 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Hobbies, Crafts, and Collections
-> Reading Room
Besiyata Dishmaya
|
 Sun, Nov 14 2010, 12:51 pm
| GR wrote: | | I didn't skip anything. The dot dot dot you see means you should include the words between the written words when reading. |
I understand what the dot dot dot means, but I wanted to make you aware that these are important words to stress and not secondary.
| GR wrote: | | (ETA: The deeper reason behind taking the mitzvah of Shofar away from Shabbos Rosh Hashana was because the mitzvah of Shabbos accomplished the same spiritual effects in Heaven as the mitzvah of shofar did. According to Chassidus.) |
True but it's not a contradiction. The official reason according to Chazal is what I wrote earlier. You're just adding to the Chazal.
By the way, did you read what I quoted from the Bnei Yissoschor zt"l? The sefer Derech Pikudecho is not a chassidishe sefer but a halochoh sefer that explains some mitzvos of the Torah. It seems that already in his days people had this incorrect interpretation that the lav of velo sosuru refers only to tzaddikim and talibanim.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 0
|
gryp
|
Sun, Nov 14 2010, 12:57 pm
You keep missing my point.
One more time: It is not a chumrah or a mitzvah to erase women. Haman, Amalek, yes. Women, no.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Raizle
|
Sun, Nov 14 2010, 6:29 pm
| Besiyata Dishmaya wrote: |
| GR wrote: | | Secondly, since you asked: It says "Velo Sasuru acharei.....eineichem," not: "Vatichasu Es Eineichim" or "Vativatlu Es Hanashim." |
You skipped 2 very important words “achrei levavchem” which gives “achrei eineichem” right afterwards, a complete different meaning.
|
The 2 go together for a reason. If you don't connect levavchem with eineichem then you might as well blindfold the men.
| Quote: | | Tzaddikim know their wives and if their wives feel that the Readers Digest or the internet won’t harm them, there’s no reason to cause sholom bayis problems and prohibit it. These tzaddikim made up their minds that they will be careful not to peek. Jewish publications, though, are published for a large spectrum. Among them are certainly husbands who would do more than take a glimpse when having a frum publication at home. It’s because of these people that the publishers refrain from putting in photos of women. |
I'm confused. you keep mentioning Tzaddikim again and again but you haven't responded to the point we made that this is a new concept and Gedoilim of previous generations didn't have a problem with it.
and I really don't understand the paragraph above. Because Readers digest was not intended for Chareidi audience it was Ok to allow it in their homes and they decided to just be careful not to peek but frum magazines were made for a large spectrum so we shouldn't allow the photos in them? I don't follow the logic
And are you saying that they let readers digest into their home because they were strong enough not to peek?
That makes no sense. If it's a problem having the photos in your home then it's a problem. End of story.
I'm also confused because you have actually contradicted yourself a few times in what you have said Tzadikim do.
| Besiyata Dishmaya wrote: |
| Raizle wrote: | This prohibition is on lusting after your hearts and after what your eyes see. If has nothing to do with omitting women from printed society, it be their pictures or their names.
It is you that should provide the source to say what you are saying |
My husband showed me the Gemora in Avoda Zora 20a where it clearly mentions the issur of looking at women even if she’s ugly and there’s no lusting where a man would surely not think much about her. Still the issur applies.
have no choice. |
look, even if I agree with you that it means not even looking at a woman one doesn't lust after. (I still don't agree but I'll have to look into it more with my husband when he comes home)
if the issur is don't look then DON'T LOOK!!!
If you apply the issur to publishing pictures then why stop there? Ban any family photos on your walls because people may come in and see them, and don't leave your house because your neighbor's husband will see you.
| Quote: | | Since when is halocho considered “self-enforced” rules? |
| GR wrote: | You keep missing my point.
One more time: It is not a chumrah or a mitzvah to erase women. Haman, Amalek, yes. Women, no. |
that!
quote me the halacha please on erasing women
| Quote: | | Quote: | The lesson the Rebbe brings out from this for ourselves is that while we are not meant to second guess Torah law even when observance appears to cause hardship and we know the Torah is life for a Jew, both spiritually and physically. Yet this only applies to what the Torah directly commands.
