• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Judaism and homosexuality

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
This so reminds me of how the christians treat the Torah....

I should have noted I was quoting just the first part of the verse. I was quoting the first part of the verse simply because it was the part I was asking you about. For not making that clear I apologize. On the other hand, you could have not jumped to a conclusion and, instead, asked me why I was only quoting the first part of the verse and I would have explained.

We're not going to agree on most things. I know that. You know that. But the least we can do is deal with one another in a civil manner.
 
Last edited:

CMike

Well-Known Member
Sure, the fact that the section is bracketed by verses explaining that the 'arayot are specifically given to separate us from the peoples of Canaan and of Egypt and their practices is probably just a coincidence.

And the fact that the word to'evah is used in Devarim, in Melachim, in Yishayah, Yechezkel, Yirmiyah, and a few other places as well as a specific euphemism for idols and idolatrous practices-- I'm sure that's probably quite a coincidence also, right?

It's funny how when the verse gets drashed by someone you respect, it's like Torah mi-Sinai, but when the drash is suggested by someone you don't respect, it's like Christianity....

I didn't give an explanation.

I posted the verse in Hebrew, and he English translation.

It speaks for itself.

Just because you are trying hard to change the meaning doesn't in fact change the meaning.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
I didn't give an explanation.

I posted the verse in Hebrew, and the English translation.

It speaks for itself.

Just because you are trying hard to change the meaning doesn't in fact change the meaning.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I repeat myself with a clarifying modification.......

The beginning of verse 20:13 reads
ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה

It could have, but does not, read
ואיש אשר ישכב את איש משכבי אשה

I asked you to think about it.

Have you?

If you have, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I repeat myself with a clarifying modification.......

The beginning of verse 20:13 reads
ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה

It could have, but does not, read
ואיש אשר ישכב את איש משכבי אשה

I asked you to think about it.

Have you?

If you have, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Probably also worth asking why it uses את and not עם, too. The former directional particle is often typical of object indicators rather than subject indicators. There may be a case to be made that what is being proscribed is male rape rather than homosexual acts in general.
 

dantech

Well-Known Member
Probably also worth asking why it uses את and not עם, too. The former directional particle is often typical of object indicators rather than subject indicators. There may be a case to be made that what is being proscribed is male rape rather than homosexual acts in general.

If that were the case, why would it say זכר?
Only in the case of male rape is it an abomination?
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
If that were the case, why would it say זכר?
Only in the case of male rape is it an abomination?

Presumably it specifies zachar here because if it only gave the laws of rape pertaining to women, I might conclude that it is forbidden to rape women, but permissible to rape men. And likewise, if it only gave the prohibition of male rape here, I might conclude that male rape was an abomination, but raping a woman is not. Therefore, both are needed, in order to understand that raping anyone is forbidden and is an abomination.

Or so I would conclude if I had the authority to drash the psukim like a Tanna.
 

dantech

Well-Known Member
Presumably it specifies zachar here because if it only gave the laws of rape pertaining to women, I might conclude that it is forbidden to rape women, but permissible to rape men. And likewise, if it only gave the prohibition of male rape here, I might conclude that male rape was an abomination, but raping a woman is not. Therefore, both are needed, in order to understand that raping anyone is forbidden and is an abomination.

Or so I would conclude if I had the authority to drash the psukim like a Tanna.

If this were a law about rape, why include a gender at all? And the fact that it adds משכבי אשה shows that whatever action this verse is truly about, if it were with a woman, it would be fine.
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter Dan.

They are going to try and change the meaning any way they can.

It's very similar to the Christians who try to insert jesus into the passages.

They are trying to change the Torah to suit their beliefs, instead of the other way around.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
If this were a law about rape, why include a gender at all? And the fact that it adds משכבי אשה shows that whatever action this verse is truly about, if it were with a woman, it would be fine.

How would you phrase a law prohibiting rape without having a direct object in the sentence?

