Lilmod: I don’t understand the Gemara. Let me try explain why.
The Gemara praises a person who averts his eyes from gazing at women while they are washing. The Gemara proceeds to ask on this statement: If he has an alternative route to take and doesn’t, then he is a Rasha [Putting yourself into a matzav of nisayon makes you a Rasha even if you correctly assess your ability NOT to be nichshal, and even though you are עומד על נסיון]. If there was no alternative route to take, then אנוס הוא.
If the Gemara would be talking about the issue of exposing onesself to nisayon, then I would understand. There is no concrete issur to enter a nisayon, and in a case of LD”A (Leka Darka Achrina) that would be premitted. But the gemara doesn’t say that.
Rashba”m explains – אנוס הוא. אס מסתכל דרך הליכתו ואונס רחמנא פטריה ולמה מזקיקו הכתוב להעצים עיניו
דמדמשתבח ביה קרא שמעינן דצריך לעצום עיניו. He is an Oines, even if he gazes en route, and therefore why is he obligated to avert his eyes, and we know he must because the Torah praises him for doing so.
What sort of אונס are we talking about here? Why does the fact that he was “Oines” in entering the situation allow him to go ahead and look – enough that the gemara doesn’t even understand why he should be praised for averting his gaze?
And the entire way through the sugya, it is clear that there is no real chiyuv to avert his gaze; even in the maskanah we praise him for “forcing himself to look away”.
Histaklus is a real Issur. צריך אדם להוציא כל ממונו rather than to be oiver an issur. One is only allowed to transgress a Torah prohibition at life threatening risk (or perhaps prolonged torture). (To make things worse, the issur of Histaklus R’ Moshe is mesupak whether it constitutes Abizrayhu De’Arayos as is the pashtus hagemara in other places, in which case the law is יהרג ואל ועבור, getting rid of any heter oines.) Why is one who gazes and isn’t עוצם עיניו not a Rasha? I can hear why he is allowed to enter the situation, but why are we allowing him to be נכשל??