November 9, 2015 8:34 pm at 8:34 pm #1111256
Joseph: Flatbusher, indeed many rabbonim caution against non-family being invited as social guests for meals.
Indeed, I never have. Has anyone else here been warned by the many rabbonim not to have non-family members as social guests?November 9, 2015 10:49 pm at 10:49 pm #1111257
Flatbusher, indeed many rabbonim caution against non-family being invited as social guests for meals.
And there are plenty of rabbonim who don’t have a problem with this. I, myself, have eaten by the homes of rabbanim who didn’t have a problem with having my mother and sister (and later on, my wife) there as well.
The WolfNovember 9, 2015 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #1111258
Family doesn’t even fully count as guests.November 9, 2015 11:35 pm at 11:35 pm #1111259
I guess some people just have the good fortune of rabbonim channeling their energies to themNovember 10, 2015 12:35 am at 12:35 am #1111260
Obviously, like all halachic and hashkafic matters, this is something for an LOR to decide.
Having said that:
LiChaOra, it is not a reduction of a woman’s dignity and honor of a bas melech if she is present in the same house as a guest (assuming, of course, that no issur is encountered).
Whereas with a newspaper, every pair of eyes that sees her picture is an automatic reduction of her kavod.November 10, 2015 3:53 am at 3:53 am #1111261
“Automatic reduction of her kavod” So you feel the same way about pictures of gedolim? I’m past 60 and have always been living in a frum community and in all my years I have never, ever heard it to be a shaila about having female guests for Shabbos. I think we should reserve shailos for the LOR for really important things.
The implication you and others make is that there is something lascivious about a male looking at the picture of a woman. I don’t see how looking at a picture does anything to detract from a person’s kavod, male or female.November 10, 2015 4:14 am at 4:14 am #1111262
And to think that the Shulchan Aruch concerns itself, as a matter of halacha no less, with even looking at a woman’s pinky finger. Why was the Mechaber so worried about men looking at a woman’s pinky finger?November 10, 2015 4:32 am at 4:32 am #1111263
“Too bad Charlie wasnt around to teach”
Too bad Joseph has never learned Sefer Tehilim.November 10, 2015 4:35 am at 4:35 am #1111264
Joseph: Because you’re misreading the Mechaber. It’s Assur to look in order to get Hana’ah. Nowhere does the Mechaber (who’s quoting a Gemara) say that the pinky being visible is inherently “looking in order to get Hana’ah”.November 10, 2015 5:02 am at 5:02 am #1111265
Sam2 personal question: when you iy”h get engaged, would you prefer your Choson Kallah picture be posted on the Jewish Simcha sites? Why or why not?
Of course you don’t have to answer but I’d really like to hear your take on this in a practical sense.November 10, 2015 5:03 am at 5:03 am #1111266
You missed the context, Sam. My point about the pinky was in response to flatbusher’s dismissive comment about “something lascivious about a male looking at the picture of a woman”. Yes, we are worried about the possibility of something lascivious about a male looking at the picture of a woman just as the Gemorah and the Mechaber are worried about the possibility of something lascivious about a male looking at the pinky of a woman.
And, frankly, I think there is a lot lot more to be worried about men getting lascivious about a picture of a woman than of a pinky of a woman. The picture they can stare at longer and take with them in privacy.
And Charlie is dismissive of kol kvudah bas melech pnima by brushing it off as merely “referring to a non-Jewish woman”. So I pointed out that the Mechaber was not referring to a non-Jewish woman when he cited kol kvudah bas melech pnima in the S”A as halacha.November 10, 2015 5:04 am at 5:04 am #1111267
☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
??”? ????? ?”?
????? ?? ???. ?? ????? ??? ?????November 10, 2015 7:02 am at 7:02 am #1111268
Joseph: I disagree. The point is there are things that are normal to be visible. A pinky is normal and not a violation of Tznius. Nevertheless, it’s an Issur Chamur for someone to look at it with inappropriate intent. I would say that a Tznius picture should be the exact same. It’s normal, it can exist, but it’s Assur for a man to use improperly.
DY: What’s fascinating is that we don’t hold Kol Yirael Bnei Melachim.November 10, 2015 7:04 am at 7:04 am #1111269
Mammele: Honestly, I don’t think it’s appropriate to even have engagement pictures, but that’s an issue for another time.
