The core teaching in this shiur providing a new approach to the Leviticus passages is not my own, but that of Rabbi Ethan Tucker of Hadar. I'm deeply grateful for his scholarship, far beyond my own, that allows me to show these difficult passages of Torah in a new light.
- Understand how Torah and Talmud do—and don't—look at gender
- Explore a problematic text through other texts and ideas to discover new ways of looking at it
- To begin to discover how you can find yourself in texts that appear on the surface to exclude you
The Torah doesn't know gender identity. The Torah only knows two biologically defined genders: זָכָ֥ר /male and נְקֵבָ֖ה/female
../אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּרָאוֹ, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּבְרָא דוּ פַּרְצוּפִין נִבְרָא וּנְסָרוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה שְׁנַיִם גַּבִּים, גַּב לְזָכָר גַּב לִנְקֵבָה. אֵיתִיבוּן לֵיהּ (בראשית ב, כא): וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, אָמַר לָהֶן מִסִּטְרוֹהִי, כְּדִכְתִיב (שמות כו, כ): וּלְצֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ מְלוֹא כָל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ בְּרָאוֹ. מִן הַמִּזְרָח לַמַּעֲרָב מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי, מִן הַצָּפוֹן לַדָּרוֹם מִנַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, וּמִנַּיִן כַּחֲלָלוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם...,
...Said Rav Shmuel bar Nachman: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first man, he created him as an androgynous being. Reish Lakish: When it was created, dual faces [together] were created, and it was cut, and two were made. [One] back was male, [one] back was female. They challenged him: [Genesis 2:21] "And He took one of his ribs (tzela)"!? He said to them, it is of his sides, as it is written, "and to the side (tzela) of the Tabernacle" [Exodus 26:20]. Said Rabbi Berachiya and Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman: When God created the first man, from one end of the world to the other end, He created him to fill the entire world. How do we know from east to west? As it says, "You created me back to east (kedem)." How do we know from north to south? As it says, [Deuteronomy 4:32] "From the ends of the heavens to the ends of the heavens."...
How does the midrash deal with the idea of Adam being created androgenous?
What are your thoughts, feelings or questions about these texts?
The Torah doesn't speak about internal gender or sexual identity. The Torah only speaks about external acts.
The mitzvot in the Torah aren't written to address gender identity, or any other individual aspect of how we perceive ourselves in the world. The mitzvot are written to address how we act in the world (and especially in community) :what we do or don't do and what we're expected to do or not do.
Is there overlap and connection between mitzvot and our personal identities? Yes. How we identify and how we act are connected. However, when we look at Torah mitzvot through our own identities, it can be helpful to keep this distinction in mind. When it comes to gender, mitzvot are about how we act, not how we feel. It is the actions addressed that we must grapple with, not the way we see ourselves, as Torah makes no statement nor judgment on this.
Can you think of a mitzvah that has made you feel judged for your individual identity (gender or otherwise) ? Does an understanding of mitzvot being action focused, not identity focused, make it feel less judgmental?
Because the Torah knows only binary gender, halakhah (Jewish religious law) is also constructed along the lines of binary gender. However, the rabbis of the Talmud recognized four additional genders along with the "male" and "female" found in Torah and determined when each was to be classified as 'male' or 'female' for halakhic purposes.
Halakhah isn't concerned with defining individuality, but rather, with creating a shared commanding framework to channel it into meaningful spiritual community.
Six Genders Addressed In the Talmud
- Zachar (זָכָר): This term is derived from the word for memory and refers to the belief that the man carried the name and identity of the family. It is usually translated as “male” in English.
- Nekevah (נְקֵבָה): This term is derived from the word for a crevice and probably refers to a vaginal opening. It is usually translated as “female” in English.
- Androgynos (אנדרו:גינוס): A person who has both “male” and “female” physical sexual characteristics. 149 references in Mishna and Talmud (1st-8th Centuries CE); 350 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes (2nd -16th Centuries CE).
- Tumtum (טומטום): A person whose sexual characteristics are indeterminate or obscured. 181 references in Mishna and Talmud; 335 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.
- Ay’lonit (איילונית): A female who does not develop at puberty and is infertile. 80 references in Mishna and Talmud; 40 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.
- Saris (סָרִיס): A male who does not develop at puberty and/or subsequently has their sexual organs removed. A saris can be “naturally” a saris (saris hamah), or become one through human intervention (saris adam). 156 references in mishna and Talmud; 379 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.
וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס כו': תנו רבנן זכור להוציא את הנשים זכורך להוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס
כל זכורך לרבות את הקטנים אמר מר זכור להוציא את הנשים הא למה לי קרא מכדי מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים
פטורות אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא נילף ראייה ראייה מהקהל מה להלן נשי
אמר מר זכורך להוציא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס בשלמא אנדרוגינוס
אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואית ליה צד זכרות ליחייב קמ"ל דבריה בפני עצמו הוא אלא טומטום ספיקא הוא מי אצטריך קרא למעוטי ספיקא אמר אביי כשביציו מבחוץ
§ The mishna taught: And a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple. The Sages taught, with regard to the verse: “Three occasions in the year all your males will appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17), had the verse simply said “males,” this would serve to exclude women from this mitzva. By specifying “your males,” it comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite as well...
...The Master said in the baraita: “Your males” comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. The Gemara asks: Granted, the exclusion of a hermaphrodite was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that since he possesses an aspect of masculinity, i.e., he has a male sexual organ, he should be obligated like a male. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a hermaphrodite is a being unto itself, which is neither male nor female. However, as the status of a tumtum, who lacks external sexual organs, is a halakhic uncertainty, is a verse necessary to exclude an uncertainty? Abaye said: It is referring to a case when the testicles of a tumtum are on the outside, although his penis is not visible. The verse teaches that this tumtum is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, despite the fact that he is certainly male.
The Gemara replies: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna: Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: And is this the halakha only where he developed the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man? Otherwise, a twenty-year-old who has not developed two pubic hairs is still considered a minor. The examination of the deceased could therefore be effective to see if he has other signs of being sexually underdeveloped. Rava said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he is the sexually underdeveloped man. The usage of the definitive article indicates that the mishna is referring to one who is clearly a sexually underdeveloped man. The Gemara affirms: One can conclude from the mishna that the mishna is speaking of one who developed the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man.
These examples are typical of the Talmudic discussions of genders beyond 'male' and 'female'
- How do you see gender portrayed here?
- Is gender identity apparent in these Talmudic texts?
- What can we see in these texts that we don't see in the Torah's binary genders?
Human dignity is certainly a core Jewish value that is powerful in many respects. However, when it comes to grappling with painful texts, using 'human dignity' as a lens can fall short of providing the details necessary to understand and reinterpret texts in more expansive and inclusive ways. Human dignity can provide us with a way to bypass or evade a text, and possibly the motivation to look at it deeper for new perspectives, but, by itself, fails to provide us a means to make peace with—or even embrace as our own—a traditionally painful text.
Because gender identity wasn't a rabbinic concern in the ancient world, we must look deeper than the surface of our core texts to find what they might have to say on the issue. This is the same process we must follow for any modern issue that wasn't a concern in ancient times: artificial intelligence, climate change, etc.
לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי...לְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ...
It was for this reason that man was first created as one person...To express the grandeur of The Holy One [blessed be He]: For a man strikes many coins from the same die, and all the coins are alike. But the King, the King of Kings, The Holy One [blessed be He] strikes every man from the die of the First Man, and yet no man is quite like his friend...
(based on teaching by Rabbi Ethan Tucker)
One area of individual identity that was of concern to the rabbis of the Talmud was left-handedness. By looking at the ways in which this issue of diversity was addressed in halakhic sources, we may find models to help us address our modern gender and sexual identity issues with Torah texts.
What characteristics make handedness a possible halakhic parallel to gender and sexual identity?
- Exclusion
- Passing
- Double Burden
- Mirror Image
- Deconstruction
ספרי זוטא יט:ד
ולקח אלעזר הכהן מדמה באצבעו ,נאמר כאן כהן ואצבע ונאמר במצורע כהן ואצבע מה כהן ואצבע שנא 'במצורע היא המיומנת שבימין אף כהן ואצבע שנא 'כאן היא המיומנת שבימין
Sifrei Zuta 19:4
“Elazar the priest will take from its blood with his finger…” It is said here “priest” and “finger” and it is said with the metzora “priest” and “finger”. Just as “priest” and “finger” it says regarding the metzora —“the right one”—it is with the right hand, so too “priest” and “finger” it says here is “the right one”—it is with the right hand.
תוספתא זבחים א:ו
היה ר 'שמעון אומ 'כל שנאמ 'בו יד טעון ימין וכל שלא נאמ 'בו יד אין טעון ימין וכל שלא נאמ 'בו אצבע אין טעון ימין
Tosefta Zevachim 1:6
R. Shimon used to say: Wherever the Torah says “hand”, one must use the right hand; but if “hand” or “finger” is not specified, there is no need to use the right hand or finger.
תלמוד בבלי זבחים כד .
ת"ר :באצבע ולקח מלמד שלא תהא קבלה אלא בימין ,באצבע ונתן מלמד שלא תהא נתינה אלא בימין
Talmud Bavli Zevachim 24a
Our rabbis taught: “He will take with a finger”—this teaches that there can be no receiving [in the Temple service] except with the right hand; “He will give with a finger”—this teaches that there can be no giving [in the Temple service] except with the right hand.
תוספתא בכורות ה:ח
איטר בין בידיו בין ברגליו פסול השולט בשתי ידיו כאחת רבי פוסל וחכמים מכשירין
Tosefta Bekhorot 5:8
A left-handed or left-footed kohen is invalid (to participate in the sacrificial service). An ambidextrous kohen : Rabbi invalidates him; the majority validate him.
תלמוד בבלי בכורות מה :
מר סבר :כחישותא אתחלא בימין ,ומר סבר :בריותא אתחלא בשמאל
Talmud Bavli Bekhorot 45b
One holds that his right side is weak; one holds that his left side is particularly strong.
A kohen/priest whose right hand isn't his dominant hand can't participate in the sacrificial rituals.
- From the rabbis' perspective, why are the stakes high in this case?
- Who is excluded by this model?
- Who isn't excluded by this model?
סוכה לז :
ואמר רבה :לולב בימין ,ואתרוג בשמאל .מאי טעמא ?הני תלתא מצות ,והאי חדא מצוה
Talmud Bavli Sukkah 37b
Said Rabbah: The lulav must be held in the right hand and the etrog in the left. Why? The lulav is three mitzvot and the etrog is only one.
תשובת ר 'יואל הלוי מובא בשו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנברג חלק ד) דפוס פראג (סימן יב ,גרמניה ,המאה הי"ב
מעשה בריזבורק ששאלו לרבותינו על איטר יד ימינו אם יש לו לטול לולב בידו השמאלית .והשיבו ודאי חשובה לו כימין דעלמא כדאמר בשבת...ונראה דה"ט דלא כתיב יד ימין אלא סתמא כיון דבעי מלאכה חשובה מה לי ימין מה לי שמאל וכן נראה דהכא אינו אלא משום נטילה חשובה שנוטל ולא כלאחר יד ואם הי 'נוטל בימין דידי 'מחזי לדידי 'כלאחר יד אבל ודאי היכא דהקפידה תורה על ימין כמו גבי מצורע ועבודה בכהן התם דוקא בימין...והכא אינו אלא הידור מצוה בעלמא...ומתפילין נמי משמע הכי ממלתא דר 'נתן דאמר מנחות) ל"ז ע"א (מה כתיבה בימין אף קשירה בימין ומהיכן משמע שהכתיבה בימין אלא סתמא כתיבה חשובה בימין בעי 'שלא כלאחר יד ולא הקפידה בכך מש"ה איטר יד ימינו קושר בימינו שהוא שמאל כל אדם
Responsum of R. Yoel Ha-Levi, cited in Responsa Maharam of Rothenberg IV:12, Germany, 12 th c.
It happened in Reisburg that they asked our masters about a left-handed person, whether he should take the lulav in his left hand. They answered: Obviously his left is like everyone else’s right, as it says in [Tractate] Shabbat… and it seems that the reason the right hand was not specified is because once I am concerned about significant melakhah , why should I care if it is done with the right or left hand? Similarly here, we are focused on the person taking the lulav in a meaningful fashion and not in a backhanded way, and if he took it in his right hand, he would feel as if he were doing it in a backhanded way. But wherever that Torah clearly prefers the right, as in the case of a metzora [when purified from scale disease], or a priest, then it must be done with the right… in the case of lulav , however, it is simply the preferred way of doing the mitzvah … and this point is borne out by tefillin as well, when R. Natan says: Just as writing is done with the right, so too tying is done with the right. How do we know writing is done with the right? Rather, it means, serious writing is done [by most people] with the right hand, but there is no essential importance to the right hand, therefore a left-handed person ties on his right, which is everyone else’s left.
