Please excuse my lack of knowledge on this topic. Is non-sexual touch allowed between two people between whom a relationship would be halachically forbidden? I assume the answer is "yes" for, say, a brother and a sister. But does this apply to all cases of forbidden relationships, or just some? (If some, to which doesn't it apply, and why not?) Finally, is the issue of touching a niddah simply not a factor in these cases?
Asked
Active
Viewed 820 times
2
-
Motivated by my confusion by the second reason in this (http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/23561/1516) answer -- "Jacob was related to her and old" -- for why it was ok for Jacob to kiss Rachel before they were married. (If anyone extended their answer to my question so far as to "touch" on that, I'd be thrilled.) – SAH Jul 18 '16 at 05:48
-
1http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/29771/759 – Double AA Jul 18 '16 at 13:37
-
Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/59617/is-there-any-reason-a-jewish-woman-should-not-shake-hands-with-a-non-jewish-man and http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/278/shaking-hands-with-the-opposite-gender/63712#63712 – SAH Jul 18 '16 at 14:38
-
You seem to think "non-sexual touch" is included in "negia" but "touching a niddah" is not. These are both incorrect (or at least, decidedly non-standard positions). – Double AA Jul 18 '16 at 14:41
-
@DoubleAA No, I don't think "touching a niddah" is not. Au contraire. That's why I included the last sentence of my question. In other words, it's puzzling to me that touch would be allowed in any of these cases b/c there is still the niddah factor. But I assume it is anyway and that's why I ask. – SAH Jul 18 '16 at 14:46
-
1@DoubleAA As for "non-sexual touch"'s being included in negiah, I wouldn't call that a "decidedly non-standard" position. – SAH Jul 18 '16 at 14:48
-
1By calling it "the niddah factor" you're again indicating it's different somehow from regular negia. If someone is forbidden to you already (eg. mother/son) then Niddah isn't changing anything. If someone is your daughter-in-law and your aunt and your sister-in-law and married and a niddah, there isn't more of a negia concern than if she were just one of those. – Double AA Jul 18 '16 at 14:59
-
@DoubleAA I agree, the bet Yosef seems to think like you and it is obvious. Negia of chiba is different for criteria between wife and other. – kouty Jul 18 '16 at 18:38
-
It seems linked to this (your) question and I think that the anwer is included in this answer – kouty Jul 18 '16 at 18:44
-
@DoubleAA "The prohibition of negiah is derived from two verses in Leviticus: "Any man shall not approach (קרב qarab) his close relative to uncover nakedness; I am God" (18:6), and: "You shall not approach a woman in her time of unclean separation, to uncover her nakedness" (18:19).[7] [...] The former verse is viewed by the Tannaim of late antiquity (70–200 CE) as referring to an expansive prohibition against "coming near" (קרב qarab) any of the arayot, or biblically prohibited sexual relations, which includes most close relatives.[9] [....] + – SAH Jul 19 '16 at 03:57
-
@DoubleAA " [...] The latter verse is viewed as referring to the prohibition against "coming near" any woman who is in Niddah status (menstruating) [whether or not she is otherwise one of the Arayot].[10] The same actions are forbidden under both verses.[11]" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negiah ) ....Nonetheless, they are two different halachic reasons. That's what I'm referring to. – SAH Jul 19 '16 at 03:58
-
...I figure that someone reading the above comments might point out that they contradict the premise of my question, which is true. My question is why it appears that touch is allowed in some cases (i.e. siblings [?]) where it would seem that the relationship is most highly prohibited. – SAH Jul 19 '16 at 04:01
-
It seems like you are confusing 2 different things – Dude Jul 20 '16 at 01:28
1 Answers
2
You are mixing up two things that have nothing to do with one another. A man is allowed to touch his close relatives: mother, grandmother, (grand)daughter, and sister (although the last is less recommended, but still allowed). This is always allowed, irrespective of anything else (married or single, nidda or not). (And the same for a woman touching her (grand)son, (grand)father, and brother).
Otherwise a man is not allowed to touch anyone forbidden to him. That means any married woman (aside from his wife) and any unmarried woman who is nidda (and that is presumed about any single woman from age 11 today), since they are forbidden to him. He is also not allowed to touch his wife when she is nidda, since she is currently forbidden to him. (And the same applies to a woman touching a man she is forbidden to, such as any man if she is a nidda and any man but her husband if she is married.)
