Q&A: Modesty, Touching, etc.
Modesty, Touching, etc.
Question
I recently went back over Shnerb’s article on women’s dress code, and Rabbi Inbal’s response to it, as well as Column 499 devoted to the topic, and I wanted to ask a few questions as a direction for further analysis (sorry for the length):
A. In your opinion, are there any minimal laws of modesty at all? That is, some prohibition on exposing the body beyond a certain line (the extreme example would of course be full nudity or a swimsuit, somewhere that isn’t the beach), which does not depend on social circumstances.
B. Regarding the part that does depend on social circumstances, which society determines this? Can a society that includes sexual permissiveness and an explicit desire to expose (like parts of secular society, where the discussion about clothing concerns how sexually attractive it is) still set the boundaries here? Or is the measure only a society with a “correct” value system in this area (I’m not sure there is such a thing, but I’m pretty sure there is such a thing as “incorrect”)?
C. Is there בכלל a prohibition of touching in the case of purely technical contact? For example, in a noisy event hall, when you want to get a woman’s attention and lightly touch her shoulder, or help a woman climb a difficult incline on some hike, and the like.
D. Is there a prohibition of “routine” touching that is not affectionate? For example, a handshake, and to take it further, even a hug or a kiss of greeting customary in certain cultures (for example among French people, men and women kiss men and women on the cheek, and there is nothing intimate about it; this is done even between complete strangers in a certain social atmosphere). As I understand it, this is merely politeness. I even had the impression, when friends of mine stopped doing this because of becoming more religiously observant, that דווקא their stopping poured sexual content into something that hadn’t had any.
E. What do you think of Rabbi Inbal’s claim that even if there is no “do not place a stumbling block” in the technical sense regarding women who dress immodestly, it is still fitting for a religious society to create a reality in which women’s clothing does not present a stumbling block to men (a kind of meta-“do not place a stumbling block,” or if you like, a sort of “that just can’t be,” “it is impossible that we would sustain a society that causes others to stumble” argument).
Answer
A. I don’t know. From the Ritva at the end of Kiddushin it appears not.
B. Presumably this is a society with values of modesty. I don’t have a sharp criterion.
C. There are opinions that say yes; in my view, no.
D. Same as above.
E. I don’t remember that claim. In general, there is room for it. It’s a matter of context and degree.
Discussion on Answer
According to the Ritva, that is interpreted as a statement for Samuel’s own time and place, not something that cannot change.
Regarding C-D, do you have sources on this point (or an absence of sources that proves it)?
Does this follow from your interpretation of the sources that prohibit touching as referring specifically to touch that leads to sexual relations?
Modesty is connected to a much broader distinction between a respectable woman and a disreputable woman. A respectable woman dresses modestly in order to prevent her body from becoming merchandise on the market. A disreputable woman — including maidservants and slaves — is a woman whose body is on the market. It can be bought, her sexuality can be used against her will (her master hands her over to his slave, or according to Maimonides he may have relations with her by Torah law), and she has no autonomy with respect to it. Jewish law never had to discuss these distinctions because the assumption was that these matters belonged to basic decency. Jewish women are respectable women who dress in accordance with the way respectable women dress (and are not displayed naked in the marketplace as merchandise). What has happened in our time is that respectable women have begun dressing like disreputable women. This is connected to sexual permissiveness and the commercialization of sexuality. And suddenly Jewish law has had to express a clear position about how a respectable woman dresses.
And still, in Tel Aviv itself, on the beach in the mornings, when secular women come with their small children to the sea, they wear a robe in order to prevent the commercialization of their sexuality.
There are surveys of this online.
For example: https://yhb.org.il/shiurim/%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%AA/
And also here: https://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/104296 He refers there to Rabbi Haver’s book, “And with the Modest Is Wisdom.” You can read there.
In Berakhot 24b, the Ritva indeed writes regarding “a handbreadth of a woman is nakedness” that this refers to places that are usually covered, and that indeed seems dependent on time and place. But on the law of “a woman’s thigh is nakedness” he writes that this applies even if it is normally uncovered, not like the Rabbi said?? (And logically too this seems right, since if “a handbreadth of a woman is nakedness,” why would Samuel add “a woman’s thigh is nakedness”? Isn’t that just included already? Rather, “a woman’s thigh is nakedness” is not dependent on time and place, as above.)
The Ritva I was referring to is at the end of Kiddushin:
“Everything depends on Heaven’s view. And so the law is that everything depends on what a person knows about himself: if it is proper for him to distance himself from his inclination, then he should do so, and it is even forbidden for him to look at a woman’s colored garments, as is stated in tractate Avodah Zarah (20b). But if he knows about himself that his inclination is subdued and subject to him, and it arouses no impure thoughts at all, then he is permitted to look and speak with a sexually prohibited woman and to greet a married woman. This is the meaning of that story of Rabbi Yohanan (Bava Metzia 84a), who sat by the immersion gates and was not concerned about the evil inclination, and Rabbi Ami, to whom the maidservants of the emperor would go out (Ketubot 17a), and several of the rabbis who conversed with those noblewomen (above 40a), and Rav Adda bar Ahava, of whom it is said in Ketubot (ibid.) that he took the bride on his shoulders and danced with her and was not concerned about improper thoughts, for the reason we have stated. However, one should not be lenient in this except if he is a great saint who knows his inclination, and not all Torah scholars trust their inclinations, as we see in this passage from all these incidents that we cite. Fortunate is one who overcomes his inclination, and whose labor and vocation are in Torah, for words of Torah sustain a person in his youth and give him a future and hope in his old age, as it is said: ‘They still bring forth fruit in old age; they are full of sap and freshness.’”
Perhaps he is dealing only with seclusion and closeness involving sexually prohibited relations, and not with looking at a woman’s thigh.
But regarding the question itself, Samuel is not necessarily difficult. It may be that in his time this looked problematic regardless of place and circumstances, and still in another period it could change. They discussed head-covering for women similarly, and as is known, in several places and times there were God-fearing women who did not cover their heads.
And beyond that, Samuel is talking about prayer in the presence of nakedness, and not necessarily about the laws of modesty.
What about Samuel’s statement that “a woman’s thigh is nakedness” — doesn’t that mean there is some line, even though there is a dispute over what exactly “thigh” means???