Hands Off – Part 2

In last week’s essay, we quoted the Rema’s ruling (E.H. 195:16) that a husband may attend to his sick wife when she is a Nida if nobody else is available and she greatly needs it. Many other Poskim concur.

In this essay, we will define the conditions of “nobody else available” and “great need” more precisely. There is a fascinating Teshuva of the Radvaz that sheds light on this subject (4:2  (1076)):

Reuven and his wife were in hiding with nobody else to attend to them. The wife took ill and she was a Nidah. Could her husband touch her, such as to help her lie down, sit up, and attend to her needs? If he is a doctor, is he permitted to palpate her pulse? If he is a bloodletter, could he let her blood? Is there any difference between a Choleh sheYesh Bo Sakana and a Choleh sheEin Bo Sakana?

In response, the Radvaz quotes the Terumas haDeshen who distinguishes between an ill husband versus an ill wife. When the husband is ill, his wife is permitted to care for him due to his weakened state, which mitigates concerns about physical contact leading to improper behavior. He quotes the Teshuvos haRosh, who concurs and further advises that “if he is ill and he has no one else to attend to him except for her, it is permitted but she must exercise utmost caution to avoid washing his face, arms, and feet or making his bed in his presence.” However, if she is ill, there is still a concern that his Yetzer haRa will overpower him and that she won’t be able to resist him due to weakness.

The Radvaz continues:

In my humble opinion, this restriction applies only if there is no one else available to care for the wife, as he is obligated to hire a woman to attend to her. If he is sick, we do not obligate her to hire an attendant for him. This can be deduced from the wording [of the Rosh]: “If he is ill and he has nobody to attend to him”; [in other words,] he doesn’t have anybody to attend to him but others do have [people to attend to them].

Apparently, if the husband is sick and there is nobody to attend to him other than his wife, she is not obligated to hire somebody in her stead. But in the opposite scenario, the husband is obligated to hire an attendant. In other words, the condition of there being “nobody else available” is not met even if it is not possible to find an attendant without paying. This is also the position of the Lechem v’Simlah (ibid. 30) and Darchei Teshuva (ibid. 53).

However, as Rav Shmuel Wosner zt”l pointed out, this is not a clear definition. Even if observing the Harchakos from a Nidah is only a Din d’Rabbanan, the rule that a person is obligated to give up all his money to avoid transgression should still apply (see Pischei Teshuva Y.D. 157:4). If so, the husband should be obligated to part with all of his assets to hire another person to attend to his wife. However, it seems highly unlikely that this would be required and it is reasonable to assume that this would meet the Rema’s permissive criterion of “nobody else is available” and the husband could attend to her in that scenario.

In his Sefer “Shiurei Tohar”, R’ Avraham Naftali Vig Shlit”a records several Chidushim on this topic:

1. According to the Rema, it seems likely that if a woman falls, her husband may help her get up if there is no one else to help her.
2. If the only option is another man, this would not be appropriate and would be considered a case where there is no other option.
3. If he were to summon a [female] neighbor to help, they would be embarrassed to have their forbidden status become known to others. If so, this is also considered a situation of there being no one else available and he is not obligated to call a neighbor.

R’ Vig suggests that in these cases the husband should help her with a garment interposing between them. According to the Megilas Esther and Lev Sameach, this reduces the Issur to the level of a d’Rabbanan. The Mekor Chaim similarly recommends using a garment when palpating a pulse. This would be a Heter even according to the Shulchan Aruch who is more stringent than the Rema in this matter.

One further point to add to last week’s essay: We quoted the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling (ibid. 15) that a wife may attend to her husband if there is no one else available.

1. This applies even to an illness that does not constitute a Sakana, as the Poskim do not draw any distinction. This is stated explicitly by the Aruch haShulchan ibid. 27 and the Mekor Chaim ibid. 58. However, the Mekor Chaim (ibid.) and Darchei Teshuva (ibid 49) caution that this does not apply if he only has an ailment (“Mechush”) or pain, rather than an actual illness, as, in that case, we are still concerned that he may transgress.
2. Regarding the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling that “she must be as careful as she possibly can not to wash his face, arms, and feet, or make his bed in his presence”. This implies that if there is no need for it, she should not do it at all. The Beis Yosef quotes Rabbenu Yerucham who cites the ruling of the Gaonim that she should not wash his face, arms, and feet under any circumstances.
3. The Shulchan Aruch rules similarly regarding making the husband’s bed, implying that she should not do it if it is not necessary. Rabbenu Yerucham (cited by the Beis Yosef) again forbids this completely.
4. The Beis Yosef, Chochmas Adam (116:11), and Aruch haShulchan (ibid. 24) rule that she may pour wine for her husband as this does not generate the same “Chiba” as washing him. The Bach and Shach (ibid. 18) disagree, equating it with making his bed and washing him.
5. However, she may serve any other food and drink to him (Shach, ibid.)