Volume 63 Number 25
Produced: Fri, 31 Mar 17 00:16:39 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Airbrushing women out of news photographs (4)
[Martin Stern Barak Greenfield Irwin Weiss Meir Shinnar]
Is nail polish on all fingers a chatzitza in emergency situations? (2)
[Dr. Josh Backon David Ziants]
No pictures of women (was Airbrushing women out of news photographs)
[Carl A. Singer]
Sexism and consent (was Airbrushing women out of news photographs)
[Leah S. R. Gordon]
Transgender individuals and gittin (2)
[Martin Stern Orrin Tilevitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Airbrushing women out of news photographs
Leah Gordon wrote (MJ 63#24):
> Martin Stern comments (MJ 63#23) that sometimes women are dressed
> inappropriately, in photographs, and explains that Chareidi press just censors
> out all women as a solution. He agrees that this is "irritating" but then
> says:
>> However, I don't think it is sufficiently important to make a fuss about
>> and denigrate them over it.
> I find this comment truly astounding. Surely it is up to women to state how
> we feel about being ERASED, rather than up to a group of men, or individual
> men, to decide that it's not "sufficiently important to make a fuss about".
The matter is that halachic concepts of decent dress differ from those of
general society. Precisely where to draw the line is open to dispute but I
presume even Leah would agree that there will always be problematic
pictures, complete nudity for example, which are unsuitable according to
everyone.
Carl A. Singer wrote (MJ 63#24):
> Many government photos, for example those from the White House, are shared
> with the legal stipulation that they not be altered.
>
> Does law matter to some actors?
I also object to airbrushing out women the paper should simply not have
used that photo at all if it found it unsuitable not every article needs
to have a picture. However, one should realise that these papers readership
have a different set of standards and any picture of a woman will almost
certainly be deemed offensive by some of them - and they would kick up a
fuss. The policy is simply to avoid trouble and it is not for the rest of us
to force our differing standards on them.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barak Greenfield <docbjg@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Airbrushing women out of news photographs
Carl A. Singer wrote (MJ 63#24):
> Many government photos, for example those from the White House, are shared with
> the legal stipulation that they not be altered.
Does Carl have a source for this? I was unable to find any such stipulation online,
and, since the images are in the public domain, I don't see how there could be
any limitation on their use. In fact, if they were sufficiently altered, one
might even be able to copyright the altered version as a derivative work.
Barak Greenfield
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Airbrushing women out of news photographs
Susan Buxfield writes (Vol.63 #24):
> While the modus vivendi of the ultra-orthodox community may seem strange to the
> outsider, there is very little sexual abuse, and their women have great freedom
> of movement and job opportunities.
Very little sexual abuse.....
First, none is permissible. How much is very little? To the abused person,
there is no such thing as a little abuse.
Second, I just read about some arrests in Israel in Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh,
Betar Illit and Bnei Brak of 22 Haredi men who are accused of committing various
sex crimes against women and minors. According to the article, the men were
being hidden from the local civil police and justice system by the Haredi
authorities (I recognize that not everything that one reads in the press is
true). Why the Haredi authorities ignore the rule that dina dmalchuta dina
(the law of the land is the law) is beyond me.
Irwin E. Weiss
Baltimore
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Airbrushing women out of news photographs
Susan Buxfield wrote (MJ 63#24):
> However the issue is much deeper. Back in the days of the Chofetz Chaim
> where pictures, of him and his wife exist, and of HaRav Moshe Feinstein with
> his wife at a mixed sitting wedding table, times were different since women
> were not photographed with men as their equals with similar jobs etc. Today
> they often feel it is right to sit around with men (moshav leitzim).
If women could sit with Rav Moshe and the Chofetz Chaim, how does the fact
that today they think it is right now become moshav Leitzim?? This is
being motzi la'az on many and requires protest.
> Just recently several judges have made comments that many of the women who
> get raped are drunk or are high on drugs have brought it upon themselves.
>
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301558/Top-female-judge-issues-warning-drunken-women.html
>
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-acquitted-rape-woman-not-scream-female-colleague-turin-court-diamante-minucci-a7648451.html
>
> in fact the above link is indicative of halacha. If a woman doesn't scream
> the act is considered consensual.
That is not correct or current psak - we don't pasken from a pasuk. How
many here would agree with the above statement?? How many here view it as
outrageous????
> While the modus vivendi of the ultra-orthodox community may seem strange
> to the outsider, there is very little sexual abuse, and their women have great
> freedom of movement and job opportunities.
The statement that there is very little sexual abuse is one that is truly
believed by many in the Haredi community - but there is little evidence to
support it, and what evidence there is suggests the level there is not
significantly different than the general community - even if the community does
far better job at covering it up than the general community (think of the Belsky
scandal...)
> Keeping sexual thoughts at bay is perhaps the main reason for airbrushing
> and of course the restrictive usage of the internet.
>
> Finally, while airbrushing is deception, when there is no loss involved,
> presumably there is no halachik problem.
The question is the extent to which subjecting the Halachic community to
ridicule in the eyes of the outside world is an issue - especially when not
halachically mandated. Some of us still think ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem is
still something to be strived for.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dr. Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Is nail polish on all fingers a chatzitza in emergency situations?
In response to David Ziants (MJ 63#23):
Although the Rema YD 198 is stringent re: miyut that the woman is not *makpid*
on, if the nail polish is done well then tevilla is permitted (Yechaveh Daat II
YD 13). See also Pitchei Tshuva YD 198 s"k 10. Obviously if the polish is not
done well then it is considered a chatzitza and must be removed. In any case the
fingernails and what's under them must be cleaned.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Is nail polish on all fingers a chatzitza in emergency situations?
May I thank Martin Stern and Daniel Geretz (MJ 63#24) for their responses to my
question (MJ 63#23).
In addition to the responses that were posted publicly, another subscriber sent
me privately an article from Techumin Vol 35 by Tova and Chezi Ganzal (I
apologize in advance if I did not transliterate their names correctly into English).
The body of the article gives a lot of detail, mentioning some of the arguments
that both Martin Stern and Daniel Geretz sent, and in the introduction
paragraphs a basis is given that hasn't yet been fully mentioned. I will try and
summarize these paragraphs in English:
"The idea of having to remove all chatzitzot is from a Rabbinic decree (Sukka 6a
and Baba Kamma 72b) that (s)he has to remove a chatzitza covering a small area
that bothers him/her because of a chatzitza covering the majority area of the
body that bothers him/her, but on a chatzitza covering a small area that does
not bother him/her, a decree was not made. (I write both he and her etc, because
the Gemara is obviously also talking about men doing immersion at the time of
Bet Mikdash and even today for those that allow men to go on the Temple Mount in
the places known to be permitted.)
"Then the Rema writes (Yoreh Deah 188:1) - l'hatchilla [in the first instance],
one should not immerse if there is something which formally is not considered a
chatzitza in case he comes to immerse where there really is a chatzitza. This
conclusion is different from that of the Shulchan Aruch because we do not make a
decree (relating to what the Rema writes) on top of another decree (as
mentioned in the Gemara above).
"So the poskim [halachic arbitrators of later generations] discussed the meaning
of the Rema. The footnote goes into a lot of detail which follows in parentheses:-
"(According to the Zera Emet responsa Yoreh Deah end of chap 76 quoting Tehorat
HaBayit Vol 3 page 6, the Rema did not mean this here but his text was misplaced
in the first printed editions of the Shulchan Aruch - but does appear correctly
in Darchay Moshe, and Sha'aray Dura notes talks about this - and the Rema is
referring to lose hairs mentioned in the next clause in the Shulchan Aruch. Then
there is the Levush who understands the Rema as only being lehatchila, and a
decree can be made on a decree in this case, but for cases bediavad [after the
fact] we do not make such decrees. Others try and understand the earlier source
of the Rama - for example the Gra (sub-caluse 4) who says it is from the
Tosephot which mentions the hair needs to be washed and is treated more
stringently - but the rest of the body does not need to be washed (even
l'chatchilla I assume), and he understands that the Rema is talking about this
case. HaRav Ovadia Yoseph learns like this - Toharat HaBayit pp 16-20. Also the
Ba"ch (sub-clause 27) learns like Sha'aray Dura. HaRav Shlomo Amar disagrees
with HaRav Ovadia Yoseph and says that the Shulchan Aruch has the same line as
the Rema that l'hatchilla even a small area that doesn't bother has to be removed.)
