The Gemara [Shabbos 64a]
relates that the soldiers who came back from the revenge battle against the
Midianites offered the gold and jewelry they captured in battle as a penitential
tribute, because, even though Moshe initially suspected them of illicit
relations [precisely because they offered the booty under their own volition],
they said “’We
did not do a sinful action, but perhaps we had sinful thoughts’…they taught in the House of R’ Yishmael: the soldiers needed [to bring the Kelim for] an
atonement for getting pleasure from seeing forbidden women.”
This
is one of the myriad Talmudic sources detailing restrictions regarding
ogling—or, more likely, gazing that would fall far short of ogling.
Sefarim
do exist that actually explicate “hilchos re’iyah” in great detail. Suffice it to say it’s not one of my strong
points. It reminds me of the story a
former shana bet colleague told me about the time he and a chavrusa, having
been able to make the commitment to be “shomer negiah” and stick to it [more or
less, at least for a measureable period of time], wanted to go the next step and
try to be “shomer re’iyah”. According
to him, that might have lasted a few minutes.
[There
is also guardyoureyes.com, which involves a “battle” that didn’t really exist
yet in my Yeshiva days. [But I date
myself.] Should I mention the irony of a
website that helps one combat the vagaries of the Web? I just did?]
This
vignette is also usually a jumping-off point to most summer-period mussar
shmuessen about watching what you—well, watch.
But it might not present as the paradigm of self-control it’s held up to
be when you take a closer look.
This
battle was the quid pro quo for Avel Shitim, the joint Moabite-Midianite
turning-out of almost their entire flower of young womanhood to seduce Bnei
Yisrael into Pe’or-worship and concomitant oblivion [cf. Sanhedrin 106a]. [Not-so-side note: the mass executions taking
place during the incident were for the Pe’or worship, not the illicit liaisons;
the only exception was Zimri, and there were other reasons for that.]
There
are midrashic indicators that soldiers weren’t too far removed by degree from
the precipitating factors. Rashi on
31:16 via Sifri relates that the soldiers actually recognized which particular woman had snared which particular
Israelite offender: "this is the one through which so-and-so had his
downfall." [Since, as the aforementioned Sanhedrin 106a relates how Bilaam planned out the gradual seduction
technique through business relationships, personal knowledge of at least who
some of the participants were may not have been all that farfetched.]
Tosfos
Shabbat 64a [s.v. “midei hirhur mi yatzanu”] actually indicates one more
interesting tidbit: the halacha of the “yefat to’ar”/captive woman was already
known to the soldiers, but a reminder was needed that it applied to “the one
you liked [“ve’chashakta”], but not her friend”. [I’m unaware of anything indicating whether anyone
actually made use of the loophole, but this Tosfos indicates that at least
there was some consideration on the part of the soldier which would have been
halachically legitimate, insofar as the boundary as to where it would not have
been was delineated.]
So,
not to necessarily downplay “lo sasuru”, but there were plenty of cues to
hirhur here which made the situation other than a case of “re’iyah
be’alma”. Hardly paradigmatic, then.
Beyond
that, however, is the extension that this might take to another realm that is
the complete inversion of this case. I
can’t locate where I saw this, but a [well-meaning?] advocate of more
sex-segregation in religious activity justified his position because, as he put
it, he might be having a “spiritual moment”, which is then ruined by a female
either singing or giving a dvar Torah.
To
said complainant: if your “spiritual moments” are a] all about your having them
and b] they are so fragile that they dissipate when a woman might
simultaneously engage in something [at least] equally legitimately spiritual in
the time and place where you are—then you probably have to reassess either what
you call “spiritual”, your actual “spirituality”, or both.
This
notion has actually been addressed in the contemporary literature. In his “Understanding Tzniut”, Rav Yehuda
Herz Henkin takes issue with a lot of what’s written in Rav Pesach Eliyahu Falk’s “Oz Vehadar
Levusha” [I’ve heard that at least one BT women’s seminar tells their students
to particularly NOT use that sefer as their tznius arbiter]. Or, as Rav Henkin puts it, it’s a sefer “as
much about ideology and outlook as [it] is about halacha.”
Most
germane to this issue—and the aforementioned complainant—is where R’ Henkin
addresses R’ Falk’s approvingly relating the “rebbetzin who never displayed her
vast knowledge…she would listen quietly and closely as if the words were
new. She never hinted that she was fully
acquainted with what was being quoted.”
R’ Henkin: “An alternative—that she should share her knowledge with
others and deliver a d’var Torah—is not considered. Apparently, that would be displaying special
skills and a lack of tzniut.”
And,
the coup-de-grace: “There is a danger here of losing sight of the real basics
of modesty—not to mention being so concerned about not thinking about women
that one can think of nothing else.”
Res ipsa loquitor.
