Looking at a picture of a woman on a computer
Why shouldn’t looking at a woman’s picture on a computer be prohibited from looking at colorful clothes, which was prohibited by the Sages? If it is forbidden to look at the clothes of a woman you know, then it is forbidden to see her clothes [or lack of clothes…] with her picture attached.
And it is not clear to say that only ‘clothes’ are prohibited but a picture of a woman with her clothes was not prohibited, where is the difference [in favor], and seeing the mating of species on a computer would not be prohibited because it is only a picture, when the principle is the same [or worse].
A distinction must be made between a formal prohibition and a substantive prohibition. If you have concerns about looking at a woman on a computer, there is room for discussion. But in a formal prohibition, what is forbidden is forbidden and what is not is not. Beyond that, there are situations in which it is not possible to prohibit because it is impossible to live like that. Forbidding a picture of a woman on a computer means not looking at the computer. Our eyes that see that no one is careful about looking at clothes either.
The first argument can be accepted, but the second argument was not understood, why if it is impossible to abolish the prohibition [if we assume that it is not as you think that ’what is forbidden is forbidden’], on this argument many of the laws can be abolished. [Looking is not about evidence but about interest in evidence, and this is something that can be maintained, although with difficulty]
When there is a halakha that cannot be applied, it is abrogated. See examples in Tod”D ‘Aimor’ ע”6 ט”ו ע”א as well as in Tod”D ‘Teshich’ ב”מ ע”ע ע”ב”מ ע”ב and others. Although it is necessary to discuss which halakhas and in which circumstances, and so on. Usually halakhas whose purpose is to distance oneself from a prohibition will be abrogated in such situations, but it seems to me that not only such.
In parentheses you wrote another argument (that even if when the halakha is not given, the halakha is abrogated, here it is given, albeit with difficulty). I do not completely agree with it either. Usually it is a question of when it is given with difficulty. When it is not given at all or when it is a pico, then it is clear that it is canceled and there is no need for the whole discussion. Even in the cases cited in the above text, it is not said that it is really a pico, otherwise there would be no need to write the things at all.
Also a Halacha from the Torah?
And for example, if our walking down the street on Shabbat were prohibited by the definition of a writer's job or another job [because of satellites and cameras], would you permit walking down the street because the Halacha cannot be applied without great difficulty?
Likewise, if it were proven that by blowing out of our mouths we operate air conditioners and various devices, wouldn't you require blowing into a closed vessel on Shabbat to prevent this? [Assuming that there is a Torah prohibition in this]
I qualified my words above. I don't have a general criterion. It all depends on the type of prohibition and the circumstances.
It seems that referring to the prohibition of looking at women's clothing and the like as an action that the Sages forbade is incorrect. The prohibition is to reach impurity at night, and the Sages only mentioned a few things that could lead to this. If an image on a computer is more stimulating, it is forbidden even without the Sages explicitly ruling on it.
Follow-up question for the rabbi –
Beyond ’each case on its own’, do you have any insights (in a post or a more detailed answer) on the criteria for annulling a halakhah?
You can simply look outside and see what the public has decided to abandon, but I'm not sure whether this is the benchmark in every situation, and whether we should align with it.
In the Dauraita, it sounds to me not (unless the situation is truly illusory).
Is it true in every rabbinical prohibition?
Too general a question. I have now finished writing a book about it (the third in a trilogy)
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
