To those who condemn homosexuals and transvestites as sinners against “God,” your condemnation is *NOT* based in “the Hebrew Bible” but only in your religion’s theology! As one who teaches Torah, I can assure you of this. And I’ll start with addressing homosexuality first.
The go-to Torah law of proof that homosexuality is forbidden by “God,” Vayikra/Leviticus 18.22 & 20.13, actually and literally says the following in the Hebrew:
וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה…
“Male do not lie with, bed of woman/wife (ishah), abhorrent this” (and the 2nd repetition includes a punishment).
This Torah law is a prohibition of adultery between a married man and another male, *not* a blanketed condemnation and prohibition of homosexuality.
Mishkvei, a plural form of mishkav, is used once in Bereishit/Genesis 49.4 and is properly translated into other languages of “the Bible” as “bed” – and mishkvei literally means “marriage bed” or “conjugal bed” or “bed for two.” Mishkav, the singular form of bed, is used throughout the Torah and is always properly translated as “bed” into other languages.
So, in the only other place we find the word mishkvei throughout the five scrolls of Torah, Vayikra/Leviticus 18.22 & in repeat 20.13, how in the world is it being translated, not as “bed” or “marriage bed,” but as “(sexual) lyings of” – in this case a woman? The answer lies in the Jewish response to Greek culture upon occupied Israel and the prevalence of man-boy sex in Greek culture in exchange for education and social status during this time period.
To address this “perversity,” Greek influenced Jews of the Septuagint translation period felt the need to provide an *interpretive* meaning for this word within this Leviticus law, in place of the plain meaning of the word – to make the law relevant to the Hellenized behavior that religious Jews of the time found so offensive.
The word mishkvei means “marriage bed”! But, through exegesis, here alone – in only *this* Torah law – the word means “lyings of”, which is derived from the root. Thus, “man no lie down with male on marriage-bed of wife” becomes “man no lie with male in lyings of woman”. The Leviticus law prohibiting a form of male adultery has now become, in translation, a law prohibiting male-boy sex – which, in modern times, has been turned into a prohibition of homosexuality in general in the interpretations of modern religions – trying to justify biblically their modern religious homophobia.
Now, with this addressed, we can now properly address the Torah law prohibiting certain forms of cross-dressing. Note, *certain forms*, not cross-dressing itself!
The only place in Torah where there is an explicit law prohibition of wearing the other gender’s clothing is in D’varim/Deuteronomy 22.5:
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)…”
This “Biblical” prohibition places different requirements of “do not” wear upon men and upon women. First, it is very important to understand the difference between the Hebrew word ish, “man,” and gever, also translated as “man”:
The word ish, “man,” is the word most used alongside ishah, “woman,” to distinguish between human gender. Though all who are ish are, thus, by gender man, *NOT* all ish are gever, a specific kind of manly man – for which there is *no* womanly counterpart word. All women are ishah, and there is no word in Hebrew for a specifically womanly kind of woman.
This prohibition of cross-dressing in D’varim uses the word gever, a “manly man,” in both sections of the prohibition – not the word ish that refers to any adult male. The Torah does not cough, folks, thus this use is deliberate!
Not only does this prohibition *not* prohibit males from wearing all garments deemed to be for females but, as well, it *only* prohibits males who are gever, manly men by social designation, from this cross-dressing behavior. Understand this clearly!
Effeminate men are not gever, and are not prohibited by this Torah law from wearing female clothing! To say so, is to put words into the Torah that is not there, which is also declared forbidden in D’varim (4.2, “do not add…, nor diminish”).
In other words, there is no law in “the Bible” that prohibits ish, “man,” from wearing any female gendered object. But, a gever man is forbidden to wear a simlah, a specific woman’s “covering.” So, all these male transvestites in the world – Jewish and Gentile – are *not* violating a “Biblical commandment” by dressing in the opposite gender’s clothing and behaving feminine!
Now, the reverse is not the same, though. This D’varim law does prohibit ishah, a “woman,” from wearing *any item* deemed to be for a gever male. But, it does not identify clearly *which* items these are that are considered gever, “manly man,” wear! Women are *not* prohibited by this law from wearing clothing that is worn by ish, man,” period – only a keli, “item,” of a gever man.
So, in summary, “the Bible” only says the following in the original language:
“And with a male no you will lie, bed of wife…” – Vayikra/Leviticus 18.22, and duplicated with punishment included in Vayikra/Leviticus 20.13.
“There shall be no keli (item) of gever on ishah, and gever is not to wear simlah (outer garment) of ishah…” – D’varim/Deuteronomy 22.5
For those who rely on translations of “the Bible” that render a different understanding of these law prohibitions and use this to verbally and physically abuse, discriminate, and condemn LGBTQ:
*YOU* are committing *chillul ha’shem*, a “desecration of the Divine name,” in your attitudes and behaviors towards LGBTQ folk.
Their behavior is *NOT* forbidden by the Divine laws of Torah!
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
————-
How I Know That I Am Right About This!
All my research into biblical writing history within the greater historical Mesopotamian context verifies my position. Why would a singular Biblical law stand in opposition to every other society around it in the 10-8th centuries BCE, and to its own mythical texts that themselves match the greater societies’ extremely limited views on this subject?
For example, the Middle Assyrian Laws contain the following laws (MAL A 19 & 20):
“If a man furtively spreads rumors about his comrade, saying, “Everyone lays down (sodomizes) him,” or in a quarrel in public says to him, “Everyone lays you down (sodomizes you),” and further, “I can prove the charges against you,” but he is unable to prove the charges and does not prove the charges, they shall strike that man 50 blows with rods…. If a man lays down (sodomizes) his fellow and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall lay him down (sodomize him) and they shall turn him into a eunuch.” (Martha T Roth, 1997)
The Akkadian tablet Šumma ālu has a social law that reads:
“If a man lays (sexually) with his equal from the rear, he becomes the leader among his peers and brothers.” (Jerrold S. Cooper, 2002) A clear positive law regarding homosexual behavior among males.
Now let’s compare this with our TaNaKh’s myths for a moment.
“But before they lay down, *the men of the city*, the *men* of Sodom, surrounded the house, *both young and old*, *all the people* from every quarter. They called to Lot, and said to him, “Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (rape them, sodomize).”” Emphasis mine. (Bereishit 19.4-5)
“When he had finished speaking to Saul, the nefesh (body-mind) of Jonathan was knit with the nefesh (body-mind) of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own nefesh (body-mind). Saul took him that day, and wouldn’t let him go home to his father’s house any more. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own nefesh (body-mind). Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David with his clothing, even including his sword, his bow, and his sash…. Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David [because of “God’s” evil soul took hold of Saul]. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, greatly delighted in David. Jonathan told David, saying, “Saul my father seeks to kill you. Now therefore, please take care of yourself in the morning, live in a secret place, and hide yourself. I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are, and I will talk with my father about you; and if I see anything, I will tell you.”…. David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said to Jonathan, “What have I done? What is my iniquity? What is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?” He said to him, “Far from it; you will not die. Behold, my father does nothing either great or small, but that he discloses it to me. Why would my father hide this thing from me? It is not so.” David swore moreover, and said, “Your father knows well that I have found favor in your eyes; and he says, ‘Don’t let Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved;’ but truly as Yahweh lives, and as your nefesh (body-mind) lives, there is but a step between me and death.” Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever your nefesh (body-mind) desires, I will even do it for you.”…. Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse rebellious woman (a whore, straying woman), don’t I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you will not be established, nor will your kingdom. Therefore now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die!” Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?”” (Shmuel I 18.1-4, 19.1-3, 20.1-4, 20.30-32)
Then we have this egnimatically written Torah law in the family purity law codes about a man laying down a man upon his wife’s bed. This law, too, like the forementioned Mesopotamian laws, also pre-dates exposure to later arriving Greek Hellenistic culture.
“And a male you will not lay down (sexually), bed of wife, abhorrent this.” (Vayikra 18:22, repeated again in 20:13 with punishment attached)
For Mesopotamia in general, only a male raping a male is a legal issue, with punishment included. For Mesopotamia in general, a passive male partner only loses the ability to obtain or maintain the social status given to manly men. The Torah reflects these two positions intensely and, at most, emphasizes with an even harsher punishment for rape – examples, destruction of a city, the death of the male raper. What is at question here is, was there ever actually a codified law for rape in Vayikra? Or, is this law, presented twice, actually about a married man’s adultery?
The ANE Mesopotamia of early Torah years did not share the near BCE and CE era views on male-male behavior (male-boy sex to obtain social status, followed by believing these ancient people hated homosexuality as societies now do). And, with all the research that’s now been done, it really is *presumptuous* for us to *assume* our modern influenced views of history upon the ancient myths and laws themselves. Let’s not forget the definition of assume (ass-u-me)!
יוסף פרקשדי
————
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-prohibition-of-cross-dressing
The Prohibition of Cross-Dressing
What does Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibit and why?
3 Comments
adminkahal · September 6, 2020 at 7:19 pm
Recently on the Torat Chayim Facebook page I was given the following challenge to my position on Vayikra 18.22 & 20.13:
“Actually the verb root shakhav in Biblical Hebrew is used to mean “to rest” or “to have illicit sexual relationship”. Although as a noun it can mean “bed”, in sexual contexts it is always used as an euphemism that refers to illicit/improper relationships, like the daughters of Lot with their father, Potiphar’s wife with Joseph, the men of Gerar with Sarah, Shekhem with Dinah and so on.
As far as I know, it is never used to describe legitimate sex between husband and wife. Also, if the prohibition in Leviticus really meant what you claim, the pasuk would say “ishtekha” not “ishah”.
But Shakhav is used twice in the same verse, so according to how Biblical Hebrew usually works, the meaning should be the same in both instances. Think of Bil’am saying: “May I die in the dyings [meaning way of dying] of the uprights”. Same kind of expression here in Leviticus: “With a male you shall not lie in the liyings of a woman”.”
But, here is the problem to this traditional understanding of this pasuk (render twice in Torah, once with penalty of death): The root shakhav is represented twice in the pasuk, yes, but once in future-tense verb form (tishkav) and, directly following, once in plural noun form (mishkvei) of a singular object. It is not, as suggested above, the verb presented twice in the pasuk. Why use a noun form as a verb, when you could you a verb form? Unless, your intention was, perhaps, to have the noun understood as a noun?
I’ll express this in another way. The Assyrians and Egyptians were not legally interested in same-sex behavior – outside of addressing the raping of a male by another male. If you look at this Vayikra pasuk from this perspective – that this pasuk is addressing Assyrian or Egyptian attitudes around same-sex male behavior and following the same legal schema – you are left with the following:
“And [man] with a male no you will lie lyings of woman/wife, abhorrent this.” Meaning, male of social status do not sodomize (rape) a male like you do to a woman/a wife. … This also fits the condemnation of the rape culture behavior of Sedom and Amorah in TaNaKh, the sin of extreme inhospitality deserving death.
Now, if we are to *assume* that Jewish culture of the time in every way stood against anything permissible within surrounding nations – despite most of Israel’s vassal treaties mimicking the vassal treaties of the Assyrian Empire – then we are left with following:
“And [man] with a male no you will lie lyings of woman/wife, abhorrent this.” Meaning, a man of social status (dominant) will not sexually lie with a male (whether active or passive) like you sexually possess your woman/wife. … Sound familiar? This was the rendering produced by the rabbis of the Talmud writing period, who were far removed from the ANE Jewish culture, and is the defacto understanding of this pasuk to this day.
Often times, the most obvious rendering is the correct rendering, and Talmud period rabbis loved to expand the prohibitions, drawing a “fence” around them, as it is said.
Now, compare the two possible meanings of mishkvei – as “conjugal-bed” for two, as sexual “lyings of” woman/wife – to ANE neighbors’ concerns about male same-sex behavior.
“And [man] male do not lie with, bed of wife/woman, abhorrent this” – adultery prohibition.
“And [man] male do not lie with (sodomize), lyings of woman/wife, abhorrent this” – rape prohibition.
Now, put these two versions of the meaning in context with the list of sexual behavior prohibitions this pasuk is found in – and what do we have? Which is the most likely to be the actual legal meaning of the pasuk?
While I do understand the position that traditional halakhic Judaism is coming from, still yet mishkav is a noun and it is used as such throughout Torah. It may come from a verb root, but it is a noun referring to a “bed.” Why is a noun used in this pasuk, rather than a verb? As a rabbi in my youth taught me, the Torah does not cough, folks. Every word in there is in there for a reason! What is this reason?
One further thought:
Keep in mind that the Talmudic rabbis were quiet gifted at rendering piskei halakha in places of Torah that literally have no psak in them. For example, Onan was put to death for denying his brother the right to child inheritance out of personal inheritance greed, thus killing his brother’s family line – and not because he orgasmed outside his brother’s wife’s body, as the rabbis later rendered, turning a story about family murder into a prohibition of masturbating.
At some point, we have got to address the places where our piskei halakha is stretching the purpose of Torah observance and rendering religious observance unholy through our actions – or, in this case, inaction.
adminkahal · September 7, 2020 at 2:37 pm
An open letter I penned to several hundred Modern Orthodox rabbis. Consider this an open letter to all Jewish rabbis, from the most insular to the most liberal:
Shalom, Rabbis.
I have noticed that the Torat Chayim rabbis have made no responses on my comment to this recent TC post, and I would love to hear your well educated responses. So, I am directly asking you all this time through this email.
I know it is uncomfortable to challenge two thousand years of precedence laid out by Judaism. But, we only learn by doing so.
If it really is, as tradition has put it, that “lying of woman” is the intended meaning of Vayikra 18.22 & 20.13, then why not just clearly say so – such as שכב עם אשה , “lay-down with woman,” or שכבת אשה, “lying-of woman,” for example. Why use a noun, instead, that can only be understood as “lying of” in the context of a euphemism – of all places, within a Torah law? Why further pluralize this noun, making it enigmatic, with a euphemistic meaning of “lyings of woman”?
Isn’t it more likely that the shakhav-based plural noun, משכבי, used in this pasuk (repeated twice, once with punishment) is meant to be understood as the noun that it simply is? Like how this noun is understood in Bereishit, so here in Vayikra – a “bed-for-two,” a “marriage/conjugal bed”? In context of this Torah law pasuk, male no will lie (tishkav) “bed of wife” (mishkvei ishah)…?
It seems to me that this pasuk is alluding to a man who is married having sex with a male, whether married or not – whether “active or passive,” as the Talmudic rabbis put it. Your thoughts, please, Rabbis?
adminkahal · December 22, 2020 at 8:49 pm
(Sent to theTorah and Torat Chayim on 12/22/2020 at 20:34.)
Dear Rabbis and Professors,
I’ve noticed a trend of no response when I’ve tried in the past to reach organizations such as theTorah and Torat Chayim. I am absolutely sure that you’re very busy, so I understand that reaching you may be difficult. But, even with this, I would hope that you would consider (and, possibly, even respond to) my perspective on a crucial position maintained by Orthodox Judaism on homosexuality.
I know it is uncomfortable to challenge two thousand years of precedence laid out by Judaism. But, we only learn by doing so.
If it really is, as tradition has put it, that “lying of woman” is the intended meaning of Vayikra 18.22 & 20.13, then why not just clearly say so – such as שכב עם אשה , “lay-down with woman,” or שכבת אשה, “lying-of woman,” for example. Why use a noun, instead, that can only be understood as “lying of” in the context of a euphemism – of all places, within a Torah law? Why further pluralize this noun, making it enigmatic, with a euphemistic meaning of “lyings of woman”?
Isn’t it more likely that the shakhav-based plural noun, משכבי, used in this pasuk (repeated twice, once with punishment) is meant to be understood as the noun that it simply is? Like how this noun is understood in Bereishit 49.4, so here in Vayikra – a “bed-for-two,” a “marriage/conjugal bed”? In context of this Torah law pasuk, male no will lie (tishkav) “bed of wife” (mishkvei ishah)…?
It seems to me that this pasuk is alluding to a man who is married having sex with a male, whether married or not – whether “active or passive,” as the Talmudic rabbis put it. And only assumes a euphemistic meaning through the interpretation of later rabbis influenced by the occupying Greek culture.
Your thoughts, please, Rabbis/Professors? I believe this subject deserves more critical scholarly study, than it has so far received to date. It’s been twenty years since the words of a Rabbi and mentor – “התורה לא משתעלת!” – triggered my awareness of this pasuk, and whether it is accurately being translated by modern Judaism. I am hoping that theTorah, especially, will explore it.
Sincerely,
יוסף פרקשדי