Jerusalem – Israel’s Hamodia Blasts Mishpacha For Cover Shot Depicting Hillary Clinton

    38

    Jerusalem – Mishpacha magazine’s cover photograph showing a shadowed silhouette of Hillary Clinton’s face has drawn criticism from an Israeli newspaper for lowering the standards of Charedi journalism.

    An editorial which appeared in the Israeli edition of Hamodia pulled no punches in its criticism, reported Arutz Sheva.

    “True Charedi newspapers would never publish pictures of women at all, even those who have reached high ranking office,” read the editorial. “These are the directives by which we live our lives and the precautions that surround us and they do not change in the realm of politics.”

    The Hamodia editorial said that the secular world understands that Charedi publications subscribe to a high standard of modesty that precludes the inclusion of photographs of women and that they realize that a lack of photo coverage does not indicate a lack of support for a particular individual but is part of the way that G-d fearing Jews conduct their lives.

    The cover of the November 2nd issue of Mishpacha showed similar images of both candidates on opposite sides of the page, divided by the headline “Down to the Wire.” Both the picture of Donald Trump and that of Hillary Clinton were overlaid with images of campaign posters that somewhat obscured their faces.

    A response from Mishpacha said that halachic authorities were consulted before the cover design was finalized.

    “Every decision is made after speaking with the spiritual committee of communal rabbis in America and that is why we decided to publish the picture in the fashion we did.”

    Follow VosIzNeias For Breaking News Updates





    38 COMMENTS

    1. Well, guess what. This issue of Mishpacha flew off the shelves. You couldn’t get a copy in any store this Friday. So if seems like the public doesn’t give a hoot the taliban rules imposed about discredited rabonim.

      What was much worse was when several chareidi newspapers photoshopped hillary out of existence. That was a chillul hashem. Now that she is going to be the leader of the free world it would behoove the chareidi press to come up with a workable compromise that would allow he photo to be shown in certain circumstance as long as certain guidelines are followed. Such as no face closeups and lower resolution picture. But what should certainly not be done is pixelate or blurr her out of pictures.

    2. Why are they not saying clearly the names of the rabbi’s?
      Had a few workmates that they unsuscribe friday form hamodia,
      its really a shame from them jews had standards & we souldnt break it.

      • Your history of sexist and hateful comments against women speaks for itself…to try to frame the issue as “standards” is an oxymoron since there is no halachic basis to not show a tzinisus picture of a woman leader. As to “unsubscribing” from Hamodia, thats is a net gain for the tzibur overall.

    3. The first mention of tznius in the Torah is in this week’s Rashi in parshas Lech Lecha. Avraham Avinu was not aware of his wife’s beauty because of the tznius of them.
      It also seems to be the opposite of tznius for a woman to in politics.

    4. I def don’t think there’s any issue of Chilul Hashem here at all. Everybody understands our standards, Hillary even more, if she knows her husband! It’s a very acceptable practise, even though England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany etc all have woman leaders, we will not portray them.

    5. It is preposterous that any mainstream orthodox publication would subscribe to any of these seyugim and gedarim. Chasidim can and should create whatever publications they like, but non-Chasidim do a disservice to Halacha and our own Mesorah when we cave in to their Chumros. There are plenty of problem in the Chadidish community, but the greatest is that they are so caught up in the extra curricular stuff that they mess up with real Halacha, things like mishkav Zachor in their Mikvaos, support for the guy raping a teenager behind a door with three locks, child abuse in Yeshivos by Rebeim who feel it is okay to hurt little boys without cause, and all of the financial stuff that has gotten us inoculated, shamefully, from the sight of “Frum” people getting arrested regularly.
      There is no good reason to keep Hillary Clinton off the cover of a newspaper. Let’s focus on what is important like keeping her out of the White House.

      • “She is not going to be the leader…” Americaner? Will change your name when she wins to Russianer? or lets try Syrianer? after all they are Trumps biggest supporters.

    6. How does mishpacha justify their staff interaction with their female employees, writers, journalists, and graphic artists, probably a good portion being live females? If so, then what is a silhouette on a cover? Sounds somewhat hypocritical.

    7. There’s no mesorah on journalism that anyone can say “this is the din.” It goes according to the daas Torah of the contemporary poskim, and we’re pretty sure Mishpacha knows a posek or two. And Hamodia, being nogeiah bedavar, is hardly in a position to be paskening.

    8. Why are they not saying clearly the names of the rabbi’s?
      Had a few workmates that they unsuscribe friday form hamodia,
      its really a shame from them jews had standards & we souldnt break it.

    9. Women are only immodest if they are immodest. They are not immodest simply by existing, and there is nothing wrong with a picture of a woman who is dressed modestly.

    10. Hillary Clinton always dresses modestly ( for a Gentile woman pants are very modest ) and is known for her intelligence and professional achievement . For most frum Jews there is no reason to be offended at having her picture in a publication.

    11. to quote Mishpacha’s response
      “Every decision is made after speaking with the spiritual committee of communal rabbis in America and that is why we decided to publish the picture in the fashion we did.”

      I’ve requested 3 times from Mishpacha in the past to name me their rabbinical board, never received a response from them, which only leads me to conclude that they DON’T HAVE ONE and do whatever they feel like it.

    12. The Jewish Observer, an Agudah publication for many years, did have photographs of chareidi women on occasion. The statement made in the Modea is either ignorant of this or considers American Agudah less than chareidi.

    13. i am now going to order a subscription to mishpacha.

      i hope modia doesn’t get commission for the surge in mishpacha sales.

      btw – i had the mag in my home ( we buy it often) and didnt notice and could hardly see the woman they are tumuling about.
      seriously , is everything so good in their lives that this is what they have time for?

    14. Why is Mishpacha adamantly refusing to identify any members of their alleged “spiritual committee of rabbis” that they claim approved this picture?

      The Chareidi public cannot be expected to accept Mishpacha’s say-so on their word alone if they cannot name even a single rabbi they claim approved of it.

      • They don’t need to name the rabbis. They don’t even need to have rabbis. What they did was post a negative side profile of a modest and independently rather unattractive woman, and everyone lost their minds.

    15. Try living in Bet Shemesh, where the local Taliban riot, attack soldiers & police, & rip off any signs – even with drawings – of little girls. Oh and let’s not forget the women in FULL Arab garb (including veils) in Bet. Sick people – I stopped buying Hamodia years ago, even in NY.

      It’s interesting, though…. all you supporters of Hamodia have no problem going on the Internet, which Hamodia & other radicals condemn. I wonder what you are looking at.

    16. Obviously a well dressed woman is modest, it’s the standard we need to keep – women or no women? Who’s going to decide otherwise who’s dressed modestly?

    17. I spoke with the mother of an author who put out a well known biography and there were many family pictures with women in it. She told me that there were many consultations with rabbanim and they ok’d it. They seemed to feel there was a difference between a book and a newspaper. A newspaper is open to all whereas a book was different in that you had to look for pictures. I don’t quite get the distinction. In any event, on the topic of pictures in general, I do feel that girls should see frum women as role models and someone to look up to. Let them at least have part of the magazine like Ami Living or Family First dedicated to women only. The famous picture of the Chofetz Chaim in front of his house was around for decades till we became frum and then they expunged the woman (and left her shoes in). When I read about a choshuve woman who was niftar I would like to see her picture, not those of her father, husband,brother, father in law, third cousin on her uncle’s side, etc. Do we also have to worry about the meshugener who looks at a woman who is no longer living and have inappropriate thoughts?

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here