"The bottom line is that the Poskim differ according to whether they follow the
line of the Shulchan Aruch (primarily Sephardim) or Rama according to its
nominative understanding (primarily Ashkenazim) but Ben Ish Chay and HaRav
Mordechai Eliayhu (although Sephardim) follow the Rama and so does HaRav David
Yosseph and HaRav Avraham Yoseph who consider the Rema's opinion in its
nominative understanding - unlike their father HaRav Ovadia Yosseph, who follows
the Shulchan Aruch. They give the "Custom of the Daughters of Israel" (to
justify) their stringent opinion."
I have tried to do this as accurately as possible, and I cannot promise I did
not make any mistakes. So I guess it is best to look into the original article,
or even better the original sources. I also tried to put my own interpretations
in parenthesis, especially where the original text implies something which is
not explicitly stated, and I of course hope I also got that correct.
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 11:01 AM
Subject: No pictures of women (was Airbrushing women out of news photographs)
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#23):
> Where the lady in question is decently dressed, such as Queen Elizabeth II
> always is, there should not be any real objection to including her picture when
> relevant to a report.
>
> The problem is that general society's standards of (especially female) dress
> has become progressively more 'revealing' and the papers have gone for a 'no
> woman policy' rather than deciding each picture on its merits. This saves
> them from getting into disputes with readers over precisely where to draw
> the line.
The argument that women may be inappropriately dressed is not always relevant. I
just received an invitation to a yeshiva dinner. Honorees include Mr. & Mrs. A,
Rabbi & Rebbetzin B, etc. In all cases despite the dual caption, the picture
is only of the male (wearing a black suit & black hat, of course). Certainly
we'd imagine that Mrs. A and Rebbetzin B were not excluded because of the way
they dress.
Carl A. Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Sexism and consent (was Airbrushing women out of news photographs)
In response to the issue of women being airbrushed out of news stories, Ms.
Susan Buxfield writes (MJ 63#24):
> However the issue is much deeper. Back in the days of the Chofetz Chaim
> where pictures, of him and his wife exist, and of HaRav Moshe Feinstein with
> his wife at a mixed sitting wedding table,
Yes, indeed people were less extreme in this domain, and less prone to pretend
that half the population lived in a secret cave somewhere.
> times were different since women were not photographed with men as their
> equals with similar jobs etc. Today they often feel it is right to sit around
> with men (moshav leitzim).
"They often feel it is right to sit around" and "men as their equals" are
to me, offensive ways to describe life in society. Of COURSE women now
have confidence that we are equal to men, and we expect equal treatment and
"sitting around" in public and in the workplace.
> Just recently several judges have made comments that many of the women who
> get raped are drunk or are high on drugs have brought it upon themselves.
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301558/Top-female-judge-issues-warning-drunken-women.html
>
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4301558/Top-female-judge-issues-warning-drunken-women.html>
I read this article, and in fact the judge does not say anything like "brought
it upon themselves" - what a horrible thing to accuse her of. The judge sent
the rapist to jail. Let me outline my reply:
1. Rape is the fault of the rapist. Full stop.
2. The judge in that case said that rapists sometimes gravitate toward women who
are drunk or otherwise weakened, because they view these women as easier prey.
3. Victim-blaming for rape or murder or battery or armed robbery or any other
violent crime, is an appalling practice, and I implore Susan to stop doing so
immediately. The appeal of victim-blaming is that one can then say, "ok, I
won't do xyz and then I'll be safe" - this is false.
>
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-acquitted-rape-woman-not-scream-female-colleague-turin-court-diamante-minucci-a7648451.html
> in fact the above link is indicative of halacha. If a woman doesn't scream
> the act is considered consensual.
Actually, you are incorrect here with regard both to US secular and Jewish law.
I don't know about law in Italy, where this story seems to have taken place - it
got news coverage precisely because the verdict ("no scream" == consent) was
considered so outrageous.
According to US law, consent must be given, and the lack of screaming is not the
standard used. In some communities, "sustained enthusiastic consent" is the
standard looked for when looking at whether a rape (stranger or acquaintance)
has occurred.
According to Jewish law, a woman is presumed to have struggled and "cried out"
[objected] in all cases, unless there were witnesses who attest that she did
not. In fact, a woman who is raped in an isolated area is presumed to have
struggled/screamed with no proof whatsoever, because there could be no one to
hear her.
I've said this before on Mail.Jewish, but I'm profoundly relieved that posters
here are not setting judicial or social policy with regard to rape or sexual
assault.
> While the modus vivendi of the ultra-orthodox community may seem strange to
> the outsider, there is very little sexual abuse, and their women have great
> freedom of movement and job opportunities.
This is an outrageous statement as well. There is a preponderance of sexual
abuse, with more exposed every year. The amount of abuse in general is about
equal to that in the general society, and the rape of children is a bit higher,
because of the "shame" imposed on reporters.
A statement like "their women" reveals that in fact, women do not have
independence in crucial ways. "Great freedom of movement" compared to what?
Cattle in a barn? "Job opportunities" - sure, whatever is possible with a
second-rate high school education.
> Keeping sexual thoughts at bay is perhaps the main reason for airbrushing
> and of course the restrictive usage of the internet.
This seems not to be working, as Chareidi people still get overexcited,
seemingly, about sitting next to a stranger on public transportation.
Also, did you even realize that you are assuming that primarily MEN (let's
ignore the presumption of heterosexuality for now) are readers of the news?
> Finally, while airbrushing is deception, when there is no loss involved,
> presumably there is no halachik problem.
As I said to Martin, it's not really for M.J readers to decide. It's up to
Clinton, Merkel, the Queen, etc. to decide if they are fine with being erased
from history.
These editors have to ask themselves, "why are we making a newspaper?" - if
there's any thought that it is to educate the people about actual news, then
this is in direct conflict with erasure of women.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Transgender individuals and gittin
Chaim Casper wrote (MJ 63#24):
> Martin Stern (MJ 63#23) mentions two recent cases where men who had undergone
> gender reassignment surgery still had to provide their wives (married while
> they were still men) gittin [Jewish writs of divorce].
>
> The Haifa court ruled that "she" was still a "he" in the eyes of the halakhah
> and as a result, "she" had to give her (ex-)wife a get. "She" argued that
> "she" was no longer a "he" and since it is impossible for a woman to be
> married to a man, "she" had no responsibility to offer a divorce to the
> (ex-)wife.
> ...
> This issue came up last year in MJ 62#65 (February, 2016). I pointed out that
> R` Eliezer Waldenberg, zt"l, the Tzitz Eliezer, held like the Haifa court
> "she", namely that once "she" underwent the gender reassignment, "she" was no
> longer a man and since two women cannot be married under the halakhah, "she"
> did not have to provide her wife with a get. (Tzitz Eliezer Vol 10,25).
This clearly is a matter of dispute among the poskim and not all agree with
the position of the Tzitz Eliezer.
This is possibly analogous to the problem of couples previously married
under Reform or Conservative auspices who divorce civilly. R. Moshe
Feinstein ruled that the original marriage had no halachic validity whereas
R. Henkin held it needed to be dissolved through a vald get. In practice, we
will not allow the wife to remarry without a get (as a chumra [stringency])
but rely on R. Moshe Feinstein if she nonetheless has, so as to treat any
children from the second union as not being mamzerim.
In the Haifa case, presumably the court is insisting on a get to avoid any
possible future problems should the wife have children from someone else/
> In the Manchester case, "she" (with the support and encouragement of the local
> LGBT community) held out against giving the divorce because "she" was using it
> as leverage to obtain more favorable child custody arrangements.
Unlike the Haifa case, where the Beit Din managed to 'persuade' the husband
to give a get, in Manchester the husband has not, and the morality of the
his (and the LGBT lobby's) position was what I had hoped could be a topic
for discussion.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Wed, Mar 29,2017 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Transgender individuals and gittin
In response to Martin Stern (MJ 63#23);
Is the solution to this problem for future cases, and perhaps all cases in which
the male spouse is unable (or unwilling) to provide a get, a clause in the
ketuba (or a prenup) that in such event -- as determined by Beth Din X in its
sole authority -- Beth Din X is designated as a shaliach to convey a get?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 25