Does Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 Forbid Homosexuality or Sex With A Married Man?

“Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: the word to’eva: You are straying after it [to’e ata bah]” Meaning: “you are straying from your wife to be with another man.” – Nedarim 51a

At the very beginning of this page, let us address two subjects succinctly and directly: homosexual orientation and cross-dressing. For, unlike modern translations, the Hebrew Bible has little or nothing to say about these.

Question: According to Vayikra 18.22 and 20.13, whose bed is it that man is not to lie with a male on? And what kind of a bed is it? … Traditional Rabbinic interpretation of these verses, avoids the peshat reading of the verse.

And with a male no you will lie, bed of woman/wife…
וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה
“V’et zachar lo tishkav mishkvei ishah…”
Vayikra/Leviticus 18.22 and duplicated with punishment included in Vayikra/Leviticus 20.13.

Instead of translating (“man no lie with male on bed of wife” – mishkvei ishah, marriage/conjugal/dual-bed of wife), tradition interprets and expands the prohibition to all male homosexual sex. But this prohibition, repeated twice, only applies to husbands who are married to wives (women).

So, if you’re same-sex oriented and not married, you cannot violate this Torah prohibition. If you’re same-sex oriented and married to a man, you cannot violate this Torah prohibition.

But, if you’re same-sex oriented and you marry a woman knowing this, you commit a to’evah everytime you seek intimacy with a male, rather than your wife, and you commit chillul hashem for depriving your wife of marital satisfaction.

It is also a *fact* that the Torah does not recognize the existence of “gender identity” anymore than Torah recognizes the existence of “homosexual orientation.” And, therefore, has *no laws* regulating either of these! The assumption of Torah and of the Talmudic rabbis is that *all* men are naturally drawn to women, and anything else is a choice. And that one’s gender is strictly a physical genital assignment, having nothing to do with the orientation of the mind.

The Torah itself does not define what is a male item and what is a female item, when it comes to clothing (only rituals items and battle armor are specifically assigned to males). In translations (in other languages, other than Hebrew) of the Torah, “the Bible” only says that a woman should not wear a man’s clothes, and that a man should not wear a woman’s clothes (BUT, even the Torah, itself, does NOT say this!).

The Torah, when read literally on its own terms, says:

דברים כב:ה “לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה…”

“there shall be no item (keli) of man (gever) on a woman (ishah), and a man (gever) is not to wear an outer garment (simlah) of a woman (ishah).” So, nothing typically associated with manly men can be worn by a woman. But, which specific woman’s outer garment is Torah referring to? And why does Torah NOT prohibit men from wearing all women’s clothing?!

THIS is the “Bible,” not the bigotries of modern interpretations placed ON the “Bible.” We modern humans now know that both the “Bible” and the “Talmud” are lacking understanding, and are clearly wrong in these assumptions. But, even in their wrongness, these ancient law texts are right for those who meet the assumed nature of humans (which these laws *directly* apply to!).

It is we modern humans who are *wrong* to force into these behaviors those who do not conform to these assumed natures. We create to’evah in the doing so! We commit Chillul haShem, a “desecration of God’s name,” in doing so! Keep this in mind when you catch yourself looking upon an effeminate man or manly woman, a homosexual couple of either gender, a cross dresser or someone in drag – the Torah does NOT forbid these things!

Homophobia is the real abomination
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/homophobia-is-the-real-abomination/

There is no sin in being gay just as there is no mitzvah in being straight because both just are.
MAR 4, 2020

————-

Here’s another way of looking at this:

If the rabbis of Talmud period, being influenced by Greek cultural behavior, are right and “mishkav” should be understood to mean “lyings of”, then the prohibited homosexual acts are two specific acts, and no more. But, which two? – Mas. Sanhedrin 54a, 28-32:

“Where is the prohibition of a male? Because it says, ‘if a man,’ a man and not a minor. And it says, ‘lie with a man,’ whether the passive partner be an adult or a minor. And it says, ‘as with a woman,’ from which we learn that there are two modes of lying with a woman.”

But, if the Torah is right on its own terms, before Greek cultural influences, then a question: According to Vayikra 18.22 and 20.13, whose bed is it that man is not to lie with a male on? And what kind of a bed is it?

There is only three places in Torah where the plural form of bed, “mishkvei,” is written, once in Genesis and twice in Leviticus. Why is it a “bed” in translation everytime when “mishkvei” appears in Genesis but, when seen in Leviticus, in this prohibition repeated twice, “mishkvei” is not a bed, after all?

Who decided that the plain reading of this word in its surrounding text should never be understood, and what was the reasoned purpose for this? How is it *not* that both Lev 18.22 & 20.13 is saying “a man no lie with male, bed of woman”? Meaning, a married man don’t have sex with a male on your wife’s conjugal bed!

“Does the Torah prohibit homosexuality?”

Absolutely not! And, to say otherwise and oppress homosexuals is chillul hashem! Torah does *not* forbid homosexuality, but later Judaism forbids it.

Question: According to Vayikra 18.22 and 20.13, whose bed is it that man is not to lie with a male on? And what kind of a bed is it? Traditional Rabbinic *interpretation* (not translation) of these verses – aka, “in lyings of woman” – avoids the peshat reading of the verse. Why is it, when used in Genesis, “mishkvei” is a “bed” in translation but, when used in Leviticus (in this sole and only prohibition repeated twice), “mishkvei” is not a bed, after all?

Our present understanding of this ancient BCE law, found in Lev 18.22 & 20.13, comes from Greek culture influence, sex with boys in exchange for knowledge and power. Jewish teachers of the time *interpreted* (rather than translated) the Leviticus 18 & 20 passages in a manner to give the appearance that Torah prohibits “men from having sex with males in the lyings of woman.”

But Torah, when read on its own terms, does not say this! It says a man is not to lay with a male on “bed of woman.” The bed, “mishkav,” is in plural form, “mishkvei,” and associated with a singular woman, “ishah.” This makes this bed a conjugal bed between a man and a woman – aka, a bed for two. Such a combination, plural bed with singular human, is used only one other time in Torah, in Genesis, and it is always translated into other languages as “bed” in this Genesis passage. Thus, the law in Torah, in its day, only forbids a married man having sex with a male on his wife’s marriage bed. To violate this prohibition is a male-male form of committing adultery, that violates the sexual rights of his wife.

This isn’t the only place that exposure to Greek culture created a changed understanding of Torah for Jews. If we look at the very first chapter of Genesis, we learn of: “at the beginning” of YHWH god’s creating the land and skies from the already existent chaotic and formless watery world abyss,…. After Greek influence, with all their philosophical absolutes, Jews *interpreted* this same passage into Greek (rather than translating it) as saying, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form.”

This is an incorrect, but very culturally stuck, translation. The watery world abyss pre-existed “God’s” creating, according to Torah itself! … So, no, the Torah only prohibits a married man from having sex with a male on his wife’s bed. To persecute homosexuals, their lifestyle and their relationships/marriages, is a chillul hashem, folks! And, far too many modern generations of Jews have done exactly this.

————-

(Original beginning of this page.)

Oh, wow. By Torah, I think he’s got it!!!

“Only in Gen. 49:4 and Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 do we find the form mishkbe. I wonder, then, whether the form mishkbe may be not a plural but a dual and designate a double bed. In all three texts the reference is to a conjugal bed, housing two people. One of the uses of the Hebrew dual is in reference to single objects that somehow present a dual aspect. A good example is delatayim “double door,” which like mishkab has a singular, delet “door,” and a plural, delatot “doors.” The dual does not mean “two doors”: it refers to a single door, with two panes. Similarly the dual of mishkab may refer to a single bed, meant for two people.”

For you went upon your father’s bed, then you defiled who ascended on my bed.
ki alita mishkvei avikha az khilalta y’tsui alah
כִּ֥י עָלִ֖יתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אָבִ֑יךָ אָ֥ז חִלַּ֖לְתָּ יְצוּעִ֥י עָלָֽה
Bereshit/Genesis 49:4, which uses the same odd plural form of mishkav as only two other verses in the entire TaNaKh – Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13.

Meaning: You had sex with your father’s concubine on your father’s bed.

And with a male no you will lie, the bed of a woman.
V’et zachar lo tishkav mishkvei ishah.
וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה
Vayikra/Leviticus 18.22 and duplicated with punishment included in Vayikra/Leviticus 20.13.

Meaning: You will not have sex with a woman’s husband (a married man)!