And as for משכבי אשה, it seems to me that it doesn't indicate that if it were a woman it would be fine, but rather-- if it indeed means what it seems to mean-- that it is a clarification: that the act forbidden to perform on another man is the analogous act to what a man might do to a woman. In other words, a penetrative rape. And since there is only one place on the body where a man can be penetratively raped, that specifies the act of rape being anally raping a man.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
It doesn't matter Dan.

They are going to try and change the meaning any way they can.

It's very similar to the Christians who try to insert jesus into the passages.

They are trying to change the Torah to suit their beliefs, instead of the other way around.

Apparently, you have this response set so you just have to press one key and up it pops.

Makes it kinda easy doesn't it?

You don't actually have to address any issues brought up. You don't actually have to think about any of the issues brought up. Just click a button and out comes your preformed answer.

בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם--הלמד מכל אדם

Apparently that takes too much effort on your part.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Apparently, you have this response set so you just have to press one key and up it pops.

Makes it kinda easy doesn't it?

You don't actually have to address any issues brought up. You don't actually have to think about any of the issues brought up. Just click a button and out comes your preformed answer.

בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם--הלמד מכל אדם

Apparently that takes too much effort on your part.

^^^^ This. OMG, this. :yes:
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
There haven't been any legitimate issues other than just trying to change the Torah to fit the leftist agenda.

It also states not to learn and study other religions.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
^^^^ This. OMG, this. :yes:

I may be repeating myself, but...................

It's really quite funny. Over on that other thread we have been characterized as right wing conservatives overly wed to tradition and oblivious to the needs of contemporary Judaism. On this thread we are being excoriated as left wing extremists out to, at best, modify, in opposition to G-d, the Torah to meet our leftist agenda or, at worst, to destroy the Torah.

I probably need to figure on which days I am going to be one and on which days the other.

By the way, I lost my copy of the leftist agenda. You wouldn't happen to have a spare?
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
I may be repeating myself, but...................

It's really quite funny. Over on that other thread we have been characterized as right wing conservatives overly wed to tradition and oblivious to the needs of contemporary Judaism. On this thread we are being excoriated as left wing extremists out to, at best, modify, in opposition to G-d, the Torah to meet our leftist agenda or, at worst, to destroy the Torah.

I probably need to figure on which days I am going to be one and on which days the other.

By the way, I lost my copy of the leftist agenda. You wouldn't happen to have a spare?

I don't' think you need a spare. I am pretty sure you have it memorized.

And I have never seen you considered a right wing conservative by jews, unless it's from a far greater anything goes leftist.
 

dantech

Well-Known Member
How would you phrase a law prohibiting rape without having a direct object in the sentence?

And as for משכבי אשה, it seems to me that it doesn't indicate that if it were a woman it would be fine, but rather-- if it indeed means what it seems to mean-- that it is a clarification: that the act forbidden to perform on another man is the analogous act to what a man might do to a woman. In other words, a penetrative rape. And since there is only one place on the body where a man can be penetratively raped, that specifies the act of rape being anally raping a man.

Let me ask you this:

Why would these verses, which are clearly about rape, be referring only to the raping of a woman if it were otherwise allowed to have relations with men?

כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
וְ֠נָתַן הָאִ֨ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִמָּ֛הּ לַאֲבִ֥י חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וְלֹֽו־תִהְיֶ֣ה לְאִשָּׁ֗ה תַּ֚חַת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִנָּ֔הּ לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל שַׁלְּחָ֖הּ כָּל־יָמָֽיו׃


Deuteronomy 22:28–29.

What we also see here is the consequence to both sins.

In this verse,
וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם
we see that both shall die. Why would the victim be punished of death if it were rape? Why would the victim of a homosexual rape be considered to have done an abomination? Surely the victim should be payed and allowed to marry the rapist just like in 22:28-29, wouldn't you think?
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
In this verse,we see that both shall die. Why would the victim be punished of death if it were rape? Why would the victim of a homosexual rape be considered to have done an abomination? Surely the victim should be payed and allowed to marry the rapist just like in 22:28-29, wouldn't you think?

I think this is one of a number of places where there is an intersection between the phrasing in Torah and the ways in which our ancestors who wrote down the Torah were the products of their societies and cultural times.

We have the mitzvot the way the nevi'im who assembled the Torah wrote them, and we cannot change how they were written, but I think that part of the purpose of torah sheb'al peh is to offer us the opportunity, via reinterpretation and re-understanding, of correcting for what our ancestors were unable to write into the pshat of torah she'bichtav because of their limitations in comprehension.

The Divine element in Torah, I think, shows itself in that Torah has the flexibility and the limitless depth of potential for finding justice and moral teachings, even when the pshat doesn't present or even reflect them.

When Our Rabbis look at things like ayin tachat ayin, or ben sorer u'moreh, or when Hillel institutes prozbul, or sets kinyan for kiddushin at shaveh pruta, they demonstrate for us that when we interpret Torah, we must go into doing so with an interpretive agenda of ensuring that Torah makes us a just and fair life, where those who are good and defenseless are protected and given place.

To interpret the two verses in Vayikra as a blanket ban on homosexuality creates cruelty, suffering, and sorrow, and makes Torah into a thing of oppression on around ten percent of the Jewish People-- just as much as it would be oppressive if we put out people's eyes, or stoned our children for being rebellious, or restricted marriage to only the wealthy, or insisted that it was more important to hold by the pshat of shmittah than to have a functioning economy.

So whether it's looking at interpreting these verses as a ban on male rape, or as a ban on male homosexual acts in the context of avodah zarah, or whether we go by some other interpretation, or we simply refuse to make practical halachah from them until a suitable interpretation has been found-- all of these options stem from a willingness to adhere to the overarching principles Our Rabbis have shown in their more radical interpretations, and those they have taught us, like va-chai bahem l'vo lamut bahem, or even eit la'asot l'Hashem. It's about doing our best to ensure Torah is an instrument of kedushah.

Once one dispenses with the idea that what Hashem wants of us is a blanket ban on homosexuality-- that whatever those verses mean, it must be something else, because that meaning is impossible to reconcile with a God who gave us Torah to help us make a moral and ethical society-- it then makes sense that we treat homosexual relationships in essentially the same way we treat heterosexual relationships, that we do our best to ensure that all relationships have the potential for sanctification, for everyone who has the commitment and the desire to have the chance to create a bayit ne'eman b'yisrael.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
When Our Rabbis look at things like ayin tachat ayin, or ben sorer u'moreh, or when Hillel institutes prozbul, or sets kinyan for kiddushin at shaveh pruta, they demonstrate for us that when we interpret Torah, we must go into doing so with an interpretive agenda of ensuring that Torah makes us a just and fair life, where those who are good and defenseless are protected and given place.
That was beautifully said.
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
Reminds me of jews for jesus. They have to change the Torah to fit jesus in.

The passage states that homosexual behavior is an abomination.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Reminds me of jews for jesus. They have to change the Torah to fit jesus in.

The passage states that homosexual behavior is an abomination.

Sure. And the passage in Shmot states that if someone takes out your eye, you take their eye out. And the passage in Vayikra states that every seven years, all debts are cancelled-- end of story. And then again in Shmot it says a mechalel shabbos is stoned to death.

Except that Our Rabbis tell us nobody's eye gets put out, and at the end of seven years, you transfer your debts to the beis din, and that to put a mechalel shabbos to death you need two eyewitnesses with independently matching accounts, who gave hatra'ah to the mechalel and heard him verbally reject the warning, and it requires a verdict of precisely one less than the total number of judges in a court of between 23 and 71. All of which seem to go against the pshat of what the passages state.

The Rabbanim must have been like Jews for Jesus, changing the meaning of Torah like that!
 
Last edited:
Top