Talk:Negiah

removed a list of related prohibitions which was somewhat out of the scope of this article. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

siblings

I have removed that touching siblings is permitted. Shulkhan Arukh:Even HaEzer 21, 7

המחבק או המנשק אחת מהעריות שאין לבו של אדם נוקפו עליהם, כגון אחותו הגדולה ואחות אביו וכיוצא בהם, אע"פ שאין לו שום הנאה כלל הרי זה מגונה ביותר ודבר איסור הוא ומעשה טפשים, שאין קרובים לערוה כלל, בין גדולה בין קטנה, חוץ מהאב לבתו ומהאם לבנה

Jon513 17:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And as for that as a result of that, I like to know why that was removed and if that true that in Negiah, People aren't allowed to touch thier Siblings of the opposite sex or not.- Jana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.234.188 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not permitted. The translation of the Shulchan Aruch above is:

"one who hugs or kisses one of the forbidden close relative that one is not naturally attracted to, for example a sister or aunt, even though there is absolutely no pleasure in it, it is extremely disgusting, a forbidden act, and a foolish act. [the general rule is] Don't come close to forbidden relations at all, whether old or young, except for a father to his daughter and mother to her son."

the Shulcahn aruch is one of the most authoritative compilations of Jewish Law. Jon513 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So thank you Jon513 for your answer.-Jana There is something disturbing about a religion that forbids brothers from hugging sisters because it might be "sexual". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.11.90 (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be in the article? I just looked up the article because I was curious about whether people who were shomer negiah could touch close relatives (I was specifically wondering whether a father could hug his adult daughter or a mother her son, which the SA seems to permit.). If the Shulchan Aruch has a clear statement, perhaps that should go in the article. I don't feel remotely qualified to edit an article on halakha, but I'll toss the suggestion out there. -- Narsil (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is not strictly correct. I do not believe this is an absolute prohibition. Basically it is a gray area, so the article is correct in leaving it out.Mzk1 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I see two contradictory statements about this. The introduction says close relatives are exempt from the prohibition. The next section gives forbidden approach of relatives as first source for the prohibition. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

John needs to check the Comentaries there, whom are nearly unanimous in permitting even hugging between brother and sister. The bais yosef does not agree with them because of his rejection of "for the sake of heaven" as being an error. 85.250.69.188 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Talmudic Source

I know it says Shabbat 12, but reading through that daf, I don't see anything regarding negiah. Could someone check this out -- just want a clarification. Thanks!!

Try Shabbat 13a, around 8 lines from the bottom. Thanks for pointing this out - I will change it. --DLand 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctors and Dentists

My understanding is that physicians and dentists are permitted to touch members of the opposite gender since it's done in the course of their professional duties. Hence, it's permitted regardless of whether a life is in danger.

Can anyone confirm if I'm correct (the article implies otherwise)?

I believe that is correct. I would be better if you can source it. Jon513 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the June 6 revision created that implication. I will restore the prior version.

The permit for medical professionals to touch members of the opposite sex ('misasek b'melachto' - 'engaged in his profession' - and hence not sexual) is in the laws of Niddah (Yoreh Deah 192). Although note explicitly dealt with in the text of the Shulchan Aruch, the commentators develop the theme - particularly the Shach.

The reasoning for this permit is not, as is commonly suppposed, because of 'sakonos nefoshos' (saving lives). Most opinions follow the ruling of the Rif that all sexual prohibitions (including those which do not involve full intercourse) are included in ' yehoreg va'al ya'avor' category - prohibitions over which human life does not take precedence.

Menses

Negiah, as it is generally understood, is a distinct law from Niddah#Guiding_marital_relations. I think the references to ritually unclean and menses should be removed.

you are right, the laws of niddah are stricter. In any event it needs to be changed, as now it implies that there is no prohibition if the woman is a non-niddah. Jon513 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While niddah is not, strictly speaking, the underlying categorical prohibition protected by the issur negiah, nevertheless, as negiah is so often commonly thought of and experienced regarding non-family members where niddah IS the underlying cause, a reference to hilchos niddah is mandatory for this entry to have any explanatory value whatsoever.

Relations with Gentiles

I think it may be appropriate to include a section to explain why, when a person observes negiah, that some Western social conventions, like handshaking, are not used with a person of the opposite sex. As a gentile, it took me a while to understand that this is not a form of snubbing but a gesture of respect. What do others think?

go for it. Jon513 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Avi: I marked this section as biased.

It is my understanding that the purpose of negiah is to avoid a man's inappropriate sexual arousal. This would cause a Jewish woman refusing to shake hands with a man, Jewish or otherwise to imply that the man would be inappropriately sexually aroused by the touch. I think a person would be justified in being offended to be on the receiving end of such an assumption. Also, since the rule (at least in many Haredi circles) applies to the unmarried as well, this also cannot be interpreted strictly as a "respect for the Jewish person's spouse." 65.96.163.228 03:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of negiah is not "to avoid a man's inappropriate sexual arousal." It is, rather, a Biblically instituted safeguard -- a preventative measure for sexual misconduct. It does not constitute an assumption that a man (Jew or non-Jew alike) will become sexually aroused by a handshake. The theory of negiah is that by avoiding all physical contact, more intimate contact will inevitably be avoided as well. I don't know if that clears anything up for you, but feel free to comment. --DLand^TALK 04:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Avi: First to the best of my knowledge the prohibition is not Biblical (if you feel I am mistaken please cite your source - I'd be very interested). I know of several verses that might be used to source this, e.g. ) it's a stretch to say that's what those verses are referring to, and b) you then have to deal with the fact that Negiah is clearly happening in the Bible (e.g. Yaakov/Jacob and Rachel at their first meeting - Genesis 29:11).

Secondly I feel like you are rephrasing. If you are saying that it is a "preventative measure for sexual misconduct" there is the implication that sexual misconduct might occur. So it is essentially saying "I will not shake your hand to prevent your having sex with me," instead of "I will not shake your hand to avoid your being sexually aroused by it." If anything I feel your version is perhaps more offensive, not less so.

Please let me be clear. There are many times people feel justified to insult others in the name of G-d; e.g. refusing to eat at your mother's house if she doesn't keep kosher, not going to a Jewish colleague's wedding because he is marrying a Gentile, etc. But I think they should be aware that they are indeed insulting people by it. Those who choose to adhere to these practices are choosing them over avoiding insult or shame to another person. I'm not trying to judge people who make those decisions, but I think people should just be aware that a choice is being made and think about it when they decide.

Ok, to address your concerns as best as possible - firstly it is not unanimously agreed that the prohibition is Biblical, but according to Maimonides (in Issurei Biah 21:1) it is Biblical, based on Leviticus 18:6. In terms of Biblical figures, the stories that are recounted in Genesis all took place before the Torah was given at Mount Sinai, and they were not commanded in most Biblical laws as such. (Incidentally, this topic is the subject of far-reaching theological debate, not limited to the laws of negiah.)

I don't think that I was merely "rephrasing". The point that I was making is that the prohibition of negiah is not an attempt to foist the Torah's morality on others. Rather, negiah is meant as a safeguard for the woman who avoids a handshake herself (in your example). If you still find this offensive, there's not much that I, nor anyone can do to change that. I do think that the tone of the article as it is now could stand to be less preachy and more encyclopedic. I'll work on that if I get a chance. --DLand^TALK 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Avi: Leviticus 18:6 reads "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD." There is no mention of touching and the verse is referring to blood relatives. That this is a Biblical prohibition onshaking hands with a member of the opposite sex seems to be quite a stretch. Additionally, if you look at this verse in the context of the entire chapter it is one of a long list of prohibitions of women with whom a man may not be sexually intimate. A woman shaking hands with a gentile man would certainly not be included here.

Further, I understand that the problem of the observance of Biblical commandments in the Bible itself is a problem and subject of debate (as you point out). Some people have chosen to interpret this verse as an issur negiah, and explain that the patriarchs didn’t observe it because the Torah wasn’t given yet. However, in many cases those same people state that the reason Abraham gave his three guests butter before the tongue was to observe the kashrus laws that he somehow knew intuitively. So the same people often offer contradictory opinions on this issue. Furthermore, it seems to be an equally valid position to say that say Jacob was not in violation of Leviticus 18:6 when he kissed Rachel by interpreting that verse more literally, as opposed to building the “it was before the Torah was given” argument for it.

Regarding the comment of Maimonides in Issurei Biah:

רמב"ם הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק כא הלכה א

כל הבא על ערוה מן העריות דרך איברים או שחבק ונשק דרך תאוה ונהנה בקרוב בשר הרי זה לוקה מן התורה, שנאמר לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות וגו' ונאמר לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, כלומר לא תקרבו לדברים המביאין לידי גילוי ערוה.

