8 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Handshaking ages unanimously hold these views. The author’s opposition is not THIS LETTER is in response to “Is supported in halacha. He fails to Handshaking a Torah Violation?” demonstrate otherwise. published in the previous issue of It is troubling that an article so Hakiraḥ . halacha le-ma’aseh involving issurei At the outset, I must state what de’oraisa had no cautionary editorial the author does not: Most poskim, note. A review of editorial policy, current and past, have always ruled awareness and responsibility may that it is forbidden to shake a be in order. woman’s hand under any circum- - 1 - stances. Furthermore, the poskim see this as an issur gamur, not a The author begins with a well- mere chumra. known, universally accepted hala- cha: “No touching at all” between In his article the author husband and menstrual wife is a) seeks to prove that even affec- unique to marital nidda and is muttar tionate touching is essentially with other women. permitted in halacha because Without explaining exactly what there is a difference between de- behavior is muttar, he moves rech chiba which is muttar and de- quickly from describing it as “any rech ta’ava v’chibas biah which is touching at all” to “simple touch- not, and ing without intention of affect,” b) says that the reason some do then on to “extended touching not shake a woman’s hand is between men and a married because it is based on an opin- woman.” By the end of that sec- ion not accepted in halacha that tion, all casual touching is permit- even non-chiba touching is for- ted by halacha. A pat on the back, bidden. hands around the shoulder, a com- forting hug, and more, are not suf- That’s not what most poskim say. ficiently chiba to be assur (except for Rather, they say that unmarried couples who ought to a) all derech chiba is assur, adopt a policy of not touching). b) there is no halachic difference By the end of the article, even between derech chiba and derech affectionate or pleasurable touch- ta’ava v’chibas biah, ing, derech chiba (and even holding c) therefore shaking a woman’s hands during forbidden dancing!) hand and all intentional, affec- is permitted unless it “customarily” tionate or pleasant touching are leads to or accompanies actual rela- forbidden. tions. Thus handshaking is permit- ted. Major poskim throughout the This is the author’s approach. Ḥ akirah 5 © 2007 Letters to the Editor : 9 Sadly, it is faulty and misleads the ship, especially short-term ones, reader. and are driven by chiba for biah. Let’s start at the author’s be- All of the above conduct is or ,דרך חבה ,ginning. What exactly is uniquely called, interchangeably דרך or ,דרך חבה ורעות or ,דרך חבת ביאה prohibited with marital nidda, and -etc. These are different de ,תאוה not forbidden with others? The examples the poskim give are: scriptions, not different halachos. None of the classical poskim distin- a) unintentional touching—evi- guishes between them as if they dent from the issur hoshata, were distinct categories. (Even the and Ezer miKodesh who mentions these b) detached, impersonal, “clini- different situations discusses only cal” touching, as for medical de’oraisa versus derabanan for non- need (pulse-taking, examina- marital touching, not assur versus tions), preventing injury, muttar.) aiding the injured, etc.—see This is why handshaking is for- end of Y.D. 195. bidden. - 2 - These illustrations are given by the poskim throughout the ages. After mentioning the law of See, for one instance of very many, marital nidda the author writes: Igros Moshe Even haEzer II, #14 (cited in the author’s note 16). Thus, while the Shulchan Aruch There is nothing at all social, af- forbids numerous forms of in- fectionate or friendly about medi- teractions with ‘arayot, including cal-needs or accidental contact. winks and gestures and pleasur- That’s why they are permitted. Any able gazing, simple touching other physical contact is called de- without intention of affect is rech chiba and is forbidden in order not one of them. to distance us from a pattern of conduct that may, possibly and It is perplexing and dishearten- eventually, lead to issur biah. Not ing to see the halacha presented in “probably,” certainly not “custom- this manner. Here is the language arily.” Just: “possibly,” much like of the Shulchan Aruch: yichud in, say, a conventional “civi- סימן כ: באיזה ביאה חייב הבא על lized” business setting, which is הערוה. סעיף א: הבא על אחת מן העריות .never permitted דרך איברים או שחבק ונשק ונהנה (=או -Chibas biah includes any physi נהנה, בית שמואל) בקירוב בשר הרי זה cally pleasurable contact even לוקה. without emotion, friendliness or affection because that, too, can סימן כא: להתרחק מן העריות. סעיף א: eventually lead to relations, which צריך אדם להתרחק מן הנשים מאד מאד -are forbidden even with no emo ואסור לקרוץ בידיו או ברגליו ולרמוז tional attachment. Many physical בעיניו לאחת מהעריות ואסור לשחוק -relationships exist without friend 10 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought ,However, the author writes עמה להקל ראשו כנגדה או להביט ביופיה and I excerpt: “Rambam applied a ואפילו להריח בבשמים שעליה אסור Torah prohibition to behavior such This is patterned after the Ram- as hugging and kissing … Kissing bam: etc. is an infraction of a negative commandment punished by the א כל הבא על ערוה מן העריות דרך lash. This proviso precludes social אברים או שחיבק ונישק דרך תאוה ונהנה handshakes from being subsumed בקירוב בשר הרי זה לוקה מן התורה under the lo ta’aseh. This is so even ב ואסור לאדם לקרוץ בידיו וברגליו או if the handshake includes an ele- לרמוז בעיניו לאחת מן העריות וכן לשחק ment of affection or pleasure; af- עמה או להקל ראש ואפילו להריח בשמים fection alone without the feature of שעליה או להביט ביופיה אסור ומכין desire is not a Torah violation … המתכון לדבר זה מכת מרדות Rambam stresses that the lo ta’aseh It is the first halacha—the more proscribes activities that customar- stringent one—from which the ily lead to relations. Handshaking is poskim learn that touching is for- not one of these.” He notes the enjoys Lev Chaim who excludes simple“ ,ונהנה בקירוב בשר) .bidden physical contact”; see section 1 touching from de’oraisa. above.) This is de’oraisa. The other This seems to be his basis for halacha describes the harchakos, saying—Halacha leMa’aseh—that laws instituted miderabanan as a handshaking is permitted. Even his “fence” to protect us from the core reason for those who prohibit aveiros. handshaking is based on an opin- Yes, touching is not mentioned ion that “all kreivah is forbidden by among the harchakos derabanan. the Torah.” Accordingly, the inter- That is because it is already forbid- rogative title means only “Is hand- den as de’oraisa in the previous shaking de’oraisa?” paragraph. This is hard to believe, but, unless I am very much mistaken, - 3 - the author—who is writing a prac- Although I generally have no prob- tical article, not a theoretical one— lem understanding the usage of the ignores the role of issur derabanan in word “Torah,” I must admit my this p’sak. (That would certainly confusion with the author’s phrase render moot some of the problems “Torah violation.” Does he mean posed in this letter.) an issur that is specifically de’oraisa, What happened to issur deraba- or does he mean a violation of ha- nan? Why is handshaking automati- lacha? cally permitted if we can show it’s This is a recurrent theme in the not de’oraisa? article, beginning with the title “Is Confused though I am, I will Handshaking a Torah Violation?” nevertheless describe those prob- The apparent meaning is “Is it a lems, laboring under the assump- violation according to Din Torah?” tion that issur derabanan is relevant or, simply: “Is it Assur?” to halacha le-ma’aseh. Letters to the Editor : 11 - 4 - ous need (Responsa Shevet haLevi vol. 3, sec. 186). This is certainly After noting that the unique issur not in line with the author’s con- negiah of marital nidda (“any touch- cept of issur negiah. ing at all”) does not apply else- - 5 - where, the author continues The author then brings the Taz to Thus … simple touching with- support this view: out intention of affect is not [forbidden]. As our generation’s So, too the Taz mentions “his [Rabbi Vozner] writes: [He friend’s wife [with whom] he is may] not touch her [i.e., his forbidden to sleep in bed, but nidda wife]: that is to say, even touching is permitted.” without intention of desire and affection, while [in their ab- The author found these words sence] even a rabbinical prohi- in the laws of Yom Kippur, where ואסור ליגע :bition does not apply in [touch- the Shulchan Aruch says it is forbidden to ,באשתו כאילו היא נדה .ing other] ‘arayot touch one’s wife, as if she were a As stated in section 1, the fact nidda. The Taz simply mentions the that marital issur negias nidda is per- same well-known halacha: only mitted with other arayos allows only marital nidda has non-chiba issur for totally non-chiba contact such negiah; there is no restriction “with as taking the pulse. In no way does his friend’s wife” for accidental or it permit “simple touching.” To medical-needs touching. There is most readers, saying “simple nothing new in this Taz.