Sanhedrin 45a: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if the Sotah is beautiful, the kohein did not uncover her hair or tear open her garments. At the same time, he holds that a woman being executed by Beis Din is not completely dressed. The difference is that in the case of the Sotah, she may survive the ordeal and then the young kohanim would pursue her. But when she is being executed, she is gone. And we don’t have to worry that looking at one woman will ignite someone’s lust for another, because we have a tradition that the yetzer hara only has power over whomever his eyes see.
סנהדרין מה ע”א: רבי יהודה אומר: אם היה לבה נאה ־ לא היה מגלהו, ואם היה שערה נאה ־ לא היה סותרוִ ־ אמר רבה: התם היינו טעמא שמא תצא מבית דין זכאה, ויתגרו בה פירחי כהונה. הכא ־ הא מקטלא. וכי תימא אתי לאיתגרויי באחרנייתא ־ אמר רבה: גמירי, אין יצר הרע שולט אלא במי שעיניו רואות.
It was February 29, 1988, a mere 19 days after the passing of Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbetzin. Apparently, a publication titled Imeinu HaMalkah, Our Mother the Queen had just been printed. Rav Gavriel Zinner wrote to the Rebbe about the photograph of the Rebbetzin 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 Rebbetzin, 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) that the yetzer hara is only dominant in regard to 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 he recognizes (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 a middas chassidus to be stringent.
“Blessed is the generation where the great ones listen to the small ones.”
The Rebbe’s Response
It was the Rebbe’s custom to respond to letters in a point-by-point rebuttal within the text of the correspondent’s own letter. To see his rebuttal we will reproduce Rav Zinner’s letter and place the Rebbe’s responses in CAPS.
“I have come to comment on the matter that in the sefer Imeinu HaMalkah, a photo of the Rebbetzin, 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) that the yetzer ha’ra is only dominant in regard to what the eye sees, it is established in Even Ha’ezer 21:1 that it is forbidden [THE SHULCHAN ARUCH THERE SAYS “GAZING”] to see even the colored garments [IT SAYS AT 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). [IT SAYS AND HE KNOWS HER AND BY MENTION OF THE POSITIVE WE INFER THE ABSENCE OF A PROHIBITION WHEN EVEN ONE IS NOT PRESENT AND CERTAINLY ALL THREE] And certainly it is a middas chassidus to be stringent. [FOLLOWING THIS COURSE OF ACTION WILL LIMIT THE ABILITY OF ‘V’HA’CHAI YITEIN AL LIBO’—THE INSPIRATIONAL EFFECT UPON THE LIVING OF THE ONE WHO HAD PASSED AWAY].”
Source: Rabbi Yair Hoffman, quoting the letter as printed in Siman 74 of Rabbi Yehuda Leib Nachmanson’s responsa sefer for Lubavitch shluchim titled “Sh’ut HaShluchim,” as well as in the responsa sefer titled, “Menachem Meishiv Nafshi,” a collection of over 1,000 letters written by the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
[If the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the yetzer hara only has power over the one that a man’s eyes see, then why would it be forbidden to look at the colorful garments of a woman who is no longer alive?
This depends on how we understand the Gemara in Sanhedrin. The Gemara can be interpreted in two ways: 1) That if a man sees something that attracts him to a certain woman, but that woman is now dead, we are not worried that he will go looking for another woman to sin with. The yetzer hara can only make him attracted to the woman he saw. 2) Seeing one woman can indeed lead him to lust for other women. But the Gemara’s point is that the yetzer hara only works on a man while his eyes are seeing something. Thus now that she is dead and gone, he won’t have lustful thoughts. But seeing her garments can cause those thoughts even after she is gone, which can lead him to sin with others.
This may depend on the correct girsa in the Gemara. This Gemara appears in two places: Sanhedrin 45a and Sotah 8a. In Sanhedrin the girsa is במי שעיניו רואות (“whomever his eyes see”) but in Sotah the girsa is במה שעיניו רואות (“what his eyes see”). The first girsa implies the first pshat and the second girsa implies the second pshat.
The ruling of the Bach that one may not look at a dead woman’s garments shows that the Bach understood the Gemara the second way.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe gave three reasons to permit the picture: 1) Only gazing is forbidden, not casual looking. 2) It was black and white, not color. 3) The readers of the book did not know the Rebbetzin personally.
But there is room to disagree with all of these.
- The reason not to print a picture in a book distributed to the public would be because of “lifnei iver”. The Rebbe assumes that there is no “lifnei iver” here since most people just look casually, without gazing. But an argument could be made that there will always be some people who do gaze, and so “lifnei iver” applies to them.
- It’s true that the halacha doesn’t forbid looking at black and white clothing of a woman one knows. But perhaps looking at a picture of the woman is worse than looking at her clothing, and would be forbidden even in black and white.
- The Rebbe assumes that “makirah” (he knows her) means that he knows her personally. But perhaps it just means that he knows what she looks like and can picture how she would look wearing the clothing. If so, gazing at an actual picture of the woman is certainly forbidden because even if he didn’t know how she looked before, now he knows.
Regarding pictures of women in newspapers, the halacha should be even more stringent, because at least when the woman is dead, someone could argue that the halacha doesn’t follow the Bach, but rather the first way of learning the Gemara in Sanhedrin is correct. However, if a newspaper prints pictures of a living woman, there is a chance that someone might be attracted and seek her out. Besides, some of the readers might know her personally, and then even according to the Rebbe’s understanding (that “knowing” means knowing personally), it would be forbidden for them to gaze.
However, one can still argue as follows: women are permitted to walk in the street while dressed modestly, and they are not responsible for those few men who may gaze at them. That’s beyond the scope of lifnei iver, since the women are doing what they need to do. Similarly, the printed picture is needed for a purpose – to inspire others – and we are not responsible for what some may do. According to this, every picture would require a judgement call by the printer as to whether it is necessary or not.]
Read and Remember 