If one wishes to go beyond the letter of the law that is praiseworthy only as long as it affects himself only. |
It’s a halocha, not a chumra, and is meant for all Jews. |
again, source please that it's either halacha or chumra to erase women.
| Quote: | | Shmiras haloshon, the issur of loshon hora, is similar to shmiras einayim. Both are sins that have a tremendous power to pull a person into them. Human beings in general have a strong desire to hear loshon hora or talk loshon hora. They will find all kinds of excuses, legal or illegal, to justify and please their desire. The same applies to shmiras einayim, esp. for men. | Yet there is no ban on women getting together to socialize as far as I'm aware. They are expected to be careful and watch their words but no one is telling them don't mix with other women lest you come to speak evil.
| Quote: | | I can just imagine that if the Chofetz Chaim would have written his sefer in our generation, how many Jews would protest it with “Keep your stringencies to yourself. If you, Chofetz Chaim, want to be a “Chofetz Chaim” fine for you, but don’t impose your self-enforced rules on others.” |
Is there a Chofetz Chaim in our generation telling us to erase women?
| Quote: | | In our generation, the pritzus and lack of tznius is mamish hefker. For this reason alone we ought to make stronger gedorim not to get infested with this hefkeirus. |
I get this concept that we are stricter in tznius because of the downward spiral of society but I don't follow the logic here of banning even the tznius.
On the contrary, in a day and age where there is so much out there that is horrid for our husbands to look at, why would you take away even the kosher and leave them only with the treif?
It's like saying my milchigs and fleishigs might get mixed up so better not have a kosher kitchen.
| Quote: | | The demand to allow pictures of women in Jewish chareidi publications is going along with the non jewish trend. |
In that case, the existence of women must be a goyshe trend too
All you are merely doing is to the kosher as you wish would be done to the treif but it doesn't work that way. All it does is direct their attention back to the treif even more so.
Last edited by Raizle on Sun, Nov 14 2010, 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
gryp
|
Sun, Nov 14 2010, 6:37 pm
| Quote: | | It's like saying my milchigs and fleishigs might get mixed up so better not have a kosher kitchen. |
Right!
And the next ban will be on food, citing the halacha "lo tivashel," and when we say we'd like to eat, you'll say eating is merely a non jewish trend. 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Besiyata Dishmaya
|
Thu, Nov 18 2010, 5:53 pm
| Raizle wrote: | | Besiyata Dishmaya wrote: | | GR wrote: | | Secondly, since you asked: It says "Velo Sasuru acharei.....eineichem," not: "Vatichasu Es Eineichim" or "Vativatlu Es Hanashim." |
You skipped 2 very important words “achrei levavchem” which gives “achrei eineichem” right afterwards, a complete different meaning. |
The 2 go together for a reason. If you don't connect levavchem with eineichem then you might as well blindfold the men. |
Sorry, didn't understand what you're trying to say.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Tzaddikim know their wives and if their wives feel that the Readers Digest or the internet won’t harm them, there’s no reason to cause sholom bayis problems and prohibit it. These tzaddikim made up their minds that they will be careful not to peek. Jewish publications, though, are published for a large spectrum. Among them are certainly husbands who would do more than take a glimpse when having a frum publication at home. It’s because of these people that the publishers refrain from putting in photos of women. |
I'm confused. you keep mentioning Tzaddikim again and again but you haven't responded to the point we made that this is a new concept and Gedoilim of previous generations didn't have a problem with it.
and I really don't understand the paragraph above. Because Readers digest was not intended for Chareidi audience it was Ok to allow it in their homes and they decided to just be careful not to peek but frum magazines were made for a large spectrum so we shouldn't allow the photos in them? I don't follow the logic |
Reader’s Digest was not intended for chareidi audience, so chareidim who allowed these publications into their homes for the women, were careful not to peek. Frum magazines are lechatchilah made for the frum community, which is similar to food with a good hechsher that everyone can enjoy. Therefore the publishers have to be careful to make it available “lechatchilah” for the entire frum community, for women and men as well.
| Quote: | And are you saying that they let readers digest into their home because they were strong enough not to peek?
That makes no sense. If it's a problem having the photos in your home then it's a problem. End of story. |
Yes, they were strong enough because they knew that it’s not catered for them.
| Quote: | | I'm also confused because you have actually contradicted yourself a few times in what you have said Tzadikim do. |
Huh?
| Quote: | | Ban any family photos on your walls because people may come in and see them |
Exactly. Chareidim generally do not have family photos hanging where non-family members can view them.
| Quote: | | and don't leave your house because your neighbor's husband will see you |
אל תהי צדיק הרבה Didn’t we already discuss that this issue only applies to publications and is not relevant for women walking out of their house since men already know to be careful when they go out of their house?
| Quote: | | quote me the halacha please on erasing women |
Shmura Matzos are matzos that are very well guarded that they should not become chometzdik during the entire process.