“[T]he “protection” of the union of man and wife as the paradigmatic form of human relationships is ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible. The prohibition of adultery is reiterated many times and in many forms. On the new interpretation, Lev. 18:22 participates in this protection. One could say it comes to close a legal loophole. The law is formulated in a male-centred perspective: sex with a married woman is forbidden. But what about sex with a married man? This is not covered by the prohibition of adultery. But it is covered in our verses [of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13].”

A New Interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 (par. 20:13) and its Ethical Implications
by Jan Joosten, Oxford
https://www.academia.edu/37045399/A_New_Interpretation_of_Lev_18_22_par._Lev_20_13_and_its_Ethical_Implications

We have been getting it wrong for two thousand years, folks! All from not understanding which meaning to apply to mishkav, and being habituated by doctrinal tradition to the wrong meaning of this noun.

The Torah does not forbid homosexual intercourse and relationship – except if it is with a married man. Which fits the theme of all the sexual laws and its focus upon protecting the integrity of family units and producing offspring.

So, to summarize the “no adultery” laws of ancient Jews in Torah:

A man shall not have sex with a married woman, for she is the spouse of her husband. (Exodus 20:13 and Leviticus 20:10)

A man shall not have sex with a married man, for he is the spouse of his wife. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13)

The two complete each other, and clearly state that a married person, whether woman or man, is no longer available to other suitors – for she/he has a spouse already.

————-

The noun “mishkvei” in 18:22 and 20.13 of Vayikra – if it is plural, then it means “in the lyings of”; but if it is singular, then it means “in the bed of”. Therefore, a man is not to have sex with a male – either – in the “lyings of” woman or in the “bed of” a woman. If it is in the lyings of a woman, then the Talmudic rabbis are correct that this law prohibits two specific homo-genital acts between males, and not homosexuality in general. If it is in the bed of a woman, then this law prohibits men from having sex with married men, in compliment to the prohibition of adultery – men being forbidden to have sex with a married woman. Either way, Torah does not prohibit or, even, discourage same-sex relationships!

Update: I have studied further on this, pulling out TaNaKh and Talmud – to better understanding how we came to such a one-sided understanding of the word “mishkvei”. Here is what I’ve deduced (it’s a long read, but we’ll worth every line and word – to the very end, I assure!):

http://aniyostsef.com/notes/2019/06/26/to-those-who-have-eyes-to-read-and-ears-to-listen/

————-

“Everything must lack something in order to be something, i.e., to have a determinate nature.
Does God have the moral powers of Satan or of a petty human sinner? Does he have the power to feel pleasure at the suffering of an innocent child? Does he have the power to relish the demotion of an office rival? Does he have the power to long for the death of an enemy?”

The answer, if you are wondering, is a simple “yes” – according to every Bible of every theistic religion created by man. By nature of story telling, “God” is portrayed as being rather human. So the way, way, way more important question to be asking is: “Is God really omniscience and omnipotent? How is moral perfection possible without omniscience and omnipotence? And, who said God is this all powerful being?” Such a belief didn’t come from the Torah (Old Testament)! I’ll explain:

For example, at the beginning of “God”s creating (-PAUSE-), the universe and planet with water covering it *already* existed, and “God”s *first* creative act was to create light to reveal this Torah mythological fact (Genesis 1:1-3). “God”s second act was to reveal the land by separating the waters to above and below the land, creating a livable space surrounded by water, by which to stage the mythical events to come (Genesis 1:6-7).

For example, when “God” became angry with *all* the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah over the reported behavior of all the male citizens, from young lads to old men – for the extreme inhospitality towards strangers arriving to their cities – Abraham got into an argument with “God” over “God”s intent to kill everyone in the cities for this – an extreme temper-tantrum. In a process of whittling down for justice, “God” lost this argument, conceding to Abraham that he was being unjust when deciding his punishment (Genesis 18:20-33).

I could go on, because there are so many more passages like this, but you can do that studying for yourself! The point I’m making is this: According to the “Bible”, “God” is not morally perfect and not all knowing, and he is only the most powerful of all the gods and goddesses known to humankind – not necessarily all powerful.

“So it is wrong to say that God is by definition all powerful; he is only powerful within the limits of his nature. With respect to the powers he has by that nature, he is limitlessly powerful, but he does not have every power that everything in the world has — for that he would have to be the world. But God stands apart from the world, having a different nature from that of the world; he is a being unto himself.

If we want God to be literally all-powerful, we will end up with a Spinozistic pantheism, which is tantamount to the denial of God’s existence as traditionally conceived. But if we choose to restrict the powers that God has, then we can no longer define him as all-powerful.”

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/disproof-of-gods-existence/

“God essentially lacks certain powers as a condition of being who he is.” Fact, and something to ponder on this weekend – and every weekend.

————-

A republic is dying when the price of political activism becomes so high that the only people willing to engage in it are also willing to kill or die for their positions. But before the physical killing and dying happens, first comes financial and political killing and dying.

“A republic, if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin is attested to have said. Before agreeing to sign the U.S. Constitution, he gave the following speech:

“Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that whereever others differ from them it is so far error… For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views… In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such… and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” – Benjamin Franklin, a U.S. founder, Sep 1787, to the Federal Convention

As a nation, at this time in history, where both politicians and despotic self-serving leaders are boldly flaunting the norms of government and publicly defying the rule of law with no fear of impunity – the U.S. as the founders established is dying and being replaced with autocracy before our very eyes. Simply winning the next election won’t fix this!

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/26/how-republics-die_partner/

How republics die
The death of a republic is different from the death of a nation

————-

A USA Fact: The United States Constitution is the Torah – the Bible – of our nation’s political governance religion. And it has precedence of authority over any and all religions within the United States of America. Meaning, any religion in the U.S. that seeks to make it’s authority above the authority of the U.S. Constitution is blatantly violating the U.S. Constitution. It is un-American and un-patriotic to do this!

In the United States, this specifically applies to Christianity – the dominant religion infecting local and national politics, while claiming to be under siege of persecution by the constitutional patriots who demand the U.S. Constitution be followed. Might I remind Christians to observe their own Bible:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” – Romans 13

The authorities of the United States are the U.S. Constitution, the Legislature who have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and the Judges who have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not accept laws and rulings by religious beliefs and morals. So, is attempting to usurp the ruling authority of the U.S. Constitution a stand against “God”? According to Romans, the answer is emphatically “yes”!

Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” – 8 November 1838

https://constitutionus.com/

The Constitution of the United States – The Bill of Rights & All Amendments

————-

“That’s what I mean by slaveholder religion; this is how Christians in the South learned how to read the Bible in the 19th century… There is no moral failing or questionable activity that is going to cause people who call themselves evangelical Christians and who are backing [Trump] to turn away.

That’s confounding to some people, but if what is driving them is the slaveholder religion that drove the “redemption movement” of the 19th century – the preachers and politicians who understood Reconstruction after the Civil War to be an immoral imposition by white northerners that God called them to overthrow — then it fits. It fits with the historical pattern of being that kind of Christian in the American story.

For the Trumpvangelicals, this is a redemption presidency. In their imagination, they have deracialized a faith formed by the justification of race-based slavery. No one wants to think of themselves as racist. So they say the problem was not that Obama was black but that he was liberal, which to them equals immoral and ungodly in the same way that Reconstruction equaled immoral and ungodly in the minds of the redemptionists. But of course in both cases it had everything to do with race.

I tell the story of Easter dinner at my parents’ house. I watched as my African American son was sitting next to my white southern grandfather, when he realized that his grandfather might vote for Trump. “But he’s extreme,” my son said. And they both just stared at one another, unable to imagine how the other person felt.

For my son, with his experience of living in a black body, the idea of Trump as God’s man made absolutely no sense. Yet I could see that my grandfather, who had been told for generations that liberalism is immorality, and that immorality is what the Bible is against, was trying to reconcile that even if Trump was not a perfect candidate, he represented a way of winning that could defeat what my grandfather saw as liberal immorality.

That’s what I mean by slaveholder religion; this is how Christians in the South learned how to read the Bible in the 19th century. My son and my grandfather embody very different ways of sharing the faith that we have in common.”

Author points to persistent ‘slaveholder religion’ among evangelicals for Trump
https://religionnews.com/2018/03/22/author-points-to-persistent-slaveholder-religion-among-evangelicals-for-trump/

The big question is: How to educate the followers of the slaveholder religion? To free them of the indoctrination that perpetuates systemic white Christian supremacy in this nation?

Two factors will force change upon the U.S. eventually: people abandoning the churches, especially young folk, and demographic changes that render political representation brown. At this point, the slaveholder religion of the United States will die a quiet death. Assuming, they don’t destroy the representative Republic first.