Q&A: Forbidden Sights and Related Issues
Forbidden Sights and Related Issues
Question
Hello,
What is the Rabbi’s view regarding the parameters of the prohibition of forbidden sights? I saw that the Rabbi mentioned several times the Talmudic cases of “there is no other way” and “he does not intend,” and I would like to ask: seemingly, if so, then there is no end to the matter, because even going to a mixed beach could in certain circumstances be considered “there is no other way,” especially since there are opinions that “there is no other way” applies even when there is another route but it is longer. And is this leniency of “there is no other way” only a permission to enter a place that is defined as problematic, but if in practice you enjoy the lack of modesty there (obviously you did not go in for that, but for some other purpose), is that forbidden? Or is it a permission to enter, and even if you stumble it covers you afterward? (In the style of the reasoning the Rabbi has raised several times, that a person needs to live normally—so then even if you know you will enjoy it, it is permitted because you are doing something normative.) Similar to the debate whether Torah-level doubt is treated stringently as a permission to enter the doubt, or whether even if one actually violates it…?
Can the Rabbi explain a bit this permission to live normally even if we know we will stumble into prohibitions such as gossip and the like? Why indeed should a person not be obligated to go off to the deserts… as Maimonides writes? I agree that there is some intuition that the Holy One wants us to live normally, but since this has no source and is just a feeling, how can it permit explicit prohibitions (gossip, forbidden sights, etc.)? In my opinion this is similar to what the Rabbi wrote in the second part of the trilogy: that when there is a moral imperative against a halakhic ruling, one may press the ruling but not reject it; and here, when one knows with certainty that he will violate it, it seems to me to be a certain rejection of the prohibition…?
Answer
Regarding “there is no other way,” this is not the place for me to give a general lecture. There is a survey in Rabbi Abraham Stav’s article, and you can find it online. Although, as far as I remember, in my opinion he is too stringent (he narrows the leniency too much).
I do not know what a source would add for you. Even if I bring a source from the Talmud, you could ask where they learned it from. The sages of the Talmud also did not run off to the deserts, and I assume they too violated a prohibition here and there. As I explained, in my understanding the Torah was given to us so that we can observe it in this world and not in a monastery. And if there is risk, we must deal with it. The questions of how much risk, and how far this is from normal life, are of course important. Therefore, it is impossible to set sharp criteria here.
In a place where the risk is 100% and immediate, it may indeed be necessary to refrain. But when we are speaking about a risk that over the long term we will probably violate a prohibition, in such a case one should take the risk and cope with it.
It may be that there is here a kind of setting aside of a prohibition (a doubtful prohibition) in a case of great loss, or even danger to life. Losing normal life and moving off to the desert is certainly worse than great loss, and perhaps it even touches on danger to life. And we were not commanded about that.