[Avodah] Habituation

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

>From the lack of restrictions on doctors, I had concluded that the principle of habituation *is* widely accepted.

but R' Zev Sero corrected me:
> And here's where, AIUI, you go wrong: the heter is not
> habituation but distraction.  He is busy with his work, and
> the context makes him see the person before him not as a
> woman but as an anatomical construction that is either
> functioning or not.  Similarly, a photographer sees a female
> subject not as a woman but as an object to be manipulated so
> as to properly integrate into the composition.

and R' Rich Wolpoe gave another example:
> Watching animals mate is assur because it provokes hirhur
> However, a farmer is allowed to physically mate two animals
> mamash with his hands - because due to the work/tirda he is
> simply too occupied to have hirhurim.
> I don't recall the specific daf 

to which R' David Riceman offered:
> BM 91a, EH 23:3.

Thanks very much, all of you. I stand corrected. The physician's habituation is *not* the only factor which allows him to do these things.

But even so, I think it is still fair to say that these examples all prove that the acts of touching, seeing, or listening to ervah are not *inherently* assur. They are assur only when they bring one to hirhur or hanaah. The only difference between my first guess and these responses, is in the mitigating circumstances which hold the hirhur/hanaah down to the zero level.

At weddings, Rav Acha used to carry the kallah on his shoulders, explaining that she was merely like a wooden beam to him. (Kesubos 17a) Was Rav Acha *distracted* by Mitzvas Simchas Chasan v'Kallah? Or was there simply an undeniable reality that he was unaffected by this contact? Either way, **IF** one can be equally sure of being unaffected by [whatever], then where is the issur?

Isn't this exactly what the Aruch Hashulchan was referring to in his p'sak (O"C 75:7) about saying brachos in the presence of a married woman's uncovered hair? His view clearly seems to be that because we can safely presume that the average man's hirhur/hanaah will be insignificant, therefore it becomes mutar for him to say brachos there.

Those who disagree with that Aruch Hashulchan seem to hold that it is inherently assur for a man to say brachos in the presence of a married woman's uncovered hair, regardless of his not getting any hirhur/hanaah from it. How do those poskim justify Rav Acha's contact with the kallah?

I want to stress that I am NOT campaigning for any particular act to be considered mutar or assur. Quite the contrary, it seems to me that *none* of these acts are inherently assur or inherently mutar -- they must *all* be evaluated in light of the norms of the society and the sensitivity of the individual. If it can be safely presumed that no significant hirhur/hanaah will result, then it is mutar, else it is assur.

A similar thought appears in "Understanding Tzniut" by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, on page 95, where he writes:

"As opposed to any touching at all between husband and wife when she is in a state of niddah, which is explicitly forbidden in the Shulchan Aruch [Yoreh Deah 195:2...], no such sweeping prohibition of all physical contact is found in relation to other 'arayot. Thus, while the Shulchan Aruch [Even ha-Ezer 21:1] forbids numerous forms of interaction with 'arayot including winks and gestures and pleasurable gazing, simple touching without intention of affect is not one of them."

In other words, Rabbi Henkin is unaware of any *inherent* issurim in this area. None of these issurim is *always* in effect. They *all* carry the stipulation of being in effect *only* when they cause some amount of hirhur/hanaah.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Click to find the latest solutions to enhance your small business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=LQ_YDXNhocbGhEFbN5X2UAAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=