Parshas Chukas 5785 – Intriguing Questions & Answers

Rabbi Yaakov Aron Skoczylas   -  

Parshas Chukas 5785

Carrying Antidepressant Pills in a Reshus HaRabbim on Shabbos

Q: I was asked by someone who suffers from depression and needs to take medication a few times throughout the day on Shabbos. He is occasionally in a place without an eiruv, such as in Manhattan or Brooklyn, where he rules that there is no valid eiruv and it is considered a true reshus harabbim, where carrying is assur m’doraisa. He asked whether he may carry a pill to calm his depression by placing it under his hat.

A: We will answer briefly. A person who suffers from depression and therefore must take pills daily is halachically considered a choleh she’ein bo sakanah (a sick person who is not in life-threatening danger). The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 328:17) rules that one may perform melachah with a shinui (unusual manner) for such a person — but only a melachah d’rabanan, and not if it is assur m’doraisa.

Based on this, it would appear that carrying in a public domain (which is a Torah-level prohibition) would remain forbidden, even with a shinui. However, I told him there is room to be lenient. If no non-Jew is available to carry the pill for him, there is reason to permit the person suffering from depression to carry the pill himself by placing it between his hat and his head, or between his clothing and his body, or the like.

The rationale is that there are several Gedolei Poskim who allow even a melachah d’Oraisa with a shinui for a choleh she’ein bo sakanah, if there is no non-Jew available to do it. Therefore, we allow it in this case. I heard this ruling from my Rebbe, Maran HaRav Avigdor Nebenzahl, shlit”a, and I later saw that his Rav, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, ruled likewise in Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah (Chapter 33, note 18), as well as the ruling of Shevet HaLevi.

Accordingly, if someone suffers from depression or a similar condition that halachically qualifies as a choleh she’ein bo sakanah, and he will need to take medication during Shabbos while in a distant place without an eiruv, he may carry it in a shinui — even in a reshus harabbim.


Bowing One’s Head Before a Priest Wearing a Cross — Avodah Zarah 12a

Q: A person came to meet a priest who was wearing a necklace with a cross or other symbols of idol worship. Alternatively, if someone is walking near a Christian church — may they bend down to pick up money or an item that fell if it appears as if they are bowing to the church or the cross?

A: The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (12a) states: If a person has a thorn in his foot in front of an idol, or if his coins were scattered there, he should not bend down to remove the thorn or retrieve the money, since it appears as if he is bowing to it. Rather, he should sit down or turn his back or side toward the idol, and then retrieve it. This is codified as Halachah in Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 150:2).

The Perishah (1) writes, based on the Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 22:20) that anything prohibited due to maris ayin(giving the appearance of a transgression) is forbidden even in private, then even if no one is around this would be forbidden. The Shach cites this as well.

Regarding the prohibition of bowing before idols, there is no difference whether one bows fully (stretching out hands and feet) or just slightly — all forms of bowing are prohibited in front of idol worship (see Minchas Chinuch, Mitzvah 28:2).

All the above refers to even when one has no intention of bowing — it is still forbidden due to maar’is ayin. But if one bows with intent for avodah zarah, it is an issur d’oraisa.

The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 28:1,4) further writes that even one who bows jokingly or casually violates the negative commandment against bowing to idols — for this is a clear gezeiras hakasuv that this is forbidden.

In light of all this, if someone must meet a priest wearing a visible cross, one should not bow his head to him — even in a manner that is typically done as a sign of respect. However, if one fears hostility (eivah), some Poskim permit bowing the head in extenuating circumstances.

The explanation for this ruling follows the Rema (YD 150:3), who writes: “If government officials or priests have idolatrous images on their garments, it is forbidden to bow to them or remove one’s hat before them (Terumas Hadeshen§196)… However, some are lenient since it is known that even idol-worshipers do not bow or remove their hats for these idols, but rather for the official — and it is good to be stringent like the first view.”

The Terumas Hadeshen (§196) writes: If a priest has a cross or image on his clothing or hat, and a Jew comes before him to honor him by bowing or removing his hat, is this permitted or forbidden? Answer: it is best to refrain to the extent possible from doing so, since bowing is one of the forms of worship for which one incurs capital punishment or kareis(spiritual excision), even if it is not the idol’s typical mode of worship.

He recalls that in his time, priests with crosses on their sleeves would cover the crosses when Jews visited them on business, so that the Jews could honor them respectfully without it appearing as bowing to the cross.

The Mahari Weil (Psakim §28) writes that it is permitted to remove one’s hat before clergymen, even if their garments bear crosses, because the gentiles themselves do not remove their hats in honor of the cross. Therefore, when a Jew removes his hat, it does not appear as if it is for the cross.

However, the Terumas Hadeshen cites a responsum from R’ Y. Oppenheim about priests with crosses on their clothing: “Is it permitted to stand up for them and remove one’s hat before them?” He replied that it is permitted to bow, stand, and remove one’s hat — because the honor is given to the person, not the cross, and they do not consider themselves to be avodah zarah, nor are they served in any way. He supports this with a Gemara in Sanhedrin, which permits bowing to a human, unless that person is worshipped as a deity (like Haman). Notwithstanding, he recommends closing one’s eyes while doing so to avoid even the appearance of bowing to an idol.

The Terumas Hadeshen goes back and forth whether this would be problematic because he is wearing a cross, or whether it would not be an issue since it is common practice to bow to officials, as well as the fact that they often wear such symbols only to let people know which country they are from.

However, the Gemara (Shavuos 16b) defines bowing as full prostration with arms and legs extended. This raises a question: Why then would simply bowing one’s head be a problem? The Torah prohibition applies only to full kneeling or prostration, when the head reaches the ground (Rambam, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 7:8).

