Chapter 3: Baaloh B’ir — Husband in the City

The Concept of Baaloh B’ir

55. It is permitted to be in seclusion with a woman whose husband is in the city.1 This heter is called Baaloh B’ir. As for the parameters of a city, see footnote.2

56. The heter of Baaloh B’ir also applies at night.3

57. There is a difference of opinion among the Poskim as to the reason for this heter.4 Some Poskim say that if a woman’s husband is in the town, she will be worried that he may arrive unexpectedly and therefore will be afraid to engage in any improper conduct. Other Poskim say that the heter is due to the natural anxiety of a wife, a psychological fear that prevents her from engaging in improper conduct.

58. There is a major difference in halachah between these two opinions. According to the first reason — a fear of discovery — the heter would only apply if there is a real possibility that the husband might intrude unexpectedly and hence she would have a fear of being discovered. However, according to the second opinion, even if there is no possibility of her husband’s unexpected return, the very fact that he is in the city would serve to permit the Yichud for she would have a nervous subconscious fear that would preclude her engaging in any improper conduct.5

59. In practice, one should be stringent and only permit a Yichud situation if there is a realistic possibility of her husband’s unexpected return. However, in a case of need, one may rely on the second and more lenient view a) if the door is unlocked, or if other family members have the key, and there is the possibility that someone may enter, or b) in a case of Yichud midrabonon i.e., Yichud of more than two persons.6

60. Let us take, for example, the case of a woman who is at home, and her self-employed husband comes and goes from work as he wishes. Since there is the realistic possibility of his arriving home unexpectedly, Baaloh B’ir serves to permit Yichud. However if the husband works in an office some distance from home, and his wife knows that he is in the office (e.g. she has just called him at the office), and it would definitely take some time before he could come home, then the heter does not apply according to the first opinion.7 According to the second and more lenient opinion, Yichud would be permitted.8 In practice, one should be stringent. However, in time of need one may permit Yichud if a) the door remains unlocked, or other family members have a key and could come home unexpectedly; or b) in a case of Yichud midrabonon, i.e., Yichud of more than two persons.

61. A woman is to be believed when she states that her husband is in the city, thus permitting Yichud.9 If a man does not know that a woman’s husband is in town, she is obligated to inform him so that he will know that he is not in a Yichud situation.10

Away from Home

62. There are Poskim11 who limit the heter of Baaloh B’ir to a case where either a) the woman is at home or b) even if she is away from home, the husband knows of her whereabouts, in which case she would be fearful that her husband might arrive unexpectedly. According to these Poskim, if she is away from home and the husband does not know where she is, then the heter of Baaloh B’ir would not apply because he does not know of her whereabouts and she would have no fear of discovery. However, other Poskim12 are of the opinion that even if the woman is away from home, as long as her husband is in the city, there is no problem of Yichud.13 The reason is as stated above, that as long as her husband is in town, it is a woman’s nature to have a subconscious fear that would preclude any improper conduct. In practice, one should be stringent. However, in a difficult predicament, one may rely on the lenient opinion a) if the door is unlocked, or if other people have the key and there is the possibility that someone may enter, or b) in a case of Yichud midrabonon, i.e., Yichud of more than two persons.

63. In a case of Yichud when the woman is away from home, if it becomes necessary to rely on the lenient opinion, then she should let her husband know where she is. The very fact that her husband knows of her whereabouts (even if it is very unlikely that he might turn up unexpectedly) heightens a woman’s subconscious fear and thus strengthens the heter of Baaloh B’ir.14

64. If a husband allows his wife to visit another man in that man’s home, then she may rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir as long as the door is unlocked.15

65. Let us address the issue of a woman working in an office together with another man in the case of Baaloh B’ir. Theoretically speaking, one may rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir as long as her husband knows she is in the office and the door is unlocked. However, this is only if she has little contact with the other man in the office. If they are co-workers who have a good working relationship, then she is considered a Libo Gas Boh and, as stated below, such a Yichud situation would be prohibited.16

Libo Gas Boh

66. The heter of Baaloh B’ir does not apply in the case of a Libo Gas Boh, i.e. a relative or a very close friend or childhood friend.17 Therefore, if a woman is visited by her father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law or other close family relatives, she may not rely on Baaloh B’ir.18 However, this halachah would only apply if there is a close relationship between the relatives. If their level of emotional closeness is no different than that between any man and woman, then Baaloh B’ir would apply.19

67. As we have already explained, Baaloh B’ir does not help in a case of Libo Gas Boh. However, if the husband is around the house or out in the yard but in close proximity to his wife, then Yichud would be permitted even with a Libo Gas Boh.20

68. A married woman may not work alone together with another man in the same office even in the case of Baaloh B’ir since a co-worker is considered a Libo Gas Boh21 and, as previously stated, the heter does not apply in a case of Libo Gas Boh.22 In such a situation a Rav should be consulted as to the possibility of creating a Pesach Posuach, in which case Yichud may be permitted.

69. Stepchildren or foster children are in the category of Libo Gas Boh,23 and therefore one may not rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir to allow Yichud; rather, the door should be left unlocked.24

Parutz, Asoko Im Hanoshim

70. Most Poskim are of the opinion that Baaloh B’ir helps even if the Yichud situation is with a man who is a parutz.25 However, it is correct to avoid such Yichud wherever possible.

71. It is disputed among Poskim whether Baaloh B’ir works to permit Yichud with someone who is Asoko Im Hanoshim.26 A Rav should be consulted.

Non-Jews

72. A Jewish man may be alone with a non-Jewish woman only if her husband is in close proximity, However, the fact that her husband is in the city does not serve to permit Yichud.27

73. In a country that metes out severe penalties for rape, a Jewish woman may rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir to be alone with a non-Jew. However, in a country where the non-Jew is not very afraid of such a penalty, one may not rely on Baaloh B’ir to permit Yichud28 (see footnote). Some Poskim write that even in a place where there are severe penalties, one should not be lenient unless the woman’s husband is in a place from which he would hear her voice if she would shout.29

74. In practice, a married woman may allow a workman, plumber, electrician etc. from a reputable company (she should check his ID) inside the home in the case of Baaloh B’ir.30 In such circumstances it is correct that she leave the door unlocked, thus creating a Pesach Posuach as well.31

Middas Chassidus

75. It should be noted that although Baaloh B’ir is a legitimate heter, it is a middas chassidus not to rely on it wherever possible.32

N.B. Regarding the above halachos, leaving the door unlocked would only serve a purpose if there is a possibility that someone might enter the room unannounced. However, if nobody would come in without prior permission, then the unlocked door would not serve to prevent Yichud — see chapter on Pesach Posuach.

Footnotes

Shulchan Aruch Even HoEzer 22:8; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 152:4. An interesting question arises as to whether the status of Baaloh B’ir helps to prevent Yichud in the case of seclusion with a woman who married her husband in a civil court but did not have Chuppah and Kiddushin. Nitei Gavriel 36:13 cites an opinion that Baaloh B’ir would apply in such a case, the reason being that since they are married — albeit civilly — the husband would not condone improper conduct on the part of his wife. (See also Toras HaYichud 7:14). However, if a couple is merely living together, then the concept of Baaloh B’ir would not apply — see Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 6:40:17:9. If a couple is separated but not yet divorced, then if there is no communication between them, Baaloh B’ir is ineffective. However, if there is a chance that they may reconcile (e.g. they are getting counseling), then Baaloh B’ir does help, as long as she is at home and the door is unlocked — Toras HaYichud 7:15.

There are several questions among the Poskim as to the parameters of Baaloh B’ir: Does it apply to every part of a large city? What would the halachah be in the case of two small towns which in distance are actually much closer than two neighborhoods at opposite ends of a large city, although in name they are counted as two separate towns with two separate boundaries?

Some Poskim — see Toras HaYichud 7:7 — say that it all depends on the name of the city. As long as the husband is in the same city, although many miles away, he is considered Baaloh B’ir, whereas if he were in a different city, even though in actual distance he could be closer, he is not considered Baaloh B’ir. For example, within London, Stamford Hill and Golders Green are two separate areas, yet they are both in London. Anyone asked about the location of these two places would say that both are in London, only one is in North London and the other in North West London. Hence, Baaloh B’ir would apply. The same would be true of Crown Heights, Boro Park and Flatbush, all of which are suburbs of Brooklyn. According to this view, the deciding factor would be whether or not people consider these neighborhoods to be part of the same city.

Two small towns which are close to each other but which have different names are considered as two separate cities, and Baaloh B’ir would not apply. Therefore, Jerusalem and its satellites of Givat Zeev, Mevaseret, Maaleh Adumim, Tel Zion, and Betar Ilit would be considered separate towns and would not be included in the heter of Baaloh B’ir.

However, if the two towns are within 70-and-two-thirds amos of each other (approx. 34-41 meters), they are considered as one city — see Nitei Gavriel 38:2. Accordingly, Bnai Brak and Tel Aviv would today be considered as one city. See Nishmas Avraham, Even HoEzer 22 in the name of Rabbi S. Z. Auerbach z’tl that today Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Petach Tikvah are all considered one city and Baaloh B’ir applies. (See however Minchas Ish 8:7).

Other Poskim write that today, with modern communications and transportation, the main issues regarding Baaloh B’ir are 1) whether there is the likelihood of the husband returning home unexpectedly, and 2) the amount of time it would take for the husband to return home from where he is — see Nitei Gavriel 38:3 and footnotes, ibid.

In practice, the case in question usually has a number of factors that may either mitigate or complicate the question, and therefore a Rav should be asked.

Nitei Gavriel 35:1.

For a summary of the various opinions and their sources, see Minchas Ish 8:1-6; Nitei Gavriel 35:4.

Igros Moshe, Even HoEzer Vol. 4:65:7 presents a number of cases where Baaloh B’ir would not help mitigate Yichud: 1) In a large city such as New York, her husband is in town, but he has gone to the other side of the city which is an hour’s commute each way, in addition to which he needs to be there for an hour. 2) A man works from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. in an office and it takes him approximately two hours to get to work. See, however, Nishmas Avraham, Even HoEzer 22:8 in the name of Rabbi S. Z. Auerbach zt’l who says that Baaloh B’ir helps mitigate Yichud even if the husband is at the opposite end of a large city such as London or New York. See Minchas Ish 8:6.

In case a), one has a combination of a Pesach Posuach — albeit a lenient opinion concerning Pesach Posuach — and the lenient second opinion for Baaloh B’ir (that she has a subconscious fear of discovery), to permit Yichud. In case b), if the Yichud consists of more than two persons, it is only prohibited midrabonon, and since there is a dispute among the Poskim, we may follow the lenient view in the case of a midrabonon. See Minchas Yitzchok Vol. 9:142; Nitei Gavriel 37:4; Minchas Ish 8:6.

Further points:

1. Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 6:40:6 (p. 182) makes a distinction between a) someone who is employed and has to keep strict office hours, in which case Baaloh B’ir is ineffective, and b) one whose hours are more flexible and who may take off work without financial loss, in which case Baaloh B’ir is effective. Based on this distinction, Nitei Gavriel 35:5 draws the following guidelines for men in Kollel: if the Kollel is in the same town and the administration is reasonably flexible about hours, then Baaloh B’ir is effective; however, if the Kollel is far from home or the administration is very strict about timekeeping, then one should be stringent and not rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir. See, however, Minchas Ish 8:8,9 who is lenient even if the husband is at work or in Kollel and by leaving the workplace he would incur financial loss.

2. If the husband is a surgeon and he is operating, it is questionable whether the heter of Baaloh B’ir would be effective since he could not interrupt the operation to come home suddenly. Therefore according to the first opinion, even if the hospital were near home, if he was not in a position to return home, the heter would not help. Minchas Ish 8:10 writes that it does happen at times that operations are cancelled or that the procedure takes less time than expected, or another surgeon is available to take his place, and therefore one may rely on Baaloh B’ir. However, in such a case the wife should leave the door unlocked.

3. A woman whose husband is in prison in the same town may not rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir — Igros Moshe, Even HoEzer 65:7.

4. If the husband is sick and is in the hospital, or is old and infirm and in an old age home — in which case the husband has a very limited range of movements — then Yichud would only be permitted in the immediate vicinity of the husband. However, the heter would not extend to a different building. (Some say that the same would be true even if the husband is unconscious; however, in such circumstances one may only rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir if it would be a case of Yichud midrabonon.) — See Nitei Gavriel 36:8. The same would be true if her husband were suffering, G‑d forbid, from Alzheimer’s or another disabling mental illness — Nitei Gavriel 36:12.

5. Consequently, a woman whose husband is in the hospital and is confined to his bed may not rely on the heter of Baaloh B’ir to permit Yichud in her home. Even if her husband is actually home but is confined to bed, she may only be in seclusion with another man if she is in close proximity to her husband, in which case he may “sense” what is happening. However, if her husband is confined to bed, she may not be in Yichud with another man in a remote part of the house where the husband has no awareness of their activities. Nitei Gavriel 36:11.

6. The heter of Baaloh B’ir mitigates Yichud even if her husband is blind — Nitei Gavriel 36:9.

See Igros Moshe, Even HoEzer Vol. 4:65:7.

See Minchas Ish 8:8.

Nitei Gavriel 35:10.

10.

Minchas Shlomo 35. See also Haskomo to Dvar Halachah. Conversely, if a woman thinks that her husband is in the city, and another man knows that her husband has left the city, he may not be in Yichud with her — Toras HaYichud 7:17. The same would be true if a man knows that the woman’s husband has now returned to the city, but she thinks that he is still away from the city. In that case, Yichud would be forbidden until she is informed that her husband has returned to the city — ibid.

11.

See Chofetz Chaim Nidchei Yisroel 24:6, Minchas Shlomo 3:91, Shevet Halevi Vol. 5:203:2, Toras HaYichud 7:2.

