Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 08/11/2004 01:10, rpunkboy AT netzero.com wrote:

> ...  This reading is also  supported by a tannaitic colloquy in Sipra Kodeshim 9.14 (third-century CE): 
> A. We heard the punishment, but we did not hear the prohibition. 
> B. Scripture says, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a female”   
> C. I only have a prohibition for the penetrator, where is there a prohibition for the one penetrated? 
> D. [. . .]
> E. Rabbi Akiba says, “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a female,” read it [qere]: “Do not be laid.” 
>
> R. Akiba’s niphal conjunction with its rereading of the Massoretic qal vocalization or the more preferable syntactical reworking would make Lev. 18.22 address those who are pathics amongst the recently exiled free male Israelite citizens (Lev. 17.1; 18.1-3, 27; 19.13, 14; 20.2, 21.1): the recipients of the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26). 
>
>  
In Lev 20:13 there is a clear "prohibition" for both parties, with the 
plural verbs and "shenehem". So R. Akiba's reworking is unnecessary, 
both the active and the passive partners are condemned.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/