(19) And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is tameh from niddah.
איזהו סייג שעשתה תורה לדבריה. הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא י״ח:י״ט) ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב יכול יחבקנה וינשקנה וידבר עמה דברים בטלים. ת״ל לא תקרב. יכול ישן עמה בבגדיה על המטה. ת״ל לא תקרב.
What is the fence that the Torah made around its words? It says (Leviticus 18:19), “Do not come near woman during her period of tumah.” Perhaps [you would still think] one could hug her and kiss her and speak flirtatiously with her. So the verse tells you, “Do not come near.” Perhaps [you would still think] one could sleep next to her on the bed, as long as she was clothed. So the verse tells you, “Do not come near.”
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִדָּה מַהוּ שֶׁתִּישַׁן עִם בַּעֲלָהּ הִיא בְּבִגְדָהּ וְהוּא בְּבִגְדוֹ? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, תָּא שְׁמַע: הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל...
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי פְּדָת: דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קוּרְבָה שֶׁל גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ אֶל כׇּל שְׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה״.
עוּלָּא כִּי הָוֵי אָתֵי מִבֵּי רַב הֲוָה מְנַשֵּׁק לְהוּ לְאַחְווֹתֵיהּ אַבֵּי חָדַיְיהוּ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אַבֵּי יְדַיְיהוּ. וּפְלִיגָא דִידֵיהּ אַדִּידֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוּם קוּרְבָה אָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם ״לֵךְ לְךָ אָמְרִי נְזִירָא סְחוֹר סְחוֹר, לְכַרְמָא לָא תִּקְרַב״.
What is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman? May she sleep with her husband in one bed while she is in her clothes and he is in his clothes? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna: The fowl is permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, although it may not be eaten with cheese. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: The fowl is neither permitted to be placed together with the cheese on the table, nor may it be eaten with it. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is the halakha, not only must one distance himself from the sin itself, but one must also make certain that items that are prohibited together are not placed together...
This disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Pedat, as Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah only prohibited intimacy that involves engaging in prohibited sexual relations, as it is stated: “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6). The prohibition of intimacy in the Torah applies exclusively to relations, and all other kinds of physical intimacy that do not include actual relations are not included in the prohibition. When there is separation, they did not issue a decree.
The Gemara relates that Ulla, when he would come from the house of his teacher, would kiss his sisters on their chests. And some say: On their hands. Ulla was not concerned about violating the prohibition of displaying affection toward a relative forbidden to him, as his intention was not to have relations with them. The Gemara adds that his action was in contradiction to a saying of his, as Ulla said: Even any intimacy is prohibited with a woman with whom he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations due to the reason formulated as an adage: Go around, go around, and do not approach the vineyard, they say to the nazirite. They advise the nazirite, who is forbidden to consume any product of a vine, that he should not even approach the vineyard. The same is true with regard to the prohibition of forbidden relations. According to Ulla, one must distance himself from them to whatever degree possible.
כָּל הַבָּא עַל עֶרְוָה מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת דֶּרֶךְ אֵיבָרִים אוֹ שֶׁחִבֵּק וְנִשֵּׁק דֶּרֶךְ תַּאֲוָה וְנֶהֱנָה בְּקֵרוּב בָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ל) "לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת" וְגוֹ'. וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יח ו) "לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה". כְּלוֹמַר לֹא תִּקְרְבוּ לִדְבָרִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי גִּלּוּי עֶרְוָה:
Anyone who has non-intercourse sexual pleasure ("by way of limbs"), or who hugs and kisses in a sexual way and takes pleasure in physical intimacy, receives lashes for a d'orayta transgression, as it says (Leviticus 18:30) "do not do any of these abominable customs etc" and it says (Leviticus 18:6) "do not approach to uncover nakedness", which is to say do not approach things which will bring you to transgressing giluy arayot.
(Though the bulk of the halachic sources talk about the prohibition of sexual touch)...this, of course, does not constitute permission for members of opposite sexes to casually touch each other prior to marriage. Particularly in our society and particularly among the young, the tendency, if not the inevitability, of one thing leading to another is too great to allow for any breach by unmarried couples of a rigid policy of shomer negiah, under the rubric of sechor sechor amrinan l’nezira, l’carmecha lo tikrav.
---
Rambam famously applied a Torah prohibition not only to sexual relations but also to pre- and proto-sexual behavior such as kissing and hugging; actual relations are prohibited under penalty of karet, while kissing etc. is an infraction of a negative commandment, punished by the lash. This is based on the language of Vayikra 18:6 concerning ‘arayot in general, and of 18:19 concerning a niddah: Instead of simply prohibiting relations with them, the Torah warns “lo tikrevu” (pl.) in the first verse and “lo tikrav” (sing.) in the second, meaning “you shall not come close” i.e., foreplay. I use the term “foreplay” in its widest sense—action or even speech of a sexual nature, of the sort that serves as a preliminary to or accompaniment of sexual relations.
This proviso precludes social handshakes from being subsumed under the lo ta’aseh, since a handshake is not a preliminary to relations. This is so even if the handshake includes an element of affection or pleasure; affection alone without the feature of desire is not a Torah violation. The Shach already wrote this when he stipulated “the way of desire and affection of intercourse” (derech taavah v'chibat biah) rather than simply “affection.”
There is clear proof of this distinction in Sefer haMitzvot of the Rambam in R. Chaim Heller’s translation, also found word-for- word in the Sefer Mitzvah of Sefer haBatim: "We are warned not to come close to any of these ‘arayot even without intercourse, such as hugging and kissing and that which resembles them from among the promiscuous activities (mipe’ulot hazenut)."
In fact, Rambam used similar language in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:414: “One who comes close (hakarev) to ‘arayot in any of the ways of promiscuity (midarchei hazenut)...” Certainly, handshaking is not counted among pe’ulot or darchei hazenut.Moreover, in both Sefer haMitzvot and Hilchot Issurei Biah 21:1 Rambam stresses that the lo ta’aseh proscribes activities that customarily lead to sexual relations. Handshaking is not one of these.
Further evidence comes from the Trumat haDeshen, in explaining the Rambam, distinguishing between “other distances (perishot), that he not touch her” and “huggings and kissings, which [people] have pleasure from as from relations (d’nehenim meihem k’mo metashmish).” A handshake is not in the category of k’mo metashmish.
---
In the community, nevertheless, handshaking between men and women remains controversial. Some rabbis will shake a woman’s hand when extended to them, while others demur even at the cost of embarrassing the woman. The reason for the latter practice is usually given as follows:
Beit Yosef cites a teshuva of the Rashba concerning taking the pulse of one’s menstrual wife, which begins “it is possible that all coming close (kreivah) is forbidden by the Torah.” Presumably, this refers to the Rambam’s opinion. Yet taking the pulse of one’s wife certainly does not indicate chibat biah! According to this understanding, Rambam prohibits by Torah law all physical contact with an ervah.
How this accords with the wordings of the Rambam himself—specifically cited by Shach as his reason for disagreeing with the Bet Yosef—remains unexplained.
However, in Bnei Banim I demonstrated that the Rashba was probably referring not to Rambam but to Rabbeinu Yonah, Rashba’s primary teacher. R. Yonah is the one major rishon to have explicitly written that any touching at all of an ervah violates lo tikrevu and is yeihareg ve’al ya’avor. There are no grounds to interpret Rambam in the same fashion. In my opinion, those who wish to be stringent following R. Yonah may do so—but not claim that such is basic Halacha.