http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/04-Observance/section-53.html
The appeal of the Family Purity law to those who practice it is:
A woman is not subjected to continual demands from her husband. I know this doesn’t seem like it’s necessarily an advantage when you’re 19 and overflowing with hormones, but some people appreciate some time off once they are no longer adolescents.
A woman is not required to have relations with her husband at a time when she may be physically uncomfortable or embarrassed.
A period of enforced separation results in a honeymoon-like experience when the separation is over.
This link gives a pretty good overview.
The required separation time works out to about 12 days, which for most women winds up coinciding with her most fertile time.
In Conceivable, I AM Jewish, and I am doing my best to explain this. I’m sorry if I’m not getting through.
Chava
Wow. Whodathunkit? Thanks for the informative link. But I do wish they’d pick words other than “pure” and “unpure”. It’s insulting in today’s world.
**
It is disrespectful because in our society we typically shake hands when introduced to someone especially in a business environment. If you shake the hands of everyone else and refuse to shake mine then I’m going to be insulted. I don’t care if you’re afraid of germs, I don’t care if you don’t like my nationality, and I don’t care if your religion forbids it. If you shake their hands and refuse to shake mine you’re telling me I’m not as worthy as they are.
**
In those cultures it would be considered rude not to bow.
I do to. Although I’d be insulted I don’t see any reason to blow it way out of proportion.
Marc
I think that some of the folks here have justified the torturing of Jews until they convert during the Inquisition because it was the Christian custom of the time. Or not doing business with Jews, or requiring Jews to live in ghettos. It was wrong. And it is wrong to refuse to shake hands with women because of the mere possibility that they might have holy cooties. Women do not have cooties, holy or otherwise, whether you call it unclean or something else. There is nothing unclean about shaking hands with a woman who is menstrating. The custom is shaking hands, not fingering her cooter.
But the context was not that he shook everyone’s hand but hers. There was (as far as the OP goes) only her.
He didn’t give her a handshake? BFD, I say.
My goodness.
I guess multiculturalism and respect for diversity applies only selectively.
I second the posters above who noted that there is no particular duty on the part of anyone to shake anyone else’s hand. Frankly, I am Sparticus, if I met you, I might refuse to shake your hand, because I dislike shaking the hands of people intolerant of Jewish religious practices. You would be free, of course, to choose not to patronize my business in return.
You offer your confident assertion that there nothing wrong with shaking hands with all women. Orthodox Jews believe that G-d commanded them to behave otherwise. You are free, of course, to disbelieve this… but you are not free to petulantly demand that they disbelieve this, or that they act in ways contrary to that belief.
And that goes for the rest of you. No one is entitled to a handshake. People in this country are entitled, however, to practice their religion to the extent it doesn’t interfere with others’ rights.
- Rick
I can’t believe that neither zev nor IzzyR beat me to this.
It is not sex discrimination, and it has nothing to do with the laws of menstrual uncleanliness. In Judaism, is it considered immodest for people of either sex to touch a member of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married or closely related by blood. If the real estate agent were an Orthodox Jewish female, and the buyer a male, she would have refused to shake his hand as well! That’s not sex discrimination. It is done so as not to arouse one’s sexual desires - in either sex. (Obviously, in the case of a married couple, the urge is not considered wrong, and in the case of close relations, it is not feared that they would ever think of one another sexually.)
On the other hand, it is generally accepted amongst Orthodox Jews that a handshake for the sake of politeness is preferable to letting someone feel insulted due to their not understanding. Still, I cannot help but be astounded at how closed-minded and uninformed the columnist in this “Tribune” appears to be.
Okay. Thanks for the links eris and Chava. They explain a lot. The Laws of Family Purity make a lot of sense even to an outsider. I can certainly see how they would be considered respectful to women.
cmkeller, your explanation also makes sense. If that is the reason he would not shake hands I would still think it silly but not be insulted. The questions I was raising had to do with the idea the first couple of posters put forth that he wouldn’t shake her hand because she might be on her period and therefor “unclean”. It seems that the two ideas got mixed up.
People are entitled to practice their religion as they see fit. However, I am not a bigot if I question religious practices that seem demean me as a person or call me “unclean”.
