Guest post by Hadassah Levy
Hadassah Levy is a website manager and marketer for Jewish Ideas Daily.
A recent ad in a local Rehovot haredi newspaper blurred the picture of Sivan Rahav-Meir. Ironically, the ad was for an event at which Rahav-Meir will be speaking. The event is run by the Religious-National Forum and the ad was submitted to the newspaper without the blurring. (The ad, as it appeared, can be viewed here.)
This news item is being reported shortly after the outrage over the blurring out of Ruti Fogel’s picture from a parsha sheet. The memorial picture included the whole family, with only her photo blurred. Machon Meir, which published the parsha sheet, has a policy against publishing women’s pictures in the bulletin, since it is meant for distribution in shul. The institute apologized both publicly and privately to the family for the gaffe.
In the American sphere, we had the infamous photoshopping out of Hillary Clinton a few months ago. This event prompted the website Vos Iz Neias to publish a halachic article on the question of whether it is permissible to publish women’s pictures. The article assumes that there is little difference between looking at actual women and looking at their photographs. According to the author, Rabbi Yair Hoffman, there is a disagreement as to whether the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 20a and b) prohibited all looking (histaklut) at women, or only ogling. The Shulchan Aruch (EH 21:1) seems to follow the more lenient opinion, forbidding looking at women only in situations where they might not be properly dressed (such as while laundering clothes).
In the haredi world, where looking at women on buses, in lectures or at the supermarket is considered problematic, it is entirely logical to refrain from publishing pictures of them in newspapers, magazines and books. In the Modern Orthodox/dati leumi world, where women are much more present in the public sphere, leaving them out of pictures makes no sense. Women and men interact socially and professionally, and women often speak publicly to mixed crowds. Since it is fairly common for men to look at women in person, there is no reason to object to modest pictures.
When the Hillary Clinton story was hot news, there was much discussion of the chillul hashem which resulted from the removal of her picture from the newspaper. Currently, in Israel, the merest suggestion that religious people discriminate against women can be turned into a major news story and added to the long list of “proofs” that women have no place in the religious public sphere. Preventing this chillul hashem may be more important than a halachic opinion inappropriate for the Modern Orthodox community.
nd who said unmarried women are doing the right thing?
================================================
ok, i think we can leave it at that.
K
“To respond to what someone wrote above, in this picture Mrs. Rahav-Meir is wearing a “fall” in a way that I consider mutar le-chatchilah. It falls under the “Reb Moshe heter” that R. Falk disputes in his book but is what I was taught by my rabbeim and R. Yehudah Henkin defends in his book on tzenius.”
But the pamphlet wasn’t targeted at you!! or at a closed kehilla who relies on RMF, your rebbeim and RYH!
It was directed at a charedi public. Which presumably includes many sefardi charedim who hold like ROY that a sheitel is assur (and kal vechomer a “fall”). For that matter this particular pamphlet is apparently a local Rechovot publication. Rechovot also has one of the largest religious Yemenite communities in Israel. Yemenites traditionally followed the practice of the Rambam which prescribed unmarried mature girls covering their hair (one can argue whether or not this mesora is still relevant for Yemenite Jews in Israel…). Moreover, Rechovot has many of the recent religious immigrants from Yemen, including families which actually still follow the practice of the Rambam.
Again, I’m not advocating that we accept these practices – and I’m very disturbed at the Machon Meir situation and Rav Aviner’s response to it.
But if Rav Herschel Schechter says that if the woman is dressed according to Halacha then there is no problem with the picture and there are people who are of the view that a sheitel/wig on a married woman or uncovered hair on an unmarried bogeres is not according to halacha, then I think that the conclusion is obvious.
“Lawrence Kaplan on January 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Dov: No one is saying that these magazine should be restricted fr blurring or omitting the pictures of women. At the same time no one should restrict us from expressing our disgust with this policy of making women invisible. You strike me as an intelligent fellow. Do you really not understand how the mind-set that makes women invisible ends up by restricting their autonomy?”
I am not disgusted by the policy and mind-set. So long as as it stays within the charedi community. It’s when the charedim get elected to run a mixed city like beit shemesh and the official city hall circulars and posters no longer feature women that it becomes a problem http://chadash-asur.blogspot.com/2011/06/as-if-we-wouldnt-notice.html
Sammy: One wonders if they’ll have the women on the higher or lower bills. Lower, they can carry coins. Higher…they can carry smaller bills? Let’s see if it alternates man-woman.
Personally, I have more of a problem with Tschernikovsky on a bill than a woman.
Mor: That’s avodah zara, and that’s a raised image. But then, Golda Meir appeared on the first few ten shekel coins.
Shachar: Oh, my Lord.
On the historical trends discussed in earlier comments, the current issue of Jewish Review of Books has an article (not yet available online) with some relevancy — http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publications/detail/secularism-and-sabbateans:
Shachar: But the pamphlet wasn’t targeted at you!! or at a closed kehilla who relies on RMF, your rebbeim and RYH!
