By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com
It was a debate about printing pictures of women – even before the HaModiah and the Yated ever existed. And lest anyone think that this was made up – the back and forth is recorded in both Siman 74 of Rabbi Yehudah Leib Nachmanson’s responsa Sefer for Lubavitch Shluchim entitled “Sh’ut HaShluchim” as well as in the responsa Sefer entitled, “Menachem Maishiv Nafshi” a collection of over 1000 letters written by the Lubavitcher Rebbe (1902-1994) of Blessed Memory published some ten years ago.
It was February 29th, 1988, a mere 19 days after the passing of Rebbitzen Chaya Mushka Schneerson – the Lubavitcher Rebbitzen. Apparently, a publication entitled, “Imeinu HaMalkah, Our Mother the Queen” had just been printed. Rav Gavriel Zinner wrote to the Rebbe about the photograph of the Rebbitzen that was included in the publication.
RAV ZINNER’S LETTER
To His Honor, the Admor HaGaon HaKadosh shlita,
I have come to comment on the matter that in the sefer Imeinu HaMalkah, a photo of the Rebbitzen a”h was printed, and in my humble opinion it is not proper to do so.
And even though Chazal have told us (Sanhedrin 45a) [yh: regarding young Kohanim who may see a Sotah in untznius position] that the yetzer HaRah is only dominant in regard to the specific vision of what the eye sees – it is established in Even HaEzer 21:1 that it is forbidden to see even the colored garments of a woman that he recognizes (and see the Otzar HaPoskim sub-paragraph 12 citing the responsum of the Bach Siman #14 that this applies even if she had passed away). And certainly it is [yh: at the very least] a Midas Chassidus to be stringent.
Blessed is the generation where the great ones listen to the small ones.
* There is a Yesoma who, boruch Hashem, just got engaged. If anyone would like to assist in making her chasuna please donate here or contact the author.*
THE REBBE’S RESPONSE
It was the Rebbe’s custom to respond to letters in a point by point rebuttal noted and written within the text of his correspondent’s own letter. To see his rebuttal we will reproduce Rav Zinner’s letter and place the Rebbe’s responses in CAPS.
To His Honor, the Admor HaGaon HaKadosh shlita,
I have come to comment on the matter that in the sefer Imeinu HaMalkah, a photo of the Rebbitzen a”h was printed, HE MUST HAVE CERTAINLY EASILY SEEN – EVEN WITHOUT GAZING AT ALL – THAT IN THE NEXT EDITION – IT WAS PRINTED NOT IN COLOR BUT IN BLACK AND WHITE and in my humble opinion it is not proper to do so.
And even though Chazal have told us (Sanhedrin 45a) [yh: regarding young Kohanim who may see a Sotah in untznius position] that the yetzer HaRah is only dominant in regard to the specific vision of what the eye sees – it is established in Even HaEzer 21:1 that it is forbidden
- THE SHULCHAN ARUCH THERE SAYS “GAZING” (YH: not looking at)
- IT SAYS AT THE COLORED GARMENTS (yh: and this is not colored (YH:nor is it the actual garments)
- IT SAYS AND HE KNOWS HER (YH: And the readers did not know her)
- AND BY MENTION OF THE POSITIVE WE INFER THE ABSENCE OF A PROHIBITION WHEN EVEN ONE IS NOT PRSENT AND CERTAINLY ALL THREE
to see even the colored garments of a woman that he recognizes (and see the Otzar HaPoskim sub-paragraph 12 citing the responsum of the Bach Siman #14 that this applies even if she had passed away). And certainly it is [yh: at the very least] a Midas Chassidus to be stringent.
FOLLOWING THIS COURSE OF ACTION (YH: i.e. eliminating the picture) WILL LIMIT THE ABILITY OF ‘VEHACHAI YITAIN AL LIBO’ – THE INSPIRATIONAL EFFECT UPON THE LIVING OF THE ONE WHO HAD PASSED AWAY
Blessed is the generation where the great ones listen to the small ones.
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO
It is clear that Rav Zinner and the Rebbe a”h have two very different approaches to the issue. The Rebbe points out that the strict halacha is that if any of the three requirements in the Shulchan Aruch are missing, it is not a violation. He further points out that one should not take the machmir approach when dealing with matters of Kiruv – just stick to strict halacha.
SOME MORE BACKGROUND
The Gemorah in Nedarim (20a) explains that anyone who looks at women, in the end he will come to sin. The Ben Yehoyada asks that the looking itself is forbidden! Indeed, it is even considered Abizrahu of arayos! Why then does the Gemorah state, “in the end he will come to sin?” He further asks concerning the language of anyone who does so “excessively.” The Ben Yehoyada explains that this Gemorah is not referring to actually looking at the woman but rather it is referring to seeing her image. If he rationalizes looking at such images by saying he is not looking at her directly, he will end up actually gazing upon the woman herself.
