This passage warns the Israelites not to imitate the behavior of the Egyptians, among whom they lived. The verse gives no indicat... Read More

This passage warns the Israelites not to imitate the behavior of the Egyptians, among whom they lived. The verse gives no indication which behavior is to be avoided, but rabbis interpreting the verse centuries later would see in it an allusion to homosexuality. Close

This passage prohibits a man “lying with a man as with a woman” and labels that act a to’evah which has commonly been translated a... Read More

This passage prohibits a man “lying with a man as with a woman” and labels that act a to’evah which has commonly been translated as “abomination.” Close

This passage returns to the prohibition against two men lying together “as with a woman” established in 18:22 and prescribes the d... Read More

This passage returns to the prohibition against two men lying together “as with a woman” established in 18:22 and prescribes the death penalty for both males involved in the act. Close

This passage focuses on the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22, “do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman,” and also the punish... Read More

This passage focuses on the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22, “do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman,” and also the punishment (death) prescribed in Leviticus 20:13 for those who engage in the act. The text first seeks the biblical basis for the Mishnah’s claim that the death penalty is to be inflicted by stoning, and then asks whether punishment is decreed only for the one who lays “with a male as one lies with a woman” or whether it also applies to the act of “being lain with.” This passive phrase, “being lain with,” distinguishes the experience of being the object of a sexual advance from the act of initiating a sexual advance. Alternatively, it could be understood as the “penetrator” vs the “penetrated.” Close

This Talmudic passage is unusual among those gathered here because it addresses relationships that are considered prohibited for J... Read More

This Talmudic passage is unusual among those gathered here because it addresses relationships that are considered prohibited for Jews and non-Jews alike. The Jewish tradition considers those laws that God established with Noah in Genesis 2:16 and 9:4-6 to be binding upon all human beings (these so-called Noahide laws are listed in the Talmud and are derived from the oral tradition as well as from exegesis of the relevant Torah passages). Basing itself on these Noahide laws, the Sanhedrin 57b-58a passage addresses the laws governing sexuality as they relate to Jews and to non-Jews. The prohibition against homosexuality is presumed to be one such law.

The discussion then shifts to the familial relations within which sexual or marriage relations are prohibited (between, for example person and his “father’s sister” – see Leviticus 18:12). This leads to an exploration of both bestiality and sex between males. Clearly, for the rabbis who wrote this passage, any intimate physical behavior between men could be understood as a sexual act on par with bestiality or even inter-familial sex because in these writings, they do not distinguish between these forms of sexual activity and in fact group them together. Close

This passage interprets Israel’s condemnation for disobeying God in Malachi 2:11 as a reference to three transgressions: idolatry,... Read More

This passage interprets Israel’s condemnation for disobeying God in Malachi 2:11 as a reference to three transgressions: idolatry, sexual contact between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman, and sexual contact between two men. This last connection is established by the appearance, in both Malachi 2:11 and Leviticus 18:22, of the Hebrew word to’evah, which has commonly been translated as abomination.

Nothing in the Malachi verse suggests that to’evah refers to a sexual act, homosexual or otherwise. The appearance of the same word in the Leviticus passage, where it clearly refers to the act of lying “with a male as one lies with a woman,” the Leviticus 18:22 prohibition, gives the rabbis a basis for their inference. It is important to remember that to’evah can refer to many different transgressions and the emphasis on homosexuality in this Sanhedrin 82a passage reflects an interpretive choice. Close

"Shmuel's father did not allow... his daughters to lie down with each other..." (Or, Three Not-So-Simple Rules for My Preteen D... Read More

"Shmuel's father did not allow... his daughters to lie down with each other..." (Or, Three Not-So-Simple Rules for My Preteen Daughter). This text explores why a Mishnaic teacher referred to as “Shmuel’s father” prohibited his daughters from, among other things, “laying down with each other.” The Talmud examines the basis for this prohibition, considering the possibility that it was rooted either in a concern about women “rubbing up against each other” sexually or a fear that it might make them accustomed to, and therefore desirous of, sharing a bed with another person before marriage. Close

The Midrash discusses the Leviticus 20 passage assigning the death penalty to “a man [who] lies with a male as with a woman.” Th... Read More

The Midrash discusses the Leviticus 20 passage assigning the death penalty to “a man [who] lies with a male as with a woman.” The troubling passage addresses four points relevant to our topic. The first is whether minors are liable for the death penalty in such a case. The second is the particularly brutal method of execution set aside for this offense. Third is the distinction between the supposedly active and passive parties in the sexual act – the one “who lays with,” and the one “who is lain with.” And fourth is the equation of this homosexual act with bestiality. This last comparison clearly reflects the limited rabbinic view of homosexuality as a form of sexual activity completely without restraint or boundaries. Close

In Deuteronomy, as the people prepare to enter the Holy Land, Moses recounts Israel’s continual disobedience of God over the past ... Read More

In Deuteronomy, as the people prepare to enter the Holy Land, Moses recounts Israel’s continual disobedience of God over the past 40 years. The wayward behavior of the Israelites provoked God’s anger, Moses says. The result was that God “turned away” from them and allowed them to be attacked by other nations. In explaining the cause of God’s displeasure, the Midrash interprets Moses’ statement “they provoked [God] with abominations” as a reference to homosexuality. The Sifrei text refers to a parallel passage in I Kings 14:24, in which unspecified “abominations” that angered God are similarly interpreted as being linked with homosexual behavior. Close

In the context of a discussion about prohibited sexual relationships within families - (between, for example person and his “fathe... Read More

In the context of a discussion about prohibited sexual relationships within families - (between, for example person and his “father’s sister” – see Leviticus 18:12) this text touches upon sexual relationships between men. Sexual stimulation between two men is compared to sexual stimulation between a person and an animal. The rabbis failed to distinguish between these acts that they considered sexual transgressions. Thus they were untroubled by the grouping of bestiality and sex between men, an association that we would find abhorrent today. Close

"Women who rub up against each other...". This Talmudic passage explores two views of women “who rub up against each other [sexu... Read More

"Women who rub up against each other...". This Talmudic passage explores two views of women “who rub up against each other [sexually].” In the first view, such a woman is declared unfit for marriage to a priest. In the second view, the act is considered “merely licentiousness” – i.e. the act is not considered a legal violation. The ambivalence of the Talmud regarding the proper categorization of sexual contact between women reflects the fact that the act of two women having sexual contact is never addressed in the Torah. Close