Q&A: Physical Intimacy Forbidden Relations Between Men
Physical Intimacy Forbidden Relations Between Men
Question
With God’s help,
Peace unto you.
It is a widely accepted halakhic ruling that although it is biblically forbidden to hug and kiss women with whom sexual relations are forbidden, and it is likewise forbidden by the Sages to be in seclusion with them, nevertheless with respect to men neither affectionate physical contact nor seclusion was prohibited. The simple reason is that the Jewish people were not suspected of male homosexual intercourse, and these things are therefore not characterized as intimacy leading to sexual exposure. And although we find that one who is stringent not to be in seclusion with men and distances himself from impropriety is praiseworthy (Forbidden Sexual Relations 22:2), we have never heard or seen anyone say this regarding affectionate physical contact between men.
I wondered what the law would be in the case of a transgender person (male to female), for example where one wishes to express support and encouragement—whether there is a prohibition here משום “do not come near.” For although there is of course no concern here related to menstrual impurity, still, male homosexual intercourse is certainly no less severe than the prohibition of relations with a menstruant. And although people were not suspected of male homosexual intercourse, it requires examination whether that is because of revulsion (in which case, when the person appears very much like a woman, perhaps one should consider forbidding it) or because of the severity of the prohibition.
And similarly regarding a homosexual couple living as partners while refraining from male homosexual intercourse: are they not violating, through affectionate physical contact, the prohibition of “do not come near to uncover nakedness”? After all, for them there is no greater closeness than this; what difference does it make that among heterosexuals this is not the case? A distant analogy would be a person’s mother: his heart does not stir in that context, and therefore he may freely hug and kiss her, even though for most other people she would be forbidden (whether as a married woman or because of menstrual impurity). So apparently in this matter we do not follow the majority, but rather each person according to his own situation and inclination.
Thank you in advance
Answer
“Were not suspected” is a factual matter. Where such a concern exists, one should be stringent and prohibit it.
Discussion on Answer
*By “would not violate a Torah prohibition” (at the end of the first paragraph), I meant “would not violate the Torah prohibition of intercourse with an unmarried woman in the core act itself.” Yet we plainly see how many are lax regarding affectionate physical contact before marriage, and still do not come to actual intercourse; nevertheless, the matter is certainly forbidden. So the fence that Jewish law sets up does not remove the concern for transgression, even for one who is committed to it (as all the distancing laws in the laws of menstruation prove). And the same applies here, in the case under discussion: a pair of men who are careful not to engage in male homosexual intercourse would still, at the very least, be violating the prohibition of “do not come near.”
They most certainly are suspected. As I wrote, this is not a scriptural decree but an assessment of reality. I do not know the source of the modern leniency you mention here.
The question is whether a homosexual couple who want to be careful about Jewish law and avoid the Torah prohibition of male homosexual intercourse are considered people about whom there is no such suspicion. They certainly do not want to transgress, but they do have a desire that could lead them to it. Just as an unmarried heterosexual couple that wants to avoid the positive-commandment issue of intercourse without ketubah and kiddushin presumably would not violate a Torah prohibition, and nevertheless physical contact is forbidden to them.
And if so, the modern leniency allowing a homosexual couple to live together so long as they do not engage in male homosexual intercourse collapses, since they still have not escaped the issue of “do not come near to uncover nakedness”—which is a full-fledged prohibition.
And if the above reasoning is correct, it follows that there is no permission for a homosexual man to touch another man affectionately, and if I have a relative like that, must I—as a man—avoid hugging him?!
Does the Rabbi have any objections to the above?
I would be very glad to hear his opinion on the matter, since this is something of deep personal importance to us.
P.S.
According to the above, seemingly a homosexual man would be permitted to touch a woman affectionately, just as a heterosexual man is permitted to touch a man affectionately—is that not so?