What is the prohibition on affectionate touch before the wedding?

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 that, there is also the issue of modesty.

I meant: what is the prohibition on affectionate touch if the woman immersed?

But what is the big problem with a concubine?

Search the site and you’ll find what the problem with a concubine is. The question has been asked here more than once.

Anonymous, I answered and referred you to a link.
Who said anything here about a concubine? Indeed, you can search. Also see Rabbi Shmuel Ariel’s response to Zvi Zohar in Akdamot 17.

1) According to the link, the source for the prohibition on intercourse with an unmarried woman who is ritually pure is because of “There shall not be a harlot from the daughters of Israel.” The general prohibition on touch is because of “And to a woman in the impurity of her niddah you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness.” How does the prohibition of “you shall not approach” relate to “There shall not be a harlot”?
2) Assuming there really is a prohibition on touch with an unmarried woman, even after immersion, if you knew that a very high percentage, say 90%, fail in this area before the wedding, would there be room to rule differently? And if not, is there such a percentage?
Thanks

Ninety percent also fail in keeping the Sabbath, so should we rule differently??
What is this nonsense?? If you can’t live up to what Jewish law demands of you, then you have two options, my friend—either overcome it or leave. This expectation, which is increasingly turning into a demand in today’s cultural discourse, to take into account the poor fallen people who can’t keep up with the halakhic pace (and I’m one of them in certain things), is completely empty of real content and comes from people who still haven’t understood what Jewish law is. Absolute values that do not depend on the quantity or quality of those who observe them. Nothing personal.

Jonathan! You haven’t properly understood the nature of Jewish law. At the beginning of the Chafetz Chaim’s book he discusses the principle “better that they remain unwitting sinners,” and distinguishes when we say that. There is a concept of a decree that the public cannot abide by. Whether one does much or little, as long as he directs his heart to Heaven. The Torah is not blocked up in the kind of obtuseness you’re showing.
There can also be a situation of “it is the law, but we do not instruct people to act that way.”
“And the Lord said to Samuel: Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him; for it is not as man sees, for man sees with the eyes, but the Lord sees the heart.”
And I saw those above below and those below above.
Look at this link, brother:
https://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=33433
To Anonymous: regarding 1, there is some derivation equating all forbidden sexual relationships in their laws, or something like that. Regarding 2, our rabbi Dr. Michi already noted that today there is no halakhic legislation.
I vaguely remember something that goes roughly like this: the children of Israel only worshipped idolatry in order to sin with the daughters of Moab. And the Sages decreed against their bread so that one should not draw close to them. (Or maybe because if he draws close he’ll even permit idolatry just so he can be with their daughters….)
Our rabbi Michi, I wrote this collection of sources so that I might merit from you a response saying it’s a bunch of nonsense in your eyes. Did I succeed?

I’m not talking here about forbidden sexual relationships, but about an unmarried woman who immersed. True, David’s court decreed against seclusion with an unmarried woman, but what is the source that would prohibit affectionate touch with an unmarried woman who is ritually pure?
The reason I’m asking is that unfortunately I failed with my wife when we were dating. I’m a very serious guy, and I really surprised myself that this happened to me. It may well 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 works with couples, and she told us that it is very common for religious people to touch while dating. I came to the conclusion that one must either 1) change the way people 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 choice for life, or 2) that the woman immerse. After all, it can’t be that most of the Religious Zionist public is violating a Torah prohibition and we’re not doing anything about it. (It may be that I’m mistaken, and that the phenomenon is rarer than I described, but to the best of my understanding, that is indeed the case.)

Hello.
The question of whether to give halakhic advice in order to minimize damage is discussed in my article in Middah Tovah 5767, Hayyei Sarah:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7IY0xlc1dmYTMweVE
“Better that they remain unwitting sinners” is not relevant here, because we are not talking about issuing an erroneous halakhic ruling, but about remaining silent and not offering rebuke.
I didn’t understand the remark about nonsense. I assume there was some implicit accusation here that instead of addressing things substantively, I dismiss them as nonsense. In my impression that is not the case. I say that only when what is written really is nonsense, in my opinion.
.

