It says in the Vendidad : The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas ”

  • 4
    Why would you think that, if there was such a verse in the Torah, it came from anywhere but the Torah?
    – rosends
    May 26, 2016 at 22:20
  • Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/56994/…
    – mevaqesh
    May 26, 2016 at 23:28
  • 1
    I guess this is a dupe and I'm closing it thereas. But truth be told it's very unclear, since it asks about the origin of a verse in the Torah that doesn't actually exist. So it's probably closureworthy as unclear even sans the preexisting dupe.
    – msh210
    May 27, 2016 at 1:41
  • And ERB: (1) If people ask you for clarification of your question in comments, it's so you can edit the question for clarity, not so you can comment further. (2) This is a Judaism site, and one of the basic assumptions underlying all posts here is that Judaism's God is the true god. If you seek answers that don't accept that assumption, you'll need to ask elsewhere.
    – msh210
    May 27, 2016 at 1:44
  • @msh210 I think that he is referring to Vayikra 18:22 about mishkav zachar. May 27, 2016 at 14:10

1 Answer 1


The Torah was a direct dictation from Gd Himself; every other book of law/ code of law was man made. That answer should suffice

  • 1
    Maybe God borrowed idioms or phrases in His composition. So this post doesn't suffice. Recall דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם.
    – Double AA
    May 27, 2016 at 0:43
  • 2
    @doubleAA That doesn't apply to phrases, and certainly not to sentences. It applies to a manner of speech. It is invoked only as a reason not to speculate extra wording when the syntax is normal.
    – HaLeiVi
    May 27, 2016 at 5:37
  • @HaLeiVi You just made that up AFAICT. It could apply to whatever. God has full reign to make whatever allusions or references He wants in His books. He could have copied the whole thing from someone else if He thought they did a good job! (I personally doubt He actually did that.)
    – Double AA
    May 27, 2016 at 11:06
  • @doubleAA You quoted Chazal as backup and that was insincere. That quote shows up 19 times and is exclusively used on double words, as a reason not to Darshen them. All other anomalies are Darshened and are never dismissed as common man's idiom. In other words, Hashem used manner of speech but no mention of borrowed phrases.
    – HaLeiVi
    May 27, 2016 at 13:50
  • @HaL It was totally sincere. Chazal are saying God isn't writing in a vacuum. I don't know what Darshining things has to do with anything. God can use allusions to other works, and we can Darshin them. So what? Even if we Darshined the double words, the fact that God chose to be aware of the dialect at the time (catchphrases, idioms, etc.) is telling. Whether or not he made explicit references to other works, He could have. There are all sorts of words and phrases in Tanakh (eg. many of the hapax legomena) which we dont really know what they mean because we dont live in that linguistic milieu.
    – Double AA
    May 27, 2016 at 13:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .