Reish Lakish and Chava on "Touching"
I didn’t have time to write a post, so I dictated an idea to an LLM and, with some trial and error, had it generate a post. Here is my prompt, which contains the essential idea, which I think is true, but is not polished.
Turn the following idea into a substack post. In zevachim (and find location and actual text) reish lakish interprets בכל קדש לא תגע as a reference to eating Korbanot while tamei and the gemara grapples with how it could mean that. Meanwhile, in Bereishit, adam is told not to eat of the tree of knowledge but in chava’s retelling it is not to eat and not to touch. Chazal turn this into a warning not to impose chumras because it leads to a destruction of the basic. But shadal (find source and actual text) says it is not a change, but touching here means something like eating. Don’t touch / harm my anointed. Or here, don’t even taste. Perhaps this kind of analysis was what motivated reish lavish on a peshat level. That תגע indeed can carry a sense of interacting in various ways, and takes its cue from context.
With some guidance and correction, ChatGPT generated this very ChatGPT-ish text:
“Don’t Touch”: When תִּגַּע Means “Interact” (Maybe Even “Eat”)
Short take: Two far-flung texts use the verb נגע in ways that seem to reach beyond literal “touch.” Read together, they suggest a peshat-driven reason for why Reish Lakish can treat בְּכָל־קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגַּע as prohibiting eating sancta in a state of impurity — and why Shadal thinks Ḥavah’s “don’t touch” isn’t an added chumra at all, but a way of saying “don’t even taste.”
1) The halakhic lever: “בְּכָל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגַּע” → eating while tamei
On Makkot 14b, the Gemara asks: what’s the azharah (biblical warning) for a tamei who eats kodshim? Reish Lakish answers: from “בְּכָל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגַּע” (Lev. 12:4). The sugya explicitly tests whether the verse warns about mere touching or about eating, and by linking “קֹדֶשׁ” with “מִקְדָּשׁ” concludes the verse functions as the warning for eating in impurity, not just touch. The language on Wikisource preserves the move crisply: “אזהרה… ריש לקיש אמר: מבכל קדש לא תגע… אזהרה לאוכל או אינו אלא אזהרה לנוגע… מקיש קדש למקדש… אף קדש דבר שכתב בו… כרת… למעוטי נגיעה.” Wikisource
Daf-yomi backgrounders summarize the takeaway the same way: from “בְּכָל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגַּע” (Lev. 12:4) Chazal derive the issur achilah of kodshim for the impure (see also Yevamot 75a). Dafyomi
In other words, within a sancta/impurity frame, תִּגַּע is read as engagement with the sacred — up to and including eating — not only fingertip contact.
(For the verse in context: Lev. 12:4 describes the yoledet’s status — “she shall not touch any holy thing and not come into the Mikdash.”) Wikisource
2) The Eden retelling: “Do not eat… and do not touch”
God’s command to Adam forbids eating from the tree (Gen. 2:16–17). In Ḥavah’s retelling to the serpent (Gen. 3:2–3), we hear: “לֹא תֹאכְלוּ… וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ.” Midrash famously turns this into a cautionary tale about adding stringencies that backfire.
Shadal demurs. On Gen. 3:3 he writes:
“ולא תגעו בו: אולי אין כאן תוספת על דבר ה’, כי לשון נגיעה נאמר פעמים הרבה דרך השאלה על ההֶזֵּק כמו אל תיגעו במשיחי (תהלים קה:טו)… וכן כאן ‘ולא תגעו בו’ — לאכול ממנו אפילו מעט.” Wikisource+1
For Shadal, “don’t touch” here isn’t a new fence; it’s idiomatic — “don’t harm/partake,” effectively don’t even taste. That is, נגיעה can denote impactful interaction, not literal contact (compare “אַל־תִּגְּעוּ בִמְשִׁיחָי,” where touch clearly means do harm). MGKeter+1
3) A shared semantic core: תִּגַּע as “entering the domain of”
Place these side by side:
Korbanot / Tum’ah. Reish Lakish’s derash in Makkot 14b reads תִּגַּע as a legal umbrella for eating kodshim while impure. The context (sanctity/impurity) pushes touch to mean fuller interaction. Wikisource+1
Gan Eden. Shadal hears Ḥavah’s “don’t touch” as idiomatic for “don’t even begin to partake” — an expressive way of saying no interaction whatsoever with the forbidden. Wikisource
Hypothesis (pshat-friendly): maybe Chazal’s legal reading and Shadal’s lexical reading meet in the same semantic space. In Torah’s sancta-laden registers, נגיעה often signals crossing into a thing’s sphere — harming, consuming, appropriating — rather than brushing against it. The context tells you which kind of “interaction” is in view.
4) Why this matters
Bridges peshat & derash. Reish Lakish’s move needn’t be a mere technical derash; it can ride a real biblical idiom.
Refines the “fences” caution. Ḥazal’s warning about counterproductive chumras stays true, but Shadal reminds us that not every “touch” ≠ extra fence; sometimes it’s how Hebrew talks about partaking.
A reusable lens. When you see נָגַע near קֹדֶשׁ, אָכִילָה, or טֻמְאָה, ask: does the verse police contact, or entry/consumption?