- This topic has 312 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Of course the Gemorah only applies to legitimate purposes. If it is an unessential purpose than of course the issur of seeing immodesty remains. You can’t do an issur because you want to go somewhere for pleasure. This is a davar pashut.
Furthermore, indeed, if one’s job involves issurim and he can get an equivalent job that avoids those issurim, he would surely be required to change jobs. Same if he could use another doctor who is just as good as the first that requires being oiver issurim.
No one has the halachic right to watch a certain movie because, as you put it, “that is what he wants to watch, then there is no other movie like that, then he has no other path.” That is completely absurd. You’re squeezing heterim that don’t exist due to crude desire.
DaasYochid- But lets say you can be mosiach daas. I still want to figure out if we can apply that Gemara to movies.
nolongersingle-I think there can be more of a push for leniency when it comes to movies. As I quoted before Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld tz”l is lenient when it comes to a picture. So I think we can possibly get a bit lomdish. By a real woman there is an issur don’t look, you can have hirhur. But if you need to go somewhere for a good reason, then go and be mosiach daas. By a movie, there is no issur to look, it is not anything really. But what is the problem-hirhur. Stam Hirhur. Not Hirhur connected to seeing a woman. So maybe we don’t need Lev Darka Achrina and all that bec. that only applies whenever we have an actual issur of looking at woman but by a screen there is no issur of looking at woman.
This is not the best savara and doesn’t really shtim, in my opinion with the Gemara, Rav Ovadia Yosef tz”l brings down (Yechovie Daas 4:7, I cited it from Rabbi Hoffman before), but it is a possible svara.
So tell me, what percentage of movies are 100% okay by Torah standards, and who could we trust to tell us which?
Why don’t you quote R’ Ovadiah in ??”? ???? ???? ??? ?’ ??’ ?”??
Is this what you’re referring to from R’ Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld?
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46247&st=&pgnum=260&hilite=
I was only quoting Rabbi Hoffman so you would have to ask him. He gives his email at the bottom of his articles.
By the way, DaasYochid, do you agree with my svara I posted before?
My point was that he is against looking at pictures of women. And he’s referring to where there’s no problem with how they’re dressed.
As I recall, R’ Hoffman is writing about looking at a picture for shidduch pictures. ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??????, so in that context, there is a unique heter to look, so no ??????, probably.
No. It’s based on a couple of false assumptions. There’s a reason why R’ Moshe, R’ Ovadiah, and those R’ Ovadiah quotes don’t find any reason to be meikil; quite the contrary.
But it is clear from Rav Ovadiah tz”l that there is no problem,
technically, saying Krias Shema in front of an erva on a picture. The issue he writes is hirhur. Also pretty clear from Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld tz”l that there is no issue of ?? ????? by a picture either. The problem Rav Zonnenfeld writes is “Al Tifnu” which I believe some poskim say only applies to idolatry.
Do you mind elaborating what my false assumptions are?
Most yeshivas do not have a smoking problem. Also, boys and girls have other kosher outlets. A few go off the derech, a lot don’t.
Well, you must have gone wrong somewhere, because they hold it’s quite assur.
Where you went wrong is the ridiculous hypothesis that someone going to a movie (or watching at home, for that matter) intends to or is capable of ignoring the bad parts.
Smoking? Wrong thread?
Why don’t you ask someone you respect and trust if you really can’t decide. Everyone has their own standards that they themselves keep to!
That’s precisely the problem.
Just to throw a wrench in for fun. [Though my sentiments are with DY]
What is the difference DY in going to a zoo or such that one is certainly going to see inappropriately dressed women vs. going to a movie where is certainly going to see inappropriately dressed women?
Let’s assume both situations are not intended to see the women but to relax and enjoy the non-inappropriate aspects?
Again, I am not a movie supporter (see way back in the thread) but want to ask.
R’ Moshe is matir going to work or doing things we need to do even if one will see inappropriately dressed women. If one wants to say that the need to have a relaxing outlet is a thing one “must do” [again such assuming that is a must] then of course doing it l’shem tznus is assur – but what’s the difference of a movie with going to Central Park?
DQB
There may be a heter available when there’s no alternative to making an equivalent parnassa that is certainly not applicable to other avoidable situations.
Just to add to DQB’s post during the warmer months there are people who sunbathe in Central Park and certainly not dressed Tzniut
DQB, to borrow from rebyidd 23, http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/pictures#post-553481, because the point of a movie is to look at it.