Roughly translates as “Anyone who approaches one of the forbidden “arayos” (people with whom it is forbidden to have sexual relations) either with his limbs or hugs and kisses in a lustful way and takes enjoyment from the closeness of flesh this is forbidden by the Torah, as it says “not to act in abominable ways etc.” and as it says “Do not approach someone to uncover nakedness.” as if to say do not come close to things that bring one to ‘exposing nakedness.’ (euphemism for sexual intercourse).

I’ll emphasize here that this is referring to acting in a lustful way with one of the forbidden relatives listed in Leviticus 18 (quote he brings at the end as the source for the prohibition). A well-adjusted person would not consider a handshake an act of lust.

Finally, your comment of "If you still find this offensive, there's not much that I, nor anyone can do to change that." really is precisely the point. People DO find this offensive, and my initial comment was to point this out, despite the main article's assurances. In South Africa is is considered highly offensive to cover your mouth or wear a mask because someone else is coughing - but many people do anyway to avoid contracting tuberculosis. Sometimes people feel the need to do things that will insult or shame others (for example if they believe it is a command from G-d, or to avoid getting a dreadful disease). They should just be aware of what they are doing and not pretend that it’s not there, and that there are other commandments that prohibit shaming people as well.

e.g. Sotah 10b that says, "It is better to throw oneself into a fiery furnace rather than embarrassing someone in public." and examples of this in Kesuvos 67b.

Numbers 22:32 Rashi elaborates on the death of the talking donkey, "....[the angel] killed her, so that people would not say, 'This is the donkey that caused Bilaam's downfall through her chastisement' because G-d has consideration for human dignity."

Pirkei Avos 3:11 "Rabbi Elazar of Modin said, one who desecrates sacred objects, one who disgraces the festivals, one who shames his fellow in public, one who annuls the covenant of our forefather Abraham, or one who interprets the Torah not according to Jewish law -- even if he has Torah [study] and good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come."

Sanhedrin 107a: They say to me [David] "What manner of death befalls he who has relations with a married woman?” I [David] said to them “He is executed with strangulation, and then receives a portion in the world to come; however, one who shames his fellow in public has no portion in the world to come.”

65.96.163.228 19:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How about just quoting it from a source. That should satisfy everyone. I think there is a book "the magic touch" or something like that. I'll look it up. Jon513 14:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Avi: Another source that people might find helpful is this New York Times Magazine "The Ethicist Column." Not to say this is the "correct" answer, but I think to some it might be as illustrative as the perspective of the book. I just don't like the implication in the article that someone who is offended by this behavior is somehow being unreasonable, and felt that was a biased position.

Sunday New York Times Magazine of October 27, 2002

Q. The courteous and competent real-estate agent I'd just hired to rent my house shocked and offended me when, after we signed our contract, he refused to shake my hand, saying that as an Orthodox Jew he did not touch women. As a feminist, I oppose sex discrimination of all sorts. However, I also support freedom of religious expression. How do I balance these conflicting values? Should I tear up our contracts?

A. This culture clash may not allow you to reconcile the values you esteem. Though the agent dealt you only a petty slight, without ill intent, you're entitled to work with someone who will treat you with the dignity and respect he shows his male clients. If this involved only his own person-adherence to laws concerning diet or dress, for example-you should of course be tolerant. But his actions directly affect you. And sexism is sexism, even when motivated by religious convictions. I believe you should tear up your contract. Had he declined to shake hands with everyone, there would be no problem. What he may not do, however, is render a class of people untouchable.

You may or may not recall that Randy Cohen, the so-called "Ethicist", was reviled and anathematized throughout the Orthodox community for this response. Just because something appears in the New York Times doesn't mean it's not unreasonable, as shown by Mr. Cohen's incredibly ignorant and insensitive take on Jewish law. Some hundreds of letters came pouring in to the Times in outrage over the column, as referenced here, hardcore feminists included, as referenced here. A more detailed take on the debacle can be found here.

While Wikipedia may not be the place for religious apologetics, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for the advocacy of religious intolerance and certainly not for demagoguery, let alone anti-halakhic demagoguery. --DLand^TALK 03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Avi: I really don't think my prior strings suggest I am advocating religious intolerance. I find it a little odd you are fighting my so-called 'demagoguery' with citations from strictly Orthodox Jewish sources like Aish HaTorah, particularly since the issue at hand is whether Gentiles may or may not be offended; with the question posed to the Ethicist being a pretty clear indicator for the former. I would also like to point out that Aish HaTorah et al you have cited have the same biased position I oppose in the article e.g. "Cohen should have answered: It was your decision to be 'shocked and offended.'". See all above halachic citations about not offending others.

I repeat, all I mean to illustrate throughout was that the article is biased in that it suggests that any reasonable Gentile would view this practice as totally acceptable and not lacking in courtesy. This is incorrect, and a biased position on the part of many practitioners. Your citations here illustrate that Orthodox Jews can convince themselves that it is not offensive. My point is that Gentiles might well be offended. I would be interested to see any sources you might have from non-Jewish sources that suggest the woman's feelings were so unreasonable.

On a separate issue, in the discussion above there have been no good citations for the prohibition.

Finally, my discussion has not been "anti-Halachic"; it has been illustrating the fact that Gentiles may be offended by the practice contrary to what is indicated in the main article. I have also by-the-way pointed out that offending people is anti-Halachic & I have cited my sources for the comments I have made.

I have rewritten the section, being careful to quote sources. I hope that this version can be agree upon by all. Jon513 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Avi: I used most of your sources, but rewrote it a bit to be more a discussion of how people view it, as opposed to just a discussion of the Ethicist article. I hope this is okay.

65.96.163.228 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't do any good to quote sources if you go beyond those sources. A statement is still WP:OR if it is not fully sources. For example, there is a source for what Jonathan Rosenblum there isn't one that show that this is the view of "orthodox groups". Also you imply that Cohen was offended because of the Rambam which is ridiculous (or at least unsourced). And to say that Leviticus 18:6 implies that the prohibition is focused on a man is WP:OR -- All of the prohibition in Leviticus 18 are from the male perspective, this doesn't mean that women are included any less. I agree that non-religious Jews can be offended just as much as non-Jews (in fact Cohen appears to be a non-religious Jew) I have no objection to it being added but I think it is a bit silly, since it clear from context. Jon513 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Avi: To address your concerns: 1) I think that citing Jonothan Rosenblum as an "unofficial spokesman of the Haredi community" is not a particularly meaningful position, and I think it is misleading to imply that he represents the community as a whole, which he certainly does not. I've added "some" to "Orthodox groups" and cite Rosenblum as an example.

2) I imply that Cohen was offended because he viewed it as sexism, not because of the Rambam. Since he states that explicitly in his response, I don't think that is too much of a stretch. I've changed the wording of this as well to avoid misunderstanding.

3) I think that one who is reading the text would agree that this was certainly formulated as a prohibition on the male (grammar, all-female objects of the prohibitions). You will note above that DLand cites this as the source for what is considered by many to be a Biblical prohibition. The commandments in this section are not applicable to women (e.g. being intimate with a stepmother), so suggesting that this one verse is an exception is really not speaking from the text itself. I really haven't seen convincing sources to show that a woman is included in this prohibition, except incidentally (i.e. since a man can't touch a woman, de facto she won't be touching him, since she will cause him to violate a prohibition - which really isn't the same).

4) Just trying to be thorough :). I've changed this as well to be less specific. 65.96.163.228 19:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1, I changed the wording to explain how Rosenblum is an "unofficial spokesman", I hope we can agree with that. 3, You said that "one who is reading the text would agree that this was certainly formulated as a prohibition on the male". This is wrong. Classical rabbinical interpretation is that both the man and woman are equally guilty. all the section is applicable to women except homosexually. A man cannot have sex with his mother-in-law; a woman cannot have sex with her son-in-law. This is stated explicitly in the rambam (Kedushah (Holiness), Issurei Biah (forbidden sexual relations), 1:1) which expound from Leviticus 18:29 (the pural words "and those soul will be cut off") that both the man and the woman are guilty. 4, by being less specific you have not been thorough but have gone beyond what the source say. This is WP:OR. Jon513 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Avi: I really must disagree with you.

1. I don't see this change.

3. This is not wrong. You open the Biblical text, and if you know Biblical Hebrew grammar you know that the prohibition is formulated in the masculine. That's not original research. The Rambam shows up ~2000 years later and says no the text actually meant both men and women. That's also a fair thing to put in an encyclopedia but it certainly doesn't make the former invalid or "original research."

4. Saying "Some people are offended" and "some people view it as sexist" is entirely supported by the Ethicist article I cited (e.g.in the Q the woman was "shocked and offended" and Cohen's sexism in the name of religion is still sexism clearly suggests that he view the practice as sexist. My statement was supported; please explain why you think it is not.

