2

I was thinking about Bereishith 9:20-27, where Noah is drunk and becomes uncovered, exposing ervah. Ham sees his father's ervah and tells his brothers, who then cover him without looking in order to avoid seeing their father's ervah. Afterward, Noah curses Ham's line but blesses the other two sons.

This got me thinking. Is it wrong for men to see the ervah of other men? If so, would this prohibit men, even male relatives, from dressing and showering together? If not, why does the Torah appear to condemn Ham for seeing his father's nakedness?

The Editor
  • 433
  • 2
  • 8
  • 1
    Thr Talmud if I'm not mistaken, as well as many commentators explain that Cham did more than uncover his father - whether he castrated him or performed some other type of bodily mutilation. – Harel13 Apr 16 '22 at 21:39
  • @Harel13 Granted, it doesn't say as much in the passage itself, the passage just shows the difference as being due to his looking at his father's nakedness. That said, maybe it's a stretch to conclude that men are prohibited from seeing male relatives dressing or showering. What does the Halacha teach on such? – The Editor Apr 17 '22 at 01:54
  • It is not strictly forbidden and can happen at times, e.g., in the changing room of a mikve But modesty rules also apply to men, such exposure should therefore be minimized to the minimum necessary – mbloch Apr 17 '22 at 03:25
  • @mbloch In saying modesty rules also apply to men, are you including settings of just men? For example, can two brothers dress together in the same room, as can be common at home where brothers share the same room? Also, what about a father and son? – The Editor Apr 17 '22 at 12:38
  • Modesty is to dress with once’s back turned. Seeing one’s father naked is certainly not respectful especially when it can be avoided. See also SA OC 3:2 – mbloch Apr 17 '22 at 13:08
  • @mbloch To confirm, are you saying it is fine for a man to dress in front of other men so long as his back is turned? – The Editor Apr 21 '22 at 20:16
  • @TheEditor I don't see anything wrong in dressing if no one sees him naked. But as it says on the top right of every page, if you need a practical ruling, please be sure to ask a rabbi and not rely on Internet strangers – mbloch Apr 23 '22 at 18:07

3 Answers3

3

The Torah condemns Cham for disrespecting his father, as the Ramban (9:18) says:

והנה החטא שראה חם ערות אביו ולא נהג בו כבוד

The respectful thing to do is to cover him, not announce to the world that they should come and see his unbecoming state.

BTW: The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (72:13) does state that one may not shower with one's father, father-in-law, bother-in-law and teacher, if they are not minimally covered. (Unless one is needed to help them; a proof that it's a respect issue.)

אָסוּר לִרְחוֹץ עִם אָבִיו וְחָמִיו וּבַעַל אִמּוֹ וּבַעַל אֲחוֹתוֹ. וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִין לְכַסּוֹת עֶרְוַתן בְּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, מֻתָּר. וְכֵן הַתַּלְמִיד לֹא יִרְחַץ עִם רַבּוֹ, וְאִם צָרִיךְ לוֹ שֶׁיְשַׁמְּשֶׁנוּ, מֻתָּר.‏

From here we see that showering with other men - even fully undressed - is allowed.

Danny Schoemann
  • 43,259
  • 5
  • 76
  • 197
  • Thanks for the reply! Does the fact that the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch doesn't mention brothers in 72:13 imply that the prohibition doesn't apply to brothers (other than brothers-in-law)? – The Editor Apr 24 '22 at 12:29
  • For a more general application, is one's father, father-in-law, brother-in-law, and teacher the only males one must shower with, or are other types of males included? – The Editor Apr 26 '22 at 17:38
  • In the Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 23:6 it says "in the Talmud they forbade one to wash with his father or brother or mother's husband or sister's husband. ". – Shmuel Apr 28 '22 at 19:21
  • @Shmuel I see. What about non-relatives (e.g., friends)? – The Editor Apr 28 '22 at 21:02
  • I do not think you are going to see more distinctions. I think there is a deeper meaning why it is forbidden. – Shmuel Apr 29 '22 at 14:50
  • @Shmuel I see, so to clarify, it's not that seeing male ervah is inherently wrong for men; it's simply that the ervah of close male relatives could lead to wrong thoughts, as the following answer explains: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/20648/27068. Is this correct? If the answer's "Yes," then that should answer my question, meaning if you place an answer in the next few hours, I can award a bounty. Thanks! – The Editor Apr 29 '22 at 15:49
3

The Shulchan Aruch; Even HaEzer 23:6 writes:

Furthermore, in the Talmud they forbade one to wash with his father or brother or mother's husband or sister's husband. But now they are accustomed to allow this since they cover their genitals in the bathhouse, we need not be concerned about sexual thoughts (Agudah).

The Pitchei Teshuva (Shulchan Aruch; Even HaEzer 23:5) shares something familiair:

הואיל ומכסין. כ"כ ג"כ ביו"ד סי' רמ"ב סעיף י"ז בהג' ולפ"ז בזמנינו שאין מכסין אין היתר בדבר ולא ידעתי על מה סמכו העולם להקל בזה ומצאתי בס' תולדות אדם פ"ו הביא שם כי הגאון הצדיק מו"ה זלמן זצ"ל מוולינא פ"א הלך לבית המרחץ וכאשר בא אל פתח בהמ"ר ומצא את חותנו שמה שב לאחוריו וברח משם כבורח מארי ואמר דאף שרבינו הרמ"א המציא היתר לפי זמנו דיבר וכן האגודה שהביא הרמ"א בזמנו היה מנהג אצל כולם לילך במכנסים במרחץ אבל עכשיו החוש מעיד על הפוך הדבר והוא איסור גמור מדינ' דגמרא בלי שום חולק ע"ש:

This story from the Pitchei Teshuva is cited here:

Rav Zalman once went to the bathhouse and, as he approached the entrance, he saw his father-in-law there, "and he fled as one flees from a lion." The Pischei Teshuvah writes that he does not know why people are lenient nowadays in this regard. The ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN is also unsure why people are lenient. It could be that people rely on the ruling of the Maharam Chalavah, who permits a son to bathe with his father provided that they are covered until they enter the water.

The Beit Shmuel writes:

עוד אסרו לרחוץ עם אביו וחמיו ואחיו ובעל אחותו ובעל אמו. כצ"ל וכן אסור לרחוץ עם רבו אא"כ אם הוא במרחץ קודם לרבו אז מותר אבל עם אביו וכו' אסור משום הרהור מ"ה אסור אפילו אם הוא כבר במרחץ ועיין דרישה: They also forbade bathing with his father and father-in-law and his brother and his sister's husband and his mother's husband. It is also forbidden to bathe with his rabbi, etc. If he is in the bath before his rabbi, then it is permissible... (please correct this translation if necessary. Hebrew is work in progress)

The main point seems to be preventing sexual thoughts. That seems to be the main point behind the above mentioned explanations. So, to be honest. The Halacha here applies to a father, brother, mother's husband, sister's husband etc... but why does the Halacha forbids this? Because it might arouse certain sexual thoughts. Therefore, it seems to me that this can be applied also to a friend. However, I could not find any mefarshim that discusses my view.

However, the Gemara (Pesachim 51a) says:

Two brothers may bathe together, and there is no concern that doing so is immodest or will lead to sinful thoughts. However, the custom was that two brothers do not bathe together in the city of Kabul (see I Kings 9:13). And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who bathed together in Kabul, and the entire city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Hillel stole away and went out to the outer chamber and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to do so. He preferred to obey the city residents rather than rule it permitted for two brothers to bathe together.

See also the commentary of the Meiri on this Gemara.

The point in Bereishis 9 is not so much that the sons saw Noach naked, but what happened before, as the mefarshim explains. The Sforno for example states:

וירא חם אבי כנען את ערות אביו, he saw the shameful deed his son כנען had done to his father Noach when he had castrated him. (according to some of our sages in Sanhedrin 70) According to the historian Berussi Hacaldaii, (compare Genesis 6,9) Canaan castrated his grandfather not surgically, but by some means of sorcery. His father Cham watched his son invoke the witchcraft without protesting or trying to stop him. Disgrace, shame, is also called ערוה, “nakedness.” Compare Ezra 4,14 וערות מלכא לא אריך לנא למחזא “it is not right that we should see the king being disgraced.” Also, in Deuteronomy 21,4 the expression ערות דבר does not refer to either literal nakedness, or to sexual licentiousness, or incest, but refers to “a disgraceful thing.”

Shmuel
  • 9,843
  • 1
  • 7
  • 38
1

In the Noah narrative Bereshit 9:23 it says: "וַיִּקַּח֩ שֵׁ֨ם וָיֶ֜פֶת אֶת־הַשִּׂמְלָ֗ה וַיָּשִׂ֙ימוּ֙ עַל־שְׁכֶ֣ם שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּֽלְכוּ֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וַיְכַסּ֕וּ אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וּפְנֵיהֶם֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וְעֶרְוַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ם לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ" But Shem and Japheth took a cloth, placed it against both their backs and, walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned the other way, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. This implies to me that the disrespect of Ham was not castration but of looking at his father's nakedness.

david badalov
  • 11
  • 1
  • Welcome to MiYodeya David and thanks for this first answer. Great to have you learn with us! – mbloch Sep 15 '23 at 02:24
  • "This implies to me that the disrespect of Ham was not castration but of looking at his father's nakedness." I don't see that [as necessarily implied]. All it says is that they did not see their father’s nakedness. It could as easily mean that they didn't share in their father’s humiliation, of seeing him without his manhood (as the result of castration), which would only be visible when that area was exposed. – Tamir Evan Sep 15 '23 at 05:44