Originally published 1/28/08, 10:24 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
There would seem to be two issues involved in the shaitl controversy and part of the problem is that they are becoming intertwined thus confusing both.
One is the substantive issue itself. A request was made to remove certain pictures and this request was denied. The result was a call to boycott the store. One has to wonder what really is going on, as it would seem to be a poor business decision by the the owner of the store to alienate members of a potential market. I thus make any comments with a recognition that I really don't know what happened and it all seems so strange to me. I am though bothered because the substantive halachic issue has not been approached in what I would deem to be a proper fashion. There is a perception, by certain individuals, that these pictures should be removed. I perhaps disagree. There is, though, a proper way of approaching a halachic disagreement -- by investigating the substantive issue. What is the argument for removal and what is the argument for not removing? On what issue do we disagree? Of interest to me, within this halachic investigation, is not why I think these pictures should not be a problem, but, rather, the argument as to why they are a problem. As that stage I may still disagree but then there is a way to disagree -- as an argument in halacha leading to definitions of important concepts within Torah. From what I have read, there is no attempt to truly investigate this with halachic determinism. It may be that one finds the whole definiton of tznius and pritzus that is being applied here, by those requesting the pictures removed, to be faulty -- I have written on the subject and also find difficulty with many of the modern understandings of tzniut -- but there is a way of approaching it as a halachic issue leading to a discussion that furthers our understanding of Torah. It is the substantive issue that should be, at least, our first concern. What is the debate within Torah? Why the request? Why the refusal? Why the boycott? What are the issues under debate?
Then there is the second issue which is the rhetoric around the debate. Torah is lost as the issue comes down to the question of daat Torah and authority thereby hiding Torah wisdom. As I have written in regard to the Slifkin affair, Rav Moshe Feinstein in his hakdama to Iggrot Moshe says that one should respond to his ideas not his authority. Of course the reason for any action, in this case, is not presented and the defence becomes the argument of authority. What we lose is Torah. This is not to say that there is no argument of kavod HaTorah and the question of how he owner of the store should respond to a leading Rosh Yeshiva is not a further issues. But that also has to be treated as another issue in Torah demanding Torah study and investigation. Those defending the boycott in the extreme almost feel that even giving an argument for the request to remove is demeaning the kavod HaTorah that goes with accepting the authority. And those attacking the request in the extreme belittle the whole enterprise as another example of the dumbing down of the masses. And the problem is that the actual substantive issue is lost in the rhetoric and we have no idea of what really happened and the Torah arguments -- with which one may still disagree -- that led to the request for removal. And we are left with the arguments that emerged from the subsequent rhetoric which only lessens Torah knowledge.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
6 comments:
I think the substantive issues are rather simple. Are pictures of women with sheitals (head shots only) halachically deemed pretzus? If so, was the Rosh Hayeshiva correct in demanding that they be taken down or that his talmidim refrain from patronizing the store? Does the desire to maintain tzenus, in this case a higher level of modesty, override the concern that by doing so, it will detrimentally impact the sheital storeowner's business? Thoughts?
Unfortunately, Rabbi hecht is correct. The comment of the previous commentator represents what should have been the argument. But with the idol worship of Daas Torah (i.e. the opinion of a person who is deemed to be beyond question [second only to Go-d, perhaps] and therefore his opinions are deemed to be beyond any question - sort of the living Torah,) there is no chance that these arguments would ever be seriously debated.
In days of yore, the Rosh Yeshiva would probably publish an inteligable treatise that would be debated by his peers, and (unfortunately) maybe by others who would not be worthy to be considerd his peers, as well. And then there would be some majority and the issue would be settled one way or the other. His peers would respectfully (vis a vis Kevod HaTorah) agree or disagree and others might be less respectful... too bad.
I know the historical/social process that had lead to this idol worship. I hope (how naive of me) that at a certain point the leadership of those communities would wake up and realise that it is wrong. I am afraid that we would pay direly before that would happen.
