[Avodah] Kol Isha - HETER

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:42:58PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: > Where's the qol ishah in your example [of Egypt and Umm Kalthoum]?
: > Because they knew where the songs
: > were from when they heard a male chazan sing them?
: > R' Micha Berger
: 
: No. What I meant was, the rabbi knew EXACTLY where these tunes came
: from, and far from criticizing listening to Umm Kalthoum, he instead
: allowed her tunes into the synagogue!! What this means is, the rabbi
: implicitly granted his heter to listen to her....

Or, given that he knew he couldn't get his qehillah to stop listening to
her sing, he chose to leverage their love of that music to aid tefillah.

This is the land of the Rambam, after all. Do you really think their
pesaqim on this issue are that likely to be more meiqil than ours?

...
: And my conclusion doesn't rest entirely on Rabbi Weinberg, nor does it
: rest entirely on the practice of the Egyptians. I felt that the
: confluence of so many heterim from so many directions, all together
: permitted a heter...

You have RYYW saying that a given argument is weak, but since we're also
weighing hiskarvus (kiruv of FFBs) into the mix, okay. You stretch that
to a blanket heter, because of the very lack shimush you don't understand
RYK's point about. You're looking at formal rules, and not at the flow
of how poseqim have treated the topic. Clearly RYYW knew he was pushing
the envelope, and wasn't trying to open the door for you to push it to
the point of near non-existance.

You have the Rambam, who is a bigger machmir than the norm, as proof that
everything is societal and therefore we  could be more meiqil than the
norm. You also have many assumptions about what societal means. For
example, the title of this thread. For all the habituation, sexuality is
more overt than ever before. So, has the increased exposure really
reduced their ability to cause hirhurim -- or have we gotten used to
having more hirhurim, or even dismissing hirhurim that would have
shocked the rishonim on the grounds that they weren't about bi'ah
bedavka (as you argued).

You have a guess about life in Egypt and whether the poseqim approved.

You also assume that it is even an option to say everything can be
societal, despite the acceptance of the Das Moshe vs Das Yehudis
model of tzeni'us.


Beqitzus:
You are using your ability to invent weak arguments that your sources
would have objected to to ignore their weaknesses just because you can
do it repeatedly.

1000 x 0 = 0

Lehavdil -- I'm only comparing methodology, not odiousness -- j4j guys
also bring dozens of faulty proofs form Tanakh, hoping to create a
feeling that a general picture emerges while in truth none of the proofs
work when you look at them one by one.

:                                         If the Ra'avya can permit what
: was societally-normal in his time, then we can do the same in ours.
: Even if the Ra'avya's heter was only to speak to women, nevertheless,
: the basic logic and direction of his heter is useful for us today.
: That's why I wasn't concerned that Rabbi Weinberg merely permits
: zemirot; the direction of his ruling can permit far more than only
: zemirot.

OR, the direction of his ruling is that we can't permit it in just any
context -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HE RULED.

: > In general, I find your reliance on prefiltered sources, reading the
: > promary sources via secondary ones and never revisiting them to form your
: > own opinion bothersome. Particularly since you keep an unbalanced set
: > of secondary sources. People can extrapolate, and then you extrapolate
: > for them, leaving you cantilevered over the abyss.
: > R' Micha Berger
: 
: I DID learn the primary sources, i.e. the rishonim. My article relies
: on secondary sources, however, because I wanted to make it easier for
: my readers to read further....

But that makes it impossible to have a discussion. Until you explain how
you understand the non-partisan sources, your citation of sources you
like for the very reason that you agree with them doesn't mean much to
any of us.

Like how can you possibly use the Rambam lequlah. I showed you how I
think you are misparsing the Rambam. He says nothing about relating qol
ishah to hirhur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha at aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown