And direct contact is forbidden; if one does so and ejaculates, his Hajj is not invalidated, but a camel is required of him, though he must enter the state of ihram from the boundary for the obligatory tawaf.

The Shaykh : Then the author said: "And direct contact is forbidden." This is the ninth prohibition, and it is the last of the prohibitions. Direct contact is forbidden, meaning direct contact with women for the sake of desire or for other than desire? For the sake of desire. As for direct contact for other than desire, such as if a man holds his wife's hand, this is not forbidden without desire. But his intended meaning is direct contact for the sake of desire, whether by the hand or by any part of the body, but it is not intercourse; he did not have intercourse. It is forbidden. If he does so and ejaculates, his Hajj is not invalidated, and a camel is required of him. Direct contact is also either before the first exit from the state of ihram or after it. If it is before the first exit from the state of ihram, two things result from it: sin and expiation. What is the expiation? The expiation is a camel, like the expiation for intercourse. But the ritual is not invalidated, and the state of ihram is not invalidated; rather, he is liable for sin and the expiation, which is a camel. This is if he had direct contact and ejaculated. If he had direct contact and did not ejaculate, but rather emitted pre-seminal fluid, or if he had desire but did not emit pre-seminal fluid and did not ejaculate, then no camel is required of him; rather, an expiation for harm is required of him, as will be mentioned, if Allah wills, later. So now, direct contact agrees with intercourse in one thing and disagrees with it in several things. It agrees with intercourse in that the expiation is a camel, and it disagrees with intercourse in that it does not invalidate the ritual or the state of ihram, and making up the ritual is not obligatory. If someone asks, "What is the evidence for the obligation of the camel in this case?" We say the evidence is analogy with intercourse, because if a person compares it, it becomes an act that necessitates the full ritual bath, so it necessitates the expiation like intercourse. That is, just as intercourse necessitates the full ritual bath, ejaculation necessitates the full ritual bath, so a camel is required in it. Otherwise, there is no explicit text or statements of the Companions in it, but they analogized it to intercourse from this aspect: that intercourse necessitates the full ritual bath, and direct contact, if accompanied by ejaculation, necessitates the full ritual bath. But this analogy is weak, because how can a branch be analogized to a root that disagrees with it in most of the rulings? Now, direct contact with ejaculation does not agree with intercourse except in one issue, which is the obligation of the full ritual bath. Otherwise, it does not agree with it in the obligation of the hadd punishment or in any of the rulings. Even regarding the invalidation of fasting by it, there is disagreement; with ejaculation, there is disagreement. So it is not correct to analogize a branch to a root that disagrees with it in most of the rulings, because it is said, "What is the reason you attached it to it in this ruling, while it disagrees with it in other rulings? Why do you not make it disagree with it in this ruling as it disagreed with it in the other rulings?" Therefore, the correct view is that a camel is not obligatory for direct contact; there is no camel in it. It has what is in the other prohibitions, as will come, if Allah wills. And the author's statement: "But he must enter the state of ihram from the boundary for the obligatory tawaf" appears to be a slip of the pen by the author (may Allah have mercy on him), because this supplementary ruling does not apply to direct contact. Are you with us? It applies to what? To intercourse after the first exit from the state of ihram. It does not apply to direct contact at all. So it seems the author (may Allah have mercy on him) had a slip of the pen and transferred the ruling of intercourse after the first exit from the state of ihram to direct contact with ejaculation. And man is human So the most correct thing is that this phrase should be transferred to what? To intercourse after the first exit from the state of ihram. It is that which the scholars mentioned invalidates the state of ihram, and that it is necessary to go out to the boundary to enter the state of ihram from there, so that he performs tawaf in the state of ihram.