Q&A: Looking and Extending a Hand to a Woman
Looking and Extending a Hand to a Woman
Question
In the Talmudic passage in Avodah Zarah, regarding the statement that it is forbidden to say about a non-Jewish woman that she is beautiful because of “do not show them favor,” the Talmud asks: how did he see her at all, since that is forbidden because of “and you shall guard yourself”? The Talmud answers: at a street corner.
This implies that a God-fearing person does not look at women even without deriving pleasure from the looking itself.
How does this fit with the Mishnah, “A zav should not eat with a zavah” [and there, “the same applies to anyone, but it spoke in the usual case”], from which it seems that only eating and excessive closeness were forbidden? Or with Ulla, who carried a bride on his shoulders [and even though the Jewish law does not follow his view, Tosafot there explained that since he knew about himself that it would not affect him, it is permitted; if so, what is the Talmud’s question? It could be that Rav was speaking about someone who knows himself this way]. Also, from the case of the Samaritan girls it seems that touching is permitted, and it cannot be that touching is permitted while seeing is forbidden.
2. Is extending a hand to a woman permitted? [Regarding Samaritan girls, they decreed that they are menstruants, which seems to imply that touching is inherently permitted; and in the Shulchan Arukh it seems that only forbidden relations are prohibited “through hugging and kissing.”] And is there more room to permit it with one’s sister than with another unmarried woman?
Thank you very much
Answer
Perhaps when he says that she is beautiful, that itself shows that he is contemplating her for the purpose of deriving pleasure from her beauty, and that is why the question is asked how he did so. The zav and the zavah sit together, but not for forbidden contemplation.
As for touch, in the simple sense what was forbidden is affectionate touch. In the case of forbidden relations, perhaps they extended the fence further and prohibited any touch. Regarding a menstruant woman, there is a discussion whether she is considered a sexually forbidden relation or not. At least with respect to her husband, clearly not entirely.
Discussion on Answer
There is a basis to forbid it, but there is also a basis to permit it. Strictly speaking, with his sister it is more severe because she is a forbidden relation to him, but because of family closeness, some were more lenient about this.
2. One who does any of these practices is under suspicion regarding forbidden sexual relations. It is forbidden for a person to wink with his hands or feet, or to hint with his eyes, to one of the women forbidden to him, or to joke with her, or to be overly familiar. Even to smell perfumes on her, or to gaze at her beauty, is forbidden. And one who intentionally does such a thing is given disciplinary lashes. And one who looks even at a woman’s little finger with intent to derive pleasure is considered as though he looked at the private place. And even to hear the voice of a sexually forbidden woman or to see her hair is forbidden:
3. These matters are forbidden with women prohibited by a negative commandment. But it is permitted to look at the face of an unmarried woman and examine her, whether she is a virgin or not, so that if she is pleasing in his eyes he may marry her; there is no element of prohibition in this. More than that, it is proper to do so. But he should not look in a licentious manner. Thus it says: “I made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?”
6. One who embraces one of the women forbidden to him, toward whom a person’s heart is not normally stirred, or kisses one of them, such as his adult sister, his mother’s sister, and the like—even though there is no desire there and no pleasure at all—this is exceedingly disgraceful, and it is forbidden conduct, and an act of foolishness. For one must not come close to forbidden sexual relations at all, whether with an adult or a minor, except for a mother with her son and a father with his daughter.
Thank you.
And non-affectionate touch, meaning extending a hand, is there no basis to forbid it?
And with an ordinary unmarried girl, is there more room to be lenient than with his sister?