Baptism before the wedding

What is the prohibition of affectionate touching before marriage?

https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91/%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%94-204/
Beyond all this, there is also the matter of modesty.

I meant what is the prohibition of affectionate touching, if the woman is baptized?

But what's the big problem with a mistress?

Do a search on the site and you will find what the problem is with the mistress. The question has been asked here many times.

Anonymous, I answered and referred to the link.
Who talked about a mistress here? Indeed, you can search. See also Rabbi Shmuel Ariel's response to Zvi Zohar in Akademut 17.

1) According to the link, the source of the prohibition against coming with a pure virgin is because “There will be no impurity among the daughters of Israel”. The general prohibition of touching is because “You shall not approach a woman in her impurity to uncover her nakedness”. How does the prohibition of “You shall not approach” relate to ”There will be no impurity”?
2) Assuming that there is indeed a prohibition against touching a virgin, even after baptism, if you knew that a very high percentage, say 90%, fail to touch before marriage, is there room to rule differently? And if not, is there such a percentage?
Thank you

Even 90% fail to keep Shabbat, so we will rule differently??
What is this nonsense?? If you are unable to meet what the halakhah demands of you, you have two options, my dear - get stronger or abandon it. The expectation that is increasingly becoming a demand in the cultural discourse of our time to consider the poor losers who fail to keep up with the halakhah (of which I am one in certain things) is devoid of any real content and originates from people who have not yet understood what halakhah is. Absolute values that are not dependent on the quantity or quality of those who perform them. There are no personal invitations here.

Jonathan! You have not understood the structure of the law correctly and correctly. In the book of חבריש, it is discussed about whether it is better for a person to be a scoundrel and a divisor when they say this. There is a concept of a decree that the public cannot abide by. One who increases and one who decreases, provided that his heart is directed to heaven. The Torah is not as opaque as you are.
There can also be a situation of law and no teachers are like that.
“And the Lord said to Samuel: Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, for he is deceiving; for not as man sees, for man sees with the eyes, but looks with the heart”
And I saw upper ones below and lower ones above.
Look at this link, brother:
https://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=33433
To Anonymous, regarding 1, there is a teaching to compare all incest in their laws or something like that. Regarding 2, our Rabbi Dr. Miki has already stated that today there is no halachic legislation.
I vaguely remember something that goes something like this: The sons of Ezra did not serve Ezra except to sin with the daughters of Moab. And the sages decreed against them so that he would not come near them. (Or maybe if he did come near, he would allow Ezra only so that he could be with their daughters.)
Our Rabbi Miki, I wrote this collection of sources so that I could get a response from you that this is a collection of nonsense in your opinion. Did I succeed?

I'm not talking about incest here, but about a single woman who was baptized. Although David's court ruled on exclusiveness with a single woman, what is the source that would prohibit affectionate touch with a pure single woman?
The reason I ask the question is that I unfortunately failed with my wife when we were dating. I'm a very serious guy, and I really surprised myself that it happened to me. It could certainly be that I'm just weak, and that this doesn't happen to most religious couples who date, but I went with my wife to a psychologist who treats couples, and she told us that it's very common for religious people to touch when they date. I came to the conclusion that we need to either 1) change the way we date, that is, start dating like the haredim, and get married after very few dates. The problem is that this is very impractical in our society, because marriage is a lifelong choice, or 2) have the woman be baptized. After all, it can't be that the majority of the national religious public is violating a Torah prohibition, and we don't do anything about it. (I may be wrong, and the phenomenon is rarer than I described, but to the best of my understanding, this is indeed the case)

Hello.
The question of whether to give halachic advice in order to minimize damage was discussed in my article in Good Modem 567, p’ Chai Sarah:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7IY0xlc1dmYTMweVE
It would be better if they were mistaken, not related here, because this is not about an incorrect halachic ruling, but about silence and failure to reprimand.
I did not understand the comment about nonsense. I assume that there was an implicit accusation here that instead of addressing the matter objectively, I dismiss things as nonsense. In my opinion, this is not the case. I only say this when it really says nonsense (in my opinion).
.

Rabbi,
I am the original asker of the question, and I have not yet received an answer. I am not asking to tease, but to clarify.
I am willing to accept the following three assumptions:
1) There is a prohibition on coming with a pure woman (because “there will be no impurity”).
2) There is a prohibition on touching a woman's private parts/pubic area because “and a woman in her private parts in her impurity, she shall not come near to uncover her private parts”.
3) Halachic advice should not be given in order to minimize harm.
How do we move from the prohibition of “there will be no impurity”, which prohibits *coming* with a pure woman, to the prohibition of *touching* a pure woman?
Thank you

In honor of Rabbi Avraham
I had no intention at all of accusing the rabbi of not addressing the matter by saying nonsense. It's just that in my opinion I brought a collection of quotes that are not so related, such as the verse from the prophet Samuel and all sorts of other things, and that's why I said that. Here the cynicism did not reach its full expression on my part, but only on my part. To be honest, I think the rabbi is more sophisticated when the rabbi wants to dismiss things. Usually the rabbi does this by defining things from a different perspective and turning the coin to the other side as if it solves the problem and it seems convincing while the rabbi knows that it does not answer the argument. Does the rabbi agree with this? 🙂 (: How do you make a smiley here?
As for me, it would be better to have a shoggin, from here the concept of minimizing damage in the form of canceling a deed is proven. And maybe we can make an analogy to the desert of a lie, stay away, which is also canceling a deed (?)
Anonymous, the rabbi already directed you to the link in which the sages taught that there is an יאל ה

Anonymous, I directed you to the link, so please read it. Proximity is prohibited for anyone who is prohibited from entering.

Rabbi,
I read the link several times and was not convinced. According to what you wrote here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%9c%d7%97%d7%99%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%a2%d7%9d-%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%92%d7%a9-%d7%9b%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%90-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%97%d7%93%d7%9c-%d7%9c%d7%97%d7%99%d7%99

“It is difficult to resolve marital life without Kiddushin, because in simple terms it is against the law. It is true that some have written that concubines are permitted (like the Ya'avetz), but the issue is quite vague, so the prohibition of concubines is in the worst case “difficult to explain”, and according to the Ya'avetz, even permissible. Even if we accept that there is a Torah prohibition here of “there shall be no kedsha”, this is a much less severe prohibition than fornication or niddah, which requires a court of law/keret, and therefore it is not necessary, and in my opinion it is also not reasonable, that a reservation made by the Torah for these prohibitions be thrown here.
Thank you

P.S. If my words are still not understood, I will simply approach you sometime at the university, and ask you personally

A rabbi in Israel who published a set of books to the dismay of conservatives who are provoking them receives a message from an anonymous person saying that if the rabbi doesn't understand, he will simply take action against you personally. If I were the rabbi, I would be worried.

Haha, I just said I'd go to him to clear things up in person. Sometimes you can clarify things more when it's face to face. It sounds from what you said that you think there's a threat here.

Ex! I don't think the concepts you brought up are related to our issue. I came out against the approach that calls for reducing the halakha to the canon of our weaknesses because it doesn't go well with our shared lives and desires.
Regarding the discussion, the halakha said that today being single is as important as other incest. Why, if it's difficult for someone, should something be changed? You can call it opacity. It doesn't matter what definition you give it.

Anonymous, I don't understand what the problem is. And how does the mistress issue come into play here? It seems like a riddle to me. You can definitely talk at the university.

Okay, thank you very much!

Hello

I am also in the same situation as Anonymous, and the answer is still not clear to me.

What exactly is the problem with a guy and a girl who know they are going to get married, touching each other affectionately? And nothing more than that, there is no intention of having sex, just a touch of affection.

Of course, all this is assuming that the girl has been baptized and is not a niddah.

I am asking in terms of pure halakhah, is there a prohibition or not, I am not asking about customs!

The fact that two people are asking shouldn't change the answer. I answered that. Touching is a caveat to bringing, and bringing is forbidden in your situation as well.

My question is simply whether there is a Torah / Rabbinic / latter-day prohibition.

These are three different prohibitions.

Everyone simply says it is forbidden, I want to understand where the prohibition comes from

And maybe they will hold a ceremony in Sana'a in front of ten people and hold the big celebration on time?

It's not possible, it's a matter of unnecessary blessings, and it's also not an accepted thing, so it would create an unpleasant situation.

Ultimately, the question is very simple.
If she goes to be baptized and becomes pure, then from the Torah and the rabbis am I allowed to touch her with affection? It is clear that relationships are forbidden, I am talking purely about touching.

In the S”D Ner 3’ Dahanukkah 5771;P

Regarding my advice above –
Isn't this how it is done at the wedding of the Blessed One and the Knesset of Israel. The entrance to the huppah is on the holiday of Matan Torah, while the stormy dances of joy with the Torah are done more than 4 months later, on Shemini Atzeret. And they explained this, that precisely with time, when the couple has had time to truly get to know each other – then they feel the magnitude of the joy more and are more certain that the decision was correct.

And we also find in the days of the Gemara that they would also hold feasts of joy throughout the year and invite people to them ‘that joy is in his dwelling’. And what the Rishonim said is that ’The Lord guarantees all joy’ and not to say ‘that joy is in his dwelling’ After the seven days of feasting, we should discuss whether in our generation, which has been blessed with a large gathering of exiles and a community of Jews in our country, there might be room to renew the custom that existed in the days of the Talmud?

