Is it permissible for a man to touch a non-Jewish woman out of affection? And vice versa, is it permissible for a Jewish woman to touch a non-Jewish man out of affection?

Thank you very much for the answer!

I asked the same question there at the time, but I was not convinced by the answer because I was looking for primary sources from the Talmud and not from the words of the poskim (anything that does not have a clear and explicit basis in the Talmud or is learned by necessary deductions from it), so I wanted to know what the Rabbis think about the matter, since, as a person in the holy book, the Rabbis have independent thinking and a first-order ruling according to the binding sources (the Talmud).

Regarding the Rabbis' answer, fornication is known to be more serious than the prohibition of leo, so if the Sages forbade hugging and kissing in public (according to Maimonides from the Torah and according to Maimonides from the rabbis), this does not mean that the prohibition of leo would be prohibited. So the division is necessary, and if the Sages forbade fornication, it is only an innovation, and we have no reason to prohibit it even in the prohibitions of leo.

Regarding the comment of the Katar regarding the prohibition of yin and phatam, further evidence should be brought in this way from the law of prohibition of yichud that is stated in both the Jewish and the Gentile penua (and this would also constitute a source for the prohibition of hugging and kissing with a pure penua). However, evidence of this type is correct, perhaps, within a halakhic perspective that creates new laws in light of the spirit of the existing law, but there are other, more positivist perspectives that assume that this power to create laws was only for the sages of the Talmud, while after the Talmud we only have what was forbidden in the Talmud itself. If the Talmud does not explicitly enact a prohibition of hugging and kissing with a Gentile, we do not have the authority to say that this is a binding law (and the gates of imagery and division have always been open and we can say that yichud is not the same as hugging without yichud, etc.).

Therefore, I take this opportunity to ask the Katar about his approach to ruling on halakhic law: Does the Katar think that everything that is required by the spirit of Talmudic law, even if not explicitly enacted, is forbidden by law because of the similarity between the cases we are dealing with? Or perhaps the Katar also agrees with the aforementioned positivist approach but believes that since they forbade the fathoms, is there evidence that the Sages also actually enacted a prohibition on hugging and kissing? (This seems a bit far-fetched). Or perhaps the Katar assumes that even without their own actual legislation in the days of the Talmudic sages, there is still a prohibition by the very nature of the 16th chapter of the Fathoms and the prohibition of hugging and kissing is included in the very decree of the Fathoms and Kisses?

With great appreciation and gratitude

This is not called creating a new law. A ko”ch or analogy are ways of interpretation and therefore their result is binding. If I were to make a ko”ch or a construction from Torah verses today, it would be binding on me. So just as one makes a ko”ch from the Torah, one can also make a mahzahal.

Thank you very much for the answer!

According to this way of reasoning of the KTR, is it correct to say that the MCC prohibits eating a piece of bread from a non-Jew, and that it is MCC prohibits a Jew from being a close friend of a non-Jew (going to his house every week to talk and laugh together, watch football together, watch movies together, etc.)? After all, if even a piece of bread from a non-Jew that a Jew does not eat together with the non-Jew is prohibited, then it is MCC prohibits being his friend in the above manner. In terms of practicality, this would be a great innovation.

I also wanted to ask what the KTR thinks about a pure free woman (although it is not in practice because nowadays people do not go to the mikveh). Does the KTR prohibit this MCC from the prohibition of yihud? Or should a litigant disagree and say that I am yihud because there is a concern about coming into the same space where one is yihud there, since hugging in a place where there is no problem of yihud there is no such concern. Or does the KTR prohibit hugging and kissing with a pure free woman for some other reason?

Thank you very much again and have a blessed Shabbat!

There is a difference between interpreting a decree and inventing a new decree from the context of the D’Kara’. Coming appears in the halakha as a prohibition and an explanation that extends to the gentile. The prohibition of social intercourse does not exist in the halakha.
Beyond that, there is logic to prohibit, but there are also human reasons to permit that can reject the prohibition, especially since it is not written in the halakha.
For the same reason, it is appropriate to prohibit intercourse with a pure free woman. This is an application of an existing halakhic category.

Thank you very much for the answer! Very thought-provoking.