Mordechai Levovitz responds

First, let me express my utter amusement at the irony and obvious contradiction presented to me on a platter by most of the authors who submitted 'Letters to the Editor' or wrote columns concerning my articles in last issue's Commentator. What could be more humorous than people relying on their own personal (layman) halakhic opinions asserting that I (and laymen in general) do not have the right to assert personal halakhic opinions! Do I really have to articulate the inherent inconsistency that is screaming to us behind most of these diatribes? Yehuda Burns even had the "gall and audacity"(another author's cruel words) to claim that "halakha is not a cultural code of conduct"...pray tell, which Gadol or halakhic authority did he consult before making such a rash and controversial assertion? (Not to mention Josh Max's premature conclusion that "going to Broadway shows is 100% assur") For some reason, it's OK to have and publish personal halakhic opinions as long as they are prohibitive, stringent, and sufficiently narrow-minded.

The truth is, as I have explained in great length and clarity in my article "An old concept, A new approach," personal halakhic opinions are integral to the infrastructure and methodology of the halakhic process. Furthermore, halakhic opinions are in no way a contradiction to the importance and centrality of the role of the Gadol or Posek; on the contrary, it is with these opinions that we decide who, in fact, will be our Gedolim and Poskim. How could anyone argue against the right to have and share a personal halakhic opinion without expressing his or her own personal halakhic opinion in the process?

Before actually taking apart the specific criticisms of my worthy foes, I want to clarify a few of my own opinions that seem to have been misconstrued by some of the more careless readers:

1. I do not believe, and never claimed in any one of my articles that halakha in general is subjective. The author of the letter that asserts that I hold this tenet neither explains why he mistakenly supposes that I would think that halakha is subjective nor does he articulates what exactly it means for halakha to be subjective. When a specific halakha depends directly on what is considered normal or ragil in society (like the Ramoh explicitly says concerning Kol Isha) then yes, I guess, sociologically speaking, the application of this halakha would be sociologically subjective. An argument against my last claim is noticeably absent from those who oppose me.

2. Obviously, when I stated during the first and most stringent approach that kol isha is branded as an ervah, and thus would be considered dirty and unethical, I meant that when a woman's singing voice constitutes the transgression of kol isha, it is sinful and thus unethical. My personal opinion is that sinful acts are unethical and dirty. While some may disagree with this, no argument has been given to prove that an act may be sinful and still completely ethical or clean; such a letter would be quite interesting and it's a shame that none were submitted.

3. I never proposed "fashioning halakhic requirements in response to leniencies of non orthodox Jewry" as Ivan Ciment erroneously claims. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the letter that reads "halakhic interpretation should stand on its own two feet and not just to the right of what stands next to it. In other words, if Reform and Conservative practices are truly outside the realm, they should be ignored rather than become the impetus for even more radical interpretations of halakha as a defensive reaction." I could not have said it better. However, let it be known that many renowned halakhic authorities disagree with us.

4. Concerning Steven Brizel who "looks forward to a Commentator article on why the bulk of our contemporary media, for reasons beyond the limited issues of Kol Ishah, is a major challenge to and cannot be reconciled with the goals of Torah U'Madda". I also look forward to such an article. Would anyone volunteer and write it?

5. Never ever do I even hint to the notion that "halakha is not fair." How could anyone glean that from my work? For the author who wrote that letter, I suggest a serious rereading of my articles (and maybe an 'English as a Second Language Course').

Now I'd like to address the few meager arguments made against the points presented in my article.

One letter claims that the Seridei Eish, while giving a heter for certain types of kol isha, only was talking about cases involving kiruv. I am sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Rav Weinberger explicitly talks about zemiros at the Shabbos table, which in no way can be interpreted as a kiruv situation. It is true that the question of kol isha was brought up originally to the Seridei Eish when he was asked to condone certain Jewish youth organizations, but his conclusions are most certainly far reaching.

Another letter found it problematic that I focused on the issur of kol isha during the recitation of shema and less on the blanket prohibition of kol isha. The reason I focused on the former prohibition is simple, as he should have gotten from my article. The shema prohibition is the issur that deals directly with the threshold of when the voice is considered an ervah. The Ramoh, when he gives the heter of ragil, says that a kol that is ragil "is not an ervah." Notice how he does not say that a kol that is ragil is permissible to be heard during shema recitation. This is mirrored in the Orech Hashulchan where he says that since uncovered married woman's hair is ragil among his society, uncovered married woman's hair is not considered an ervah. As I concluded in my article, once we have taken away the ervah issue of kol isha, there is still the tzniyut issue, and that is where the second transgression comes in. Note that in the Mishna Berurah the latter prohibition is brought down near the issur of wearing a red dress. Certainly, this is not the context of ervah, instead it refers to sociological immodesty i.e. Tzniyut.

