My shul publishes a bulletin or posts pictures on a bulletin board that include pictures of moms with uncovered hair at a shul outing or at simchah dancing or when doing a chessed project like delivering meals for old people or something.
Should the pictures be posted as is? Should the pictures be cropped to exclude those women? Should the pictures be photoshopped to make it appear as if their hair is covered?

What if their hair is covered, but there are some hairs visible such that it's acceptable according to some, but not all rabbinic opinions?

What if it's 5 year old girls with an exposed neckline below their collar bone?

Er, do you honestly want to know what the shul should be doing or do you just want to rile people up?

In my community there is a weekly magazine which primarily caters to the non-observant community. They have ads and one such ad contains a picture of a group of women who work in a rehabilitation center. Many of the women are not even Jewish and are wearing pants. The community also has a bi-weekly ad circular which is primarily distributed to the frum households. In this publication all the women in the ad (same exact picture) are wearing skirts. Funny.

Is there any actual isur for a man to look at a picture of a womans hair?

Strictly the latter.


I really don't think so, at least not according to the lenient opinion of the Aruch Hashulchan that one can say a davar she-be-kedushah when facing a woman with uncovered hair, lo aleinu.

But nontzanua pictures in general? I think so. Am I allowed to look at pictures of naked women? I doubt it. And in "halachah", isn't an upper arm or an inch below the collar bone the same as a midriff or nipple?

The other issue is the chinuch issue. Forget about any issur on men. Is it a problem for our precious kinderlach to see such images of women with uncovered hair?

is it worse than sending them to a school or a shul where they'll see these women alive, with uncovered hair, lo aleinu?

Good point.
On the other hand, a shul may not be comfortable excluding women [when it's not davening time] with uncovered hair - maybe the shul hopes that if it is welcoming, eventually these harlots will abandon their sinful ways, but they are not going to tell them they can't come to shul to participate in non-davening functions. [Although perhaps it would be appropriate to shield the kinderlach from these women]. But a shul bulletin or a shul bulletin board in the lobby is different - you can only put up authorized notices, so by putting up these pictures the shul in a sense is almost endorsing them.

In any event, personally I think the bigger issue is the chinuch issue, that our kinderlach will see things that they may assume the shul endorses and may come to imitate, chas veshalom. Shouldn't a shul obscure sin?

Do you go over to such women in real life and put skirts on them and cover their hair? If not, why should you do it to a picture of them? Isn't that inconsistent?

Some shuls do have a selection of scarves and shawls and skirts and do ask women to cover up when necessary.

Again, it's the endorsement argument. If a shul puts the pictures in their quarterly bulletin, it's almost like an endorsement.


For davening, or also for shul picnics and chessed project time?

In 30 years when all our women are wearing burkas, rebellious bloggers will be posting photos of old rebbetzins with their faces uncovered, and people will be shocked and dismayed.

yep... a friend of mine hired a photographer from the community to take pictures at her wedding and he used her photograph as his advertisement. in the magazine that caters to the non-observant community, her picture was the original and unaltered. in the frum magazine, he used the same picture but added about two inches to her dress to cover up her collar bone. the difference was obvious because the original neckline was square and the edited version was round and you couldn't see her necklace.

[yes, the kinderlach shouldn't be sent to such places, as you as a parent teach them that ti's acceptable. much worse than a shul's endorsement. chinuch starts at home]

They will either deny it ever happened, or will claim they were pictures taken in private gardens.


You are correct. But be that as it may, should pictures be photoshopped to pretend that the women dressed differently than they really did? Is it dishonest or is it being sensitive?

ok, i'd better confess before it's too late - i was fooling around.

let's see - i would say it depends on the targeted community, i can see a problem, say, in a chassidishe shul. but then again, you wouldn't find such women going to such shul in the first place. so, my answer is - leave it as it is, the shul just documented the events. these women come there regularly, everyone sees them and is fine. leave everything as is.

Would it make a difference if it were an Outreaching organization with two tiers of participants, the holy ones and the non-yet holy ones?

you forgot another quote from that post

What about if there are three tiers: The holy ones, the raised-to-be-holy-and-should-be-holy-but-aren't-holy, and not-yet-holy? THe holy ones are more offended by the middle group than by the last group, I think.

I was asking if there is any halachik difference between a picture and the real thing. Is there more leinency in a photo since all it is is a mix of colors on paper, and not actual real live hair?

There's always the approach of Hamodia. They don't show any photographs of human females. After reading this message strand, I can understand them more. By not showing any woman, there is no question raised and no disputes about whether she is modest enough.