Q&A: Touching a Woman
Touching a Woman
Question
Rabbi Golinkin wrote: we saw above that there is no prohibition against ordinary touch between men and women in the Torah, in the Sifra, in the Babylonian Talmud, or among the great halakhic decisors such as Maimonides, the Tur, the Shulchan Arukh and Arukh HaShulchan. Onlyin the Jerusalem Talmud is there an opinion that it is forbidden for a priest to touch the hand of the suspected adulteress, but they permitted it because it is brieftouch. Those who are stringent expanded the prohibition of drawing close to a forbidden sexual relation in two directions – they moved from hugging and kissingto every touch; and they moved from the list of forbidden relations in Leviticus 18 to every woman in the world because she is possibly menstruating. There is noTalmudic or halakhic basis for either of these expansions. This stringent trend apparently originated in ethical literature and in later midrashim and not in halakhic literature. If someone or some woman wants to be stringent with himselfas a matter of extra piety it is hard to prevent him from doing so, but it is very desirable to stop teaching and preaching that it is forbidden for a manto touch a woman or to shake her hand, something for which there is no halakhic basis.
Finally, if a woman extends her hand to a man the man is obligated to shake her hand for “human dignity overrides a rabbinic prohibition” — all the more so it overrides a custom that has no halakhic basis. Likewise, “whoever publicly shames his fellow is as though he sheds blood” or “he has no share in the World to Come”.
Does the Rabbi agree?
Answer
I agree in principle. Regarding a woman who extends her hand, I completely agree. As for ordinary touch that is not affectionate, in my opinion there is indeed no prohibition. But affectionate touch (sexual affection), even if it is not hugging and kissing, is forbidden. There is no difference between them.
As for the move from forbidden relations to a menstruating woman, I think such an extension definitely has logical basis.
Discussion on Answer
The medieval authorities disagreed about whether rabbinic accessories to such prohibitions also require one to be killed rather than transgress.
Shmuel, you quoted that human dignity overrides a rabbinic prohibition. Seemingly the distinction is simple: there is a difference between an ordinary rabbinic prohibition and a prohibition whose purpose is to create distance from something in the category of “be killed rather than transgress,” especially in matters of forbidden sexual relations. Presumably they did not expand these distancing measures for no reason.