Gender/Queer Torah

(27) And God created humankind in the divine image, creating it in the image of God— creating them male and female.

(22) And God יהוה fashioned the side that had been taken from the Human into a woman, bringing her to the Human.

The Gemara rejects that suggestion: No, everyone agrees that it was only one act of creation. However, one Sage holds: It is according to the initial thought that we proceed. And one Sage holds: It is according to the action that we proceed. God’s initial thought was to create man and woman as separate entities. Ultimately, they were created as one entity. That explanation is like the following. Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “And God created man in His own image” (Genesis 1:27), indicating one act of creation, and in another verse it is written: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2), indicating two acts. How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? Initially, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, but ultimately only one was actually created.

The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between the verses: On the one hand it is written: “Male and female, He created them,” in the plural, and on the other hand it is written: “So God created man in His own image, for in the image of God He created him” (Genesis 1:27), in the singular. At first, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, and ultimately, only one was actually created.

(1) "A woman when she gives seed (conceives)" [Leviticus 12:2]: That's what is written, "You have created me behind and before." [Psalms 139:5] Said Rabbi Yochanan: If man merits, he inherits two worlds, this one and the coming one, that's what is written: "You have created me behind and before (front)." And if not, he comes to give reckoning, as it says, "And You laid your hand (kapcha) on me." [ibid], as it is written, [Job 13:21] "Withdraw your hand (kapcha) far from me." 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.

(6) The following are the physical signs of barrenness: a) she lacks [protruding] breasts; b) she stiffens during sexual relations; c) her lower abdomen does not resemble a woman's, d) her voice is deep and cannot be differentiated from that of a man. All three, a maiden, a mature woman and a barren woman, are referred to by the term gedolah [adult woman]. [Unlike children, they are held responsible for their conduct.]

(13) These are the signs of impotency: a) One lacks a beard, b) his hair grows inadequately, c) his flesh is hairless, d) his urine does not produce vapor, e) his urine does not flow in an arc, f) his semen is off color, g) his urine does not ferment, h) when he washes in the winter, his flesh does not produce steam, and i) his voice is high pitched and cannot be differentiated from that of a woman.

(14) An impotent person of this type is referred to as a s'ris chamah [one who became impotent because of fever]. When, however, the genitals of a male have been cut, severed or crushed, as the gentiles do, the person is called a s'ris adam [one who became impotent as a result of human activity]. When such a person reaches the age of thirteen and one day, he is considered to be an adult, for he will never manifest signs of maturity.

(24) A person who possesses both a male sexual organ and a female sexual organ is called an androgynous. There is doubt whether such a person should be classified as a male or as a female; there is no physical sign that can ever enable such a distinction to be made.

(25) A person who possesses neither a male sexual organ nor a female sexual organ, but instead, his genital area is a solid mass, is called a tumtum. There is also doubt with regard [to this person's status]. If an operation is carried out and a male [organ is revealed], he is definitely considered to be a male. If a female [organ is revealed], she is definitely considered to be a female. When a tumtum or an androgynous reaches the age of twelve years and one day, they are assumed to be adults. Whenever these terms are mentioned, the intent is individuals of this age.

(1) (1) 'And E-lohim said 'let's make Adam in our image, as our likeness' (Gen. 1:26) - Rabbi Yochanan opened with 'You hedge me before and behind; You lay Your hand upon me' (Ps. 139:5) and rabbi Yochanan said: 'if Adam had merits, he eats two worlds, as it's written 'You formed me before/achor and behind/kedem', and if not, he comes to receive judgment and accounting, as its written 'You lay Your hand upon me'. Said R. Yirmiyah ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him [as] an androgyne [androginos], as it is said, “male and female He created them”. Said Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him double-faced [du-par’tsufin], and sawed him and made him backs, a back here and a back [t]here, as it is said, “Before/achor and behind/kedem You formed me” [Ps. 139:5].

(1) The hermaphrodite is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.

