# Leviticus 18:22 translation and meaning **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 19, 2026, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022 "2026-06-19T16:19:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/62 "2026-06-21T14:52:15Z")
Care to elaborate about in what way and for what reason(s) my thinking is unclear? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/63 "2026-06-21T14:56:27Z")
Mixing up different categories _ad libitum._ Inventing _ad hoc_ definitions. I understand what you’re saying, but it has little basis in anything real. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/64 "2026-06-21T15:01:36Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Does that answer your question? Not really. Rather stubbornly, I suppose, I was hoping to see something like a rebuttal\* of the specific explanation that I linked to, not only to be told that it is not the mainstream interpretation and so there is nothing more to talk about. \* By rebuttal, I mean a counter-argument to the specific assertions in the link. It’s fine if no-one here is able to do that for reasons of lack of specific expertise, I can simply hold the uncertainty until that expertise comes along. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/65 "2026-06-21T15:04:22Z")
For gay Bible, I doubt the relevance of these “lie with” verses. They’re rooted in a very obsolete concept of human beings. The real gay bible is Jonathan’s love for David, “surpassing the love of women.” There’s only one way to read that. They try to spin it as brotherly love, but for that David would compare Jonathan to a real brother, not a woman. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/66 "2026-06-21T15:17:37Z")
Yes, i think it’s clear that a lot of same-sex love is on display in the bible. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > What, then, is the Jewish interpretation of the commandment against “coveting” > 14 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s. Given the context, it’s hard to read anything especially sexual in that commandment. It’s a list of valuable possessions. (And yes, biblically, a wife is unambiguously a possession of her husband.) I’m not actually sure what action would violate that commandment, honestly. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/67 "2026-06-21T15:31:20Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > The real gay bible is Jonathan’s love for David One of the claims made in the Dan McClellan video that @Broomstick posted upthread is that it’s impossible to say definitively whether or not the relationship between David and Jonathan is (homo)sexual: from the biblical text, either interpretation is possible. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/68 "2026-06-21T18:31:33Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > How about this point? Can you and will you acknowledge that the part of your post that I quoted would have been better omitted as it was based on ad hominem, and served no useful purpose in the discussion? (Here is that quotation again:) Not a ad hominem - I didnt attack YOU, I said your cite was biased, which is common and normal here on the SDMB. > [@DPRK](#): > > You are suggesting that there is a “building the fence around the Torah” interpretation that proscribes homosexuality in and of itself. Please provide a citation. I am? Where? Not to my knowledge. > [@Broomstick](#): > > The people who wrote Leviticus 18:22 did not have a concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation. They were forbidding a specific act. Thus, your sexual urges and desires to perform such an action would not be the “abomination”, only the act itself. That agrees with what I have read. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > One of the claims made in the Dan McClellan video that @Broomstick posted upthread is that it’s impossible to say definitively whether or not the relationship between David and Jonathan is (homo)sexual: from the biblical text, either interpretation is possible. Could well be what we call a “Bromance”. Or perhaps homosexual love. No way to tell. But note that David was likely King in the 9th or 10th century BC, but the Book of Leviticus was more likely written around 6th to 5th century BC, altho opinions differ. So David was pre Leviticus, by that reckoning. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/69 "2026-06-21T18:46:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > > > How about this point? Can you and will you acknowledge that the part of your post that I quoted would have been better omitted as it was based on ad hominem, and served no useful purpose in the discussion? (Here is that quotation again:) > > Not a ad hominem - I didnt attack YOU, I said your cite was biased, which is common and normal here on the SDMB. An ad hominem argument is one that says one should discount someone’s argument because of who they are, rather than because of the contents of their actual argument. You can certainly do that to someone at third hand, as you did in that post. You called them biased (which you didn’t support) and then strongly implied that we could ignore their analysis because they were biased. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/70 "2026-06-21T18:57:04Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > An ad hominem argument is one that says one should discount someone’s argument because of who they are, > **[How to Spot an Ad Hominem Fallacy in Debate](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/blog/how-to-spot-an-ad-hominem-fallacy-in-debate)** > > Learn how to spot an ad hominem fallacy in debate, tell it apart from relevant criticism, and respond without derailing the conversation. > ## **When a personal criticism is not a fallacy** > > This is where many people get tripped up. Personal information is not automatically irrelevant. Sometimes a person’s behavior, expertise, or conflicts of interest really do matter. > > Consider these examples: > > - **Expertise:** If a mechanic says your engine problem is a loose belt, that is more credible than the same claim from someone with no mechanical knowledge. That is not ad hominem; it is relevant evaluation of expertise. > - **Bias:** If a company executive testifies about a policy that would benefit their own business, pointing out the conflict of interest is fair and relevant. We point out the bias of a cite all the time here. I have had many posters do it to me. That is NOT a ad hominem fallacy. Nor did i say YOU were biased. In fact you said yourself- > [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > The site has an agenda, possibly like the above cite, You are wrong here. Your cite was wrong and biased, and cites and other posters agree. > [@Thing.Fish](#): > > A literal translation would be something like “With a male you are not to lie as one lies with a woman”. Nothing in there that could remotely be translated as “bed” AFAICT.