I would suggest perhaps renaming your version of the section perhaps "Negiah in the News" I think that would be more appropriate for that material than "Relations with Gentiles", particularly since some of it is seems irrelevant (e.g. that Rosenblum thinks Cohen's remarks are because of his Jewish background(?)).

YM: I just added a quick overview of some of the development of the halachot of Negiah.

why are you calling me avi? and can you please create an account it is very difficult to talk to an IP address. Jon513 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not calling you Avi - just indicating where my comments begin. I created an account so that should help. Avi9505 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote much of the article based on the sources you add (that was really great source work BTW). My main problem with what you wrote is that it never actually said what the law of negiah are. Also your presentation of source drifted in WP:OR. I also separated the actual laws of handshaking and how people feel about handshaking. I also think that the section of "source" and "Laws" fits better than a chronological listing of sources. Jon513 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

YM: This 'edit' is more like a revert.

The article after this 'edit' presents only the contemporary orthodox formulation of Negiah and none of the positions of the Gedolim on what is actually prohibited. This version censors the medrash halakha, the Rambam, the Ramban, the Semag, the Shulchan Aruch, the Mordechai, the Bet Shemuel, and the Helkat Mehokek, all of which were discussed in the prior version. I took pains to fairly and accurately portray the positions of these sources, and comparing the source material to my account of it will verify this.

By citing sources in the context of a contemporary formulation of Negiah, this article gives the completely false impression that those sources actually held the contemporary opinion. That is simply not so, as I made clear in my version of the article where I simply said what the sources wrote. Explaining what the sources write is not original research as long as one sticks closely to the text, any more than it is original research to read the ethicist column and then write: "Randy Cohen...criticized a male Orthodox real-estate agent" That isn't original research. It's reading.

There is also no reference whatsoever to the positions of the Rema, the Levush, the Bet Shemuel, and the Helkat Mehokek in this version of the article. To include the Shulchan Aruch but not the Rema is just cherry-picking; the Rema clearly doesn't hold by a complete prohibition of physical contact between males and females. He just doesn't. I'm sorry he doesn't, but it's not my fault and your censoring the Rema is just not right. Mind you the Mordechai, the Bet Shemuel, and the Helkat Mehokek are nothing to sneeze at either, and they clearly hold like the Rema.

You say: "My main problem with what you wrote is that it never actually said what the law of negiah are."

The problem is that this is completely impossible in the context of discussing sources from the Antiquity and the Middle ages, since the term 'Negiah' originated later, emerging out of the discussion of 'Chibbuk V'Nishuk', 'Ervah', and 'Hirhur' that arises in the classical sources. In Aharonim 'Negiah' refers to touching, but beforehand it rarely does and none of the sources brought by earlier articles as sources for Negiah ever formulate an explicit prohibition on 'Negiah.' 'Negiah' in so many words is a modern concept class. For the present version of the article to ignore that basic fact which is apparent in all the 'sources' it cites is totally inappropriate.

Also, the new version blatantly reverted to the version of the discussion at the bottom which excludes a contemporary luminary like R. Michael Broyde who has acknowledged that there are legitimate tensions involved with the practice of handshaking that an intelligent person can have. It also leaves out the YU Career text, which acknowledges and respects the fact that hilchot Negia can be a source of tension, reflecting an important reality affecting Modern Orthodoxy.

Instead of a balanced article presenting the history of the prohibition, which is what the previous version was, the article currently reads as an amateurish summary reflecting no acumen for the writing and reading of historical sources.

Moreover, this new version contains typos, grammatical errors, and factual errors.

The new version of the article reflects blatant religious whitewashing, apologetics, and polemicism. YM0107 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, thank you for changing to the disambiguation template. That edit was helpful. YM0107 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed back to the old version, see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. I will of course gladly work together to improve this text, but the repeated reverting of the contributions of Avi and myself is contrary to Wiki policy and is to the detriment of this article. YM0107 22:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed some of the insterstitial comments in my discussion of the sources to make it as clear as possible that I am simply presenting the views of the sources without any 'novel' judgment as to their historical significance.

I think the article really needs a fuller treatment of the relevant talmudical and medrashic texts, as well as a more complete account of the positions of Aharonim, as only Moshe Feinstein is really discussed. Coverage of Rishonim is also incomplete. Probably if someone has Ellinson's books lying around, they could fill in a lot of blanks. YM0107 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have to quote every rabbi who says the same thing? as it stands now all the article says is touching in a lustful or affectionate manner is prohibited. how many sources do we need for that. Jon513 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

are you the same anonymous editor as before? if so who is Avi9505? I didn't leave out the YU Career text, I put it in a footnote and refered to it as "others permit...". I did not censor out the rema because I disagree with him, I removed it because it confuses the issue. I main halacha of negia is no touching of the opposite sex in a lustful of affectionate way. I assume that the rema permitted it because that touching is not lustful or affectionate. This is the same as a doctor, or dentist. You write as if I remove twenty sources. but it was really just that one paragraph which just quoted 4 people saying the same thing. I am not attempting to whitewash anything, Please assume good faith.

I removed Michael Broyde since he was talking about a public policy not halacha.

I may have "no acumen" in reading historical source, but you have too much insight into the sources which is great, but not for an encyclopedia. You may think it is obvious that there has been a great amount of evolution in the laws of negiah (I do not), and you may think that it is easily seen from the source (I do not), but that is exactly what WP:OR prohibits. I am not saying that you are wrong, but you are reading into the text to present a perspective of halachic evolution which is not universally agreed upon. Even if the rambam was the first person to use the term derach chiba, this doesn't mean that he invented it. And even if the Talmud only mentions kissing explicitly and not hugging that is not noteworthy unless you think they permitted it.

I don't think that it is "impossible [to state what the law of negiah are] in the context of discussing sources from the Antiquity and the Middle ages..." as you do. There has never been any disagreement that touching the opposite sex in a lustful of affectionate way is prohibited. granted there may have been different terms for it, but that doesn't matter.

how about this: a section on the source of the law (leviticus), a section on the reasoning behind the law (rosenblum), a section on the law according to modern pasak (including the halachos of handshaking), a section on the social problem associated with negiah (randy cohen). what do you think? Jon513 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Avi9505 - I'm separate from YM0107, and I've been out of the discussion for a day or so because I've been a bit busy. I'll rejoin later today or tomorrow. Avi9505 23:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

so you both were the autonomous IP address - let me guess roommates in YU?Jon513 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jon - I appreciate this thoughtful response, and I'm hopeful that we can come to some sort of constructive modification of the article that will satisfy us both.

I am the editor who added the review of the halachic sources.

I think that your viewpoint, as illustrated here, is the classic viewpoint of Rabbinic historiography, and deserves mention in any complete article. On the other hand, the very apparent changes in how these laws are formulated also deserves representation, as standard historical scholarship does not share the assumption of halachic continuity with rabbinic thought. For an example of the kind of thing I don't like, see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Yichud where it cites the Shulchan Aruch (16th century CE!) to justify the statement: "There is a Biblical prohibition against a man being alone with a married woman or a woman who is a Niddah. King David and his high court extended this prohibition to unmarried girls who are ritually pure after the rape of David's daughter Tamar when she was left alone with a man" which is a purported fact about Israelites during the iron age 2000 years earlier. This derivation is completely legitimate - from the standpoint of contemporary rabbinic historiography. But there are other versions of the history of halacha, and those deserve representation as well. The article on Yichud fails to make this distinction, and the reader of such an article will be led into an erroneous historical certainty where none exists. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

I agree with your suggested outline, but I think that the section on the source of the law should be split in two. One section should discuss the sources in the manner in which I have laid them out, including all the sources from Leviticus down to the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries. I would venture to say the discussion I give is an adequate treatment of this section, for the time being. I think an additional section should be included explaining those sources from the standpoint of rabbinic historiography, e.g., that they reflect compact formulations of the modern understanding of Negiah, but that this underlying understanding has not changed. I am inclined to think that such a discussion should take place primarily in an article on rabbinic historiography, since this point arises in every halachic topic. Still, I recognize that these issues are pretty touchy and that as such, an abbreviated treatment here is also called for.

You wrote: "I did not censor out the rema because I disagree with him, I removed it because it confuses the issue. I main halacha of negia is no touching of the opposite sex in a lustful of affectionate way."

I don't think the Rema confuses the issue, but rather I think he speaks directly to it. Many religions have prohibitions about interaction between the sexes in a lustful or affectionate way. Yet shaking hands does not appear to be a lustful or affectionate act, but Negiah might include it. One question we face in this article is: how did Judaism come to its particular understanding of lust and affection such that handshaking is included? The fact that many halachic sources held that various types of contact are OK sheds light on that issue, rather than confusing it. (I admit that from the standpoint of rabbinic historiography, machloket itself is very confusing; nevertheless if we are to fully represent the landscape of scholarly opinions, we must be able to discuss the varied formulations of different authorities over time, which are central to historical approaches to legal phenomena in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., etc.)

