“[The Rabbis] show us, and texts from antiquity across the board show us, that any silly political insistence that there are only two sexes and there always have been, is just straight up nonsense. They attest to more than two genders. And yet, we repeat it so often that they inherit a binary system from the Bible and then scholars writing about gender have projected our assumptions about their binaries on the text.” - Gwynn Kessler
“[The Rabbis] show us, and texts from antiquity across the board show us, that any silly political insistence that there are only two sexes and there always have been, is just straight up nonsense. They attest to more than two genders. And yet, we repeat it so often that they inherit a binary system from the Bible and then scholars writing about gender have projected our assumptions about their binaries on the text.” - Gwynn Kessler
Welcome to The Oral Talmud, our weekly deep dive chevruta study partnership, discovering how voices of the Talmud from 1500 years ago can help us rethink Judaism today.
The Torah says one thing. Life keeps saying something more complicated. This conversation turns one of Judaism's oldest texts into a living laboratory, asking whether every generation has the responsibility to expand inherited tradition when it no longer reflects the world as we know it. The result is a conversation that challenges not only how we read the Talmud, but why we read it at all.
We have a guest today – Gwynn Kessler, a professor of religion at Swarthmore College. Together with her, we explore gender, power, interpretation, and the surprising ways ancient rabbis wrestled with a changing world. Along the way, we ask a bigger question that reaches far beyond Judaism: Is faithfulness about preserving the past exactly as we received it—or having the courage to tell a truer story today?
Gwynn Kessler’s research focuses on rabbinic interpretation of Scripture—or midrash—and more specifically on rabbinic theology and rabbinic constructions of gender and identity. Her book Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives explores rabbinic traditions regarding the fetus for the purpose of examining rabbinic constructions of gender, ethnicity, and theology.
Find an edited transcript and full show notes (references and further reading) on The Oral Talmud webpage for this episode! Access the Sefaria Source Sheet to explore key Talmud texts and find the original video of our discussion. The Oral Talmud is a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. If you’re enjoying this podcast, please help us keep both fabulous Jewish organizations going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation at oraltalmud.com. You can find a donate button on the top right corner of the website.
DAN LIBENSON: This is The Oral Talmud - Episode 62: The Rabbis and Gender
Welcome to the Oral Talmud, a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. I’m Dan Libenson…
BENAY LAPPE: …and I’m Benay Lappe.
DAN LIBENSON: The Oral Talmud is our weekly deep dive study partnership, in which we try to figure out how voices from the Talmud – voices from 1500 to 2000 years ago – can help us think in new ways about Judaism today.
The Torah says one thing. Life keeps saying something more complicated. This conversation turns one of Judaism's oldest texts into a living laboratory, asking whether every generation has the responsibility to expand inherited tradition when it no longer reflects the world as we know it. The result is a conversation that challenges not only how we read the Talmud, but why we read it at all.
We have a guest today – Gwynn Kessler, a professor of religion at Swarthmore College. Together with her, we explore gender, power, interpretation, and the surprising ways ancient rabbis wrestled with a changing world. Along the way, we ask a bigger question that reaches far beyond Judaism: Is faithfulness about preserving the past exactly as we received it—or having the courage to tell a truer story today?
Gwynn Kessler’s research focuses on rabbinic interpretation of Scripture—or midrash—and more specifically on rabbinic theology and rabbinic constructions of gender and identity. Her book Conceiving Israel: The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives explores rabbinic traditions regarding the fetus for the purpose of examining rabbinic constructions of gender, ethnicity, and theology.
Every episode of The Oral Talmud has a number of resources to support your learning and to share with your own study partners! If you’re using a podcast app to listen, you’ll find these links in our show notes: First, to a Source Sheet on Sefaria, where you can find pretty much any Jewish text in the original and in translation – there we excerpt the core Talmud texts we discuss and share a link to the original video of our learning.
In the show notes of your podcast app, you’ll also find a link to this episode on The Oral Talmud’s website, where we post an edited transcript, and where you can make a donation to keep the show going, if you feel so moved. On both the Sefaria Source Sheet and The Oral Talmud website.
And now, The Oral Talmud…
DAN LIBENSON: Welcome back, everyone to this week's episode of The Oral Talmud. I'm Dan Levison, and I'm joined here, as always by Vinne Lapi. Hey, Vinne. Hey, Dan. So good to see you. It's really good to see you. And we are joined this week by a guest, uh, professor Gwen Kessler. We're really excited to have you here, Gwen.
Uh, Gwen Kessler is Associate Professor of Religion at Swarthmore College, where she is also the Director of the Bait Mero. I'm gonna have a question about that in a minute, but, uh, she, so, so as we always say, we'll give a more full introduction when we do the podcast version of this. And, uh, and nobody's watching me as I try to read somebody's bio.
But, uh, for the purposes of today's conversation, I, I actually, um. There was a, a, a person who recently asked us which episode of the oral Talmud would be really good to put on a pride playlist that really has to do with, you know, queer stuff. And I said, well, it's all about queer stuff. You know, the whole idea is that it's taking a queer lens to the Talmud, but they said, but yeah, but like, which shows are really talking about specific queer content, you know?
And, and, well, I don't know, uh, to which extent they are, but this one will be. And, uh, and so from that perspective, I just wanted to say about when Kessler's work that she, her research focuses on the rabbinic interpretation of scripture or mid rush, and more specifically on rabbinic theology and rabbinic constructions of gender and identity.
So that's a lot of what we're gonna be talking about today. And before we get into the subject of gender identity and the rabbis, I wanted to just ask you, what does it mean for a, a secular American college to have a bait Meade?
GWYNN KESSLER: Well, we're figuring that out. Um, it's actually the Swarthmore Bate Mad Rush has been here for a while.
It was started by some colleagues of mine and, uh, I've recently, uh, taken it over to, um, kind of expand its, uh, role on campus. And for me, what it means is a place where, um, critical academic, um, study, um, of rabbinic and Jewish texts and media, um, take place. And we are starting to kind of host events, so, you know, try to raise the profile of a lot of interesting things that are happening, um, in the Jewish world today.
Um, so, and I'm excited to try and, uh, uh, I'm gonna start a, a class that I'm calling the Talmud Lab, which is, uh, kind of a more experiential, um, participatory, um, learning environment for, um, Talmud study, uh, than my kind of Talmud seminar.
DAN LIBENSON: So let's jump into the content of today's conversation. Uh, we've read a couple of articles that you've written, and it's on a lot of them have, have been on the topic that a lot of people say casually or, you know, I've heard people talk about casually, well, the rabbis didn't only believe in in male and females, the only genders.
They're actually lots of different genders that, that the rabbis talk about. And, and I think that those genders, if I'm understanding what some of your writing says, it, it falls into two kinds of ways of talking about gender. And I, and I would love it if you could spell those out a little bit more. One is like, well, there's male and female and we know that there's other genders that have to do or don't have to do with genitalia.
And, and the understanding of what gender I identify with and the kind of way that we casually use gender today in America. But then there were some places where you talk about. We could think about gender as even more things like there are categories in the Talmud, like a deaf mute categories that we don't think of in our modern parlance as gender, but you are encouraging us to put them in that category.
