Diskussion:Homophobe Stellen im Alten Testament

Aus HomoWiki
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen

Im Augenblick wohl doch nur Meinung. Du solltest die Stellen zitieren (mit Quellenangabe) Wolfgang 01:52, 16. Feb. 2007 (CET)

Meinung ist's nicht, wenn ein einziger Vers aus 1000 Seiten heraus gerissen wird. Das Zitat ist dann schlecht, da es hier auf jedes Wort und Interpunktion ankommt... Aber es gibt tausende von Übersetzungen... tausende von schlechten Übersetzungen des einen Verses... Purgatorium999 07:56, 16. Feb. 2007 (CET)
Ich zitiere mal Sekundärliteratur:"König David spricht im Buch 2 Samuel 1 zu seinem geliebten Jonatan: "Wunderbarer war deine Liebe für mich, als die Liebe der Frauen". In 1 Samuel 20 küssten sich die beiden Männer und weinten. Was verdeutlichen obige Bibelzitate?
1. Die Bibel stammt aus einer andern Zeit und Kultur, mit teilweise andern Erkenntnissen und andern Werten.
2. Für jede Meinung lässt sich ein passender Vers finden.
Daher gilt: Wer einzelne Sätze aus dem Zusammenhang reisst, missbraucht und vergewaltigt dieses Buch (auch die vatikanische Glaubenskongregation im aktuellen Dokument). Ein herausgepflückter Vers ist ein entwurzelter Vers. Die tiefere Botschaft der Bibel entdeckt, wer ihre zentralen Grundaussagen in den Blick nimmt; für Christen und Christinnen hauptsächlich in den Texten vom Leben und Wirken Jesu (Evangelien)." Quelle: http://www.lsbk.ch/articles/In_der_Bibel_steht_eindeutig.asp Purgatorium999 08:10, 16. Feb. 2007 (CET)


Bitte vergesst das sog. "Alte Testament".

Es hat im Christentum nur die Funktion der Prophezeiung, dass ein Moschiach (Messias) kommen wird. Hierauf wird im Matthaeus-Evangelium immer wieder "verlinkt". Es ist somit dort nur eine Referenz - mehr nicht.

Im Judentum geht die w:Mishnah - aufgrund der hoeheren Eindeutigkeit und dem somit reduziertern Interpretationsspielraum - dem w:Tanach vor. Insbesondere in den Gesetzesschriften, der sog. w:Halacha. Die Mishnah ist recht eindeutig und ihr Kommentar, die sog. w:Gemara (die Mishnah und die Gemara bilden zusammen den w:Talmud) laesst wenig Interpretation offen.

In der Mishna (Nezikin (נזיקין) Sanhedrin, Chapter7 ) steht:

"MISHNA V.: To the following sinners stoning applies: viz., one who has had connection with his mother, with his father's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a human male, or with cattle; and the same is the case with a woman who uncovers herself before cattle; with a blasphemer; an idolater, he who sacrifices one of his children to Moloch; one that occupies himself with familiar spirits; a wizard; one who violates the Sabbath; one who curses his father or mother; one who has assaulted a betrothed damsel; a seducer who has seduced men to worship idols, and the one who misleads a whole town; a witch (male or female); a stubborn and rebellious son.
One who has had connection with his mother is guilty of transgressing two negative commandments--the negative commandment as to his mother and the negative commandment as to his father's wife. R. Jehudah, however, maintains: He is guilty only for his mother. One who has connection with his stepmother is also guilty in respect to two negative commandments--the commandment of adultery and the separate commandment as to his father's wife. There is no difference if he has done it while his father was still alive or after his death; and there is also no difference if she was only betrothed to his father, or already married. One that commits a crime with his daughter-in-law transgresses also two commandments-adultery and of the separate commandment of his son's wife. And there is also no difference if it was done while his son was still alive or after his death, after her betrothal or after marriage.
MISHNA V.: One who had connection with a human male or with an animal, and also a human female who uncovers herself before a male animal, are punished with stoning. And should one say: If man has sinned, what is the fault of the animal? Because a misfortune has happened to a human being through it, therefore says the verse: "It shall be stoned," There is also another explanation; viz., should it happen that people saw the animal passing the street, they would say: On account of it so and so was stoned." (Quelle: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin7.html).

Die Gemara zu "Connection with a human male" lautet:

"GEMARA: A human male--whence is deduced? That which the rabbis taught: "A man" means to exclude a minor; with a male," of any age whatever or a minor. "As they lie with a woman" means to say that with a woman there are two kinds of lyings, one usual and one unusual; and one is guilty as to both. Said R. Ishmael: This verse came to teach that which was just mentioned, as if not for this teaching it would be pleonastic, for regarding a male there is only one kind of connection. "Both of them have committed an abomination, they shall be put to death"--by stoning, but perhaps by some other death. Therefore it is written: "Their blood shall be upon them." And the same expression is used concerning "a familiar spirit," etc. And as the punishment of the latter is known to be stoning, the same applies here. From this we have heard the punishment. Whence is the warning? [Ibid. xviii. 22]: "And with a man shalt thou not lie as with a woman; it is an abomination." But this is a warning only to him who has done so. But whence is the warning to them with whom the connection was made? As to this it reads [Deut. xxiii. 18]: "There shall not be a courtesan of the sons of Israel"; and also [I Kings, Xiv. 24]: "And courtesans also were in the land . . . the Lord had driven out." So R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba, however, said: "It was not necessary to have another verse warning him with whom the connection was made, as this is inferred from the same verse, which may apply also to the latter by some change in pronunciation." (Quelle: ebenda)

Jeder weitere Kommentar duerfte sich somit erledigt haben.