You said: "You write as if I remove twenty sources."

My problem is that it is also not OK to cite sources when the sources do not support the claim made. Negiah in the form described in the text of the article is very different from Negiah as it appears in any of the texts cited. The complete removal of the Rema is an additional issue. But let's move on and resolve this constructively; I hope we can agree that a discussion of sources is fundamental to any encyclopedic work on a Torah topic.

You said: "I removed Michael Broyde since he was talking about a public policy not halacha."

The purpose of his inclusion was not as a halachic source, but as an example of a noteworthy scholar who recognizes that the tension between gender equality and negiah may be real. This is precisely what Avi's objection to the original bias was about, and I think that objection is a legitimate one. This section at the bottom needs to recognize the reality that normal people might be offended by this, even if it is not necessarily meant to offend.

You said: "I don't think that it is "impossible [to state what the law of negiah are] in the context of discussing sources from the Antiquity and the Middle ages..." as you do. There has never been any disagreement that touching the opposite sex in a lustful of affectionate way is prohibited. granted there may have been different terms for it, but that doesn't matter."

I think this is a fair viewpoint _from the standpoint of rabbinic historiography._ Yet the sources do appear to disagree substantially with contemporary practice, and a historical treatment must address this. The lack of a practice by that name is an important fact.

Muslims also oppose lustful/affectionate interactions between the sexes. Differing laws with similar themes are still different. The Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a piece of rabbinic historiography, and thus one cannot cite sources which do not say exactly what the article says they say as one might in a Teshuva. (I don't argue with the propriety of such citations in Teshuvot, of course; the web of assumptions is totally different in that genre as in an encyclopedia.) Old sources for a similar sounding law that is substantially different are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

You said: "Even if the rambam was the first person to use the term derach chiba, this doesn't mean that he invented it."

Actually, the rambam uses the term "Derech Ta'avah;" later commentators on the Rambam attribute "Derech Chiba" to him. (Thus he is sort of unwittingly the father of "Derech Chiba" even though he doesn't use that formulation!)

That issue notwithstanding, this is precisely the point I am trying to make about rabbinic historiography. According to rabbinic historiography, contemporary halacha has basically been around for 4000 years or eternity, whichever you like. But no historian can make a factual claim without a primary source or a compelling circumstantial case. From a historical perspective, if one cannot find any earlier discussion of such a concept, it is a new thing.

You said: "And even if the Talmud only mentions kissing explicitly and not hugging that is not noteworthy unless you think they permitted it."

The talmud at Shabbat 13a appear to permit contact with non-arayot. It is reasonable to read that passage as saying that the problem with Ulla kissing his sister is that she is his sister, not that she is a girl. The sources appear to represent traditions which are substantially more permissive than the modern practice.

In summary, would you be able to prepare an additional section on the rabbinic account of where these laws come from and their general continuity? I think a convincing account of this perspective would be of great benefit to the article, and a valuable counterpoint to the description of the raw sources. YM0107 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jon, Avi: On rereading, I think it would be useful is some of the halachic material on the subject of Hirhurim and this line of reasoning in R. Moshe Feinstein were developed further. Also, I eliminated any phrases in the review of sources which seem to be interpretation: e.g., I got rid of the phrasing that Rambam "introduced" Derech Taavah/Derech Chiba. YM0107 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article on Kippah where I think they've done a great job of introducing the practice in a fair-minded way that is both repectful of the rabbinic position but also describes the apparent historical changes. YM0107 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dland - I don't much care about your excising the YU Career Guide source, although I think it is a useful and verifiable one. But you are straining credulity by suggesting that the Rema et al. are talking about a context where the female is washing the male, but not touching him. This is both suggested by the nature of the act, and completely clear from the context of the discussion.

I have of course looked up the sources, which is how I came to cite them. But I appreciate that you looked up the sources to verify what I wrote, and I think reading through the sources together would be a valuable way to move forward. I'll look this up again when I get home and we all can hash through it. I think it is important for the sake of the article to describe this issue from the standpoint of Karo and his contemporaries.

I'd appreciate if you could take a few minutes to describe what your reading is of those sources in the Discussion section, instead of just reverting sections of the article. It would be much easier to come to a productive consensus that way. YM0107 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dland - Check out this nonexistent source YM0107 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The particular halacha (21:5) says precisely the opposite of what you are trying to prove. The Shulchan Aruch specifically prohibits acts of shimush from a woman, including various "services" including washing. He writes that this prohibition applies "אפילו אינה נוגעת בו," even if she is not touching him. Hence, if she was touching him, it would be obvious that the act would be prohibited - the chidush is that the nature of the act is one that instigates hirhur aveira even when touching is not involved. When the Rema argues, he is arguing on the chidush of the Shulchan Aruch, not on the baseline assumption.

I looked at the link you posted. Though I can't figure out how to effectively prove this, it's pretty obvious that these "guidelines" were written at least a couple of decades ago and somehow found their way onto the YU server. The reason that I didn't find it in the first place is that there is no way to get to the file through yu.edu. The information is ridiculously outdated, with considerations like wearing a solid-colored kippah or possibly not wearing one at all - which reflect concerns that are almost unheard of in today's world. It's laughable and not at all representative of the views of YU. The rest of the article is fine - I'm actually very pleased with your work and the progress the article has made. It still needs some touching up, but the content seems ok. --DLand^TALK 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This document is current on the YU Office of Career Services page under "Tips and Resources," entitled "Special Tips for Orthodox Students." Avi9505 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dland -

I appreciate your formulating your thoughts here on the discussion page; it's much easier to make progress this way.

No dispute here on the reading of SA, it is very clearly as you say and that is how I described it. The Rema reading is where I think you've gone off the derech. I'll have another look at the text tonight. I do recall considering and rejecting that reading, but I don't want to comment without the text in front of me.

Re: the YU Careers link. "The reason that I didn't find it in the first place is that there is no way to get to the file through yu.edu." Go to the YU Office of Career Services Page, http://www.yu.edu/ocs/, click "Tips and Resources", and click on "Special tips for orthodox students."

"Though I can't figure out how to effectively prove this, it's pretty obvious that these "guidelines" were written at least a couple of decades ago and somehow found their way onto the YU server." Note thate the OCS pages have clearly been updated recently, use the new logo, etc. YU OCS doesn't think these concerns are 'unheard of in today's world.'

Or google: 'shaking hands interview yu' and it's the first hit you get, at least as of this writing. I think its safe to say you jumped to conclusions by calling this source 'nonexistent' and reverting.

Anyway, I'll be mevater on YU/OCS source in the name of Shalom Bayit.

"The rest of the article is fine - I'm actually very pleased with your work and the progress the article has made."

I'm glad we can agree on the current content, and I trust we will be able to hash out the remaining issues by carefully reading SA, Rema, and the Aharonim. YM0107 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text of the Shulkhan Aruch Even Ha'Ezer 21:5 שולחן ערוך אבן העזר סימן כא

סעיף ה אסור להשתמש באשה כלל, בין גדולה בין קטנה, בין שפחה בין משוחררת, שמא יבא לידי הרהור עבירה. באיזה שמוש אמרו, ברחיצת פניו ידיו ורגליו, אפילו ליצוק לו מים לרחוץ פניו ידיו ורגליו אפילו אינה נוגעת בו,והצעת המטה בפניו, ומזיגת הכוס.

הגה: וי"א דהוא הדין באכילה עמה בקערה נמי אסור בכל ערוה כמו באשתו נדה.ויש מקילין בכל אלה, דלא אסרו דברים של חבה רק באשתו נדה. וי"א דכל זה אינו אסור רק במקום ייחוד, אבל במקום שרוב בני אדם מצויים כגון במרחץ,מותר לרחוץ מעובדות כוכבים שפחות, וכן נוהגים. וי"א דכל שאינו עושה דרך חבה,רק כוונתו לשם שמים, מותר. לכן נהגו להקל בדברים אלו. י"א דאין לנהוג אפילו עם אשתו בדברים של חבה כגון לעיין ברישיה אם יש לו כינים, בפני אחרים

The first section, the actual text of the Shulkhan Aruch translates as "It is forbidden to make use of a woman at all, whether she be old or young, slave or free, lest he [the user] come to think sinful thoughts. What type of use are we talking about? Her washing his face, hands and legs; even for her to pour water to wash his face, hands, and legs, even if she is not touching him, as well as making up the bed in front of him, or pouring a cup [for him]."

The fact that R' Yosef Karo would specify "even if she was not touching him" indicates that the defacto assumption is that indeed when washing him she would be touching him.