It seems from the Ben Yehoyada that it is something that is highly discouraged, but not an out and out prohibition. Poskim in the Chassidish world are more adamant as to the prohibition involved in a man looking at a picture of a woman. Rav Yisroel Harfenes, one of the leading Poskim in the United States, in his sefer Yisroel Kedoshim (p. 125), writes that even when the woman is dressed in a completely modest fashion, the idea of a man gazing at a picture is entirely against halacha.
The Debreciner Rav (Be’er Moshe Vol. III #154 and Vol. IV 147:22) writes that when the pictures depict inappropriate images everyone agrees that it is completely forbidden. He buttresses this position from the Gemorah in Sanhedrin (36a) and the ruling of the Bach in a responsa (#17).
OGLING
Notwithstanding the stringent view, the issue is subject to much halachic debate. Certainly, Jewish law, Halacha, singles out “ogling” as an out and out prohibition. Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuva 1:6 and 8) defines it as a full blown biblical prohibition. His position as explained by the Bais Shmuel (Even HoEzer 21:2) is that it violates the verse, “Do not go after your hearts and eyes.”
THE RAMBAM
The Rambam also forbids it, but whether it is a biblical or Rabbinic prohibition is subject to debate. The Bais Shmuel and the Pnei Yehoshua (Even HoEzer Vol. II #44) both understand that the Rambam rules that it is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe EH Vol. IV #60) rules that the Rambam’s view is that it is forbidden by Biblical decree just like the Rabbeinu Yonah position.
THE SECOND SOURCE
There is another source as well, other than the Gemorah in Nedarim. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah (20a and b) discusses the prohibition of histaklus – ogling. Since the close of the Talmud, however, halachic decisors have grappled as to the exact parameters of “Ogling.”
Once again, the exact term that the Talmud employs in its discussion is “Histaklus.” The question is do we define” histaklus” as looking, staring, or ogling? The translation is, of course, essential to understanding what would be prohibited.
THE PARAMETERS OF HISTAKLUS
The Sefer Chasidim (#99) discusses the parameters of “Histaklus” and says that Histaklus is more than just looking. It is looking intentionally for a long time and contemplating who she looks like or whom she is equal to in appearance. Rav Chaim Palagi in Re’eh Chaim (p. 13c) defines it in this manner as well. Thus the issue is a universal one – both Sefardic and Ashkenazic.
On the other hand, regarding other aspects of halacha, the SMA (Choshen Mishpat 154:14) writes that the term “Histaklus” can, in fact, mean mere looking. The Chida, and a few other Poskim a well, rule in accordance with this view that Histaklus means mere looking.
The Salmas Yoseph (Vol. I 22:6) also indicates that looking at a woman in a picture is considered as if he recognizes her. He does not forbid it, however.
CONCLUSION
Most Poskim seem to learn that it is, in fact, not halachically forbidden to look at pictures of women, but that it is strongly discouraged. It could very well be that in modern times, where there are a plethora of images there really is no concern that someone will go beyond the pale of what is acceptable and start ogling. Nonetheless, since there are many opinions that understand the Talmudic text in tractate Avodah Zarah in a manner that forbids even looking, and that the Talmudic text in Nedarim is a strong recommendation, one should view them as scrupulously adhering to a valid halachic opinion and not dismiss this view.
ONE LAST THOUGHT
A number of years ago, there were two young girls manning a lemonade stand. Adjacent to them were two boys also manning the stand. A newspaper that wished to develop in a new market came by and snapped a picture of the young boys and also the young girls. The girls were excited to be in the paper. But, alas, when they looked at the next issue of that paper the six year old girl was absent. Only the boys appeared. One of the girls cried. Is this not a possible negation of v’ahavta l’racha kamocha?
* There is a Yesoma who, boruch Hashem, just got engaged. If anyone would like to assist in making her chasuna please donate here or contact the author.*
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
13 Responses
The Tosfas Yom Yov and the Pirash Hamishnayus of the Rambam say that a mechitza is required not be mistakel, stare at women whereas Rav Moshe ztz’l says for separation as he understands Rashi’s view in Meseches Sukkoh, not to mix but it could be not stare in order not to mix.
Yes we should be cautious and yes we should guard our eyes.
However, we have reached a point that effectively there is no such thing as tznius: nothing about women is appropriate. We’ve moved from not gazing or ogling to not seeing at all regardless of how tzniusdik any individual woman may be.