And a suggestion in another direction, simpler, more halachic and practical -
to hold the meetings between the fiancé and fiancée only in the presence of people who know them, and then naturally the barrier of shame will prevent them from failing to touch, because ‘it is not acceptable’ and’not pleasant’…

With greetings, Sh”t

I answered that, and I won't answer any more. There is a limit to every trick.

I asked a very simple question, where does the prohibition come from? Torah / Rabbi / someone else?

I'm not here to look for loopholes or anything, I'm really asking to know, it may bother you that people ask such questions, but if you don't want to discuss such issues you shouldn't have opened such a discussion. If you opened such a discussion, at least answer the questions.

I didn't ask anyone for permission to do forbidden things, I'm simply trying to understand the prohibition.

No such question bothers me, and I didn't talk about requesting permits. What bothers me is that I answer and answer again, and you don't read and ask the same thing again. That's all.

It seems that the prohibition is the rabbinical prohibition of distancing from a forbidden cause of fornication. That is, even when the woman is pure, there is a prohibition on a cause outside of marriage (fornication). And the Sages decreed the rabbinical prohibitions of all forbidden causes in the form of a prohibition of touching.

Also look at this answer:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%90-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9F

As is known, the one who comes to his fiancée (i.e. a woman who has consecrated but not married – not like a modern-day fiancée) in his father-in-law's house, he prepares him for rebellion – and it seems that even if there is no reason for fornication in this, there is a way of fornication and incest in this, and therefore the rabbis forbade it on such a ground (and even a touch of affection in such a situation was forbidden by all the rabbis, as a kind of Torah forbidding).

And for the Rambam, this is a cancellation of a de-Torah act (of kiddushin). I think that even for the other schools that see kiddushin only as permitting or enabling and not as a commandment, there is a prohibition from the Torah in this, because the Torah required the permitting and he did not do it. It is true that it is not usually presented this way, and so on.

Sapo,
Another option is to ask your girlfriend/fiancée to immerse, and yet try not to touch, so that if you fail at touching, the level of prohibition will be less, and not that you will immerse for the purpose of touching itself. That way you are not giving up on yourself, but rather putting a safety net in place.
On the other hand, this is probably bad advice, because in practice it significantly increases the chance that you will touch.
Still, the psychological suffering and cognitive dissonance I experienced during the period when (unfortunately) we started touching until we got married was enormous. I am, in principle, as strict as I am about the minor, and suddenly I found myself violating a Torah prohibition almost every day. I had no one to talk to about it, and I think it hurt my relationship with my wife to some extent (we had to go to a sex counselor). It turned a period that was supposed to be one of the happiest in my life, when I found love, into one of the most difficult and frustrating periods. From what I understand, this phenomenon is very common in national religious society.
Says another thing. Chazal said that there is no guardian for adultery, and in the blessings: “Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said that R’ Yochanan told a parable to a man who had a son, washed him and clothed him and fed him and gave him drink and hung a sack around his neck and sat him at the door of a prostitute. What will the son do that he will not sin?”
The answer is that the son does not need to be washed and clothed, and not sit outside a prostitute's house with a sack around his neck. And so with all other adulteries, the answer is that one should simply stay away. Chazal understood that the only thing that can resist the urge to commit adultery is not to enter the situation in the first place (Rabbi Michai - maybe they even thought it was close to deterministic?).
The problem is that one cannot stay away when dating a girl for the purpose of marriage. On the contrary, one tries to get as close as possible. Sometimes one falls in love, and for practical reasons one cannot get married for a good few months. What can one do and not sin?!
As mentioned, I am the last person anyone would guess that I touched my girlfriend, but it happened often. I realized that if I, who studied in a yeshiva, and I set times for Torah, and pray in minyan three times a day, and am very strict with Halacha, and recognize myself as having very high self-control, if I did not stand the test, then an ordinary religious person would not stand the test. I am not saying this to praise myself (I am intentionally writing this post as anonymous), but it is simply a fact.
The only solution I can think of is to only go on a limited number of dates, and get married immediately, like the Haredim do. Or maybe even set up a match and meet for the first time under the chuppah, as has happened throughout history.
Of course, this is not practical. Marriage is a lifelong choice, the most important choice of life, so you must invest the time to get to know your partner well.
So I would suggest that you ask your girlfriend if she will agree to immerse, and then try not to touch, even if only to reduce the psychological damage.

By the way, I asked my then-girlfriend (who is now my wife) to get baptized, and she didn't agree.

On the 4th of Tevet 5772

The simple advice is to meet your fiancée in places where there are people who know you, in front of whom it would not be pleasant to violate the prohibition of touching. In other words: don't be ‘anonymous’ :)’.

Best regards, Shࢭt

You are absolutely right, and I wish I could have stood up to it. But I failed, and I know that many others also fail, despite the advice.
By the way, we have no problem observing the laws of Nida, even with all the harshness, but the dating period is different.