The Rama translates as " And there are those who say that this is also the law for eating with her from the same plate - it is forbidden with any ervah, as with one's wife who is nidda. And there are those who are lenient with all of these things, stating that the Rabanim have only fobidding these things in the context of chiba only with one's nidda wife. And there are those who say that all of these things are only forbidden when one is secluded, but in a place where many people are found, such as the public bath, it is permissible for him to have an idolatrous slave woman wash him, and indeed this is the practice. And there are those who say that for all of these where there is no intent of chiba, and one's intentions are for the sake of Heaven, it is permissible. Therefore it is the custom to be lenient regarding these things. And there are those who say that one should not do these things even with one's wife in a chiba fashion, for example to check his head if he has lice, before others."

R' Yosef Karo indicates that a woman washing a man implies she touches him. Despite this the Rama states that the practice is to permit this sort of washing in public bath houses, and states that the custom is to be lenient on all of the issues brought up, if they are not being done b'derech chiba. I agree that the Shulkhan Aruch is forbidding the practice but the Rama is explicitly stating that when they are not in a private location, the practice of a woman washing a man is permitted, and is practiced. Furthermore, he states, that the custom is to be lenient on any of the issues brought up in the discussion if they are not done b'derech chiba. As such the text doesn't agree with your reading of the Rama that he is just arguing with the chiddush of hirhur the Shulkhan Aruch brings up. He is explicitly stating that the practices are permissible. Avi9505 05:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

By searching for your own agenda in the text, you are missing the point. The Shulchan Aruch never says or implies that "a woman washing a man implies she touches him." That is your reading and it does not follow from the text. The purpose of the line "even if she is not touching him" is to ensure that the reader does not think that the prohibition has anything to do with touching. It is a precautionary measure, so as not to confuse the two issues (i.e. yes, of course negiah is assur, but even if they don't touch, it's still assur!) There is no "de facto assumption" here with regard to the act of washing. The entire halakha speaks of other services, such as making his bed and pouring his cup - things that obviously don't involve touching. The Rema's gloss is on the entire halakha ("with all of these things"), addressing the issue of chiba as it relates to those services - having absolutely nothing to do with touching. There is not an inkling of evidence that the Rema assumes that washing necessarily involves touching.

As a side note, I would appreciate if you would stop using two usernames in order to give the impression that you have more people on your side. Sock puppetry is a grave offense in Wikipedia when used for these purposes. Unless you have a really good way of proving that User:Avi9505 and User:YM0107 are two separate people who happen to be arguing the exact same point and operating from the exact same IP address, I expect to see only one username for now on. --DLand^TALK 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to get you to stop reverting and actually argue constructively about the sources, but it seems that you are not capable of a thoughtful discussion without engaging in insulting, wholly inappropriate and harassing behavior.

You wrote: "As a side note, I would appreciate if you would stop using two usernames in order to give the impression that you have more people on your side. Sock puppetry is a grave offense in Wikipedia when used for these purposes. Unless you have a really good way of proving that User:Avi9505 and User:YM0107 are two separate people who happen to be arguing the exact same point and operating from the exact same IP address, I expect to see only one username for now on."

I'm sorry, you have been arrogant, condescending, wrong, and wrongheaded for quite a while, but this wholly inaccurate accusation goes over the top (And reflects the very impoverished source-reading capacity you bring to the table, see below.) You "expect to see only one username for now on?" Let me explain what I would expect from you, Dland:

(a) You did not understand the phrase "biblically instituted safeguard," and as such misread the biblical text as directly implying a prohibition against contemporary negiah. This is transparent conflation of rabbinic historiography with actual history. When confronted by Avi about your misreading, you could not defend your position and simply stop posting to the discussion to avoid being "Modeh Al Ha'Emet." I would expect forthrightness.

(b) You did not understand the Rambam, and as such misread the text; alternatively you didn't bother reading the sources you quoted. When confronted, you cannot defend your position and simply stop posting to the discussion to avoid being "Modeh Al Ha'Emet." Again, I would expect forthrightness.

(c) You don't bother doing serious source-work yourself, indeed your biases appear to make you utterly incapable of fair-minded source work. Yet when new users contribute sources to the discussion, you either revert out the opinions of Judaism's most prominent legal arbiters, such as your censorship of the medrash halakha, the Rambam, the Ramban, the Semag, the Shulchan Aruch, the Mordechai, the Bet Shemuel, and the Helkat Mehokek, in your massacre-revert of 06:50, 11 January 2007. When you're in a generous mood, you are willing to allow Judaism's greatest lights the right to their opinion: but of course, you repeatedly, tyrannically, and misguidedly insist on your own, highly strained readings of those opinions being correct. This is an Encyclopedia, not a missionary pamphlet. I would expect you to learn the difference.

(d) You reverted an sourced section of the article that you claimed was based on a nonexistent source, reflecting frank laziness in not bothering to either check the logical YU page or do a simple google search for a few words of the text. You comically claimed that "Though I can't figure out how to effectively prove this, it's pretty obvious that these 'guidelines' were written at least a couple of decades ago and somehow found their way onto the YU server. The reason that I didn't find it in the first place is that there is no way to get to the file through yu.edu. The information is ridiculously outdated, with considerations like wearing a solid-colored kippah or possibly not wearing one at all - which reflect concerns that are almost unheard of in today's world. It's laughable and not at all representative of the views of YU." This deeply reflects your arrogance, laziness, poor scholarship and the extent to which you are completely out of touch with the world outside your particular, narrow community-think. When confronted, you bravely slunk away from actually grappling with the issue at hand and said nothing, which is your MO whenever you are wrong. When you blatant violate WP:AGF and accuse an editor of making up a source, I expect you to at the very least apologize when you are so completely and utterly refuted.

(e) You have reverted all or significant parts of constructive, well cited edits (WP:BOLD and WP:V, at the very least) by myself and Avi on no les than 5 occasions. (19:29, 17 January 2007, 19:28, 17 January 2007, 06:50, 11 January 2007, 02:52, 9 January 2007, 22:00, 9 January 2007) I would expect you to read and understand the policy on WP:3RR. Revise, don't revert.

(f) You maintain blatant double-standards about WP:OR and WP:V. In your own editorial work, you cite to Aharon Lichtenstein, you made a "Change year of move to 2005, based on User:Davidyonah's testimony". Your own editorial work repeatedly miscites sources, implying that they say what they do not. But you have reverted (again, no less than 5 times) contributions sourced to ubiquitous, easily available major publications, such as the nonexistent source incident. I expect you not to hide behind your blatant misapplication of Wiki standard to suppress facts and sources.

(g) The record will show that you took an intelligent, thoughtful debate stirred by two new users and repeatedly injected infuriating personal insults, attacks, and revert vandalism WP:VAN. I would expect you to familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. I would expect you to follow the principles of Hillel: That which is hateful to you, is not appropriate on Wiki. At this point, your tyrannical, arrogant, behavior and your cowardly refusal to engage with the points that are being made corresponds to WP:HAR. I, and Wiki policy, expect you to stop.

(h) You wrote: "Unless you have a really good way of proving that User:Avi9505 and User:YM0107 are two separate people who happen to be arguing the exact same point and operating from the exact same IP address, I expect to see only one username for now on." Great work: I think you violated WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and the fundamental basis of consensus-building on the Wiki. We don't need to prove anything to you, you arrogant WikiVandal.

Plus the claim is so stupid and obviously false that it underscores everything I've been saying about your inability to read sources. You accuse Avi and myself of Sock puppetry. Any semi-competent Jewish historian presented with our contributions, even without signatures, would easily see that we are different people. Here's one difference: unlike Avi, who has been very patient with your phenomenonal arrogance, yuhara, and ga'avah, I tend to get ticked off when you repeatedly revert my work and insult my intelligence. Still more transparently, I am very long-winded and my hebrew dialect has sefardik affinities (e.g., my pronunciation of "Shalom Bayit" and my use of the spelling "Rema" 11 times, and "Rama" 0 times). Avi writes in (relatively) terse Ashkenazis ("Rema" 0, "Rama" 4). I expect an apology to Avi and myself, as well as all the many sources and gedolim you have been censoring.

(i) While we're speculating: You clearly don't know much about serious Jewish scholarship or serious scholarship of any sort. Do you actually have a degree of any sort, or am I just arguing with some guy who thinks 1 year of learning in Israel makes him Gadol Kol HaDorot? Been there, done that, Dland: you have a real lot to learn.

(j) I have an advanced degree in Jewish history. You are a missionary. This is the Wikipedia. Stop suppressing information. YM0107 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief discussion about the Shulkhan Aruch's position. I cited some images from the time period that illustrate that indeed it was the practice for women to wash (while touching) men in public bathhouses in medieval times. There are some sources in the Gemara that give men permission to visit these non-Jewish bath houses (where such bathing would take place), but being that the time period is quite different from the Shulkhan Aruch, I was hoping for a more contemporary source. I think leaving out the Shulkhan Aruch is inappropriate as it is such a central source in halacha, and hope we can get to the bottom of the text by examining other sources for common practices at the time e.g. do we have any sources on Jewish bath house practices, or whether female servants in bath houses served Jewish men differently than gentile men?. Something like that would, I think, help us in getting a clearer meaning of what exactly the Rama means when he permits the men to have women washing them.

