"Homosexuality": A Non-Concept in Halakha

I'd like to start by addressing the question of this thing called "homosexuality". The dictionary defines homosexuality as:

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

You'll often hear people stating that definition #1 is irrelevant as far as halakha is concerned. And this is true, at least to an extent. Certainly, nothing in the Torah says yay or nay to someone having specific attactions.

What is often missed, however, is that definition #2 also has no relevance in halakha. Because the Torah says nothing about "another of the same sex". This phrase is a blurring of two concepts. Just as secular/gentile culture, in general, tends to blur the distinction between men and women, so too, they blur the subjects of sexual activity between two men and sexual activity between two women into a single concept in a way that is not supported by any Jewish sources.

When we want to speak about something with precision, we use the Hebrew or Aramaic terms. A casual translation might refer to tum'ah and taharah as "impurity" and "purity", but any serious discussion of the concepts will refrain from doing so, because tum'ah does not map precisely to the English word "impurity". And taharah carries different connotations and specifications from the English word "impurity".

So too, with the two halakhic concepts of mishkav zachor and nashim ha-mesollelot. The former derives from two verses in the Torah:

1. V'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei isha -- to'eivah hi.
   "A man shall not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman, it is a to'ievah" (Leviticus 18:22).
   
2. V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishkevei isha -- to'eivah asu shneihem -- mot yumtu, d'meihem bam.
   "A man who lies with a man [in the manner of] lying with a woman, both of them have done a to'ievah. They shall surely die; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

These are the basic sources for the prohibition of anal sex between men. This, and related acts, are not going to be dealt with on this blog. Not that there's nothing to discuss, but the Torah is very clear about this prohibition, and associated acts, being exclusively related to men.

With regards to women, there is nothing at all in the Torah. But the Talmud does refer to what can only be a sexual act between two women when, giving an example of a law that is not decided according to Rav Huna, it writes:

1. Amar Rav Huna: Nashim ha-mesollelot zu b'zu pesulot l'kehunah.
   "Rav Huna says: Women who mesollel with one another are disqualified from marrying a Kohen." (Bavli Yevamot 76a).

There is absolutely no connection in all of Torah literature between this act -- nashim ha-mesollelot (NM) -- and the one mentioned above -- mishkav zachor (MZ). One is relevant only to men. One is relevant only to women. And the fact that modern society speaks of a thing called "homosexuality", which could serve as an umbrella term that includes both of them, is irrelevant to a Torah tradition that treats the two very differently. MZ is one of the arayot: the prohibitions of sexual actions which one must die rather than violate. The arayot have a set of extensions called kirva, which include acts other than intercourse. NM is not an erva, and kirva, therefore, does not apply.

I make no claims here regarding the subject of MZ. Other, that is, than the fact that it has no relevance whatsoever to the question of lesbianism and halakha. And I take issue with the use of the term "homosexuality" when used by frum Jews. It represents the adoption of a foreign concept, and worse, it tars women with a category that the Torah does not place them in.

Since we are concerned here with how frum Jews should be treated by other frum Jews (among other questions), it is vitally important that this distinction not be overlooked. The vast majority of Torah literature on subjects that have been labeled as having to do with "homosexuality" relate solely to men.