(2) In what ways is he like men? He causes impurity with white discharge, like men; He dresses like men; He can take a wife but not be taken as a wife, like men. [When he is born] his mother counts the blood of purification, like men; He may not be secluded with women, like men. He is not maintained with the daughters, like men; He transgresses the law of: “You shall not round” (Leviticus 19:2 and “You shall not defile for the dead,” (Leviticus 21:1) like men; And he must perform all the commandments of the Torah, like men.

(3) And in what ways is he like women? He causes impurity with red discharge, like women; And he must not be secluded with men, like women; And he doesn’t make his brother’s wife liable for yibbum (levirate marriage); And he does not share [in the inheritance] with the sons, like women; And he cannot eat most holy sacrifices, like women. At his birth his mother counts the blood of her impurity like [they do when they give birth to a] girl; And he is disqualified from being a witness, like women. If he had illicit intercourse, he is disqualified from eating terumah, like women.

(4) In what ways is he like both men and women? One who strikes him or curses him is liable, as in the case of men and women; One who unwittingly kills him must go into exile, and if on purpose, then [the slayer] receives the death penalty, as in the case of men and women. His mother must [at his birth] bring an offering, as in the case of men and women. He may eat holy things that are eaten outside of the Temple; And he may inherit any inheritance, as in the case of men and women.

(5) And in what is he different from both men and women? One does not burn terumah if it came into contact with his discharge, Neither is he liable for entering the temple while impure, unlike men or women. He must not be sold as a Hebrew slave, unlike men or women. He cannot be evaluated, unlike men or women. If one says: “I will be a nazirite, if he is neither a man nor a woman,” then he becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Yose says: the hermaphrodite is a unique creature, and the sages could not decide about him. But this is not so with a tumtum (one of doubtful), for sometimes he is a man and sometimes he is a woman.

And Rava said: Come and see how good a good wife is and how bad a bad wife is. How good is a good wife? As it is written: Whoever finds a wife finds good. If the verse speaks of her, a wife, this demonstrates how good a good wife is, as the Bible praises her. If the verse speaks metaphorically of the Torah, it nevertheless indicates how good a good wife is, as the Torah is compared to her.

§ Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is left without joy, without blessing, without goodness. He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife.

