Halakhah su Levitico 18:22

There is at least one early source which apparently declares that a male cannot acquire the status of a woman by means of surgery. Rabbi Abraham Hirsch (No'am 5733) cites the comments of Rabbenu Chananel, quoted by Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Leviticus 18:22. Rabbenu Chananel declares that intercourse between a normal male and a male in whom an artificial vagina has been fashioned by means of surgery constitutes sodomy. This would appear to be the case, according to Rabbenu Chananel, even if the male genitalia were removed.¹⁰It might be argued against R. Hirsch that citation of Rabbenu Chananel is not conclusive in showing that Halakhah does not recognize reversal of sexual identity. The situation depicted by Rabbenu Chananel, after all, refers to a homosexual act with a male in whom an artificial orifice has been constructed; Rabbenu Chananel clearly does not describe a situation in which sex reversal has also been undertaken by means of removal of the male genitalia. Nevertheless, in context, the argument has not lost its cogency. If surgical changes in sexual identity are recognized for purposes of Halakhah, it would stand to reason that just as male-female changes effect a change in sexual identity, the construction of female organs, when unaccompanied by removal of male organs, should similarly be recognized as effecting a change in sexual identity from male to hermaphrodite. Rabbenu Chananel, as is evident from the text of these remarks, does not view penetration of the female organ of a hermaphrodite by a male as constituting a homosexual act (although he does allow for such a position in subsequent remarks). Yet, according to Rabbenu Chananel, intercourse via the artificially constructed vagina does constitute sodomy. This, then, indicates that the individual is regarded as a male rather than a hermaphrodite. Therefore it follows that if surgical procedures do not effect a change in status from male to hermaphrodite, such procedures cannot create a change of status from male to female in the eyes of Halakhah.

To not reveal the nakedness of the father: That a man not reveal the nakedness of his father - meaning to say that he not lay with him, the layings of a woman, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:7), "The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not reveal." And this warning (negative commandment) about one who lays with his father is in addition to the general warning of laying with males about all men (Sefer HaChinukh 209), as it is stated (Leviticus 18:22), "And with a male you shall not lay, the layings of a woman." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say in Sanhedrin 54a, "'The nakedness of your father [...] you shall not reveal' - your actual father." And they asked there, "That is extracted from, 'And with a male you shall not lay, the laying.'" And the one who answered, answered, "So as to make him liable for two [prohibitions], and it is like Rav Yehudah, as Rav Yehudah said, 'A gentile who has intercourse with his father is liable for two.'" And there they elucidated and said, "It is likely that the word of Rav Yehudah is with an Israelite, and inadvertent and with a sacrifice; and that which he said, 'a gentile,' is [because] he took a euphemistic expression." [This is] meaning to say that he did not want to mention this disgraceful matter with an Israelite, since it was possible to establish it with a gentile; as they are also commanded about sexual prohibitions, but the law is the same with an Israelite - that he is liable for two with his father, meaning that if he lay with him inadvertently, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. The substance of this matter is revealed to all. There is no reason to be lengthy about its root, as it is fitting to distance this great ugliness from people, and to punish one who transgresses it [with] a great punishment. And therefore it made him liable for stoning.

[For a man] to not have intercourse with males: To not have intercourse with males, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:22), "And with a male you shall not lay, the layings of a woman." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Lo Taase 350), "And this negative commandment about this very matter is repeated in another place, as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:18), 'and there shall not be a kadesh from the Children of Israel.'" It appears that the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, does not agree with that which Onkelos translated (Onkelos on Deuteronomy 21:18), "and a man of the Children of Israel shall not marry a woman maidservant" - the understanding of which is a Canaanite (gentile) maidservant. Rather, his opinion is that " there shall not be a kadesh" only comes as additional negative commandments for male homosexuality, [just] as there are several [other] warnings (negative commandments) that are repeated with different words. And I have seen about Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (Ramban on Deuteronomy 21:18) that he also does not agree with the translation, but would say that the negative commandment of "there shall not be a kadesh" comes to warn that we not allow there to be among us - the holy nation - a kadesh; and that is a man who is designated to lay with men, as is known about them in the lands of the Yishmaelites to this day. And because of this, it is stated "from the Children of Israel" - since we are not warned from this with the [other] nations. As if there was a kadesh from the nations - and even amongst us - we are not warned about him; as we are not warned (commanded) about others besides us, except for idolatry alone.