thoughts;
1)why was lesbianism not mentioned in past literature as much as male homosexuality?;
“The often outspoken poems and the philosophy of Plato(427-347) have resulted in our expression "Greek principles" to describe male homosexuality. Unfortunately, we know hardly anything about female homosexuality. Of course, this does not mean that it did not exist (cf. the lyrical poetess Sappho), but we simply don't know much about lesbianism. Therefore, in this article, we will have to focus on male homosexuality.” Greek homosexuality http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html
References to love between women are sparse. Phaedrus attempted to explain lesbianism through a myth of his own making: Prometheus, coming home drunk from a party, had mistakenly exchanged the genitals of some women and some men – "Lust now enjoys perverted pleasure."[4] http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_lesbianism%23cite_note-4&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHBGsRFYUEBJksLUsuGv3v1A4P6Yw
2) why were female relationships not forbidden where male relations were? why would that be unheard of?
In another dialogue ascribed to Lucian, two men debate over which is better, male love or heterosexuality. One man protested that if male affairs were legitimized, then lesbianism would soon be condoned as well, an unthinkable notion.[5] http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_lesbianism%23cite_note-5&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHegS5jJ8PaT40R2ZpohxIiw7uGwg
5)at which point did it/ homosexuality- lesbianism specifically become a sin?
The canonical New Testament usually mentions homosexuality in only general terms (i.e. mentioning both gays and lesbians) and both are equally convicted.[7] The only specific mention of Lesbianism is Romans 1:26, "For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature" (NKJV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lesbianism
It is quite clear that paiderastia and lesbianism were not held in equally good light, possibly because of the violation of strict gender roles. Seneca the Elder mentions a husband who killed his wife and her female lover and implies that their crime was worse than that of adultery between a male and female. The Babyloniaca of Iamblichus describes an Egyptian princess named Berenice who loves and marries another woman. This novelist also states that such love is "wild and lawless". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lesbianism
The Rambam (Maimonides) (Rambam Issurei Biya 21: 8) says that to this conduct we apply the verse (Vayikra 18.3) "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow [any] of their customs."
The Semag (Lavin 126, Sefer Mitzvot Hagadol of R. Moshe of Coucy [born 1200]) holds the same view as the Rambam, as well as the Tur (Rabbi Yaacov b' Harosh) on Even Ha'ezer 20.
The quoting of the verse is to say that lesbianism is prohibited by Torah law. [See Otzar Haposkim on Even Ha'ezer 20, which quote many commentators (Levush, Tzofnat Pa'neach, Atzei Arazim) who understand the Rambam's opinion that lesbianism is forbidden by Torah law.] The Rambam, Semag and Tur all quote Chazal in the Sifra- Torat Cohanim on Achrei Mot (this week's Parsha) which brings an example of the "ways"of Egypt that a woman would marry a woman.
Finally, the Shulchan Aruch Even Ha'ezer 20:2 that lesbianism is prohibited based on the verse in the Torah (Vayikra 18.3) "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you." and the other sources mentioned above. The ruling of the Shulchan Aruch is uncontested by any other sources in Jewish law. http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=4910
It is worth noting that up until this point, there is no indication that nashim hamesollelot is forbidden, even rabbinically. The point at which this changed was the Rambam in Issurei Bi'ah (Laws of Forbidden Relationships) 21:8:
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'ahinvolved 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.)
“The apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter describes the punishment of lesbians and gay men in Hell:[6] ”http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_lesbianism%23cite_note-6&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFleDa-f3pLwfIw7bNkouJCYE_FzA
Well give me a few years to answer these questions. One set, though, has an easy answer: "why was lesbianism not mentioned in past literature as much as male homosexuality?" and "why were female relationships not forbidden where male relations were? why would that be unheard of?" can be explained by thinking about the overwhelmingly patriarchal cultures and societies we're talking about: women's lives and experiences are just not anywhere near as serious and important and men's so....all kinds of things get left out. And add to that various ideas that women aren't even sexual, or don't have sexual pleasure (a common European assumption even in relatively recent periods like the 19thC [and one that has its analogue in the East, I'm just not as familiar with that history]) and you can see that you don't even need to make it illegal because its such a far fetched idea!
ReplyDeleteHow all of this gets turned into a sin (and I'm just working with Christianity here) is an interesting and complicated story. Part of it has to do with the fragmented nature of the ur-texts of the Old Testament, which weren't necessarily preserved in any coherent context or translated in careful contextual ways. There is much scholarly work on the mess that resulted in Leviticus (the usual go-to for Biblical homophobia). What may have been placed under stricture there were specific forms of non-Hebrew sexual rites, rather than "homosexuality" a concept which didn't even historically exist. (I'm leaving out the New Testament bits because I don't have my Oxford Study Bible with me, but I would suggest that as a source for trying to parse out what any of these texts might have originally been addressing).
(by the way, I'll just say in passing, I don't know what to make of that Seneca the Elder anecdote. I don't know it, and I'm surprised since I'm not usually stumped by Roman law and history. My guess is that it might have been a class issue conflated with gender roles. Roman patriarchs owned their spouses, children and slaves as part of their household goods---the word "family" comes from "familias" the term for household slaves which are part of the owner's estate---and in that particular case perhaps the wife was seen as usurping male privilege by entertaining herself in a somewhat nontraditional manner. Although, it was usually no big deal if the wife of a wealthy Roman pursued affairs among her (male) slaves or even other men of her class. The offense was usually if this was done too flagrantly and publically. I would bet that must be part of the story alluded to here.
And....I have no idea about how these ideas developed in various Hebrew traditions. Except to say that the more conservative and reactionary the more laws regulating everything.