Q&A: Maimonides’ approach regarding erotic contact with a male
Maimonides’ approach regarding erotic contact with a male
Question
Maimonides ruled that one who has intercourse with an androgynous person by way of its female organ is exempt (Forbidden Relations 1:15). Doesn’t that imply that erotic contact with a male is not Torah-level prohibited according to Maimonides?
True, it is not clear what the basis is for Maimonides to distinguish this way, but we do see that this is his position, no?
This is related to the ruling you gave together with Rabbi Sperber.
Answer
Definitely not. First, there is a doubt here, and therefore he is exempt (and see Rabbi Akiva Eiger there, who proved from here that one is given disciplinary lashes in cases of doubt). Second, when one has intercourse with him by way of his female organ, it is as if he had intercourse with the female aspect in him, and therefore he is exempt. The proof is that when one has intercourse with his male side he is liable, which shows that regarding that it is not a doubt but a definite male. If so, when one has intercourse with his female organ, that is like a definite female. So then why did Rabbi Akiva Eiger write that it is proven from here that in a case of doubt one gives disciplinary lashes? Apparently, regarding intercourse with his female organ, this is also considered a doubtful case of erotic contact through the limbs with the male aspect in him.
And in general, the commentaries there discuss at length the question of how Maimonides ruled regarding an androgynous person—whether it is a doubt, a definite male, a creature of its own kind, and so on. So it is difficult to prove anything from here.
Discussion on Answer
Nice.
Have a good week.
Seemingly, this is an explicit Talmudic passage that there is a distinction, because the female organ of an androgynous person is less significant than atypical intercourse.
For in Yevamot (83b), after they learned from an exclusion that one who has intercourse with an androgynous person by way of its female organ is exempt, they learned from another verse to make one liable for atypical intercourse, and it is explained there that atypical intercourse is more significant than intercourse with an androgynous person by way of its female organ.