\* I am not aware of any mainstream Jewish source that has ever interpreted this as anything other than a straightforward rule against male homosexuality (female homosexuality is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree, not by the Torah itself). > [@leahcim](#): > > My big take-aways are that (1) the authors of Leviticus were most likely against male same sex sex acts (2) they did’t really think of “homosexual” as a personal identity, just a set of acts that guys might or might not get up to, and (3) they made a moral distinction between “topping” and “bottoming”. > [@BigT](#): > > It is not an easy passage to translate. It’s been a while since I read some rather detailed discussion on it. The main issue is “lyings-of”. > > That said, the scholarly consensus is that the intent is that it prohibits being the insertive or active partner in male-male sexual intercourse > [@puzzlegal](#): > > I don’t believe the “bed” is meant to be taken literally. I believe it is a euphemism. Just as “uncovering his feet” can be a euphemism for uncovering a man’s genitalia. I think it is an injunction against a man topping another man. > [@DPRK](#): > > If you look at the section, they are not talking about sleeping arrangements or beds at all— it is about forbidden sexual practices (incest, bestiality, stuff like that). That is, “lying with” means fucking, and they are against a man topping another man; that is what it says. Nort am I going to argue “ad hominem” again. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/71 "2026-06-21T19:08:37Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#): > > AFAIK, the Bible just has 1.0 and 2.0. Maybe a Biblical Convention is in order 😉 That may be but there are numerous editions. And there was a [Bible Convention some time ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) which is why we’re where we are now, ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/72 "2026-06-21T19:43:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But note that David was likely King in the 9th or 10th century BC, but the Book of Leviticus was more likely written around 6th to 5th century BC, altho opinions differ. Point of order: Leviticus 18 is part of the Holiness Code, which was probably written during the First Temple era and predates the rest of Leviticus by a couple of centuries. Still post-David, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/73 "2026-06-21T21:12:01Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Point of order: Leviticus 18 is part of the Holiness Code, which was probably written during the First Temple era and predates the rest of Leviticus by a couple of centuries. Still post-David, though. Sure, estimates differ of course, but that is a good point. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/74 "2026-06-21T22:21:02Z")
Very well, I withdraw the accusation of ad hominem arguing. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2026, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/75 "2026-06-22T00:56:07Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > I was hoping to see something like a rebuttal\* of the specific explanation that I linked to, > > […] > > \* By rebuttal, I mean a counter-argument to the specific assertions in the link. Ah. Your link would be the one that claims that it just prohibits lying in a woman’s bed with a man. I do feel comfortable refuting that. I see three issues in your link. The first is the contention that _mishk’vei_ means “bed of” and must be referring to a literal bed. The second is the translation of to’evah as “a hateful thing” and a lack of explanation of what it really means. The third is the talk about ancient Israelite practices. The word _mishk’vei_ is the plural construct form of the noun _mishkav_, which can be translated as bed, as in a palce where one lies down. And while this can refer to a physical piece of furniture (although there are other more common words for that), it is quite often used to refer metaphorically to sexual activity. Making it a plural construct (“beds of”) actually strengthens this, as this grammatical form is often specifically used to make things more abstract. Hence why I said “lyings of” is a better literal translation. Translating _to’evah_ as “a hateful thing” isn’t wrong, but the usual translation is more along “abomination”, which conveys the severity better, in my opinion. The term is used for very strong prohibitions, and generally not for lesser issues, which is relevant to the third point below. And is linked to a severe punishment. The biggest issue I have is with the contention about Israelite practice. The claim about women’s beds is doing the heavy lifting in this interpretation. But there is nothing there to back this up. The oblique reference to Leviticus 15 is about women on their period, and how their discharge makes things unclean. And, yes, if you sit on something where she has discharged, then you also become unclean and must do purification rituals similar to what she must do after she stops menstruating. The idea that there is some severe prohibition on the literal act of sitting or laying on a woman’s bed, and that somehow doing so with another man would be worthy of _to’evah_ is nowhere in evidence. There’s not any reason that having another person involved would escalate this to uncleanness that needs to be purified to such a strong prohibition that can be used to justify actual execution. The evidence we do have just really does not support the interpretation that this is about a physical bed. In fact, the only other time _mishk’vei_ specifically is used (outside of Leviticus 18 and the repetition of this command in chapter 20) refers to defiling the “bed” of Reuben’s father, because he had sex with his father’s concubine. The root _mishkav_ is used constantly for sexual activity, just like the “uncover the nakedness” metaphor used throughout Leviticus 18. The use as a literal place for lying down is actually less common. Forcing it here to refer to a physical bed just doesn’t really make any sense. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2026, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/76 "2026-06-22T05:49:11Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The idea that there is some severe prohibition on the literal act of sitting or laying on a woman’s bed Lying, not laying. Laying on a bed is what the prohibitions are about, lying on a bed isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2026, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/77 "2026-06-22T12:39:33Z")
The only distinction I know of between those two words is that “laying” is usually transitive to something else. You can lay a blanket on a bed, or lay a pillow on a bed, or lay a sleeping person on a bed, but if you’re just putting yourself in a bed, you’re lying, not laying. But I don’t think that’s the point you’re making, because laying what on a bed? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2026, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/78 "2026-06-22T13:14:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But I don’t think that’s the point you’re making, because laying what on a bed? I think it was a joke about the sexual interpretation of “to lay”, as in “getting laid”. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2026, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/79 "2026-06-22T14:03:44Z")
That was my interpretation, too. > [@Johanna](#): > > Lying, not laying. Laying on a bed is what the prohibitions are about, lying on a bed isn’t. Read it as: Fucking on a bed is what the prohibitions are about, lying on a bed isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2026, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/80 "2026-06-22T14:13:29Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Fucking on a bed is what the prohibitions are about So gay sex in a bathroom is kosher? ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2026, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022/81 "2026-06-22T15:22:18Z")
Depends on what you lie about, for example you still can’t bear false witness against your neighbour, even in bed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leviticus-18-22-translation-and-meaning/1031022.md?page=5)