Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The halachah is clear (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 75) that one may not recite Shema, or any other words of Torah or prayer, while in the presence of parts of the human body that should be covered.

What about photos or drawings, though? For example, you may be riding on the subway, and you want to put the time to good use by saying Tehillim or studying Daf Yomi or Rambam or whatever - but you're sitting across from a racy ad. Or (inspired by this post at the Seforim Blog), the title pages of some sefarim on the table in front of you feature drawings of nudes or semi-nudes. Are these indeed considered the same as seeing them "in the flesh," or are they halachically insignificant, at least for this purpose?

share|improve this question
2  
Your question immediately reminded me of this post on Hirhurim from some years ago regarding learning Torah on the subway in general, which addressed only human immodesty and not the depicted kind but is an interesting (3-part) read nonetheless. hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/09/learning-torah-on-subway.html –  WAF Dec 29 '10 at 2:58
4  
Eponymous, too! –  Isaac Moses Dec 29 '10 at 3:31
    
Took me a second, but yes! –  WAF Dec 29 '10 at 13:45
add comment

6 Answers 6

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Rabbi Rakeffet's shiur on "men of tzniut" on yutorah, if I recall correctly, says that the specific law of ervah with its formalities applies only to a real human being.

He then mentioned some case of an indecent poster where someone asked the rabbi, "is it ervah?" And the rabbi answered, "No, it's worse!" Again, common sense as to what precautions are appropriate is vital. But the technical restrictions don't apply.

share|improve this answer
2  
I don't understand what the rabbi's answer meant. In what way was the picture worse than an erva ? –  WAF Dec 29 '10 at 13:47
2  
A picture can be photoshopped and otherwise modified to make it more attention-grabbing than any real human being. –  Shalom Dec 29 '10 at 14:32
add comment

The gemara in Brachos 25b cites the halacha of not being allowed to say K"S in front of the erva of an "akum". The gemara there suggest that this is obvious. The gemara answers that it's not obvious since there is a pasuk of asher b'sar chamorim bisram, however, we see it is erva from the pasuk of V'ervas avihem lo ra'u.

We see from here that without the pasuk of inclusion, the body parts of an akum would not be an erva for kriyas shema despite having the exact same hirhur/erva-like issue.

So, like Shalom and Isaac, the technical issue of erva doesn't exist.

However one can question why specifically kol isha gets included even though it isn't called erva, but arev (sweet). Although the Rambam (et alia) exclude the halacha from K"S, the S.A. cites it as an halacha.

A case that shows the difference between these reasons (nafka mina) would be- would closing one's eyes or turning off the light allow one to say kriyas shema according to everybody? Since there is no hirhur, it should be OK. If it was erva, anything in the line of sight would may preclude you from recitation even if you can't see it.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for your answer, but +0. What does "nafka mina" mean? Please edit. –  unforgettableid Nov 4 '13 at 2:46
    
@unforgettableid Nafka mina explained. –  Shmuel Jun 10 at 5:25
add comment

When we were learning the aforementioned halacha in high school, and it seemed to be focused on what body parts you can actually see, I asked my rebbe whether the same rule would apply if you could see the form but not the image (e.g. clothed, but in skin-tight clothing - approximately the opposite of your case). He responded that in general, if what you can see causes thoughts that are incompatible with prayer, you shouldn't pray when you can see it. I'm not sure if your case violates the technical definition of proscribed nudity, but it may violate the more general, subjective, rule.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The She'arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah 5:7 concludes that a picture of ervah counts as ervah.

share|improve this answer
add comment

My chevruta & I discussed this question in regard to the permissibility of recorded women's voices. If a woman singing live is an erva, just like certain parts of her body, a recording of her voice should be equivalent to a photograph of her body.

We didn't discuss learning, but rather praying if you are praying alone in an art museum. His claim was that the fact that it is a picture is a bigger problem than what it is a picture of.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The answer is simple: Close your eyes and don't look. The whole issur is hirhur. If you cannot see, you do not think, etc. Davening in front of any picture is different. It looks bad, so you turn your face away.

share|improve this answer
2  
when suggesting a halachic course of action like this, it's best to cite a source. Also, please use standard capitalization. Could you please edit this answer accordingly? –  Isaac Moses Jun 23 '11 at 16:07
    
While it is a valid recommendation (despite lacking sources), it doesn't seem, to me, to answer the question, which is whether the photos are a problem, not what to do about them. –  Seth J Aug 3 '12 at 15:00
    
@SethJ He seems to be saying they are a problem because "the whole issur is hirhur" and these photos would provoke hirhur, and then also that therefore closing one's eyes solves the problem. I agree it's completely sourceless and possibly wrong but I think it is an answer. –  Double AA Aug 3 '12 at 18:04
    
@DoubleAA, then I would also add "poorly written" to the list of problems with it. –  Seth J Aug 3 '12 at 18:18
    
@SethJ Believe me I haven't upvoted it. –  Double AA Aug 5 '12 at 3:25
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.