In all of these situations (work, zoo, park, etc.), even if there’s no alternative (???? ???? ??????) there is still no ???? to be ?????. When you go to a movie, you are being ?????.
J.T. earlier wrote, But it is clear from Rav Ovadiah tz”l that there is no problem, technically, saying Krias Shema in front of an erva on a picture
This is not true. He assers saying K”S in front of a TV with an inappropriate image, and says you must shut your eyes.
DaasYochid- Rav Ovadia tz”l writes that you have to close your eyes bec. of hirhurim, not bec. of erva. That is why I said “technically”.
Also, when I asked you what my false assumptions were, I want to know if you disagree with my svara, not whether one can be mosiach daas. Also, as I said before, I belive some poskim hold “Al Tifnu” is only for idolatry. (Shulchan Aruch 307:16, Beur Halacha there) Furthermore, there is no Yeharag Al Yaavor by watching a movie bec. it is not erva and therefore there is no ?? ?????. Therefore, now it depends if you agree with my svara whether or not we need the Gemara of Darka Achrina or not. If we do, then maybe Darka Achrina is only by parnassah purposes and the like, not entertainment. But, maybe it is also for entertainment. It also obviously, would depend whether one has hirhurim. {Even Lev Darka Achrina doesn’t help if one will have hirhurim, bec. it is only when one can trust himself he won’t have hirhur}
@zehavasdad — I only read your first post but I could not agree more. People get so caught up in chumras and stuff that they lose sight of what the whole point is. And unnecessarily stifle themselves and their children. For those who can isolate themselves and still be happy – great. But it doesn’t work for everyone. We can’t all live in a bubble.
So what is your question? Since the poskim assume there’s hirhur, and that looking at inappropriate images is definitely assur, and condemn it in the strongest terms, what left is there to discuss? And if it’s not “technically” yehareg v’al ya’avor, does that make it muttar??!!
Deepblue, this is not about a chumra, this is about something unquestionably assur.
Fine, but let’s say there is no hirhur, what is the issue then? Maybe being
Megarah Yetzer Harah? Or is MYH hirhur?
Why should we say that when it’s not true? I assume megareh yetzer hara means actively doing something which leads to hirhur and possibly other aveiros.
Why should we say that when it’s not true?
What do you mean? If you are not having hirhur, your not having hirhur.
You mean like if a person has desensitized himself through overexposure? There is probably still a delayed reaction, and is equally assur. Though, you can try to find sources for such an exception. I haven’t seen it.
I’m not saying why he is not having hirhur, but for whatever reason he isn’t. Now if the whole issur to look at a screen is hirhur, not issur of looking at woman bec. it is not a real woman, why is it assur without hirhur.
Still ???? ??? ???/??? ?????.
And of course, the reason matters. If the reason is what I said, he needs to pull himself out of the mud, not put himself further in, and if not, he needs a different kind of help.
??? ????? is hirhur.
I’m not sure what ???? ??? ??? is. But if we go according to what you assume it is, if the movie won’t lead to hirhur or other aveiros, then not assur.
So why don’t we find such an exception in poskim?
DY, great point. But there has to be some distinction if one is being ????? to a davar reshus (looking at a sports game on TV achveis) and agav a cheerleader pops up (even if let’s say there is a rov chance such will happen). Of course at that point one is being ????? an ervah – of course trying to look away immediately.
A reason to say that there is a distinction is purely anecdotal.
I do note that according to your one can’t watch a chasuna video that contains women nor many frum yeshiva videos (ie like a Yeshiva Ketana that includes the female teachers teaching or a honoree and his wife talking) as one is staring at the video (even if everyone is tznius -it’s still assur if one says its ?????.)
Any thoughts?
By the way, your “argument” would apply to any ???????.
:???”? ??? ?’ ?????? ?????
?) ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???, ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???; ???? ??: (?) ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????–??? ??? ???, ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????. (?) ??????? ?????? ?? ???–?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????, ????? ????? ???? ?????, ???? ?? ????? ????. (?) ??????? ??????–???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????; ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ????, ????
“????? ????? ?? ?????, ????? “??? ????? ???? ?????, ????? ??????
DQB, please explain, according to your theory, why R’ Ovadiah didn’t make such a distinction.
