Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Would hugging or otherwise comforting a close friend of the opposite gender who was visibly upset/crying be a violation of Negiah (prohibition against touching a member of the opposite sex)?

share|improve this question
Welcome to Mi Yodeya, Mr. Crash! Do you have any reason to think it should be okay? –  YeZ Aug 26 at 0:57
@YEZ: I do, as I've seen and otherwise heard of men who are shomer negiah who will comfort (either through hugging or other means involving touching) women who are upset/crying. My question is whether that is actually halakhically valid or not. –  crashfocus Aug 26 at 1:02
Do you already have a more specific understanding of shomer negiah? It can vary pretty widely, from some Jerusalem Haredim who refuse to ride on the same bus as a woman all the way to some Modern Orthodox who will shake hands with a woman. –  Tatpurusha Aug 26 at 1:15
There are very prominent poskim who do not allow shaking a womens hand even in a case where one would call it koved habrios(not to,embarrass)to shake her hand,but yet still assur it. I can't see how an orthodox Rabbi would allow it,singing together itself is a question,this type of hugging is also real derech chiba not just a mere handshake(which many still assur) –  sam Aug 26 at 1:41
@crashfocus You can and should include any motivation you have for asking in the question by editing. Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Looking forward to seeing you around. –  Double AA Aug 26 at 2:45

2 Answers 2

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe Even HaEzer 1:56 did not want to allow shaking hands, even when the other person offers their hand first, as it is likely considered an affectionate act. Hugging, whatever the reason, seems to be much more of an inherently affectionate act, and would be similarly discouraged.

Even according to those who would permit handshakes, hugging is seemingly worse. Handshakes may be excluded because they do not, by nature, lead to anything more, whereas hugging customarily can be associated with, and lead up to, sexual relations. Thus hugging is more inherently an act of physical attraction, as opposed to shaking hands. This is significant because some (Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, among others) want to allow handshakes on exactly this basis, that handshakes are inherently not a sexual act. They base themselves on the words of the Rambam, לא תקרבו לדברים המביאין לידי גילוי ערווה - do not do things which lead to illicit relations (rough translation), which they understand to exclude the types of things which do not lead to such.

It should be noted that the Rambam's formulation of the prohibition (Hilchos Isurei Biah 21:1) is limited to that which is done as an act of lust:

כל הבא על ערווה מן העריות דרך אברים, או שחיבק ונישק דרך תאווה ונהנה בקירוב בשר--הרי זה לוקה מן התורה

However, it is difficult to assess when an act of physical affection passes that threshold.

share|improve this answer
Why it matters that relations often include hugging if this hug isn't the kind that precedes relations is not clear to me. –  Double AA Aug 26 at 2:49
@crashfocus if we could be sure that it was not performed out of lust, then it would make a difference - for example, Rav Acha in the gemara carried a bride on his shoulders, and explained that she was "like a wooden beam" to him. However, we are not on such a level that we can claim to be so devoid of attraction. –  YeZ Aug 26 at 3:05
YEZ Your last comment indicates that you agree such a hug is not actually a violation of the commandment, just that it's a bad idea lest you have bad thoughts while giving the hug. –  Double AA Aug 26 at 3:06
Ah I see. I'm not sure you are correct that anyone would categorically permit handshakes. Someone with a weird handshake fetish would likely still violate the prohibition. It's not about categories of actions, but what is or is not sexual (or, as a pseudo-gezera, likely to become sexual). –  Double AA Aug 26 at 3:23
@Jake "Pikuah nefesh cases make bad law". In other words, you can probably come up with a situation for nearly any prohibition in which the prohibition would be set aside for pikuach nefesh, but that's not very informative of normal, pikuach-free situations. –  Isaac Moses Aug 26 at 18:53

It is worth noting first what the Rema writes in Shulchan Aruch Even haEzer 21:5 regarding rules against being served by a woman, etc: "And there are those who are lenient regarding all of these matters...and there are those who say these rules (against touching) were only in private (yihud) but in a place where many people are found, like a bath-house, it is permissible to be washed by a non-Jewish maidservant, and so is our custom. And there are those who say that any (touching) which is not in an affectionate way (hibah), rather his intention is for Heaven, then it is permissible. Therefore, we are accustomed to be lenient regarding these matters..."

Many poskim use this comment of the Rema to allow non-affectionate touching. A nice example (noted in the comments by sam) is the Ben Ish Hai, in his book Od Yosef Hai, on parshat Shoftim #22, where he employs this Rema to justify kissing hands of the opposite sex in greeting in a case where the circumstances make it clear that the kissing is merely to show honor and respect and not an indication of affection.

And more specifically, in the sefer Yaskil Avdi (vol 6, Yoreh Deah #25, subsection 6) Rav Hodaya is asked about the practice of clasping hands and blessing someone in mourning. He concludes: "...And therefore it appears to my impoverished understanding that there is no concern of (the prohibition of) greeting mourners, nor any concern of inappropriate affection (hibah); just the opposite, in a place where this is the custom, one is obligated to behave this way so that he does not appear as if he were separating from the community of comforters..."

So we see that comforting someone is certainly not affectionate (hibah) and the Rema lists many reasons to be lenient in different cases of touching (including bathing!) when the touching is not affectionate.

share|improve this answer
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. –  Monica Cellio Aug 28 at 2:09

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.