Answer

I have to say that the responsum is actually fairly balanced. He presents the different possibilities, and it is completely true that some halakhic decisors view this as a case of “be killed rather than transgress” (in my opinion that is very exaggerated, but one should remember that according to some medieval authorities there is “be killed rather than transgress” even for related accessories to the prohibition). I don’t know what Rabbi Ovadia did, but there is a balanced description there of his approach. The statement that there is value in standing by your principles even when others act differently is also very true and appropriate. Even the phrase “to distinguish” could refer to the dead versus the living, and not necessarily to Haredim versus Zionists. But in any case, it seems to me there is no shortage of things far more problematic in Haredi writing.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Okay, maybe I didn’t understand the “to distinguish” correctly, and that really takes all the sting out of it. Because of the mention of the Religious Zionists, it really sounded to me like that was the distinction.
I wasn’t criticizing the principled response, but the halakhic presentation. In my opinion, if there is a halakhic decisor who permits something, presenting his view by means of a story describing how he personally acted stringently is not a correct presentation of the issue. But that really wasn’t the main point.
In any case, I apologize. Maybe there really is no “to distinguish” here in the sense I had in mind, and then I just wasted your time.
I remember “be killed rather than transgress” appearing in the context of a letter the Steipler wrote, not in an actual halakhic responsum. I don’t think this is connected to the discussion of “be killed rather than transgress” for accessories to a prohibition, because it seems very hard to define a handshake as such an accessory, even if you forbid returning a hand. But I mentioned it in passing, and maybe there really are orderly halakhic responsa on this that determine that a handshake really is an accessory. Maybe in Shevet HaLevi, who also forbids a woman from going for routine pregnancy checkups with a doctor. If you happen to have a source at hand, I’d be happy to read it.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Of course it is an accessory. Anything that leads to sexual impropriety and improper thoughts is an accessory, and therefore forbidden (and according to some medieval authorities, even if the prohibition itself is only rabbinic—like Ran on “he should talk with her from behind the fence”). There are many sources, including clear and early halakhic decisors (the well-known Beit Shmuel on Even HaEzer, and many others), who see this as “be killed rather than transgress.” 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 phrase “to distinguish,” I would guess that the double wording is intended to hide the double meaning. But still, even if the “to distinguish” explicitly referred to Haredim versus Zionists, there are things much more contemptible than that.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
That is essentially different from “he should talk with her from behind the fence,” because there the whole intent is to bring him to improper thoughts, and that is his cure. It’s hard to say that a handshake, which is standard all over the world, leads to sexual impropriety and improper thoughts. And not, for example, passing coins without affectionate intent—there is already discussion of that in the Talmud.
I’m not familiar with Beit Shmuel, and I’ll try to look it up.
I’ll remind you again: I’m not disputing that some say accessories are also included in “be killed rather than transgress”; I’m disputing whether a handshake can be defined as such an accessory.
(By the way, I don’t want to drag you into a discussion and waste your time. Feel free not to answer.)
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
There are many disputes over affectionate intent. I agree with you, but quite a few halakhic decisors do not. And as stated, even if touch without affection is forbidden only rabbinically, it is still an accessory, and according to some medieval authorities there is “be killed rather than transgress” for that as well.
See on this matter: the responsa of the Rivash, no. 255; the Vilna Gaon on no. 155, subsections 22 and 16 there; the Shakh on no. 157, subsection 10; and the Noda B'Yehuda, second edition, Even HaEzer no. 150; and very many others. Beit Shmuel deals with treating one’s wife (touching a menstruant woman) when she is ill, and as I recall he forbids it even in a life-threatening situation.
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/
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another one):
Following up on this question, I wanted to ask whether, according to Jewish law, it is permitted to shake hands with a woman who has already extended her hand for a handshake (the purpose of the handshake being to avoid embarrassing the woman or causing awkwardness).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
In my opinion it is permitted, and that is how I conduct myself. Even if the woman understands your motive (today this rule is familiar to many people), it is still a very embarrassing situation when you extend your hand and no one responds.
If you feel a sexual dimension (improper thoughts) in the handshake, do not do it, and you should apologize to her sincerely and explain.