[Avodah] Habituation

[Samuel Svarc]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:32 AM, kennethgmiller at juno.com
<kennethgmiller at juno.com> wrote:
> >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.

Incorrect. 'Oseh makom' is assur to look at, if ones very looking is
distracted then we have 'heterim'.

> 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?

You're conflating a stock issur of seeing 'ervah' which is not
dependent on 'hanaah' and is only mitigated when the seeing itself is
distracted, with an issur that is dependent on 'hirur -hanaah',
namely, touching.

> 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.

Not every 'eravah' is the same. Some are ervah like 'oseh makom' and
others are dependent on their 'hirur-quotient' to 'pasul' tefillah.
Meaning they remain ervahs but don't pasul the tefilah. That is the
basis for the AH.

> 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?

What is there to justify? Did R' Acha make a brocha while in front of
an ervah or some such? No. So what 'issur' is left to discuss? The
discussion is if that contact will lead to 'hirur' and thereby be
'assur'. Chazal seemed to have trusted R' Acha that there was no
'hirur'. I personally wouldn't trust anyone alive today if he made
such a statement or I would at least check to see if he was a eunuch.

> 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.

This is true in regard to *touch*, yes. However, will he 'mattir'
someone raised in a nudist colony to make a brocha in front of and
looking at 'oseh makom'? If he doesn't, I fail to see what the
relevancy is.

KT,
MSS