Q&A: Staying in an Immodest Place
Staying in an Immodest Place
Question
I saw what you wrote regarding the issue of when there is another route and when there is no other route, and your conclusion, as in tractate Pesachim, in a case where it cannot be avoided and one is not intending it, regarding all the laws of walking through immodest places, and also regarding other things. (I also didn’t really understand why one needs to get to a case of “it cannot be avoided and one is intending it,” since there Maimonides rules that even when it can be avoided and one is not intending it, it is permitted.)
What is your view regarding staying in an immodest place? After all, there seems to be room to distinguish between walking to a certain place and staying there.
It is also surprising that today many in the conservative public, who are indeed careful and stringent about walking through immodest places in the street, do go to restaurants where there is almost no chance that there won’t be an exposed handbreadth of nakedness there.
Thank you
Answer
I’m planning to write a column about this soon, and I’ll address it there. One can certainly understand that there is value in refraining, especially if people do not value being in such places (do not see value in art and the like). The question of prohibition is not the only question.
And indeed there is a difference between walking and staying, at least if the staying is meant to be in the place of prohibition and not for some other purpose. This is discussed by the Chafetz Chaim in Be'er Mayim Chayim regarding the question of staying in a place where people speak gossip. I’ll address it there.
Discussion on Answer
See column 487: https://mikyab.net/posts/76708
I don’t see any reference to the distinction I asked about, namely staying in a place with immodesty
I answered that here.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see an answer. Help me understand.
How is it permitted to sit in a restaurant where there is an exposed handbreadth of nakedness, if from the passage in Pesachim one can in principle learn only about passing through an immodest place, whereas staying there could be a problem? (And this distinction also seems pretty logical and intuitive.)
I don’t understand where you got this distinction between passing through and staying. If it is forbidden, then passing through would also be forbidden. You need to understand that we are not talking about a permission granted for some need, where there would be room to discuss how far the permission extends. There simply is no prohibition. By the way, Be'er Mayim Chayim speaks about staying.
Did you end up writing it? I’d be happy to see the answer, thanks