Could you explain what Shmiras Einayim is?
| Quote: | | again, source please that it's either halacha or chumra to erase women |
Common sense dictates, if the publishers follow the prohibition of “velo sosuru” and don’t want to machshil the men to view pictures of women, how else can they print it? Do you have a better solution than erasing or cutting off the women if they are in the group? We are discussing about getting hurt spiritually.
It’s known that newspapers before printing national security sensitive matters have their articles censored by experts and sometimes (if it was done at the last minute) you can actually see empty spaces in the paragraph. Who would dare criticize these sensitive matters? If it’s not embarrassing to do so for national security, what is embarrassing about doing so for neshomo security?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Shmiras haloshon, the issur of loshon hora, is similar to shmiras einayim. Both are sins that have a tremendous power to pull a person into them. Human beings in general have a strong desire to hear loshon hora or talk loshon hora. They will find all kinds of excuses, legal or illegal, to justify and please their desire. The same applies to shmiras einayim, esp. for men. |
Yet there is no ban on women getting together to socialize as far as I'm aware. They are expected to be careful and watch their words but no one is telling them don't mix with other women lest you come to speak evil. |
The comparison I meant was that if there’s a group of women and one of them starts speaking LH, for the others not to listen and protest against the talker, would be a big nissoyon. The same with men, if by chance when they turn pages and come upon a photo of women (esp. if they’re viewing it privately), it’s a big nissoyon for them to move on to the next page and not to look and get stuck there...
| Quote: | | I get this concept that we are stricter in tznius because of the downward spiral of society but I don't follow the logic here of banning even the tznius. |
Simply because this is the halachah, there’s no heter to stare at even the most tzniusdik woman or rebbetzin.
| Quote: | | On the contrary, in a day and age where there is so much out there that is horrid for our husbands to look at, why would you take away even the kosher and leave them only with the treif? |
You’re mistaken. Looking at tzniusdik women is not kosher at all.
| chavamom wrote: | | Besiyata Dishmaya wrote: | | Depressed wrote: | | The Gammarra in Brochos 17a, Says "Im stringent on my self and lenient on others" . If you dont want to buy the magazine or bring it into your house, col hacavod, but DONT go Taliban on the rest of the community. It will only backfire... |
Chareidi publications are catered for the chareidi community. It’s not the publishers' concern whether non-chareidim or, lehavdil, non-Jews appreciate what they do. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, but you can’t force them to change their shitta which is according to the advice of Gedolei Yisroel. |
Oh please. As reported to me by an employee of one of these publications - "it's a business decision". They are taking the most machmir shita to avoid losing business. |
This is the best proof that this shitta is correct and this is what the people want. There are b”H multitudes of Jewish people who are not looking to compromise on Torah and mitzvos, but simply want to follow halachah “lechatchilah” without any leniencies. The publishers are aware of this blessed trend and cater to them because they are a considerable group of people. If this clientele would have been a minority, the publishers would just ignore them. There’s no need for Rabbinical intervention in this matter since the publishers themselves are careful about it simply for business reasons.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
chavamom
|
Thu, Nov 18 2010, 6:25 pm
| Besiyata Dishmaya wrote: |
| chavamom wrote: | | Besiyata Dishmaya wrote: | | Depressed wrote: | | The Gammarra in Brochos 17a, Says "Im stringent on my self and lenient on others" . If you dont want to buy the magazine or bring it into your house, col hacavod, but DONT go Taliban on the rest of the community. It will only backfire... |
Chareidi publications are catered for the chareidi community. It’s not the publishers' concern whether non-chareidim or, lehavdil, non-Jews appreciate what they do. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, but you can’t force them to change their shitta which is according to the advice of Gedolei Yisroel. |
Oh please. As reported to me by an employee of one of these publications - "it's a business decision". They are taking the most machmir shita to avoid losing business. |
This is the best proof that this shitta is correct and this is what the people want. There are b”H multitudes of Jewish people who are not looking to compromise on Torah and mitzvos, but simply want to follow halachah “lechatchilah” without any leniencies. The publishers are aware of this blessed trend and cater to them because they are a considerable group of people. If this clientele would have been a minority, the publishers would just ignore them. There’s no need for Rabbinical intervention in this matter since the publishers themselves are careful about it simply for business reasons. |
No, it's a chassidish shita. That doesn't make it correct or even what most people want. It's just a way of maximizing the buying pool. I sometimes wonder what planet you live on.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Simple1
|
Thu, Nov 18 2010, 6:27 pm
|
BD - Does v'lo sasuru apply to women? Can there be no pictures of men that are to women the equivelent of an unattractive woman is to a man? Like maybe high powered politicians, especially ones who've had stories circulating abou them. I'm just trying to understand the blanket ban on women.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Besiyata Dishmaya
|
Thu, Nov 18 2010, 6:49 pm
| chavamom wrote: | | No, it's a chassidish shita. That doesn't make it correct or even what most people want. It's just a way of maximizing the buying pool. I sometimes wonder what planet you live on. |
It's halachah. I live on the planet my forefathers lived on and were b”H erliche yidden. I try to go in their footsteps and continue this trend.