ספר העיטור שער ראשון הלכות תפילין דף נט עמוד ב ,ר 'יצחק ב"ר אבא מארי ,מרסיליה ,המאה הי"ב
ת"ר אטר מניח תפלין בימינו שהוא שמאלו והתניא בשמאלו שהוא שמאל כל אדם אמר אביי כי תניא ההיא בשולט בשתי ידיו ומסתברא לן דווקא תפלין דמדאורייתא דווקא בימין אבל לולב דמדרבנן הוא ומשום חשיבותא אטר ה"ה ככל אדם ומניח) צ"ל ונוטל (לולב בימינו שהוא ימין כל אדם ואי עביד איפכא לית לן בה דלא גרע מתפלין
Sefer Ha-Ittur Tefillin 59b, R. Yitzchak b. Abba Mari, Marseille, 12th c.
Our Sages taught: A left-handed person wears tefillin on his right which is his left. But is it not taught: He wears it on his left, which is everyone else’s left! Said Abaye: That text is speaking of an ambidextrous person. It seems that this is specifically the case with tefillin , where the Torah itself demands he wear it on the right hand, but in the case of lulav , where the requirement to hold it in the right hand is only rabbinic, and because of importance (mi-shum h ashivuta) a left-handed person is like any other person and takes the lulav in his right hand. But if he reverses it, there is no serious concern, because it should not be worse than tefillin .
Since lulav and etrog is a communal mitzvah as well as an individual one, all must conform to the majority handedness.
- Why might the 'passing' model might be necessary in society?
- How might this model be abused?
משנה שבת י:ג
המוציא בין בימינו בין בשמאלו בתוך חיקו או על כתיפו חייב שכן משא בני קהת כלאחר ידו ברגלו בפיו ובמרפקו באזנו ובשערו ובפונדתו ופיה למטה בין פונדתו לחלוקו ובשפת חלוקו במנעלו בסנדלו פטור שלא הוציא כדרך המוציאין
Mishnah Shabbat 10:3
One who takes an object out [from a private domain to a public domain], whether in one’s right hand or one’s left hand or in one’s chest or on one’s shoulder, is liable [for Shabbat violation and must bring a sacrifice]… If on the back of one’s hand, with one’s foot, in one’s mouth, in one’s elbow, in one’s ear, in one’s pouch with the opening facing down, between one’s pouch and one’s shirt, in one’s shoe or sandal, one is exempt, for one did not take the object out in the common way that objects are taken out.
משנה שבת יב:ג
הכותב שתי אותיות בין בימינו בין בשמאלו …חייב .אמר רבי יוסי לא חייבו שתי אותיות אלא משום רושם...
Mishnah Shabbat 12:3
One who writes two letters, whether with one’s right or left hand… is liable. Said R. Yose: One who writes two letters was only made liable under the rubric of roshem [marking down symbols]...
תלמוד בבלי שבת קג .
בשלמא אימין ליחייב משום דדרך כתיבה בכך ,אלא אשמאל אמאי ?הא אין דרך כתיבה בכך !
אמר רבי ירמיה :באטר יד שנו
ותהוי שמאל דידיה כימין דכולי עלמא ,ואשמאל ליחייב ,אימין לא ליחייב !
אלא אמר אביי :בשולט בשתי ידיו
Talmud Bavli Shabbat 103a
It makes sense for him to be liable for writing with his right hand—that is the normal way to write. But why should he be liable for writing with the left hand? That is not the normal way to write! Said R. Yirmiyah: The Mishnah is dealing with a left-handed person. [A right-handed person would in fact only be liable for writing with the right hand.]
But why shouldn’t his left be like everyone else’s right, such that he would be liable for writing with the left hand, but not with the right?
Said Abaye: The Mishnah is dealing with an ambidextrous person.
While being held to the same standard as the majority, left-handed people aren't allowed the leniency loophole afforded to the right-handed majority
- Have you ever felt this model at play in some area of your own life?
- Have you seen this model applied to others?
ספרי דברים פיסקא לה
על ידך ,זה שמאל ,אתה אומר זה שמאל או אינו אלא ימין ?
אף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר+ ישעיה מח יג +אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים ,ואומר+ שופטים ה כו +ידה ליתד תשלחנה וימינה להלמות עמלים והלמה סיסרא מחקה ראשו ומחצה וחלפה רקתו ,הא אין ידך האמור בכל מקום אלא שמאל .
