LEV255 It is a negative commandment to have no carnal intimacy with a male as Scripture says, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman [this verse]. This is an admonition to the passive partner also, reading lo thishkav ("You shall not lie") as lo thischachav (the passive form). Once there was intimacy by the intromission of the corona, both would be punishable by the death of stoning. If it was delivered but without a [prior] warning, the penalty would be kareth [Divine severance of existence]; and if it was done unwittingly, a hattath (sin-offering) would be required.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV256 The Dorff et al. responsum [one of two mutually exclusive December 2006 legal rulings approved by the Jewish Committee on Laws and Standards (Conservative Movement] hinges on the rabbinic principle that a person's dignity is so important that it supersedes biblical prohibitions (see, e.g., B. Shabbat 81b).  The Talmud, however, immediately qualifies that statement to refer only to the biblical commandment in Deuteronomy 17 to obey the judges of each generation. The authors of the Dorff et al. responsum therefore argue that this halachic principle allows them to suspend rabbinic, although not biblical, prohibitions that would prevent homosexuals from enjoying loving, committed relationships. The authors contend that although the biblical prohibition of anal intercourse remains in place [this verse], in the name of preserving the dignity of homosexuals contemporary rabbis should use their authority to suspend the rabbinic restrictions involving other acts of same-sex physical intimacy. (The responsum makes clear that bisexuals who were able to have fulfilling sexual relationships with members of the opposite gender are not permitted to engage in homosexual activity.) The conclusion of the responsum is that homosexuals may engage in acts of physical intimacy, although not typically prohibited anal intercourse, and be eligible for all honors and privileges available in the community. ... Dorff later acknowledged that he is bothered by maintaining the restriction against anal intercourse, since he knows full well that such a condition is likely to be widely ignored. For the Love of God and People: A Philosophy of Jewish Law (Philadelphia: JPS, 2007), p. 235). Indeed, much earlier in Dorff's career he wrote that "we should not engage in overdoses of legal fictions, as we have been wont to do in the past." "Towards a Legal Theory of the Conservative Movement," Conservative Judaism, 27:3 (1973), p. 75). Nevertheless, since Dorff feared (correctly) that he would not have had the necessary votes from the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards were he and his co-authors to argue for notifying the biblical prohibition, he did "what [could] be done and [took] satisfaction from the progress that a partial step in the right direction [achieved]." (For the Love, p. 235) … Wisely silent rabbis would refrain from asking invasive questions about… gay men's sexual activity, thus conniving in the halakhic charade. (By Shai Cherry, "Ethical Theories in the Conservative Movement"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV254 (Continued from [[GEN740]] Genesis 9:22 nakedness ROSNER-BLEICH 201-2) Post-Biblical literature records remarkably few incidents of homosexuality. Herod's son Alexander, according to Josephus (Wars, I, 24:7), had homosexual contact with a young eunuch. Very few reports of homosexuality have come to us from the Talmudic (TJ Sanhedrin 6:6, 23c: Jos. Ant., 15:25-30). The incidence of sodomy among Jews is interestingly reflected in the Halakhah on mishkav zakhur (the Talmudic term for homosexuality: the Bible uses various terms--thus the same term in Num. 31:17 and 35 refers to heterosexual intercourse by a woman, whereas the expression for male homosexual intercourse in [this verse and Leviticus 20:13] is mishkevei ishah). The Mishnah teaches that R. Judah forbade two bachelors from sleeping under the same blanket, for fear that this would lead to homosexual temptation (Kiddushin 4:14). However, the Sages permitted it (ibid.) because homosexuality was so rare among Jews that such preventative legislation was considered unnecessary (Kiddushin 82a). This latter view is codified as Halackhah by Maimonides (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 22:2). Some 400 years later, R. Joseph Caro, who did not clarify the law against sodomy proper, nevertheless cautioned against being alone with another male because of the lewdness prevalent "in our times" (Even ha-Ezer 24). About a hundred years later, R. Joel Sirkes reverted to the original ruling, and suspended the prohibition because such obscene acts were unheard of among Polish Jewry (Bayit Hadash to Tur, Even ha-Ezer 24). Indeed, a distinguished contemporary of R. Joseph Caro, R. Solomon Luria, went even further and declared homosexuality so very rare that, if one refrains from sharing a blanket with another male as a special act of piety, one is guilty of self-righteous pride or religious snobbism (for the above and additional authorities, see Ozar ha-Posekim, IX, 236-238).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV257 There is at least one early source which apparently declares that a male cannot acquire the status of a woman by means of surgery. Rabbi Abraham Hirsch (No'am 5733) sites the comments of Rabbenu Hananel, quoted by Ibn Ezra in his commentary on [this verse]. Rabbenu Hananel declares that intercourse between a normal male and a male in whom an artificial vagina has been fashioned by means of surgery constitutes sodomy. This would appear to be the case, according to Rabbenu Hananel, even if the male genitalia were removed [Lengthy footnote containing author's analysis and argumentation regarding this point is omitted here; as of excerpt transcription in February 2020, the footnote is accessible at books.google.com by copying and pasting the sentence preceding it into an internet search engine - AJL]. The corollary to this question arises with regard to a woman who has acquired the sexual characteristics of a male as a result of transsexual surgery. The 19th-century author, R. Joseph Palaggi, Yosef et Ehav 3;5, opines that no divorce is necessary in order to dissolve a marriage contracted prior to such transformation. This author goes beyond the position of Besamin Rosh, who, as noted, did not reach a definitive conclusion in his discussion of the parallel question with regard to sex change in a male. In opposition to R. Palaggi's view it may, however, the argued that gender is irreversibly determined at birth and that sex, in so far as Halakhah is concerned, cannot be transformed by surgical procedures. This position is particularly cogent in view of the fact that fertile organs of the opposite sex cannot be acquired by means of surgery. The view that sexual identity cannot be changed by means of surgery would appear to be the position of Rabbenu Hananel. According to Rabbenu Hananel, this principle would appear to govern all halakhic questions pertaining to sexual identity.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV253 … contemporary rabbinic scholars generally condemn efforts to explain people's illnesses and deaths from disease as punishment for their behavior. For example, Lord Jakobovits, the late British Chief Rabbi and medical ethicist, criticized religious people who chose to see AIDS as God's punishment of homosexuals (an activity banned by Torah law [this verse]: "We can no more divine why some people endure terrible ills without any appropriate cause than we can comprehend why others prosper though they clearly do not deserve their good fortune. Even less are we justified in being selective, subjecting some scourges to this moral analysis while exempting others-- AIDS, yes, but earthquakes, or flood or drought, no." (Cited in Freudenthal, AIDS in Jewish Thought and Law, 2).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV258 No man shall engage in bestiality. Hashem wants all of his creatures to reproduce only with their own kind. Since such is His will, there can be no blessing in anything that runs counter to this idea. Accordingly, offspring that result from crossbreeding are never able to reproduce. All the more mankind, the most superior species, cannot mix with the low world of beasts and animals.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV259 … the Torah expresses great antagonism toward the Canaanite nations, including a call to destroy their idolatrous temples, and either eject them from the land of Israel [The Bible clearly wanted to preserve the highest standard of monotheistic religion in Israel in the same way that Muslims expect Islam to be observed more strictly in the holy city of Mecca, and Catholics expect Catholicism to be practiced more purely in the Vatican. In addition, the Bible warned that if the Canaanites remained in the land they would influence many Israelites to practice idolatry. They did indeed remain in the land and influenced the ancient Hebrews to follow them (See, for example, Judges 2:11–13; II Kings 21:6 records that King Manesseh, deeply influenced by local idolatry, even sacrificed one of his sons) or destroy them. People commonly assume that the Bible's position on idolatry is solely due to its theological error in positing many gods instead of one. But a close reading of the text shows this to be false; the Bible's opposition was primarily directed against the immorality sanctioned by Canaanite idolatry. One looks in vain for passages in the Torah mocking the multiplicity of gods worshiped by the ancient Canaanites. What one finds instead is abhorrence at Canaanite practices such as child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31) and bestiality [this and previous verses], along with the fear that, if the Canaanites remain in the land, "they [will] lead you into doing all the abhorrent things that they have done for their gods… (Deuteronomy 20:18). When committed by non-Israelites, the theological error of idolatry, as opposed to its moral misbehavior, was not particularly troublesome to the Torah. Thus, Moses, in his farewell address, warns the Israelites against being lured into worshiping the sun, moon, or the stars, but then says: "These the Lord your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under the heaven" (Deuteronomy 4:19) (The prophet Micah comments in a similarly nonjudgmental fashion: "Though all peoples walk each in the name of its gods, we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever" (4:5). The clear implication is that while Israel must worship God alone, the Lord was not troubled--at that point in time--by other nations worshiping His creations, such as the sun [the word for "sun" in Hebrew, shemesh, is related to the word shamash (to serve) implying that the sun, which others worship as a god, is simply a servant of God.) What God does not condone for Israelites and non-Israelites alike is immorality and cruelty. The prophets reinforced the Torah's view of idolatry. While they, like the Torah, do not generally criticize the non-Israelite nations for worshiping other gods, they condemn them for acts of cruelty. Thus, the citizens of Edom might have been idolaters, but what really incensed the prophet Amos is that they pursued their adversaries with the sword "And repressed all pity" (Amos 1:11). Similarly the nearby state of Ammon is announced for ripping "open the pregnant women of Gilead, in order to enlarge their own territory" (1:13). The same is true of Amos's critique of the ancient kingdoms of Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, and Moab (Chapters one and two).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV261 Many of the nonobservant Jews in Israel believe that the land is special in that it provides a homeland for the Jewish people, but [that] there is nothing intrinsic about the land that makes it special. This is not the Jewish approach. There is something unique about this land that makes it respond differently from any other soil in the world. It is the only land that responds physically to moral behavior. Each day, the Jews twice say the second paragraph of the Shema (Deut. 13:18) that if the Jewish people observe the Commandments and behave morally, the land will respond by having enough rain and producing enough crops. If the Jews stray from God, they will be forced to leave the land. This same idea is repeated many times in The Torah, including the beginning of the portion of Bechukotai (Leviticus 26:3-5) where it says that the reward for keeping the Torah's statutes will be proper rain and enough crops to eat until one is satiated. Therefore, the quantity and quality of crops the land of Israel will produce depends on the behavior of its inhabitants. This idea is echoed in a different context when it says [this verse] that the land will "vomit" out its inhabitants if they act in an abominable manner (referring to improper sexual behavior). Although people normally associate that Divine Providence of God is in relation to people, when it comes to the land of Israel, God declares (Deut. 11:12) that there is Divine Providence. He watches the land constantly from the beginning until the end of the year, seeking the land out. It is then apparent that the land of Israel, from a Jewish perspective, is unique and cannot be looked upon as "just another piece of earth." The land of Israel is linked to the Jewish people only through Judaism and the mitzvot.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV260 See [[LEV261]] Leviticus 18:25 vomit AMEMEI 126

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV262 See [[LEV795]] Leviticus 19:34 love OXFORD 46-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT