Parsha Acharei Mot- Does Leviticus 18:22 Condemn Homosexuality?

Homosexuality in religion is an intriguing topic not only because it's a hot-button issue, but up until very recently, it has been considered taboo to the point where the issue is simply swept under the rug.  It becomes even more stimulating of a topic in Judaism because from a historical perspective, Judaism is the source of anti-homosexual sentiment, a sentiment which later influenced Christian and Muslim definitions of marriage.

Just a brief overview of the denomination's views on homosexuality.  If you look from a traditionalist perspective, the Orthodox Jews unanimously agree that homosexual acts are unambiguously a violation of G-d's decree.  The Conservative Movement, at least here in the United States, still feels more divided about the issue.  The other movements (i.e., Reform, Renewal, Reconstructionist) have accepted same-sex marriage.

With the increasing momentum of the gay rights movement and awareness of what homosexuals endure in a religious environment, not even the Orthodox can hide from the fact that their stance of anti-homosexuality has caused religious homosexuals an unbearable amount of pain.  After all, if one of the premises of Judaism is that G-d is a loving deity and G-d allowed a certain percentage of [Jewish] individuals to be homosexual, can Leviticus 18:22 really prohibit all homosexual activity? 

At this time, I do not want to discuss how to grapple with the issue of the frum homosexual since that conversation would remain fruitless until we discuss the genesis of this viewpoint, Leviticus 18:22:

ואת-זכר--לֹא תשכב, משכבי אשּה:  תועבה, הוא.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination." (JPS Translation) 

The JPS translation is the rough equivalent of what many Christians use to justify their anti-homosexual stance.  Before I begin with analysis of the text, I would like to bring up two main points.  First, and this is the joy I have from linguistic work, is that translations are inherently limiting.  When going from a Semitic language to a Germanic language, much gets lost in translation, which is what merits this blog entry in the first place.  The second issue is that when you put a text in man's hand, even if the text is claimed to have divine status, interpretation is inevitable.  This is a scary notion for the other two Abrahamic faiths.  In Judaism, however, interpretation have existed for quite some time.  With that in mind, let's embark on an age-old, Jewish tradition.

The most objective way of approaching a text, especially with such gravitas, is to look at what the text itself has to say, and subsequently put the text in its context.  If you cannot do that, you can take any text out of context, thereby rendering the text meaningless.  As such, we need to know what the text is really saying before we can sufficiently say what it's condemning and what it's not condemning.  

 ואת-זכר: The word את is a direct object indicator in the Hebrew language.  את points what you do to somebody (זכר), rather than what you do with (עם) someone.  Although this seems like a nuanced form of semantics, the preposition makes a huge difference, especially if we are to claim that the text is divine and G-d chose His words with the utmost care.  If you look at any homosexual act in the Tanach, there is a common element--domineering.  The domineering connotation in Leviticus 18:22 is one of the main points of R. Steven Greenberg's book "Wrestling with G-d and Man: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition." Actually, when you look at the verse in the context of the entirety of Leviticus 18, the motif of power plays in domineering relations predominantly emerges.

Ham wanted to teach his father, Noah, a lesson, so he dominated him (Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a).  The Sodomites were so inhospitable and hostile to poor people that they were willing to dominate the two "wayfarers" to chase them out.  Even in ancient societies, much of homosexual relations consisted of the older man dominating the younger one.  This leads me to my final comment on these words: there is not a single condemnation of a consensual, loving homosexual relation in Tanach.

לֹא תשכב: This means "do not lie [in]," deriving itself from the infinitive לשכב.  In its simplest sense, it means "to lie down" or "to recline."  However, within the context of the verse, it is in reference to lying in the sexual sense.

משכבי אשּה: The phrase משכבי אשּה is best translated as "[in] the lyings of a woman."  A good question to ask is "what does this phrase mean?"  If G-d wanted to give a blanket prohibition against homosexual acts, he simply would have said, "ואת-זכר--לֹא תשכב ,תועבה, הוא," and He would have left out משכבי אשּה, but He didn't.  If anyone would have chosen His words carefully, it would have been G-d.  To say otherwise would be blasphemous.  Therefore, G-d must have had something more specific in mind than a blanket prohibition.  Aside from Leviticus 20:13, the phrase משכבי אשּה does not show up in the Tanach, which does not help us give a contextual sense of what משכבי אשּה really means.  We do, however, have an equivalent, which is "the lyings of a man,"  משכב זכר (Numbers 31:18, 35, Judges 21:11).  From these verses, we can figure, through extrapolation [and Jewish tradition of interpretation], that we are talking specifically about penile penetration. We additionally have Rashi's commentary on Leviticus 20:13 that states that we are talking about one act that is prohibited in Leviticus 18:22, mainly that of male-to-male anal intercourse.  Also, the fact that the Tanach is silent about lesbian relations all the more confirms that we are talking about one specific sex act.

