This article was first published in Adventist Today
Sex, Gender, Sexuality, and Being
The case of Herculine Adélaïde Barbin, later known as Alexina or Abel Barbin, captures the timeless societal challenge of accepting those who do not fit the Judeo-Christian gender binary worldview. Alexina was assigned “female” at birth, then, by judicial order, reassigned “male” 30 years later after an affair with a woman. Having to readjust to living as a man in early 19th-century France, Alexina struggled to adapt and consequently committed suicide.
Society, be it Christian or otherwise, has long held that human beings are either male or female. Genesis 5:2 is often used in religious circles to reinforce the strictly male or female binary ideology. Anything outside this worldview is portrayed as the result of perverted choices and an active rebellion against God—a metaphoric spiritual insurgency.
But is that the case? Is the entire LGBTQ+ community misguided? Studies in the commentaries of the rabbis through the centuries would suggest that they took the complexities of that territory between male and female much more seriously than Christians do today when they adopt a strictly bigender model.
We are all well aware of the Christian worldview on gender and sexuality. Recent Christian positions on LGBTQ+ individuals refuse to acknowledge sexual complexity. These uncompromising ideas within Christianity are claimed, erroneously, to be rooted in Judaism of old and the scriptures.
Thus, it is essential to review some Jewish theological and legal traditions to see if their society had individuals who did not fit the gender binary construct that we rely upon. How did the Jewish religious establishment negotiate the biblical text with the realities of life vis-à-vis the existence of non-binary gender individuals? And ultimately, how can this information aid our religious conversations concerning LGBTQ+ individuals?
Kinds of androgyny
There are about 149 references in the Mishna and Talmud, and another 350 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes concerning the androgynous individual, sometimes taken to mean hermaphroditic.
The rabbis phenotypically (using observable characteristics) described the androgynous person as one who “in some ways is 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” (Mishna Bikkurim 4:1-5). This passage concludes the conversation with Rabbi Yose insisting that “the hermaphrodite is a unique creature, and the sages could not decide about him/her” (Mishna Bikkurim 4:5). In another text, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman would argue that “When God… created the first man, he created him as an androgynous being ” (Vayikra Rabbah 14:1).
In the Jewish society of old, one’s phenotypic gender dictated everyday life and religious practice. But, the rabbis recognized the limitations of the biblical male-female binary construct. These texts, alongside several others, highlight the rabbinic effort to harmonize the biblical ideal with the reality of life.
The aylonit and the saris
The rabbinic description of aylonit is described in rabbinic discourse as a woman who did not produce at least two pubic hairs, experienced difficulties in sex, had no breasts, thin hair, abnormal genitalia, deep voice, male-like characteristics, etc. This diagnostic is similar to what is identified in Turner’s syndrome, though that’s speculative—there were probably many unconventional and yet naturally occurring sexual states of being that could fall under this categorization. In Yevamot 64b:2, Rabba bar Avuh thought that Sarah was an aylonit, thus her inability to bear children. Surprisingly, there are several cases of women labeled as aylonit who went on to have children and not experience “sexual difficulties” in subsequent marriages.
Rabbinic literature also discusses the “aylonit hamah,” i.e., one who is phenotypically identified as female at birth but later naturally develops male characteristics. And the aylonit hamah’s opposite, the “saris hamah,” i.e., one who is phenotypically identified as male at birth but later naturally develops female characteristics.
The presence of the aylonit and the saris were a conundrum for Jewish legal scholars. Could priests marry an aylonit, since priests, as male exemplars, had the religious obligation to procreate? Are they (saris and aylonit) eligible for levirate marriage? Do the laws concerning rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) cover them?
There are about 80 references in Mishna and Talmud concerning the aylonit, 40 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes, and a combined 535 if you include the saris. These texts represent the rabbinic effort to harmonize the biblical standard with the reality of life.
The tumtum
A similar concept is tumtum. It is challenging to determine the characteristics of the tumtum within rabbinic literature, even though there are 181 references in Mishna and Talmud, and another 335 in classical midrash and Jewish law codes.
One defining aspect of the tumtum was this was a person whose sexual features were somewhat indeterminate or obscured. Mishnah Bikkurim 4:5 ambiguously refers to the tumtum as “one who is sometimes male and sometimes female.” Rabbi Ami seems to agree with this idea in Yevamot 64a:9-64b:1. He goes so far as to argue that Abraham and Sarah were both originally “tumtumin.”
In some cases, it appears that the tumtum was an individual whose genitalia were covered by a layer of skin, but not much is said concerning other physical distinguishers. In another text, the tumtum was not allowed to dress as women do, leaving the assumption that they were phenotypically male.
Judging by the numerous and sometimes contradicting views concerning what a tumtum can and cannot do, it is hard to sketch out, with a reasonable amount of confidence, the identity of the tumtum. But, the prevalence of tumtum as another expression of sexual ambiguity within Jewish society led to lengthy religious and legal conversations.
Gender binary worldview
We see from the Jewish religious and legal material that the Judeo-Christian worldview concerning gender and sexual complexity has neglected the Jewish scholars’ discussions. Nor was this a uniquely Jewish discussion. The complexity of sexual identity was a phenomenon that the ancients grappled with; it was their lived reality as much as it is ours.
It seems to me that we diminish the possible interpretations of Genesis 5:2 by opting for an interpretive system that favors a binary gender worldview. It could be that the text, as per the theme in the creation narrative, is discussing these created beings by identifying two ends of a continuum, as it does with day and night, land and sky.
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t in-between states of any of these polarities—including, as we know from medical history and observation, indeterminate states between male and female.
Sodom and Gomorrah?
How about the famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), our go-to story for condemning non-binary sexual expressions? Many scholars believe that to simply conclude that it was a story of homosexuality is far too simplistic an understanding of this event. So what was the sin of Sodom? Inhospitality, excess luxury, violence, rape, homosexuality, taboo mixing, etc.?
Ancient Hebrew cultural structure was concerned with the mixing of different kinds (kilayim). They believed that God-given categories ought to be kept separate. Hence, the prohibitions against women wearing men’s clothes (Deuteronomy 22:5), mixing of linen and wool, cross breeding (Leviticus 19:19), and various laws about the separation of genders.
Note also that biblical stories are written from an androcentric perspective: women and children are often left unmentioned, unless necessary for the narrative. Thus, some have argued that the crowd that came out that fateful night likely included women, since the Hebrew ‘iysh, often translated as “men,” could also be translated as “everyone [women included],” as illustrated in Genesis 10:5 and 45:1.
Last of all, biblical references and allusions to Sodom predominantly discuss violence and not sexual immorality as their sin (see Isaiah 1:10-17). The only exception is Jude 1:7, for which translators will quickly point out the difficulties of translating this Greek hapax legomenon (a word that is unique in a text and therefore has limited context) as “sexual immorality.”
How does your assessment of the story of Sodom evolve as you wrestle with the above points? What of the people who were identified as aylonit, tumtum, saris hamah, aylonit hamah, or some other form of sexual in-betweenness: can they be indicted by the events in Genesis 19?
Elusive answers
I will be the first to admit that answers to the questions I’m raising here are elusive. They certainly were troubling to the ancient rabbis, who spent much more time wrestling with them than some simplistic conservative Christian theologies have done. I join the rabbis in arguing that we cannot ignore the complexity of the human sexual experience by loosely labeling everything we don’t like or understand as “sin,” or by hermeneutically reading our modern day cultural expectations, discomforts, and ideas into the biblical text.
Given the wrestling that the rabbis did with these questions, neither can we continue insisting that all LGBTQ+ individuals are the outcomes of perverted choices and modern societal vice.
As did the Jews of old, there is a complexity here that we need to wrestle with. It is incumbent upon us to enter this conversation equipped with vast reservoirs of love, humility, empathy, and understanding. By this, Jesus argued, the world will know that you are my disciples (John 13:34-35). Therefore, we cannot afford to continue overlooking those we choose not to see.
Continue the conversation here
We would love to hear your feedback.
Until next time
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash