9

Another question asks whether pictures of erva are erva. My question assumes, for the sake of argument, that they are, and asks: Once a woman gets married, her hair becomes ervah, so are all pictures taken before she got married, where her hair is exposed, assur for men besides her relatives to see? Please give sources.

Community
  • 1
sam
  • 41,686
  • 4
  • 80
  • 141
  • 4
    Are pictures of chametz assur to see/own on pesach? – Double AA Aug 03 '12 at 06:44
  • related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/4946/759 – Double AA Aug 03 '12 at 06:46
  • @DoubleAA , hirhur is diff and kol isha on a record many hold it is kol isha. – sam Aug 03 '12 at 06:51
  • Exactly, hirhur is different. But who said erva is? – Double AA Aug 03 '12 at 06:54
  • @DoubleAA , I dont disagree just like mekoros ,lomdus is fine as well. – sam Aug 03 '12 at 06:54
  • IAE Is there any concern in your case that isn't covered (groan) in the linked question? – Double AA Aug 03 '12 at 06:57
  • Yea where are the sources? – sam Aug 03 '12 at 07:04
  • @sam, offer a bounty on that question instead of posting a new one. – Seth J Aug 03 '12 at 14:55
  • @msh210, first of all, "arguendo"? Really? Second, I still don't see how this is not a dupe. The other is about whether pictures of 'Ervah are 'Ervah. This one assumes they are, and asserts that hair of a married woman is 'Ervah. So...what's left to ask? – Seth J Aug 03 '12 at 18:27
  • 2
    @SethJ, the question above is. And what's wrong with arguendo? – msh210 Aug 03 '12 at 18:28
  • @msh210, I love arguendo. Or is that arguing? In any case, I think that, just as we try to keep to the OP's transliteration schemes, we ought to also try to stick with the OP's general writing style. As for the question, it's not new. If a married woman's hair is 'Ervah (asked elsewhere and assumed here), and pictures of 'Ervah are 'Ervah (linked here and assumed here), then pictures of a married woman's hair are pictures of 'Ervah hair. There's nothing left to ask. Is the question about a retroactive effect on past non-'Ervah pictures? – Seth J Aug 03 '12 at 18:48
  • 1
    @SethJ "Is the question..." Yes I think so. – Double AA Aug 03 '12 at 18:56
  • 1
    @sethJ ,yes that is my question on retroactive pictures. – sam Aug 03 '12 at 19:00
  • @DoubleAA ,if you dont like the q then close it. – sam Aug 03 '12 at 19:01
  • @DoubleAA Well, I mean, am I in retroactive violation of looking at indecent pictures in the past of girls who had their hair uncovered but later got married because I saw the picture before? Do all girls need to cover their hair for photographs in case they get married in the future? What if the picture no long exists? This is all getting very philosophical. – Seth J Aug 03 '12 at 19:02
  • 2
    @sam I would only close the question if it fits into one of 5 categories outlined in the [FAQ]. Not liking it is not one of them. – Double AA Aug 03 '12 at 23:39
  • @DoubleAA re: pictures of chametz, they're not assur but many are careful not to even see chametz during Pesach. Maybe this would extend too to seeing pictures of it? – yoel Aug 15 '12 at 20:09
  • @yoel You'd have to ask them, but the only reason I can think of for not looking at chametz on pesach would be as a gezeira lest you come to eat it (or maybe you can view (groan) it as a heker to not eat it, for instance if you find chametz on yom tov when you can't destroy it we put up a mechitza by the chametz). If so I'm not too worried anyone is going to eat the picture :) – Double AA Aug 15 '12 at 20:11
  • @msh210, Shkoyich. – Seth J Aug 15 '12 at 20:38
  • @SethJ, sure. Baruch tihye. Coulda done it yourself, too, y'know. – msh210 Aug 19 '12 at 07:30
  • Is it the kind of picture one would usually cover? – Double AA Jun 19 '14 at 05:39

1 Answers1

8

No. I don't have any sources but one can definitely see pictures of uncovered hair of brides in wedding photos posted proudly in the homes of great rabbis.

Desert Star
  • 3,393
  • 1
  • 19
  • 35