You have a point but it is not entirely relevant. They will not publish a picture of any woman, no matter how she is dressed.
So, Shachar, if people are acting in a foolish, ugly, and/or non-halachic matter, we’re not allowed to say so if it doesn’t affect “us”?
Of course you can, Nachum, but: a) the choice of words used needs to be convincing; and, b) one needs to be honest about for whom a response is necessary.
As I posited earlier: The chilul hashem rationalization is for people who can’t reconcile themselves to the fact there are legitimate voices in their tradition that are antithetical to their beliefs. By delegitimizing those other voices, they avoid dealing with the complex reality.
“Of course you can, Nachum, but: a) the choice of words used needs to be convincing; and, b) one needs to be honest about for whom a response is necessary.”
I agree. I think it’s the same thing with the women-working-to- support-their-kollel-husbands issue. While I’m not nearly as gung-ho about the model as some others, the facts are that my three siblings in lakewood are doing just fine with it and maintain an incredibly high quality of life with it. I certainly don’t claim that any other communties ought to adopt this practice but I find it insulting bordering on amusing when certain relatives of mine insinuate that the females in the family are being used, are discriminated against etc, etc. There are certain realities on the ground in (at the very least) the American Chareidi community, that simply aren’t that amenable to brute statistics.
” But the evidence for sexual promiscuity in 18th-century Germany does not look significantly different from 13th-century Spain or 16th-century Italy.”
We pretend that sexual promiscuity is something new in the late 20th century. That is not consistent with historical evidence. In addition to the examples mentioned, the teen birth rate in the US peaked in 1957. Victorian England had very high rates of sexually transmitted diseases.
And if you go back to Mishnaic times, their portrayal of the licentiousness of gentiles in the Roman Empire is backed up by historical accounts, at least regarding the upper classes.
I realized today that סרך בתה is a pretty good example of a “triple” gezeira (and possibly more – see Beis Yosef YD 197).
“Victorian England had very high rates of sexually transmitted diseases.” cause by then, they knew it was that, and not some other disease. and / or better recordkeeping.
2. the family has the right to say what mrs fogel hy”d would have wanted, re: photos. not rav aviner, not someone else. if the publication doesnt like it, go fundraise somewhere else.
Hadassah,
I hope you didn’t see my comment as criticism. I completely agree with you that this is a Chilul haShem that goes way beyond a socially motivated “I have my customs; you have yours but I don’t like them”.
I just think we learn more about Torah and how to “walk humbly with our G-d” by pushing ourselves to name what we understand is creating the Chilul haShem. I know I do.
See my post at http://jacobsbones.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/murder-victims-modesty-and-memory/ .
Dov:
There is so much wrong with this blurring of pictures, that I think sociology is superfluous. The lack of balance I was referring to was a tendency to get so preoccupied with modesty that we forget to consider the impact on mitzvot related to justice and mercy. Even looking at this comment stream, maybe no more than 5%, brainstorm about possible mitzvot that might be violated by expecting women to disappear from photos. Micah (6:8) tells us that G-d requires justice and mercy from us, not just modesty. We simply can’t leave them out of the equation.
Beth – I hear your point, but aren’t “justice and mercy” themselves perceived differently from different sociological standpoints?
Dov: I think that not printing pictures of women in general is pretty disgusting. But you want to say there are different points of view, nu, nu. However, printing the picture of the Fogel family, HYD, and then blocking out Ruti Fogel’s face and then R. Aviner’s baslessly claiming that that is what she would have wanted, a complete and demonstarble falsehood, is on an entirely different plane of offensiveness and makes me see red.
Lawrence – I agree that it was offensive and wrong.
Dov: I’m glad we’re on the same page regarding this.
” In addition to the examples mentioned, the teen birth rate in the US peaked in 1957.”
While I agree with your point in general (sex was not invented in the 1960s), how many of these teens were 16, 17, 18, and 19 year old brides? While I agree that in many cases getting married at that age is not a recipe for a healthy future, a 17 year old mother with her baby and her 19 year old husband is not a 17 year old single mother.
Dov wrote: — Beth – I hear your point, but aren’t “justice and mercy” themselves perceived differently from different sociological standpoints? –
My apology for the slow reply.
I don’t think there is a simple answer to that question. On one hand, mercy isn’t mercy if it ignores individual circumstances. Justice isn’t justice if it ignores society.
On the other hand, there is quite a bit of Torah, Halachah, and Jewish Thought to go through before we get to the sociological. Our tradition expends quite a bit of effort to give us tools for thinking through what justice and mercy actually mean in complex human reactions and situations.
I think we throw up our hands and say “Taiku! Its just socialogical” far too quickly. It ends all dialog and creates barriers between streams that don’t need to be there. Text and Ahavat Israel is the common ground out of which the Jewish people grow.