New York – Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy

    132

    A photograph of President Barack Obama and his staff watching the operation that killed Osama bin Laden that was digitally altered to remove Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Counterterrorism Director Audrey Tomason is shown in last week's edition of the Brooklyn weekly Di Tzeitung, Monday May 9, 2011. The Orthodox Jewish newspaper has apologized for digitally altering the photo, saying that its photo editor had not read the "fine print" accompanying the White House photo that forbade any changes. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig) New York – We live in a wonderful country. One remarkable virtue that makes this country great is that, although we may not always agree with each other, virtually everyone respects the rights of others to disagree with them. Freedom of religion is another paramount value in this country. Both these are two important elements in what defines us as a nation.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    DISTURBING HEADLINES

    All this is why the headlines of late about a Brooklyn Hasidic newspaper Photo-shopping Hillary Clinton out of a picture are rather disturbing. Many newspapers are confusing women’s rights with what this newspaper has done, and are pounding the editors of that paper as being misogynists. The incontrovertible truth is that the paper, and numerous other publications as well, avoid printing pictures of women because it is their perception that this is the proper halachic position.

    The newspaper’s response and apology indicated that they do not print pictures of women for religious reasons. In this short article an attempt will be made to analyze the halachic rationale, if any, for such a position.

    OGLING

    Firstly, we must understand that there is a term out there called “Ogling.” Farlex’s Free Dictionary defines “Ogling” as follows:
    1. To stare at. 2. To stare at impertinently, flirtatiously, or amorously.
    v.intr. To stare in an impertinent, flirtatious, or amorous manner.
    n. An impertinent, flirtatious, or amorous stare.

    NATURE OF THE OGLING PROHIBITION

    Understandably, Jewish law, Halacha, singles out “Ogling” as an out and out prohibition. Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuva 1:6 and 8) defines it as a full blown biblical prohibition. His position as explained by the Bais Shmuel (Even HoEzer 21:2) is that it violates the verse, “Do not go after your hearts and eyes.” Maimonides also forbids it, but his position is subject to debate. The Bais Shmuel and the Pnei Yehoshua (Even HoEzer Vol. II #44) both understand that he rules that it is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe EH Vol. IV #60) rules that the Rambam’s view is that it is forbidden by Biblical decree just like the Rabbeinu Yonah position.

    DEFINING PARAMETERS

    The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 20a and b) is one of the primary sources that discusses the prohibition. Since the close of the Talmud, halachic decisors have grappled as to the exact parameters of “Ogling.”

    The exact Hebrew term that the Talmud employs in its discussion is “Histaklus.” The question is do we define histaklus as looking, staring, or ogling? Is there also debate about the term in the halachic sources?

    The Sefer Chasidim (#99) discusses the parameters of “Histaklus” and says that Histaklus is more than just looking, it is looking intentionally for a long time and contemplating who she looks like or is equal to. Rav Chaim Palagi in Re’eh Chaim (p. 13c) defines it in this manner as well.
    On the other hand, regarding other issues, the SMA (Choshen Mishpat 154:14) writes that the term “Histaklus” can mean mere looking. The Chida and a few other Poskim rule in accordance with this view.

    THE PASSAGE IN THE TALMUD

    The Talmud states that it is forbidden to “stare” at an attractive woman, even if she is single. If she is a married woman, it is forbidden to stare at her even if she is ugly. The Talmud then asks how it could be that Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel, while once entering the Temple mount, recited a verse in Psalms when he saw an attractive woman. The Talmud answers that it must have been that he ran into her while turning a corner and thus did not notice that he was about to meet up with her.

    It is noted that the Talmud’s response is that he met her after turning a corner. The Talmud did not answer that Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel merely did not have intent to derive pleasure from seeing her, or that he was just looking but not staring. The implication is that there may exist some sort of prohibition of looking even if one is not deriving pleasure.

    IS THE NEWSPAPER RIGHT?

    From this section of the Talmud alone, it might be inferred that what the newspaper did was completely normal. Printing a photograph of a woman would lead to looking – and the “photoshopping”, other than “terms of use” violations from the White House and disclosure issues, would have been okay. The issue of stealing a photo without permission also may come up, but here the White House released the photo for distribution, with the one caveat that it not be changed. Since the paper did not fulfill the caveat, it may fall in the prohibition of stealing a picture. Rav Elyashiv issued a ruling a number of years ago that one may not take electronic media from someone who normally sells it and is makpid. This author recently received an email from a frustrated photographer who stated loses approximately $75,000 a year in lost earnings because of photographs taken without permission.

    One may also ask if the same prohibition would apply in a photograph as in live. The Poskim do deal with viewing it through a mirror or other medium. Rav Palaji (in Responsa Shma Avrohom #46 cited by Rav Ovadiah Yoseph in Yechave Daas 4:7) rules that it does. On the other hand, if there is no chance that it could bring one to improper thoughts it may be permitted. This would then place the editor in the unenviable position of deciding which pictures may and which pictures may not.

    THE MORE LENIENT VIEW

    The Shulchan Aruch (EH 65:1) however, writes that it is forbidden to look at women who are laundering. This prohibition is found in tractate Bava Basra 57b. The reason is that while they are laundering, parts of the body that are normally covered are sometimes exposed. The Shulchan Aruch does not state a categorical prohibition against looking at women.

    This would seem to contradict the simple implication of the paragraph in Avodah Zarah 20b. It seems from this passage in Shulchan Aruch that there is no issue of looking at women – as long as they are not in a state of compromised dress.

    How would Rabbi Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, explain our Gemorah? It must be that the Talmud felt that Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel’s recitation of the verse in Psalms implied that it was a deeper look than mere regular looking. The Gemorah could not answer that he was not benefitting from seeing her, because he saw fit to recite the laudatory verse from Psalms, “Mah Rabu Maasecha,Hashem – How wondrous are your works.” [See Igros Moshe OC I #40].

    According to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, there is no prohibition in looking, and the act of Photoshopping Hillary Clinton might be a bit extreme. The Rambam as well does not rule that there is a prohibition in looking.

    THE REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION

    There seem to be two reasons cited as to why the prohibition of Histaklus exists. One is that it may lead to illicit and improper thoughts. This reason is actually stated in the Mishna Torah of Maimonides. Another reason found in the Poskim is that the mere deriving of pleasure in viewing someone who is not one’s wife is wrong.

    CONCLUSIONS
    In conclusion, it is safe to say that a simple reading of the Talmudic passage is that looking at women or photographs of them is problematic. A more nuanced reading of this passage in light of the Shulchan Aruch and other codes is that it is not a problem – even though some individual Poskim still rule stringently.

    That is from a halachic point of view. The media circus that has developed around this new controversy is very unfortunate because it depicts honest, G-d –fearing individuals as being anti-women’s rights. This is wrong and immoral. This mischaracterization is an example of building a straw man so that they can be knocked down. This Hasidic group is not the Taliban. To characterize them as totalitarian in nature is repulsive and those in the media that have done so should apologize.

    The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only adjust photos with permission and a disclaimer should be appended to the photo whenever they do so.
    So who gained in this whole unfortunate episode? Adobe Photoshop, the software company, of course. They received several million dollars in free advertising. 🙂

    The author can be reached at [email protected]


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    132 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Babishka
    Member
    Babishka
    13 years ago

    Why did they have to print the photo at all? Avoid all controversy and “protect men’s eyes” by not including any photos whatsoever.

    Member
    13 years ago

    There is one Halacha that you still have not yet considered. By photoshopping out Someone in the Photograph you are Bearing False Witness to History. This is a violation of one of the 10 commandments. The idea that men will “ogle” a woman in a photograph just ensures that our nation needs to be a nation of overseers and that we do not even give our people credit for their own discretion in terms of their capacity to make a decision as to how long to glance at a photograph.

    Mr-critic24
    Mr-critic24
    13 years ago

    Perhaps it would have been more wise, not to publish the photo at all.

    YUDA20
    YUDA20
    13 years ago

    Newspapers in the chareidy community simply avoid pics of woman because once woman pics are permitted it opens up a whole new argument of which pics are ok to publish, what kind of dress are these published woman supposed to wear, how ugly does she have to be, it opens up endless chain of new arguments, so its understandable when they chose to simply avoid this entire issue, of course it is stupid to alter photos for that reason, Some blurring might be just about enough to resolve this issue on pics that they want to post.

    Oyvey
    Oyvey
    13 years ago

    This piece assumes that looking at a picture and looking at a person are equal.

    Unless you can back up this assumption this piece must be considered misleading at best,

    elifrie
    elifrie
    13 years ago

    refreshing!!!

    Darth_Zeidah
    Darth_Zeidah
    13 years ago

    With the best will in the world, and with the deepest of respect to both Rabbi Hoffman and to the Secretary of State, I can say – with my hand on my heart that I did *not* ” stare at impertinently, flirtatiously, or amorously” at Mrs Clinton.

    Nice try, Rabbi Yair Hoffman, but all your pilpul, and the papers’ weasel word and obfuscation, do not excuse Der Zeitung and Die Vort from their somewhat unethical and possibly illegal actions.

    elifrie
    elifrie
    13 years ago

    Finnaly an article fro rabbi Hoffman actually supporting an ultra orthodox cause

    trachtois
    trachtois
    13 years ago

    What is so ironic is that the people who accuse the publishers of the newspaper of being like the Taliban for not printing a picture of women are more like the Taliban than the publishers themselves. The publishers of the newspaper while having views which may be considered extreme by many in todays world as being extreme, are at least tolerant of others who don’t share their view. Those who attack them are not, and are therefore to be more considered more Taliban like.

    trachtois
    trachtois
    13 years ago

    What is so ironic is that the people who accuse the publishers of the newspaper of being like the Taliban for not printing a picture of women are more like the Taliban than the publishers themselves. The publishers of the newspaper while having views which may be considered extreme by many in todays world as being extreme, are at least tolerant of others who don’t share their view. Those who attack them are not, and are therefore to be more considered more Taliban like.

    Babishka
    Member
    Babishka
    13 years ago

    Years ago I used to read “Der Yid” and they did not include any photos at all!

    elifrie
    elifrie
    13 years ago

    i kina have to wonder if there would be the same uproar had it been printed by muslems

    shredready
    shredready
    13 years ago

    The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only adjust photos with permission and a disclaimer should be appended to the photo whenever they do so.

    this was their big and very big error since Photoshopping someone out simply means that the person was not there and that is a lie. IF they had that disclaimer I am confident there would not have been a controversy since then it would have acknowledged that woman where involved in this operation

    what about wedding pictures can only woman look at them and are the pictures only from the men side?

    That is from a halachic point of view. The media circus that has developed around this new controversy is very unfortunate because it depicts honest, G-d –fearing individuals as being anti-women’s rights.

    that is the logic the Taliban says we are g-d fearing and everything we do is according to our religion

    Anonymous
    Anonymous
    13 years ago

    I generally agree with most of Rav Hoffman’s analyses but no on this matter. It is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worst, to suggest that anyone viewing a photo of the highest ranking woman in the American government who is dressed 100 percent modestly in a conference room with over a dozen other people might somehow be led to illicit or lewd thoughts. That is the issue–not whether or not certain types of pornography or x-rated photos should not be printed in a frum newspaper. Obviously they shouldn’t. The chareidi position here is totally wrong, and the error is futher compounded by the ongoing efforts to rationalize the decision in daas torah. If the Chareidim truly belief that ANY vision of a woman no matter how modestly she is dressed, whether on the street or in a photo might c/v lead one of their troubled followers to engage in illicit thoughts, get some professional help for that individual rather than casting a wide net to protect the entire tzibur against non-existant problems. The decision to blot out the photo of Secretary Clinton was as wrong as the decision to ingnore the editorial guidelines of the WH photo distribution.

    ProminantLawyer
    ProminantLawyer
    13 years ago

    #13 …………exactly, that’s why they are seen alikes.

    WiseDude
    WiseDude
    13 years ago

    Why didn’t the older generations from Europe, who were superior to us in mido and Torah knowledge, ehrlechkeit and frumkeit,…never think of this silly prohibition about photographs of women? I believe our community has become full of extreme ideas which has no basis in halacha or normal thinking.

    Different
    Different
    13 years ago

    Photoshopping or airbrushing out women where it appears the gadol hador had no problem has long become part of our small-mindedness.
    There is a famous picture of the Chofetz Chaim sitting outside the doorway talking to his son-inlaw with others standing nearby. Immediately behind the Chofetz Chaim were standing his daughter and housekeeper. He obviously knew they were there. He just had no hang-ups. WHen the Agudah published that picture – voila – there were no women present…

    Jew_Unit
    Jew_Unit
    13 years ago

    Ok everyone, let’s just get over ourselves and stop talking about it already. This thing has been taken so far out of proportion that it’s almost laughable by now. We should all get over it and get on with our lives, and the rest of the world needs to do the same. Stop rehashing the same thing over…and over….and over….until we all want to hit someone.

    13 years ago

    A questions begs to be answered. What if the President of the USA were a women? Would the paper refuse to publish her picture? If it did it would be the biggest busha committed by any Yid. I seriously doubt that any man Jew or otherwise would oogle the machshafa Hillary CLinton.

    DRE53
    DRE53
    13 years ago

    This whole issue has nothing to do with halacha. The reason why they don’t print pictures is a simple business decision, as the clientel t whom they cater prefer so.
    The yiddish speaking populatuon are the ultra orthodox and wouldn’t buy a paper with pictures of women, and neither would many of them sell it in their stores.
    Based on this, I find this whole article awkward

    elifrie
    elifrie
    13 years ago

    #16 u seem to have missed the point,lawyer and all

    13 years ago

    Mrs. Clinton and the other woman in the original uncensored photo were dressed very modestly. Their attire would be accepted in any ultra-orthodox shul or neighborhood. For the writer of this article to grasp at straws for the wrong that this paper did to these two women and the damage the paper causes to Klal Yisroel is just plain not right.

    BinderDundat
    BinderDundat
    13 years ago

    I would like to add something. To all those people who seem to agree with this was of life, how do you go to the supermarket? how do you walk the streets? this picture was a mere pittance to what you see outdoors every day. If this is how you feel, then you should be locked up in ur home or apartment without ever setting foot outdoors. Also, Im sure many of you (as I do), have pictures of our parents and grandparents families in europe. The women were included. not erased. Are all of you better or more frum than they were? I highly doubt it.

    13 years ago

    Perhaps the children of these fanatics who are of the female gender should be removed from them as they are constantly being exposed to female flesh.

    itchemeir
    itchemeir
    13 years ago

    let’s be consistent. If a picture of any woman is a no no, how do these folks go to a chasunah, where so many married women show up, with their fancy sheitlech combed to perfection and with expensive makeup, and despite some weak attempts to separate the men from the women, the fact is that right at the holy moment of the chupah, any man can just turn his head and see rows of attractive women across the row? I can go on with pages of comment and I think the point has been made already.

    Paulie123
    Paulie123
    13 years ago

    Can someone please explain the following to me. It is forbidden to print a picture of a modestly dressed women in the paper because it might lead to “ogling”. Yet it is permitted to walk the streets of New York during the summer where one would certainly transgress much serious sins thereby. So the Chassidim should be consistant and forbid interaction with the outside world. If they don’t, it is hypercrtical of them and they are being a chossid shoitah

    13 years ago

    Blurring is also illegal distortion.

    LachmanLCSW
    LachmanLCSW
    13 years ago

    The supreme irony of all: who is the victim of here?
    One would hope that the honorable Sec. of State Clinton, herself so often abused by the behaviors that may result as the consequence of a man gazing overmuch at women, would be able to understand that the editing of the photograph was not calculated as an insult to her. On the contrary, we have tremendous respect for the poise and bearing she exhibited in dealing with the outrageous public flouting of her husband’s adventures. As far as the halachas, I can’t claim to be expert, but I do know that in the secular world, which has sunk to a very low state, gazing at women, expressly for the purpose of stimulation of desire, is a popular sport and considered normal; our prohibition is considered bizarre and not understood even with explanation. Since discretion is the better part of valor, I would agree with those who hold that the best course would have been not to publish the photo altogether. I would be fascinated to hear from the editors what they thought at the time about violating the request of the White House that the photo not be altered. Did they really think no one would notice? Amazing.

    HAPPY12
    HAPPY12
    13 years ago

    with all due respect to all commentators, regardless of what the publishers of these publications did was right or wrong – they have a small readership and certainly do no have a wide national effect. However, what was the point of the Jewish Week on taking on a small publication with a limited readership and taking this public? What did they hope to gain? And, what did they gain? If you read the comments on national blogs, aol, etc. the chillul hashem that was caused and what resulted I feel is worse than the original act. There was actually no positive toeles in taking this story to the national stage.

    Joe-Shmoe
    Joe-Shmoe
    13 years ago

    First of all, could anybody please explain to me the comparison to the taliban? Do you imply that I must look at ladies just for you to disassociate me with the Taliban? Listen here. Freedom means I have my rights just as you have yours! Bill Clinton fell for what hasids are trying to prevent! FOR THEMSELVES! They never forced you nor even asked you to look at their newspaper! Don’t attempt to force me to look at your disgusting (where many times even the general population considers them inappropriate).

    They did err by photoshoping the picture, and for that they have fully apologized by phone calls to the might be offended in the white house, etc. (not to you bum!). they did not in any way sin against you and your slander and …..ing about is totally inappropriate! There are many anti semites who are looking for dirt on all of us, and then hitler dont differentiate bet me or you. Please for both our sakes stop fueling the flames!!!!

    Thanks rabbi Yair. I totally understand your point. Problem is many people don’t want to understand. whatever reasoning provided, they’ll continue asking the same question as if that wasn’t answered. In short, SELF HATERS!

    AuthenticSatmar
    AuthenticSatmar
    13 years ago

    One issue that has not been addressed is whether the white house disclaimer is legal. The white house belongs to the people and they cannot tell the rightful owner how or what to do with the picture. Had it been a private company it would be different.

    13 years ago

    #51 LachmanLCSW – very well said. As to your question, “Did they really think no one would notice?” – I’ll surmise that they did not think, period. They cater to one type of clientele and their method of madness, as some would refer to it, is a long-standing standard for their publication. We do live in a free country and are free to practice our religion in any way we see fit (as long we do not impinge on others or impose our beliefs on others, which we are not in a habit of doing). Most of us Yidden do regard extreme the practice of not publishing any images of females, but that’s neither here nor there; we are not forced to buy or read their paper. The bottom line is, if this is their steadfast policy, they simply should have chosen not to publish the photo at all. You can’t have your cake and eat it, and the temptation to do so is going to become even a greater challenge as more and more women feature prominently in the political arena.

    LogicSays
    LogicSays
    13 years ago

    my gut says no one will see my post all the way at #63 🙁
    what the paper should have done is say, we don’t want 1/2 naked woman in our papers! in order not to look at every picture and have to decide if it’s ok or not, is it to riskay or it’s fine. we have a policy that female photos are not printed. end of story.
    the whole world would have understood that.

    Anonymous
    Anonymous
    13 years ago

    After a week of this debate, I’m certain the chareidi media are not going to change their perverted practice of how they treat women in their news coverage. Its probably not worth futher comments since they’ve done more damage for the image of yidden in America than Madoff, Rubashkin or any other news story in recent memory.

    Babishka
    Member
    Babishka
    13 years ago

    On Huffington Post there are 21,000 comments about this thing. Considering how many commenters at H.P. are anti-Semites anyway, this was raw meat for them.

    grandpajoe
    grandpajoe
    13 years ago

    The sad issue about this revised picture – it brought ridicule or comment to a group who does not want the noteriety.
    The Huffington Post Website even has an article on its website – the key is
    Think before you print – in today’s web world nothing is safe.

    k9hara
    k9hara
    13 years ago

    Nobody is oogling Hillary!
    Not even her husband!!

    We all should understand that even if all pictures are allowed halachacally, some are not allowed HASHKAFICALLY. So the hashkafa of (all) frum chareidi papers (even ones catered to women, such as the Binah) have an across the board rule, no pics of women.

    Not necesserily a halachic position (as the editor himself met with the woman reporter from CNN), but a position in HASHKAFA.

    Babishka
    Member
    Babishka
    13 years ago

    I am just so disgusted with this mishugoss. I remember a year ago VIN published a gallery of rare, historic photographs from Lag B’Omer in Krakow before the 2nd World War, showing Yidden visiting the graves of tzaddikim. In each and every photograph, the faces of women were obliterated. Now it is very likely that this is someone’s loved one who was murdered, and there may be no other remnant of her memory! What a desecration, just to satisfy someone’s retarded chumre.

    joseph
    joseph
    13 years ago

    U.S. Law specifically and explicitly allows publishing manipulated U.S. Government photos at will. The White House “terms” for the photo have no legal standing, and it was entirely permissible and legal to publish it, even manipulated.

    Sherree
    Sherree
    13 years ago

    The newspaper is wrong. You either use the picture or NOT. You do not have the option of changing a photo. You do however have the option of cropping a photo. So they did have the option of cutting the photo and cutting out other people as well as Hillary. So they did have the option of making it a smaller photo and cutting out other members of the original photo including Hilary but just erasing her from the photo was ridiculous and insulting. If they don’t choose to show women in their newspaper then don’t show any photos or use cropping to make the photos smaller. There is absolutely no need to cause so much controversy and chaos.

    intelligent
    intelligent
    13 years ago

    לאמיר דאנקן און לויבן השי״ת אז עס איז כאטש דא א היימישע צייטונג וואס היט דעם געזעץ פונעם אייבירשטן וואס ער האט אונז באפוילן קדושים תהיו, ולא תתרו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עניכם. אט דער צייטונג איז ווי א אינזל
    אינמיטן א טייך. דער טייך פארמאגט דערנער שקצים ורמשים. וואס דאס
    איז די פרייע אויסגעלאסענע צייטונגען, און הויפטזכליך דער פארדארבענע
    גויאישע צייטונגען אנגעפילט מיט תמונות תועבות וכל דבר אסור. דער אינזעל זענען אונז שטאלצע חרדישע אידן דער עם קדוש וואס היט די אויגן עס זאל נישט פארשמירט ווערן מיט די פארשאלטענע גואישע קולטור און אויסגעלאסענקייט. טראץ די אלע ליצנות פון די גואישע מידיא, די אמעריקאנע ליידיגע קעפ וואס לאכן דערפון. דאך וועלן מיר בלייבן נאנט מיט די רבוש״ע געזעצען

    naftaliw
    naftaliw
    13 years ago

    The editor of Der/Die Zeitung has failed miserably in his resposibility. He had no clue of the illegality of his action and did not in any way think of the possible reaction of readers and the wider Jewish and American public . A Chilul Hashem of major proportions with no redeeming features.
    He could have avoided the whole commotion if he would not have printed the picture
    and nobody would have cared.

    Passaicguy
    Passaicguy
    13 years ago

    You’ve got to be kidding!! If one shouldn’t look at a picture, then simply those people that don’t want to look at it shouldnt. What is this guy saying, It’s Lifnei Evaer? Give me a break.

    hmmmm
    hmmmm
    13 years ago

    Just bought my “der tzitung” I never read that paper, just to show support and achdus.

    Emes36
    Emes36
    13 years ago

    The issue is emes . The editor lied to his readers by publishing a picture that was not true. You cannot claim you are a Torah newspaper and print falsehoods. Rabbi Hoffman missed this point. Let’s see an analsis from rabbi Hoffman about printing falsehoods

    13 years ago

    big deal. I don’t understand why there making such a big deal out of it. ythere are more major news in the world to focus on.

    Rabbi Yair Hoffman
    Admin
    13 years ago

    Dear #105 , If you read the conclusion section you will see that the author does address emes. “The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only adjust photos with permission and a disclaimer should be appended to the photo whenever they do so.”
    Why does he recommend a disclaimer? Because of emes.

    Emes36
    Emes36
    13 years ago

    Dear 107
    Rabbi hoffman sideswiped the whole issue of emes by ignoring it through out his pilpul and only faintly touching on it in his conclusion. My premise is that the whole issue here is an emes issue, if the editor was truthful to his readers he would have never printed the picture. You are a hypocrite if you have a chomrah of not printing pictures of woman because of shimras eneyim and in order to accomplish the chumrah you transgress the avera of mdbar shecker tircha. The gamarah calls such people a chosid shioter

    chosen-nation
    chosen-nation
    13 years ago

    They have the authority and right to print whatever they decide. If you don’t like the paper, don’t buy it. The onle issue is that that they edited it illeagally. On this, you can understand them, in there haste to publish this big story, they didn’t see the disclaimer.