By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com
Recently, a somewhat bizarre incident occurred where a completely innocent young avraich in a shul that was hosting a Bris had apparently asked a child to walk with him and to hold onto his hand in order to avoid violating the Gemorah in Horios (13b). There the Gemorah states that walking between two women is kasheh l’limud. Unfortunately, it caused enormous difficulty for the young man involved. There were a number of parties that issued warnings to the Jewish community, in an attempt to ensure the safety of others. Boruch Hashem, however, it was a misunderstanding. It was unfortunate that the Avreich had to undergo such difficulties. He is known as a yirei shomayim and a medakdek b’mitzvos.
What follows is an analysis of the underlying halachic issues involved and the various solutions to the situation.
THE MAHARSHA IDENTIFIES TWO UNDERLYING ISSUES
There is a Maharsha that asks an interesting question as to why the Gemorah here in Horios did not provide a solution, in the same manner that a similar Gemorah in Psachim 111a provides. There the Gemorah tells us that Rav Pappa said: He should begin reciting a pasuk that starts with the word Kel and conclude with a pasuk that ends with the word Kel. (BaMidbar 23:22–23). Alternatively, he should open with a pasuk that begins with the word “lo – no, and should conclude with the same pasuk that ends with lo (BaMidbar 23:19). The Maharsha explains that the Gemorah in Psachim deals only with the issue of a danger. The Gemorah in Horios deals with the difficulty that it causes to one’s studies and the solution, according to the Maharsha would be ineffective. We will see, however, that not everyone agrees with this Maharsha.
SHULCHAN ARUCH DOES NOT CITE THE HALACHA
This halacha is cited by the Eliyahu Rabba OC 63:10 and also by the GraZ, yet the halacha is not cited in the Shulchan Aruch itself. Nonetheless, Rav Yoseph Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l rules (Salmas Chaim #864) that it is still a halacha that must be observed. He further writes that whomsoever does not pay attention to this halacha is termed “an avaryan – a sinner.” It seems that he is referring to the Shulchan Aruch (CM 427:10) halacha of avoiding dangers wherein Rav Karo employs this term. The Siach Yitzchok on Psachim 111a explains that Rav Sonnenfeld would often walk in the streets of Yerushalayim holding his hat so that he would not be in violation of this halacha.
WORKAROUNDS
There are, however, at least seven workarounds.
- Most Poskim hold that if one carries or holds onto something as an interpolation between himself and one of the two women, it is permitted to walk through. Thus holding onto one’s wallet in his hand or a cell phone would allow it. This is the most common workaround and is cited in the Taamei HaMinhagim p. 488. Rav Nissim Karelitz zt”l in his Chut Sheini (EH SIman 21), however, disagrees with this view.
- Rav Kareilitz does write that it is not a problem if the distance between the two women is more than 4 amos (which according to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l is 7 ft and 1 inch, while according to Rav Chaim Na’eh it is 6 feet). This is also the view of the Ben Ish Chaim (year number 2 Parshas Pinchas #17).
- Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv of Kelm zt”l is quoted in the Lev Eliyahu (Bereishis p. 26) as holding that it applies only to married women and not besulos.
- Rav Yoseph Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l in his Salmas Chaim (Vol. IV #20) and the Maharsham (Vol. IV #148) both write that the solution discussed in Psachim 111a is effective in regard to difficulty for one’ learning as well. There is thus a debate between the Maharsha and these two authorities on this topic.
- Rav Binyomin Zilber zt”l in his Bais Boruch (Vol. I p. 402) writes that the prohibition is only when they are standing still and not while they are walking.
- The author of the Vayashev Moshe (Vol. I #73), writes that it is only a problem if the two women have some connection between them such as if they are in conversation with each other. Other Poskim, however, do not agree with this assessment., although Rabbi Aryeh Zev Ginsburg in his Divrei Chachomim [the author does not recall the location] writes that Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l made this distinction too.
- Rav Nissim Karelitz zt”l (Chut Sheini EH Siman 21 p.70) writes that there is no problem when the two women are walking in opposite directions. Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, however, is cited as holding the opposite view in Gam Ani Odecha (Vol. II #24).