So could you just talk a little bit generally about what you mean when you're talking about gender and then how the rabbis did and did not? Look at gender differently from, from how we do and, and from how the Judaism before them did.
GWYNN KESSLER: So I think the easy thing that we can say is that at least nominally and in language, um, the, and I'm a big supporter of queering biblical texts and, uh, complicating kind of a rigid binary frame.
So I, I'm not saying that the, that biblical texts only give us a, um, a, you know, only a binary frame to work with, but that, you know, for the most part, or almost. By which I mean kind of always, um, if they're not speaking about men, they're speaking about men and women and it's really binary. And so the, what the rabbis add is, um, a ex a more expansive category.
Well, people can talk about biblical unex, uh, little bit. But, um, the, what the rabbis add are these categories called ragano. Ragano is how I usually refer to them. Um, and they are non-binary gender categories. Um, and then what I was saying. And so they add them at various places. They're, when they're, uh, in mad sources, they're, they're, if a text says ish, they say, you know, from where do I know Ish.
So they're actually asking questions that we do, right? When any Bible translator comes and says, uh, how do I deal with the andro centrism patriarchy, misogyny of the biblical text, can I just tweak it and make it inclusive? So, you know, the rabbis were asking that they had different answers for in, in many ways.
Um, and so that's one of the things that is clear of a difference between biblical and rabbinic gender. Um, and then the other thing I am arguing, and this maybe picks up with biblical texts and what people do with queering biblical texts. I haven't really thought of this too much, is that, um. In queer theory, we understand gender to be not only based on physical gender or not only mean physical, gender and genitalia, um, but on gender performativity and performance.
So what does someone do and how does that impact how they are gendered or, and how they perform gender? And that, that second area, the, I think, um, um, a bunch of rabbinic texts, you know, query the question of what does maleness include? And it, it kind of distinguishes between degrees of maleness and then, and, and multiplicities of maleness.
So a free Israelite male, able-bodied, um, you know, I guess of childbearing age even, or, um, has a particular status. And you know, a convert has sometimes. A different status, not always right? Nothing is ever always in rabbinic. So I think that on some level, um, converts and of course minors. And then the categories of um, the, um, kind of dis people with disabilities are, um, are gendered through what meets voter are they obligated to do and what are they, um, not obligated to do.
And if we understand gender to be, in some case made through obligation in rabbinic texts, um, it opens up a number of different, you know, categories beyond male and female who are differently obligated in different places.
BENAY LAPPE: So does that mean all of those categories could be considered genders or that that's interesting.
GWYNN KESSLER: I, I think all of those categories in many ways are manifestations of a rabbinic sys or of rabbinic understandings of gender without necessarily being, and, and look, it depends. I think if we wanna say they are male or they're female, then, then always and everywhere then it's complic. It's, the answer is they don't fit.
So let's rethink the paradigm. And so, yes, let's rethink what rabbinic gender is.
BENAY LAPPE: So interesting. First of all, I wanna, full disclosure, you and I are old buddies and I just wanna say, I am so excited to be talking with you about this. Um, me too. Sometimes when I. I go somewhere to teach, people will kind of introduce me as someone who is queering the rabbis.
And that always bothers me. And I always try to nip that in the bud before they say it or they write it somewhere. Um, because I feel like that notion of queering the rabbis or queering the Talmud is doing something to it that comes out of our experience that isn't native to the rabbis of the Talmud.
What I love about your work and what I wanna say is the rabbis are queer. They're already queer, not queer in the sense of their gender expression or sexual orientation, but queer in their willingness to use an outsider lens to challenge problematize, expand contract overturn, what they inherited. And what I love about your work is that.
You say the rabbis are queering scripture, right? So they're already queer and they're doing this to scripture. Can you explain a little bit more about what you mean when you say queering and what are the rabbis doing when they're queering scripture? And also, what is this, what is this realization or, uh, lens that you have on the, on the rabbis have to do with your being queer?
GWYNN KESSLER: Right. You're gonna have to reiterate some of that. Okay. So lemme just take the first thing, which is right when I teach a queer Bible class, or I just taught a class on, um, reading the Talmud with a feminist, queer, anti-racist, 21st century reader, which was me. Um, and so one of the things that we ask or I ask my students to ask, and it's, it's all, it's, it's, um, it's.
It's kind of put in my, there's a tension in my course title. Am I teaching the queer Bible or am I teaching queering the Bible? And so, and I don't, the, I don't have, I think yes, the answer is gonna be yes. 'cause I'm queer, right? So the, it's, I, and I don't object to, so one is that, yes, there are parts of the biblical text that are already queer.
Um, and same thing with Rabbinics. Um, but it's not, but I also mean something specific when I say queer, and that does have to do with kind of disrupting fixed notions of identity. Um, you know, certainly being gender and sexuality, and often now trying to think of, um, class and race, um, as well and ability.
Right. And so, so I, I don't, it's not, they didn't do enough. Mm-hmm. So on some level, there are some passages of the Talmud that are queer. But the whole breadth of it is not queer for me. So, and to be, to be, um, you know, to, as a feminist, uh, secular American Jew, um, I, I don't find their projects, uh, completely queer.
I find there are queer aspects of it and that it's my job or my pleasure to push them further and to, and to help other readers, um, uh, push them further in ways that they would like to go. Okay.
BENAY LAPPE: So let me ask you this. So, you know, you know me, I tend to paint with a broad brush and I, I can be found guilty of maybe trying to, um, raise up the status of the rabbis more broadly.
For me, they're queer and their project is a queer one. Whether or not they turn that. Project to this issue or that issue specifically. And I agree with you, they haven't queered or, um, untangled or solved untangled problems or solved other problems adequately because I think they didn't sufficient those things didn't sufficiently bother them.
But for me, that doesn't sort of imply that their project isn't queer. But, but, but for me,
GWYNN KESSLER: misogyny and classism and racism and xenophobia imply that there are not what, what I would deem models for queer.
BENAY LAPPE: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And those things don't fall for you in the category of, you know, they didn't get there.
And now it's our turn. Or for sure that is what it's, but that means they weren't for you, they weren't kind of queer in a general sense.
GWYNN KESSLER: No, they're active misogyny.
BENAY LAPPE: No,
GWYNN KESSLER: uhhuh. I mean, you know, like, look, I don't wanna be too down on them. I'm, you know, in large part make my living by studying them. And, uh, but I do actually really do feel like there is, uh, a lot of harm they've done.
Um, and so when we seek to repair, um, it, it doesn't help me to paint with a broad brush. Mm-hmm. Um, to, because it erase, it erases for some, not for everybody. Um, the, the real harm that they did and they continued to do to queer and trans and women and you know, like anyone on these margins that you are Right, right.
Like bringing in, I, you know, agree it's not so, it's, but, and, and so. Yeah. Like they're, but they, they don't earn queer for me. Mm-hmm. Um, they might earn radical on some level and sometimes, but also I think just to paint them as these people who come in and Right. Again, it's not for me, it's about they are on the one hand creative and radical, and on the other hand, they are conservative and mindful.
