Handshake between a woman and a man
See:
http://www.akshiva.co.il/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%99/%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%91%D7%A8/
“The late Steifler, in contrast to national religious halachic adjudicators such as Rabbi Aviner and Rabbi Lior”
It really made me laugh, and you like that kind of thing, so I thought you’d appreciate the humor.
By the way, the answer is generally funny, when they want to promote an agenda (handshakes between a man and a woman are forbidden), they exaggerate (will he kill and not pass by? Reminds me of the issue of the halachic insects) and when Rabbi Ovadia Yosef permitted it, they present it in passing and emphasize a personal story, which in other contexts would be “one does not learn halakha from action.”
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
I must say that the answer is actually quite balanced. He presents the various possibilities, and it is entirely true that some of the poskim see this as a death sentence and not a transgression (in my opinion, very excessive, but one must remember that according to some rishon, there is a death sentence and not a transgression even on the accessories of His). I don’t know what Rabbi Ovadia did, but there is a balanced description of his method there. The statement that there is value in standing by your principles even when others act differently is also very correct and appropriate. Even the “to distinguish” can be applied to the dead versus the living and not necessarily to the Haredi versus the Zionists. But in any case, it seems to me that there is no shortage of much more problematic things in Haredi writing.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Well, maybe I didn’t understand the distinction correctly, and that really takes out the sting, because of the mention of the national religious people, it really sounded to me like that was the difference.
I did not criticize the principled answer, but rather the halakhic presentation. In my opinion, if there is a posk who permits something, presenting his method through a story that describes his behavior when he was strict with himself is an incorrect presentation of things, but that really wasn’t the point.
Anyway, I apologize, maybe there really is no “differentiation” here in the context I was thinking of, and then I just wasted your time.
I remember seeing Yaherg and El Yaheb in the context of a letter that Stiepler wrote, and not a real halachic answer. I don’t think it’s related to the discussion of Yaherg and El Yaheb on the accessories of Yahu, because it sounds very difficult to me to define a handshake as an accessory, even if you forbid returning a hand. But I mentioned it in passing, and maybe there really are regular halachic answers on this that state that a handshake is really an accessory. Maybe in the Levitical tribe, which also forbids a woman from going to a doctor for routine checkups while pregnant. If you have a source I’d be happy to read it.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Of course, it is the accessories of Jehovah. What leads to shame and reflection is forbidden is the accessories of Jehovah (and according to some rishon, even if the prohibition is only from the rabbis. Like the Ran on “talking to her behind the fence”). There are many sources, including those of clear and ancient poskim (Beit Shmuel is known for the Abbaaz and many others), who see this as a death sentence and not a passing judgment. See briefly here: http://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95_%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA
As for the “to distinguish,” I would guess that the double wording is intended to hide the double intention. But still, even if the distinction were referring to the ultra-Orthodox versus Zionists, there are things much inferior to that.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
This is fundamentally different from Jesus with her behind the fence, because there the whole intention is to bring him to reflection and that is his cure. It is difficult to say that a handshake that is customary throughout the world leads to shame and reflection, and not, for example, passing coins without the intention of affection, which is already addressed in the Gemara.
I don’t know Beit Shmuel, and I’ll try to look it up.
I repeat, I have no argument with those who say that accessories are also in the killing and may not pass, I have an argument with them about whether a handshake can be defined as accessories.
(By the way, I don’t want to drag you into a discussion and waste your time. Feel free not to reply either.)
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
There are many arguments about the intention of affection. I agree with you, but quite a few poskim disagree. And as mentioned, even if touching without affection is forbidden only by the rabbis, it is still an accessory, and knowing how many firsts there are, he will be killed and not transgressed. See on this matter, the responsa of the Rivash, S. Renae, and G.A., in S. Kana, Susak K.B., and in S. K. K. Z., S. K. Z. K. and Novi, from the report of Ahab, S. K., and many others. The B.A. deals with the care of his wife (touching the nidah) when she is sick, and I recall that he forbids this even in the place of Piku. See for example a discussion here: https://tshuvot.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A9-%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A4/ —————————————————————————————— Asker (another):
Following on from this question, I wanted to ask whether it is permissible, according to halakha, to shake hands with a woman who has already reached out to shake hands (the purpose of shaking hands is to avoid embarrassing the woman or causing discomfort). —————————————————————————————— Rabbi:
In my opinion, it is permissible, and that is how I practice. Even if the woman understands your motives (this rule is known to many today), it is still a very embarrassing situation (when you reach out and are not accepted).
If you sense a sexual dimension (reflections) in the handshake, don’t do it and you should apologize profusely to her and explain it to her.
There are many arguments about the intention of affection. I agree with you, but quite a few poskim disagree. And as mentioned, even if touching without affection is forbidden only by the rabbis, it is still an accessory, and knowing how many firsts there are, he will be killed and not transgressed. See on this matter, the responsa of the Rivash, S. Renae, and G.A., in S. Kana, Susak K.B., and in S. K. K. Z., S. K. Z. K. and Novi, from the report of Ahab, S. K., and many others. The B.A. deals with the care of his wife (touching the nidah) when she is sick, and I recall that he forbids this even in the place of Piku. See for example a discussion here: https://tshuvot.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A9-%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A4/ —————————————————————————————— Asker (another):
Following on from this question, I wanted to ask whether it is permissible, according to halakha, to shake hands with a woman who has already reached out to shake hands (the purpose of shaking hands is to avoid embarrassing the woman or causing discomfort). —————————————————————————————— Rabbi:
In my opinion, it is permissible, and that is how I practice. Even if the woman understands your motives (this rule is known to many today), it is still a very embarrassing situation (when you reach out and are not accepted).
If you sense a sexual dimension (reflections) in the handshake, don’t do it and you should apologize profusely to her and explain it to her.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