This can have many unintended consequences.
Good halachic discussion, important points made.
This back and forth also sheds light on the background of R. Zinner, who many people, though they may be aware of his written works, are not familiar with as a person. R. Zinner, though he lives in Boro Park and dresses in Hungarian Chasidic garb, is actually very close to and involved with Chabad-Lubavitch. There seem to be grounds to call him a Lubavitcher himself as well, despite his different garb. He participates in Chabad Lubavitch events, tests Lubavitcher students, and more. There is a page on him in the Hebrew חב”דפדיה online with more info on this important aspect of his life, which people should be aware of.
1. the rebbe at this time was so broken from his rebbetzins petira that the rebbe didnt leave his house for A YEAR so he could still be with her neshomo ( no children)
2. chabad & its outreach had a total diff. approach to woman & tznius , there was a bigger focus on penimius & kiruv & being that Crown Heights was a sort of grand central for baale teshuva, tourists.. tznius in pics, dress, speeches.. was not a big priority ( woman covering hair totaly was a big one in chabad because of the tzemach tzedek, (the shvache tznius in ch today is because its 30 years since the stroke” & the more frum chabad families are on shlichus so you dont see a fair pic.)
3. no one will say thats its halachicly asur to put a pic of an older woman whos dressed properly in a paper…NOR VUS.. klal yisroel has been weakened by a hisgabrus hataavah as part of golus ..and the permissiveness & access has taken a toll to the point that activities that were common place in the 60′- 80’s are now not so simple anymore ( a few examples.. giving a girl a ride home from college , or calling secretaries by the first name , bas mitzvas.. , meet & greets outside shul shabbos, no mechitza simchas torah…
BIZMAN HAZEH more gedarim are needed & with siyata dishmaya…vetaher libeinu
SO WILL YWN STOP PUTTING PICTURES OF WOMEN ???
Finally some quality comments. Agree with everyone above 100%.
All these sources you are quoting have to be be taken in context. Please tell me how did the Kohen Gadol see Chana davening like a drunkard, if he didn’t look at women? Through out Tanach there are many encounters between men and women, which unquestionably dispute this idea that a man cannot look at a woman. This practice has created terrible repercussions, and brought chillul Hashem. When people are being treated with extreme disrespect due to this, it creates a very bad taste for Jewdaism.
Please note, this is
I don’t see any source that men should not look at little girls, baby girls, or even drawing of any females. The new wave childrens publications depict a world without women at all. No mothers, no sisters. I got a parsha book for my kids and it is sick, not only they avoid images of the imahos, they even skip the most of the basic stories about them. Essentially the Torah itself is not tznius. (Tell me the story of the parsha)
Please look at historic books, and menorah, etc. Traditionally jewish people had no problem with images of women.
When you get so far into “tznius” you make a full circle and become obsessed with women. Instead of women being not a distraction, they are now distracted by female cats! It’s Essentially perversion.
Will we ever learn that adding to a commandment will backfire? It didn’t work out too well in the times of Adam and Chava.
There is something missing here from R Zinner’s letter – some words of consolation during the shloshim. I hope there is something missing here – either R Zinner just visited the Rebbe or sent a previous letter or a part of the letter is not printed here. One can only conclude from the timing that R Zinner feels that the matter is so urgent and destructive that it is worth interrupting the avelus. Maybe in this case, it was then better to come in person. Maybe they had a close enough relationship that allowed this.
Mindful > Tell me the story of the parsha
Easy. Yaakov met Rochel, did not kiss her, did not even notice. Worked for Lavan for a month, did not notice her either. Went home single. Married a Knaani girl. The rest is history.
” Only the boys appeared. One of the girls cried. Is this not a possible negation of v’ahavta l’racha kamocha?”
This seems like straight up haskala.
That they (presumably) followed their daas Torah, and therefore did not print a picture of a female above 3 years old, cannot possibly be called a “negation of viAhavta liRaiAcha kamocha”. That’s absurd.
However, it certainly could have been handled differently, such as the paper calling the family in advance to let them know, so that they could explain to their daughter that her dignity as a Bas Melech was worth much more than appearing in a silly newspaper.
When Tzivos Hashem started its magazine for children, the draft of the first issue had a picture of a boy on the cover; the Lubavitcher Rebbe sent the draft back and instructed the editors that whenever they have a picture of a boy they must have one of a girl as well. Girls should be able to look at the picture and identify that it is for them too. But he also instructed that the boys and girls should not be shown playing together; each should be shown doing their own thing. And to this day that is what you will see in all Tzivos Hashem publications. Pictures of boys and of girls, but not together.