And cautious and so, uh, and those are valued. I'm not saying that those are bad things, and I'm not even saying they're not queer things, but I'm saying the things that they held fast to, um, just because, you know, they, it doesn't, it doesn't exonerate them for me.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. I'm curious if we could talk like, just lay out some of the more general categories that we're talking about and then sort of jump into some of this because, so some of the articles that, that you shared with us and that that we've looked at some of the texts that you've cited, and if I understand them correctly, I mean some of these cases, the Torah, if you just read something in the Torah, you would think that it's talking about men and women and it has a gender binary.
And then in the Talmud we find that because of some, or I shouldn't say because of they in the Talmud, they pick up on some hint. Something in the Torah that they take as a hint that it's talking about not only a gender binary of men and women, but because it might also say soul. And not only man, that when it says soul, it means that it's not only women, but also in these particular categories that they talk about on druggie.
No, which is kind of, uh, somebody with both male and female genitalia and tu, which is some version of hidden genitalia, or we're not sure, uh, we can't see the genitalia. Um, and, and so my question is, is this a case of the rabbis being creative? They're, they're queer, right? Or they're trying to be queering the Torah and they're trying to mess up the Torah's gender binary.
And that's a creative act on their part? Or is it more that they're living in this society, which is a more, uh, sort of open society in which different kinds of gender expression or more seen, or more noticed or more open, or maybe there's a larger population. So there's just more people like that and they can't, they can't, um, pretend like people who are not in the binary don't exist.
And so it's not so much a creative act, it's just an acknowledgement of the reality in which they're living and they're needing to kind of shoehorn this text that might seem like it doesn't really fit the world as it really is. And they don't want that to happen. And so they, they end up finding those categories back in the text where it really didn't exist.
And I'm thinking about just in terms of our own time, like I'm thinking a hundred years from now, if we imagine like a new rabbinic project a hundred years from now, where they will be, um, where, where, you know, all the, all the gender expression that we see now, that's becoming more and more open and there's more and more people that are identifying openly in, in different gender ex categories and gender fluid categories, et cetera.
So that'll just become like, well, of course that's how the world is that, that, you know, that's obvious. And then if you wanna kind of continue to say that even the rabbinic texts are relevant, you're gonna have to look back and find some of those, some of those exemplars in the text, even though maybe they weren't really there in the sense of an original intent.
I mean, so how do you see what's going on in, in terms of that question?
GWYNN KESSLER: Right. Um, so I think one of the things I've come to realize, isn't it, I mean, of course one of the questions is why do the rabbis have non-binary gender categories? The other question really is the question that really bothers me or, you know, is, is I find more intriguing too equally intri intriguing is like, why doesn't the Bible, right?
So anyway, that, that's one way to just engage with that. The other is to say, I don't, so I say that they are querying scripture. In that they add, when they see ish or Isha man or woman, male or female, that oftentimes they, um, isolate those texts and they say, how do I know Tuman and Dragons? Um, and so from, from that mention, and they, they look for any place in scripture to find it.
And the arbitrarily, like the, the ways that they add to Ragano, um, are, are contradictory. Um, so that in and of itself tells me that it's not only about reading the bi, it's not, they're not coming to the biblical text purely hermeneutically to, to figure out like a key to unlocking it. They are coming with the reality of there are people with different genitalia and genders in their midst.
So I don't know if that, so, so, and then what their move to put those people in scripture isn't, I mean, it's not really about the people on some level, it's about scripture, right? Like the, the side effect is, is that, um, non-binary genders are included. Um, you know, I mean, nobody asks them or us if we wanted to be included, right?
But the, the, so the we're there, it's a side effect and the, um, but the purpose is because scripture cannot be wrong, right? That's their purpose. And that's where I say their conservative, like they, you know, they have, they've lost a ton, right? On some level, um, if we, if we read them that way. But they're, they're trying to preserve the, the, um, the sanctity or construct the sanctity of this text.
And so the text has to agree. Here. Does that make sense? I mean, I mean
DAN LIBENSON: that, that's why I'm not as impressed. I don't mean to, I don't mean to minimize it, but maybe like, sort of what you were saying about how queer were the rabbis. Like I don't, I'm a little less impressed if, since it's not, you know, sometimes when people talk about it, they're like, these rabbis, they were so ahead of their time and they Yeah.
You know, gender, the rabbis are always a
GWYNN KESSLER: product. The, sorry, the rabbis are always a product of their time.
DAN LIBENSON: Right, right. And so really we are
GWYNN KESSLER: ahead of our time of course, but they are a product of their time
DAN LIBENSON: really. Right. But I mean, really there's also a historical question underlying this, which was, you know, what did the, what did the Persian Empire, what was their understanding of gender?
GWYNN KESSLER: Right. So, and that is, that is sore. So, right. And let me just to, to be nitpicky. Um, many of the texts that we have about Tutuman and Dragos originated in, you know, Palestine and, and third century texts. Um, and I thi and so the, the, I am, you know, kind of waiting and, and actually at the moment. So I, you know, actively will start looking for people who are writing about non-binary gender in, uh, Persian text.
But even the Babylonian, the text that we use to place the Babylonian Talmud in the Sasanian context, there's about 400 years or 300 years difference. So I'm, I'm a bit of a skeptic of that project. Um, but nevertheless, I, you know, I would like to try to find out, um, more than ju you know, there's been a tiny bit written about Onno and the primal androgen as it's often translated.
Um, but not so much in the kind of legal text that I found. So what I do wanna say is right, the, the anos are born in, as far as we know, in, uh, in, you know, third century, uh, pre Babylonian rabbinic texts. Okay? And so the question is, right, what do Greco-Roman texts, texts say? And, uh, and, and then we, you know, and then, and some of that, and a lot, and a lot of that work has been done in that they do have a category of onno, um, in those texts.
And then, and then the question is, how does the, you know, tu vose line up with onno in these Greek and, and Latin sources? But the, but the, but the Babylonian context is a, it's a, I don't, I don't think it's ne, I don't think it's necessary. I mean, it is, it's not from where the categories originate and we know, right?
Onos is clearly a Greek word.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. Help me understand the, the ultimate import of your work. Tell me if I've got this right and then make it better. Okay. So what you're saying is
we have a long history of reading bigger pictures of reality into earlier texts or earlier versions of the tradition. So the rabbis had a bigger picture, or somehow were more willing to acknowledge a bigger picture of truth with, in this case, with respect to gender. And were invested in retro rejecting, retro rejecting that into the Torah, into a document that didn't reflect that.
And I guess my first question is, why did they want to do that, in your opinion?
GWYNN KESSLER: Right. And I think I said right, that they wanted to do it because the Torah can't be wrong. Okay. Except, except in the case is it, it, it's, but, right. Yeah. So they want a Torah that's more Right. The side effect, the welcome side effect is that, you know, uh, genders of all kinds, you know, let's say, let's look into the future are, um, spiritualized, right.
Which for the rabbis is ized.
BENAY LAPPE: I love that. Okay. Um, and you say something in one of your articles that I just loved, and I'm gonna paraphrase you, you basically say that the, the more nuanced, complex constructions of gender that the rabbis have. If we acknowledge them and see them and surface them, that gives us a better place to start than the biblical notion of what appears to be a, a simple, binary and exhaustive gender to this is a better place to start to make an even fuller, more true description of reality, which we think we, we kind of are onto.
Is that right?
