OrthoDykes FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions about
Lesbianism and Halakha (Jewish Law)
I am not a rabbi. That probably goes without saying, since Orthodox rabbis have to be men, but I thought it worth pointing out anyway. Orthodox Judaism is a living thing. It is not something that one can become an expert in merely by opening a book and reading. Unlike the sciences, where ones authority in a subject is (or should be) merely a function of ones knowledge and ones facility with that knowledge, authority in Jewish law is also a function of a granted authority called smicha, which is usually translated as "ordination". I don't have that authority. As such, what I am presenting for you cannot be taken as "what Jewish law says". It is information that you can take to your local Orthodox rabbi and discuss with him, and I strongly recommend doing just that, if you have a rabbi you feel comfortable with, but if you rely on what I write here for your own practice, you will be relying on the conclusions of someone without the authority to make halakhic determinations. I'm going to try and make this as comprehensive as possible. I will present all the source material that I have been able to find on lesbianism and halakha and then discuss individual questions related to those sources. You can write me at lisa@orthodykes.org. Acknowledgements: some of the sources given here were found by a study group in Israel that later became the first OrthoDykes group. Others came to light during discussions on the OrthoDykes e-mail list.
Definitions of Terms: Biblical: anything stated explicitly in the Torah, Prophets or Writings (the Tanakh). Tannaitic: anything found in rabbinic literature through the redaction of the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi in about 180 CE. This includes the Mishnah itself, as well as various Midrashim. The rabbis at this time were known as Tanna'im. Talmudic: anything found in the Talmud that post-dates the redaction of the Mishnah. The rabbis at this time were known as Amora'im. Geonic: anything dating from the period of the Geonim, which runs roughly from the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud in c. 700 CE through roughly 1000 CE. The rabbis at this time were known as Geonim. Rishonim: the rabbis who lived from about 1000 CE until about the time of the Shulchan Arukh in c. 1500 CE. Achronim: the rabbis from the end of the Rishonim period until today.
A. Tannaitic Sources The earliest source we have that mentions any kind of female homosexuality is the Torat Kohanim, or Sifra. This is a midrash halakhah on the book of Leviticus. Like all the midrashei halakhah, the Sifra goes through the Torah verse by verse, telling us all the halakhot that are linked to each verse. Midrashei halakha are not commentaries on the Torah. Rather, they take the Oral Torah, which exists independently of the Written Torah, and point to linkages between them, for the purpose of making it easier to learn and remember what the law is. In Leviticus 18:3, we are commanded: You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelled, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. And you shall not go according to their established practices. On this verse, the Sifra (9:3) explains: Could it be that you aren't to build buildings like them or plant crops as they do? Rather, the Torah says, "established practices" (chukim). This means only those things that they and their ancestors have decreed. And what are those? A man would take a man, a woman would take a woman, a man would take a woman and her daughter, and a woman would be taken by two men. The word used for "take" is nasa, which also means to marry. There is a question, however, whether the sense in this source is marriage; i.e., a committed relationship, or sexual intercourse. One difference this would make is in how many unique things we can learn from the Sifra here. If the verb refers to entering into a marriage-type relationship, we learn four separate laws from it. If it refers to sexual intercourse, we learn only one law from it, since intercourse between two men, a woman and two men, and a man with a woman and her daughter, are all prohibited explicitly elsewhere in the Torah. We will see how later Torah sages understood this source.
B. Talmudic Sources: There are three of these. The first and most basic is in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 76a. As an example of a case where the halakha does not go according to Rav Huna, another Amora, Rava, brings the following: Rav Huna said: Women who mesollel with one another are disqualified from marrying a Kohen. Rava explains why Rav Huna is wrong: And even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a single man who has sexual intercourse with a single woman without marital intent makes her a zonah, that is true for a man. But for a woman, it is mere lewdness. A zonah, which is generally translated as "harlot" or "prostitute", is one category of women that a Kohen may not marry. The term used here for "have sexual intercourse" is the verb ba, which is used throughout the Talmud as the basic term for intercourse. Two types of bi'ah (the noun derived from the verb ba) are discussed in the Talmud: bi'ah k'darkah, or "natural intercourse", which means vaginal intercourse, and bi'ah she'lo k'darkah, or "unnatural intercourse", which means anal intercourse. What Rava seems to be saying is that since there is no bi'ah when two women mesollel with one another, it cannot be considered zenut (the state of being a zonah). As to what exactly it means to mesollel, we will get to that in later sources. The second Talmudic source we have is in Babylonian Talmud Tractate Shabbat 65a, which tells us that the father of the Amora Samuel, who was a Kohen, would not allow his daughters to do a number of things. Among them was: Samuel's father would not allow his daughters ... to sleep in one bed together. The Talmud discusses each of the four things to understand Samuel's father's reasoning. Shall we say that the reason he would not allow them to sleep in the