I understand the Rabbinic prohibition of touching a niddah. It is a fence to prevent relations that would cause liability to kares. However, it is very troubling in certain situations. If a wife's parent or child dies while she is a niddah, a Rabbinic prohibition forbids the husband from comforting her with a hug or by holding her hand. In this great hour of emotional need, the Rabbis forbid it because they might end up having relations. How do I understand the Rabbis choosing to leave the women without physical comforting in her time of distress?
Barry Epstein, Dallas, USA
G-d-fearing, Torah-observant men and women have a vastly different perspective. First, for both men and women, physical comfort in times of great distress is far less meaningful that emotional support (as modern psychologists have documented). (In fact, many men do not know how to give emotional comfort, and they rely solely on attempting to provide physical comfort. The prohibition to do so forces a man to grow in his ability to relate in a caring and sensitive, non-physical way with his wife.) The need for physical contact at such a time is not great enough to warrant permitting physical contact (in contrast to a woman who is ill who needs her husband to treat her). The point at which to draw the line would be too unclear, since the degree of grief or distress (or, in other situations, fright, such as a husband and wife sitting on a plane about to crash) at which each individual needs a hug is not definable, and thus permitting it in such a situation would certainly lead to breaches of the prohibition in cases where it certainly needs to be upheld.
Second, for a Torah-observant woman, the knowledge that she is following G-d's will is the greatest source of comfort. That she must mourn and grieve without a hug from her husband gives her a sense of pride, fulfillment, and meaningfulness in knowing that she is living in step with her deepest values and ideals, putting them above her own personal needs.
Y. SHAW