GWYNN KESSLER: Yeah. And more, I think that claim is specific to right. People ask about what are the constructions of gender, of the rabbis? And people will say, well, they're, you know, pri they're, they're binary, right? It's a binary system. It's a hierarchical, fixed, binary system. And in many ways it is, again, like the big picture for me, cannot be right to go back earlier to kind of erase rabbinic, you know.
And patriarchy. Like I, you know, that's not a project I'm interested in doing 'cause I don't think it's possible it's there and we have to acknowledge it. Having said that, um, the, the, what we, what I think that they do show us in text from antiquity across the board show us is that, you know, any silly political insistence that there are all only two sex sexes and there always have been, is just straight up nonsense.
Right. That it's, that they, its test to more than two genders. Um, yeah, that's what I'm saying. So that's the, that's the. I think, you know, the bottom line really important thing and right. And that, and yet we have, we, we repeat it so often that they only, they inherit a binary system from the, the Bible. And then we project right scholars writing about gender have projected our assumptions about their binaries on the text.
Mm-hmm. And there, and so it's not that there aren't texts that only talk about men and women or male and female, but they're relatively less so than we would, um, ca than we would imagine. Because again, 'cause they're not really interested in women, they're interested in men. Right. So, um, so the places where they talk about men and women are, are, are not, and, and compare them are very few, um, explicitly, I mean right implicitly.
It happens a lot. And the, and, and then, and there are a lot of places where they talk about, um, male, female, Tim to v Dragon and, and all of these other categories that we talked about a little bit. So again, it's, we need to under, we need to acknowledge the places where they do that. So we stop assuming, right, that the system that we grew up with is, is accurate for theirs.
And then the big goal, I don't know, I'm right. Like, I wanna say I wanna run behind scholarship and say I don't have a big like, right. Like it scholarship works in the details too. So then, right. My concern as a scholar is to try to finesse what we can understand, um, through comparison of texts and through saying, wait, these aren't DIC texts, these are ton of IIC Madic texts.
And to, you know, and, and to do the, the scholarly work of comparison and chronologically kind of tracing, um, these categories as they develop, you know, from post biblical to post Talmudic sources. Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. I have, I have a follow up to that, and that is I'm asking myself how much do we need? The rabbis to have already opened up a category for us to do so.
And, and I'm thinking back, do you remember back in the day, Gwen, when queer folk were like, we were desperately trying to find ourselves in the tradition and you know, we were so excited about Jonathan and David and Ruth and Naomi and it was like, there I'm right. The donkey stories like ca like number one, those were like the queer stories, number one.
And somehow those stories that we felt were explicit about explicit same gender romantic relationships somehow were what we could stand on to say we were legitimate and. And then I went to RAB school and and learned Talmud and then realized that for me, the much more powerful stories had nothing to do with explicit queerness or explicit gender.
They had to do with the rabbi's willingness to overturn Torah. And once I saw them doing that over and over and over, it didn't matter to me that they hadn't overturned heteronormativity or overturned a gender binary. Even though you have evidence that they have it, they kind of put out there a methodology.
So I think my question is how much better off are we to know that they had multiple genders then, just to know that just as they could overturn a binary or a thousand other things, we can overturn that in in lots of other stuff. Do you know what I'm, do you know what I mean? Yeah.
GWYNN KESSLER: It depends on who the, we are.
BENAY LAPPE: Uhhuh.
GWYNN KESSLER: For me, and I, it's a, it's an interesting liberatory. I mean, it's an interesting thing, right? Like I kind of don't think, uh, I'm not looking for queer rabbinic heroes, or I'm not looking to make the rabbis my heroes either. Um, um, so, uh, in many ways, so, right. It's a funny way, right? In the same way that, that it's kind of a pleasant side effect that that's there and clear to me.
Um, so, but it really depends on who the we are, right? If, if the, if the we, you know, if. The so individually different, we, I guess those would be eyes, right? Who are, who are struggling with, um, gender identity and expression and, you know, queerness and, uh, and trans identities, you know, like of, of all of this.
Then it's helpful for some people to know that there is a past and a Jewish past. Um, and it's sacred. You know, in many ways Jewish past is not perfect and, you know, I am not saying they're, they're, uh, equal to the rabbinic male standard. Um, so I think that that's really important for, for many people. And then in the larger, like that, collect that collective endeavor of a 21st century American society and global society that misrepresents religions.
As fundamentalist and, you know, Torah True, or, you know. Mm-hmm. Uh, then, then we, even me who doesn't rest authority for my being in any religious text. Right. We desperately need that. Um, even though I would like not to, but to, but because it, it is a way, it's not the only way, and it's not even the best or the most right way to engage with rampant violence against all sorts of people.
It, it does happen to be an effective way for certain communities. So that's what I would say. Right. Like, uh, it is so we, you know, I can't, I, I, I can dismiss it for myself, but I can't. And you have this too, right? Like, I can't say that when I, you know, like I've presented and people are like, you've just given me text to save people's lives.
Mm-hmm. You know, and I'm like, I, I don't remember that, but, but I do, you know, I, I mean that's, I mean, that's a quote. It's not an overstatement, it like freaks me out. But, but that, that, that there are people who are struggling with religious identity and this was from, you know, someone who was gonna go work with non-Jewish teens.
So in the midst of the, you know, 2016 election, like that, that was, you know, so mm-hmm. So yeah, so I don't dismiss it as irrelevant, you know, or at least I hope that on some level, again, like the work I do in many ways is scholarship. And like five people will read it and one of them is with me here today, so maybe so, you know.
Um, but, uh, yeah, but that's, that's kind of the broader picture.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. I, I also feel like, like, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think there's another way to understand which texts might save people's lives and, and how, because it feels like in that fundamentalistic world that you're talking about, then you wanna find texts that you can kind of read the text and see today's categories in them.
They sort of jump out at you, whatever they might be. But it feels to me like what, what I was trying to get at is this question of whether rabbis being creative. Or, or the opposite of creative is, it feels to me like if we say that they actually weren't being creative, that they were just living in the world as it was, and the world as it was didn't only have two genders and mm-hmm.
They understood that and or, you know, have whatever language that might even be modern language to put on it. They, they understood that people's genitalia were not as clean in two different categories as they might have been taught, and they were gonna be dimmed if they were gonna have Judaism be irrelevant to such a society.
And it feels to me that if we look that, that, that gives us in inspiration to say, Hey, you know, it's not the tradition to just look at texts and try to find things that, that are, are relevant or that may, you know, be, we might be kind of twisting it to sort of make it seem relevant today. That is actually part of the tradition.
Yes, that's part of the tradition, but another part of the tradition is to acknowledge that. The world changes or the world doesn't change, but our ability to see the world changes and when it does, this is a religion or this is a tradition that understands that part of the tradition is to readjust itself to, into that new way of understanding the world.
And that, that, that is the tradition. And so what I'm trying to get at is that if we now live in a world in which, let's say we have an understanding of genderqueer, um, you know, you were saying that before we came on, that a lot of the, a lot of the texts that we have in the Talmud have to do with the bottom half of people, but not so much with the top half of people.
In a world in which we recognize that being more significant than they did, it would be a bummer. If we look around and we don't see exemplars in the text, except that what we do see is that when we come to understand new things, it's being more significant then. We then we, we modify, I dunno, you could find better language, but we sort of modified the tradition to, to fit the world as it really is, and we're not fundamentalists, you know, and that, that feels to me like maybe that could also save people's lives.
GWYNN KESSLER: I think that you, I mean, the way that you, um, I mean the rabbis No, I, I, when they're interpreting Tu and Dragos into, you know, or another, or o right, like a lot of it, uh, uh, depends on the word or Right. Um, they, I think that it, they know that there's, the text isn't referring to, to, to men and dragon nose at the same time that they're insisting.
So, so, uh, so I don't know if I, I, I guess that's occluded a little bit when I say like, right, they wanted to save scripture. Like they, they did. Um, but they, they, they saved it in a way that, or saved as a tough lang, it's tough language to pull off, but they updated it or, uh, uh, grew it right, expanded it. Um, I, you know, knowing full well that they were doing something that wasn't, uh, totally in the text.
Um, so I don't know if that helps, but a little bit that helps me, you know, the way that you were speaking was helping me to kind of, oh, backtrack a little bit. Like they, they know I'm not, there's no way I'm saying that they, they really think this, it's a, and it's not, but it's not a game. It's like something where the stakes are high.
Um. Yeah. So I have to think about that a little bit more. But to say that, that I, I'm not, you know, they're, they're scriptural, like they're adding to scripture and, and then I, I would, I would they have, they know it. I don't, I can't imagine a world where they don't know that they, they know it and they do it anyway.
So yeah, if that's our model, and it is a powerful model, right, for, uh, changing Judaism, for even acknowledging, you know, um, that these texts, not everybody agrees on the texts and there's pushback. And throughout time, you know, people argue about what tutu men and dragons are, and it keeps developing. Like those are all powerful models and, and in that sense, right?
I do, I understand why the project is queer. Um, but again, for me, I want it, it's not, you know, I want it to be more. And that's a lot. But I do, I want it, I want the I and, but not because it's true, it's not because that will authorize me. Like they, they have authorized me to do whatever I want with my tradition.
Plain and simple snaps.
BENAY LAPPE: I
GWYNN KESSLER: agree. They might not be happy about that, but you know, they might,
BENAY LAPPE: you mean they might not be happy with the specific things you choose to do with the authority that they're giving you?
GWYNN KESSLER: Yeah. Or you know, again, right. And it is like, again, that's a romanticization. 'cause they didn't know they were gonna, they did not know Uhhuh, they were giving, that their texts were gonna be used to authorize anybody in the ninth or 10th century, let alone the 21st century.
Mm-hmm. Um, so much like the biblical authors didn't know they were writing the Bible. Mm. Right. So it's just, it's, it's, and Right. And so for me, in many ways, just the. The arbitrariness and the instability of it and the, you know, the chances of it all right is all, is all a way of like, if we can just acknowledge that the instability of things that for me is, is really again, a symbol or symbolic of what queerness is.
Um, yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: Amazing. Okay. I wanna go meta a little bit and I know we're gonna learn a little text together and this might be a good lead into the text specifically, or it might not. Um, but, but you know, there's a long history of, um. Characterizing the Talmud as having two distinct categories of literature within it.
Halek and a ick, right? Legal literature and narrative, non-legal narrative or stories. And in the last generation, and even in our current time, scholars have said, no, no, no, it, it isn't. So the two categories aren't so separate. On our, our show, we talked about Robert Cover and we've talked to Barry Heimer about his work on that.
And it seems that the, a lot of the current thinking is that there is a real, an interaction that the narrative material, the lived life stories and precedents and so on, actually problematize and influence and shape and push the law. But the law still the law, right. And. You talk about the law in a way that I've never heard anybody talk about before, and you completely disrupt even this understanding.
So I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you understand even the law, the stuff that everyone thinks. Yeah, that's law.
GWYNN KESSLER: Yeah. Yeah. So we talked a little bit about this and I said that I, you know, was bold in a paper. Um, and I stand by that, you know, that mo that strongest reading. And so what I do think is that, um, um, and actually, let me backtrack a second, right?
I'm a midras like that. I am, I am a midras. I have spent the last year and a half looking at Mishna and Hir and Bali. Only like exclusively on some level. Um, so all Halak stuff, but I, I remain a midrash. Uh, it's what, it's what drew me in. Um, and on some level, I, the overarching category of, for me of Judaism is Midrash.
Um, and, and Talmud. It's not that midrash is one thing and Talmud is another. It's that midrash is an overarching category and Tamad is subsumed under it. So, um, so, so that, I just wanna say, and then, and secondly I wanna say that what. I, I feel like much like a lot of the work that's being done is, is, is again, um, correcting hundreds of years of, you know, if and more really, but, um, definitely post-enlightenment, kind of rational, um, um, Judaism, but even a medieval preference in some level for haha um, and for rational law.
But as if, you know, anybody who is now engaged in reading these so-called Hal texts could question their rationality, um, and their logic. So, um, so I don't, you know, what I was trying to get at is to, is to say it's good that we are not dismissing aga and ra Right? And we're not right. And we know that those, those dismissals have been gendered, right?
Um, in many ways. And there's an assumption that that's the easy stuff, right? The scriptural interpretation and the stories, or the easy stuff in the haha is, is, you know, kind of feminine and, um. And, uh, and the Hoka is the, the real Judaism, and it's masculine. So I, I think that all of our texts are texts and texts are ways to communicate stories.
Um, and so the example that I, the, the paper that I was, was, uh, working on was, was trying to bring, um, ICIC passages, um, so, so-called halachic sources and, um, raik and parables together, and to try to get us to just, uh, right in a queer way to say that I do not accept the, the distinction between narrative and law.
That the way that we are given these stories, the way that these stories are, are narrative too. They are, I mean, they're stories and they're given in language. And so the, the haik texts are telling us stories about bodies and, um, parables and, you know, raik. Homilies are telling us stories about bodies, but they're stories and it, we have to acknowledge that whatever the genre, whatever language the story is clothed in, it is a story.
And, and, and I want to subvert and really kind of annihilate, um, that that preference and that distinct, that binary, that hierarchy between law and narrative or hahan, aga and, and until we do it right, we, and, and what I said in the, in the paper was that like we, we have to tell better stories so that then we can make better laws.
Um, so yeah, I a hundred percent wanna, you know, we need to develop this further if I wanna develop it scholarly. Um, but as a, as a, um. Educated, participatory, secular Jew, right, who spends my life teaching rabbinic text. Um, I feel like it is a message that we have to, we have to really embody, um, for the sake of stopping harm and for the sake of making a better Judaism.
DAN LIBENSON: It's incredibly powerful. Sorry, Dan, go ahead. No, I just wanted to ask you to explain a little bit more what's at stake with, with what you're talking about, because I also, it's easier, I've been saying for many, many years that we should look at the stories as law. You know, that, in other words mm-hmm. That we, that if we, if we kind of ignore all the stories, then, you know, the, the more rational rabbinic type thinkers are all like, you know, the stories.
If we have enough time to get to them, you know, it's nice to read some of the stories, but really if we just read all the law, we would be fine. And I'm, I'm saying like, no, no, no. You don't understand. There's a lot of law buried in the story. It's like you're, you're missing half the law if you do that, but, right.
