November 8, 2015 4:15 pm at 4:15 pm #616627
There seems to be an ongoing issue of whether pictures of frum women should appear online or in published material. The most right-wing organizations have a policy not to publish, but is there a halachic basis for not displaying pictures of women? If so, how can such pictures even be displayed at home where non-family members can view them?November 8, 2015 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #1111207
What’s the halachic basis for 1) requiring to have a mechitza in shul or 2) not permitting women to be rabbis?November 8, 2015 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #1111208
Why are you assuming that if some people hold that it’s assur, those same people display pictures in their homes?November 8, 2015 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #1111209
DY: Have you been to homes where there are no family pictures with females in them? I haven’t.November 8, 2015 4:54 pm at 4:54 pm #1111210
Picture of me.
-Experiment to determine where the CR stands on this critical issue.November 8, 2015 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm #1111211
I’ve been to many homes that don’t have family pictures displayed anywhere visible where guests are.November 8, 2015 5:27 pm at 5:27 pm #1111212
I would like to add that I don’t understand why particularly among chasidim when there is a published announcement of an engagement. the name of chassan is mentioned but the kallah is only referred to as the daughter and/or granddaughter of so and so.November 8, 2015 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #1111213
I do not view certain types of pictures of women as untzniusdig. When Rebbetzins Kanievsky or Machlis O”H passed away, their picture should have been in EVERY publication that posted a story about their middos and chessed. Our daughters need to see such role models. It is very relevant to show them pictures of women who are nashim tznuos, tzidkoniyos and accomplished.
Kol kvudah bas melech pnima, does not mean women have to be hidden from sight. You may as well do what the Muslems do, and put them in Burkas, if you believe that. If men have a problem even in the most innocent of circumstances, let them work on THEIR tznius, so they do not feel intimidated by the normal sight of even a frum woman whose life was devoted to doing chessed for others.
If one is talking about pictures of women, which clearly are meant to be attracting in their nature, then I could see and even concede that point to those who feel strongly about it. But when pictures of little GIRLS are being edited so they appear faceless, we have taken this way too far, in my opionion.November 8, 2015 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #1111214
Have you been to a home where they hold pictures of women are assur?November 8, 2015 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm #1111215
BTW, to answer your question, there is halachic basis:November 8, 2015 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #1111216
Mod (whichever number it is today) !
LolNovember 8, 2015 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #1111217
What are chareidi publications going to do if Hillary Clinton becomes president?November 8, 2015 5:59 pm at 5:59 pm #1111218
is there a halachic basis for not displaying pictures of women?
The Rambam states women should not leave their home too often. The Rambam says once or twice a month at most. Shulchan Aruch paskens l’halacha that women should not leave the home often, though doesn’t specify a number. The reason for this halacha is so that men shouldn’t see them too often. And this halacha is applicable when women are going from their home directly to another location (i.e. to her father’s home, in Rambam’s example), without lingering in public. And, obviously, the women are dressed completely tzniusdik even those few times they do go outside.
A photo of a woman publicly published can linger in front of men indefinitely. And privately. So it is even worse than a tzniusdik woman going nonstop from her home to her father’s home while dressed entirely tznius during the very infrequent short trip in public.November 8, 2015 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1111219
I wouldn’t know. I guess we run in different circles.November 8, 2015 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #1111220
Obviously most women don’t follow the Rambam nor the Shulchan Aruch. Are you paskening on photos based on the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch?November 8, 2015 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1111221
“to do if Hillary Clinton becomes president?”
Perhaps what we should all do, run away as fast as we can.November 8, 2015 6:11 pm at 6:11 pm #1111222
DY, that refers to staring. No one says that one may not see a woman. In fact, there is a picture of Rav Reisman talking to a woman at his shul’s 25th anniversary dinner (it is in album 1). There is also a picture of another woman who I presume is his wife.November 8, 2015 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #1111223
What are chareidi publications going to do if Hillary Clinton runs for president?
FTFYNovember 8, 2015 6:18 pm at 6:18 pm #1111224
Rav Reisman ??? ??? ?????November 8, 2015 6:19 pm at 6:19 pm #1111225
Are you paskening on photos based on the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch?
Think what the basis is why the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch pasken that halacha as they do. And then think how that basis would apply here.November 8, 2015 6:19 pm at 6:19 pm #1111226
If a woman becomes president, the magazines can stop publishing pictures of people altogether.November 8, 2015 6:23 pm at 6:23 pm #1111227
the gemara on avodah zarah 20b says that histaklus is assur (whether the issur is midirabanan or midioraisa is a machlokes). later rishonim/acharonim argue over if histaklus refers to just a quick glance or a long, intentional gaze. mistama, the frum papers hold strictly (probably to satisfy their client base) that even a glance is assur, and since they *don’t* want to be oiver on mesayeh l’aveirah and *do* want to prevent histaklus, they refrain from publishing the pictures.November 8, 2015 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm #1111228
Thinking is one thing; paskening is anotherNovember 8, 2015 6:27 pm at 6:27 pm #1111229
ZB, or they think it likely that some will take more than a quick glance.