12.

See Dvar Halachah 7:2; Nitei Gavriel 37:1.

13.

Even according to this lenient opinion, some Poskim write that the heter would not help for a woman who is traveling in a car, for in such a case, the subconscious fear is not present since she is so mobile — see Toras HaYichud 7:12. (However, if the husband knows with whom she is traveling, then it is permitted, particularly if she has a mobile phone and may be contacted at all times — see Nitei Gavriel 35:6.) Even so, other Poskim — see Nishmas Avraham, Even HoEzer 22:8, in the name of Rabbi S. Z. Auerbach zt’l — are lenient.

14.

See Igros Moshe, Even HoEzer Vol. 4:65:21, Dvar Halachah 7:3 and Nitei Gavriel 37:5,6.

15.

Dvar Halachah 7:3; Nitei Gavriel 38:5.

16.

See Dvar Halachah 7:3.

17.

Shulchan Aruch Even HoEzer 22:8; Taharas Yisroel 22:20. Libo Gas Boh may be defined as close friends who help each other out and do each other favors because of their close relationship — see Aruch HaShulchan 22:6; Dvar Halachah 7:15.

A father who brings his child to a kindergarten and develops a close relationship with the female teacher should not be in Yichud with her even in the case of Baaloh B’ir. The reverse is also true. If a woman brings her son to a Melamed and she develops a good relationship with him, then she may not be in Yichud with him even in the case of Baaloh B’ir. In such circumstances, if the mother and the Melamed wish to have a meeting to discuss the progress of the child, the door should be left open — see Minchas Ish 8:26.

18.

See Chapter on Pesach Posuach where we have written that only in difficult circumstances does a Pesach Posuach help for a Libo Gas Boh, and in such a case the door should literally be left open.

19.

Minchas Ish 8:22. Halichos Bas Yisroel 8:6 writes the following based on the ruling of Rabbi S. Z. Auerbach zt’l: “When a father visits his married son and stays in his home, there is no prohibition of Yichud between him and his daughter-in-law as long as the son is in the same city. He must not, however, act in too familiar a fashion with his daughter-in-law. If the son is not in the city, he may remain in the house with his daughter-in-law during the day as long as the front door is left open or if the neighbors are given permission to enter unannounced.”

20.

Minchas Ish 8:27.

21.

Dvar Halachah 7:17

22.

If the man in the office is not a close co-worker and her husband could turn up unexpectedly at the office, then Yichud would be permitted. See Dvar Halachah 7:3.

23.

Dvar Halachah 7:20. See, however, Minchas Ish 8:24, 21:8.

24.

This Yichud is permitted during the day and early hours of the evening when there are passersby. However, late at night a Pesach Posuach is ineffective and other shomrim must be present to allow Yichud.

25.

Nitei Gavriel 36:6. As regards Yichud with a woman who is a prutzah but there is a case of Baaloh B’ir, see Dvar Halachah 7:7, who is lenient. However, see Igros Moshe Even HoEzer Vol. 4:65:6. In practice, a Rav should be consulted.

26.

Nitei Gavriel 36:5. If he is a business associate with whom she has developed a warm relationship, then he is in the category of a Libo Gas Boh, in which case Baaloh B’ir would not serve to permit Yichud.

27.

See Dvar Halachah 7:23; Nitei Gavriel 6:1, 37:7.

28.

Dvar Halachah 7:14, Nitei Gavriel 36:7. He concludes that nowadays in most places the non-Jewish population is not so afraid of the penalties, and therefore one should be stringent. Unfortunately, the high prevalence of this type of crime as attested to in the media is enough evidence to suggest that one should be stringent.

29.

Dvar Halachah 7:14.

30.

In addition to the fear of a penalty, there is also the mitigating factor that the worker might lose his job or be barred from his profession if he were to engage in any improper conduct. See Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah Vol. 2:82.

31.

Minchas Ish 8:14,20.

32.

Dvar Halachah 7:24; Nitei Gavriel 35:13. The reason is that some Rishonim write that Baaloh B’ir is not permitted lechatchilah; it only mitigates a punishment of Malkos. Although the vast majority of Poskim say that Baaloh B’ir is permitted even lechatchilah, it is a middas chassidus to be stringent by taking into account the strict opinion. Furthermore, Rabbeinu Yerucham writes that one who is a tznius person should avoid Yichud even in a case of Baaloh B’ir, for one should always distance oneself from any unsavory situation.

Nevertheless, even the strict opinions would permit such a Yichud situation if the door were closed but not locked. The combination of the two — Baaloh B’ir and a Pesach Posuach — would work to permit Yichud according to all opinions — see Shevet Halevi Vol. 5:203:4.

More in this section