פירוש על ויקרא 18:22

Now the reason for the prohibitions against lying carnally with a male,³⁷⁷Verse 22. or an animal,³⁷⁸Verse 23. is well-known, as it is an abominable act and is not for the preservation of the human species, because [the copulation] of [male and male or of] man and animal will not beget offspring. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented:³⁷⁷Verse 22. “Since we find [Lot’s daughter using] the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father,³⁷⁹Genesis 19:34. [and she did not say, nishkavti, in the passive, or “Behold, shachav imi avi, — my father lay with me,” this shows that the term shachav, although in the active form, refers to the person who commits that act as well as the passive partner who permits herself or himself to be thus abused]; thus it follows that the verse, And with a male ‘lo thishkav’ (thou shalt not lie),³⁷⁷Verse 22. constitutes a prohibition both against the one who actively commits pederasty, and against the one who permits himself to be thus abused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.] But if it be as Ibn Ezra said, why is the woman not included in the verse, And thou shalt not lie with any beast,³⁷⁸Verse 23. [and it is clear that she is not so included from the fact that Scripture had to continue, Neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto],³⁷⁸Verse 23. for women are included in all admonitions of the Torah? Rather, the use of the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father³⁷⁹Genesis 19:34. is due to the fact that it was Lot’s daughters who, through lying with him, [were instrumental in that affair] in order to beget seed of him. As is known, the seed comes either from the movement of the whole body, just as foam is formed in the mouths of galloping horses, or it is brought forth in the veins nearby [the sexual organ], where it gathers by the continuing motion thereof until it is emitted. Were they then not to have lain with Lot, his seed would not have come forth, for in his drunkenness he was like a silent stone.

ואת זכר לא תשכב, “and you are not to indulge in homosexual relations with another male.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for the injunctions against sexual relations between males, and between man and beasts, are quite clear, seeing that G’d abhors such mismatching of His creatures. Such relations cannot contribute to the continued existence of the respective species, the only valid reason for indulging in the sexual act. Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the older daughter of Lot said to her younger sister (Genesis 19,34) “here I have slept with my father last night, etc.,” this is clear proof that the Torah views initiation of the act by the female of the species as on the same level as if the male initiates it, i.e. when a forbidden relationship is entered into both parties are equally culpable. Although the Torah uses the masculine לא תשכב in our verse, the same applies to the female of the spies, i.e. lesbianism is also prohibited. Nachmanides criticizes Ibn Ezra, saying that if he were correct why was the woman not automatically included in the warning of ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה, “you must not inject your seed into any female animal to lie with it carnally,” and mention separately immediately afterwards:ואשה לא תעמוד לפני בהמה לרבעה, “and a woman must not stand in front of an animal for the purpose of mating, etc,?” He therefore concludes that the verse quoted by Ibn Ezra from Genesis 19,34 means that Lot’s daughter drew attention to the fact that seeing that ejaculation of semen by the male normally occurs only as a result of physical activity by the male, something which in the case of the drunken Lot could hardly be expected, she told her sister that in order to secure the semen that both of them wanted, it was not enough to remain passive during the procedure, but they had to be physically active to arouse their father.

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה, some people attempt to deceive others into believing that they are women instead of men.

תועבה היא, “it is an abomination;” the letter ו in the word הוא is vocalised with a chirik״ i.e. it is read as such, it is feminine. [I have not understood the author’s reference to Job here. Ed.] 36,32.