Rabbi Ami said: Abraham and Sarah were tumtumin, as it is stated: “Look to the rock from where you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from where you were dug” (Isaiah 51:1), and it is written “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you” (Isaiah 51:2), which indicates that sexual organs were fashioned for them, signified by the words hewn and dug, over the course of time. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Our mother Sarah was an aylonit, as it is stated: “And Sarah was barren; she had no child” (Genesis 11:30). The superfluous words: “She had no child,” indicate that she did not have even a place, i.e., a womb, for a child.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: As for a hermaphrodite, what did Shmuel say? It was stated in the name of Rav that the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei with regard to a hermaphrodite, but no ruling was attributed to Shmuel concerning this case. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan: The baraita is not to be relied upon in the presence of the mishna. This indicates that Shmuel rejects Rabbi Yosei’s opinion as stated in the baraita that a hermaphrodite is considered a creature unto himself. The Gemara asks further: Concerning grafting, what did Shmuel say? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Anan that he should teach in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that it is prohibited to plant for thirty-three days before Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. Evidently, he ruled on this matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not that of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara continues to ask along these lines: With regard to the case of protracted labor, what did Rav say? Does he accept Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, as does Shmuel? No resolution was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes that this dilemma shall stand unresolved. The Gemara further inquires: With regard to proscription, what did Rav say? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear, as Rav Huna said that Rav said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Abaye said to him: What did you see that led you to rely on that source? Rely on this source; as Rav Adda said that Rav said that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. There is, then, a tradition that Rav accepted Rabbi Yosei’s view. The Gemara responds: When it is stated that the Sages of the school of Rav said a teaching, to whom is it referring? The reference is to Rav Huna. And it was Rav Huna who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. It may be presumed, then, that Rav Adda’s version of Rav’s ruling is in error, as preference is given to the report of Rav’s preeminent disciple, Rav Huna. § It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If a tumtum, whose external sexual organs are indeterminate, was torn open so that his genitals were exposed, and he was found to be a male, he must not perform ḥalitza because he is treated like a eunuch. Rabbi Ami said: What would Rabbi Yehuda do with the tumtum living in the town of Biri, who was placed in a seat for an operation, and the tissue covering his genitals was torn open and he later fathered seven children? Evidently, a tumtum who was torn open is not necessarily sexually impotent. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: Go and inquire about his children and find out from where they came. He did not believe that they were fathered by this man but rather by someone else. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A tumtum must not perform ḥalitza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a eunuch by natural causes. The Gemara asks: Why did he formulate his teaching in this manner? Is that to say that every tumtum who is torn open is a male? It is certainly possible for a tumtum to be found to be a female. The Gemara explains: This is what he said: A tumtum must not perform ḥalitza, as perhaps he will be torn open and found to be a female, who certainly cannot perform ḥalitza, and even if he is found to be a male, perhaps he will be found to be a eunuch by natural causes. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei? Rava said: There is a practical difference between them as to whether the ḥalitza performed by a tumtum disqualifies the brothers in a case where there are other brothers in addition to the tumtum. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a tumtum is regarded as definitely sexually impotent, and therefore his ḥalitza is of no consequence. Therefore, if the tumtum went ahead and performed ḥalitza, he has not disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. According to Rabbi Yosei, however, he is only doubtfully sexually impotent, and therefore he has disqualified the other brothers from performing levirate marriage. And there is also a difference between them as to whether the tumtum must perform ḥalitza where there are no other brothers besides him. According to Rabbi Yehuda he need not do so, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei he must perform ḥalitza owing to his uncertain status. § Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Abba, brother of Rabbi Yehuda bar Zavdi, said that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to receive the punishment of stoning on his account for intercourse at two places, whether one penetrated him anally, in the manner of homosexual intercourse, or through his female organ. The Gemara raises an objection against this from the following teaching. Rabbi Eliezer said: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, he is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if he had relations with a male. In what case is this statement said? It is if he had relations with him through his male organ, i.e., in the manner of homosexual intercourse, but if he engaged in intercourse with him through his female organ, he is exempt. The Gemara answers that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the following baraita: Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account for intercourse at two places. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Simai? Rava said: The Sage bar Hamedurei explained the matter to me, based on an allusion to this halakha found in the Bible. The verse states: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman [mishkevei isha]” (Leviticus 18:22). The phrase mishkevei isha, referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. Now, what male has two manners of lying? You must say that this is referring to a hermaphrodite, and the plural form mishkevei, meaning: Lyings, indicates that there is liability for both manners of intercourse with him. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Simai counter this argument? The Gemara explains: Although he has two manners of lying, it is nevertheless written: “With a male,” indicating that one is liable to be stoned on a hermaphrodite’s account only if he had relations with him in the manner of a male. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who explain this entire verse as referring to a hermaphrodite, from where do they derive that a man is prohibited from engaging in relations with an ordinary male? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the words “a woman.” The Gemara asks further: And from where do the Rabbis derive that one is liable to be punished for engaging in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him even if he engaged in relations in an unnatural manner, i.e., anal intercourse? The Gemara responds: They derive it from the inclusive “and” in “and…with a woman.” § Rav Shezvi said that Rav Ḥisda said: Not in all regards did Rabbi Eliezer say that a hermaphrodite is a proper male. As, if you say so, that a hermaphrodite is a proper male in every aspect, then with regard to consecrated animals an animal that is a hermaphrodite should become sacred if one consecrated it. And from where do we derive that it does not become sacred? As the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a bird used for sexual relations with a human being, and one set aside for idolatrous purposes, and one that itself was worshipped as an idol, and one given as payment to a prostitute (see Deuteronomy 23:19), and one that was the price of a dog received in exchange for the sale of a dog (see Deuteronomy 23:19), and similarly, a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, if one killed any of these birds by pinching their necks in the manner of an offering rather than by ritual slaughter, the birds render him and the garments he is wearing ritually impure, when the birds are eaten and come into contact with his throat. The reason is that pinching is valid only for sacrificial birds; any other bird that is killed by pinching is deemed an unslaughtered carcass. Since none of these birds are fit to be sacrificed, pinching their necks renders them unslaughtered carcasses, and the unslaughtered carcass of a clean bird imparts ritual impurity when it is eaten and reaches the individual’s throat. Rabbi Eliezer says: If one pinched the neck of a bird that is a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, it does not render him and the garments he is wearing ritually impure when it is eaten and comes into contact with his throat, as the sanctity of an offering does in fact apply to it. As Rabbi Eliezer would say: Wherever it is explicitly stated in the Torah “male” and “female,” you are to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as their gender status is in doubt. This is true of animal offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses the terms male and female. In the case of a bird-offering, however, since male and female are not stated with regard to it, but instead the Torah simply mentions turtledoves and young pigeons, you are not to remove a tumtum and a hermaphrodite from among them, as they are fit for the altar. It is evident then that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a hermaphrodite is not considered a proper male with respect to offerings. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too learned this explicitly in a baraita that states: Rabbi Eliezer says:

(2) And who is deemed a man with crushed testicles? It is anyone whose testicles have been wounded, even one of them. And one whose penis has been severed is anyone whose sexual member has been cut off. As for the measure that renders him unfit, if there remains a portion of the corona, even as much as a hairsbreadth, he is still fit. However, if nothing at all is left of the corona, he is considered as one with a severed penis, for whom it is prohibited by Torah law to marry a Jewish woman. A man with crushed testicles or with other wounds to his genitals and one whose penis has been severed are permitted to marry a female convert or an emancipated maidservant, and they are prohibited only from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, as it is stated: “A man wounded with crushed testicles or a severed penis shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2).

(4) Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard two rulings from my teachers. One ruling is that a eunuch performs ḥalitza with his yevama, and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife, and the other ruling is that a eunuch does not perform ḥalitza with his yevama, and his brothers do not perform ḥalitza with his wife. And I cannot explain these two rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain. A eunuch caused by man, i.e., one who became emasculated after birth, performs ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife, because he had an hour of fitness, a time when he was fertile. On the other hand, a eunuch by natural causes, i.e., who was entirely lacking in sexual capacity from birth, does not perform ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform ḥalitza with his wife, because he did not have an hour of fitness, as he never had the potential to father children. Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, the opposite is the case: A eunuch by natural causes performs ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers perform ḥalitza with his wife because he can be cured, whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform ḥalitza with his yevama and his brothers do not perform ḥalitza with his wife because he cannot be cured. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers nevertheless entered into levirate marriage with his wife, in order to fulfill and confirm the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

We too will say: Ailonit, a sexually underdeveloped woman, is a term meaning: Like a ram [dukhranit], because like a male sheep [ayyil] she does not bear children.

(6) Do you thus requite יהוה, O dull and witless people? Is not this the Father who created you— Fashioned you and made you endure!

(13) [God] set them atop the highlands, To feast on the yield of the earth; Nursing them with honey from the crag, And oil from the flinty rock,

(18) You neglected the Rock who begot you, Forgot the God who labored to bring you forth.

(14) “I have kept silent far too long, Kept still and restrained Myself; Now I will scream like a woman in labor, I will pant and I will gasp.

(18) A mind that hatches evil plots, Feet quick to run to evil, (19) A false witness testifying lies, And one who incites brothers to quarrel. (20) My son, keep your father’s commandment; Do not forsake your mother’s teaching.

(22) “The LORD created me at the beginning of His course As the first of His works of old. (23) In the distant past I was fashioned, At the beginning, at the origin of earth. (24) There was still no deep when I was brought forth, No springs rich in water; (25) Before [the foundations of] the mountains were sunk, Before the hills I was born. (26) He had not yet made earth and fields, Or the world’s first clumps of clay. (27) I was there when He set the heavens into place; When He fixed the horizon upon the deep; (28) When He made the heavens above firm, And the fountains of the deep gushed forth; (29) When He assigned the sea its limits, So that its waters never transgress His command; When He fixed the foundations of the earth, (30) I was with Him as a confidant, A source of delight every day, Rejoicing before Him at all times,

This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was Adam the first man’s best man, attending to all his wedding needs and bringing his wife to him. From here we learn that a greater individual should serve as a best man for a lesser individual and should not feel bad about it as something beneath his dignity. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Eve was a face or side of Adam, which one of them walked in front? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to say that the male walked in front, as this is proper behavior, as it was taught in a baraita: A man should not walk behind a woman on a path, even if she is his wife. If she happens upon him on a bridge, he should walk quickly in order to catch up to her and consequently move her to his side, so that she will not walk before him. And anyone who walks behind a woman in a river, where she has to lift up her skirt in order to cross, has no share in the World-to-Come.

(18) And in that day —declares the LORD— You will call [Me] Ishi, And no more will you call Me Baali.

(5) For He who made you will espouse you— His name is “LORD of Hosts.” The Holy One of Israel will redeem you— He is called “God of all the Earth.”

(9) Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Chama bar Chanina: Three creations created The Holy One, blessed be He, on each day: on the first, heaven, earth, and light; on the second, the firmament, Gehenna, and the angels; on the third, trees, herbs, and the Garden of Eden; on the fourth, the sun, the moon, and the constellations; on the fifth, birds, fish, and the Leviathan; on the sixth, Adam, Eve, and moving creatures. Rabbi Pinchas said: On the sixth He created six things: Adam, Eve, moving creatures, cattle, wild beasts, and demons. Rabbi Benayah said: "That God created and did/made" is not written here, but "that God created to do/make": All that the Holy One, blessed be He, would have created on the seventh, He did earlier and created it on the sixth.

Rabbi Ḥanina would wrap himself in his garment and stand at nightfall on Shabbat eve, and say: Come and we will go out to greet Shabbat the queen. Rabbi Yannai put on his garment on Shabbat eve and said: Enter, O bride. Enter, O bride.

(1) יהוה said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.

(11) Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; Sarah had stopped having her periods.

(14) let the maiden to whom I say, ‘Please, lower your jar that I may drink,’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will also water your camels’—let her be the one whom You have decreed for Your servant Isaac. Thereby shall I know that You have dealt graciously with my master.”

(16) The maiden was very beautiful—[and] a virgin, no man having known her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up.

(28) The maiden ran and told all this to her mother’s household.

(55) But her brother and her mother said, “Let the maiden remain with us some ten days; then you may go.”

(57) And they said, “Let us call the girl and ask for her reply.”

(11) Jacob answered his mother Rebekah, “But my brother Esau is a hairy man and I am smooth-skinned.

(25) The first one emerged red, like a hairy mantle all over; so they named him Esau. (26) Then his brother emerged, holding on to the heel of Esau; so they named him Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when they were born.

(33) Isaac was seized with very violent trembling. “Who was it then,” he demanded, “that hunted game and brought it to me? Moreover, I ate of it before you came, and I blessed him; now he must remain blessed!” (34) When Esau heard his father’s words, he burst into wild and bitter sobbing, and said to his father, “Bless me too, Father!”

(18) She was wearing an ornamented tunic, for maiden princesses were customarily dressed in such garments.—His attendant took her outside and barred the door after her.

(6) He left all that he had in Joseph’s hands and, with him there, he paid attention to nothing save the food that he ate. Now Joseph was well built and handsome.

With regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s physical features, the Gemara adds that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I alone remain of the beautiful people of Jerusalem. The Gemara continues: One who wishes to see something resembling the beauty of Rabbi Yoḥanan should bring a new, shiny silver goblet from the smithy and fill it with red pomegranate seeds [partzidaya] and place a diadem of red roses upon the lip of the goblet, and position it between the sunlight and shade. That luster is a semblance of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s beauty. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was Rabbi Yoḥanan so beautiful? But doesn’t the Master say: The beauty of Rav Kahana is a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu; the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu is a semblance of the beauty of Jacob, our forefather; and the beauty of Jacob, our forefather, is a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first man, who was created in the image of God. And yet Rabbi Yoḥanan is not included in this list. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan is different from these other men, as he did not have a beauty of countenance, i.e., he did not have a beard. The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yoḥanan’s beauty. Rabbi Yoḥanan would go and sit by the entrance to the ritual bath. He said to himself: When Jewish women come up from their immersion for the sake of a mitzva, after their menstruation, they should encounter me first, so that they have beautiful children like me, and sons learned in Torah like me. This is based on the idea that the image upon which a woman meditates during intercourse affects the child she conceives. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Isn’t the Master worried about being harmed by the evil eye by displaying yourself in this manner? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: I come from the offspring of Joseph, over whom the evil eye does not have dominion, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22); and Rabbi Abbahu says: Do not read the verse as saying: “By a fountain [alei ayin]”; rather, read it as: Those who rise above the evil eye [olei ayin]. Joseph’s descendants are not susceptible to the influence of the evil eye. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that this idea is derived from here: “And let them grow [veyidgu] into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). Just as with regard to fish [dagim] in the sea, the water covers them and the evil eye therefore has no dominion over them, as they are not seen, so too, with regard to the offspring of Joseph, the evil eye has no dominion over them. The Gemara relates: One day, Rabbi Yoḥanan was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study. Reish Lakish said to him: Your beauty is fit for women. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If you return to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am. Reish Lakish accepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish wanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return, as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself.

(5) Then Abraham said to his servants, “You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you.” (6) Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. He himself took the firestone and the knife; and the two walked off together.

(9) They arrived at the place of which God had told him. Abraham built an altar there; he laid out the wood; he bound his son Isaac; he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.

So Isaac stayed in Gerar.

When the local leaders asked him about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” for he was afraid to say “my wife,” thinking, “The local leaders might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful.”

When some time had passed, Abimelech king of the Philistines, looking out of the window, saw Isaac fondling his wife Rebekah.

Abimelech sent for Isaac and said, “So she is your wife! Why then did you say: ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac said to him, “Because I thought I might lose my life on account of her.”

Isaac dug anew the wells which had been dug in the days of his father Abraham and which the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham’s death; and he gave them the same names that his father had given them.

Isaac then brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he took Rebekah as his wife. Isaac loved her, and thus found comfort after his mother’s death.

It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male. It is taught on this matter in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When I went to learn Torah from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, his students joined together against me like the roosters of Beit Bukya, highly aggressive animals that do not allow other creatures to remain among them, and they did not let me learn there. Therefore, I managed to learn only one thing in our mishna, which is that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male.

(1) When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; (2) male and female He created them. And when they were created, He blessed them and called them Adam.— (3) And Adam lived

male and female were they created. And when they were created, [God] blessed them and called them Humankind. —

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה THE APPAREL OF A MAN SHALL NOT BE ON A WOMAN — so that she look like a man, in order to consort with men, for this can only be for the purpose of adultery (unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1; Nazir 59a).

ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה NEITHER SHALL A MAN PUT ON A WOMAN’S GARMENT in order to go and stay unnoticed amongst women. Another explanation of the second part of the text is: it implies that a man should not remove the hair of the genitals and the hair beneath the arm-pit (Nazir 59a).

כי תועבת FOR [ALL THAT DO SO ARE] AN ABOMINATION [UNTO THE LORD THY GOD] — This implies that the Torah forbids only the wearing of a garb that leads to abomination (unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1).