I think this is true as well.
cm, thank you for your information, but do you really think someone would get aroused from a handshake?
(I mean no disrepsect by this, its just…you know)
Didn’t you see The Age of Innocence? He kisses her wrist–and she’s wearing a glove on it, and he gets all hot. 
I think this is one of those traditions that hasn’t evolved with the people who practice it. I suppose tradition has it’s place, but this one does seem a bit antiquated.
Would an orthodox Jew touch a stranger to push them out from in front of a speeding car, or to otherwise save the life of someone?
It depends, vanilla. If I got to shake Helen Hunt’s hand… who knows? 
EchoKitty, the answer to your question is yes, they would. To save a life, one is permitted to disobey almost any of the laws.
The Jewish faith is thousands of years old. In a sense, I suppose that counts as “antiquated,” yes.
Well, sure, unless he was a jerk or a sociopath or something. But, there’s nothing in Orthodox Judaism to disallow pushing strangers out from in front of a speeding car, and, as a matter of fact, if an Orthodox Jew sees someone who’s life is in danger, he or she is morally obligated to save them.
Absolutely. The preservation of life takes precedence over other commandments.
You’re not alone. Many people who use these words as part of their daily lives use the Hebrew words tahor and tamai, which are not charged with the connotations of clean/unclean or pure/impure.
Chava
Okay, not to get too far off the subject, but here’s another Jewish issue regarding women. Got it from MSNBC:
IN HER NEW video for the Bond theme song “Die
Another Day,” Madonna appears with Hebrew words
written on her and wearing a sacred Jewish prayer item, says
a source.
The singer has become deeply involved in Kaballah, a
Jewish form of mysticism, but the use of the sacred images is
said to be “offending” and “outraging” Jewish leaders,
according to various reports.
“The Hebrew tattoo she has means fight your
pridefulness, your ego,” one source said. But apparently one
of the items she wears, a tefillin, is only worn by men.
The source says Madonna might be
trying to have an encore of her “Like A
Prayer” controversy that outraged some
Catholic leaders.
Madonna’s spokeswoman says
that’s not the case. She says that
Madonna had everything in the video
approved in advance by Kaballah
leaders.
“She feels there is nothing offensive” in the video, the
spokeswoman tells The Scoop.
So, are Kaballah leaders considered “legit” by other Jewish leaders? Why would this item only be allowed for men? Are Jews pretty much like Catholics in the sense that the men pretty much run the show and the women are just “helpers”?
Jewish folk here…what are your opinions on the Madonna thing? And the mysticism thing (which I know absolutely NOTHING about)?
Kabala is mysticism, based on the study of the Zohar, the Book of Light. There are students of kabala in every branch of modern Judaism, from orthodox to reconstructionist. Kabala is frequently viewed as Not a Good Thing by rabbis for the reason that it is studied by people (including non-Jews) who don’t know much about Judaism in the first place. Kabala is traditionally regarded as dangerous to students who are not previously versed in Torah and Talmud.
There is nothing about study of kabala that makes you an authority on Jewish law (halakha). There is also nothing about it that makes you unqualified to rule on halakha.
The usual rule is that if you want to find out what is allowed by halakha you consult an orthodox rabbi (not a kabalist). However, a reasonably competent conservative or reform rabbi will also know what the rules are. They just won’t think it’s quite as important to follow some of them to the letter.
Tefillin are traditionally worn only by men. However, women are not forbidden to wear them. (The daughters of a famous medieval rabbi, Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, were supposed to have prayed with tefillin.) The problem that I see is that tefillin are ritual objects associated with prayer. The are not worn during ordinary activities, and there are special blessings that are said when they are put on. The parchment writings inside the little boxes are treated with the same respect as the Torah scroll itself. So I can see that observant Jews might be offended by a non-Jew using tefillin (even without the parchments) in a context other than traditional prayer.
The reason women don’t normally pray with tefillin is that they are not obligated to do so. The three-time-daily prayers, which are the ones said with tefillin are requred of men but not of women because they must be said at certain times of the day and women may have responsibility for children which prevents them from meeting that schedule. A woman may *choose[/]i to take on a traditionally male obligation, but only if she will not prevent a man from fulfilling his obligation.
Chava