LEV249 Why does the Torah forbid homosexuality? Bearing in mind that reasons proffered for the various commitments are not to be accepted as determinative, but as human efforts to explain immutable divine law, the rabbis of the Talmud and later Talmudists t did offer a number of illuminating rationales for the law. As stated, the Torah condemns homosexuality as to'evah, an abomination. The Talmud records the interpretation of Bar Kapparah who, in a play on words, defined to'evah as to'eh attah bah. "You are going astray because of it" (Nedarim 51a). The exact meaning of this passage is unclear, and various explanations have been put forward. The Pesikta (Zutartra) explains the statement of Bar Kapparah as referring to the impossibility of such a sexual act resulting in procreation. One of the major functions (if not the major purpose) of sexuality is reproduction, and this reason for man's sexual endowment is frustrated by mishkav zakhur (so too Sefer ha-Hinnukh, no. 209). Another interpretation is that of Tosafot and R. Asher ben Jehiel (in their commentaries to Ned. 51a) which applies the "going astray" or wandering to the homosexual's abandoning his wife. In other words, the abomination consists of the danger that a married man with homosexual tendencies may disrupt his family life in order to indulge his perversions. Saadiah Gaon holds the rational basis of most of the Bible's moral legislation to be the preservation of the family structure (Emunot ve-De'ot 3:1: cf. Yoma 9a). (This argument assumes contemporary cogency in the light of the avowed aim of some gay militant to destroy the family, which they consider an "oppressive institution"). A third explanation is given by a modern scholar, Rabbi Baruch Ha-Levi Epstein (Torah Temimah to this verse), who emphasizes the unnaturalness of the homosexual liaison: "You are going astray from the foundations of the creation." Mishkav zakhur defies the very structure of the anatomy of the sexes, which quite obviously was designed for heterosexual relationships. It may be, however, that the very variety of interpretations of to'evah points to a far more fundamental meaning, namely, that an act characterized as an "abomination" is prima facie disgusting and cannot be further defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matter rests. It is, as it were, a visceral reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evah constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. "This lends additional force to Rabbi David Z. Hoffmann's contention that to'evah is used by the Torah to indicate the repulsiveness of a prescribed act, no matter how much it may be in vogue among advanced and sophisticated cultures: see his Sefer Va-yikra, II, p. 54.).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV250 The Torah [this verse] states, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination". In another verse (Leviticus 20:13), the Torah repeats the injunction, but specifies that "the two of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death--their bloodguilt is upon them." Rabbinic and later halakhic sources generally interpret these verses to prohibit male same-sex relationships. Lesbian sexual activity is not mentioned in the Torah and is forbidden almost as an afterthought in later sources. Specifically, the Talmud describes female same-sex activity as "mere obscenity" that does not disqualify a woman from marrying a member of the priestly class (B. Yevamot 76a), and Maimonides states that though female same-sex sexual activity is technically forbidden, "there is no specific biblical prohibition, and it is not called 'intercourse' at all." [M.T. Laws of Forbidden Intercourse (Issurei Biah) 21:8]. In other words, though lesbians today must also contend with a discouraging textual tradition, the strength of the prohibitions against them are much lighter and easier to address from a legal standpoint than those regarding gay men. (By Danya Ruttenberg, "Jewish Sexual Ethics")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV251 Bar Kappara asked Rabbi [Judah, President of the Sanhedrin]: What is the meaning of to’evah (abomination, as in Leviticus 18:22, the verse banning homosexual relations)? He then refuted every explanation offered by Rabbi. “Explain it yourself,” Rabbi then said. Bar Kappara replied: Thus the All Merciful One said: to’evah = to’eh ata bah [you go astray in respect to it. He is using a play on words, for this phrase in Hebrew sounds like the Hebrew word for abomination]. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 51a

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV252 See [[LEV842]] Leviticus 20:13 lies DORFF-RUTTENBERGSEX 116

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

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