Q&A: Guarding One’s Eyes for Men
Guarding One’s Eyes for Men
Question
Are men obligated to guard their eyes? At first glance it seems that “do not stray” is not speaking specifically about sexual immorality but about the matter of the spies, and even the Sifrei’s interpretation there is more conceptual than halakhic and also speaks about idolatry. We see in the Talmud that when they executed a woman she was exposed and not dressed modestly, and they also say about Samuel that he would look at women in order to learn the signs of physical maturity. On the other hand, in tractate Avodah Zarah they say that it is forbidden even to look at a woman’s heel…
In addition, there are old editions of the Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Arukh with illustrations of immodestly dressed women.
(and also in Nadav Schnur’s academic article regarding women’s modesty, you really do see a trend that perhaps connects with the idea that there is no issue of guarding one’s eyes.)
Answer
There is definitely such an obligation, and it is Torah-level: “and do not stray.” It does indeed speak about matters of sexual prohibitions (“after your eyes”) and beliefs / idolatry (“after your hearts”). And so all the halakhic authorities ruled. The question is what exactly this obligation includes, and simply speaking it applies in any situation where an improper erotic thought is aroused.
The examples in which women are seen in an immodest state are cases where there is no concern for such thoughts being aroused (as with a doctor who is preoccupied with his work). So too with what is written in Sotah, “and he shall uncover the woman’s head.” Alternatively, even if such a thought is aroused, fulfillment of the commandment overrides the prohibition (especially according to the permission of when it is unavoidable and not intended, when there is no other way).
Nadav’s article is not relevant here. He discusses the question whether a woman’s modesty is meant to keep a man from stumbling or whether it is a value in itself (and whether there are laws of modesty at all). As far as I recall, there is no discussion there of whether a man is obligated to avoid forbidden sights that arouse improper thoughts.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know how to draw a line.
Regarding the sotah who is put to death, perhaps there was a point in exposing her in order to shock the impulse and say to it: see what your end is. Though I do not remember whether this was so for every woman put to death, and if so that reason falls away (unless they also wanted to gain an added message of degradation along the way). Nude illustrations are not unique to aggadic works. In Dura-Europos too, from the period of the Sages, Bathsheba is depicted bathing in the river immodestly. But those illustrations are not very graphic, and they were drawn by non-Jews. Perhaps people simply did not pay much attention. Indeed, these examples, like Rabban Gamliel bathing opposite the statue of Aphrodite, suggest that they may have been more tolerant of such things. On the other hand, perhaps there was no choice and the burden of foreign rule left no escape. The Vilna Gaon notes that every form of idolatry is described as harlotry because it was mixed with sexual worship. And that is historically true. Idolatrous figurines too are usually naked goddesses. The Torah’s struggle against pagan bacchanalia is directed also against the pornography of their time. If the Torah had been given in our day, Moses would have commanded us to smash smartphones without filtering and would have written: “and you shall not bring an abomination into your house.”
If intercourse with an unmarried woman is permitted at the Torah level, how is that possible without improper thoughts?
Good question. It is possible that the thoughts involved are forbidden, and only in the laws of forbidden sexual relations there is no Torah prohibition.
Another possibility is that if a person is actually having intercourse, then the thought is natural and therefore there is no prohibition of improper thought in that case. See here:
https://ph.yhb.org.il/14-04-06/
The prohibition of improper thought is only when it brings him to a nocturnal emission or to adultery. That is not the case here.
“And do not stray” comes to explain the purpose of keeping the commandments: that “and you shall see it” will lead to “and you shall remember… and do them…” and then as a result of the “and do them,” “and do not stray” will be fulfilled.
There is nothing here that specifically connects “do not stray” to sexual prohibitions. This whole idea of guarding the eyes is a distortion.
And if someone still wants to insist on it, then at least be precise and say that a person is commanded to look with his eyes and then not stray, not to go after his eyes. To deliberately put himself to the test. Exactly the opposite of how “guarding the eyes” is practiced.
With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, may the Lord command the blessing upon your storehouses, 5778
To “Point” — greetings,
Job says even more than that: “I made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” Even at an unmarried virgin (for whom there is no prohibition for non-Jews) he would not look. And in general, what benefit is there for a person in arousing his desire for a woman who is not his wife, a desire that cannot be fulfilled and from which there comes only wasting of the eyes and anguish of soul. It is written, “and cleave to his wife,” and not to another.
With blessings, the anonymous prayer leader
The prohibition of “do not covet” has nothing to do with guarding the eyes. Please do not invent things in the name of the Torah.
Mr. Point,
If you are a Karaite, then I can understand your approach (even if I would oppose it in principle).
But if you are not a Karaite, then you should know that according to the interpretation of the Oral Torah, “and do not stray” is definitely a prohibition, and it definitely also applies to looking and fantasizing about sexual prohibitions.
What is a Karaite? And why would I be one?
You skipped a small step: your interpretation of the Oral Torah.
You interpret the Oral Torah as if it interprets the Torah. And that is nonsense. The Oral Torah is not an interpretation of the Torah.
On the face of it, it seems that you are fundamentally denying the Written Torah and trusting your own interpretation of the Oral Torah.
A serious problem.
Point,
As for your question what a Karaite is, see here: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA
Why would you be one? I don’t know. There are Karaites in the world, so after you wrote something contrary to the tradition of the Oral Torah, it was not far-fetched to think that you might be one of them.
I did not understand what you are saying. The Oral Torah, as handed down to us by the Sages, establishes that sexually charged looking at forbidden relations involves an independent prohibition of “and do not stray,” whereas you wanted to say that it does not, and argued that the verse “and do not stray” is merely a result of the commandment of tzitzit, without noticing what the Oral Torah says about it. That means you do not accept the Oral Torah (= Karaite), or parts of it, or a third possibility — you were not aware of the prohibition in the Oral Torah.
Did I miss something about your position?
The way you interpret what the Oral Torah establishes is your interpretation, not the Oral Torah’s.
The fact that the Sages said that “and do not stray” refers to sexual prohibitions does not prove that they really thought that this is what the Torah meant. That is your conception, based on a kind of innocence as though people always tell you what they really think.
You cannot know what someone intended to say, or what he “really thought.” You do not have divine inspiration. At most you can know what he said. And that both of us know, and about that there is no argument.
You can ask: did they lie to me? That is naïveté. By the same token you can ask about the Torah whether it lied to us when it spoke about the serpent in the Garden of Eden if it was not really a serpent.
Did the Torah lie to us when it said that God spoke, when in practice it is obvious that God does not produce sound waves at certain frequencies? Or did the Torah lie to us when it said that God gets angry, when it is clear that God has no drives? In short, there is no way out of this. It is always your interpretation and your conception of things. Everything depends on the level of naïveté in each matter.
Point, right. Everything depends on the level of naïveté. I, for example, who am not naïve at all, understand that the main purpose of the Torah (and also the Oral Torah) is to increase the eating of pork and ketchup throughout the world until their complete exhaustion. (Are the verses and other commandments a lie? No. See the example of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.)
Seriously, maybe I interpret the Oral Torah incorrectly and do not accept Scripture, but you do not accept anything.
Point,
As I understand it, contrary to what you say, when the Sages said there is a prohibition, they meant it fully and sincerely.
Maimonides also meant it when he counted “and do not stray” among the commandments as an independent negative commandment.
Do you think otherwise? There is nothing I can do about that. We will remain in disagreement.
(By the way, I have no problem with the trivial and banal claim that everything I say and think passes through the filter of my own interpretation.)
With God’s help, 23 Elul 5778
To “Point” — greetings,
When the Torah commands, “do not stray after your hearts and after your eyes, after which you go astray,” this includes a prohibition on lustful thoughts in the heart and on a covetous gaze that leads to lustful thoughts, in accordance with human nature that “the eye sees and the heart covets.”
In “after which you go astray” are included the two meanings of “harlotry” in the language of the Bible: both the primary meaning — sexual promiscuity — and the borrowed meaning — idolatry.
The common denominator of the two meanings of “harlotry” is this: taking excitement from a substitute for “the real thing.” In “harlotry” in its literal sense, a person gets sexual excitement not in the proper way of the love between husband and wife, and in idolatry a person gets religious excitement not through his relationship with the Creator of the world.
And just as in the harlotry of idolatry it is forbidden even to enjoy its beauty, as it says, “do not covet the silver or gold on them,” so too in harlotry in the literal sense it is forbidden to gaze at the beauty of one who is not his wife. And the more a person diverts his mind from pleasure that is forbidden to him, the more his enjoyment of what is permitted to him will grow.
With the blessing, “May it be a year of good eyes,” S. Z. Levinger
A.B., this has nothing to do with understanding, but with the fact that you want to believe it is so. If you wanted to believe it was not so, and found another way to explain things, then you would easily do that. It is not such a great intellectual revolution. It is simply an attempt to attribute intentions to another person. Everything depends on the level of naïveté in each and every matter.
S. Z. Levinger, meaning: to make tzitzit on the corner of the garment, and to add accessories there in the form of a thread of tekhelet so that it will draw attention and we can look at it (presumably because it is aesthetic and יפה and catches the eye), and through that not look at other things. Fine.
But the commandment is still to look at the tzitzit. And if someone hides it with his hand, then seemingly he is inventing a new commandment not written in the Torah. “And do not stray” is not an independent commandment but a result of the commandment to see the thread of tekhelet.
With God’s help, 24 Elul 5778
To “Point” — greetings,
It seems to me that tekhelet is not only a means that, by its beauty, distracts the mind from being drawn after forbidden beauty. Tekhelet is a symbol of importance with which kings and ministers adorned themselves, as Mordechai “went out from before the king in royal garments of blue and white…”
When a person is aware that he is the representative of the King of kings, then all his behavior must be representative, and even his gaze will be “goal-directed” and not “glancing to the sides.”
With blessings, S. Z. Levinger
It is possible that the name tzitzit also hints at tzitz, a diadem of glory. “Gedil” too may hint at greatness.
What is the definition of an improper thought?
Is the prohibition even in a case where such a thought comes for a moment and he can push it away, or is it specifically about a serious thought where he actually lusts after the woman?