| Simple1 wrote: | | BD - Does v'lo sasuru apply to women? Can there be no pictures of men that are to women the equivelent of an unattractive woman is to a man? Like maybe high powered politicians, especially ones who've had stories circulating abou them. I'm just trying to understand the blanket ban on women. |
Don’t know. The Sefer Hachinuch might touch this topic. Since we don’t have this sefer at home, perhaps my husband will be so kind and check it out in shul or kollel when he has a chance. In the meantime, maybe there’s someone else here who can look it up.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Raizle
|
Thu, Nov 18 2010, 7:41 pm
| besiyata dishmaya wrote: | | Sorry, didn't understand what you're trying to say. |
it's not just eineichem but also l'vavchem. Otherwise you shouldn't look at anything or anyone. take it a step further. Men who have an attraction to men probably shouldn't gaze at non tznius photos of men. If you take the pasuk apart and only focus on the "looking" without including the going after your heart bit then these men have a way out and can say there is no issur on gazing at porno of men because the posuk only refers to women. Whereas the posuk actually refers to what a person lusts after. If he has to gaurd his eyes in that way as well.
| Quote: | | Reader’s Digest was not intended for chareidi audience, so chareidim who allowed these publications into their homes for the women, were careful not to peek. Frum magazines are lechatchilah made for the frum community, which is similar to food with a good hechsher that everyone can enjoy. Therefore the publishers have to be careful to make it available “lechatchilah” for the entire frum community, for women and men as well. |
Mashgichim of food don't take into account peoples personal preferences. The mashgiach of a butcher shop doesn't prohibit turkey for example because of the large population of descendents of the Sheloh
| Quote: | | yes, they were strong enough because they knew that it’s not catered for them. |
I still don't get it. If they were strong enough for RD why can't they be strong enough for their wives magazines
yes I'm pretty sure you said at one point that they didn't have magazines in their homes. Now you are saying they did but trying to explain how that was acceptable. I agree with GR that it's a bit of a chutzpa to try and come up with "excuses" for them
| Quote: | | Exactly. Chareidim generally do not have family photos hanging where non-family members can view them. | well I guess it boils down to different interpertations of Chareidim. For the sake of this forum I've been included in the Chareidi population and I do.
anyone else?
| Quote: | | Didn’t we already discuss that this issue only applies to publications and is not relevant for women walking out of their house since men already know to be careful when they go out of their house? | why? who decides this? why is it not relevant? you are talking about being michshal them. How am I not being michshal when I walk in their path?
| Quote: | | Could you explain what Shmiras Einayim is? |
that particular term? No, but I'll explain the posuk we discussed, As I said earlier it refers to lusting. As others have said on numerous occasions it refers to more then just looking but really looking for the sake of taking it in in a lustful manner.
| Quote: | | Common sense dictates, if the publishers follow the prohibition of “velo sosuru” and don’t want to machshil the men to view pictures of women, how else can they print it? Do you have a better solution than erasing or cutting off the women if they are in the group? We are discussing about getting hurt spiritually. |
yes.
Do as the posuk said and don't "look." Let them read the text if they are so inclined. If they can't control themselves then there are other better sources of reading material for him.
| Quote: | | It’s known that newspapers before printing national security sensitive matters have their articles censored by experts and sometimes (if it was done at the last minute) you can actually see empty spaces in the paragraph. Who would dare criticize these sensitive matters? If it’s not embarrassing to do so for national security, what is embarrassing about doing so for neshomo security? |
how can you compare censoring people with censoring text?
| Quote: | | The comparison I meant was that if there’s a group of women and one of them starts speaking LH, for the others not to listen and protest against the talker, would be a big nissoyon. The same with men, if by chance when they turn pages and come upon a photo of women (esp. if they’re viewing it privately), it’s a big nissoyon for them to move on to the next page and not to look and get stuck there... |
speaking loshon hora is an issur for the speaker as well as the listener.
