the daily bang | movies that bang | music that bangs | books that bang | forwards that bang | kosher top 10 | apartments that bang | home

Chidushay Bang


Touchy Subject?
Elchanan Shoff

Nitzavim/Vayelech: A Final Thought
jordan hiller

Kitavo: Produce and Prayer
avi korn

TishaBAv: Attack of the Klones
isaac galena

Chukas/Balak: Fight Fire with Fire
avi korn

Shelach: Is Instant Gratification Jewish?
avi korn n ' myles brody

BANGITOUT's SEDER SIDEKICK!
print this baby out!

Pesach: Unity in Bnei Brak
Steven Schwartzberg

Pesach: Where in the World is Moshe Rabainu?
Phil Witner

Walk Like an Egyptian
Yaakov Eizicovics

Purim- Do Looks Matter?
Steve Wind

Parshat Vayikra - G-d's "Go-to" Guy
David Mahler

Parshat Vayakhel- Shekels of Fire
Alan Gersch

Parshat Ki Sesa - A Glitch in the Matrix
Avi Korn

Parshat Vayishlach: Dina
R' Michael Zauderer

touchy subject?

The Bangitout Torah - search for meaning:
taking a stand
Touched!
Some Thoughts On Negiah

One of the most “touchy” subjects, when it comes to Jewish religious life, is the issue of Negiah, “Touching.” It is one that merits discussion, and this piece will attempt to lend some perspective on what can seem like a fanatical and inexplicable code of conduct. In the more religious Jewish circles, men and women who are not married to one another do not touch. Even simple handshakes are avoided, and kissing is certainly out of the picture. Casual conversation between boys and girls is discouraged strongly, and full-blown relationships are rare. Why? Is there anything evil about the mingling of sexes? Is it worth it to have our children so naïve, keeping them away from “them” until they are ready to seek a marriage partner? It certainly seems a bit strange.

Is there really anything so terrible about giving Aunt Ethel a peck on the cheek at the family reunion? Rabbi Akiva Tatz once made the following brilliant observation. If one kisses his aunt and in doing so has inappropriate feelings, then I’m sure you’d agree that he shouldn’t be kissing her. And if he does not have those feelings; isn’t it a shame that he has desensitized himself to the point that he can actually kiss another person and feel nothing?! Touch is something special, something that can be incredibly meaningful. We must understand well, that one who truly values it will not abuse it. One who eats three meals a day on the finest china will have nothing left for a special occasion. Should we allow any of passiveness to seep into our human relationships, we are in big trouble.

We are all familiar with the concept of investment. Give me five dollars today and I’ll give you fifty tomorrow. Who would turn down such a deal? But what if you were in a candy shop with only five dollars! Think of what you could buy with five dollars! Your average American born groom, walking down the aisle, has been involved in numerous physical relationships. In contrast, the typical yeshiva boy has never touched a woman other than immediate family members, with the possible exception of the register lady at the supermarket when she hands him his change. The religious bride coming down the aisle toward him probably had about the same amount of contact with men. Imagine the potency of this relationship! The first person either husband or wife will ever touch in a passionate manner is their spouse. They have something explosive together, and are very lucky that they didn’t squander it in their youth.

So practically, abstaining from physical contact should make for a better relationship. But shouldn’t one have experience? How can I know if the relationship is going to work? Maybe I should test the market? We need not elaborate on the obvious issues that can arise when one begins to compare his or her spouse to others. One who has had much experience in relationships will likely measure his or her spouse against previous relationships. But is this a good thing? It is certainly healthier for one to say “My wife is beautiful” than “My wife is the most beautiful.” The first is a statement of one’s feelings. The second is a comparison. The one who made the first statement is happy with his spouse. The second almost sounds as though he would abandon his wife should he find someone more beautiful; but unfortunately he just can’t find one. One whose experience in relationships is confined to his spouse is more likely to be happy with what he has. Most people don’t feel tremendously unfortunate that they don’t have the gift of flight. But should they live in a society where everyone else has a set of wings, all the walking might get to them. When we appreciate what we have without any outside measurement, then we are truly happy. One who can learn to appreciate his spouse without the need to compare her, or his relationship with her, to anything else, is a very lucky person. He certainly is not missing anything by not “testing the market.”

