New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Movies

asked 2 years ago

I recently read an article by Rabbi Avraham Stav (https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/652051/)
And a question arose in my mind: What are the standards for a film that is allowed to be watched? If it is in a series that everyone knows has sexual content, but you have some benefit from watching it (and the question is what is the benefit? Historical knowledge? Or something else?) will it be allowed?

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 2 years ago
י.ד. replied 2 years ago

I read it at the time and again now, and the question still arises in my mind whether the Shulchan Aruch prohibits reading the poetry of Immanuel the Roman because it arouses desire. Is there no Q&A for movies? I am not saying that the Shulchan Aruch has the same authority as the Talmud, but the rabbi himself said that the opinion of major rabbis has weight, and the Shulchan Aruch is one of them.

מיכי Staff replied 2 years ago

The permission is based on the fact that you have a different goal, but along the way you encounter a prohibition. In Immanuel, this is probably the main goal. Alternatively, the prohibition is to read only when that is your goal.

י.ד. replied 2 years ago

I read Emanuel the Roman at the time and understood what was bothering the Shulchan Aruch. On the surface, it's not much worse than what's going on today. On the other hand, quite a few of the sages of Spain wrote a poem of desire and no one was offended. Maybe the problem with Emanuel the Roman is that the object of love of the patron the poet describes was a married woman. That was already crossing a line. I don't know.
I recently saw a film with children that was supposedly supposed to be modest, but at the beginning there was a crude hint that I believe had it not been for their desire to maintain the film's rating as family, it would have been realized. I really cringed there with my son. There is a feeling that works of our time have no red line. It was not a successful film and perhaps there is a connection between the film's lack of success and its slide into the crude place I described (a kind of negative signal that in order to cover up a bad work, they insert something that is not of the type that only highlights the entire failure).
I do not dismiss the rabbi's argument. I saw works that, although they had immodest and even significant parts, still had something in them that, within the framework of the film, took on a different meaning. Maybe heaven will think differently, but there is room for the Rabbi's argument. But when I cringed there, I felt that the whole thing wasn't worth it.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button