Women:  Rav Gavriel Zinner Shlita versus the Lubavitcher Rebbe lbc”l

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

It was a debate about printing pictures of women – even before the HaModiah and the Yated ever existed.  And lest anyone think that this was made up – the back and forth is recorded in both Siman 74 of Rabbi Yehudah Leib Nachmanson’s responsa Sefer for Lubavitch Shluchim entitled “Sh’ut HaShluchim” as well as in the responsa Sefer entitled, “Menachem Maishiv Nafshi” a collection of over 1000 letters written by the Lubavitcher Rebbe (1902-1994) of Blessed Memory published some ten years ago.

It was February 29^th, 1988, a mere 19 days after the passing of Rebbitzen Chaya Mushka Schneerson – the Lubavitcher Rebbitzen.  Apparently, a publication entitled, “Imeinu HaMalkah, Our Mother the Queen” had just been printed.  Rav Gavriel Zinner wrote to the Rebbe about the photograph of the Rebbitzen that was included in the publication.

RAV ZINNER’S LETTER

To His Honor, the Admor HaGaon HaKadosh shlita,

I have come to comment on the matter that in the sefer Imeinu HaMalkah, a photo of the Rebbitzen a”h was printed, and in my humble opinion it is not proper to do so.

And even though Chazal have told us (Sanhedrin 45a) [yh: regarding young Kohanim who may see a Sotah in untznius position] that the yetzer HaRah is only dominant in regard to the specific vision of what the eye sees – it is established in Even HaEzer 21:1 that it is forbidden to see even the colored garments of a woman that he recognizes (and see the Otzar HaPoskim sub-paragraph 12 citing the responsum of the Bach Siman #14 that this applies even if she had passed away). And certainly it is [yh: at the very least] a Midas Chassidus to be stringent.

Blessed is the generation where the great ones listen to the small ones.

* There is a Yesoma who, boruch Hashem, just got engaged.  If anyone would like to assist in making her chasuna please donate here or contact the author.*

THE REBBE’S RESPONSE

It was the Rebbe’s custom to respond to letters in a point by point rebuttal noted and written within the text of his correspondent’s own letter.  To see his rebuttal we will reproduce Rav Zinner’s letter and place the Rebbe’s responses in CAPS.

To His Honor, the Admor HaGaon HaKadosh shlita,

I have come to comment on the matter that in the sefer Imeinu HaMalkah, a photo of the Rebbitzen a”h was printed, HE MUST HAVE CERTAINLY EASILY SEEN – EVEN WITHOUT GAZING AT ALL – THAT IN THE NEXT EDITION – IT WAS PRINTED NOT IN COLOR BUT IN BLACK AND WHITE and in my humble opinion it is not proper to do so.

And even though Chazal have told us (Sanhedrin 45a) [yh: regarding young Kohanim who may see a Sotah in untznius position] that the yetzer HaRah is only dominant in regard to the specific vision of what the eye sees – it is established in Even HaEzer 21:1 that it is forbidden

• THE SHULCHAN ARUCH THERE SAYS “GAZING” (YH: not looking at)
• IT SAYS AT THE COLORED GARMENTS (yh: and this is not colored (YH:nor is it the actual garments)
• IT SAYS AND HE KNOWS HER (YH: And the readers did not know her)
• AND BY MENTION OF THE POSITIVE WE INFER THE ABSENCE OF A PROHIBITION WHEN EVEN ONE IS NOT PRSENT AND CERTAINLY ALL THREE

to see even the colored garments of a woman that he recognizes (and see the Otzar HaPoskim sub-paragraph 12 citing the responsum of the Bach Siman #14 that this applies even if she had passed away). And certainly it is [yh: at the very least] a Midas Chassidus to be stringent.

FOLLOWING THIS COURSE OF ACTION (YH: i.e. eliminating the picture) WILL LIMIT THE ABILITY OF ‘VEHACHAI YITAIN AL LIBO’ – THE INSPIRATIONAL EFFECT UPON THE LIVING OF THE ONE WHO HAD PASSED AWAY

Blessed is the generation where the great ones listen to the small ones.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO

It is clear that Rav Zinner and the Rebbe a”h have two very different approaches to the issue. The Rebbe points out that the strict halacha is that if any of the three requirements in the Shulchan Aruch are missing, it is not a violation.  He further points out that one should not take the machmir approach when dealing with matters of Kiruv – just stick to strict halacha.