I'm, I'm curious about the other direction. What, what does it mean to say that we're missing when we read, when we don't read the laws stories, we're missing half the stories. Like, what do you mean when you say a story?
GWYNN KESSLER: We're, I think we're missing the message, right? That, that like, that, uh, a rabbinic text, a, a mishna text that tells me.
Um, you know, if a woman gives birth to a, uh, male female s right? Is, is, is telling me a story about birth right and gender. Um, it's just sounds like a law, but it's still a story about like, the genre is different. So look, people are, I don't, I don't know. And the most effective way to argue for it, um, because, because we're so embedded in this, they're different.
And so for, like, for me, like, I'm like, why? Like, show me, you know, I mean, I get it on some level that right what we are punishable, like tho those are punishable, but I mean the mis HAFA is not law. Right. The is daca, like mishna and DIC texts where, you know, we talk about punishment, you know, but, but it's not, they're not happening.
That's hypothetical. So daca, there, it's a story. It's the, the, the, what is it trying to communicate to us, and why do we privilege that as law instead of, you know, and I don't mean to say, right. I guess it's hard to talk about and convey in language because I don't wanna, I don't know how to do it. Like I'm still working on it.
Is is that, um, because we're programmed to understand that story is less mm-hmm. Important. Like, we're just programmed to, to see them as separately. Mm-hmm. And I think instead of say, and I find it again as a mid rash, like I find it m. More powerful not to say. And there, and everything's powerful. I'm not like, I think everything is good.
Like if we, if we, um, wed the categories or we interweave them, but for me it's more powerful to say that those haik stories, sources are telling us stories too. Um, because it's the, it's the, every, like, it's, it's more expected to say, um, it like the other, the other side. And it still allows a primacy on law.
And that's what I don't, I think we don't need a primacy on law at least, and especially disembodied, you know, uh, supposedly rational loss. So that, that's kind of what I'm trying to, um, to articulate. And again, I, you know, like to myself more than as a sc you know, as a scholar, it's a, it's a bit of a landmine to come out with that.
Um, but as a. As a Jew, I think it's pretty powerful and important. And, you know, I kind of think about this, right? It's written into, uh, we, we tell ourselves, right, let's, well, we need to write midrash and like, or the way Judaism is set up is we, you know, and again, I'm not, I haven't said this publicly, so, but it's like we tell ourselves we need to write mid Rush and we need to learn Talmud, and I think we need to write Talmud and learn mid rush.
BENAY LAPPE: Wow. What's coming up for me? As you're talking about sort of de legalizing our vocabulary about rabbinic, all rabbinic text, is that it, it feels like it makes. Texts more malleable. And we want them to be malleable, right? We, we want them to be things we can make better guesses about. And when you talk about story, I, I think about how I think of even scripture.
Scripture was some group of people's best guess at what life is. And the, and the rabbi said, actually, we have a better guess at what the description of life is or should be. And when you talk about even the Halakha story, it's like, yeah, that's our best guess. And it already suggests that the story of our own lives, our, our lived life experience is.
I'm not gonna say equally valuable as, but, but it's somehow in the same, it's, it's in the same game. We're in the same activity as what this story, which we, we thought somehow was this legal text that, oh, I'm not a, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a rabbi, I'm not a scholar. I can't touch it. Who am I? Somehow it just makes it all, um, it raises possibilities, I think for, for upgrading.
GWYNN KESSLER: Yeah, I think malleability and instability and fluidity and multiplicity. Are all, uh, interventions that we can make it, uh, in rabbinic sources and multiple places. Right. So again, um, wanna if we, if we get to the, the sheet, right, and I don't even know if we'll get to that text, but like, part of what I do is now look at manuscripts of, um, Nanta and BLI and, you know, um, sources because, and those are ways that again, like.
Each text is a story, right? It's telling us a certain thing, but there are other versions. Um, and, and, and, you know, and the manuscripts by and large, you know, they're not, they're not huge differences, but in, in, when we're looking at minutia, some of the differences are really important. And so they, you know, again, like it's, it's a way to say, we, you know, we have a shots and we're opening it up and it looks like it's the right, and I will swear that that's the text.
Like that's how, and now we're looking at it on computer screens and we, we think that that's the text. But there are there, you know, beyond even oral tradition that went into the, the making into, you know, something that there are all these, there are all these voices, um, beneath the surface, most of which we cannot access.
Mm-hmm. Some of which we can, but the Right, the, the reason I think manuscripts are really interesting and scribal notations in manuscripts that we have, right? Is this, this faint echo. Of this fragmented history, um, that we, that, that we, if we, if we understand things as not uniform and univocal and fixed at every stage of this process, then yes.
Like of course it wasn't, and it need not be, you know what? I think, you know what? I think it's
BENAY LAPPE: okay. Story implies a teller, it imply like the glimpse is the person behind the person who you know is, you know, imperfect and limited in a product of their time and all sorts of, so when you talk about law's story, it's like, oh yeah, I, I get that now.
Law's like this freestanding, impersonal, solid thing. But it's not, you're saying it's not, and stop thinking of it that way.
GWYNN KESSLER: And wouldn't the world be safer for a lot of people if we didn't, if we understood that behind every law, secular and not, there is someone telling that law. Ah, I love that. So, yeah, and the, it was interesting.
So, you know, one of the things that I've been thinking of, uh, is, and when I was writing about it, like, it's this wonderful thing that we give, like this text, the Talmud or the mid, you know, or a mid text, whatever it is, or the y Shami like, or the Baly like, or the mishna, like we, we animated. We say that Talmud does this and I, I started to like, when I had to make decisions about writing, like on the one hand, I think that's an amazing thing, right?
We have, especially like with queer theory, we have built this text and we have animated it and it speaks and it thinks and it feels, and it wants, yeah, it wants, right, right, right. Like, what did you want from us? Yeah. Part of me as, as I was trying to write, I was like, the Talmud doesn't do anything, and so how do I convey and nor does it have a single author.
Right? And so I don't have a, I don't have an answer except to say it's this wonderful tension of like, we, we wanna breathe life into this text and this text that cannot be spoken of in the singular, because if the Bob Lee does something here in the next line, it might undo it there. Which for me is a great model for gender identity.
Right? Like so, so again, it's queer, but, um, but it, you know, and so anyway, I had to, I had to try and I had to make a decision. I don't know if I am happy where I landed, but I landed on not saying like taking away that agency from the Boley, um, for the moment, or actually I was writing about the Ymi and so, and, and, and writing about, um, the source says this, but it's, it's a, it's a hard thing 'cause it's a debtor way to think about the text.
And so, but I don't know. You know, I, that's just something that I wanna, it just made me think about the stories. Like we continue to tell, we are, we're telling the Boly story. Yeah. And a multiplicity of us have our own boly and a multiplicity of us have our genders.
BENAY LAPPE: Amazing. Should do, do we have time to learn a text together?
GWYNN KESSLER: All
BENAY LAPPE: right. Amazing.
GWYNN KESSLER: So let me just tell you, both texts are really, are texts that I've been working with, um, for years in this kind of so-called, you don't think it's queer, but this so-called queer gender, uh, rabbi, uh, ex, you know, kind of project. Um, and the, but what I've realized, what, how, how I've been reading them recently is not only about queerness or, you know, non-binary gender, um, but also about, um, engaging in, uh, anti-racism.
So, and that, and I didn't even like, uh, the first, the one that's first on the sheet I didn't even see. Um, and the second one I've seen and kind of love for both. So, yeah, I mean, so, uh, since, since I've started working with that text, so, you know, we can take a quick look, um, and see how that works out. Cool.
All right. Okay. Oh, and so none of these texts are technically Talmud except for the Mishna is in the Talmud. So it's Talmud too. So, but the first text, it's a, it's a text from re numbers and it's very short and it's kind of, it's typical of Raik, what many people call Haik mid. Right. So Lee and I kind of, again, just, uh, I don't love the category, so I just, I date it from, it's an early Madic text from the third century on the book of numbers.
Um, and it's commenting on numbers five, six, um, when a man or woman shall commit any sin that people commit and to do a trespass against the Lord. Okay? So the, the text is right, starts with ash, right? And the text is saying is, is isolating the part of that verse that says, and if that person is guilty.
Right. And then it says in typical, this is again, really typical, um, why does scripture stay? Or women laisha who, Isha Elisha, right? So, and if that, and then what does, why does scripture say Isha? Right? Or wait, wait, I got it wrong. Why does scripture say, ha, nehi be right? Scripture says, or woman, and then it says from the mention Isha, um, I only know Isha, right?
I only know man or woman from where do I know? Tuva and Dragos are included in this verses right? Teaching, which is, uh, don't commit any sin
BENAY LAPPE: now. So, right. Well, lemme see if I understand you. The text uses two different words for person. First it uses a dom and then it changes its vocabulary and uses nefesh.
To be ref to refer to person. And, and you're saying that the rabbis are using this shift in language to say the second word that refers to person has got to refer to something more than just male or female. And that's the word that suggests or is the proof that the scripture Torah was also including Tu Andro.
Am I getting that right? Yes,
GWYNN KESSLER: except for it's not Adam, like the Adam is incidental and I have it highlighted there. So we know it's not a rotate it they don't take that road. They could have said Adam. This means male female to, you know, or Tomb Two Men and Dragos we know from Adam, but in fact they don't say it.
They say it from Han Shahi and Adam kind of lies there dormant. But it, it, it is used in other verses to, to do it. So that I just was kind of in context showing that it had another option. But the, the mentions that it's, it's contrasting is right that person and actually Isha ah, right. So it actually goes back to the beginning when a man or woman, right.
Uhhuh in the, um, Isha. Isha ksu. Alright. And so, yes. And so they're saying, um, why does it say Han Shahi when it said Isha? And it, it's like, oh, because, because Isha only means male man or woman, and then Han means a genders, okay. All right, so for years I taught this. I love this text, right? It's really clear that the, they're reading Han Shahi, and again, the in context, what you have to know is many of the inclusions of anos rest on Isha, like they actually rest on, or, and so here it's like the te the, the verse gives us a plethora of, of possibilities.
And since they don't need the o they have ene Shahi, they take it. Okay. But, um, so that's the, that's the interest. And, but that's standard. They, they just start, you know, kind of adding tu ragano in there and it shows it really clearly. So recently what I, I never understood the biblical verse. And so like, what is this verse?
What is the context? I just don't know. So. What I did when I was teaching a, you know, class on queer feminist, anti-racist interpretation was I, that verse started to make some, uh, knock at my head. And so let's go back to that verse for a second and read that verse the, the rest of the context of that verse, right?
And so, um, uh, the right speak to the Israelites when a man or woman commits any wrong toward a person, thus commit, committing an act of betrayal against God, and that person realizes their guilt, they shall confess the wrong that they have done. One shall make restitution in the principle amount and add one fifth to it, giving it to the one whom they've wronged.
And so I read that and I thought about the larger conversation in the country about reparations, and I thought, well, that's a verse that I haven't seen used. Um, in a conversation about reparations, even though biblical verses are getting cited. And so, so for, again, for me in many ways, right? It, it was just a way where queerness and rightness, right, uh, came and, and in a very strong way.
And it wasn't about, you know, oh, we were slaves in Egypt, right? It was about do this and the inter, and it's always a question, right? It's always a fascinating, um, discussion about right, you, that that the, the sins that we have beared as a culture or born as a culture, right? Uh, they like what happened if we, again, in this religious country, thought of them as sins committed against God and that, oh, go ahead.
It's a biblical text telling us to pay and pay more. Go ahead.
DAN LIBENSON: No, and I just wanted to sort of connect the dots between what we were talking about for most of this episode and, and right now. Because the way I look at something like this and the way that you described it, it feels to me like we're saying, look, we live in America in the 21st century and we've come to an understanding of the, the original sin of America being, continuing to have reverberations and in, in ways that have been denied for a long time.
And that should be righted. And who is going to be the first in line to call our attention to this? It's gonna be intersectional people. So it might be queer folk in this case who understand that, uh, because of their own lives, they're more sensitive to what might be going on for African Americans. And so they're gonna be sort of the prophets who are gonna call our attention to this.
And then the, the little move comes where we say, and whoa. And here it is actually right in the, to. In other words, like, do we really believe that it was derived from the Torah? No. Right. But we, but, but, but at the same time, it's powerful when you, when you, when you look at that, and again, I, I'm sort of picturing that, that next Talmud, which is, which is specifically, um, connecting the duty of reparations to this verse in the, in the Torah, and specifically connecting it to, to, uh, to the, to gender.
You know, I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm losing the thread a little bit, but it's, you know, that, that feels to me like the moves are there in the way that you're describing. Yeah.
GWYNN KESSLER: Thank you. Yeah. And again, I mean, I love that and I love that text because it's also right there some, you know, no verse is gonna be perfect for reparations.
It's not supposed to be. Right. Like, we, like that would be, you know, I mean, but, and the next verse kind of gives us that I don't have on the sheet. Um, you know, it's the Torah. So like the Talmud, like it's gonna give us a little, you know, bump to, to kind of work it out. But the, um, but, but ire, I like it 'cause it's not, it's not about like a Hebrew slave as opposed to a canaanite slave.
'cause then you can always use that, you know, the verse that often gets used. It's like, uh, wait a minute, right? Like, that's kind of a different, like, can, is it really universal list? And of course then you can ask about this too, whose breath and whatever, but, okay, so, yep. Last text really quick. Sure.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah.
Yeah. Especially since that's the one with the, uh, with the document. The manuscript. Manuscript. All right. Yeah. Um.
GWYNN KESSLER: All. So now we're in the mishna. Um, and, um, the, go to the first here, I actually have it here too. Um, so, uh, what we have is kind of your standard, uh, the printed version of the Mishna and then the, the manuscript version.
And, uh, and they're similar. So, but what I, um, the, what I wanted to just go through, uh, we might Yeah. Is the, it's the text starts and says, right, um, right. Um, a man who dies and, uh, leaves sons and daughters. And I'm just gonna switch to the translation. And the property was great. The sons inherit and the daughters received maintenance.
If the property was small, the daughters received maintenance and the sons go begging at people's doors. Amond says, the son may say, must I suffer a loss because I am a male? Robin Gamal says. I approve of Amans opinion. I often wonder how to translate that. Uh, so we'll go back to that the second, the, the second mission here.
Um, if, and I'm gonna talk about them together in a second. If a man left sons and daughters and to, to, if the property was great, the males may push them onto the females. If the property was small, the females may thrust them onto the males. It's not my translation. I I, it's the same word in Hebrew. So push and push or thrust and thrust.
In either case, it's a horribly violent text to me. Um, and so I, um, what I wanna, I'm just gonna stop there for the sake of time. We can go back, but to say, right, I've been reading this text as a, as a, you know, part of tutu andos, and I've been struck by the, the, the, the kind of the, you know, the, the pushing.
Of the tomb tomb between, or, um, between the males and the females. Um, and so it's a text that I reckon with in, in this context, but for, but what I also really love about this text and love that they do together is this, this line from AdMon in the previous right. In Mission of nine one that says that, you know, AdMon says, the son may say, must I suffer a loss because I'm a male?
And I was like, well, that's just a great, uh, question about privilege, right? And so now when I read this in, in the larger context of white privilege mm-hmm. Right? Or white Jewish privilege, right? It's, it's not, it's of course right as a feminist, I'm like, yeah, you, you know, like we should it, you know, and, and like, what I wanna do is not, is imagine Robin Gamliel says, saying like, like, I, I see your point of view and you're wrong.
Like, I see your point of view, and the answer is yes, you have to suffer a loss because of the enormous amount of privilege that you occupy. So anyway, so again, those are two texts that, you know, that, that I think are really, you know, kind of deal with both, um, topics of concern for me, which is how do I advocate for, you know, uh, a larger concern, a lar larger categories of, or no categories of gender, right?
An expansive category. And how do I, how do I participate in anti-racist work that is happening, um, around me? Um, and then I'll, I'll just say the, the reason that I like this manuscript was if you go to the, the place where I, um, underlined, right, and it's says the, the, you know, Babara 9, 9 2 is really curious.
It's the only IC text that has to tomb on its own without their companion, but on drug nose. And so it, it wasn't just curious to me, it was curious to a manuscript. Of the, you know, uh, 11th or 12th or 13th, we don't exactly know. Um, there's disputes about the, when this manuscript is dated to, um, and so, right, the, there's something about like the, you know, this, this question of like, what is relation, what is the relationship between Tu Dragos and what do those words mean?
And, and you know, and how they, you know, how, how a a text, like most manuscripts only have tu again, in the latter part. But here, uh, and that's in the printed version, but here you have them together again. So that's the reason I went to this manuscript.
DAN LIBENSON: That's awesome. This, this might be a big question, but um, or a wrong question, but just in terms of, I'm again, connecting the dots between, uh, this idea of trying to find.
We could say like, Hey, we have racial concerns in our society today. Oh, I'm looking through the Talmud. I don't see that much about race. It's not there. Now, of course there are a few things, but I mean, it's not there. Judaism doesn't have anything to say about race, or you could do what you just did. I, I interpret what you just did as a version of saying, look, look, what the Talmud does have is some, is a lot about, or something here at least about privilege.
And here it's connecting privilege to gender, uh, issues. And, um, but I guess my question is in the, and maybe this goes back to that question I asked you at the very beginning of our conversation, like, is, is the way that, um, we talk about race today and the, and at least in our society, in American society, the, the way in which one's race has an impact on one's status in society?
Uh, or, you know, shouldn't but it it does. Um. It, would it be right to say that that falls into basically the category in the Talmud that the rabbis would have thought of as like what we call gender, meaning what? They're also including a deaf mute, you know, that there are these categories of people that should be understood to be in.
I don't like meaningful categories. Right. And, and so therefore, everything in the Talmud that's about gender is actually about race as well. Something like that.
GWYNN KESSLER: Yeah. It's interesting. I mean, I think that they do those kind of oppressions and binary, you know, hierarchies do. Um, it's a, it's a good question.
I, yes, on some level it is a way to think about it. I think that, um, that there is a, there is, um, stuff about, um, right eth people's and ethnicities too. So I don't know how much, again, we don't, you know, and I like they, I don't write about queer, like I don't write about. Gay as an identity, right? Non-binary gender has been a great, you know, thing to be like the, these, I'm not writing about characters as a fixed, gay or even queer identity.
Um, so, um, and the same way I would write, it's anachronistic in my opinion to in a lot of scholars opinions to do that. Although also very powerful in many ways. So we, you know, there's a, a, a built intention. I think the same thing about race, right? Like if a dominant understanding, and I, I think right understanding is to say this is a content, a modern category and we can, we can date, you know, it's kind of growth and it doesn't mean there aren't predecessors to it, you know?
So, but I do think that part, I think ethnicity and ability like are, are all woven into end class for sure. So what I did bef beyond these texts was to look at texts about, um. Um, like, you know, I, I mean, I've been starting to teach and, and as my awareness grows about the categories that the Talmud, others, which is Legion, right?
Um, the, the, the translations, you know, of like the poor person, like, or, you know, it was just the, I I looked at texts about the poor, you know, quote unquote the poor person and tried to, um, re rethink of those in terms of privileges as well. So that's where I've gone with, um, with that too. But I think ethnicity and race and ability are, are ways to, to think about that.
Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, and I
GWYNN KESSLER: look forward to, uh, seeing what you do with it, actually. Yeah. Well, so I, I task that to you. Uh, well,
DAN LIBENSON: and I appreciate that. And I, and I think just also, I would say for, for our listeners, our viewers, it's, it's something that, you know, it's been in, it is interesting for us when we've wanted to talk to a lot of scholars and there's, there's.
There are certain things that scholars, you know, scholars do, and then there's certain things that scholars do that ultimately we have to take into the world. And like any teaching, we may take it into direction that the teacher didn't wanna take it, you know? But, but that's our, that's our responsibility.
And, and not necessarily, or, so I, I really appreciate your having called a, called attention, our attention to some of these things. And, and, and I definitely do look, look forward to pursuing it, uh, with Benet in the, in the months ahead. So thank you so much. It's been a great conversation, and I, I, I hope for another one sometime soon.
GWYNN KESSLER: Thank you.
BENAY LAPPE: Thank you so, so much. This was amazing. My head is spinning.
DAN LIBENSON: Thanks so much for joining our chevruta today! We hope you’ve enjoyed learning with us… and with the Talmud. You can find links to the source sheets for all episodes in the show notes and on our website at oraltalmud.com. Your support helps keep Oral Talmud going. You can find a link on the website to contribute. We’d also love to hear from you! Email us with any questions, comments, or thoughts at hello@oraltalmud.com. Please, share your Oral Talmud with us – we’re so excited to learn from you. The Oral Talmud is a joint project of SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva and Judaism Unbound, two organizations that are dedicated to making Jewish texts and ideas more accessible for everyone. We are especially grateful to Sefaria for an incredible platform that makes the Talmud available to everyone. It’s free at sefaria.org. And we are grateful to SVARA-nik Ezra Furman for composing and performing The Oral Talmud’s musical theme. The Oral Talmud is produced by Joey Taylor and with financial support from Lippman Kanfer Foundation for Living Torah. Thanks so much for listening–and with that, this has been the Oral Talmud. See ya next time.