DLand, if you can offer more evidence in support of your position that the Rama holds otherwise, that would be valuable. I have cited a contemporary source supporting my reading of the text and I would appreciate if you did the same. Please stop trying to argue by accusing me of something (e.g. demagoguery, religious intolerance, agendas, sock puppeting etc.) Avi9505 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why my person deserves to be attacked with such verocity. Nothing in my previous post amounts to an insult in any way. To address YM's tirade:

• (a) and (b):What you call a "conflation" is the traditional understanding of the biblical text, according to the Rambam. You claim that I misread the Rambam, without substantiating this claim.
• (c):Regardless of how much you disagree with my explanations, they represent the position of Orthodox Judaism. Feel free to add sections elaborating on Conservative or Reform exegesis, or whatever movement to which you ascribe your reading of the texts.
• (d):It's true that I couldn't initially find the source, but the fact that it's there still doesn't mean that it's a reliable source. The pamphlet categorically does not reflect the position of Yeshiva University. I have already contacted the Office of Career Service to ask that they remove the outdated source.
• (e):"I would expect you to read and understand the policy on WP:3RR" - I would expect the same of you - 3RR only applies when the three reverts are within 24 hours of one another.
• (f):There is no double standard. If you read WP:CITE, you would know that "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source" - as opposed to material that is not likely to be challenged, such as the year that R' Lichtenstein moved to Alon Shvut. I thought that it happened in 2006, and another user convinced me that it was 2005. This is unlikely to be challenged, and if you want to challenge it to make a point, feel free to do so (though I would discourage it).
• (g):I see no reason or need to respond to such hateful vitriol.
• (h):If you read WP:AGF, you will see that "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Unless you are roommates, brothers, or husband and wife, I find it difficult to believe that you are two separate users. I never made any personal attacks, though I do believe that you are using a sockpuppet (and I would be glad to be proved wrong). All I ask is for an explanation of the fact that you are using the same IP address.
• (i):I find it astounding that you presume to have read WP:NPA.
• (j):The amount of degrees that you possess doesn't prevent you from being wrong.

Regarding the image that Avi posted: When the Rema says "V'chen nohagim", that is a halakhic statement, not that this is what people in general do, but what the Jewish community is "noheg". Thus, the image is irrelevant. --DLand^TALK 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "I fail to see why my person deserves to be attacked with such verocity. Nothing in my previous post amounts to an insult in any way." The reason you were attacked with such verocity (I actually like that word, it like a portmanteau of voraciousness and ferocity) is that you assumed that I do not actually exist. Like Pinocchio, I feel metaphysically demeaned. You were really condescending about it, too. If you don't see why that's insulting, it's no shock that you don't understand why people may be insulted when you don't shake their hands. I mean, so what if you treat someone like they don't exist.

Your accusation was a direct attack on my personal integrity. Don't pretend you don't know it.

(a) You wrote: "The purpose of negiah is not "to avoid a man's inappropriate sexual arousal." It is, rather, a Biblically instituted safeguard..." This statement conflates rabbinic historiography with history. The bible does not appear to talk about Negiah at all.

(b) You wrote: "it [e.g., Negiah] is not unanimously agreed that the prohibition is Biblical, but according to Maimonides (in Issurei Biah 21:1) it is Biblical, based on Leviticus 18:6." Brackets are mine. Here you fail to observe that the prohibition Rambam describes is very different from contemporary negiah.

(c) You wrote: "Regardless of how much you disagree with my explanations, they represent the position of Orthodox Judaism." Cited discussion of the viewpoint of actual prominent orthodox Jews, such as R. Moshe Feinstein, represents orthodox Judaism, and I agree that these positions must be in the article and have put some of them there. Feel free to add more. Your personal explanations, on the contrary, represent the misreading of sources.

(d) You wrote: "I have already contacted the Office of Career Service to ask that they remove the outdated source." When they concede and remove it, then it will be outdated. Somehow I'm not so sure that they will do that. I'd love to know what happens, though, either way, and would actually really appreciate if you let me know how they respond. More to the point, however, you fail to address the fact that my criticism is not directed at your perception of the source's relevance, but at your repeated discussion-less reverts and erroneous accusations about the source being "made up" and when the source was easily available and you were just too lazy to check.

(e) I have read it, and you full well know that you're misreading WP:3RR here. It specifically states that: "the rule is an "electric fence". Editors who engage in edit warring may still be blocked from editing even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period. Editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or make three reverts on each of a group of pages, for example, are nevertheless engaging in disruptive behaviour. The spirit of the rule is as important as the letter." Your repeated nonconstructive reverts (now up to 6 when you count tonight!) are very disruptive, to say the least.

(f) You wrote: "There is no double standard." I cited a source which can be verified with approximately 3 seconds of legwork on google, and you reverted it as nonexistent/not verifiable w/o any further explanation on the discussion page. There is absolutely no way that this is the policy you maintain elsewhere, unless you've been systematically deleting the entire Wikipedia.

(g) You wrote: "I see no reason or need to respond to such hateful vitriol." Fine. Stop making ad hominem attacks on myself and Avi then.

(h) You wrote: "If you read WP:AGF, you will see that 'this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.'" There is no evidence to the contrary. We both disagree with you, and share an IP address. Multiple people using a single IP address is very common. We share an ethnicity, a religion, and a city of residence too.

(i) As Avi writes, we have been accused of demagoguery, religious intolerance, agendas, and sock puppeting, and been subjected to a half-dozen blatant, unexplained reverts after the only thing we've tried to do is discuss sources in a fair minded way. Don't pretend you haven't made this very personal. Stop the ad hominem attacks. I'm perfectly happy to have a levelheaded discussion where we just read and discuss sources. I actually find that fun, whereas I find responding to your silly accusations exasperating.

(j) You wrote: "The amount of degrees that you possess doesn't prevent you from being wrong." Agreed; I am probably wrong on most things and far from infallible. Yet you appear to think your understanding of orthodox Judaism and the traditional sources are authoritative and infallible. Surely lack of education is not a credential...

I think it would be constructive if we made reference to the WikiProject: Judaism Manual of Style, and in particular the NPOV policy, since clearly neither of us think the other's point of view is neutral. NPOV there clearly includes presenting the point of view of "different groups in the past," encompassing "how such beliefs came to be and took shape." Although "adherents of a religion...would prefer that the articles describe their faith according to their tradition and understanding" the policy makes clear that historical viewpoints should also be "presented without prejudice."

I think it is important to bear in mind that besides the doctrinal viewpoints of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, NeoPagan, Messianist, and Jew-bhu, historical perspectives too must be given fair representation. In particular, although contemporary orthodoxy has traditional understandings of various sources, those sources are themselves primary historical sources and can and should be read as such alongside the traditional presentation. I am happy to have the traditional orthodox perspective represented, I think its absolutely crucial, and I've contributed a good bit of the trad/ortho perspective to this article. But I refuse to ignore the existence of a historical development, or to allow the article to present all the sources as though they have all, undeniably, always agreed on hilchot Negiah as it is practiced in our times. Even if I happen to be sympathetic to the right-wing viewpoint, doing so would be a violation of NPOV.

Anyway, back to the sources: I don't understand your interpretation of the word "Nohagim." Please explain again in greater detail what you think it means. YM0107 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

DLand -

Nothing in my previous post amounts to an insult in any way.

Just to let you know, I was insulted by some of the things you wrote. I care a great deal about halacha, and the suggestions you have made that I have an agenda to undermine it are unkind, untrue, and irrelevant.

You wrote earlier:

There is not an inkling of evidence that the Rema assumes that washing necessarily involves touching.

I added a citation to the contrary, which you removed with no counter evidence. The image is in direct response to your objection; I don't see how you now state that it is irrelevant. I will repeat from my last note. Do you have any evidence that the Rama thought that washing did not involve touching? I made some (I hope) useful suggestions about where that evidence might be found.

In the last post you say that:

When the Rema says "V'chen nohagim", that is a halakhic statement, not that this is what people in general do, but what the Jewish community is "noheg".

Noheg meas "practice" or "custom." The simple meaning of this term by the Rama is "and such is the practice," or "and this is the custom." Do you have any source that says otherwise? If so I think it would be reasonable to present both readings of the text but failing that your reading is original research (not reading, as it is not the simple translation of the text).

If you could, please address these two concerns:

1) Why the images are irrelevant since they directly addresses your previous objection to my reading of the Rama, and whether you have any sources to the contrary?

