Why would that be better in any sense? If hugging through clothes is assur, what is the glove adding? The only case that might be better is shaking hands, which is already on shaky ground vis a via derech chibbah.

Haven't had a chance to look inside, but there may be a distinction to be made between an interposing object (the cloth, a sheet, etc.) and an actual article of clothing you are wearing (the glove), which is batel to your body for every halachic question I can think of. The only exception is that your clothes have a different "timeline" than your body when contracting tumah in a bayis hamenugah.

@Nafkamina Oddly enough, I had a bookmark set to the previous daf?! Here's the yirushalmi Tosafos references - look at the both the korban ha'edah and the pinei moshe there. We are bending over backwards to minimize a bad situation the Torah forcing us into. The question isn't whether the mapah is chotzetz when touching the woman (it isn't really, but it's not as bad as touchign her directly), but whether it's chotzetz when moving the kli shares. Sof davar we accept that we have to touch her to do this anyhow.

"If hugging through clothes is assur" Says who? What prohibition?

Double, touching a niddah derech Chiba is assur (lo sikrav ligalos ervasan). Hugging is one of those things that fall under this. The prohibition against hugging isn't only if you're both nude - it applies to fully clothed people. So when you hug, that touching is occurring through clothes.

"touching a niddah derech Chiba is assur (lo sikrav ligalos ervasan). Hugging is one of those things that fall under this. The prohibition against hugging isn't only if you're both nude - it applies to fully clothed people. So when you hug, that touching is occurring through clothes." Can you source that? I think you just made it up.

source what? that hugging is not permitted? or that it is even forbidden if you're wearing clothes?

That you can violate the biblical prohibition of lo tikrevu and get lashes for it for hugging through clothes. (Remember to ping me @DoubleAA.)

Here you go. I'll add it into the answer.

@IsaacKotlicky I don't know what you are referring to in that link. He doesn't discuss the case explicitly as far as I can tell. In fact, the original Hebrew there ונהנה בקירוב בשר implies exactly the opposite.

@DoubleAA the first halacha in that link is clear that violating lo tikrevu is d'oraysa and you get lashes for it. It makes no distinction of the manner one violates this derech chibbah. Hugging, kissing, touching, holding hands, etc. are all considered identical in the Rambam's viewpoint. If it brings pleasure, it's assur. Full stop. There's no wiggle room to excuse wearing a "love glove." ;)

@IsaacKotlicky "Hugging, kissing, touching, holding hands, etc. are all considered identical in the Rambam's viewpoint" Right. Touching a glove is not any of those. Can I and a Niddah not touch the same floor at the same time if we enjoy being in each other's presence? I'm not the one wiggling here in the Rambams words. You on the other hand are making things up just because.

@DoubleAA The question wasn't "touching a glove," it was "touching a niddah derech chibbah while WEARING a glove," which is clearly included in all the other prohibitions. I'm not trying to make anything up, but you seem determined to think that I'm wrong - that somehow a glove magically makes everything ok.

@IsaacKotlicky Clearly not. "touching a niddah derech chibbah while WEARING a glove" is actually touching a glove which is in close proximity to a niddah who is also touching the same glove. Like I said, no prohibition on touching a glove, right? No magic. I'm only determined to show your proof is wrong in the case when it is wrong. I'd be happy to read an actual proof to your claim if you can bring one. (Note a proof does not consist of you claiming "clearly this is assur".)

@DoubleAA "I'm not hugging her, we're just simultaneously pressing our clothing together." So is dry humping now muttar since we're just touching the same object?

@IsaacKotlicky Deorayta, it would seem permitted (in terms of this prohibition; it may be problematic in terms of VNishmarta MiKol Davar Ra' or for other rabbinic reasons like Sechok and Kalut Rosh with an Erva). Do you have a proof otherwise?

So because the Rambam doesn't explicitly mention the behavior, in your opinion it wouldn't be assur? even though it's substantially more "kiruv bassar" than a hug?

@IsaacKotlicky "Because the Rambam doesn't mention the behavior..." Yes. That's generally called traditional halachic Judaism.

@IsaacKotlicky It's actually substantially less kiruv basar. it may be assur for other reasons as I outlined above. But kiruv basar is not it.

Actually, the Rambam doesn't say kiruv, it says karov, WITHOUT the yud. At least in the edition I have. Considering that we're dealing with "lo tikarivu ligalos ervah" it makes zero sense that this applies only where the respective parties are already nude. It must be dealing with clothed individuals for Chazal's understanding of the halachic implications of the passuk to make any sense.

The Rambam doesn't exhaustively list all ways in which an act is ossur. He doesn't need to. He makes clear that being neheneh from a woman who is assur to you is ASSUR. And yes, if standing close to a woman brings you pleasure, that's assur too.

See 21:2 - "And one who gazes EVEN at the little finger of a woman with the intent to gain benefit is considered identical to staring at the makom taruf." So everything from hugging to looking for sexual pleasure is considered assur. You are flat out wrong.

@IsaacKotlicky mechon-mamre.org/i/5121.htm There is a Yud in this edition and it is highly authoritative. I don't know what you were using (or why the Yud's presence really matters).

@IsaacKotlicky But it's not asur because of the deoraita of that pasuk of negia!!! You want to say that "kol isha" and "kalut rosh" (listed there) are also deoraitas? You are conflating things. You can't keep your categories straight, and that's why you are flat out wrong. Pay attention.

@IsaacKotlicky Why does it make zero sense? Because you said so? I explained to you already that that is not a proof. I think it makes sense. The Rambam's example is Biah Derekh Evarim (eg. oral sex) not holding hands in the park. It's something that is close to Biah. Remember also they slept nude all the time. In groups. Your western upbringing is clouding your perspective here.

@IsaacKotlicky That's preposterous. Standing near your girlfriend and being happy because of it (a good sign in a relationship, I suspect) doesn't violate negia.

Oh. Are you reading Ligalos literally to uncover?

Ha. That's an even weaker point than I thought you were making. We aren't Karaites here after all. 'nough said about that.