I disagree, DY. Though I am not claiming I am correct, but my thoughts would not apply to all cases.
The classic ??????? is Joe sees a women and stares at her due to her beauty (see the Rambam.)
If Joe is staring at a screen to watch the Jets (see people when they watch a screen it is ??????? mamish) and then a model comes on to tell him about the latest Potato Kugel from Pomengranate – is that the same? He didn’t want to stare at her – in fact, Joe is a religious guy after a moment, he’ll iy’H immediately turn away and try to take the said thought out of his mind. Mind you, it’ll cause damage – but same with going to work in the city – but its still muttar and not only that if one needs the parnassa – it is required. If one needs to relax and there are only activities that have women around improperly dressed (example the kids are in the house and freaking out and need to get out in the summer – everywhere there’s something). Perhaps (again I am asking academically not trying to prove so) it is allowed to go out to the Bronx Zoo on Chol Ha’Moed Pesach. Efshar.
It is better to work in a frum environment. Agreed. But it’s not assur to not do so. It could be that if there is no viable Kosher entertainment, the same would apply (again assuming the video is not l’shem tznus [see sports game] and assuming that there is a need for relaxation). One watches their son’s chasuna video it’s not l’shem tznus – agav they see something, it’s not a good thing but it doesn’t make the action assuer (perhaps). Same with someone who is watching an action movie to see the special effects not to see the actress in a revealing situation.
I think its a stretch to say Joe is in Rambam’s category. Do you see my distinction?
A very good way of dealing with addictions or needs is by doing the following.
A while back i had an urge to do bad things that affect a persons neshomo i felt very bad and guilty about this and wanted a way to overcome it. After many failed attempts i found a good method. What I did was set my self a time where i would not do this tayvah in my case it was 30 days. What this does is sets you a doable reasonable limit in which to control yourself this method worked by me and I think would work with others. If this is not doable than set yourself a shorter limit such as 15 days. What this does is limits you and one the first week is up (the most difficult time) you feel accomplished and it pushes you to go further
This works as i said before with all kinds of addictions (Internet, food, smoking ect)
Good luck
DQB, you haven’t answered my question.
The Londoner, good advice.
If one needs to relax and there are only activities that have women around improperly dressed (example the kids are in the house and freaking out and need to get out in the summer – everywhere there’s something).
This is premised on an open and complete falsehood. There are always always places to go that do not have immodesty being shoved in your face.
It is better to work in a frum environment. Agreed. But it’s not assur to not do so.
It most certainly is assur to work in an immodest environment if you can obtain an equivalent parnasa elsewhere without being subjected to the immodesty. Even if that required longer travel.
It could be that if there is no viable Kosher entertainment…
And even if there were no viable kosher entertainment it would be assur to utilize non-kosher entertainment, such as featuring immodesty.
Go to a country setting or secluded lake and enjoy the sunrise or fresh air and take a walk in the woods or a farm. You don’t need the electronic razzle and dazzle.
Joseph – I completely agree with you. I was talking in a hypothetical situation. Not saying for sure that it would apply (though I think the hypothetical I discussed has some real life difference.)
DY – I didn’t see your question. In truth, it is in fact you that really hadn’t answered as you said that watching something is the equivalent of being m’stachel (therefore anything that comes on screen one is staring at). I don’t think the poskim would discuss as, Joseph points, out it’s usually not a practical situation (obviously it is not ideal). No one discussed like R’ Moshe before (the heter to put oneself for parnassa in a situation where they will see inappropriate images), because such inappropriate situations in going to work were likely not relevant in time’s past (or as much so). All the more so nowadays.
If the least nafka mina could be the many many who watch videos where there are women in them – even though they are ‘staring’ at the screen (again even ‘frum’ films). All these people are wrong? All the Rabbanim who have Yeshivas who have women on their videos – they are all doing wrong. Again, I don’t want to sound like I support. But, academically, I think there is a limud z’chus. I think as Rav Ovadiah I saw sighted equivocates women on screen to in person regard ervahs – it could l’kula that it is similar to Reb Moshe (ie that women on screen or no worse than in person). People need something. They are lacking what to do, and it bothers them. They (again excluding those who do) don’t want to see inappropriate things – they just want to be entertained. Just like when they go to the zoo and they see someone dressed like an animal – they need to look away. Perhaps that is their reasoning that if one is staring at one thing and agav another pops up – that new things (if an ervah) doesn’t automatically make one go against “achrei einechum”
DQB
It most certainly is assur to work in an immodest environment if you can obtain an equivalent parnasa elsewhere without being subjected to the immodesty. Even if that required longer travel.
