I disagree with you on this, that I am putting result first.
But, if I recall correctly, I had a lengthy Facebook exchange with you about the previous linked post, about genre and bracha rishona and then, by extension, genre and rabbinic pronouncements about the masturbation. (It was with Shlomo Z.) Perhaps we simply have very different ways of approaching the gemara's text, so what I am saying seems forced / strained -- and then you jump to an assumption that the strained reading is guided for a desire for a particular result.
They continue that the Rashba to Veraschot 24a, Maharsha to Bava Metzia 87a -- and see Teshuvot Maharam Shick Even HaEzer 53 (https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1494&st=&pgnum=308)-- say that "when a woman responds to a man's greeting, however, their interaction can lead to intimacy, and even listening to her speaking voice is forbidden."
I'll add, if you read Maharam Shick (linked above), you see him grapple with the difficulties. And he suggests that Rav Yehuda holds kol refers even to regular speech, but we pasken like Rav Chisda who explains it otherwise on Berachot daf 24.
So there are *kvetches* for turning a woman's regular speech, in this unique instance, into kol be'isha erva, or for otherwise resolving contradictions with other gemaras.
Similarly, the distinction between sending greetings to a woman via her husband, on the one hand, and asking about her welfare (mentioned in Even HaEzer). The problem is a contradiction between gemaras. If you look at Bava Metzia 87a, you will read:
רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר כדי לשגר לה כוס של ברכה תני משום רבי יוסי למה נקוד על איו שבאליו לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שישאל אדם באכסניא שלו והאמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל על ידי בעלה שאני
"Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: They inquired about her in order to send her the cup of blessing. It is customary to recite Grace after Meals over a cup of wine, which is then distributed to those present. It is taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Why are there dots in the Torah scroll upon the letters alef, yod, and vav in the word “to him [eilav]”? These letters spell ayo, which means: Where is he? The Torah is teaching the proper etiquette, which is that a person should inquire of his hostess about his host, just as he should inquire about the welfare of his hostess from the host. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may not inquire about the welfare of a woman at all, as this is immodest? The Gemara answers: A greeting by means of her husband is different. Asking a husband about his wife is not considered immodest."
So two things. First, because the Stamma asked a question, we see that דרך ארץ שישאל אדם באכסניא שלו, from the story with Avraham Avinu, and in the words of a transitional Tanna/Amora, Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina, it is actually derech eretz to inquire after one's hostess. So Rav Yehuda was violating that derech eretz.
The Stamma asks from the quote of Shmuel, seeing a contradiction, that one doesn't inquire of a woman at all. And the Stamma's resolution, via the husband it is different, doesn't actually work, because in our gemara, Rav Yehuda actually rejects the idea that al yedei baalah it is different, because that is the meaning of klal, at all.
That is a kvetch.
I see the kvetches, and I see the genre, and the answer seems apparent. That is different than coming with a perverse agenda to try to dismiss accepted halacha, and therefore making my own kvetch.
I've actually heard פשט that Rav Nachman was high up in the political sense and that was one of the big issues Rav Yehuda had with him. And all the things Rav Nachman did were in line with normative actions of those very involved with the non-jews.
This argument seems strained looking for a way to dismiss the accepted Halacha regarding Kol Isha.
I disagree with you on this, that I am putting result first.
But, if I recall correctly, I had a lengthy Facebook exchange with you about the previous linked post, about genre and bracha rishona and then, by extension, genre and rabbinic pronouncements about the masturbation. (It was with Shlomo Z.) Perhaps we simply have very different ways of approaching the gemara's text, so what I am saying seems forced / strained -- and then you jump to an assumption that the strained reading is guided for a desire for a particular result.
---
In terms of kol isha, see Artscroll's footnote 44. They note that (the Shulchan Aruch) / Rama takes the standard meaning of that phrase as referring to singing, not to speech. (See here: https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim.75.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en). So that is the typical standard meaning of the phrase. And, I would say, what Rav Yehuda is saying here is quite surprising / striking / weird. Yes, it is mentioned as a prohibition in Even HeEzer 21:6 (https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Even_HaEzer.21.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en) but not as kol be'isha erva.
They continue that the Rashba to Veraschot 24a, Maharsha to Bava Metzia 87a -- and see Teshuvot Maharam Shick Even HaEzer 53 (https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1494&st=&pgnum=308)-- say that "when a woman responds to a man's greeting, however, their interaction can lead to intimacy, and even listening to her speaking voice is forbidden."
I'll add, if you read Maharam Shick (linked above), you see him grapple with the difficulties. And he suggests that Rav Yehuda holds kol refers even to regular speech, but we pasken like Rav Chisda who explains it otherwise on Berachot daf 24.
So there are *kvetches* for turning a woman's regular speech, in this unique instance, into kol be'isha erva, or for otherwise resolving contradictions with other gemaras.
Similarly, the distinction between sending greetings to a woman via her husband, on the one hand, and asking about her welfare (mentioned in Even HaEzer). The problem is a contradiction between gemaras. If you look at Bava Metzia 87a, you will read:
רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר כדי לשגר לה כוס של ברכה תני משום רבי יוסי למה נקוד על איו שבאליו לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שישאל אדם באכסניא שלו והאמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל על ידי בעלה שאני
"Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: They inquired about her in order to send her the cup of blessing. It is customary to recite Grace after Meals over a cup of wine, which is then distributed to those present. It is taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Why are there dots in the Torah scroll upon the letters alef, yod, and vav in the word “to him [eilav]”? These letters spell ayo, which means: Where is he? The Torah is teaching the proper etiquette, which is that a person should inquire of his hostess about his host, just as he should inquire about the welfare of his hostess from the host. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may not inquire about the welfare of a woman at all, as this is immodest? The Gemara answers: A greeting by means of her husband is different. Asking a husband about his wife is not considered immodest."
So two things. First, because the Stamma asked a question, we see that דרך ארץ שישאל אדם באכסניא שלו, from the story with Avraham Avinu, and in the words of a transitional Tanna/Amora, Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina, it is actually derech eretz to inquire after one's hostess. So Rav Yehuda was violating that derech eretz.
The Stamma asks from the quote of Shmuel, seeing a contradiction, that one doesn't inquire of a woman at all. And the Stamma's resolution, via the husband it is different, doesn't actually work, because in our gemara, Rav Yehuda actually rejects the idea that al yedei baalah it is different, because that is the meaning of klal, at all.
That is a kvetch.
I see the kvetches, and I see the genre, and the answer seems apparent. That is different than coming with a perverse agenda to try to dismiss accepted halacha, and therefore making my own kvetch.
I hear and accept. Thank you for the explanation.
I've actually heard פשט that Rav Nachman was high up in the political sense and that was one of the big issues Rav Yehuda had with him. And all the things Rav Nachman did were in line with normative actions of those very involved with the non-jews.