Existing as a female is not. Having the photos in there is not.
Simply because this is the halachah, there’s no heter to stare at even the most tzniusdik woman or rebbetzin.
so don't stare! It is not halacha to ban women from publications or photos
| chavamom wrote: | | No, it's a chassidish shita | Not even. It's an element within the chareidi community
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
chavamom
|
Thu, Nov 18 2010, 11:08 pm
| Raizle wrote: |
| chavamom wrote: | | No, it's a chassidish shita | Not even. It's an element within the chareidi community |
And that magazines choose to follow it doesn't make it halacha, it makes it "appeal to the lowest common denominator to maximize profits".
As to "charedim don't post family photos" - again, I'm really not sure what planet you live on. I think you are mistaking your narrow segment of society for "the definition of charedi".
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Raizle
|
Fri, Nov 19 2010, 2:24 am
| chavamom wrote: | | Raizle wrote: |
| chavamom wrote: | | No, it's a chassidish shita | Not even. It's an element within the chareidi community |
And that magazines choose to follow it doesn't make it halacha, it makes it "appeal to the lowest common denominator to maximize profits".
As to "charedim don't post family photos" - again, I'm really not sure what planet you live on. I think you are mistaking your narrow segment of society for "the definition of charedi". |
exactly.
on both points
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
gryp
|
Fri, Nov 19 2010, 9:38 am
| Quote: | | mistaking your narrow segment of society |
Emphasis on the word "narrow."
I've heard of one type of Chassidim where being created a women seems to be a sin. That the secretaries in their yeshiva are locked into the office and may exit only if they ring the buzzer, requesting to be let out.
If you belong to this type of group, by all means, cut women out of your publications and off your streets. I don't agree with it but what's the point of me having an opinion on it?
But to think that this is what the extended Chareidi world does, you have to be living within tall, thick walls.
| Quote: | | Exactly. Chareidim generally do not have family photos hanging where non-family members can view them. |
Chareidim generally do not even take pictures of their female family members in case a man happens to see them. We wouldn't want to be nichshal them. In fact, most people don't even own a camera- it's one of the halachos of Shmiras Einayim. Nobody applying to Chareidi schools are allowed entry if they own a camera, and they ask it on the application questionnaire: Do you have in your home: a computer, internet, videos, or a camera.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Besiyata Dishmaya
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 4:16 pm
GR my response is to you too. No need to repeat myself over and over again.
| Raizle wrote: | | besiyata dishmaya wrote: | | Sorry, didn't understand what you're trying to say. |
it's not just eineichem but also l'vavchem. Otherwise you shouldn't look at anything or anyone. take it a step further. Men who have an attraction to men probably shouldn't gaze at non tznius photos of men. If you take the pasuk apart and only focus on the "looking" without including the going after your heart bit then these men have a way out and can say there is no issur on gazing at porno of men because the posuk only refers to women. Whereas the posuk actually refers to what a person lusts after. If he has to gaurd his eyes in that way as well. |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Reader’s Digest was not intended for chareidi audience, so chareidim who allowed these publications into their homes for the women, were careful not to peek. Frum magazines are lechatchilah made for the frum community, which is similar to food with a good hechsher that everyone can enjoy. Therefore the publishers have to be careful to make it available “lechatchilah” for the entire frum community, for women and men as well. |
Mashgichim of food don't take into account peoples personal preferences. The mashgiach of a butcher shop doesn't prohibit turkey for example because of the large population of descendents of the Sheloh |
Shmiras Einayim applies to every Jewish soul not only to “Talibanim”. There are Jews who act as if it doesn’t apply to them. This is not a chumra. It’s a halachah.
If there’s a certain ingredient which is dangerous for people, the government would not allow it to be used at all, even though there are people whom it doesn’t affect.
When we talk about different customs and minhogim, like you mentioned about turkey, it’s a different story. Proof to this is from the following: Pesach when there are people who eat kitniyos, we find hechsherim from reliable Rabbonim with a label on it stating ‘this hechsher applies only for those who eat kitniyos’.