There are dividing concerns. There is a lack of Tznius to tell the world that you got engaged. And there is a Maaleh in being able to inform your friends and well-wishers that something good happened. Lema’aseh, the world holds that you tell everyone. Whether I feel uncomfortable about that doesn’t change that it would be very rude to hide it.November 10, 2015 8:17 am at 8:17 am #1111270
my two cents (or less):
Aside from the halachik issue bear in mind that often printing a picture of a woman with an article can detract from the message. It becomes more about what she is wearing, her makeup and jewelery, how many wrinkles she has etc. Women are very judged by society based on their appearance (less so for men) so you could have a whole article about the amazing things a woman has done and ppl can totally miss the point because they are too busy analyzing her appearance in that picture where she is watering the flowers.November 10, 2015 4:20 pm at 4:20 pm #1111271
Thanks Sam for your honesty.
I don’t see why an engagement announcement must be accompanied by a photo, no hiding necessary. In any case, can we agree that publicizing photos of women have the potential to be more harmful than productive?
Why is it masked as a woman’s rights issue when many women in our circles do not want to be so public? If we print only photos of non Jewish women they should feel offended for being singled out…November 10, 2015 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #1111272
I didn’t mean to say it is or isn’t a shaila; I simply meant that I am, of course, not paskening.
If you want my personal opinion, it is definitely worth asking a reliable Rav if there are any gedarim involved in Shabbos guests.November 10, 2015 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1111273
The reduction in kavod is due to her, even fully dressed, nonetheless “being exposed” via her picture. It has zero to do with whether or not the men viewing her picture find her in even the slightest way attractive.November 10, 2015 6:25 pm at 6:25 pm #1111274
Mammele: Chas Veshalom to force anyone to have their picture taken/publicized if they don’t want it. Then again, sometimes society forces them (I didn’t want to have pictures taken at my Bar Mitzvah but I had to so all of my relatives could see). This is nothing about forcing women to appear in pictures. This is about allowing pictures of them to be shown if they so wish it.November 10, 2015 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #1111275
Sam, so you disagree. Nevertheless I provided a very rational, cohesive, and good reason to take my position. And your favorite newspapers probably follow your opinion of publishing such pictures, and no one is forcing them to stop. And surely even if you disagree you can understand, live with and respect the logic I presented as reason other publishers may choose not to publish such photos, without anyone trying to force them to follow your opinion.
And as a secondary point, perhaps you might even recognize this geder as intended for purposes of kedusha. Especially considering the topic of shmiras einayim and arayos and even simple interactions between the genders is something the Torah, Gemora, meforshim, poskim and S”A warn very strongly against, even regarding seemingly simple interactions (looking, talking, smelling, thinking, friendships, etc.) with encouragements of adding great gedorim to this area of great taaiva to sin which can easily result in people slipping even unintentionally unto the wrong side of the border.November 10, 2015 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #1111276
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.”
Then the RAMBAM probably would asser women going out into the workplace everyday, while their husbands sit in Yeshivah. Except for once or twice a month, at most…
Golfer – 🙂November 10, 2015 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #1111277
Hakatan, that is the same for a man. According to that argument, then, the masculists are right. There is a lot of work to be done so we can give men the same rights and respect as we give women.
(Also, I assume you would allow an extremely realistic painting of a woman as long as that woman in reality does not exist?)November 10, 2015 7:49 pm at 7:49 pm #1111278
Sam2: you are naively assuming that Jewish magazines routinely ask permission from those appearing in photos before publishing it. Same goes for Internet websites.
Why do you think it would be any different if it involves women?November 10, 2015 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #1111279
Just because some plagerize photos , doesnt mean its correct or legal.
And there are laws about doctoring copyrighted photos except for parody (Fair use doctrine), you are not allowed to doctor a photo if it changes the narrative, that is not fair useNovember 10, 2015 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #1111280
ZD: There are no secular laws in America stopping anyone from taking a picture of someone else and publishing it. And there are no secular law in America from doctoring photos that you own or have rights to, even if it changes the narrative. If someone else owns the copyright to the photo, what you are or are not permitted to do, doctor or publish depends on what the copyright owner permits.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.