I've been seeing a lot of posts here lately where people seem to assume that all the religions that use the Bible believe in the Christian viewpoint of it. Since the story of Adam and Eve comes up a lot, I figured I'd try to write out the Jewish interpretation of this story, and how it fits into a feminist framework.
Before I get to the actual story, there's another story I need to tell first, to explain the traditional Jewish view on Biblical interpretation. (I can't remember the source of this story, but it's very old and considered part of Jewish tradition.) Several rabbis were arguing over the interpretation of a particular verse. One rabbi, Rabbi Eliezer, had one view, but the other three rabbis had a different view. Rabbi Eliezer tried to convince the others that his interpretation was the one that G-d actually meant. He said, "If I am right, let that rock start dancing." And the rock started dancing. He said, "If I am right, let a river appear right here." And a river appeared. And so on. But the other rabbis still disagreed with him. Finally, Rabbi Eliezer said, "G-d, if I am right, let your voice come down from the heavens." And a voice said, "Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer? He is right." And one of the other rabbis replied, "The Torah was given to us on earth. It is not in heaven." Meaning, G-d had control of the Torah only as long as it was still on Mount Sinai. Once Moses came down from the mountain, the Torah belonged to the people. And since among the people, it was three against one, Rabbi Eliezer lost the argument, and the other rabbis' view was the one accepted as the law. And G-d laughed and said, "My children have bested me."
So, within a Jewish context, analysis of the Bible is not "picking and choosing," it's an essential part of the religion. And the Bible is not the only holy book -- the traditional belief is that an Oral Law was given at Mount Sinai along with the Written Law, and that the Written Law cannot be properly understood without the Oral Law. The Oral Law was written down, as well as it had been transmitted through the generations, as the Talmud.
OK. So, back to Adam and Eve. Genesis seems to have two different stories of creation. In chapter 1, it says, "And G-d said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' And G-d created man in His image, in the image of G-d he created them; male and female He created them." Man and woman created together. Then in chapter 2, we get a different story -- Adam created, and then Eve. So, what's up? We're two chapters in, and already have a contradiction.
So, we can turn to the midrash and see what the rabbis had to say about it. "Hitherto there was but one such creature; I have now added to him another who was taken from him. They shall both be in our form and likeness; there shall be no man without a woman and no woman without a man, and no man and woman together without G-d." "Adam was created with two bodies, one of which was cut away from him and formed Eve."
So, in trying to reconcile the contradiction, the rabbis really had two choices -- either man and woman were created together, or man was created first and then woman was. And then went with the first one. By this interpretation, men and women were created equally, as one. But the "as one" didn't work out too well. By this interpretation, everything that Adam does in chapter 2 before the creation of Eve is actually things that the combined Adam/Eve being does. And what Adam/Eve does is, really, not all that much. Adam is mentioned once in chapter 2 before the creation of Eve -- man is created from earth ("Adam" comes from the Hebrew word "Adamah," meaning "earth"), and told not to eat from the tree of knowledge. And immediately afterwards, G-d says, "It is not good for man to be alone," and creates Eve. Or, using the Midrash interpretation, G-d divides the Adam/Eve being into Adam and Eve.
So, Adam and Eve were created together, told not to eat the fruit together, eat the fruit together (well, one after the other, but both eat it), and banished together. And then that's where the world that we've inherited really starts -- Adam and Eve, together, set off to figure out how to live the rest of their lives when they have to work.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Jewish Feminist view of the creation.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11809
(I can't remember the source of this story, but it's very old and considered part of Jewish tradition.)
I feel that way about so many Jewish stories!
Thanks for posting this, I get frustrated reading comments about Judaism that use Christian assumptions, as if Christianity is Judaism+New Testament, the end. You've articulated this very well.
Studying and questioning and debating and grappling with the contradictions in the Torah are so part-and-parcel of Judaism and I delight in it.
Thanks for this post! The interpretation that Adam and Eve were one being before Eve was removed/divided from Adam is wonderfully logical and feels more theologically complete than the standard Adam-first-Eve-second story.
However, I'm a little confused about what exactly the Christian assumptions are regarding Adam & Eve creation story.
Is it an assumption of Christian analysis that Adam was created as one being and that Eve was created from him, as a subsidiary creature?
Thanks for this - it's nice to be reminded that no interpretation is a given.
And the source of the story of Rabbi Eliezer is the Babylonian Talmud (Masechet Baba Metzia, daf50b, for those who care) which was edited c.500 CE. A solid translation is here
http://www.jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm
Thanks for the cite. I've heard that story in various places, but couldn't remember where it was from originally.
See, this is why I love midrash. :D
I also read another interpretation in a Renaissance Christian feminist text - that, rather than woman being subservient because she was created from man's rib, that this was done to signify "that she should stand at his side as a companion, not lie at his feet like a slave." (Christine de Pizan, Book of the City of Ladies, after which my blog is named)
This needed to be said! Thanks so much for this post. It's always nice to see some Talmud in feminist discussions.
Don't worry. In a couple of years we will get a simple name change through on a Private Members Bill in the House of Commons. The Civil Rights Act was right at the time because it got the necessary rights to the LGBT community faster than would have otherwise happened. In the typical British fashion we pragmatically fudged the issue bedroom furniture and moved on. All things considered I think the situation over here is better than in California!