For men viewing pictures of women is not optional where there are people who have a custom to be makpid on it and those have a custom to be meikel on it. It’s ossur for everyone. This is similar to LH. Some people speak LH, do they have a heter? Are the laws of LH only to “Talibanim”? The law applies to everyone but some people just ignore it. The same with viewing photos of women - even tzniusdige.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | yes, they were strong enough because they knew that it’s not catered for them. |
I still don't get it. If they were strong enough for RD why can't they be strong enough for their wives magazines |
Regarding the “strong enough” idea I was referring to those great tzaddikim who allowed RD into their home for their wives because they were strong enough. For these tzaddikim, publications with photos of women may be ok. Their Rebbetzins would tell their husbands, the tzaddikim, that they brought into their house such publications that is not intended for men. But our topic here is the general public where the temptations are great and in this case applies what we say every morning:
ואל תביאנו לא לידי חטא ולא לידי עבירה ועון ולא לידי נסיון
| Quote: | | yes I'm pretty sure you said at one point that they didn't have magazines in their homes. Now you are saying they did but trying to explain how that was acceptable. I agree with GR that it's a bit of a chutzpa to try and come up with "excuses" for them |
Most Rabbonim did not have magazines, but someone mentioned on this thread about some Gedolim who did have, for these particular Gedolim I wrote the reason why they felt that it’s ok for “them”.
The chutzpah is that the general public who are not on the level of tzaddikim compare themselves to their level and act accordingly using the same heter even though they are not as strong spiritually as these Gedolim and have the chutzpah to point their finger and say ‘I’m on the same level as these Gedolim.’ My husband once told me that the Gemora mentions several times that there are things that are prohibited for non Bnei Torah even though it’s permitted for Bnei Torah. The concept is that the general public cannot compare themselves to people that are on a higher level than them.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Didn’t we already discuss that this issue only applies to publications and is not relevant for women walking out of their house since men already know to be careful when they go out of their house? | why? who decides this? why is it not relevant? you are talking about being michshal them. How am I not being michshal when I walk in their path? |
Because the discussion in this thread is about photos of women in publications. Period.
The truth is that women ought to be careful the way they dress and walk on the street not to be machshil Jewish men. Men realize that since the street is a public domain and public for everyone and they might encounter women, they know to be careful. As I said, chareidi publications is geared for men too.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Could you explain what Shmiras Einayim is? |
that particular term? No, but I'll explain the posuk we discussed, As I said earlier it refers to lusting. As others have said on numerous occasions it refers to more then just looking but really looking for the sake of taking it in in a lustful manner. |
Shmiras Einayim means guarding the eyes. Chazal say that a man is not allowed to look at a woman even if she’s ugly. Any ordinary man will tell you there’s no lusting there and yet Chazal say it’s ossur. It has nothing to do with lusting. Lusting, of course, is worse. But looking at woman in general is ossur. And this is called Shmiras Einayim.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Common sense dictates, if the publishers follow the prohibition of “velo sosuru” and don’t want to machshil the men to view pictures of women, how else can they print it? Do you have a better solution than erasing or cutting off the women if they are in the group? We are discussing about getting hurt spiritually. |
yes.
Do as the posuk said and don't "look." Let them read the text if they are so inclined. If they can't control themselves then there are other better sources of reading material for him. |
It’s not easy not to look in a publication if the photo is in front of you. Try it.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | It’s known that newspapers before printing national security sensitive matters have their articles censored by experts and sometimes (if it was done at the last minute) you can actually see empty spaces in the paragraph. Who would dare criticize these sensitive matters? If it’s not embarrassing to do so for national security, what is embarrassing about doing so for neshomo security? |
how can you compare censoring people with censoring text? |
Nobody is censoring people, they’re censoring photos of certain people for spiritual security which for a Jew is much more important than national security.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The comparison I meant was that if there’s a group of women and one of them starts speaking LH, for the others not to listen and protest against the talker, would be a big nissoyon. The same with men, if by chance when they turn pages and come upon a photo of women (esp. if they’re viewing it privately), it’s a big nissoyon for them to move on to the next page and not to look and get stuck there... |
speaking loshon hora is an issur for the speaker as well as the listener.