I found the Sefer Shiurei Berachah of the Chida (YD 150:4), who writes: “There is a severe prohibition, even in removing one’s hat or slight bending, as this is even worse than the case of the thorn, where we are certainly not dealing with full prostration.” Thus, even partial bowing or lowering one’s head can be problematic.

However, it remains unclear whether Terumas Hadeshen forbade merely bowing one’s head, or only full bowing.

Conclusion: In extenuating circumstances (e.g., pidyon shevuyim), if refraining from bowing will cause offense and harm, and the action is clearly understood as a diplomatic gesture — then based on the above one can be lenient and allow a simple bow of the head (but not kneeling or prostrating), especially since such a gesture is culturally normative. This is the ruling of many Poskim
[Nevertheless, it should be noted that some Poskim were unwilling to permit even this, even in a case as serious as pidyon shevuyim.]


May a Woman Wear Another Woman’s Clothes When Her Husband Will Gaze At Them? — Avodah Zarah 20b

Q: Is it permitted for a woman to borrow or rent clothing from relatives or others, when her husband will be looking at those garments, and he recognizes them as clothing belonging to other women?

The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (20b) states that it is forbidden for a man to gaze at colorful garments of women, due to the concern that it may lead to improper thoughts about the women who wore them. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 21:1).

Based on this, I was asked: Is it permitted for a woman to wear clothing that belong to another woman whom her husband knows? Do we say that now he’s simply looking at the clothing of his own wife, and there’s no issue; or does the fact that she’s wearing someone else’s clothing raise a concern for improper thoughts?

A: The Gemara indeed teaches that it is forbidden to look at colorful garments of women, even when they are not being worn, if the man recognizes the owner of the clothing. It is worth noting that is relevant today in situations like summer camps or bungalow colonies where women hang their laundry outside, as this is precisely the case the Gemara was discussing.

Rashi explains the reason for this halachah is because when a man sees the garment, he remembers how the woman looked while wearing it and how the garment made her look beautiful, which leads to improper thoughts. Based on this, one must consider whether a husband seeing his wife in a garment belonging to someone else — whom he recognizes — might also cause inappropriate thoughts.

Before answering directly, we should first consider the words of the Mishnah Berurah (75:18), who writes that it is forbidden to intend to benefit from the voice of a married woman, for it is even forbidden to gaze at her clothing “for enjoyment.” However, this is somewhat difficult to understand, for it appears that the prohibition exists even if one does not intend to derive pleasure, since Chazal forbade it simply due to the danger of arousing improper thoughts.

Even according to Yam Shel Shlomo (Kesubos 2:3) who writes that the prohibition applies specifically to gazing — meaning a focused and deliberate look, similar to gazing at a rainbow — casual glancing without focus is permitted. But even he agrees that gazing is prohibited even without intention for benefit, because such gazing may lead to forbidden thoughts.

One cannot ask on the Yam Shel Shlomo from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (20b), where they ask how it is permitted to give over women’s garment to a man to be laundered — isn’t there a concern for histaklus? — (The Gemara answers that the launderer is preoccupied with his work, and not focused on the garments.) The reason is that the launderer must gaze at the garment in order to properly clean it, which is why it would be problematic if not for the fact that we say he is preoccupied with his work. However, when it is merely looking, and not gazing, it is permitted, like we find regarding looking at a married woman. See Yam Shel Shlomo further there, and Pri Megadim cited by Mishnah Berurah (75:7). However, it is still commendable to avoid even looking, especially for an adam chashuv.

We also find in the Beur Halacha (Siman 225) a distinction between types of looking. Regarding the blessing Shekacha Lo B’Olamo made upon seeing beautiful creations (even non-Jews), he writes that although it is forbidden to stare at the image of a rasha, this refers to looking closely and contemplating a person’s form and features. A quick or casual glance, however, is permitted. Regarding looking at women, however, even regular histaklus is forbidden.

It thus emerges that there are three levels:
1. Casual looking – permitted even at women,
2. Focused gazing – prohibited for both women and evil people,
3. Intermediate level – prohibited for women, permitted for others.

Returning to our question: there seems to be room to be lenient, and we find support for this from the Gemara in Kiddushin (70a), which teaches that it is forbidden to receive personal service from a woman — whether adult or minor, servant or freed — due to the risk of improper thoughts. This includes having her wash his hands, feet, or face, prepare his bed, or serve him drinks (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 21:5). The Rema adds that some say this only applies in private settings, but in public places like bathhouses, people are lenient and allow women to do such tasks.

The Beis Shmuel (21:10) cites the Derishah, who permits such service because it is a task of labor, and quotes the Bachciting the Mordechai, who permits it if the man can avoid improper thoughts — “but one who refrains shall be blessed.” The Chelkas Mechokek agrees, and the Ezer Mekudash notes that people customarily permit this when the woman is simply bringing food or preparing a bed, especially when one’s wife is present or it’s a public setting where yichud is not a concern.

Therefore, we may suggest that just as these services were forbidden due to the risk of improper thoughts, but permitted in public or when one’s wife is present — so too here, when a man sees his wife wearing garments that happen to belong to a woman he knows, we need not be concerned that this will lead to sinful thoughts. This is especially true considering that perhaps when it is his wife wearing them, there is less concern for improper thoughts.

Some Poskim are strict regardless, particularly if the man knows himself to be vulnerable to such thoughts. However, in most cases where a person asks this type of question and affirms that he does not tend to have improper thoughts, many great Poskim have ruled that it is permissible to look at such clothing, and there is no prohibition.


 Download the PDF -> Parshas Chukas