an accurate interpretation, in my opinion. If you were correct, then anything anyone does for the "right reasons" is automatically fine. In other words, as long as I'm doing it for reasons of avodah, then it's ok. If that were true, then nobody would have been incinerated for bringing a strange fire into the tabernacle. In point of fact, people can indeed be doing the wrong thing even if they think they are doing the right thing, and even if it's for purposes of arousing kedusah. Taken to the extreme, women dancing with a sefer torah on simchat torah would be ok, even if they are niddot. Which is clearly absurd. I think you are not taking the context of the Seridei Eish properly.I disagree. I claim for many young ladies it's a question of modesty. A lot of people are uncomfortable drawing attention to themselves for reasons of modesty, even if it's a dvar torah.

אמר רבי יוחנן: ענוותנותו של רבי זכריה בן אבקולס החריבה את ביתנו ושרפה את היכלנו והגליתנו מארצנו

Not having actually seen it inside, you are probably right. However, what is your understanding of these points he makes at the end? "...we must therefore conclude that with religious songs, men will not have the intention of deriving sexual pleasure from the women's voices. Such songs arouse a holy feeling, not erotic thought...Here, since the men singing religious songs with the women have the lofty intentions of arousing the women's religious feelings, and planting in their hears a love for our holy faith, we can rely upon the lenient view...."


Is that the reason given for why they are discouraged from public speaking in front of men? I think not. The reason given is as I stated above. Not to upstage the ignorant men,who for some reason are expected to be knowldgeable in Torah.

I know .I know. Its an oxymoron....

I think we have to clearly make the distinction here between doing a wrong thing with pure intentions, versus doing a questionable thing and gaging the intentions to rely on the kula.

I think he is saying:
The problem with kol ishah is that it engenders erotic thoughts. But when men and women are singing holy songs, erotic thoughts are the furthest things from our minds, at least for people who are habituated to the opposite gender. So when men and women sing holy songs together, it's not as big an issue of hirhurim, and if you combine that with the principle of trei kalei, as well as the eit la'asot laShem reason of empowering women who need this outlet for their avodah, there's reason to be lenient.

However, I do NOT believe he is saying that if women are doing something lofty, there's never any sin. Which means he is NOT saying if people are delivering a dvar torah, there's never a problem of gayvah.

In my opinion, according to my limited understanding, as far as I know.


I disagree, but I can't prove it. My claim is that it's an issue of modesty. Upstaging men is a red herring, in my opinion, and is an anachronistic application of the kavod ha-tzibbur thing [ie women can't lein because it upstages men, or women can't motzee men certain berachot because it upstages men].

That reminds me of all the seminary teachers who give feminism classes about how wonderful and strong women are, and that's why they don't have to do x, y, and z.

If thats true, then why dont we just say it is a breakdown in the standards of tznius? We say its an issue of kavod hatzibur because thats what it is.The men folk are supposed to be learned and well versed in these issues. However,"learning is not for everyone,while work is" so we give the men a pass.All the while ignoring the elephant standing in the room.