Q&A: Niddah, Modesty, Guarding One’s Eyes
Niddah, Modesty, Guarding One’s Eyes
Question
There are teleological interpretations of three commandments that I wanted to know whether, in your opinion, they are correct:
1. Modesty — intended (or beneficial?) to see the other person as a subject and not as an object. (I read this in the responsa Avo Veitekha of Rabbi David Stav, vol. 2, sec. 6. He stated the idea much more clearly and much more deeply, of course, and grounded it well, but the general line is as I said.)
2. Niddah — intended (or beneficial?) to separate the couple, to create longing and all that. On this basis they brought the Talmudic statement: “A woman, when she returns from the mikveh, is beloved to her husband as at the hour she entered the wedding canopy.”
3. Guarding one’s eyes — intended (beneficial?) so that a man won’t have all kinds of images, sights, and films in his head, and that way he’ll truly be happy with his wife even after 15 years, even if she no longer looks as she once did; but he is happy with her because that is the only thing he knows.
Besides that, each time in parentheses I wrote “beneficial?”, hinting at another question, namely:
Which question is the teleological interpretation coming to answer: the question, “Why were we commanded to observe the commandment; what is it intended for?” or the question, “The Creator commanded us to observe the commandment for reasons x, y, z, fine — but why would this help me? Why would this improve my life?”
Answer
1. In my opinion, this is a modern anachronistic interpretation, since it tries to insert an ancient prohibition into contemporary categories. As I understand it, modesty is intended to preserve your image of God. Externalization is cheap behavior. Alongside that there is also the concern of causing another person to stumble into sin, but that is really secondary (perhaps it is an indication of cheapness).
2. I was asked about this a few days ago, and in my view this is a nonsensical idea. The prohibitions of niddah are rooted in the woman’s impurity, and they have nothing to do with affection and the like. (Otherwise there would be only a prohibition here and not impurity.) And that is aside from the fact that we do not expound the reason for the verse. Midrashim bring additional consequences and benefits, but one should not take them too seriously.
3. Guarding one’s eyes is not a halakhic obligation. One should avoid forbidden sights, but that is true also for unmarried people and is not connected to married life. Of course, if you are married there is an additional issue (not a halakhic one) to focus on your wife and not set your eyes on another woman. The wording that this is the only thing you know is shallow and incorrect. Obviously you will know other things, since you do not live in a monastery. But one should try to be careful.
When you discuss what the teleological interpretation is meant to do, you should ask the person offering it. There is no textbook answer here. Each person has his own motivations. So for example, in what I answered you about niddah, I said that the midrash comes to explain how this would help you, but the reason why the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded it is probably different.
Discussion on Answer
Thank you very much! Today is the civil marriage, and Sunday is the wedding canopy, God willing. We miss you! Thank you, Rabbi.
And this is testimony in Israel to the change in the situation in glorious France. In the past (in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th), the rabbis of France wanted to make do with civil marriage and divorce without the religious ceremony (this is the controversy of “there is a condition in marriage”), and thank God this bad idea departed from their hearts. Mazal tov.
Rabbi, why is guarding one’s eyes not a halakhic obligation? A person must distance himself from women very, very much. And it is forbidden to gesture with his hands or feet or hint with his eyes to one of the forbidden sexual relations. And it is forbidden to joke with her, to act frivolously in front of her, or to look at her beauty. And it is forbidden even to smell the perfumes on her. And it is forbidden to look at women standing over the laundry. And it is forbidden to look at the colored garments of a woman he knows, even when they are not on her, lest he come to think of her lustfully. If he encounters a woman in the marketplace, he may not walk behind her, but rather runs and moves her to the side or walks behind her. And he should not pass by the entrance of a prostitute, even at a distance of four cubits. And one who looks even at a woman’s little finger and intends to derive pleasure from it, it is as though he looked at her private place. And it is forbidden to hear the voice of nakedness or see her hair. And one who intentionally does any of these things is given disciplinary lashes. And these things are forbidden also with women prohibited by negative commandments, Even HaEzer 21.
If so, why is guarding one’s eyes not a halakhic obligation?
There is a commandment to distance oneself from forbidden sexual relations and forbidden thoughts. But “guarding one’s eyes” is usually a term that expresses excessive distancing (in my opinion). A person should live normally, as is accepted in a reasonable and sensible society.
The quotation from the Shulchan Arukh expresses some of the norms that are not relevant in our time in most societies. In such cases this is not a binding halakhic ruling but the author’s recommendations.
See his words in Orach Chayim, sec. 240, which today are not accepted by anyone.
What is the source that guarding one’s eyes is not a halakhic matter? Do you have an article about it? I’d be interested in looking into it, because I recently studied the topic in depth and came out with almost the same conclusion, but of course nobody agreed with me.
Ah, and mazal tov. Lots of joy, happiness, and nachas. And may it be God’s will that this be fulfilled in you: “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love.” I’m with you there. 🙂