Q&A: The Thought Behind the Laws of Seclusion in Light of Our Times
The Thought Behind the Laws of Seclusion in Light of Our Times
Question
There is a dispute regarding the laws of seclusion: whether their essence is only a “fence,” or whether they are intrinsically a prohibition because of “bringing minds close together” emotionally. It seems that according to some of the halakhic rulings, a large part of the laws of seclusion are meant to prevent a person from experiencing emotional closeness even with a woman. If one adds to these laws Maimonides’ ruling that even idle talk with a woman is forbidden, as in responsa Igrot Moshe, Even HaEzer, part 4, siman 60:
“And if so, the phrase ‘Do not come near to uncover nakedness,’ said regarding all forbidden sexual relations, which is also a prohibition serving as a safeguard, includes idle talk as part of the prohibition,”
and also the Jewish law that it is forbidden to look at a woman’s beauty or smell the perfume on her, which according to Maimonides is also a Torah-level prohibition—
doesn’t all this imply an outlook and patterns of behavior that run contrary to the ‘dating world’ as it exists today? In practice, people try to create an emotional connection even before marriage and to reach a kind of “emotional closeness,” and of course a person is also looking to see her beauty in order to know whether he finds her attractive.
What should the attitude toward these laws be? What should the attitude be toward the whole conception of the relationship between a man and a woman before marriage that seems to emerge from them?
Answer
Just now I wrote about the principle of “this just doesn’t fit.” There are practices that clearly have no force because they are not reasonable. In the reality of our times, it is impossible to require people to marry without meeting beforehand. Therefore, even if all this were correct, in practice there is no need to conduct oneself this way. An example of this is the way the world conducts itself regarding what is stated in Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim, beginning of siman 240.
However, there are also explanations internal to Jewish law for this (without relying on “this just doesn’t fit”). For example, meetings for the sake of marriage are not meetings for the sake of a transgression, and these prohibitions were not said about them. For the purpose of the discussion, even if this leads to forbidden thoughts, when it is done for the sake of marriage, we are not concerned with it. Just as with wasting seed, no prohibition was stated when one does so for the fulfillment of his wife’s conjugal rights, or even when releasing it outside for the sake of procreation.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand the question. I said this as my own reasoning: that if it is done for the sake of marriage, we are not concerned with it. If you’re looking for sources of some kind, I don’t have any on hand right now. I assume you can search online.
I am puzzled—after all, these are explicit words of the Talmud: that a man is forbidden to betroth a woman until he has seen her (Kiddushin 41a), lest she become repulsive to him. And whatever is not intended for that purpose but only for mere fantasizing—yes, certainly, that is forbidden.
Can the Rabbi refer me to sources for this approach—when “we are not concerned with it”? Especially when it is for the sake of marriage?