We are commanded explicitly in Leviticus 18:22 that "Man + Man" homosexuality is prohibited:
Leviticus 18:22
And with male you shall not lie beds of woman. It [is] abhorrence.
In the very next verse (as well as elsewhere in Exodus 22:19), we are told to not engage in bestiality:
Leviticus 18:23
And in any beast you shall not give your lying, to defile in it, and woman shall not stand to faces of beast, to sprawl. It [is] confusion.
These three commands would seem to be plainly stated. In breaking them down numerically, we see that these sexual relations are prohibited:
1. Man + Man
2. Man + Animal
3. Woman + Animal
Interestingly, we find a grouping missing from that list that might otherwise be expected (at least when coming from a conservative Christian background), which is "Woman + Woman". Indeed, we are clearly told regarding the other three, but we see no prohibition regarding female homosexuality.
It would not seem reasonable to just assume that it must be prohibited and assert that the first command should be considered to equally apply to both men and women. The fact that both men and women are mentioned in that command would create problems in trying to generalize it. The wording does not readily translate into a general prohibition on homosexuality (i.e., male homosexuality and female homosexuality both).
Additionally, it should be noted that specification of sex does occur regarding bestiality. "Man + Beast" and "Woman + Beast" are both separated, which furthers the significance of "Woman + Woman" being absent. That is to say, if we were expected to infer a generalization on the sexes, then for what reason would there be any such distinction in v.23?
In the Hebrew, v.22 more readily translates into, "and with male you shall not lie beds of woman...". The command is directed toward "you" specifically. This is likewise the case for the first part of v.23, but second half of v.23, it says, "...and woman shall not...". The command is not applied generally in either case, and is given specific distinction as to who this is directed to. While v.23b is generally referred to as applying to "woman", v.22 explicitly refers to "you". This differentiation is surely of significance.
Furthermore, in the Hebrew of these passages, gender neutral terminology is not used for "man". That is to say, "zakar" is the word translated as "man" in v.22, and this word is used exclusively in the Torah to refer to men as opposed to women, such as in regard to sacrificial prescriptions ("flockling, perfect, male..." - Exodus 12:5), circumcision references/commands ("...every male to him [is] to be circumcised..." - Exodus 12:48), firstborn commands ("...the males for YHWH" - Exodus 13:12), men as separate from women ("...and your assessment of the male shall be...and if it [is] female..." - Leviticus 27:3-4), etc. It is not used generally like the term "aish". It is also used in Genesis to refer to creating men specifically, with a separate word used for women. Therefore, to assert that "man" should simply be generalized to refer to all people is not consistent with the Hebrew of the text.
It is also worth noting that these same three prohibitions appear again in Leviticus 20:13,15,16, and this time again, "Woman + Woman" is not among them.
It has been asserted by some that "sodomy" is prohibited, which supposedly includes female homosexuality. First, and most importantly, no where is "sodomy" defined in the Law, nor is it prohibited under that label. Second, when Sodom was destroyed in Genesis 19, it was following the incident wherein men from Sodom demanded that Lot bring out his guests (the "men") for them to have sex with. In Genesis 18:20, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is not specified, which is akin to the wording in the Torah in Deuteronomy 29:23. Either way, we see no such mention of female homosexuality, nor any implication that female homosexuality would be prohibited, and the use of these generalized cultural concepts are apart from the text of the Torah.
Another assertion would include the implicit prohibition by Paul in Romans 1:26. However, from the perspective of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, this would only serve as an additional indictment against Paul rather than a legitimate command. Paul (or anyone else) has no right to be adding to the Torah.
The fact of the matter is that such a prohibition against female homosexuality simply is not found in the Torah, and the assertion that the command against male homosexuality should be generalized would require a complete rewording of the command. Is this what was expected of us?
Note: The author's use of the phrase "female homosexuality" instead of the common term in English is deliberate. See Exodus 23:13.
(From prior posting on Gr. 10/28/13)