Merkwuerdigerweise kommt Homosexualitaet unter orthodoxen Juden oefters vor, als die strengen Regeln es vermuten liessen. Es ist ein Leben im Zwiespalt zwischen Todsuende und sexueller Selbstbestimmung. Letzterer Wert siegt jedoch meist - entgegen allen Erwartungen.

Andererseits gilt folgendes: Schwuler Oralverkehr ist somit lt. Gemara an dieser Stelle eindeutig nicht gemeint (two lyings, nicht three lyings!!!!). Das Kuessen zweier Maenner ist aufgrund der sog. "constraints" eindeutig erlaubt. Ob die Fellatio (gilt in der Halacha als Masturbation/Onanie!!) zweier Maenner als erlaubter als die im w:Shulchan Aruch streng verbotene zwischen Frau und Mann zaehlt, ist die grosse Interpretationsluecke des Talmuds.


Rambam gives the following definition of mishkav zakhur:

הבא על הזכר או הביא זכר עליו כיון שהערה אם היו שניהם גדולים נסקלים שנאמר ואת זכר לא תשכב בין שהיה בועל או נבעל...

When one male copulates with another male ... from the moment of penetration ... both are punishable by stoning... [Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 1:14]

Here is part of a responsum by (Ultra-Orthodox) Rabbi Dr Mordechai Halperin, MD [Shaarei Tzedek Hospital (Shlesinger Institute for Medical Halacha), Israel. 1999]:

Mishkav zakhur, which is one of the worst averot [sins] in the Torah, refers to penetrative anal sex only. Make all your efforts, use all your koĥot ha-nefesh [spiritual powers], to keep from engaging in this type of sexual behaviour.

Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff implicitly concedes this same point, from the viewpoint of Conservative Judaism:

Anal sex is not the equivalent of homosexuality or even of homosexual sex. Both a homosexual orientation and homosexual acts are to be distinguished from anal sex acts, which are practiced by no lesbians, some gay men , and some heterosexuals. As a result, if anal sex is judged as abnormal in either a descriptive or prescriptive sense, it is that which we should discuss, not homosexuality or homosexual sex acts per se.

As we have seen, the act that the Torah prohibits is anal penetration of one male by another. For obvious anatomical reasons this cannot apply to females. This is the reason why there is no equivalent female homosexual act which would earn the participants either judicial death or excision. Nevertheless, homosexual acts between women were also forbidden by the sages. Their prohibition is based on a rabbinic interpretation of a verse in the Torah [Leviticus 18:3]:

כמעשה ארץ-מצרים אשר ישבתם-בה לא תעשו וכמעשה ארץ-כנען אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה לא תעשו ובחקתיהם לא תלכו

You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws.

Rambam [Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8] codifies as follows: נשים המסוללות זו בזו אסור וממעשה מצרים הוא ... אע"פ שמעשה זה אסור אין מלקין עליו שאין לו לאו מיוחד והרי אין שם ביאה כלל לפיכך אין נאסרות לכהונה משום זנות ולא תיאסר אשה על בעלה בזה שאין כאן זנות ... ויש לאיש להקפיד על אשתו מדבר זה ומונע הנשים הידועות בכך מלהכנס לה ומלצאת היא אליהן

For women to be sexually intimate with each other is forbidden as this is one of the "practices of the land of Egypt". However, even though the act is prohibited it is not punishable ... because there is no specific Torah prohibition and sexual intercourse is not possible. This is why [such women] are not prohibited to ... their husbands because of prostitution ... for there is here no such prostitution... A husband should prevent his wife from such practices by forbidding women known [to do such things] access to her and by [forbidding] her to go out to them.

The Shulĥan Arukh [Even ha-Ezer 1:1] states:

חייב כל אדם לישא אשה כדי לפרות ולרבות

A man must marry a woman in order to procreate...

Women are not obligated to marry and procreate. Rambam [Hilkhot Ishut 15:2] states this clearly and succinctly:

האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה אבל לא האשה

Men are commanded to procreate, women are not.

The Shulĥan Arukh [Even ha-Ezer 23:1-2] (under the influence of the Zohar [Zohar, Part 3, 90a]) prohibits this activity in hyperbolic language:

אסור להוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה ועון זה חמור מכל עבירות שבתורה... אלו שמנאפים ביד ומוציאים שכבת זרע לא די להם שאיסור גדול הוא אלא שהעושה זה בנדוי...

It is forbidden to masturbate. This sin is more serious than all the other sins in the Torah... It is not enough that those who 'fornicate with their hand' ... are committing a grave sin; they must also be excommunicated...

Sefer Ĥasidim [# 176] of Rabbi Yehudah he-Ĥasid had already pointed out that there were circumstances where not only was masturbation permitted but should be seen as preferable.

מעשה באחד ששאל, מי שיצרו מתגבר עליו וירא פן יחטא לישכב עם אשת איש, או עם אשתו נדה, או שאר עריות האסורות לו, אם יכול להוציא זרעו כדי שלא יחטא, והשיב לו באותה שעה יש לו להוציא, שאשת איש מוטב שיוציא שכבת זרע ואל יחטא באשה...

One person asked whether someone whose sexual drive was getting the better of him and he was afraid that he might sin by copulating with a married woman or his menstruous wife or any other of the arayot that are forbidden to him whether he could masturbate so that he might not sin. The response was that in such circumstances he should masturbate, for if it is a married woman it is preferable that he masturbate rather than sin with the woman...

(Fuer weitere Infos siehe dieses ausfueḧrliche "Traktat": http://www.bmv.org.il/ab/dd.asp) -- Sophismos 16:36, 21. Aug. 2008 (CEST)