Existing as a female is not. Having the photos in there is not. |
So get me the source that photos of women for men to view is not ossur.
| Quote: | | chavamom wrote: | | No, it's a chassidish shita |
Not even. It's an element within the chareidi community |
Sorry, it’s not just “an element”, it’s all Jews with yiras Shomayim who follow the path of the rotzon Haborah without any excuses or explanations.
| chavamom wrote: | | Raizle wrote: | | chavamom wrote: | | No, it's a chassidish shita | Not even. It's an element within the chareidi community |
And that magazines choose to follow it doesn't make it halacha, it makes it "appeal to the lowest common denominator to maximize profits". |
Did you read what you just wrote? According to you, the majority are not makpid and the publishers are ready to lose the majority of people for the few extremist and still they “maximize profits”? Do you really believe that this makes sense?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Raizle
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 5:16 pm
| Besiyata Dishmaya wrote: | | If there’s a certain ingredient which is dangerous for people, the government would not allow it to be used at all, even though there are people whom it doesn’t affect. |
as far as I'm aware products with peanuts are still being sold only that they have a warning on them for those that it is dangerous for.
Regarding the meaning of Shmiras Einayim, I spoke to my husband over shabbos who is a learned man, and knows his gemora well. He says "not looking" means not focusing on a woman and concentrating in a way as to bring about arousal. Even looking at her pinky in that way is a problem. He said that doesn't mean eradicating women from publications or photos. If a man knows he has a yetzer Hora in that area he personally needs to be carefull. My husband (as a man) agrees with me that when you go so far as to not prohibit even the innocent you are doing the opposite of what you are out to achieve.
| Quote: | | regarding the “strong enough” idea I was referring to those great tzaddikim who allowed RD into their home for their wives because they were strong enough. For these tzaddikim, publications with photos of women may be ok. |
Oh BD you can't be serious! Did they also bring TVs into their house because they were strong enough to only have the educational and clean programs showing? And about what I said earlier about you constantly contradicting yourself in your description of these great people, didn't you say earlier that the greater the person the stronger the yetzer hora?
| Quote: | | The chutzpah is that the general public who are not on the level of tzaddikim compare themselves to their level and act accordingly using the same heter even though they are not as strong spiritually as these | Gedoilim use heterim based on their lofty level? You want to tell me that reaching a certain level means you get off with certain things not allowed to the rest of the public? You don't think this is a major chutzpa talking about them like this?
| Quote: | | My husband once told me that the Gemora mentions several times that there are things that are prohibited for non Bnei Torah even though it’s permitted for Bnei Torah. | I think I've come across this before but generally it is not something that is publicly known.
| Quote: | | The truth is that women ought to be careful the way they dress and walk on the street not to be machshil Jewish men. | I agree with this and have said so.
| Quote: |
So get me the source that photos of women for men to view is not ossur. | You don't get what I'm saying. Whatever you interpet shmiras Ainayim to be it's the men's halacha. It does not mean eradicating the women in anyway, real life or in photos. And how do you explain the trend mentioned on this forum to take women's names out of the publication as well? What is the connection there with shmiras ainayim.
For the record I feel this way about women who wear shawls in order to hide their female form. Might as well lop 'em off so as not to tempt our men.
| Quote: | | Sorry, it’s not just “an element”, it’s all Jews with yiras Shomayim who follow the path of the rotzon Haborah without any excuses or explanations. | Thank you, my husband is a big yiras shomayim and does not consider this an excuse.
| Quote: | | Did you read what you just wrote? According to you, the majority are not makpid and the publishers are ready to lose the majority of people for the few extremist and still they “maximize profits”? Do you really believe that this makes sense? | it does make sense because they aren't actually losing the majority of people, they are simply gaining another group of readers that otherwise wouldn't buy it. Many people still read the publications who would read it otherwise with or without the photos.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
hadasa
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 5:31 pm
I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd like to give a slightly different POV as a Chareidi woman. I don't think Tznius is all about protecting the men's eyes. It's also about the woman herself, her dignity, and "Kol kvudah bas melech pnimah." I personally would prefer not to have my face publicized in the media, and I think that is a preference many Frum women share. I don't mind men passing by me on the street or talking face to face with people I have dealings with, but that's very different from having hundreds of people I don't know viewing my picture. I assume Tzippy Livni wouldn't mind having her picture in Hamodia, but rather than differentiate between women who do and don't care, I do think it's best not to have women's pictures at all. I admit that I have occasionally agreed to be publicized in local publications and on TV for kiruv purposes, but that's different from being publicized in Frum publications or websites.
I do draw the line at illustrated kid's books, though. I think kids do need to relate to the mother in the story as a person with a face, and not just the back of a snood, a hand on an ironing board or a pair of legs (!!!) - all real examples from my kids' books. And if it's just an illustration and not a real woman, and the pictures are done Tzniusdikly, I really don't see the problem.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Raizle
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 6:32 pm
| hadasa wrote: | I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd like to give a slightly different POV as a Chareidi woman. I don't think Tznius is all about protecting the men's eyes. It's also about the woman herself, her dignity, and "Kol kvudah bas melech pnimah." I personally would prefer not to have my face publicized in the media, and I think that is a preference many Frum women share. I don't mind men passing by me on the street or talking face to face with people I have dealings with, but that's very different from having hundreds of people I don't know viewing my picture. I assume Tzippy Livni wouldn't mind having her picture in Hamodia, but rather than differentiate between women who do and don't care, I do think it's best not to have women's pictures at all. I admit that I have occasionally agreed to be publicized in local publications and on TV for kiruv purposes, but that's different from being publicized in Frum publications or websites.
I do draw the line at illustrated kid's books, though. I think kids do need to relate to the mother in the story as a person with a face, and not just the back of a snood, a hand on an ironing board or a pair of legs (!!!) - all real examples from my kids' books. And if it's just an illustration and not a real woman, and the pictures are done Tzniusdikly, I really don't see the problem. |
I actually understand and identify with what you are saying. Not so much for a magazine but I wouldn't want my picture up on a bilboard for example.
however, regarding the bold, can you please explain? If it's about how the woman feels then why can't each woman individually decide for herself?
I assume they need a person's permission before publicizing her picture.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Aylat
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 6:55 pm
|
Like hadasa I haven't read the whole thread, but I wanted to say that I am actually not offended by the no female photos. I would have a big problem with it if I really felt that women were being 'erased' from frum society, but the photos don't make me feel that way at all. Many of the writers/graphic designers/editors etc are women, and many of the articles are about women or topics women are interested in. Women clearly play a big part in frum journalism and marketing and are an important part of the target audience for these publications. The fact that their pictures aren't there doesn't really bother me at all. I think what hadasa said makes a lot of sense, and I think a lot of frum women may actually prefer to have their names but not their photos published.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Simple1
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 8:01 pm
| hadasa wrote: | I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd like to give a slightly different POV as a Chareidi woman. I don't think Tznius is all about protecting the men's eyes. It's also about the woman herself, her dignity, and "Kol kvudah bas melech pnimah." I personally would prefer not to have my face publicized in the media, and I think that is a preference many Frum women share. I don't mind men passing by me on the street or talking face to face with people I have dealings with, but that's very different from having hundreds of people I don't know viewing my picture. I assume Tzippy Livni wouldn't mind having her picture in Hamodia, but rather than differentiate between women who do and don't care, I do think it's best not to have women's pictures at all. I admit that I have occasionally agreed to be publicized in local publications and on TV for kiruv purposes, but that's different from being publicized in Frum publications or websites.
I do draw the line at illustrated kid's books, though. I think kids do need to relate to the mother in the story as a person with a face, and not just the back of a snood, a hand on an ironing board or a pair of legs (!!!) - all real examples from my kids' books. And if it's just an illustration and not a real woman, and the pictures are done Tzniusdikly, I really don't see the problem. |
I know that plenty of men don't either want their photos in the paper. (I'm referring to the random photographs in the photo section of some yeshivish papers.) There's a big difference between that and politicans.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Mama Bear
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 8:12 pm
|
I have news for you, even if there would be frum magaizne that would publish pictures of women, most of those types of women who would get interviewed for a frum magazine wuldnt want their pictures published in a magazine.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
gryp
|
Sat, Nov 20 2010, 8:15 pm
| Quote: | | Shmiras Einayim means guarding the eyes. Chazal say that a man is not allowed to look at a woman even if she’s ugly. Any ordinary man will tell you there’s no lusting there and yet Chazal say it’s ossur. It has nothing to do with lusting. Lusting, of course, is worse. But looking at woman in general is ossur. And this is called Shmiras Einayim. |
That is YOUR interpretation of the halacha of Shmiras Einayim. Not the halachic interpretation. In fact, I just came across this last night as I was reviewing a Taharas Hamishpacha sefer. Passing a person on the street and seeing that she is a female is NOT assur. Passing a person on the street and staring because she's female IS assur.
It may be a very narrow difference but the distinction is made.
Hadasa, I'd be pretty unhappy if my picture was published. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to get the rest of the female population erased too.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