Rabbi,
I’m the original questioner, and I still haven’t received an answer. I’m not asking in order to provoke, but in order to clarify.
I am willing to accept the following three assumptions:
1) There is a prohibition on intercourse with an unmarried woman who is ritually pure (because of “There shall not be a harlot”).
2) There is a prohibition on touching a woman who is a niddah / a forbidden relation because of “And to a woman in the impurity of her niddah, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness.”
3) One should not give halakhic advice in order to minimize damage.
How do you get from the prohibition of “There shall not be a harlot,” which prohibits *intercourse* with an unmarried woman who is ritually pure, to a prohibition of *touching* an unmarried woman who is ritually pure?
Thanks

To Rabbi Abraham,
I had absolutely no intention of accusing the rabbi of not addressing things substantively by calling them nonsense. It’s just that in my eyes I brought a collection of quotations that weren’t really connected, like the verse from the prophet Samuel and various other things, so I said that. Here the sarcasm didn’t come through well on my part; it was just attention-seeking. To be honest, I think the rabbi is more sophisticated when he wants to dismiss things. Usually the rabbi does it by defining things from a different angle and turning the coin to the other side as if that solves the problem, and it looks convincing even though the rabbi knows it doesn’t answer the argument. Do you agree with that? 🙂 (: How do you make a smiley here?
As for “better that they remain unwitting sinners,” from here the concept of minimizing damage is proven in the form of setting aside the positive commandment of “you shall surely rebuke.” And maybe one could make an analogy to “keep far from a false matter,” which is also the setting aside of a positive commandment(?)
Anonymous, the rabbi already referred you to the link where it says that the Sages learned there is a prohibition of “do not approach” for every Torah prohibition of intercourse.

Anonymous, I referred you to the link, so please read it. Closeness is prohibited to anyone for whom intercourse is prohibited.

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 hard to permit a conjugal life without kiddushin, for on the face of it this is against Jewish law. True, there are those who wrote a leniency regarding concubinage (such as the Yaavetz), but the topic is quite unclear,” then the prohibition of concubinage is, at worst, merely “hard to permit,” and according to the Yaavetz it is even permitted. Even if we accept that there is here a Torah prohibition of “There shall not be a harlot,” this is a far less severe prohibition than intercourse with forbidden relations or with a niddah, for which one is liable to court-imposed death or karet, and therefore it is not necessary—and in my opinion not even reasonable—that a fence the Torah made for those prohibitions should be applied here.
Thanks

P.S. If what I’m saying is still not clear, I’ll just come over to you sometime at the university and ask you in person.

A rabbi in Israel who published a multi-volume set of books to the displeasure of conservatives who are baiting him receives a message from an Anonymous saying that if the rabbi doesn’t understand, he’ll simply act toward you personally. If I were the rabbi, I’d be worried.

Haha, I simply said that I’d come over to him to clarify things in person. Sometimes things can be worked out better face to face. It sounds from what you wrote that you think this is some kind of threat.

X! I don’t think the concepts you brought are relevant to our issue. I was speaking out against the approach that calls for lowering Jewish law to the kindergarten level of our weaknesses because it doesn’t fit so well with the flow of our lives and our desires.
In the case at hand, Jewish law said that nowadays an unmarried woman has the status of the other forbidden relations. Why, if this is hard for someone, should anything be changed? You can call that obtuseness. It doesn’t matter what label you give it.

Anonymous, I don’t understand what the problem is. And how the concubine issue got in here. It seems to me like a riddle. We can certainly talk at the university.

Okay, thank you very much!

Hello,

I too am in the situation Anonymous was in, and the answer is still not clear to me.

What exactly is the problem with a young man and woman who know they are about to get married touching affectionately? And nothing more than that—there is no intention of having relations, only affectionate touch.

Of course, all this assumes that the woman immersed and is not a niddah.

I’m asking strictly from a halakhic standpoint: is there a prohibition or not? I’m not asking about customs!

The fact that two people are asking should not change the answer. I answered this. The touch is a fence against intercourse, and intercourse is prohibited even in your situation.

My question is simply whether this is a Torah prohibition / a rabbinic prohibition / a prohibition from later generations.

These are three different prohibitions.

Everyone just says it’s forbidden; I want to understand where the prohibition comes from.

And perhaps they could perform kiddushin and huppah privately before ten people, and hold the big celebration at the proper time?

That’s not possible, because of blessings in vain, besides the fact that it’s not something people normally do, so it would create an unpleasant situation.

In the end the question is very simple.
If she goes to immerse and becomes ritually pure, then according to Torah law and rabbinic law is it permitted for me to touch her affectionately? Obviously relations are prohibited; I’m speaking strictly about the touching.

With God’s help, third candle of Hanukkah 5780

Regarding my suggestion above—
isn’t this how the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Jewish people conduct their wedding? Entering the huppah is on the festival of the giving of the Torah, while the stormy dances of joy with the Torah take place more than four months later, on Shemini Atzeret. And this has been explained to mean that דווקא with time, when the couple has had enough time to truly get to know one another, then they feel the greatness of the joy more and are more certain that the decision was right.

And we likewise find that in the days of the Talmud they would also make festive meals throughout the year and recite the zimmun formula “in whose dwelling is joy.” And what the medieval authorities wrote, that “nowadays every joy is mixed” and therefore one should not say “in whose dwelling is joy” after the seven wedding days—one might discuss whether in our generation, when we have merited a great ingathering of exiles and renewed national standing in our land, perhaps there is room to restore the custom that existed in Talmudic times.

And a suggestion in another direction, simpler both halakhically and practically:
Hold meetings between the groom and bride only in the presence of people who know them, and then naturally the barrier of embarrassment will prevent them from failing in touch, because “it’s not accepted” and “it’s uncomfortable”…

With blessing,
Shatz

I answered this, and I won’t answer again. There is a limit to every prank.

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

I’m not trying to look for loopholes or anything; I’m genuinely asking in order to know. Maybe it bothers you that people ask these kinds of questions, but if you don’t want to discuss such topics, you shouldn’t have opened a discussion like this. Since you opened such a discussion, at least answer the questions.

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

No such question bothers anyone, and I didn’t speak about asking for permissions. What bothers me is that I answer and answer again, and you don’t read and keep asking the same thing. That’s all.

It seems that the prohibition is a rabbinic prohibition of distancing from forbidden intercourse, namely promiscuous intercourse. That is, even when the woman is ritually pure, intercourse outside marriage is prohibited (promiscuous intercourse). And the Sages enacted rabbinic distancing measures from all forbidden acts of intercourse in the form of a prohibition on touch.

See also this responsum:
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, one who has relations with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house (that is, a woman to whom he did kiddushin but did not yet marry—not like a fiancée in our times) is given disciplinary lashes—and it seems that even though this is not promiscuous intercourse, it still has the character of promiscuity and immodesty, and therefore they prohibited such intercourse rabbinically (and affectionate touch in such a case was also prohibited, because whatever the Sages enacted, they enacted in a manner analogous to Torah law).

And according to Maimonides, this is the neglect of a Torah-level positive commandment (that of kiddushin). I think that even according to the other approaches, which see kiddushin only as a legal permit or enabling act and not as a commandment, there is still a Torah prohibition here, because the Torah required the permitting act and he did not perform it. True, this is usually not presented that way, and it requires further analysis.

To Sapo,
Another option is to ask your girlfriend/fiancée to immerse, and still try not to touch, so that if you fail and do touch, the level of prohibition will be lower—not that she should immerse for the purpose of the touching itself. That way you’re not going easy on yourself, but putting up a safety net.
On the other hand, this is probably bad advice, because practically it significantly increases the chances that you will touch.
Still, the psychological suffering and cognitive dissonance that I experienced during the period when we (unfortunately) started touching until we got married was enormous. In principle I’m careful with minor commandments as with major ones, and suddenly I found myself violating a Torah prohibition almost every day. I had no one to talk to about it, and I think this harmed 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, in which I found love, into one of the hardest and most frustrating periods. From what I understood, this phenomenon is very common in the Religious Zionist community.
I’ll add something else. The Sages said that there is no guardian against forbidden sexual matters, and in Berakhot: “Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: This is comparable to a man who had a son; he bathed him, anointed him, fed him, gave him drink, hung a purse around his neck, and sat him at the entrance of a house of prostitution—what can that son do and not sin?”
The answer is that the son should not be bathed and anointed, and should not sit outside a house of prostitution with a purse around his neck. And so too with all other forbidden sexual matters: the answer is simply to keep away. The Sages understood that the only thing that can stand against sexual desire is not to enter the situation in the first place. (Rabbi Michi—maybe they even thought this was close to deterministic?)
The problem is that you can’t keep away when you date a woman for the sake of marriage. On the contrary, you try to get as close as possible. Sometimes you fall in love, and for practical reasons you can’t get married for several good months. What is a person to do and not sin?!
As stated, I’m the last person anyone would have guessed touched his girlfriend, but it happened often. I realized that if I—who studied in yeshiva, set fixed times for Torah study, pray with a minyan three times a day, am very careful in Jewish law, and know myself to have very high self-restraint—if I didn’t withstand the test, then an ordinary religious person will not withstand the test. I’m not saying this to praise myself (that’s why I’m writing the post anonymously); it’s just a fact.
The only solution I can think of is to go on only a limited number of dates and get married immediately, the way the Haredim do. Or maybe even to arrange the match and meet for the first time under the huppah, as happened throughout history.
Of course, that’s not practical. Marriage is a choice for life, the most important choice in life, so one must invest the time to get to know one’s partner well.
So I would suggest that you ask your girlfriend if she would agree to immerse, and then try not to touch, even if only in order to lessen the psychological damage.

By the way, I did ask my then-girlfriend (who is now my wife) to immerse, and she refused.

With God’s help, 4 Tevet 5780

The simple advice is to meet with 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 touch. In other words: don’t be “anonymous” :)'.

With blessing,
Shatz

You are absolutely right, and I wish I could live up to it. But I failed, and I know that many others fail too, despite the advice.
By the way, we have no problem observing the laws of niddah, including all the stringencies, but the dating period is different.