August 24, 2012 3:21 am at 3:21 am #894005oomisParticipant
I have had difficulty with udnerstanding the Yaakov and Rochel story all my life. It makes little sense to think she was only 3 (like Rivka), as Yaakov clearly fell in love with her and immediately wanted to marry her. Even if he kissed her “only” on the forehead or hand, it is still negiah, and he made a point of saying im Lavan Garti (v’Taryag Miztvos shamarti). the fact that he kissed her at all, a total stranger to him, is strange. Even if she WAS his relative, so what? Negiah doesn’t count with cousins??? As I said, I have had trouble understanding this all my life. No one has given me an explanation that doesn’t produce even more questions.August 24, 2012 3:25 am at 3:25 am #894006
Oomis: She was a P’nuyah. N’giyah is Muttar. That’s the real P’shat in the story.August 24, 2012 3:43 am at 3:43 am #894007
Weren’t all these halachot born after the situation with Amnon and Tamar?August 24, 2012 3:50 am at 3:50 am #894008
Interjection: That’s Yichud. N’giyah according to almost all Rishonim is D’oraisa.August 24, 2012 4:18 am at 4:18 am #894009
The Torah had to have had different rules then because there are meforshim that tell us that the Shevatim married their sisters….
Also aren’t the halachot of negiah all assumed based on the halachot of a man to his wife?August 24, 2012 4:28 am at 4:28 am #894010
Interjection: No. They are because it is Assur to have any pleasure from any interaction with a woman who is forbidden to you (including a Niddah).
And yes, technically the Avos could violate Halachah before Mattan Torah. But we assume that they didn’t unless we are forced to say otherwise. And the Shvatim marrying their sisters isn’t explicit in the P’sukim and is also probably a Machlokes Hamidrashim (and also a bit against the P’sukim that tell us that Y’hudah married the Adulami’s daughter.)August 24, 2012 4:54 am at 4:54 am #894011shmoelMember
Yaakov married two sisters.August 24, 2012 7:06 am at 7:06 am #894012foxoutsidetheboxMember
Go to shake, then pull away, put your thumb against the tip of your schnoz, waving your fingers in a silly and random fashion, and make the sound one makes when breaking wind with your mouth! It can’t be worse than what most goyim think of Jews. At least they’ll just think you’re meshugah!August 24, 2012 7:10 am at 7:10 am #894013foxoutsidetheboxMember
Better still, go to shake, but then simply slap them, excruciatingly hard!
Tough love!August 24, 2012 11:38 am at 11:38 am #894014farrockgrandmaParticipant
I just say ‘I try to keep my hands to myself’. Usually gets a laugh. But that’s in New York, where it’s really not news to too many people.August 24, 2012 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm #894015
“But there are situations that might warrant or necessitate it.”
You mean like when Yaakov kissed Rochel upon meeting her for the first time?
Wasn’t that before even introducing himself?August 24, 2012 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm #894016
By the way, there are answers to all the questions: The twins that were married to the ????? some say were all from different mothers, and the ???? ????? says that ????? of a ?? ?? goes after the mother.
This also explains how ????? married ???? — ???? [according to the ????”?] was conceived by ???, and swapped as a fetus with ???? into ???. Therefore they were only paternally related, which wasn’t a problem. [???]
This will ALSO explain how ???? married two sisters — the ??? ?????? says that both sisters were only half sisters from ??? – they had different mothers. ?’ ???? ??????? in ??? ???? says that therefore they could both marry the same man.August 24, 2012 1:39 pm at 1:39 pm #894017
The ???”? says that the ???? only kept the ????? in ??? ?????. That is one of the reasons why ??? died before they arrived back in ??? ????? – so that ???? wouldn’t be ????.
There is a brilliant ??? called ????? ????? ?? ?????, and in ??? ?????? he discusses many of these problems plus many more. Never is he left unsolved!!!August 24, 2012 3:01 pm at 3:01 pm #894018
Yekke: That’s against the famous Ramban (and several other Rishonim) who point out that Ya’akov couldn’t be married to two sisters. And talking about Chiyuvim for B’nei Noach doesn’t help. We assume the Avos kept Kol Hatorah Kulah like B’nei Yisrael. So yes, it was before Mattan Torah so there’s technically no Issur. But the question still stands.
And the Midrash seems to look down on the fact that Shimon married Dinah (it says that they did a Ma’aseh that was done by the K’na’anim).August 24, 2012 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #894019welldressed007Participant
no great ‘shakes’ ask a Rav and follow his ruling not every Tom,Dick or Harry who may have had this issueAugust 24, 2012 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #894020
Sam2: I hope I can explain it as well as my husband explained it to me. No one person can possibly fulfill all 613 mitzvot by oneself. Some mitzvot are meant for men, some for women, some for converts, etc.. There is a shlaimus we achieve through keeping the mitzvot. When Yaakov said ‘im Lavan garti’ (meaning that he kept the Taryag mitzvot) he was saying that he had achieved the same shleimus as if he had kept the full 613. He achieved whatever level can be attained through fulfilling the mitzvot. He did not actually follow the pshat of all 613 of the mitzvot (which is impossible in any case) but he was as complete of a person as if he had.
My husband explained with more sources but I’m not so learned so I’m repeating what i remember from what he said.August 24, 2012 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #894021
Sam2: just a question of semantics (on how I understood it).
“They are because it is Assur to have any pleasure from any interaction with a woman who is forbidden to you (including a Niddah).”
Isn’t the translation of a niddah, any woman who a man is forbidden to? I assumed Niddah to be an adjective (that she is a niddah towards other men) but you just translated it as a noun (that it becomes her identity).August 24, 2012 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #894022Think firstMember
Yentingyenta- I had worked with lots of goyim and this worked well for me. “please understand out of respect to women people in my community don’t shake hands with the opposite gender other than close family”
You’ll be shocked at the responses. C’mon, everyone knows what goes in the world out there, it all starts with touch, and our Torah which understands the human better than anything lhavdil has created guidelines for us not to come to an aveira c”v.
A little story. My friends father is a very well to do business man. One day he had to meet with some people and the leader amongst them was a woman. There was a very large deal they would discuss. The woman walked in and stretched out her hand to shake his. He calmy said, “out of respect to women I don’t shake hands with women other than close family”. This woman was so impressed with his commitment to his religion that she did the business deal with him. You don’t lose when you do the right thing and explain yourself so they understand, and youll be surprised how they will respect you for adhering to your beliefs.August 24, 2012 10:17 pm at 10:17 pm #894023
Interjection: A Niddah means a woman (including one’s wife) who has had her period and has not yet gone to the Mikvah.August 24, 2012 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #894024WolfishMusingsParticipant
Isn’t the translation of a niddah, any woman who a man is forbidden to? I assumed Niddah to be an adjective (that she is a niddah towards other men) but you just translated it as a noun (that it becomes her identity).
The word you are looking for is “ervah” if the cause is due to familial relationship. I’m not aware of a word (other than “forbidden” itself) to describe a forbidden relationship not due to familial relationships.
The WolfAugust 27, 2012 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #894026
I have a question for all posters.Clearly “negiah” would be ossur for a man- “lo sikrevu legalos ervah” (see psukim in Vayikro 18 -including 18-19, for a niddah)but why would it be ossur for a woman to shake another man’s hands?? there is no issur of “negiah’ on her. Please elucidate because I don’t see a source for a woman having an issur “kirvah”.(see Rambam Hilchos issurei biah, perek 21,mishne 1)August 27, 2012 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #894027shmoelMember
Because she’s a nidda if single and an eishes ish (and nidda) if married.August 27, 2012 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #894028
shmoel- if you are replying to my question- yo did not answer it. where is the source for “lo sikrevu’ for a woman?August 27, 2012 8:23 pm at 8:23 pm #894029
rabbiofberlin: ‘Lo sikrevu’ pertaining to acts of closeness such as touching is the exact same phrase that refers to the actual prohibited intimate relationship. Therefore, in the same way that women are directly instructed in the latter, they are also included in the former.August 27, 2012 8:38 pm at 8:38 pm #894030
on the ball- what you write is not correct. The Torah specifically includes men AND women in the sin of “ervah” (see kedoshim ,vayikro 20)but there is no mention of “kirvah’ in that chapter. As a matter of fact, that chapter is explicit in dealing with actual forbidden relationships only.August 27, 2012 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm #894031anIsraeliYidParticipant
The line I’ve used is “for religious reasons, my wife doesn’t shake hands with men, and I don’t shake hands with women”. By first mentioning that my wife doesn’t shake hands with men, I’ve avoided making them think that I think that women are lesser than I am.
FWIW, I can also say that I was told by a well-known Rosh Yeshiva, widely accepted as one of the premier Poskim in the American Yeshivish world, that if it’s necessary, I can shake hands with a woman in a business context, since it’s not Derech Chiba. Accordingly, when necessary or to avoid causing offense (such as when traveling in Europe, where religious restrictions are not as widely accepted), I’ll shake a woman’s extended hand – though I’ll not extend mine first.
Good luck to you,
an Israeli YidAugust 28, 2012 1:40 am at 1:40 am #894032
rob: Look at the Chinuch on this. Doesn’t he say it applies to both?August 28, 2012 11:29 am at 11:29 am #894033
Rabbi of Berlin: Rashi on the Pasuk of ‘Lo Sikrevu’ (Vayikra 18:6) answers your question stating that ‘Lo Sikrevu’ is written in the plural (in contradistinction to the beginning of the Pasuk ‘Ish ish…'[Sifsei Chachomim]) specifically to include women in the Issur.August 28, 2012 11:32 am at 11:32 am #894034
anIsraeliYid: Please can you say who this Rosh Yeshiva is? Torah opinions are meant to be publicised in their originators name.August 28, 2012 1:40 pm at 1:40 pm #894035thehockMember
This woman was so impressed with his commitment to his religion that she did the business deal with him.
I am reminded of when NYT ran a column a number of years ago (don’t know if they still do) called The Ethicist (IIRC) and there was a huge raging discussion about a situation where a woman wanted to “tear up a contract” because the frum guy who she signed it with wouldn’t shake her hand, and she was offended. (Tearing up the contract, btw, would not help her AFAIK – once you sign, you’ve signed.)
I do not shake hands. But people will sometimes be respectful, and sometimes not. You can help by being respectful and menschlich about everything yourself, but it’s not all in your hands (ouch!).
This incident sounds apocryphal but is so common it actually happened to me – when I explained that I wouldn’t shake hands for religious reasons, someone said, “Oh, so you’re shomer negiah?” I found it amusing that I was looking for ways to phrase it just right and they had smoothly figured it out already.August 28, 2012 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm #894036
sam2 (and on the ball): I checked the Sefer Hachinuch today and indeed, towards the end of his peirush on the mitzvah -that deals with kirva-he writes ; “this mitzvah applies all the time, everywhere and for men and women. ” He conitnues to expound upon it. So, clearly, he believes that this “lav’ of “kirva” applies to all.However, he also brings dowm the Ramban who maintains that the “issur’ of “kirvah” is only miderabbonon and it is a gezeirah, so as to avoid more stringent aveiras.
on the ball- thanks for pointing out the Rashi (it is from medrash Toras Kohanim). However, from that rashi, it is not evident that “kirvah’ is what is meant. Rashi says that because we need a “lav” for any of the “ervas” for a woman. Remember “ein onshim elo im keim mazhirim” you cannot punish unless you have forewarned someone. And, as in Kedsohim, it is clear that women are punished for “gilui aroyos”, the Toras Kohanim has to find the “lav’ for women. It is not clear that it applies to “kirva’ by itself.August 28, 2012 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #894037
rabbi of berlin: I do not understand your point at all. Once that Pasuk refers to women as inferred from the plural, all its connotations refer to women including the issur of kurvah derived from Lo Sikrevu. It’s that simple surely.August 28, 2012 6:13 pm at 6:13 pm #894038
on the ball- I have briefly reviewed the meforshim on this possuk. Clearly, the Rambam considers this possuk (ISH,ISH, lo sikrevu) as a “lav” on just “Chibbuk venishuk” (hugging.etc)and the chinuch follows his way. However, other Poskim do not consider this a lav on just “negiah”. The Ramban clearly considers this a ‘derabbonom”(see his perush on chumash and the Chinuch) The Ibn Ezra clearly interprets this possuk as relevant only to a real relationship. SO, you do have a good source for equating women to men in this matter but it is not as one sided as you think.August 30, 2012 3:13 pm at 3:13 pm #894039anIsraeliYidParticipant
On the ball – he is a Rosh Yeshiva that all were recently saying Tehilim for and who had a name added. He has now BH made a remarkable recovery (my sons saw him in Camp Agudah this summer). I was his Talmid many years ago when he gave the Chulin shiur in Yeshiva. Does that give you enough of a hint?
an Israeli Yid
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.