But there’s something a lot deeper going on here. We all find the idea of prostitution abhorrent. What is the reason exactly? The male-female relationship is a powerful one. It can be holy, sacred, and special. One who sells this for money degrades this relationship. They take something holy and lofty, and trample on it. It is my contention that those who engage in physical relations simply for the purpose of pleasure are in this same ballpark. Someone who engages in this holy act just to get pleasure out of it, with no higher goal than physical enjoyment, might as well be selling it for money. It almost becomes difficult to distinguish trading it for money with trading it for personal enjoyment. Though this puts it in a very severe light, its frighteningly true.

The concept applies to even something as seemingly trivial as speech. Many argue that there is no reason to avoid platonic relationships with members of the opposite sex. “We just talk.” Judaism feels otherwise. The Talmud (Eruvin 53b) tells the following story. “Rabbi Yossi HaGlilli was traveling when he met Bruriah (Rabbi Meir’s wife) on the way. He asked her “Which path should I take to Lud?” Bruriah responded “Glilli, You imbecile, Don’t the sages say (Avos 1:5) “Don’t be excessive in talking to women? You could have said ‘Which to Lud’!”

Rabbi Yossi was called an imbecile for saying a couple of extra words! What’s the big deal? They are only words?!?! To understand this, we must first understand the value of speech. You see, if speech is meaningless, then no matter what you say, or whom you say it to, it really doesn’t matter. This is not how we perceive speech however. Man is the only being that can communicate with any level of sophistication, and develop a concept or convey an idea. Our intellects would be about as developed as those of an animal if we didn’t have this ability to communicate; to talk. Try to teach a child without the use of words! Imagine trying to think about a deep philosophical concept without the use of words! Impossible! Speech is something that differentiates human from animal. It allows ideas and concepts; spiritual (i.e. non-physical) things, to come from a physical being. Imagine trying to emotionally bond to someone else without the use of words!!! Without talking. Haven’t we all heard that communication is the cornerstone of any relationship? Don’t we all know that one can sometimes never repair damage done by a bad word, and conversely never forget a kind one? With something as potent as speech; something as valuable and precious as words; can we afford to overuse them?

Our Rabbi’s tell us (Talmud Chagigga 5b, Vayikra Rabba 21:7) “Even light chatter between husband and wife is recorded [by God]” This is not meant to discourage such banter, (as is evident from Talmud Chagigga 5b and Rambam Ishus 15:17,) it is simply meant to remind one that he is not engaged in something trivial. Far from it! This conversation that he is having is priceless. When we appreciate the value of something, we are generally more careful with it. If we understood the power of speech when used correctly, and how destructive it could be under the wrong circumstances, we’d certainly watch our speech more carefully. When we begin to see that every word is worth a million dollars, then we understand why Bruriah called Rabbi Yossi an imbecile over two words. The man had thrown away a couple of million dollars!

But back to touch. I would like to point out one other reason why it is a good idea to avoid physical contact. This concept is called “Bribery.” Deuteronomy 16:19 and Exodus 23:8 both point out that the problem with bribery is that it blinds the wise and intelligent. This does not only warn us not to accept a few dollars under the table when judging a case. It tells us much more. It is almost impossible to believe the testimony of a mother as to whether or not her son committed a crime. The uninvolved bystander is far more capable of being objective. The root of bribery is when a person stands to gain personally from one decision, over another. When such a situation arises, it is next to impossible for one to be objective. When a person is dealing with the rest of his life, and his childrens lives, and his grandchildren’s lives, and their grandchildren’s lives; which is what a person does when looking for a marriage partner; it can be very hard to make a decision when one is physically involved with another person. We’ve all heard that “love is blind.” The Torah tells us that it’s not love, its self-interest. “Bribery Blinds,” would be a more accurate slogan. Our sages teach us that one is connected to his or her spouse for all eternity! That’s a long, long, long time. You want to get the best possible candidate. To let momentary feelings guide the decision, and be anything less than objective when making such a decision would be disastrous.

There is one thread that has run through this brief look at negiah. Value. Appreciation. If relationships are nothing, have as many as you want. If touching is nothing, touch whomever you please. If speech is nothing, talk your life away. But these are gifts. They are valuable, and like gunpowder, can make ear-splitting noises and accomplish nothing. But when just a little bit of that powder is confined, and hit with a hammer, it can send a bullet a mile away. It is fascinating to observe that many who would be horrified by the idea of using their looks to get a promotion at work, are more than willing to use their looks when in search of a soul-mate. Foolishness! This is someone who doesn’t appreciate the value of relationships! Is your job more important that you, and the person who you may spend your entire life with? We must keep in mind that it often pays to invest. The dividends are worth it. Part with the pennies today; you’ll be a millionaire before long.





Please direct any comments or suggestions to Elchanan Shoff

Readers Comments:

FROM Tzviya

From LG
This article pinpoints almost every issue of Negiah. very well written and thought out. All the people who blasted it, are obviously just feeling sorry for themselves and are too caught up in trying to deny the obvious-that perhaps they agree with shomer negiah but are just not strong enough to admit it, because then they would have to go through with it. Excellent article.


From yoni
hello
i thought the article you wrote on negiah described the real deal on negiah pretty well. i noticed the feedback on the article and decided to stick my own two scents in. firstly no matter what you say it will be spoken against when it involves a topic that ppl as you said yourself are bribed into. ppl do not want to change their ways so quickly and especially change something that they enjoy and is pleasurable. first off i would say that what is important to incorporate in such an article is alot of objective comments not generalized at all!! never say something without saying it having a source or another respectable person that you can associate the comment with. you ofcourse want to give opinion in your article but minimally and when you do try to give it as explaining another person or a halachick view. second i would say to try to take the standpoint of the other party inro account much more when you try to offe an argument. for example i was told by rabbi noah weinberg the best way to end an argument is to have each party explain in detail the other parties argument and everything comes clear. it involves a certain sensitivity to the other party despite the fact that you totally disagree. your own view is always clear its the other parties view which is not so clear. for example you didnt mention one thing positive about touching in a platonic way. you didnt mention family love. i was advised always to take one step forward to the other parties favor before offering any criticism when getting invloved in a touchy subject and it works. the criticism you received on the feedback from the readers were not because of a lack of quality in your writing as im sure you have already assumed. they are because of the sensitivity of the issue as is reffered to "nogeah bidavar" no pun intended thank you for the effort but again anybody will come up with some crroked way of thought to make themselves feel better and not have to change.
best of luck

Aypman1215
just want to respond to the negia article. i personally am shomer, and ive had numerous discussions with people who are not. there is one problem with logically explaining why one should be shomer, and that is that there are logical reasons to not be shomer. try explaining to a teenager that he or she should push off having fun, b/c years from now, that will most likely cause them to have a more filling relationship when they get married. most of them dont even want to think about a test that they have coming up in two days, let alone who knows how many years. it just doesnt enter the teenage mind. there is only one way to explain it, and that is only if the person is willing to accept God. The Good Lord told us thou shalt not have sexual relations with a woman who is a nidda, and considering unmarried girls dont go to the mikva, they all are. and our wise sages, who knew human nature probably a lot better than any of us, told us not to touch them, b/c one thing leads to another. i know that people will deny that (they always do), but i doubt that anyone who seriously thinks about it wont concede that one thing leads to another. that is the reason why one should be shomer, not b/c it will be better for a relationship, or any other reason, but b/c the Master of the Universe, who all would concede can have a say in the matter, told us "NO." the only reason why people dont accept this is b/c they dont care, they want to have fun. for those people, there is no way to convince them, but as long as they know that what theyre doing is wrong, then theyre at least on the right path


From AVRHMH
To Mr. Schoff,
Reading your reader's comments preturbed far more than the article per-say. While they had a point with the aunt issue it made me wonder if they all skipped over the bribery issues. Prehaps their need to fill their inborn desires (in a non-torah fashion) is blinding them to this issue. On the other hand the pasuk says that the intelligent are blinded and it would appear then that your reader's wouldn't have been blinded.It is a very simple fact that relationships of any kinds before marriage will ruin the sacnity of marriage. The highest divorce rate int he world is in Hollywood and it's not because they are lacking in "experience". It is also true that you didn't bring any sources prohibiting the touching. The messilat yesharim has a peice on the meaning of "lo sikrivu" which means do not come close. I'd also like to close with a line I heard from my Rabbi "Not everyone who touches agirl gets into trouble but everyone who's in trouble touched a girl." THanx for adressing a hard isueand keep in touch :-)

From mbs613
What I'd like to know is why Mr. Shoff, when presented with such an ideal forum to present Shemirat Negiah to a thinking audience, uses the same arguments we've all heard in high school, NCSY, and/or seminary/yeshiva. Also, an exposition of the actual Halakhot would be useful and lend some substance to this article, which seems to rely heavily on emotional appeals rather than analysis of the actual Halakhic obligations inherent in the subject.



From dg269
This is the biggest load of nonsense I've read in a while.

Mr. Shoff engages in a poor attempt to promote outdated Victorian sexual mores.

1. Mr. Shoff would like to have us believe that sex for pleasure is a bad thing. He would also like to have us believe that there's something meritorious in engaging in sexual activity with just one partner throughout the course of one's life. Oddly most of the Biblical personas disagreed with this line of reasoning. Jacob, the Patriarch about whose personal life the Bible has most to say, not only had two wives but also had plenty of sex with their maidservants. Abraham also had plenty of sex with women other than his wife, Sarah. King David's lust for Bathsheba produced the king who built the Lord's Temple in Jerusalem (who oddly enough was quite a ladies man himself). Strangely enough no one reports King David complaining when Abishag (whose name oddly enough contains the word 'shag') the Shunamite, the fairest virgin in all of Judah, jumped in bed with him when he had a much more "meaningful" relationships with Bathsheba and Michal.

2. I don't quite follow Mr. Shoff's convoluted line of reasoning about one's wife being beautiful because he never had any other women. What he seems to be saying by this is that one who never gets any play will be most appreciative of any play that comes his way. Maybe Mr. Shoff is right on this point but I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy who finds himself in that situation.

3. Mr. Shoff would like to have us believe that any touch before marriage is bad. Oddly Jacob didn't think so as he hugged and kissed Rachel when he first saw her.

4. Mr. Shoff would also like to have us believe that prostitution is 'abhorrent'. Oddly enough Judah didn’t think so, and had he followed Mr. Shoff's line of reasoning he would not have begot Perez from whom the lineage of David, Solomon, and ultimately the Messiah came about. Furthermore, the Rabbis of the Talmud recognized that a man at times needs to get his rocks off, and advised that in such a situation one should go to a city where he is not known and seek out a prostitute.

Mr. Shoff's arguments amount to pure fluff of the NCSY/Aish variety. One can argue that engaging in sexual contact with a ritually impure woman is a Biblical prohibition and for that reason one should desist from such conduct lest he face the wrath of the Lord. This is a valid argument. However this whole prudish diatribe about how one who doesn't get any play is somehow better off is just silly.



From David Kovsky Dear Mr. Shoff:
This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read. I have several serious reservations about this poorly written argument.

1. The attempts at logically linking complimenting one's wife on her beauty and touching failed miserably. What, Mr. Shoff, is the logical connection between being shomer negiah, healthy relationships, experience, and stating that one's wife is the "most beautiful." If a mother calls her children the most beautiful, does that suggest if better looking children come around, she will abandon her own in favor of other children? This is what the poor logic of your argument suggests. The correlation between the two, or the relevance between both concepts is vague at best and misleading at worst.