same bed lends support to the statement of Rav Huna, who said that women who mesollel with one another are disqualified for marrying a Kohen? Since many families of Kohanim liked to marry into other families of Kohanim, the suggestion is that maybe Rav Huna was right after all, and Samuel's father didn't want to risk making that impossible. What is interesting is the fact that it's not deemed shocking that his daughters might have engaged in the act of mesollelot, and that the suggestion itself is considered reasonable, albeit wrong. The Talmud answers its own question: No. He did this to prevent them from becoming accustomed to another body. In other words, as Rashi explains there, Samuel's father's worry was that if his daughters got used to feeling another body in bed with them as they slept, they might come to develop a desire to share a bed with a man And the third source, which is not about lesbianism per se, but which is the only other Talmudic mention of the word mesollel, is in the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 69b: Our rabbis have taught: If a woman mesollels with her minor son, and he penetrates her, the school of Shammai says she is disqualified from marrying a Kohen, and the school of Hillel says she remains qualified. Rabbi Hiya the son of Raba son of Nahmani said in the name of Rav Hisda (and some say Rav Hisda said it in the name of Zeiri): Everyone agrees that the intercourse of a boy aged nine years and a day counts as real intercourse, and that under the age of eight years, it is not. The only dispute is regarding an eight year old boy. The school of Shammai says we learn from previous generations [in this matter], and the school of Hillel says that we don’t learn from previous generations [in this matter]. The learning from previous generations refers to sources that indicate that in biblical times, boys were able to procreate at such a young age. The idea being that when a boy is young enough that his intercourse cannot lead to conception, it doesn't even count as actual intercourse, even if he penetrates a woman sexually. This is the only place where mesollel is used referring to any case other than two women. This is a confusing passage, and it is probably best understood in the context of the previous one we looked at. There, the verb mesollelot was used for something sexual that did not constitute bi'ah. Here, the whole argument is about whether the intercourse of a boy of a certain age constitutes bi'ah. One possibility is that the two cases are referring to something that is similar in appearance to bi'ah, but is not actually bi'ah. What that might be remains to be seen, and I will bring a few ideas further on.
C. Sources in the Rishonim: We have a number of comments on our Tannaitic and Talmudic sources. The most important sources for an immediate understanding of the Talmud are generally Rashi and Tosfot, so we will start with those. Rashi on Yevamot 76a has this to say about the word mesollelot: Ha-mesollelot: In the manner of intercourse beteen male and female, they rub their female parts against each others. Likewise in the case of "a woman who mesollels with her minor son" in Sanhedrin 69b. He goes on to explain why Rav Huna is saying that women engaging in this act are disqualified from marrying a Kohen: Disqualified from marrying a Kohen: because of zenut. Rashi on Shabbat 65a, referring to the case of Samuel's father and his daughters, gives these clarifications: Sleep in one bed together: The intent being one next to the other while they were still virgins. Ha-mesollelot: [Means] mit'chah'hot from desire to have intercourse. The verb Rashi uses here is the reflexive form of the verb. The verb itself means to scratch, and the reflexive form means to scratch oneself. Disqualified from marrying a Kohen: A Kohen Gadol, [rather,] because she might not be fully a virgin. And even though there were no more Kohanim Gedolim at this time, the fact that it would be considered similar to zenut made it improper. This is a little confusing. Rashi in Yevamot says that Rav Huna is claiming that mesollelot results in zenut, which would disqualify a woman from marrying any Kohen. Here, he seems to be saying that Rav Huna is only disqualifying such a woman from marrying a Kohen Gadol (who can only marry a virgin), which would mean that it does not constitute zenut, but only makes a woman less than a total virgin. I'm not sure how to reconcile these two views, and since there are other versions of what Rashi holds on this topic (as we will see further on), I'm inclined to let this stand for now. To prevent them from becoming accustomed to another body: and then desiring to sleep with a man. Rashi makes it clear that the only fear on the part of Samuel's father was that his daughters might come to like the proximity of another body and become vulnerable to men prior to marriage. Finally, Rashi on Sanhedrin 69b says: Ha-mesollelet: a term denoting lewdness. This presumably refers to the statement of Rava that the act is "mere lewdness". And he penetrates her: Some say (Yevamot 55b) that this refers to kissing, and others say it refers to the head of the penis entering her. As I noted, the latter opinion appears to be the one that we go according to. Disqualified from marrying a Kohen: and makes her a zonah, since penetration is considered tantamount to full intercourse, as it says in Yevamot 54a and above in Sanhedrin 55a. Nevertheless, she does not become liable to the death penalty, in the same way as if she had not been warned. This case doesn't seem to add much to our discussion, and Tosfot only comments on the other two. Here's what Tosfot says on Yevamot 76a: Ha-mesollelot: The Rivan explains that they would transfer the ejaculate that they received from their husbands [to each other], but this cannot be, since in the chapter of B'meh Isha (Shabbat 65a and ibid.), it says "Samuel [sic] would not allow his daughters to sleep next to each other.... because of Rav Huna who says that women who mesollel, etc." The implication is that [we are speaking of a case where] they were not married, because they were still living in Samuel's house. It also cannot be as Rashi explains there, that [the worry is that] they would be disqualified [only] to a Kohen Gadol, and that even though there was no Kohen Gadol at the time, such a thing would nevertheless have been considered ugly, since they would have been disqualified from marrying a Kohen Gadol [had there been one]. Because it is apparent from the case here that [we are questioning whether] she would be disqualified from marrying even a simple Kohen because of zenut, as evidenced by the statement, "Even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a single man, etc." It is clear, therefore, that Rav Huna was disqualifying such women on the basis of zenut. Some people have, after a cursory reading of this Tosfot, concluded that Tosfot is supporting Rav Huna against Rava. However, the Talmudic passage has Rava using this as an example of Rav Huna being incorrect, and that assertion is unchallenged in the Talmud. According to the rules of Talmudic discourse, this means that Rava is correct. All that Tosfot is disputing here is Rashi's statement over in Shabbat that Rav Huna is not actually equating mesollelot with zenut. Tosfot concludes that this is precisely what Rav Huna was doing. And here is what Tosfot says on Shabbat 65a itself: Disqualified from marrying a Kohen: Rashi explained this as referring specifically to a Kohen Gadol, and that it was because they would no longer be fully virgins. And that despite the fact that there was no Kohen Gadol at the time of Shmuel['s father], he was extra strict about this. Others explain that the reason [for Shmuel's father's restriction] was worry that his daughters would become zonot, and disqualified from marrying even a simple Kohen. This is apparent from the chapter Ha-Arel (Yevamot 76a), where they are discussing halakhot that are not decided according to the son (Raba son of Rav Huna) or according to the father (Rav Huna), up to where it says "and even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a single man who has sexual intercourse with a single woman without marital intent makes her a zonah". It is apparent from this that his reason is because of zenut. [Note that even though the Talmud mentions this as referring to the father of Samuel, Tosfot in both places seem to attribute it to Samuel himself. The margin notes correct this.] Now we can move on to later Rishonim. The Rambam is the first Rishon, it seems, to connect the Talmudic "women who mesollel with one another" and the Sifra on Leviticus. He writes in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah (Laws of Forbidden Relationships) 21:8, as follows: Women who mesollel with one another are violating a prohibition, and it is among the ways of the land of Egypt, which we were prohibited from, as it says: "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt". And our sages said: "What would they do? A man would take a man, a woman would take a woman, a man would take a woman and her daughter". Even though this act is forbidden, we do not give Toraitic lashes for it, since there is no verse that forbids it in particular, and there is no bi'ah involved in it at all. Therefore, she is not forbidden to marry a Kohen because of zenut, and a woman is not forbidden to her husband if she has done it, becuase there is no zenut involved. But it is proper to give her rabbinic lashes since she did do something forbidden. And a man should take care to prevent his wife from doing this and to prevent women who are known to do it from visiting her, or her from visiting them. One of the fascinating things about this source is the difference between what the Rambam writes and what he wrote in his commentary on the Mishnah. In Peirush HaMishnayot L'HaRambam (on Sanhedrin), Chapter 7, he writes: And likewise that ugly act that occurs among women as well, bringing a woman upon a[nother] woman, it is an act of toeivah ["abomination"]. But there is no punishment for it neither from the Torah nor from the Rabbis, and neither of the two [women] are classified as a zonah, nor are they forbidden to their husbands or to Kohanim. And this is what the rabbis called "women who mesollel with one another", it [the word] being derived from maslul, which means a paved path. And although there is no punishment, this act is counted as being among the toeivot of the Egyptians, about which the explanation says: "You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt. What would they do? A man would take a man, a woman would take a woman, and a woman would be taken by two men." Maimonides wrote his commentary on the Mishnah in his twenties and didn't finish his Mishneh Torah until he was 42, which may account for the difference in the two sources. But one of the things that is striking is the Rambam's comment that "neither of the two are classified as a zonah." There is a discussion of anal sex between males in the Talmud where it is asked whether both partners to the activity are considered to have transgressed equally, since only one of them is actually doing the penetration (the conclusion is that both are equally culpable). While it is not of any halakhic significance, of course, it might be worthwhile to see how the contemporaries of the Talmudic sages viewed sex between women. The following appears in the entry on "Homosexuality" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary: Perhaps the cultural predominance of the penetration model of sex obscured non-penetrative eroticism among conventionally feminine women, for which in any case there seems to have been no established terminology. The female same-sex sexual practice that imperial Greek and Roman writers alike singled out for comment was 'tribadism', the sexual penetration of women (and men) by other women, by means of either a dildo or a fantastically large clitoris. What seems to be a recurring theme in all of our sources is the image of two women trying to emulate heterosexual intercourse. This may be key to figuring out what is meant by mesollelot.
To be continued...
[last updated August 10, 1999]