Leviticus 18:23 - On the noun אִשָּׁה

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term אִשָּׁה, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)

Prototypically, the situating noun אִישׁ (including its feminine form אִשָּׁה) labels an essential party whose involvement defines the situation of interest. At the same time, by regarding its referent in terms of the overall situation, it directs our attention to that situation. In this case, the statement is couched in terms of the key participant; the situation is framed by starting with that participant (as opposed to starting with the activity of interest). This appears to be the distinctive vantage point of certain Priestly passages.

The fronting of וְאִשָּׁה before the verb has a discourse function: it signals a change in the situation of interest, as defined by its key participant, and therefore a change in the subcase under discussion. (Grammatically speaking, it is not a dislocated term per se.) Here it shifts the focus from male sexuality to female sexuality, still under the rubric of bestiality.

Ancient Israelite gender roles seem to have held women responsible for their own sexuality in regard to bestiality. Although there was a gender asymmetry with regard to sex, it revolved around two factors: which man has access to the woman’s sexual activity, and which party gets to initiate such activity. Neither of those factors is in play with regard to a beast. This view is consistent with Lev. 20:16: “If a woman approaches any beast…”

Practically speaking, too, the social conditions of the time meant that women needed to be self-responsible in this way. As Baruch Levine explains (JPS Torah Commentary, ad loc.), “In ancient Israel women would have had … the opportunity to engage in bestiality with animals if they chose to”—that is, men weren’t necessarily in a position to prevent it.

On the other hand, Levine goes too far in claiming that this clause is “addressed to the woman”; if that were so, it would have been couched in the second person—like the rest of the passage, which is addressed to men. Rather, the text speaks about the woman.

As for rendering into English, the NJPS “let no woman lend herself to a beast” changes the subcase less explicitly than the Hebrew text, which is a bit confusing. Moreover, it subverts the woman as the key participant by adding a verb that addresses itself to the keepers of the social order (the presumably male authorities). It thus misrepresents the text by implying that men could have controlled women’s sexuality in this way.

The revised rendering fixes both problems. It marks the change in subcase while granting a woman’s agency in the situation under discussion.