June 23, 2010 3:05 am at 3:05 am #687915
BTW, for the record, in the picture in question, we are not touching.
The WolfJune 23, 2010 3:39 am at 3:39 am #687917
cherrybim: Speak to the Rema if you disagree with him.
Since you are darshining from the Torah, what about Sarah hiding from guests when Avrohom brought them to his home? Does your wife hide from your guests? Do you kiss your wife in public?
Would you hold your friend from shul’s hand in the street?June 23, 2010 3:48 am at 3:48 am #687918
Since you are darshining from the Torah, what about Sarah hiding from guests when Avrohom brought them to his home? Does your wife hide from your guests? Do you kiss your wife in public?
That’s actually a midrash, not an open pasuk. Not quite the same.
The WolfJune 23, 2010 3:58 am at 3:58 am #687919
Re the kiss: Yaakov wasn’t even married to Rochel at the time. Are you seriously trying to argue you can publicly kiss a woman other than your wife!?
The Rabbenu B’Chaye says Rochel was under 3 years old at the time.
See the commentary of ibn Kaspi, that it wasnt really a kiss, and it was nothing assur at all.
And “ahava” in Hebrew doesnt literally mean “love”. Any time you like something you can say you “ohev es zeh” – there is no other word for “like”. Just as “sinah” doesnt mean “hate” but rather disapproval. As in lo sisnah es achichah bilvavechah, which includes anything you might have against someone – it doesnt mean “hate” (see Ramban).
In any case, we cannot compare ourselves to the avos. They had ruach hakodesh and nevuah and chachmah and they were able to see into a person in ways that we cannot imagine. Even if it would have meant that Yaakov “loved” Rachel in that sense, it doesnt mean we can do that so easily.June 23, 2010 6:53 am at 6:53 am #687920YW Moderator-80Member
It simply is not proper Derech Eretz for a man and woman to hold hands or otherwise affectionately touch in public. It is a strong indictment of our generation, a clear sign of our descent into dullness, foolishness, and blindness, that we can even discuss something so very clear to our Bubbies and Zadies.June 23, 2010 10:56 am at 10:56 am #687921
Source: Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, siman kuf nun beis, sif yud alef. I will leave it up to you to interpret “devarim shel chiba” and if holding hands falls into this category.June 23, 2010 11:25 am at 11:25 am #687922
Clarification: when i say leave it up to “you”, i really mean a competent posek should make that determination. Of course, halacha is not up to me, or you.June 23, 2010 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #687923
Source: Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, siman kuf nun beis, sif yud alef. I will leave it up to you to interpret “devarim shel chiba” and if holding hands falls into this category.
Thank you for the source. I find R. Ganzfried’s choice of words very interesting. He says as follows:
??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???, ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????
(My translation: One is not allowed to engage with his wife acts of chibah [purposely left untranslated] such as inspecting her head and the like in front of others lest it cause a viewer to think impure thoughts.)
You’ll note that the example of a typical “act of chibah” is inspecting the head. We in the 58th/21st century might be wondering what the heck he’s talking about.
The example that he gives (examining the head) actually comes right from the Rema in Even HaEzer 21:5. There, in a chapter that doesn’t even really relate to spousal relationships at all, tacks on a coda at the end of a ruling that states:
“and some say that one may not engage with one’s wife in acts of chibah such as inspecting the head to check for lice in front of others.”
There are two significant points to make about this Rema.
Firstly, it’s clearly NOT a universal opinion.
Secondly, the example he gives is an act that is very intimate — going through a spouses hair. That is, IMHO, far more intimate than holding hands — and I believe the Rema is setting the bar fairly high in what is considered an “act of chibah.”
The WolfJune 23, 2010 3:47 pm at 3:47 pm #687924
The Kitzur is giving an example, not the only example and not the minimum example. No one holds someones hand in public for non-affectionate reasons. Like was asked, you wouldn’t hold hands in the street with your best friend (because people will think your feigelech.) You only hold hands for affectionate reasons. It is clearly assur and a very serious aveira.June 23, 2010 3:47 pm at 3:47 pm #687925Derech HaMelechMember
Really I would have said the other way around. Checking for lice is more of a medical thing. You wouldn’t be upset if a male doctor checked your wife’s hair if he was the only one available to do it. I think though a person would be upset though if the male doctor was holding his wife’s hand as he walked her out the door of his office.June 23, 2010 3:54 pm at 3:54 pm #687926
The Kitzur is giving an example, not the only example and not the minimum example. No one holds someones hand in public for non-affectionate reasons.
There is a boy in my shul with Down’s Syndrome. He’s 12 years old. For some reason that I can’t fathom, he’s taken a liking to me. He always requests to hold my hand in the street — and I let him. And I can guarantee you — no one thinks that it’s because it’s an act of chibah.
It is clearly assur and a very serious aveira.
It’s obviously not so clear if the Mechaber of the SA didn’t mention it and the Rema only mentioned it off-topically (in a chapter that wasn’t even discussing spousal relationships at all) in an offhand manner as a “yesh omrim.”
The WolfJune 23, 2010 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm #687927
Checking for lice is more of a medical thing. You wouldn’t be upset if a male doctor checked your wife’s hair if he was the only one available to do it.
Back in the times of the Rema, doctors didn’t check you for lice. A spouse would be the likely candidate to do so — by closely inspecting the hair. It’s along the same principles as actually giving a bath to someone — there are medical/theraputic properties to it, but it’s usually done between people who are close to each other.
The WolfJune 23, 2010 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm #687928
Based on your standard, I couldn’t even talk to my wife in public, since we use terms of endearment (dear, for example) when we talk.
The WolfJune 23, 2010 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #687930
Wolf: WADR I do not believe you even believe the excuses you are trying to give to do what you know albeit deny is an extremely large aveira.June 23, 2010 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #687931
Wolf: WADR I do not believe you even believe the excuses you are trying to give to do what you know albeit deny is an extremely large aveira.
WADR, that does not respond to what I actually said.
The WolfJune 23, 2010 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #687932Truth1Member
I once heard a shuir by a rav that said you are not allowed to make up stories…ex..Mussar stories and the likeJune 23, 2010 4:43 pm at 4:43 pm #687933Truth1Member
The term “Tznius behavior” may be not clear to some people and all we need to do is explain in a proper way how to behave in a tznius manner.June 23, 2010 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #687934gavra_at_workParticipant
Kasha: in Charadi E”Y you are correct (can’t speak for Dati Leumi), as the action of holding hands would be Lifnei Iver.
Wolf: in Marine Park you are correct, as the action of holding hand would not be seen as “creating Hirhur”.
(Disclosure: My Rosh Yeshiva “discourages” couples holding hands in public. In general, the Ittisa and I are Makpid not to pass things to each other while not in the privacy of our own home. No reason to announce anything to anyone, but that is just a Geder of Tznius).June 23, 2010 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #687935
I mamish don’t understand what’s the whole argument about. Why would someone want to publicize their most precious relationship? Why parade around showing off your most intimate close relationship? A prized possession is hidden, why are we trying to show off our most deep, and close relationship between husband and wife in public? IN GENERAL if someone has to keep on showing off a relationship, it shows they’re not secure with it. Why is this even an argument? Once my family was actually discussing this s”a cuz we saw a couple holding hands, it came out that you can’t say 100% assur but definitely on the border. As Mod 80 said – it’s very sad that this is even a discussion, to the generations before us there was no question.
Wolf – holding hands with a down syndrome kid is VERY different. Everyone understands that your doing it for HIM, and it is affectionate (although not two way – your doing it for him) – he wants your close physical contact. Think of it as little kids – they always hold hands, it’s a security of close relationship. Holding hands IS very affectionate, and VERY different than checking for lice. (although also only done with someone very close- not an ACT of affection)June 23, 2010 5:44 pm at 5:44 pm #687936
Wolf – holding hands with a down syndrome kid is VERY different.
Oh, I agree. I was simply responding to Kasha’s point which was (bolding mine):
You only hold hands for affectionate reasons.
The WolfJune 23, 2010 11:56 pm at 11:56 pm #687938shev143Member
what I find interesting is that this topic started because it was a rant about people making up sources. It is fine if you and your spouse want to take on the chumra and geder of not touching at all in public. BUT you shouldn’t say that it is assur. While I understand that ideally this might be something that me and my husband should work on, it is not something that we are doing right now. Toi say it is assur when it is not, is wrong and it can sometimes even cause some people to be machshil in other things that are halacchically assur.
in my taharat hamishpacha classes I asked my teacher what is assur and what is not. There are certain things that she told me that certain people accept on themselves as to be more tznius.June 23, 2010 11:59 pm at 11:59 pm #687939
This is no chumra and geder. This is an aveira mamish straight out of Shulchan Aruch and the Kitzur S”A that will earn a person a free 11 month stay in a well heated area after 120.June 24, 2010 12:33 am at 12:33 am #687940
its a terrible averia to hold hands with yur wife. Ill even show the sources.
The Sharei Rachamim (25:6) says right out that its assur to walk next to your wife in public and hold hands. The Manhegi Anshei Hatorah (perek 3) says that your not aloud to call your wife things like honey, dear etc in public.
EDITEDJune 24, 2010 12:37 am at 12:37 am #687941
mosherose, while i agree with you a hundred percent, your manner of speaking (posting??) has me very nervous. it sounds very kitrug-y, is it possible for you to tone it down a bit??June 24, 2010 12:40 am at 12:40 am #687942
“is it possible for you to tone it down a bit?? “
Not when their are people around who openly go against what the Torah says.June 24, 2010 12:42 am at 12:42 am #687943
i agree with you but as you can see, hotheadedness (kanaus really) isn’t getting you anywhere in the threads so you might as well me right and nice as opposed to right and abrasive.June 24, 2010 12:44 am at 12:44 am #687944
mosherose – see the Shulchan aruch again. It’s not streight out assur. Its very wrong and one shouldn’t do it, however there is a difference between straight out halacha, and things one SHOULDNt do.June 24, 2010 12:46 am at 12:46 am #687945
sorry but no. When you have people who openly disobey the Torah and then try to twist the Torah to their sick way of thinking I will not be quiet and calm down.
EDITEDJune 24, 2010 12:47 am at 12:47 am #687946
“It’s not streight out assur.”
see the post I put up a few minutes ago. it is strait out 100% no questions asked clear as day assur.June 24, 2010 12:51 am at 12:51 am #687947
i didn’t say be quiet and calm down i said throwing stones doesn’t help in the lease, and even i, who considers myself (and am considered by others) very frum and tznius, have a difficult time not getting turned off when i’m yelled at ‘lo tznua’ in meah shearim – k”v someone who really is doing something wrong. your goal is not to turn them off (not off the derech, just gives a really bad feeling that’s hard to grow past) is it? i didn’t think so.
i just say that soft words are probably going to get you where you want more effectively.
PLEASE keep being right and decisive about your correct opinions/facts, but i don’t understand why the abrasiveness is necessary!June 24, 2010 12:53 am at 12:53 am #687948
moshe rose – i will check that one upJune 24, 2010 1:38 am at 1:38 am #687951
Fine Ill tone it down.
“He’s 12 years old. For some reason that I can’t fathom, he’s taken a liking to me. He always requests to hold my hand in the street — and I let him.”
Its very inapropriate for you to be holding a 12 year old boys hand in the street if yur not his parent.June 24, 2010 3:41 am at 3:41 am #687953LAerMember
Oh please. He specifically says that the boy has Down syndrome – not exactly an inconspicuous disability. Most people realize that people with Down are very affectionate, almost like small children. Would you say that it’s “very inappropriate” to hold a small child’s hand? (If you would then there’s something seriously off with that.)June 24, 2010 7:40 am at 7:40 am #687954
thanks.June 24, 2010 11:13 am at 11:13 am #687955oyveykidsthesedaysMember
“Its very inapropriate for you to be holding a 12 year old boys hand in the street if yur not his parent.”
there is nothing “inappropriate” about holding the hand of a kid with down syndrome when he asks ytou to!June 24, 2010 11:51 am at 11:51 am #687956
I remember hearing that a chosson should hold the hand of his kallah after the chuppah. unfortunately, I dont remember the source (sorry Wolf), and I have seen this MANY times at the chassunos of some of the “best boys” in their respective yeshivos whose roshei yeshiva were in attendance and clearly witnessed it. they didnt stop this (as mosherose states) terrible averia. clearly there is more to this “terrible aveira” as mosherose puts it. It probably falls into the “better not to do” category.June 24, 2010 11:57 am at 11:57 am #687957
The Chupa to Yichud Room issue was discussed earlier. It is a completely separate issue, and has its own sources.
The Otzar Haposkim Siman 55:1:19 (v 16 p 83) – seems to be based (partially) on a Taz., and that was the minhog in Yerushalayim. See also “Edus Leyisroel” p 65 a discussion on this, and he brings sources that so was the minhog in Yerushalayim over 150 years ago.
The basic idea is either “kinyon” or hefsek (between chupa and the yichud). The idea is to “lead” to the yichud.
The Nitay Gavriel (chapter 37 footnote 1), brings a Taz, discussed by Shu”t Pri Hoadomo (??? ?????) v 3 p 10, a sefer “Takanas Uminhogei Yerushalayim”, Edus Yisroel, Shaar Hamifkad (??? ?????) Hil. Kiddushin p 16 who doesn’t give the reason as kinyon but gives a different reason (“?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????, ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????, ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????, ?”? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???’ ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ??, ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????, ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??????, ???? ????? ??? ????, ???? ???? ?? ????? ???”?). Klilas Chasanim (????? ?????) Siman 10:4, Shulchon Hoezer (???? ????) p 67, Divrei Chaim Dov p 24 brings a reason al pi Chassidus.June 24, 2010 2:04 pm at 2:04 pm #687958
Oh well, I guess that’s another circle of Hell lower for me. I didn’t hold my wife’s hand as we left the chuppah.
The WolfJune 24, 2010 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #687959
This is no chumra and geder. This is an aveira mamish straight out of Shulchan Aruch
Actually, it’s NOT in the Shulchan Aruch. It’s in the Rema on Shulchan Aruch — and there, as I pointed out, it’s mentioned in an off-hand manner in an off-topic discussion and presented as a “yesh omrim” — in other words, not a universal opinion.
and the Kitzur S”A
Ah, but halacha does not always follow the Kitzur.
that will earn a person a free 11 month stay in a well heated area after 120.
Wow! You claim to know that for the sin of holding my wife’s hand in public that I will not only go to hell, but get the full 11 month treatment! You must be a real Navi with the ability to sense what’s going on Machorai HaPargud.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
The WolfJune 24, 2010 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #687960
Okay, perhaps not the full 11 months if that’s the only sin.June 24, 2010 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm #687962
Okay, perhaps not the full 11 months if that’s the only sin.
And, again, I state that you must be an incredible person to know with such certainty if I combine this “sin” with another that I will get the full 11 months.
The WolfJune 24, 2010 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm #687963rescue37Participant
Just because one or two sefarim mention a halacha, that does not mean that that is the halacha. We don’t follow all yesh omrim in the gemarah and we don’t follow every halacha just because it was printed in a book. The opinion may be valid, but that does not make it a universal halacha. It is impossible to follow every halacha brought down in the name of Reb Moshe while at the same time following all the halachas brought down in the name of Rav Henkin or even R’ Tuvia Goldstein, cause guess what, they had disagreements. Because you hold the halacha is one way, that does not necessitate me to hold of it.June 24, 2010 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #687964
Back to pictures for a moment. In many biographies of gedolim, dont we find photos of the gedolim from their younger years including family photos or photos of just their parents or grandparents? I have it in my head that in Artscrolls biography of R” Moshe there is a portrait photo of R’ Moshe and his Rebbetzin Z’L. My memory IS faulty and I have not read the book in at least a year, but in the back of my head that photo is there. The same thought also tells me that in the biographies of other gedolim the same is found.
When I have some spare time, I will bli neder look for the photo and post the page on which it appears (if I find it).June 24, 2010 4:20 pm at 4:20 pm #687965
“one or two sefarim mentioning a halacha”?! We aren’t talking about Sh”ut or Rav Moshe. We are talking about the Rema on Shulchan Aruch! All the apologetics in the world will not overcome that.
The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim “kim li” against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your “Rebbi”, where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let’s say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no “halachah lmoshe misinai” that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thign applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.June 24, 2010 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #687966
The question really is. Is holding hands “derech chiba”? Is it so obviously derech chba that the KSA used a different example? Is it so obviously NOT derech chiba that he didnt mention it? I dont think anyone is saying to follow or not follow the RMA or the KSA.June 24, 2010 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #687967
How is that even a question. This is exactly when you use the “fifth chelek” of S”A. Do any of you hand-holders hold your wifes hand for a reason other than derech chiba? Why else does a husband hold his wifes hand walking down the street if not for derech chiba?June 24, 2010 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #687969rescue37Participant
Except for the times we don’t hold like the Rema. (See hilchos shaboos discussions as related to cutting up vegetables as it relates to tochen, mi’yad and borrer. M.B. 321 s.k. 45. In this case we are more machmir, but there are times the MB is more meikel such as salting food on Shabbos which the Rema says is assur but MB says HAMACHMIR tavo alav bracha.June 24, 2010 6:52 pm at 6:52 pm #687971
The question also remains that if the Rema truly held that it was assur, then why didn’t he just come out and say so? Instead he buried it off-handedly, in an off-topic suggestion and qualified it as a “yesh omrim.” Obviously the Rema himself didn’t hold it was so absolutely assur.
The WolfJune 24, 2010 7:42 pm at 7:42 pm #687972
In addition to the Rema and Kitzur, mosherose brought additional sources even more explicit about the issur, and no one brought any other sources disagreeing. (Other than their own “boich teitch”.)June 24, 2010 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #687973
“Do any of you hand-holders hold your wifes hand for a reason other than derech chiba?”
When helping her across a rough patch of sidewalk (plenty of those in brooklyn), or when the streets are icy (plenty of those in brooklyn too, during the winter), older couples use each other for support. Is every interaction with ones wife “derech chiba”. Is every interaction with a woman in general “derech chiba”? Back to the KSA, do people have “hirhurim” when they see a couple holding hands? The KSA is clearly discussing these halachos and uses the term derech chiba and gives a reason as well. I’m not rendering an opinion whether it is muttar or asur to hold the hand of ones wife in public, but AM stating that not all interactions between a husband and wife are “derech chiba”, perhaps this is one of them. It may fall into the “nit shain” category as Rav Henoch Lebowitz Z’l used to call it, but assur, perhaps not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.