2. In paragraph 5 of your article, you state, "We all find the idea of prostitution abhorrent." Who is the "we" you are speaking for Mr. Shoff? I certainly do not find prostitution abhorrent. I know other people that do not find prostitution abhorrent. The elusive "we" you mention is poorly substantiated. It would serve better to speak for your own opinion and not presume to speak for any group of people without either citing the class designation you speak for, or at least giving credit to their opinion. Furthermore, your take a large step between selling sex for money and engaging in intimate contact for personal satisfaction. You fail to explain how the two are related. The Webster's dictionary defines prostitution as, The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire. The act or an instance of offering or devoting one's talent to an unworthy use or cause. Clearly, definition 1 does not apply. Definition two is a closer fit to what I am assuming you are trying to state with your faulty logic. Though you do state, "It almost becomes difficult to distinguish trading it for money with trading it for personal enjoyment," so I am not sure if definition 2 even relates to what you are saying. Definition 2, fails as well. "Engaging" in intimate contact is neither "offering" nor "devoting." Furthermore, those who to engage in sex for pleasure are not proffering a service which requires a talent, as definition two requires. Lastly, no connection is made between casual contact, kissing one's aunt and emotionless, sex-for-pleasure. Again, this is either a poorly constructed argument or a deliberate attempt to deceive those interested in a religious lifestyle or even those who might question their continued involvement in a religious way of life.

3. In the second to last paragraph you state, "When a person is dealing with the rest of his life, and his childrens lives, and his grandchildren’s lives, and their grandchildren’s lives; which is what a person does when looking for a marriage partner; it can be very hard to make a decision when one is physically involved with another person." Mr. Shoff, I implore you to desist making such logically incorrect statements. When a person is dealing with the rest of his life, he is inherently and justifiably being self-interested. The best possible candidate is someone that can form a strong relationship with you. Are you seriously advocating choosing a spouse based on their resume? Because they look good on paper? Mr. Shoff, you ignore the valuable role that a strong and healthy romance can have. The couple learns and grows together, can see where they click and where they do not click as well as, "test out" being together without all of the social, legal, and personal problems that accompany divorce. Again, like a well constructed illogical argument, it fails to mention how casual contact will affect the ability of a person to choose the best suitable spouse for him or her.

Perhaps your article would have been best to argue against premarital sex. With that comes responsibility that many are unable to handle. You did not, however, take that argument up. Instead you wrote this poor piece arguing the benefits of not touching, even in a casual context, and failed to make any meaningful and logical connections. I only hope that all readers are suspect of your motives and are not duped into just accepting your unsubstantiated contentions

Highly Disappointed,
David Kovsky

From Anonymous
The condescending tone is bad enough, but did you really think you were going to convert anybody with your spurious Magic Touch-type arguments? Perhaps this article is more suitable for a teenage, NCSY-type population, but you are addressing an intellectually sophisticated population in their 20's. I can only speak for myself, but I am not swayed by your faulty logic and assumptions. First of all, I find it unfortunate that for someone who seems to respect the Torah and its values, you reduce difficult and complicated Halachic concepts to pithy allegories. In the course of this article, you compared the issue of Negiah to: 1) a monetary investment 2) a candy shop 3) walking vs. flying (?) 4) prostitution 5) bribery and 6) a bullet.

Please give the Torah and your audience more credit. Issues cannot be boiled down so simply. The Rabbis consistently recognize that cultural, intellectual and societal innovations affect how we live our lives as Halachic Jews. They also acknowledge that while sex may be primarily for the purpose of procreation, it is also an intrinsically pleasurable activity and a man is OBLIGATED to please his wife. If it were as Mr. Shoff maintains, that having sex for pleasure only is equivalent to prostitution, the Rabbis would never have made the above statement.

In regards to your comment on bribery, suffice it to say that any man who marries somebody because he is blinded by lust for her and can't negotiate his way out of a pleasure-induced fog to make a serious decision deserves what he gets. I personally have more respect for the males of the world and don't think that this is the general case.

Finally, to the law student Benetton15: everyone knows the first rule of correlational analysis-- correlation does not imply causation. That is, just because there is a realtionship between the "free love" movement and a rise in the divorce rate doesn't mean one caused the other! In fact, people were having pre-marital sex long before the 1960's. What changed was it became more public and accepted, giving women the option of controlling their own contraception and not getting pregnant and forced into marriage at an early age. The "loose moral standards" initiated in the 60's also came at the same time as the civil rights and feminist movements. Perhaps this contributed to freeing women and giving them the ability to support themselves financially and physically, so they no longer had to rely on men to do so and be trapped in bad marriages. The movements in the 1960's cetainly led to some negative consequences but to say that the rise in divorce is by definition a result of this or even a bad thing is not a good automatic assumption. While some women may have been left alone and unsupported, I'm sure you agree that is better than being beaten on a regular basis. I'm positive the simple availablity of sex did not all of the sudden lead people to decide that marriage was worthless and meaningless. There is a much more complicated and interesting explanation.


From Diane B.
The parents of these so called negiah-niks are paying thousands of dollars for their children to have sex and play house. I'm sure this aunt gave a nice big check for the wedding. How do you explain the rising divorce rate amongst the frum? The rampant use of prostitution amongst the Chassids? Better to have a slow and evolving relationship based on mutual goals then one that begins with an explosion that is likely to fizzle.

From AndreaB
Mr. Schoff writes about Negiah seemingly to both convince those who do not avoid touching members of the opposite sex that they ought to, as well as support those who already subscribe to such practices. Unfortunately, the result is either preaching to the converted, or offensive to the heathen. Mr. Schoff exhibits a total lack of understanding of the value of touch, both in platonic relationships as well as romantic ones.

That nowadays people greet each other with perfunctory kisses that have very little meaning is perhaps not a great thing, but that the author finds it implausible to recognize any feelings other than inappropriate lust or utter numbness is disquieting, and reveals a certain immaturity. Touching is a very effective way of showing affection and support, as well as many other emotions. Often, we are able to express with one reassuring hand on the shoulder what we would have been unable to express in any number of words. Those who are unable to appreciate the value of such touches are the poorer for it, particularly because these touches do not involve any lustful or sexual components.

The communicative value of touch is not insignificant. Psychological studies have shown that babies who are touched by their parents several times a day grew up to be happier children and felt more loved because of the physical contact. As we grow up, the need for such contact does not diminish. This aspect of touching is entirely dismissed by Mr. Schoff, who cannot contemplate that these feelings can be elicited by touch.

Furthermore, I find Mr. Schoff's comment that people who have multiple relationships constantly compare their past partners to determine who was the best "x" or "y" insulting. Of course people compare their past partners. Even those who do not share physical relationships engage in such activity. Those who are shomer negiah are no less interested in how intelligent or attractive a person was. But more importantly, when we make these comparisons, the reason is not to find "the best looking" or "the smartest," rather, we compare to ensure that we find "the best for me." The determination of who is the best for me is based on a number of factors which vary from person to person, and may include physical compatibility, but it does not solely consist of that one factor. That Mr. Schoff is unable or unwilling to recognize this is very disheartening. Why should my relationship, because it is based on a larger cross-section of compatibility factors, be less valuable than someone else's, simply because mine has a physical component?

Being physical in more than one relationship does not devalue any of those relationships. Each relationship is taken on its own, and is valuable in its own right. Frequently, past experiences lead one to appreciate what they share with their partner even more. To say that being physical is valueless outside of the context of marriage is misplaced. For many, it may not have value, and that is certainly one view. But it is not the only view. Just as I would never presume to tell someone that it is wrong for them to avoid physcial contact, I expect the same in my case. It may be wrong for some to be physical before marriage, just as it may be wrong for some to have a lot of caffeine. But is is certainly wrong to pass judgment on those who choose to do differently than you without having experienced it. Although sometimes physicality can be a negative, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is a positive, meaningful, valuable enhancement to a relationship.

From Anonymous:
"The first person either husband or wife will ever touch in a passionate manner is their spouse. They have SOMETHING EXPLOSIVE TOGETHER" - YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!!

From Jordan Hiller
Same old recycled crap in my opinion. clearly this writer rolled with artscroll all the way from the sad, simplistic allegories to the patronizing and condescending writing style. A very anti-intellectual anti-feeling take on a very serious and deeply psychological subject.

From Benetton15
Dear Mr. Schoff,
Your article was both eloquent and poignant (I was going to use the word "touching" but decided against it). You are to be commended for using your obvious writing talents to benefit the Jewish people as a whole. I am a law student who in the hour before reading your article was researching proposed legislation to undo the ill effects of the no-fault divorce acts of the 1970's. Many of the Law Review articles that I was reading gave statistics on how the loose moral standards initiated in the 1960's have had the devastating effects of wiping out the meaning of the institution of marriage and also leaving many women alone and unsupported, the antithesis of any possible goals that the early proponents of "free love" had in mind. I was just thinking that an article needs to be written to exhort the Jewish people as a whole not to fall prey to such ideology, and your essay, although not addressing the mind-numbing statistics that I encountered in terms of number of single people and percentage of divorces that ensued since the 1960's, came close to what I had in mind. Please continue to use your capabilities to be mezakeh the rabbim. Yashar Kochacha!


From shokoladlover
The article on shomer negiya has one basic flaw. The rules of shomer negiya were set with the assumption that individuals get married at the age of 20,21,22. However, we now have a world-wide situation (Upper West Side, Katamon, etc) where there are people in their late 20s and 30s who are not married. You can debate the reason why as much as you want, but the reality is that we were created as sexual beings with feelings. As much as sex is glamorized in the media, it is still an intrinsic human value. Why are "singles" to be denied access to this? Not just sex, but no touching at all? Furthermore, I have not heard one Rabbi address the problem of sex and the so-called single community. When Rabbis have an issue that needs to be addressed, answers are sought and loopholes are found to accommodate. I am not suggesting that sex be made available carte blanche and that it should be a free-for-all, because it is a serious step to take with someone, particularly for women, who, as a whole, have a more difficult time separating the physical from the emotional. That being said, I find it hypocritical to have individuals who have been having sex from a younger age to preach to me to be completely shomer negiya when I am 28 and not married. Try and walk in my shoes for a day before you are so quick to judge me.

Suggestions, anyone?

From ETdancter
the article was excellent. i sent it to all my friends but i think that since u failed to put in the accual halachick source for the prohibition of nigeah- it lacked some back up- and some ppl need that.

From Mend100
Two points:
1) So many words, so little said.
2) During relationships, couples engage in, at most, two activities: Speaking lashon hara, and fooling around. Because the former is far more serious, the latter should be encouraged at all costs (Guard your tongue; Chapter 8).

From BYM284:
Excellent article. However I don't think that somebody who feels nothing when kissing his aunt ethel is necessarily desensitized to touch it just means that he isn't at all attracted to his aunt. The Shulchan Aruch, however, says something along the lines of that although one isn't attracted to his aunt it is still foolish to kiss her. Once again thank you for the article I enjoyed it, and I hope it is "mitchazek" others as well

From Josh
Elchanan, I saw this article over a year ago and i never reaalized it had such potential to go so far. At the risk of sounding like a onlysimchas maidel, i must say, I am v proud. Your voice is outstanding. U acquit both urself and the traditonalist perspective well. I only hope we see more of ur Torah in the future. I'll prob post a rebuttal to u, as a sign of my deep affection.
http://chakira.blog-city.com

From Isaac Shalev
I was very disappointed by the narrow vision and disrespectful tone of this article. I have no problems with someone saying that negiah is wrong and prohibited because God has so commanded us – if only that were true. However, a rigorous halachic review of the question would indicate that the negiah is prohibited not based upon the marital status of the participants, but based upon the nidah status of the woman. Which is to say that technically, if an unmarried woman went to the mikveh, it would be permissible for her to touch a man, and vice versa. Now certainly, halacha frowns upon such a practice, and Mikveh ladies do not permit unmarried women to immerse for this reason. But nevertheless, the argument that touching itself is the core problem is a misrepresentation of the underlying halachic issues.

Of even greater concern is the narrowness of the worldview represented in this article. Non-Jews, for example, have no halachic prohibition of nidah, and consequently, no prohibition on negiah. Does this mean that all intimate relationships between non-Jews are comparable to prostitution, or that when non-Jews search for a spouse, it’s okay for their search to be ‘tainted’ by the impact of touch on their judgment? The logic of this article seems to indicate that this is so – a position which I find unacceptable. The halachas of nidah were given to the Jewish people as part of our general obligations of Kedusha and Tahara, which do not apply to non-Jews. Attempting to stretch them beyond their context, and by thus doing devalue the relationships of non-Jews, is a fundamental error, even if it is an accidental one. While I agree that it is unsatisfying to say only that negiah is prohibited because the halacha says so, I think one needs to be careful to find meaning that is specific to the Jewish tradition in establishing the importance of the observance of the laws of nidah and negiah.