2) Whether you have any source to counter the simple reading of the term "V'chein nohagim"

Avi9505 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your two concerns can be answered as one. The images are irrelevant because they reflect the general practice in 14th century society, rather than the practice of observant Jews. When the Rema says "V'chein nohagim," he always refers to the common practice of observant Jews. The phrase is one of the most ubiquitous phrases in the Rema's gloss on the Shulchan Aruch. It occurs at least 191 times throughout the Shulchan Aruch (obtained through Bar-Ilan search) almost always referring to a uniquely halakhic practice that certainly would be limited to Torah-abiding Jews. "V'chen nohagim" is the Rema's way of saying that "this is the halakhic practice of the Ashkenazic Jewish community," either affirming or contradicting the practice of the Sephardim as posited by the Shulchan Aruch. --DLand^TALK 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that V'chein Nohagim refers to the practice of the Jewish community, but your explanation clarifies your previous post. Thank you.

If you are going to say Jewish practice was different from the common practice in this way you need to show evidence of that, not just assume that it is so. It's sort of the equivalent of saying "People tend to shower in the morning." but assuming with no evidence that Jews are exceptions.

Do you have any source to support the idea that contrary to common practice as evidenced by the Wenceslaus Bible images, Jewish men were washed by women without any physical contact between them? Avi9505 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying makes no sense. In order to support your point, the image would have to show a non-Jewish woman touching an observant man while bathing him. The images only demonstrate that some women would touch men while bathing them. Since this would be forbidden for Jews (according to the Orthodox tradition) obviously the bathing routine would look different for a Jewish man. I don't need to provide a source to debunk your assumption that all bathing is done the same way. --DLand^TALK 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this would be forbidden for Jews (according to the Orthodox tradition) obviously the bathing routine would look different for a Jewish man.

The forbiddeness of this action is precisely the point we are debating. You cannot support your side of the argument merely by restating it. You need sources to support it.

Let's look at the Rama again. He states:

במרחץ,מותר לרחוץ מעובדות כוכבים שפחות, וכן נוהגים…

which translates as "At a public bath, it is permissible to be washed by an idolatrous slave woman, and indeed this is the practice [of the Jewish community]"

So the question we are discussing is what precisely does the Rama permit/state is the practice of the community? Standard washing by a woman (with touching) at the public baths as illustrated by the Wenceslaus Bible images, or some particularly Jewish form of washing (without touching) as you suggest?

The Tzitz Eliezer actually disagrees (vehemently) with the Rama about the permissibility of this practice. He objects on the grounds of:

אבל לשפשף גופו במרחץ מהיכא תיתי להתיר דבר זר כזה בפרט לבחורים שאין ספק אצלי דבודאי פרצה קוראת לגנב לכל הפחות לבוא לידי קישוי וקרוב ג"כ להוצאת ש"ז לבטלה ח"ו

which translates as "... But to have his body rubbed at the public bath - from whence should he derive [rationale] to permit this, particularly for young men, where I have no doubt that certainly it is an opening for the Thief [ i.e. temptation] and at the very least he will come to kishui and also close to shichvas zerah l'vatalah, G-d forbid.."

The Tzitz Eliezer is reading the Rama as permitting rubbing [that leads to cleaning] of a man in the bath that the Tzitz Eliezer thinks will lead to kishui and shichvas zerah. It is extremely difficult to imagine what type of rubbing would be going while the woman was washing him that would cause kishui and shichvas zerah, other than the woman physically rubbing him. The relevant point here is that the Tzitz Eliezer reads the Rama as permitting a man to get scrubbed by the washer woman in the public bath.

So now there is the common practice of women washing men in the bath, the Rama saying men may have women wash them in the public bath, the Tzitz Eliezer reading the Rama as permitting women to touch & wash men at a public bath, the contemporary image of the female washers physically touching the males. They support my point pretty effectively.

I've backed up my claim about the simple pshat of the Rama with historical evidence and rabbinic sources. I would be very interested in knowing if you have any sources that support your reading of the Rama, which deviates from the simple reading and is at odds with the preponderance of the evidence for that simple reading. Avi9505 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated anything. The Tzitz Eliezer never mentions physical contact in his interpretation of the Rema. Rubbing (assumedly with a cloth or some kind of sponge) does not necessitate actual physical contact. He is so opposed to the Rema's statement because even without touching it seems incredulous to permit such a thing.

To clarify my point about the images, your whole suggestion that the images reflect on Jewish practice hinges on the assumption that Jews would not take heed not to touch the women. If the traditional understanding - that such negiah is forbidden - is true, then obviously Jews would make sure to avoid negiah in such a situation, and the pictures have no relevance. If your understanding is correct then obviously the images would accurately reflect Jewish practice. But to use the images as proof that Jews bathed in this manner would amount to circular reasoning.

I don't pretend to have historical evidence that when Jews were bathed by non-Jewish women, they made sure not to touch them. However, neither do you. Moreover, your understanding is not the "simple reading", nor is there a "preponderance of evidence" for any of your claims. The burden of proof here is on you, not on me - I'm merely giving the accepted traditional interpretation. Find a reliable scholarly source that makes the points that you are making, and I'll be glad to include it in that source's name (if such a source exists). --DLand^TALK 07:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated anything.

This is false. I have shown:

1) That it was the common practice for women to wash men in the public bath

2) That the Rama permits a man to be washed by a woman at the public bath

3) That prominent Rabbinic sources read the Rama as permitting a man to have a woman rub him in cleaning him at the public bath.

The Tzitz Eliezer never mentions physical contact in his interpretation of the Rema. Rubbing (assumedly with a cloth or some kind of sponge) does not necessitate actual physical contact. He is so opposed to the Rema's statement because even without touching it seems incredulous to permit such a thing.

He states that a woman is rubbing a man's body, and that the Rama permits this.

To clarify my point about the images, your whole suggestion that the images reflect on Jewish practice hinges on the assumption that Jews would not take heed not to touch the women. If the traditional understanding - that such negiah is forbidden -

"My whole suggestion" with the images was to show this was the standard practice at the time - not a specifically Jewish practice. I've specified this now several times. Since the Rama does not specify that the Jewish practice must be different, we have no reason to assume it is anything other than standard until you come up with a souce that shows otherwise.

You need to prove that the "traditional understanding" in Ashkenaz was as you say. So far you have just stated that fact with no evidence. Do you have a source that reads the Rama this way?

If your understanding is correct then obviously the images would accurately reflect Jewish practice. But to use the images as proof that Jews bathed in this manner would amount to circular reasoning.

To again clarify my point about the images I show that this is standard practice, and you have no evidence to show the Jewish practice was different. On the contrary, the Rama says that bathing in this way was "is the practice" and says nothing about there being a particular or different way for a Jew to be bathed by a woman. If your reading was correct he should have written something to that effect but he does not.

What is circular is your statement "the tradition was thus, therefore of course she didn't touch him" if that is the very tradition we are debating. Do you have any source to support this statement?

I don't pretend to have historical evidence that when Jews were bathed by non-Jewish women, they made sure not to touch them. However, neither do you. Moreover, your understanding is not the "simple reading", nor is there a "preponderance of evidence" for any of your claims.

With the fear of repeating myself, let's read the Rama again.

במרחץ,מותר לרחוץ מעובדות כוכבים שפחות, וכן נוהגים…

which translates as "At a public bath, it is permissible to be washed by an idolatrous slave woman, and indeed this is the practice [of the Jewish community]"

Simple translation. Pshat. If you wonder what that means, well - here are a bunch of contemporary images which show what public bathing was like. The Rama doesn't say anything about a distict form of Jewish bathing that is permissible. In that case, there is no reason to think he meant something different from the standard practice. Since you want to say - 'well the Rama didn't mean that he meant something else' you should be able to support that with sources other that yourself.

I repeat - there is evidence that this is the standard practice. If you're going to say Jews behaved differently you need to back that up.

The burden of proof here is on you, not on me - I'm merely giving the accepted traditional interpretation. --DLand^TALK 07:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The responsibility is mutual. I have carried that burden and you have not. You have not showed that this is the "accepted traditional interpretation." You merely state it, with no sources to back you up. You in fact confirm that you have no sources. I have made claims, found sources to support them, and there is a pretty strong case that others read the Rama the way I do. You have offered nothing but your opinion about the Rama and the tradition with no sources to support you.

