Authentic Judaism
Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 (cf. Genesis Rabbah 8:1)
讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讛讛”讚 (转讛诇讬诐 拽诇讟) 讗讞讜专 讜拽讚诐 爪专转谞
讗诪专 专’ 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谉 讘砖注讛 砖讘专讗 讛拽讘”讛 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘专讗讜 讗诪专 专”诇 讘砖注讛 砖谞讘专讗 讚讜 驻专爪讜驻讬谉 谞讘专讗 讜谞住专讜 讜谞注砖讛 砖谞讬诐 讙讘讬诐 讙讘 诇讝讻专 讙讘 诇谞拽讘讛 讗讬转讬讘讬谉 诇讬讛 (讘专讗砖讬转 讘) 讜讬拽讞 讗讞转 诪爪诇注讜转讬讜 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诪住讟专讜讛讬 讻讚讻转讬讘 (砖诪讜转 讻讜) 讜诇爪诇注 讛诪砖讻谉
When a woman at childbirth [bears a male . . . ] (Lev. 12:2). There is an allusion to this: You have formed (lit. ‘hemmed’) me before and behind . . . (Ps. 139:5)
Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman said: When the Blessed Holy One created the first human, He made him a hermaphrodite (androginos).
Rabbi Levi said: When it was created, it was fashioned with two body-fronts, and He sawed it in two, so two backs were made鈥攁 back for the male and a back for the female. An objection was raised [to this statement from the verse]: And He took one of his ribs . . . [And the Lord God fashioned the rib . . . into a woman . . . ] (Gen.2: 21-22). Rabbi Levi answered: [The word you translate ‘of his ribs’ should be rendered] “of his sides,” as it is written, and for the other side of the Tabernacle . . . (Exod. 26:20)
Many modern Jews have declared the opening verses of this week’s Torah portion not just arcane, but misogynist. Indeed, the laws regarding postpartum impurity emerge from a priestly world of sacrifices and distinctions that seems distant today. Our ancient Sages, however, radically reinterpreted that passage and the creation of humanity in Genesis with playful translations that provide an opening for insights into the origins of gender. The result is a rabbinic tradition that actually affirms that our egalitarian worldview emerges organically from Jewish antiquity.
The midrash above, like its parallel source in Genesis Rabbah, opens with a subtle rereading of Psalm 139:5, which affords the Sages a textual basis for identifying the first human as a person with both male and female genitalia. This idea, the Greek roots of which are seen in the term androginos above, develops in this text from rabbinic wordplay that deliberately misreads “bears a male” (yaldah zakhar) as “girl-boy.” Rabbi Levi’s comparison of the tz-l-a’ root as it appears in Genesis 2 and Exodus 26, then, represents a serious attempt to understand how the male-and-female human of Genesis 1 becomes two beings in the next chapter.
Studying this midrash today allows us the opportunity to challenge from within rabbinic literature those who criticize Conservative Judaism for trying to be both traditional and progressive regarding gender roles. To our right, some accuse us of merely reading our liberal social views into the Torah, as though no previous Jewish civilization had considered men and women created as equals. To our left, others who dismiss Judaism as a monolithically patriarchal religion remain ignorant of texts like this midrash, which offer a counter-history. Most importantly, though, this midrash ought to bolster the sense of our legitimacy in practicing a Judaism that represents an authentic expression of our rabbinic heritage from its evolution over two millennia.