Additionally, I’m troubled by the logical leaps made in this article. For example, regarding kissing my Aunt, the article seems to suggest that there are only two possible feelings that I could have when kissing my aunt: either impermissible feelings of lust, or no feeling whatsoever. That’s patently ridiculous. I can have perfectly appropriate feelings of familial love for my aunt which I express by kissing her (and that’s without getting into the question of whether kissing my aunt is permitted if she’s not a nidah…) Additionally, regarding the argument made in the fourth paragraph of the article, appreciation of what you have is only truly possible if you know what else is out there, and despite knowing the alternatives, you value what you have. To value what you have because you don’t know any better is better described as ignorance, not true appreciation. Note, this does not mean that you need to have sexual experience in order to value your spouse! Shallow indeed is the relationship in which value is determined based primarily upon sexual aptitude. More to the point, the quality of sex in a real relationship is never about the particular physical skills or attributes that each person has – any marriage counselor can tell you that sex is mostly about emotion, not physicality.

Finally, the article implies that physical contact outside of the context of marriage is always solely for physical pleasure. This statement is as offensive as it is inaccurate. The love that exists between people is what charges their physical contact with meaning, not their marital status. Physical contact between unmarried people is just as capable of expressing love as the contact between married people. While Judaism may feel that such expression is inappropriate outside of the context of marriage, it cannot legislate the meaning that people invest in their actions. I’m not denying that physical contact is pleasurable, I’m saying that this pleasure is not necessarily the goal of physical contact, just because such contact occurred between unmarried individuals.

I am not suggesting that negiah is permissible or appropriate between unmarried Orthodox Jews. Certainly, our received tradition speaks to the contrary. As such, I have great respect for those who observe the laws of negiah, but I strongly resent this effort to diminish and shame those who do not.



From Cherie C.
I enjoyed reading you negiah article.
It was both thoughtful and well supported, which I appreciate.
The part about kissing your aunt was a little disturbing though. You say that if you are having inappropriate thoughts that's wrong, and I totally buy that- but if you aren't, then you are "feeling nothing?" What about love for your family? That is not "nothing" nor is it inappropriate (by which I assume you mean sexual).

What do you feel when you kiss your Mother for instance? Love and affection I would hope, maybe more, but certainly nothing inappropriate.

The line is a lot more blurry when it comes to non-family members of course so perhaps the Aunt example was not the clearest.

Good work for speaking out so clearly on such a "sensitive" topic.


From A. Cohen
Wonderful article, bravo!

From Michael Firestone
I agree that "touching," within the context of a relationship, both creates and reflects the value that two people invest in their relationship, i.e., their love. But two people can be in love and unmarried, and presumabely, when they touch, they are expressing their love in the same way that married people are.

The unspoken subtext of Mr. Shoff's article isn't that being shomer negiah is a way of valuing physical contact. It's that physical contact is only valuable if the two people involved are married. Now, from a religious perspective, Mr. Shoff is making a reasonable statement. Orthodox Judaism is not in favor of sexual contact between unmarried people because of issues relating to niddah, tzniut, etc. But from a realistic perspective, to actually believe that all sexual contact between unmarried people is valueless, hedonistic, and the equivalent of "selling it for money" -- which Mr. Shoff seems to believe -- is patently ridiculous.

But this is not surprising. The right wing, which Mr. Shoff so eloquently represents, has as its object the complete negation of all contrary values and ideas. It is no longer enough to disagree with a different way of leading one's life; now the value of alternative modes of living must be entirely denied and distorted.

So if Mr. Shoff and his ilk wish to interpret the Torah to deny all physical contact, fine -- right or wrong, they have every right to do so. But they have neither the right -- nor the worldly knowledge -- to deny the value of every act of negiah that has transpired between unmarried people throughtout history and into today.