-2

Vayikra 18:22 teaches the prohibition of penetrating a man:

וְאֶת-זָכָר — לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

Vayikra 20:13 teaches the punishment:

וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה — תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם.

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

However, the latter verse seems1 to limit punishment to the case of a man penetrating.

  1. Does the prohibition extend to using implements other than the usual bodypart?

  2. Does a woman penetrating2 count as a) biah, or b) mukas eitz, or c) negiah?

    If a): Is a woman forbidden from penetrating a man mid'oraisa3? Is it punishable too?

    If b) or c): Is a woman forbidden from penetrating a man mid'rabanan, just as with she would be forbidden4 from penetrating a woman?

1. Sanhedrin 54a, could be understood as limiting the prohibition to adults, however, I do not understand why that would need to be specified more than by other mitzvos.
2. With anatomy available through medical condition or, assuming it doesn't halachically change sex, deliberate act.
3. Or is the prohibition limited to only the gender for which it is generally possible. In that case it it missing from the list in Kiddushin 1:7.
4. Kal vachomer from prohibition on intimate touch

Community
  • 1
Adám
  • 6,801
  • 21
  • 54
  • 2
    I'm not sure what you mean by Mukkat Etz. That usually refers to a woman who has been penetrated, not a woman who penetrates. – Double AA Dec 26 '13 at 23:03
  • This seems to just be an extension of http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/34058/759 – Double AA Dec 26 '13 at 23:05
  • 2
    You should add a disclaimer that you are assuming the opinion of those who say that sex reassignment surgery does not change halachic gender (see the link DoubleAA posted above). –  Dec 27 '13 at 02:59
  • torah prohibits men from even wearing clothing of women which is just external appearance of clothing hence how much more so that this kind of behavior is also an abomination to God. don't think the rabbis adressed this because it is just so unusual that a man (and woman) would agree to such perversions – ray Dec 27 '13 at 06:45
  • 1
    @ray What a terrible kal vahomer. And chazal address stranger cases than this – Double AA Dec 27 '13 at 06:46
  • 1
    @ray Probably because we are bad judges of how halachically toeyvah-dik things are (otherwise biah with an infant would be worse than beged ishah, right?). –  Dec 27 '13 at 07:18
  • 1
    @Malper Not that it isn't worse, just there is no formal specific Torah prohibition. – Double AA Dec 27 '13 at 07:20
  • what can be derived from kal v'chomer is considered a torah prohibition. many examples of this in the talmud. Malper, do you really believe there's a tzad to say wearing a dress is a worse abomination? come on. – ray Dec 27 '13 at 07:25
  • 1
    @ray You haven't demonstrated why what's in the question should be worse than wearing a dress. That would be the first step in making a kal vahomer. At that point you might be able to conclude that it is an equivalent level abomination. – Double AA Dec 27 '13 at 07:41
  • Related to question about negiah? http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/12512/shomer-negiah-without-direct-contact – Baby Seal Dec 27 '13 at 07:47
  • 1
    regardless, whether or not it is technically mishkav zachor, I highly highly doubt you will find a single reliable rabinnic authority who will permit this. probably they will tell you that it's an abomination and that's definitely and certainly not the rambam's intent (when saying everything with wife permitted) Go ahead and see for yourself – ray Dec 30 '13 at 09:18
  • Sources here are relevant: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34483/are-sex-change-operations-prohibited-for-non-jews – Baby Seal Jan 08 '14 at 15:24

1 Answers1

3

As is always the case for practical questions, consult your Local Orthodox Rabbi.

  • Much of this question is not clear in halacha. Status of female penetration is not clear in halacha. Gender of a woman in situations described in the question is not clear in halacha. Rabbinic ruling in this area is also not clear in halacha. It is very important to ask an Orthodox rabbi for guidance.

Rashi, (Lev 20:13) describes the prohibition as 'entering like a brush into a tube'. This is a euphemism used in the Talmud, (Makkos 7a) to describe the forbidden action. The context of the talmud strongly suggests that only the usual body part is forbidden, on a biblical level, and the Rambam, (Hil' Issurei Biah 1:9,11), explains this action in detail, mentioning only the usual body part. He also codifies the biblical-level prohibition as being between two men, (ibid 1:14).

Community
  • 1
Baby Seal
  • 8,240
  • 35
  • 78
  • @ray I have edited out any extrapolations that I made. – Baby Seal Dec 31 '13 at 20:17
  • 1
    regardless whether it is technically mishkav zachor highly highly doubt any reliable halachic authority would ever permit this. i think there's a tzad (basis) to say it is morally worse and a greater abomination in God's eyes than mishkav zachor since mishkav zachor is one level of unnatural whereas this is 2 levels. – ray Jan 08 '14 at 11:01
  • @ray I edited in that these sources only discuss biblical prohibition. Also no longer even addressing parts of the answer that aren't clearly sourced in chazal. – Baby Seal Jan 08 '14 at 14:33
  • I still think your attempt at psak was beautiful. Maybe you can include it as a footnote? http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/34564/3073 – Adám Jan 12 '14 at 13:55
  • @NBZ I appreciate that, however, see http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34217/why-has-judaism-traditionally-discussed-intimacy-only-privately/34247#34247, and http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/123/how-modest-should-this-site-be/1875#1875 for the reasons why I feel I can't do that. – Baby Seal Jan 12 '14 at 16:44
  • There is not chyuv by heara contrarily to Arayot with female – kouty Dec 25 '16 at 07:58