I'll be glad to include it

Please remember that we are writing this article as a community. Avi9505 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Listen. I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible. I am not trying to change anything in the article currently. I'm fine with the way it is right now. You, on the other hand, are making an assertion: that the Rama in Even HaEzer 21:5 is a source that is relevant for a discussion of negiah. No one in the history of scholarship (to my knowledge) has ever made that claim. If you can find a source to support your assertion, then it is has valid place in the Wikipedia article. If not, then it is original research and has no place in the article. No source exists for the irrelevance of the Rama, simply because no source exists for its relevance in the first place. Consequently, nothing has been proven and the article remains in its status quo. Please think about this. --DLand^TALK 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The last section, with the quote from YU OCS, was removed by someone. I double-checked that the original quote was accurate, word-for-word (which it was). Nonetheless, in its stead I have put the full quote, adding in the part that was in ellipses before. I'd originally quoted only the part I thought was relevant, but since I can't tell what the editor was bothered by, I assume it is the fact that I did not provide the full quote. So there it is...I'd love to know what was bothering the editor, if they are out there. YM0107 01:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I never thought when I contributed my little paragraph last year that it would create such a storm of controversy.:) Toda raba to you all; I wanted to let you all know how much I have appreciated your elucidations. Shalom. --Ubiquita 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that there are teshuvot dating from the 13th and 14th centuries that discuss major problems with unmarrieds sleeping together, and actualy suggest their going to mikvah as a solution. Another teshuva that would tend to go against the rabbinic histerionics would be the shailos and teshuvos bach hachadashot yorah deah 55 that states clearly that at a wedding it is permittid according to all for unmarried men and women to sit together and to recite the bracha simcha, because "it is not possible for them to have hirhurei aveira" (as opposed to with married women.)

This would be at least partialy relevant to the source and at least with regard to unmarried women prove that there have been clear shifts in the rabbinic oppinion, and as to our present topic insinuate that according to him there would be no problems with hirhurim at all with unmarried women and therefore one may indeed touch them on that front. yoni74.138.74.94 (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This Leviticus 18:6 thing is getting to me. What does this have to do with NON-relatives and how does this imply that you can't touch a NON-relative when the verse is talking about those forbidden to him due to the laws of arayos? To some extent also Shabbos 13a is not producing a satisfactory answer on the topic (though interesting comments on chicken and cheese... And Ulla). Could someone give me an answer to the relevance and if there is a source signifying its relevance? Valley2city 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the female is age 11 or older, she is presumed to have the status of Niddah, and would be included in Leviticus 18:19 (she may also be included in 18:6, because Niddah is also considered one of the Arayot. In any event, the verse at 18:19 specifically proscribes close physical contact with a woman in the status of Niddah). Please see current version of the article. Danielb613 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, even if the female non-relative does not have the status of Niddah, having affectionate physical contact (Derech Chiba v'Taavah) with a male will almost inevitably cause him to have improper Hirhur (see article) and lead him to other impermissible behavior, and the female would be guilty of causing him to stumble. Danielb613 (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

it would seem from the text of the shulchan aruch, that the status of penuya (meaning unmarried) is stronger in this sense than the status of niddah. Siman 21 identifies niddah as "erva lo" meaning to her husband. (to everyone else she's an aishes ish) however the next siman, fully aware that niddah girls do not immerse themselves, says "penuya einah erva b'chlal" which is a much stronger statement, and a much more inclusive statement than "erva lo".

not that this permits one to sleep with a penuya, thats for a seperate section, but vis a vis the harachot, it would seem that at the principle that we're more worried with a niddah that one is married to because they're accustomed to be intimate and may forget. With regards to a penuya there may be an assumption that he's held himself off this long, he can wait maybe 20 days and marry her if they're that desperate to be intimate. (this assumption is clearly in force, as, for instance, one may pass a cup to a girl he is not married to, whether niddah or not, but a man may not pass a cup to his niddah wife.) (or from a deoraisa view not even that, they could probably do it right then with a single bedika.)yoni 74.128.36.101 (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I do not particularly care for the picture. It seems a bit incongruous for an article on Halacha. Does anyone think it should stay? Danielb613 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. But then, I may be biased since I'm the one who put it up. I thought it would be amusing, but not disrepectfully so. Unwanted hugs are a bane of many Modern Orthodox people, so I felt it was appropriate.

The previous picture was a male-female handshake, which I felt had two problems:

1. It is not universally accepted that such a handshake is prohibited, since it is not obviously affectionate.
2. It's sort of like putting a picture of a man eating shrimp on the kosher page; it's a bit disconcerting. At least the current picture doesn't actually show an "improper act."

Mainly the first reason pushed me to find a new picture. If you think you've got a better one, feel free to switch. --Eliyak T·C 02:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what might be a good photo? A mitzvah tantz. Just a thought. --Eliyak T·C 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The "free hugs" picture was deleted on April 20, 2009 by an anonymous editor. It was restored by a different anonymous editor on August 11, 2009. As noted above, I think the picture detracts from this article, which discusses a serious topic of Jewish law.

Danielb613 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The picture really has nothing to do with the article (see WP:Images). Jms2000 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"God" or "G-d"?

The reason I changed "God" to "G-d" was to avoid disrespect to God's name in case printed copies of this article get thrown in the trash. This change was almost immediately reverted. I'll leave it for now, but does anyone have any comments on this issue? Danielb613 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who reverted it. Although I respect your motivation, I don't think it's good to write "G-d". This is an encyclopedia and they're supposed to be accurate. Literally. The verses in Leviticus say "God", not "G-d".  Channel ®   15:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I agree with a lot of the changes you made to this article, but here I strongly disagree with you. This article should be no difference from any other article in the encyclopedia and should use "God" not G-d. Jon513 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does an article on a Jewish concept refer primarily to Leviticus (presumably, in King James' version) and not to the actual scripture? This is not an article on Christianity, and Jewish conventions and respect for them, should apply for a variety of reasons, not just the "printed copy" consideration. KenThomas (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Channel R and Jon: Point is well-taken. (Another Halachic solution may be to double-wrap printed copies of the article before disposing them in the trash). Danielb613 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of Judaism and only came across this page on a Recent Changes Patrol (when I reverted "G-d".) Now I'm reading this thread and I'm getting puzzled. Double wrap copies before disposing them? It sounds very strange to me. If one of you would like to explain the reasoning behind this, I'd be grateful. Feel free to use my Talk page. Mind you, I'm not being cynical or sarcastic, I'm just coming across something I really have no knowledge about.  Channel ®   23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to be helpful to anyone seeking Halachic guidance in this area, especially those who do not have an easily accessible Halachic authority to ask. Jewish law requires treating God's name with respect. Therefore, it is not permissible to simply throw an article containing God's name into the garbage (recycling it might be different, but I'm not sure). One possible solution, which is what I suggested, is to double-wrap the article (e.g. put it into a sealed plastic bag within another sealed plastic bag). My understanding is that it may then be thrown into the trash. There are likely to be other viable solutions as well.

Danielb613 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood your suggestion, I just don't understand how double-wrapping the article would make throwing it in the garbage less disrespectful. However, I read the Halachic article and I understand that this is probably a very complicated matter. Asking for a simple answer, like I did, might be a little unfair. Thanks for your explanation and good luck with the article.  Channel ®   00:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it's somewhat complicated, and I do not claim to be an expert on the topic. Still, just to clarify a bit more: Double-wrapping the article would prevent the name of God from being disgraced by coming in direct contact with the trash. I understand your point, however, that it still does not seem respectful, double-wrapping or not. This is the reason that observant Jews do not, generally, write the name "God" in full, but write "G-d." However, the consensus is that this would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, which I agree with.

Thank you for the kind wishes.

Danielb613 (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that double-wrapping the English name "God" would not be, strictly speaking, Jewish "law," since the English name has no inherent sanctity. It might show a certain level of personal respect, which is probably appropriate in any case. (The fact that this article contains sacred Torah content seems to be a more definite reason to show it respect.) If one wants to be quite certain that they are showing proper respect, they should drop the paper off at a local Orthodox synagogue that has a sheimot box for such things. --Eliyak T·C 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a LOT of misunderstanding here. It would require some discussion of the nature of the Law and adherence to it (both literally, and 'in the heart') to explain the prohibition on the inscription of the word Christians and others know as 'G-d' (in fact, it would take some pages to review what gets translated as 'G-d'). Regardless, the complex series of rules and interpretations does not reduce to anything like the simplicity of just "not allowing the name of G-d to be printed and disposed of with trash."

As I state above, this is an article regarding a Jewish theological belief and ritual practice. It is simply wrong to begin with the translation of Jewish concepts into English (and for King James' rather well-known political purposes) two to four millennia or longer after after the actual text. Equally it is not easy to render this concept, as well as the complexity of actual Jewish practice, into English.

A good start, would be to seek to adopt actual Jewish textual practice via their common English equivalents, that is, to render "G-d" as "G-d," or as one of my rabbis might say, "necessarily incomplete." KenThomas (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not touching someone on a plane

How is a Jew supposed to refrain from sitting next to someone on a plane when he or she has no idea where anybody is sitting? No airport is going to give that kind of information and once they are on a plane, there is nothing that can be done about it.--63.3.2.129 (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is not for general discussion of the topic. The above will be deleted within 90 days if there is no discussion. KenThomas (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Negiah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305073415/http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=371 to http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=371
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517131638/http://www.darchenoam.org/articles/web/issues/ar_chumrot.html to http://www.darchenoam.org/articles/web/issues/ar_chumrot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)