Personally, my favorite letter was the hysterical piece submitted by Josh Max. Aside from so rudely branding me a Nuvel B'Rishus Ha Torah, he charges me with blatantly misinterpreting the Arukh Ha Shulchan. He insists that ragil does not mean prevalence in society, however, it means constantly done, like if "your wife constantly sings around the house." Now there are nuances of the 'constant' definition of ragil that, in fact, mirror the 'prevalent' definition in that it would lead to my same conclusions. However, being that Josh vehemently disagrees with my conclusions, it must be that his notion of 'constant' means only in cases where there is 'literally' constant exposure to the ervah. With all due respect, I've heard many interpretations of ragil, but never have I heard such a ridiculously dochek pshat. Besides the obvious twisting and bending of the text in the Ravyah, Ramoh, and Mordechai that is necessary to fit such an interpretation in, how could you possibly explain the Orech HaShulchan's ruling that 'because uncovered hair was considered ragil among married women of his time, hence, uncovered hair would no longer be considered to have the status of ervah'? R Epstein furthers his discussion and in many places explicitly articulates that its prevalence in society is what gives something a status of ragil. Consequently, the fact that kol isha is rampant in our society would similarly give it the status of ragil.

Mr. Max, obviously insecure in his own views, felt the need (like many before him) to validate his point of view by abusing death of the Rav. Sadly, using the Rav to corroborate that "Kol B'Isha Ervah", is like using the Lubavitcher Rebbe to teach us that we shouldn't eat Chametz on Pesach! The Gemarah, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Arukh and Mishna Berurah state that "Kol B'Isha Ervah." I never once challenge this; my arguments all take this into account. In addition, in the Maimonides School, the Yeshiva that the Rav founded, the Rav allowed girls to have singing roles in musical productions. Surely, Mr. Max is not conveying that our late great Rosh Yeshiva was a hypocrite. (Not that it would be such a surprise if he did, for Josh would only be learning from his Rabbeim, who to this day contend that while the Rav was teaching women Gemara, the Rav was vehemently against teaching women Gemara, or while the Rav was shaking women's hands, the Rav was vehemently opposed to any Heterim in the laws of Negiah etc.)

There were still some letters that were filled with such negativity, that they seem to lose any grasp of logic or comprehension. Stuart M. Wise actually used the phrase "ragil or not"… kol isha is certainly assur. What is he trying to tell us? That whether the Ramoh thinks it is an ervah or not, the author is convinced that kol isha is certainly assur? (And people thought I was pompous and controversial; this guy disregards halakha completely!)

Finally I'd like to respond to some of the unpublished opinions concerning my piece. I hear from fellow students that certain Rabbeim in this yeshiva have publicly denounced my article. However, when I asked these students what points their respective Rabbeim disagreed with, the response was always a dumbfounded silence. Sometimes they would tell me that their Rabbeim were angry because I was paskening halakha on my own in The Commentator. I have one thing to say to these individuals: How bold would you like me to put it - this is merely a halakhic discussion and not a psak.

Other Rabbeim allegedly just called my arguments "stupid" or a "Shanda." I heard that I was even deemed as "representing everything that's wrong with Modern Orthodoxy today". All these insulting invectives with no argument , no reason; instead, they totally evade the issues. A year ago I would be surprised at this disturbing phenomenon. However, in the wake of the Edah convention and some of the YU rabbinic responses regarding it, I have become desensitized to fiery rabbinic diatribes lacking both reason and common sense. Surely I am not alone with these feelings. It is because of this very fact that so many students ignored the sophomoric propaganda and attended the Edah convention anyway. Consequently, I too will ignore the sensationalistic vitriol that some people feel they have to express. The fact is, that concerning the logic, methodology, and halakhic arguments I use in my articles, all I hear from the Rabbeim is silence. As we all know, "Shtikah K'Hodaah Dami" (silence amounts to assent).

I'd like to end with a quote from my esteemed Rebbe:

"With what authority do I 'imperiously' (as I am charged) make these declarations? By the Divine authority granted to every Jew who would teach the truths of Hashem's Torah to all who would listen. May Hashem assist me in my studies that I err not!"

Related Stories:

• Do You Hear the Women Sing? The Kol Isha Myth
• More on Kol Isha