Negiah

Biblical prohibition and subsequent exegesis

The prohibition of negiah is derived from two verses in Leviticus: "Any man shall not approach (לקרב lekarev ) his close relative to uncover nakedness; I am God" (18:6), and: "You shall not approach a woman in her time of unclean separation, to uncover her nakedness" (18:19). Although the verses speak in the masculine gender, women are equally bound by these commandments, just as they are obligated in virtually all negative commandments.

The former verse is viewed by the Tannaim of late antiquity (70–200 CE) as referring to an expansive prohibition against "coming near" (קרב qarab) any of the arayot, or biblically prohibited sexual relations, which includes most close relatives. The latter verse is viewed as referring to the prohibition against "coming near" any woman who is in Niddah status (menstruating) [whether or not she is otherwise one of the Arayot]. The same actions are forbidden under both verses.

The prohibition against physical contact with arayot is codified by Rishonim including Maimonides (Hilchos Issurei Biah 21:1) and the Moses ben Jacob of Coucy (Sefer Mitzvos Gadol 126), who note the consideration of whether the contact is done derekh [chibah v']taavah (דרך [חבה ו]תאוה) in a[n affectionate or] lustful manner. The biblical etiology of Maimonide's prohibition is disputed by Nachmanides, who refers to the derivation from Leviticus 18:6 as an asmachta (a rabbinic prohibition with a biblical allusion) and not true exegesis.

Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch formulate this prohibition as "hugging, kissing, or enjoying close physical contact" ("chibbuk venishuk veneheneh bekiruv basar"). They do not indicate that mere touching is forbidden.

The term negiah

The term negiah is used by Jonah of Gerona, in his Sha'arei teshuvah (Gates of Repentance) 3:80.

Contemporary formulations

The prohibition has been further elaborated on by many contemporary halakhic authorities. For example, negiah is the subject of a series of four important responsa by Moshe Feinstein (1959).

Rabbi Feinstein elaborates the two prohibitions underlying the laws of negiah. The first law is derived from a Biblical prohibition against close contact (קרב qarab) with arayot, as described above. Because all women above the age of 11 are presumed to fall into the category of illicit relationships due to menstruation, it follows that the negiah prohibition extends to all women above that age, not only to the other illicit relationships prohibited by the biblical text. The second derives from the notion of hirhur, a prohibition against having inappropriate sexual thoughts. Feinstein prohibits such acts as hugging, kissing, and holding hands. With regard to shaking hands, see below.

Like most laws, these prohibitions are waived to save a person who is in life-threatening danger, e.g. for a man to save a woman from drowning. In such cases, the prohibitions are waived even if the male rescuer is certain that he will experience improper thoughts (Hirhur). Furthermore, medical practitioners and other professionals such as hairdressers may touch members of the opposite sex in the course of their professional practice.

Shaking hands in halacha

Whether halacha permits a man to shake a woman's hand is a matter of dispute. Opinions range from saying that it is prohibited for a man to return a woman's handshake even if doing so would embarrass him or her, to saying that returning a handshake is permissible to avoid embarrassment but not otherwise, to saying that handshaking is entirely permissible.

Some authorities prohibit returning a handshake, even to avoid embarrassing the other person. For example, the Chazon Ish has been quoted as stating that shaking hands between men and women is "absolutely forbidden" [implying that it is forbidden under all circumstances]. This is also the opinion of Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, Moshe Stern Yitzchak Abadi, Yosef Hayyim, and Judah ben Samuel of Regensburg in his Sefer Chassidim.

Rabbi Feinstein gives the benefit of the doubt to those who return a handshake, stating that they apparently hold that doing so is not derekh khiba v'taavah (דרך חבה ותאוה), but concludes that such leniency is difficult to rely upon. Although Feinstein did not address the mitigating factor of preventing the other person from being embarrassed, and fell short of stating outright that returning a handshake is forbidden, it is commonly assumed that R' Moshe prohibits returning a handshake even to avoid embarrassing the other person. One publication states this in very strong terms. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky has also suggested that there may be room to be lenient in this situation.

Ahron Soloveichik has been quoted as giving a novel basis for permitting handshaking, based on the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) and the ruling of the Rambam (Maimonides). Likewise, Yehuda Henkin holds that it is permissible to shake a woman's hand according to "the basic halacha" (the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch), and that those who feel otherwise are stringent. Hershel Schachter quotes Chaim Berlin as saying that shaking hands with women is strictly speaking (me'ikar haddin) permitted, particularly if to do otherwise would make the Torah look bad, and indicates that he agrees with this position.

According to Fuchs, Halichos Bas Yisrael, only German Rabbis have traditionally permitted returning a handshake; and a man who is stringent about shaking hands may be lenient and shake hands with his sister (and vice versa), since we find other leniencies concerning brother and sister.

The Career Development Center at Yeshiva University, a Modern Orthodox institution, informs its students that "Shaking hands is a customary part of the interview process. Halacha permits non-affectionate contact between men and women when necessary. A quick handshake can be assumed to be business protocol. Since failure to shake hands will most likely have a strong negative effect on the outcome, it is necessary non-affectionate contact, which is permissible."

However, nonetheless, it has been said in the name of prominent Yeshiva University rabbis that one shouldn't engage fully in a handshake, but rather, one shouldn't hold a tight grip. His hand should be "helpless" and as if the other person is initiating and completing the full action, with his hand being the innocent bystander. Acting as such prevents embarrassment and or loss of a business deal, while at the same time allows one to stay in the framework of halacha (Jewish Law).

Shaking hands and relations with non-practitioners

The Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote that remaining firm in one's convictions when it comes to shaking hands with a woman can engender the respect of the other party. In contrast, some people view the practice of those who follow the stringent view and do not shake hands with members of the opposite sex as offensive or discourteous. Some even view it as a manifestation of sexism. The case of a woman whose offer of a handshake was politely declined by her real estate agent is discussed by New York Times "Ethicist" Randy Cohen. Orthodox legal scholar Michael Broyde, founding Rabbi of the Young Israel of Toco Hills and Professor of Law at Emory University, has opined that in the case discussed by Cohen, the values of gender equality and of religious freedom are in conflict. However, others argue that the "intent [of the practice is] to elevate and sanctify the relationship between men and women, which is all too often trivialized." The exact same phenomenon is seen in all religions that segregate by gender such as Islam. They further state that, rather than showing a lack of respect for the opposite gender, the laws of negiah recognize the inherent sexual attraction between the sexes and the need to avoid viewing members of the opposite gender as objects of sexual desire, except in the marital context. Moreover, the practice is not discriminatory because "strictly observant Jewish women also do not touch men, so the prohibition clearly does not confer 'untouchable' status on one sex or another. Rather it proscribes physical contact between the sexes equally." Cohen, on the other hand, likens this argument to the "separate but equal" status rejected in school desegregation cases.