The questions are not asked and what is lost is true Torah analyzis and thought as rhetoric takes the place of substantial Torah thought. What exactly was the issue with these pictures? Critics of the request to remove the pictures sarcastically attack the request as it would seem to be ridiculous to define them and insiting sexual promiscuity. But is that the actual objective of tzniut -- is it only an issue of not eliciting a sexual response. There were rabbonim who did not look at women -- was that because otherwise they would become excited? I find that difficult to believe -- but then why make a point of not looking. Did they just see themselves as examples? But their behaviour was deemed especially meritorious, which would imply that it was not expected of the average person? In contrast, of course, was the behaviour of Rav Giddel (Berachot 20a) who allowed himself to look at women naked because it did not affect him. If one considers these opposing viewpoints, one enters into a thoughtful discsussion the whole topic. In the meantime we only get rhetoric with poorly definec concepts taking the place of well worked out thoughts.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
I went to the Yeshiva world website [http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/](there is something like that despite the ban on the internet) where I could find an account of the incident. But the more telling detail was a thread of comments within the comments:
Quote #4:
[The original says that the pictures are of *faces* of women. Generally, full-faces can be seen in public.
Can anyone verify if the pictures are of inappropriately-dressed women, or are they of faces (which, presumably showcase the shaitels)?]
That seems benign and to the point. The guy wants to know what was the exact halakhic issue (as Rabbi Hecht and other commentators has suggested.
The reaction was immediate and swift:
QUOTE #6 [# 4 Why are you questioning R’ Aron Schecter????]
so the original person said (in appologetic tone):
QUOTE #9 [Did I question him?? I asked what the pictures were of. Please show me where I questioned him?]
so came the next two:
QUOTE #13 [by you questioning what type of picture is causing the problem, indicates some doubt in your mind that if it is a picture of the face itself is no big deal. Keep quiet, and if a person of a stature as of Rav Shechter finds it inapropiate , so be it. Dont start making diukim. Thats all.]
and
QUOTE #14 [#4, I beleive that I can show you where one would think that you seem to question Rav Aharon. You write “Generally, full-faces can be seen in public”. The insinuation seems to be that if it were indeed only faces that you would then feel, regardless of Rav Schechters opinion’ well then what is the big deal.]
As you may see, the premise in that society is that one MAY NOT ask these halakhic questions. Once the Rabbi said, it's a done deal.
I am a frum Yid, but I do not subscribe to this type of thinking, nor would I in the future B"H. I do obey my shul Rabbi on halakhic issues, shul issues and local Va'ad decisions (he is a member of that Va'ad, for sure). But I do not have any problem asking him why any specific decision, nor did he have any problem answering me to the point without anybody in the world seeing such questioning as any threat to his authority.
Rabbi, whether a person will get excited or not is not the question. Let's assume for a moment that this RYeshiva has a higher standard of Tzenius than the rest of us. Does he then have a right to impose his will upon the sheital storeowner and others (other than his yeshiva students)?
First, just a comment on Yossi's use of the words "a higher standard of Tzenius." I word like to refer to it as a different understanding of tzenius for two reasons. One is that the term higher implies better. Second, and perhaps more important, it implies a quantitative distinction rather that a qualitative one. I think that rhetoric seems to imply that there is one issue to tzniut and that with proper Torah study, this whole case should lead to new perspectives on the whole concept. But it won't because the issue has left Torah wisdom and has become another issue of authority emphatically expressed because a reason is not given.
As to the substance of your remark, that is clearly part of the issue. We clearly do not know the facts. Was the RY making a statement for the general public, ie these pictures should not be shown or was he concerned about this yeshiva across the street from the store? Even if the concern is the yeshiva, how much pressure can he exert? Is it just an issue of consumer power? Can't a consumer, through getting together people with similar wants, cause a store owner to do something because the consumer simply wants it? That, though, is not an ethical issue but simply the mechanics of business. Is it proper business? That's an interesting look at the situation and an interesting question of the right of exercising consumer power,
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment