![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.aniyostsef.com\/kahal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/the-prohibition-of-cross-dressing-177x300.jpg?resize=177%2C300\")
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.<\/p>\n
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:<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05a8\u05ea\u05be\u05d6\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u0594\u05e8 \u05dc\u05b9\u05a5\u05d0 \u05ea\u05b4\u05e9\u05c1\u05b0\u05db\u05bc\u05b7\u0596\u05d1 \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05c1\u05b0\u05db\u05bc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05a3\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05b8\u0591\u05d4…
\n“Male do not lie with, bed of woman\/wife (ishah), abhorrent this” (and the 2nd repetition includes a punishment).<\/p>\n
This Torah law is a prohibition of adultery between a married man and another male, *not* a blanketed condemnation and prohibition of homosexuality.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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!<\/p>\n
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:<\/p>\n
\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05d1:\u05d4 \u201c\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05d4 \u05db\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d2\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4 \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d2\u05b6\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05de\u05b0\u05dc\u05b7\u05ea \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4\u2026\u201d
\n\u201cthere 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)…\u201d<\/p>\n
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”:<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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!<\/p>\n
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!<\/p>\n
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”).<\/p>\n
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!<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
So, in summary, “the Bible” only says the following in the original language:<\/p>\n
“And with a male no you will lie, bed of wife\u2026” – Vayikra\/Leviticus 18.22, and duplicated with punishment included in Vayikra\/Leviticus 20.13.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere shall be no keli (item) of gever on ishah, and gever is not to wear simlah (outer garment) of ishah…\u201d – D’varim\/Deuteronomy 22.5<\/p>\n
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:<\/p>\n
*YOU* are committing *chillul ha’shem*, a “desecration of the Divine name,” in your attitudes and behaviors towards LGBTQ folk.
\nTheir behavior is *NOT* forbidden by the Divine laws of Torah!<\/p>\n
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: \u201cThe word to\u2019eva: You are straying after it [to\u2019e ata bah]\u201d Meaning: \u201cyou are straying from your wife to be with another man.\u201d \u2013 Nedarim 51a<\/p>\n
————-<\/p>\n
How I Know That I Am Right About This!<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
For example, the Middle Assyrian Laws contain the following laws (MAL A 19 & 20):<\/p>\n
“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)<\/p>\n
The Akkadian tablet \u0160umma \u0101lu has a social law that reads:<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
Now let’s compare this with our TaNaKh’s myths for a moment.<\/p>\n
“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, \u201cWhere are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (rape them, sodomize).\u201d” Emphasis mine. (Bereishit 19.4-5)<\/p>\n
“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\u2019t let him go home to his father\u2019s 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\u2019s son, greatly delighted in David. Jonathan told David, saying, \u201cSaul 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.\u201d…. David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said to Jonathan, \u201cWhat have I done? What is my iniquity? What is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?\u201d He said to him, \u201cFar 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.\u201d David swore moreover, and said, \u201cYour father knows well that I have found favor in your eyes; and he says, \u2018Don\u2019t let Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved;\u2019 but truly as Yahweh lives, and as your nefesh (body-mind) lives, there is but a step between me and death.\u201d Then Jonathan said to David, \u201cWhatever your nefesh (body-mind) desires, I will even do it for you.\u201d…. Then Saul\u2019s anger burned against Jonathan, and he said to him, \u201cYou son of a perverse rebellious woman (a whore, straying woman), don\u2019t I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother\u2019s 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!\u201d Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said to him, \u201cWhy should he be put to death? What has he done?\u201d” (Shmuel I 18.1-4, 19.1-3, 20.1-4, 20.30-32)<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“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)<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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)!<\/p>\n
\u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9<\/p>\n
————<\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.thetorah.com\/article\/the-prohibition-of-cross-dressing<\/p>\n
The Prohibition of Cross-Dressing
\nWhat does Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibit and why?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[24,26,25,22,23,21,20],"class_list":["post-131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-cross-dressing","tag-holiness-code","tag-homosexuality","tag-leviticus-18","tag-leviticus-20","tag-sexual-laws","tag-torah"],"yoast_head":"\n