Avodah Zarah 48b
:?????? ?”? ?? ?????
??’ ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???’ ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???
While, this Tosafos is discussing idolatrous trees which is less strict then tznius issues, it might also apply to tznius.
DQB, I don’t understand your comparison of women in videos produced by frum mosdos, where there are strict standards of tznius, and secular media, where part of the selling point is the opposite.
I think as Rav Ovadiah I saw sighted equivocates women on screen to in person regard ervahs – it could l’kula that it is similar to Reb Moshe (ie that women on screen or no worse than in person). People need something.
You wrote a powerful message but Rav Ovadiah tz”l does not equate women on screen to erva in real life. He equates it in regard to hirhur. (Yechovie Daas 4:7)
DaasYochid- I think there may be a misunderstanding between you and DQB. DaasYochid, I don’t think you understand looking at a woman on a screen as equivalent to ????? which is assur. If she is dressed tznius, then you can look at her according to the normative halacha view. Some have a chumra to not look at woman at all, which is a chumra. When she is dressed tznius the main issue is gazing for pleasure purposes.
Why is there an ????? of ???????? It’s for three possible reasons (aside from the damage to the neshomo): ?? ?????, ???????, ??? ?????. At least two of those three (but probably not ?? ?????) are just as applicable by an image as by a live person. The difference is the degree to which there is ????? ??? ???; all things being equal, it’s more of a problem with a live person. But we’re talking about images and ideas which are far from innocuous, and clearly are designed for, and have the effect of, ????? ??? ???.
So anyone, to quote the ???? ????, who is “???? ?? ????”, will recognize that looking at a typical television program or movie (of course there are some exceptions) is violating at least one or two of these issurim (and, he says, others as well).
Aside from the images, there is also the subject matter. See, for example, ???”? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?”? ????? ?”? – ? for cases of ??????? which are ???? despite no ??? being there. Typical secular entertainment, even the programs which are officially “clean”, contain ????? ??????.
On the post right above, I agree.
<block quote>DQB, I don’t understand your comparison of women in videos produced by frum mosdos, where there are strict standards of tznius, and secular media, where part of the selling point is the opposite.</block quote>
I was disagreeing with you DY on that you think anyone watching a program is automatically considered m’stachel at what they are watching. If that is true, then no one can watch a video with a woman in it even if dressed tzniusly. Because they would being m’stachel.
I totally agree that many if not most movies and TV shows (even one’s for younger audiences) have arayos as purposeful part of their message.
I was just pointing out that perhaps a situation that has as a secondary (or better yet a total after thought) of arayos perhaps would not be for sure assur. Ie, one can go to the city to eat at a restaurant even though he will be assailed with signs that have inappropriate images. This is assuming people need relaxing outlets and not everyone has a totally kosher option. It obviously is a b’evieved situation. It could be that sports or other G, PG rated material though containing inappropriate are also not for sure assur m’ikar hadin. This is for people who are not holding obvlously do more prodcuive activities.
???”? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?”? ????? ?”? – ?
:???? ?”?
http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=5&hilchos=27&perek=21&halocha=19&hilite=
:???? ?
http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=5&hilchos=27&perek=21&halocha=20&hilite=
Also:
:??? ???? ?? ??
??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????
????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????
???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???
??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???
One can be dan lekuf zchus and say that the people at the Sheepshead Bay Theater are watching clean movies.
…or that the group of kids sitting and partying in McDonald’s brought their own glatt kosher food.
Also:
:??? ???? ?? ??
??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????
????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????
???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???
??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???
I wasn’t going to bring that up, but technically, you’re right that someone who puts himself in such a situation without good reason is called a ???, which has possible ramifications for ????? ????.
One can be dan lekuf zchus and say that the people at the Sheepshead Bay Theater are watching clean movies.
One can also be dan l’kaf z’chus that all seemingly frei Yidden are really frum, and the reason they drive cars on Shabbos is because they’re all in Hatzoloh, the reason they eat tarfus is because they all have ulcers, and the reason they don’t dress tzniusly is because they all have rare, painful skin conditions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.