Flatbusher, you didn’t ask if it’s assur, you asked if there is a basis.November 8, 2015 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #1111230
Psak requires thought.November 8, 2015 6:49 pm at 6:49 pm #1111231
DY- maybe, but if they really held that a quick glance is mutar, then they could probably publish headshots of women who are older and tznius, like Oomis’s point about rebbetzin kanievsky.November 8, 2015 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #1111232
First of all, the loudmouths complaining now would complain even louder if older women were published and younger women were not published. Second of all, you could never define a proper and mutually agreed upon line between “older” and “younger”.November 8, 2015 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #1111233
forget the “loudmouths,” this is about halacha. That’s why I think the papers are holding like the shitah that even minimal histaklus is assur, rather than holding the meikil shitah and making the lo plug you just described.November 8, 2015 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm #1111234
Do you really think it’s a good idea to start deciding which pictures are attractive and which aren’t?November 8, 2015 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #1111235
If they tried that, you’d start getting big complaints from the women who are published.November 8, 2015 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #1111236
Just because pictures displayed at home is permitted does not at all mean that pictures printed in a newspaper should also be permitted.
If a guest visits your house and sees some family photos, then it’s, presumably, not any worse than if they were to see the entire family in person at your Shabbos table.
Whereas putting a picture of a woman in a newspaper is like inviting the entire circulation of the publication to view your family photos.November 8, 2015 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #1111237
Even if histaklus were not an issue, and no matter how old and well-dressed the woman may be, it’s still a violation of tznius for a woman, fully tznius, to be put on display in front of people, especially tens of thousands of people as is the case with a newspaper.November 8, 2015 8:33 pm at 8:33 pm #1111238
How could you even suggest that is histaklus is not an issue!!!November 8, 2015 8:38 pm at 8:38 pm #1111239
I think we can agree that younger than 7 years is a girl, not a woman. Whether that affects anything is something else entirely.November 8, 2015 8:57 pm at 8:57 pm #1111240
So why is there no issur to take pictures of women altogether?November 8, 2015 9:22 pm at 9:22 pm #1111241
The Chazon Ish said that from age 3 and up a girl has the same dinim as a womanNovember 8, 2015 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #1111242
Oomis, in spite of your beautifully written post, surely you must realize that Joseph’s very brief post above is so right!
Which committee will decide which women’s photos are permitted?
And when they decide – they’re going to hurt some feelings in a big way.
If I wake up one morning to find myself in a Very Important Mainstream Orthodox Publication, I’ll be horrified and go right back to hide under the covers. Permanently. As that can only mean that in addition to have (suddenly overnight) become a very Chashuva Rebbetzin, there is also no chance whatsoever (due to advanced age, advanced weight, or some other unpleasantness) that any man can find my appearance even a tiny bit agreeable.November 8, 2015 9:37 pm at 9:37 pm #1111243
Joseph- lol I didn’t think of that,re the women being published complaining. I guess there should be some basic guidelines along what rebyidd was saying– maybe make a under 10/over 65 rule? tznius included, of course.
Hakatan: if it is not tznius for an elderly, ‘well-dressed’ woman to be featured in a magazine, shouldn’t the same be true for men? When histaklus and harchakos of ervah are out of the question, then the rules of tznius are the same for both genders. Should they take out pictures of men too, per your reading of hatzneia leches?November 9, 2015 2:08 am at 2:08 am #1111244
Oomis, photos of Rebbetzin Kanievki published in the book about her/her life, after she was nefteresNovember 9, 2015 3:37 am at 3:37 am #1111245
“Kol kvudah bas melech pnima:
That verse in Tehillim is referring to a non-Jewish woman.November 9, 2015 3:38 am at 3:38 am #1111246
“run away as fast as we can”
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.November 9, 2015 3:59 am at 3:59 am #1111247
Too bad Charlie wasnt around to teach the Mechaber a lesson or two before he cited Kol Kvuda as halacha lmaaisa in the S”A for Jewish women.November 9, 2015 5:08 am at 5:08 am #1111248
B1g B0y: Not quite. That’s only in regards to Halachos of Devarim Shebikdusha. That doesn’t make people attracted to them which therefore means they don’t have an obligation to be Tzanua.
Oh, and you’re wrong. The Mishnah Brurah says three. The Chazon Ish gives a few extra years.November 9, 2015 6:46 am at 6:46 am #1111249
DY, the point is that he obviously does not consider it prohibited. As for Hillary Clinton, I was told by a Chareidi rav that it is permitted to look at her. LOL However, any mention of her becoming POTUS should have “chas v’shalom” added to it.
BB, I heard that the Chazon Ish said from the time she starts to appear womanly and that this referred to letting her sit next to her father in shul.November 9, 2015 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm #1111250
Kol Kevuda Bas Melech Penima applies to women, not men.
But, I do partly agree: for men, too, it’s not always appropriate for a MAN’s picture (or the whole article, for that matter) to be plastered in front of tens of thousands of people, because of, as you mentioned, hatznea leches.November 9, 2015 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm #1111251
Hakatan: So why isn’t it assur to have female guests that are not family members? If “looking” is assur what is the heter to have such people at your table? It would seem this would be a much bigger problem than a headshot of a woman in a newspaper.November 9, 2015 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #1111252
Flatbusher, indeed many rabbonim caution against non-family being invited as social guests for meals.November 9, 2015 3:41 pm at 3:41 pm #1111253
DY: Have you been to homes where there are no family pictures with females in them? I haven’t.
I had someone tell me once that by having pictures of women in my home, I was practically prostituting them. Let’s just say that I disagreed with him – vigorously.
The WolfNovember 9, 2015 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm #1111254
I had someone tell me once
Was it only once? Calling Moshe Rose, Calling Moshe Rose.November 9, 2015 7:54 pm at 7:54 pm #1111255
Was it only once? Calling Moshe Rose, Calling Moshe Rose.
No, this was actually in person.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.