תועבה: This is a tricky word to translate.  Many have rendered it as "abomination," although it hardly scratches the surface of the word's meaning, as is describe in this teshuva by the Conservative movement.  In most instances, it is better to translate תועבה as "taboo."  The word תועבה is used to describe Egyptians eating at the table with Israelites (Genesis 43:32), eating shrimp (Deuteronomy 14:3), and even marriage to one's sister (Leviticus 18:9) or to two sisters (Leviticus 18:19), something which two out of three of the Patriarchs did.  On the other hand, something such as using incorrect weights (Deuteronomy 25:16) is also a תועבה, which by most standards, would be considered intrinsically problematic. When תועבה is used as "intrinsically problematic," it is used to bemoan an ethical wrongdoing, which sexuality is not. When it is "intrinsically problematic," the phrase "unto G-d" is included. In Leviticus 18:22, no such indicator exists, thereby implying that the prohibition is more contextual in nature.

Although in most instances the word תועבה is translated as "taboo," one could still theoretically argue an ambiguity of what the word means in this context, since the word can have more than one meaning. I would still opine that given the context, its most probable meaning is closer to the concept of being taboo. To help sort out the ambiguity, we can look at what the rabbis of yore had to say. They had three interpretations of the word and why this act was so problematic: innate repulsiveness, a defiance of procreation, and a disturbance of peace in the home.  Let's look at these claims individually:

1. The Ralbag (1288-1344), as well as R. Moshe Feinstein, argued that this verse existed because homosexual sex was prima facie disgusting, hence the prohibition.  This argument fails on two levels.  First of all, if it is inherently disgusting to do, why the need for the prohibition in the first place?  Second, this verse fails to account for the fact that around 5-10% of all humans are exclusively homosexual, not to mention the sizable amount of other individuals that would not mind partaking in such activities.
2. According to the Midrash Lekach Tov, as well as the Sefer ha-Chinnuch, the reason for this prohibition is because it "frustrates the Divine plan of procreation."  Unlike Christianity, Judaism permits non-procreative sex.  Furthermore, infertile heterosexual couples are permitted to still be together.  This does not mean that Judaism has not viewed procreation as optimal, but to say that it views it as an absolute is not Jewish, thereby diminishing this argument.  
3. There is a third argument postulated by the Tosafists.  According to the Talmud Bavli (Nedarim 51a), the word תועבה is an acronym for "to'eh attah ba'ah," which means "and you shall not stray."  The Tosafists were perplexed by a lack of indirect object, and they had concluded that "one would stray from his wife because of this."  Homosexual acts would disrupt the family life, and all the more so than normal adultery.  Why?  Because the man can provide something that the wife could not, and for that, the tension rises all the more.  שלום בית, or "peace in the home," would be greatly disrupted.  Out of the three traditional arguments, this is the one I find most compelling.

Postscript: I can go into further non-textual analysis.  I could say that many of homosexual relations in ancient societies were about dominance, and not about love.  I could say that from a pragmatic standpoint, in an agrarian society, having as many children as possible was a necessity to survive, and up until the Industrial Revolution, a homosexual relation could not be fathomed.  I can even attempt to juxtapose the surrounding verses and limit the act to an idolatrous context.  However, I will conclude with this: the Torah is described as (Talmud, Eruvin 13a) "black fire upon white fire," meaning that one can find many interpretations of the Torah, some of which can be totally contradictory, and some meaning which we have yet to find.  In this verse alone, we have found the potential to read this verse in multiple fashions.  The verse can be viewed as a condemnation against domineering sex.  It can be viewed as solely a prohibition against male-to-male anal intercourse.  It can be viewed as simply a taboo for the given time period.  Whatever the case may be, the last thing that one can argue is that the verse is a blanket prohibition against any form of homosexuality whatsoever.  I find that the beauty of studying Torah is that even in a verse as controversial as this one, one can find multiple forms of interpretation, thereby bringing multiple ways to bring this verse alive.  However you decide to read this verse, may it be done so in the goodness of Torah, as well as the dignity of your fellow man.


UPDATE 7/25/2012: I have been reminded that the word את can also mean "with," which can make a case against our modern-day concept of homosexuality and loving, homosexual couples. However, given the overall context, I would contend that the more substantiated argument is in favor for loving, homosexual couples. Even if we were to give this argument to those against homosexuality or homosexual acts, the argument that the verse confines the prohibition to a single sex act between two males still stands.