SOME MORE BACKGROUND

The Gemorah in Nedarim (20a) explains that anyone who looks at women, in the end he will come to sin. The Ben Yehoyada asks that the looking itself is forbidden! Indeed, it is even considered Abizrahu of arayos! Why then does the Gemorah state, “in the end he will come to sin?” He further asks concerning the language of anyone who does so “excessively.” The Ben Yehoyada explains that this Gemorah is not referring to actually looking at the woman but rather it is referring to seeing her image. If he rationalizes looking at such images by saying he is not looking at her directly, he will end up actually gazing upon the woman herself.

It seems from the Ben Yehoyada that it is something that is highly discouraged, but not an out and out prohibition. Poskim in the Chassidish world are more adamant as to the prohibition involved in a man looking at a picture of a woman. Rav Yisroel Harfenes, one of the leading Poskim in the United States, in his sefer Yisroel Kedoshim (p. 125), writes that even when the woman is dressed in a completely modest fashion, the idea of a man gazing at a picture is entirely against halacha.

The Debreciner Rav (Be’er Moshe Vol. III #154 and Vol. IV 147:22) writes that when the pictures depict inappropriate images everyone agrees that it is completely forbidden. He buttresses this position from the Gemorah in Sanhedrin (36a) and the ruling of the Bach in a responsa (#17).

OGLING

Notwithstanding the stringent view, the issue is subject to much halachic debate. Certainly, 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.”

THE RAMBAM

The Rambam also forbids it, but whether it is a biblical or Rabbinic prohibition is subject to debate. The Bais Shmuel and the Pnei Yehoshua (Even HoEzer Vol. II #44) both understand that the Rambam rules that it is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (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.

THE SECOND SOURCE

There is another source as well, other than the Gemorah in Nedarim. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah (20a and b) discusses the prohibition of histaklus – ogling. Since the close of the Talmud, however, halachic decisors have grappled as to the exact parameters of “Ogling.”

Once again, the exact term that the Talmud employs in its discussion is “Histaklus.” The question is do we define” histaklus” as looking, staring, or ogling? The translation is, of course, essential to understanding what would be prohibited.

THE PARAMETERS OF HISTAKLUS

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 whom she is equal to in appearance. Rav Chaim Palagi in Re’eh Chaim (p. 13c) defines it in this manner as well. Thus the issue is a universal one – both Sefardic and Ashkenazic.

On the other hand, regarding other aspects of halacha, the SMA (Choshen Mishpat 154:14) writes that the term “Histaklus” can, in fact, mean mere looking. The Chida, and a few other Poskim a well, rule in accordance with this view that Histaklus means mere looking.

The Salmas Yoseph (Vol. I 22:6) also indicates that looking at a woman in a picture is considered as if he recognizes her. He does not forbid it, however.

CONCLUSION

Most Poskim seem to learn that it is, in fact, not halachically forbidden to look at pictures of women, but that it is strongly discouraged. It could very well be that in modern times, where there are a plethora of images there really is no concern that someone will go beyond the pale of what is acceptable and start ogling. Nonetheless, since there are many opinions that understand the Talmudic text in tractate Avodah Zarah in a manner that forbids even looking, and that the Talmudic text in Nedarim is a strong recommendation, one should view them as scrupulously adhering to a valid halachic opinion and not dismiss this view.

ONE LAST THOUGHT

A number of years ago, there were two young girls manning a lemonade stand.  Adjacent to them were two boys also manning the stand.  A newspaper that wished to develop in a new market came by and snapped a picture of the young boys and also the young girls.  The girls were excited to be in the paper.  But, alas, when they looked at the next issue of that paper the six year old girl was absent.  Only the boys appeared.  One of the girls cried.  Is this not a possible negation of v’ahavta l’racha kamocha?

* There is a Yesoma who, boruch Hashem, just got engaged.  If anyone would like to assist in making her chasuna please donate here or contact the author.*

The author can be reached at [email protected]