They Don’t Get the Picture
By Eliakim Willner
Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An
Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the
Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. He has published numerous articles in a variety of Jewish publications.
A Time to Respond
As readers of this
publication know, it has become common for many Chareidi publications to
refrain from publishing pictures of women. Predictably, as is the case with
other issues in our community that seem to impinge on “liberal” values that the
secular world hold sacred – such as “feminist rights” – this issue has been
escalated to the secular Jewish media and, again predictably, the chorus of
condemnation has begun.
Often it is best to simply
ignore comments from people who do not understand what makes the frum
community tick, and whose sole interest is to criticize, not to understand. But
sometimes the criticism seems to come from within, from people who purport to
belong to the frum community, and other members of our community are
swept along with the tide, and misguided efforts to “protest” and “repeal” the
new “repressive” policy are launched. This is what is happening now with the
issue of pictures of women in frum publications.
In such situations it is
important to counter the criticism, provide a basis for our position and
prevent well-meaning but ill-informed members of our community from being led
astray by individuals who may be motivated by values antithetical to genuine Torah
values.
A Wolf in Sheep’s
Clothing
The impetus for this article
is a piece that recently appeared in a popular secular Jewish publication
titled, “Who needs rabbinic leadership? A call for Orthodox organizations to
heed the voices of the women they cannot see”. The publication has given it a
great deal of publicity and it has generated much comment. Negative articles
about Orthodox Jews likely provide this publication a great deal of revenue so
they play them up as much as they can.
The irony of the title is that
it is strongly evocative of a Gemara in Sanhedrin 99b, which
pastes a very unattractive label on someone who asks the question, “Who needs
Rabbinic Leadership” but the irony is probably lost on the author of the
article. I do not know the author of the article personally and it is not my place
to paste labels on her. But despite her claim to be religious, and despite the tichel
she sports in the biographic photo that accompanies her articles, her
collection of pieces for this publication are a litany of complaints and
fault-finding with the Rabbinic leadership of the frum community, which
she portrays as self-centered, venal, cowardly, short-sighted and cruel.
Indeed, “Who needs Rabbinic Leadership” is a recurrent theme in almost
everything she writes. Does the Gemara’s label fit her? Judge for
yourself.
The author cynically
complained that no frum publication would accept her article so she was
“forced” to place it in where she did, notwithstanding the chillul Hashem
that was generated. The implication was that there was a conspiracy of silence
in the frum publications about this issue. Nonsense! Given the author’s
track record and agenda, is it any wonder that no frum publication wants
to go near her with a 10-foot pole?
I ask the frum women
who have joined this person’s crusade for “photo equality”: is this really someone
you want to be following? Don’t you realize that although this issue may seem
important to you, your “leader” has a larger agenda, one that is antithetical
to Jewish values, and by joining this battle with her, you are joining her war?
The Big
Lie
The article, and another
article by the author on the same subject, in the same publication, contend
that the motivation behind the policy to refrain from publishing photos of
women is greed. The publications, she says, are afraid that consumers in Lakewood
and Brooklyn will stop buying them if they publish pictures of women, the
advertisers will stop advertising in them and oy vey, they will go out
of business. So the publications kowtow to the ignorant demands of unnamed
people with misplaced frumkeit. The Rabbis lack the guts to protest, she
maintains, and by their silence they are allowing the community to spiral back into
the dark ages.
There is so much sheker
in that argument that it is difficult to know which lie to debunk first. Let’s
start with the idea that the hamon demands higher standards of tznius
to the point of rising up and boycotting publications that do not provide those
levels. Halevai that were the case! In fact, unfortunately, our Rabbonim
constantly have to fight the incursion of non-frum values into our
community that negatively affect our observance of tznius!
Besides, let’s take a step
back and examine what would have had to happen here if this charge were true.
Some brilliant publisher would have had to say to himself, “Hmm, how can I get
a larger market share? I know! I’ll eliminate pictures of women!” How bizarre!
Why would any publisher think that this would attract readers? There is no precedent
for anything like this. And if it was done for market share, don’t you think the
publisher would have publicized it? “Buy Mishpacha, the one and only magazine
with no pictures of women!” There was no such publicity.
And did anyone stop to think
that most of the readers of these
magazines are women, and the women would probably not be impressed by elimination
of pictures of women the publications they read?
The idea that grassroots
pressure created this policy, and/or the publishers jumped on it to get a leg
up on the competition is too ludicrous to be believed.
The corollary lie is that
the Rabbonim are silent on this matter. Not only are they not silent,
they have actively advocated for this change! I have not polled all the
publications that no longer include pictures of women but I am aware of at
least two of them that have implemented this policy on the advice of their
Rabbis – and these are Rabbis that are universally revered not only in the Charedi
community but in the larger Orthodox community as well. I am sure that this is
the case with most if not all of the other publications who have followed suit.
Far from being gutless,
these Rabbis understood full well that there would be elements that would
loudly and obnoxiously oppose the change, yet they persisted with it l’shaim
shomayim and l’toeles of the communities they serve.
The Rabbis Have No Right!
Among the correspondents who
weighed in on the article are several who trotted out the old canard, “show me
in the Shulchan Aruch”, meaning that if a practice does not appear
explicitly in the Shulchan Aruch it isn’t binding on them. What breathtaking
amharatzus! I refer them to the first Mishna in Avos, “asu
syog laTorah”, make a fence to protect the mitzvos of the Torah. The Gemara
in Yevamos 21a derives this obligation from the posuk, (Vayikra
18:30), “ushmartem es mishmarti”, “You should guard my mitzvos”. Chazal
teach us (Avos d’Rav Nosson 2:1) that the Torah itself provides a
precedent for syogim for gilui arayos.
Torah leaders in all
communities are enjoined to exercise this obligation to enact takanos,
based on their knowledge of the people in their charge, and the challenges that
they face, to protect them from aveiros. This is nothing new. Chazal
have done this from time immemorial. To question Chazal’s right – Chazal’s
obligation – to enact takanos is to question a fundamental
principle of Judaism, emunas chachamim, without which we would have
perished as a people eons ago.
The article author clearly
has no problem denying emunas chachamim. Do her supporters realize that
they are implicitly doing the same when they follow her lead?
True, a new policy change
may take some getting used to. But let’s put things in perspective. Our
grandmothers in pre-wars Europe were far more practiced in tznius than
we are. Sarah imeinu stayed indoors when her husband Avrohom, was
entertaining guests and the Torah is at pains to tell us this to emphasize her
praiseworthy quality of modesty. We would consider such a practice quaint, or
worse. We would claim that there is no precedent! Imagine the brouhaha if there
was a policy change to adopt that practice universally!
We are very far from the
level of Sarah and almost as far from the level of our grandmothers. The wars
destroyed much of the basic fabric of our tznius, which is one of the
signature traits of being a Jew. Our Torah leaders have spent the past century
painstakingly nudging us back to where we were. Their job has not been made any
easier by the decaying morals of the societies that surround us.
This policy change is
another step in that process. You don’t understand why this particular policy
change is necessary at this particular time? Keep two things in mind: 1) If you
want to know, ask. Our Gedolim are accessible. Sincere questions, asked
with an attitude of a genuine quest to understand daas Torah are
generally answered. But keep in mind the second thing: 2) You are not “owed” an
answer. Emunas chachamim means that we accept and follow daas Torah
even if we do not have, or do not understand reasons. Suppress your ego.
Acknowledge that people who are much better qualified than you are to
understand what our tzibur needs have come to a decision and your wisest
course is to follow it, just as you would follow the advice of an expert
doctor, whether your understood it or not.
But Why?
I do not speak for the Rabbonim
who instituted this policy change. But here is my personal attempt at
explaining why it is not the unreasonable and “discriminatory” dictate that
some are attempting to make it out to be.
Most of the dissenters argue
that Rabbis of previous generations never instituted such a policy. What
changed? First of all, newspapers and magazines did not start printing
photographs until the early 1900’s. Color photographs did not become widespread
in these publications until the 1960’s. Frum newspapers and magazines
did not hit their stride until the 1980’s. Thus the need to consider a
potential problem is relatively new. Scattered photographs here and there do
not justify consideration of a policy change.
Besides, look at the
pictures of frum women taken in the early 1900’s. The pictures are
black-and-white. The women look like they are wearing sacks. Their expressions
are dour. No make-up is visible. Contrast that to the full-color pictures in
magazines today, even frum magazines. Usually the women are dressed,
made up and posed to be as attractive as possible. It is entirely plausible
that they could evoke improper thoughts even in a normal, healthy, religious
man – in today’s day and age where even the most careful man is bombarded by inappropriate
images all day and every day?
We Don’t Do It!
And if you belong to a tzibur
where there is no such policy change, do not smirk. It does not mean that your tzibur
is “better”. It may very well mean that your Rabbinic leaders realize that you
would not obey that policy change if they issued it so they feel constrained to
hold back. (I make this remark is response to correspondents from a certain tzibur
in Israel who deride our Torah leaders for enacting this policy change. Yet
this tzibur has a shockingly high attrition rate, especially post-army,
and especially in areas of prohibited relations. This tzibur would seem
to need all the help it could get in the area of tznius, and if its
esteemed Rabbonim are holding back, it is no credit to the tzibur!)
The Spurious Argument
One of the arguments used to
insidiously inveigle well-meaning women to the “photo equality” campaign is the
role model claim, which makes the campaign sound holy and l’shaim shomayim.
“Our husbands and sons have role models in the Jewish magazines”, the argument
goes, “and we want role models also, for ourselves and our daughters, so we can
grow in ruchnius!” This argument collapses under even the slightest
scrutiny.
In the first place, if you
want a role model for your daughter, Mom, you want a mirror, not a magazine!
YOU are supposed to be the primary role model for your daughter and she sees
you up close and personal all the time. To supplement, your daughter has her moros
and teachers in her Bais Yaakov, whom she also sees in living color every day.
Add to that the many role
models she learns about in Bais Yaakov. The imahos. The nevios.
Sarah Schneirer and other heroines whose lives are worth emulating. No, the chumash
does not have photos of the imahos or the nevios. Did that stop
several millennia of Jewish women from looking up to them as role models? It
did not! So why should it stop you, or your daughter!
This argument is nothing
more than sucker bait to entice frum women to join in what is, to put it
bluntly, a feminist campaign for “equality” with all the hashkafic
problems that entails. Most of the good women who are writing letters to
newspapers to protest the no-pictures-of-women policy with the “role model” argument
are tools in the hands of people with an anti-religious agenda. Ladies, you are
being used! Time to stand up and protest – not to the newspapers but to the
cynical people with an agenda, who are trying to use you as tools.
Postscript
I would like to award a lump
of coal to the Rabbinical Council of America (if the reader doesn’t understand
the lump of coal reference, fine, the good Rabbis who head the RCA will
certainly understand it) for their prompt issuance of a response to the
article. Did they condemn the author for attempting to, yet again, further her
anti-frum agenda? No! Instead, they piously declared, “we don’t do that”
and had the temerity to add, “…we are of the opinion that it is important for
every member of the Orthodox community to have women and men of integrity,
piety, learning, and public [sic] serve as role models. This includes the
names, ideas, and faces of women in publications.” Thanks for telling us what
to do, guys! And which Gedolim did you consult on this matter?
I would like to conclude
with a quote from a gadol of the previous generation:
“The attribute of tznius
causes much good in this world, and because of that it is permitted to push
away many things that would have been worthwhile in and of themselves, because
man’s weaknesses would cause him to cross the boundaries of tznius which
uphold the existence of the spiritual and material world. The attributes of
love and friendship in all its comfortable actions and conversations, should
have been equal between the genders, but it is because of the great value of tznius
that derech eretz is sometimes pushed aside so much so that one doesn’t
even ask about the welfare of a woman. The tzanua person knows that it
is not because of the derision of the opposite sex that he keeps his distance
and erects barriers, but because of the greater goals of tznius.”
Who wrote that? The Satmar
Rebbe? Brisker Rav? No, it was written by Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Kook z’tl,
in his in Middot Haraya (translation by Chana Sosevsky, from her article
on tznius in the Fall 2001 issue of Jewish Action).
May all members of klal
yisroel, from all our camps, be zoche to take these words to heart.