NON-WORKAROUNDS
It would seem that holding onto one’s clothing and or onto one’s own payos would not be effective because these would be batel to the person himself [not an interpolation but rather would be considered part of him]. This is the view of most Poskim. However, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l was asked (Gam Ani Odekha p. 6) whether a man should ask a woman to move in order that he not violate this halacha and Rav Chaim zt”l responded that it is preferable to hold onto one’s payos.
NOT TO DO STRANGE THINGS
Notwithstanding all of this, there is a pasuk in Mishlei (4:24) that states, “Take crooked speech away from yourself, and put devious lips far away from you.” The Gemorah and Poskim cite this pasuk many times as a warning not to do things that are perceived as strange by other people [See Yevamos 24b]. There is no question that in today’s environment, a person must be very careful in this regard, especially when his or her actions can be perceived as a chillul Hashem.
OUR OBLIGATION
For our part in this unfortunate situation, we should remember to always be dan lekaf z’chus – we should judge people positively and not at all assume chas v’shalom that the young man’s motivations were questionable. At the same time, we should be vigilant against Stranger Danger and also against non-stranger danger.
In a recent conversation with Moreinu HaRav Shlomo Miller shlita, Rav Miller asked me to be mefarsem in his name that whenever any young woman is touched by a man, regardless of who he may be – they should be taught to say, “Please do not put your hands on me” in a loud voice and leave the room immediately. Rav Miller advised that this should be taught in our Bais Yaakovs throughout.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
25 Responses
Rabbi Hoffman never disappoints us when it comes to עניינה דיומא
“it applies only to married women and not besulos”
Rabbi Hoffman, what if an non-married woman is not a besula? Can we get an article?
” it is preferable to hold onto one’s payos”
What if one is Modern Orthodox and has no peyos to hold unto?
“Please do not put your hands on me” in a loud voice and leave the room immediately. WRONG!! You accomplish far more with Honey & soft voice than with loud voice & vinegar.
not halacha
“Whenever any young woman is touched by a man, regardless of who he may be – they should be taught to say, “Please do not put your hands on me” in a loud voice and leave the room immediately. Rav Miller advised that this should be taught in our Bais Yaakovs throughout.
The SAME guidance should be applied to any young man….NO ONE has a right to touch someone else’s child unless they are comfortable with finding themselves on the front page of the NYPost.
the elya rabba is actually in siman 3
A key point that I think a lot of people miss, apparently including this young man. A lot of people think this halacha is because of tznius, and therefore they reason that if it applies to walking between two women, how much more so more than two! So they think they should not walk through a crowd of women, even if there is enough room so that he will not come in contact with them.
However if you look at the context in Pesachim and Horiyos, you will see that it has nothing to do with tznius. The exact same halacha applies not only to women, but also to dogs and palm trees, and some say also pigs, and some say also snakes. Obviously there is no tznius issue with those other things, and yet one may not walk between two of them, nor may two men pass on either side of one of them, for the exact same reason as with women. Therefore the halacha about women also has no connection to tznius.
So what is it related to? Further examination of the wider context in Pesachim seems to show, at least in my opinion, that the issue is zugos. That is why it only applies to two women, two palm trees, etc. And just as there is obviously no problem with walking through a forest, surrounded by many trees, even though at any given point one is always passing between two of them, the same must be true about women; it seems to me that there is no problem walking through a crowd of women, again so long as one is not touching them.
What if they are women imitating men imitating women?
Gadolhadorah, comparing a man touching a woman or a man touching a boy in private to what happened here is ridiculous. What this guy did is standard procedure in yeshivish communities. When a man needs to get through an area that is between women usually 2 adult men will go together, but in this case the male that happened to be around was a kid – and that happens sometimes and it is ok. Trust me I know first hand the damage that is caused by the molestation of young boys, but we can’t take things too far in either direction. Just a shame that the mother of this boy was not familiar with this הנהגה, and thus in an effort to protect her son and the community, she reacted the way she did.
the mechaber doesn’t hold its a problem and the rema also doesn’t bring it or the poskim on the page of the shulchan aruch. So it’s a machlokes on a a sakana which doesn’t seem to exist anymore.
If you’re makpid on zugos and other kishuf / shaidim halachos in the post baal shem tov era it could make sense to be makpid on this too.
Gadolhatorah, I find people appreciate when I give an affectionate touch to their child. I think you have it backwards: if more people would put a loving hand around a bochur or even a friendly pat, it would be much more preferred than today’s stupid no touch rule. We are emotional human beings and like to be held and touched. It is a sensitive subject, I know but done the right way can only help hundreds or more that would seek affirmation and live from other places. And yes, many patents don’t know or don’t want to hug an older child. Not happy with the backward society!
It’s Chut Shani, as in a thread of crimson, not Chut sheni
I’m pretty sure that doing something correct cannot, by definition, make a chillul Hashem.
“I find people appreciate when I give an affectionate touch to their child…”
CCB45: It really depends on the context and venue. If you are in a gathering where everyone knows everyone else and there is the sort of “implied consent” (aka minhag hamakom) to this type of “affectionate touching” than you are probably correct. My point is here that clearly some of the attendees (e.g. the kid’s mother) did NOT feel they had provided such consent for ANYONE to touch their children, perhaps because they were unaware of the underlying intent etc. than common sense dictates you don’t grab the closest kid nearby for your convenience so as to avoid being over on your notion of halacha. Given the world we live in with respect to these “touching” issues, when in doubt, keep your hands in your pockets unless you are prepared to find them behind your back in handcuffs.
“The Gemorah and Poskim cite this pasuk many times as a warning not to do things that are perceived as strange by other people [See Yevamos 24b].”
Got it. Walking through a crowd grabbing ones peyos is perfectly normal.
Milhouse’s analysis is far better than the author’s. You cannot write on this topic without pointing to the fact that it applies to pigs and dogs, too. The kitzur shulchan aruch writes the halacha like this in 3:8, “one must be careful not to walk between two women, two dogs or two pigs nor should men allow a woman, dog or pig walk between them.” Clearly, this practice is associated with “bad luck” or allowing something “impure” to contaminate you. The Meiri, on Psachim where this is written says that these practices (like zugos) are not min hatorah and were included in the gemoro only because people in those days believed them to be true. As society today no longer believes in these practices and, quite frankly, views lumping women in together with pigs and dogs highly offensive, there are many poskim who will ignore this minhag altogether.
“Thus holding onto one’s wallet in his hand or a cell phone would allow it.”
Rabbi Hoffman,
What if some creep like Joseph wants to be “machmir” and hold onto someone else’s child?
@GadolHadofi
Your the creep, kol haposel bemumo posel.
While perhaps there is room for education that there are some crack-heads who jump to defamation over every minor situation, that doesnt mean what this guy did was wrong.
There was NEVER a situation of coercion, nor was there EVER a point where the man asked the boy to leave with him. THAT is why everyone involved in this story is guilty of defaming an innocent person.
@ Besalel
Its easy to pick one rishon and devise a heter, but that does not the Halacha make. And your insinuation that women are being lumped together with the other cases, has the classic reek of malig al divrei chachomim. No such “Lumping” occurred anywhere other than in your mind, and your inability to be omed on the tam of the halacha does not give you a right to comment on it. Quite the contrary, keep the drivel to yourself.
chash,
My issue is not with the person who was arrested, it’s with Joseph, who regularly defends child molesters and now mocks Rabbi Hoffman’s article.
Besalel, don’t forget the palm trees. What does that do to your “lumping” theory?
This is a matter of zugos, and if you want to rely on some obscure Me’iri that’s your choice but you can’t expect the rest of the frum world to do so. We do not live from the Me’iri, nor do we often pasken like him.
“And just as there is obviously no problem with walking through a forest”
Milhouse, where would you likely encounter a forest of palm trees? AFAIK (correct me otherwise), a forest of palm trees is quite a rarity.
And how did you conclude that the halachic issue is non-existent even in such a rare situation? It seems more likely he would need a workaround there to, either walking together with another male or another object.
milhouse and chash: did you look up the kitzur? i quoted it verbatim. Chash, the beis yosef also rejected this custom and the sulchan aruch does halacha make.
besalel: And so you should follow the kitzur shulchan aruch, as you quoted. You are no one to dismiss this Halacha since you decided that in 2023 it is “highly offensive” so you’ll “ignore this minhag altogether”.
Where do you get the audacity?!