רבי נתן אומר ,וקשרתם וכתבתם ,מה כתיבה בימין אף קשירה בימין
Sifrei Devarim 35
“On your hand”—This refers to the left hand. Does it really refer to the left hand, or perhaps the right? Even though there is no explicit proof, there is an allusion to it: “My hand laid the foundation of the earth and my right spread out the skies” (Isaiah 48:13). It also says, “She stretched out her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to a workers’ hammer and she hammered Sisera, crushed his head, shattered his temple.” (Judges 5:26) This shows that whenever “your hand” is used, it means left. R. Natan says: “You shall tie”; “You shall write”; just as writing is done with the right hand, so too tying [of tefillin ] must be done with the right hand [which means that the tefillin itself must be on the left].
'תלמוד בבלי מנחות מז :.
ת"ר ...:ר 'יצחק אומר :אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר :ושמתם את דברי אלה על לבבכם ...וקשרתם ,שתהא שימה כנגד הלב...
ת"ר :אטר מניח תפילין בימינו שהוא שמאלו .
והתניא :מניח בשמאלו שהוא שמאלו של כל אדם !
אמר אביי :כי תניא ההיא ,בשולט בשתי ידיו
Talmud Bavli Menachot 47a-b
Our Sages taught:… R. Yitzchak said… the verse says, “Place these words of mine on your heart… and tie”; they should be placed near the heart…
Our Sages taught: A left-handed person wears tefillin on his right, which is his left. But is it not taught: He wears it on his left, which is everyone else’s left! Said Abaye: That text is speaking of an ambidextrous person.
רמב"ם תפילין ומזוזה וספר תורה ד:ג
,!
איטר מניח תפילין בימינו שהוא שמאל שלו ,ואם היה שולט בשתי ידיו מניח אותה בשמאלו שהוא שמאל כל אדם'
Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah, and the Torah Scroll 4:3
A left-handed person places tefillin on his right, which is his left. And if he is ambidextrous, he should place it on his left, which is the left of most people. "
שו"ע אורח חיים כז:ו
ואטר יד ימינו ,אם עושה כל מלאכתו בשמאלו ,מניח בשמאלו שהוא ימין של כל אדם .ואם שולט בשתי ידיו ,מניח בשמאל כל אדם .ואם כותב בימינו ,ושאר כל מעשיו עושה בשמאלו ,או כותב בשמאל ושאר כל מעשיו עושה בימין ,י"א שיניח תפילין ביד שתש כח ,דבעינן יד כהה ,וי"א שהיד שכותב בה היא חשובה ימין לענין זה ומניח תפילין ביד שכנגדה) .הגה :והכי נהוג
משנה ברורה סימן כז
)כד (מניח בשמאל ואם הניחו בימינו שהוא שמאל כל אדם אף בדיעבד לא יצא] חוט השני סימן כ"ח [ועיין בביאור הלכה
Shulchan Arukh Orach Hayyim 2c:
A left-handed person, he does all of his work with his left-hand, he places [tefillin] on his left-hand which is the right for most people. And if he is ambidextrous, he places on the left of most people. And if he writes with his right hand and all his other actions he performs with his left hand; or he writes with his right hand and all is other his other actions he performs with his right hand—there are those who say that he places tefillin on the hand that is lacking strength, for we require “the weak hand”; and there are those who say that the hand that he writes with is considered right for this case, and he places tefillin on the opposite hand.
Note: And this is the practice.
The mirror image model acknowledges differences and has each person doing things in the way that comes naturally to them, mirroring each other.
- What are the advantages of the 'mirror image' model? The disadvantages?
- Do you feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this model?
משנה יבמות יב:ב
חלצה …בשמאל חליצתה פסולה ורבי אליעזר מכשיר
Mishnah Yevamot 12:2
If [the right-handed levir] performs chalitzah… with his left [foot], his chalitzah is invalid; but Rabbi Eliezer validates it."
תלמוד בבלי יבמות קד .
מ"ט דרבנן ?אמר עולא :ילפינן רגל רגל ממצורע ,מה להלן דימין ,אף כאן דימין
Talmud Bavli Yevamot 104a
What is the reasoning [of the first opinion in our mishnah]? Ula said: We derive “leg” “leg” from the metzora —just as there it is the right [foot], so too here it is the right.
'ספר מצוות גדול עשין סימן נב ,ר 'משה מקוצי ,המאה הי"ג
כתב מורי] ר 'יהודה שירליאון [אפילו הוא איטר חשוב בימין מאחר שהצריכה תורה ימין בפירוש תדע שהרי אזן אזן לרציעה שאנו למדין ימין שם אין שייך לחלק שהרי אין כח בזו יותר מבזו
Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Positive Commandment 53 (R. Moshe of Coucy, France, 13 th c.)
My teacher [R. Yehudah Sirlion] wrote: Even one who is left-footed, it is done with his right [foot], since the Torah requires “right” explicitly. You should know this, for behold the ear [in the Torah] for piercing [if a slave wants to remain with his master, cf. Exodus 21] that we teach is the right [ear, even though it is not explicit] and there is no place there to disagree, for there is no more strength in [the derivation in] this [case of chalitzah] more than that [case of the ear piercing].
ראבי"ה ח"ד סימן תתצד
ואם איטור יד הוא הוי שמאל דידיה כימין דעלמא ,כדאמרינן במנחות לגבי תפילין במו שפירשתי בהילכות לולב .ויש מרבותינו שהחמירו לגבי יבם שאם הוא איטור ברגל ימין שיחלוץ בשתיהן במנעל של ימין בימין ובמנעל של שמאל בשמאל .ואם הוא שולט בשתי רגליו או הוא בשתי ידיה יעשה בימין
Ra’aviah #894
And if he is left-handed, then his left is like the right of most people, as we say in Menachot regarding tefillin , and as I explained in the laws of lulav . And there are those of our rabbis that are strict regarding the levir, that if he is left-footed, he should do chalitzah with both of them, the right shoe on the right and the left shoe on the left. And if he is ambidextrous for feet or hands, then he can do it with his right.
חידושי הרמב"ן מסכת יבמות דף קד עמוד א
צריך לעיין אטר במה חולץ אי בשמאלו שהיא ימין כל אדם ,או בימינו שהיא שמאל כל אדם ,או אינו חולץ כלל …ואם אין לו ימין כמו שפירשנו אינו חולץ כלל ,וכיון שאין גמר בדבר לא יחלוץ
Hiddushei Ha-Ramban, Yevamot 104a (R. Moshe b. Na h man, Spain, 13 th c.)
We need to investigate which [leg] he does chalitzah with—if it is his left which is the right of most people, or with his right that is the left of most people, or whether he cannot do chalitzah at all… And if he has no leg as I explained, then he cannot do h alitzah at all, since he cannot complete the action [of removing the shoe from his right, dominant foot], he cannot do chalitzah .
שו"ע אבן העזר קסט סעיף כה
אטר ברגלו ,י"א שחולץ בשתיהם ,במנעל של ימין בימין ,ובמנעל שמאל בשמאל .ויש מי שנסתפק לומר שאין לו תקנה) ונהגו כסברא הראשונה ,וע"ל בפי 'הסדר סעיף מ
Shulchan Arukh, Even Ha-Ezer 169:25
A left-footed person, there are those who say that he does chalitzah with both of [his feet], with his right shoe on the right and his left shoe on the left. And it is possible one who is doubtful would say that he has no option. Note: And we practice according to the first explanation…
In looking at the final paradigm of chalitza, we can see elements of passing, exclusion, mirror image and double-burden. Which does the final practice (from the last text) appear to follow?
Now, returning to gender and sexual identities, let's see how it looks to apply what we've learned to a difficult passage of Torah.
(22) Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.
There's more than one word for 'prostitute' in Torah:
The 'zonah' (זנה) was a woman who sold sex for money or valuables
The 'kadeshah/kadesh (קדש/קדשה)—yes, from the same Hebrew root ק-ד-ש as kadosh (קדש) 'holy'—was a woman/man who engaged in sexual acts as an offering to deities, a 'cult prostitute'
7-Who is being addressed in these verses?
In the models outlined above, sometimes a left-handed person must conform to the right-handed majority but at others may perform mitzvot in a distinctly left-handed way.\
How many times in these models do we see right-handed people, or those who are ambidextrous, allowed to perform mitzvot in a left-handed way?
What happens if you read Leviticus 18:22 as addressing the same people as the surrounding verses—cis gendered heterosexuals ('right-handed') engaging in homosexual sex ('left-handed')?
To quote Rabbi Tucker, "For the person who would normally be drawn to a woman, lying with a man is an abomination
And if the meaning of the pasuk is not just limited to its application for 90% of the population, but the meaning of that pasuk is essentially 'don't channel your sexuality in a way that goes completely contrary to where your normal nature would take it."
Rabbi Ethan Tucker's full shiur, "Toward an Halakhic Model of Diversity in Sexualities" may be found on the Hadar website:
/www.hadar.org/torah-resource/toward-halakhic-model-diversity-sexualities