Is a prayer in that case ineffective? Rav Yosef raises an objection based on a baraita: It is stated: “And afterwards she bore a daughter, and called her name Dina” (Genesis 30:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by the addition of the word: Afterwards? What does the verse seek to convey by emphasizing that after the birth of Zebulun she gave birth to Dina? Rav said: After Leah passed judgment on herself and said: Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Jacob, six came from me and four from the maidservants, that is ten, and if this fetus is male, my sister Rachel will not even be the equivalent of one the maidservants; immediately the fetus was transformed into a daughter, as it is stated: And she called her name Dina; meaning she named her after her judgment [din]. The Gemara rejects this: One does not mention miraculous acts to teach general halakha.

Rabbi Simeon was journeying to Tiberias, and there were with him, Rabbi Jose, Rabbi Jehuda, and Rabbi Hiya. While on the way, they saw Rabbi Pinchus coming to meet them. After exchanging greetings, they all sat down under a great shady tree by a hillside. Then Rabbi Pinchus said: "now that we are seated, please instruct me further in the Secret Doctrine, that you are teaching daily."

Then Rabbi Simeon said: "It is written, 'and he went on his journeys from the south to Bethel unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai' (Gen. 13:3). It says, 'He went on his journeys' instead of 'his journey.' Why is that? There is a reference not only to his own journeying, but also that of the Schekina, who always went with Jacob, and therefore we learn that every person needs to be male and female at all time, for the sake of his faith, he ought not to think or imagine that the Schekina forsakes

It is permitted to get married on Purim. Rama: This refers to both the fourteenth and the fifteenth of the month, and one can certainly perform Pidyon Haben too. As to the custom of wearing 'faces' on Purim, and men who wear women's dresses and women wearing men's attire - this is not forbidden, for they have no intention other than pure pleasure. So too the practice of wearing kilayim, rabinically forbidden mixtures of clothes. And although some say it is forbidden, we follow the first opinion. So too, the custom of stealing from each other in a happy way - this does not fall under the prohibition of 'Do not steal', and this is what is done, as long as one does not transgress what is considered acceptable by the elders of the town.

(3) When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth. (4) After the birth of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and begot sons and daughters.

(27) When the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the outdoors; but Jacob was a mild man who stayed in camp. (29) Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the open, famished.

(17) Rachel was shapely and beautiful.

(6) Now Joseph was well built and handsome.

With regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s physical features, the Gemara adds that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I alone remain of the beautiful people of Jerusalem. The Gemara continues: One who wishes to see something resembling the beauty of Rabbi Yoḥanan should bring a new, shiny silver goblet from the smithy and fill it with red pomegranate seeds [partzidaya] and place a diadem of red roses upon the lip of the goblet, and position it between the sunlight and shade. That luster is a semblance of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s beauty. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was Rabbi Yoḥanan so beautiful? But doesn’t the Master say: The beauty of Rav Kahana is a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu; the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu is a semblance of the beauty of Jacob, our forefather; and the beauty of Jacob, our forefather, is a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first man, who was created in the image of God. And yet Rabbi Yoḥanan is not included in this list. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan is different from these other men, as he did not have a beauty of countenance, i.e., he did not have a beard. The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yoḥanan’s beauty. Rabbi Yoḥanan would go and sit by the entrance to the ritual bath. He said to himself: When Jewish women come up from their immersion for the sake of a mitzva, after their menstruation, they should encounter me first, so that they have beautiful children like me, and sons learned in Torah like me. This is based on the idea that the image upon which a woman meditates during intercourse affects the child she conceives.

One who removes the hair of the armpit or pubic area, even with scissors in a similar manner to a razor (i.e. close to the skin) receives lashes of rebellion. About what were these words said? In a place where only women remove it, so that he should not improve himself as women do. In a place where men, too, do so, however, if he does so they do not beat him. (Rama: Even initially this is permitted (Ran in Avodah Zarah). Only exceptionally scrupulous people refrain in all places (ibid and in Beis Yosef in the name of the Nimukei Yosef). See above Siman 156.) It is permitted to remove the hair of other limbs with scissors in any place.

A woman may not clothe herself in men's clothing, e.g. put on her head a mitre or helment, or wear armor, and so on (Rama: from that which men wear in accordance with the local custom (Tur)) or shave her head like a man. A man may not clothe himself in the clothes of a women, e.g. wear colored clothing or golden ornaments in a place where only women wear those things. (Rama: Even wearing just one of the garments is forbidden, even if it is apparent by his other garments that this is a man or a woman (Beis Yosef).) A tumtum and an androgynos are forbidden to dress like women.

Alternatively, this duplication in the language of creation can be explained in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar, as Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, created two faces [du partzufin] on Adam the first man; he was created both male and female in a single body, as it is stated: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before” (Psalms 139:5); tzartani is derived from the word tzura [face]. God formed two faces on a single creation, back and front.

It is stated: “And the tzela which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22).

Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means face. Eve was originally one face or side of Adam. And one said: It means tail, which he explains to mean that the tzela was an appendage, i.e., one of the ribs in Adam’s chest.

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the one who said that tzela means face; that is why it is written: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before.” However, according to the one who said that tzela means tail, what is meant by the verse: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before”? The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Behind means Adam was created at the end of the act of creation; and before means that he was first for punishment.

The Gemara asks: Granted, Adam was behind, or last, in the act of creation, meaning that he was not created until the sixth day, Shabbat eve; however, before, or first, for punishment, to what punishment does this refer? If you say that he was first for punishment in the wake of the episode with the snake, wasn’t it taught in a baraita that, with regard to punishment, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In conferring honor, one begins with the greatest; in cursing, one begins with the least significant.

The Gemara explains: In conferring honor, one begins with the greatest, as it is written: “And Moses said unto Aaron, and Elazar and Itamar, his remaining sons: Take the meal-offering that remains” (Leviticus 10:12). Aaron, who was the greatest among those involved, is mentioned first. And in cursing, one begins with the least significant, as first the snake was cursed, then Eve was cursed, and ultimately Adam himself was cursed. The punishment did not begin with Adam.

Returning to interpretation of vayyitzer, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a face or side of Adam; that is why it is written vayyitzer, with a double yod, which allude to the two formations. However, according to the one who said that she was a tail, or appendage, of Adam, what is conveyed by spelling vayyitzer with a double yod?

Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, that is why it is written: “Male and female, He created them” (Genesis 5:2). However, according to the one who said that Eve was a tail, what is the meaning of the verse: “Male and female, He created them”? The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between the verses: On the one hand it is written: “Male and female, He created them,” and on the other hand it is written: “For in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6), indicating that man was created alone. How, then, does he resolve the contradiction? At first, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, and ultimately, only one was actually created.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, that is why it is written: “And He took one of his sides and closed up the place with flesh in its place” (Genesis 2:21), as it was necessary to close the side that was open. However, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a tail, what is meant by the verse: “And closed up the place with flesh in its place”? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say Rav Zevid said, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was necessary to say that only with regard to the place of the incision.

The Gemara challenges the other opinion: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a tail, that is why it is written: “And the Lord God built the tzela” (Genesis 2:22); it was a completely new building. However, according to the one who said that Eve was a complete face or side, what is the meaning of: “And He built”? What needed to be built?

Alternatively, the verse: And He built, could be understood as a description of her basic shape, as Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it is taught in a baraita: This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, built Eve like the structure of a storehouse. Just as a storehouse is built narrow on top and wide on the bottom, in order to hold produce without collapsing; so too a woman is created narrow on top and wide on the bottom, in order to hold the fetus.

A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], who is incapable of bearing children, unless he already has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the zona about whom it is stated in the Torah that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. And the Rabbis say: The only women in the category of zona, who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are a female convert, a freed maidservant, and any woman who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse with a man she is prohibited from marrying.

of creation can be explained in accordance with the state