Does doubt about androgyny indicate a lack of understanding of sex and gender?
In halacha from the time of the Mishnah, it was not clear to the Tan’im and Amoraim whether androgynous was male or female.
In my opinion, this indicates scientific humility on the part of the sages. They understand that there should be an ontological characteristic in reality that should tip the scales and decide. They don’t know how to stand on it.
If there was a tradition, it should have been expressed in the opinion of Tanna.
If the Sages believed they knew everything about the androgynous human scientifically, there would be some disagreement about how to categorize him. Either as male or female or as a creature in its own right.
“A creation in itself” is indeed the opinion in the Mishnah, of someone who believed he understood the scientific essence. But those who doubt whether it is male or female, claim that it can be decided if scientific knowledge is added.
It seems that we now need knowledge that goes beyond the signs that the Sages recognized, and perhaps here the neuroscience and psychology of diverse dispositions that we know today can be relevant in order to rule on halakha. After all, it sounds logical (but does not necessarily mean) that the Torah and the Sages would consider a person’s mental essence to be more relevant to determining a person’s gender than their external physical form (see the entry in Ayalonit).
What does the rabbi think about that?
And at what level is there doubt about the males and females of the androgynous? If not scientifically psychologically… is there a question here about the root of his soul among the angels?
Thank you very much,
Ofir
It is not at all clear to me whether the doubt was a realistic doubt about what that creature was, or a halakhic doubt: how we should relate to it. I do not think this is a modern-day androgynous person. This is a person who has both types of genitalia. Therefore, I do not think that scientific knowledge and neuroscience will help here, because Chazal do not deal with his gender (in the modern sense of gender).
It is also possible to determine that the Sages misunderstood the meaning of male and female, and simply change the definition to the definitions that are accepted today (to the extent that there are any).
On the one hand, this is a halakhic question, how to relate to reality – Is it reasonable that no Tanna expressed an opinion of a male or a female? The signs of the masculine and feminine stand in exactly the same way from being biased by all the sages? This is not reasonable. After all, the assumption is that it is possible to decide theoretically. Or is it the claim that even God does not know what the halakhah is? Or does God know and not reveal to us even the slightest hint in order to be biased? So we are waiting for the Holy Spirit? Isn't this a situation that contradicts the principle that humans rule below and halakhah is accepted in heaven? Why didn't they decide?
Ofir,
Apart from the creation itself, you can find in Chazal, opinions that it is doubtful whether a person is male or female, that he is both male and female at the same time, or that he is only male (almost all possibilities).
The appearance of two genitals (male and female) in one person can be due to a wide variety of reasons, genetic and developmental, and you should not be surprised if the true sex will be different depending on the reason.
If the genitals are the criterion for determining sex, then he is certainly both male and female (and if according to the law it is doubtful, it is a legal doubt, not realistic). But there is perhaps reason to believe that today, we will treat genetics as a criterion (but genetics does not help in all cases to decide).
+ Explains, psychology is not a criterion, because psychology may be biased relatively easily for hormonal and environmental reasons (not necessarily in androgyny), and if we take psychology as a criterion and want to be consistent, we will reach absurdities (such as people who are sometimes male and sometimes female, people who are not humans but aliens, people who are animals, and so on).
Ophir, and that a decision by a doubt is not a decision? So why were the laws of sufficiency given? Everything will be decided in heaven.
I didn't understand the comment about there being no opinion that it is definitely male or female. Why would there be? This is a classic case of doubt. Even among the suns there is no opinion that it is definitely day. Why would there be?
Regarding the question of whether this is a fundamental doubt (also towards heaven), it is certainly possible. Like the temple of two sisters on the issue of kiddushin that are not dedicated to the lion. In these cases, it is ambiguity in reality itself and not doubt. There the laws of certain doubt apply.
Roni, I am not sure about what you said about the psychological index. Today, even physical signs of sex can be changed through surgery. If they ever reach clear indicators for femininity and maleness (not that every person will define themselves as they want, as is customary in the crazy political correctness of the day), there is room to say that this will replace the sagely indicators.
You wrote: "I'm not sure about what you're saying about the psychological index. Today, even physical sex characteristics can be changed surgically." – Not at all. Surgery certainly doesn't change sex, surgery is only cosmetic.
As for whether they'll ever come up with psychological indices for masculinity and femininity, it's hard to discuss that now when it's impossible to even imagine objective psychological indices for that (even if they find a characteristic that occurs in 90% of males and 10% of females, it would be difficult to treat it as a sex characteristic. Of course, if it's decided that this is the distinguishing characteristic anyway, it would be 100 percent, because that's the index that was defined, but that would be more of a matter of a new definition, which is possible and desirable to debate, and not really an objective index. The strength of the genetic definition, on the other hand, is that it ultimately touches on the root and reason for the phenotype that has always served naturally as a sex characteristic, which doesn't seem to be possible to say about psychology).
Roni, regarding the possibility of change, the Maghâ writes with the sign of tâqâft – “the one of his gender – but not the one of his gender. (Gem’) and the Rif says that even if his companion is androgynous, if at that time he was a female, his companion is male, he does not exclude him:” and Tiferet Yisrael wrote about him, Boaz, Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 19 “and I did not find it in the Rif. This too is far from a human concept. How is it possible for his face to change like chrome and to become one way and one way? And it is possible that the Ramâ means that sometimes the power of memories in him increases. And sometimes the power of females. He dedicates to him males and females, as his name is. And in my opinion, the glory of Israel refers to a sexual orientation that changes throughout life.
Honorable Rabbi, do you agree that even the halakhic considerations, which are not scientific questions about reality, must in any case be included in the definition of human gender, explaining what defines sexuality? Or is it possible that we are talking about tradition or learning from verses? And even if there is learning from the sources, should this be taken into account in the case of a case that seems today to be definitely male or definitely female according to reasoning in the sense of “vain reason, void rule”? After all, learning from verses is not mentioned in the Gemara.
Ofir,
Already asked Babar well: And Delf”z means that sometimes he is male and sometimes he is female, as I heard them say that androgynous one month is male one month is female. And it does not mean so in the Gamal; and in the Poskim and so on. So he called the few androgynous because his word does not reject the Sabbath if he is born in the month in which he was born a female, Pishta, and if he is a male, how do they know that the next month will be female and K”l. So far his language.
And this seems to be the gist.
Also Tiferet Yisrael certainly does not mean sexual orientation or even psychological gender identity, but rather he means the Platonic male ideal, not psychology. And we have no hand or foot in the world of ideals.
It is possible that this is a tradition, although it is more likely that it is the opinion of the Sages. That is why I wrote that there is room for change when there is a clear scientific definition. This is of course not a regulation but a Torah law. Regarding changes in Torah law due to changing circumstances, see here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95% D7%93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7% 9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
