Sēder Zǝrāʿîm, “Order of Seeds”, is the first one of the six mišnaic orders to be commented in
the huge talmudic collection of traditions. It mainly deals with agricultural laws of the Tora. Each one of the eleven tractates included in this order addresses an individual aspect of its gen- eral subject, the first one being Bǝrāḵôt, “Benedictions”, which covers matters relating to prayer and worship.392 It is loaded with aggādôt, comprising a total of nine chapters, the last one of
which delivers benedictions for various special occasions.393 It also contains a sûgyâ dealing
with the creation of woman.
Bǝrāḵôt 61a
The sûgyâ concerning the creation of human begins with rav Naḥman b. Ḥisda (4th-century
Babylonian āmôrāʾ) posing a question about the meaning of the double yôds in the Hebrew word for “formed”, way-yîṣer (Gen. 2:7). He claims that the two yôds indicate that God created two inclinations: a good one and an evil one. Rav Naḥman b. Isaac (4th-century Babylonian
āmôrāʾ) objects to this since animals – with respect to whom way-yiṣer is not written with a
double yôd – would not have the other inclination and, yet, we see that they cause damage, bite and kick. He suggests that the two yôds should rather be interpreted in accordance with the
387 Ben-Eliyahu 2012, 35. 388 Wald 2007b, 477–480.
389 For further information on Raši, see Rothkoff et al. 2007.
390 Goldenberger 1984, 139; for technical details concerning the layout of the Talmud, see the entire article. 391 Fishman 2011, 1–19.
392 Epstein 1958, xiii. 393 Simon 1958, xxvii.
opinion of rabbi Simeon b. Pazzi (3rd-century Palestinian āmôrāʾ) according to whom this re-
lates to the difficulty of human life. The theme of Adam’s inclinations in connection with the double yôds present in the biblical verse was already introduced in Genesis Rabba 14,394 but
this passage does not take hold in the matter any further.
Rabbi Yirmeya b. Eleazar gives an alternative view: God created two faces, dw
prṣwfyn,395 on the first man, just like it is written in Psalm 139:5 indicating that a person has
been formed, ṣartānî, from behind and before. This account is very similar to that in Chapter 8:1 of Genesis Rabba,396 attributed to rabbi Samuel b. Naḥmani, as well as the one in Leviticus
Rabba 14:1.397 In fact, the idea of simultaneous creation of the primal beings, man and woman,
is also discussed in two other parts of the Bavli, in ʿĒrûvîn 18a and Kǝtûvôt 8a.
Although the previous tradition seems to present a concept of an androgynous primal being, it is immediately followed by opposing stances. Some rabbis disagree over the meaning of the word ṣēlaʿ mentioned in Gen. 2:22 – the other one says that it means face, parṣûf, indi- cating that Ḥawwâ was originally one face of Ādām, whereas the other rabbi interprets it as a tail, zānāv.398 The tail mentioned in this explication, denoting that the first woman was rather a
protuberance, is a unique theme which is not adduced later in rabbinic accounts on the creation of human. It certainly encases a disparaging connotation, probably reflecting deeply rooted rab- binic attitudes toward the secondary gender, women.
The gǝmārāʾ further analyzes the foregoing dispute proposing that ṣēlaʿ means, indeed, face – this can be concluded based on Psalm 139:5, already quoted above. This, in turn, could be understood so that God simply built the female face of the primal human being into an auton- omous woman.399 Based on the opinion of rav Ammi (b. Nathan, 3rd-century Palestinian āmô-
rāʾ), however, the verse can also be explained in accordance with the other interpretation, “tail”,
so that “behind” means [Adam as] the last one in the act of creation, and “before” refers to the first as for punishment. This rather cryptic rendition digresses in a thicket of intertextuality speculating that Adam was “behind”, meaning the last in the creation so that he was not created until the eve of the sixth day, šabbāt. The word “before”, first for punishment, is elaborated upon more lengthily, also referring to the serpent episode in the Garden of Eden and utilizing both Lev. 10:12 and Gen. 7:23.400 The gǝmārāʾ then returns to the interpretation of way-yîṣer
394 Cf. Theodor 1912, 128–129.
395 Vowels missing due to the talmudic text. 396 Cf. Theodor 1912, 54–55.
397 Cf. Sefaria.org, Vayikra Rabbah 14:1. 398 Hebrew, not found in Aramaic dictionaries. 399 Baskin 2002, 48.
and the two yôds, alluding to the two formations and, thus, confirming the idea of Eve having been a face, parṣûf, of Adam.
The speculation goes on analyzing the interpretation of Ḥawwâ having been either a face or a tale. This is done in connection with Gen. 5:2 containing “male and female He created them”, the object of the sentence being in plural, “them”, unlike in Gen. 1:27. The gǝmārāʾ brings up an opinion by rabbi Abbahu (3rd–4th-century Palestinian āmôrāʾ) who had previously
noted a contradiction between the verses of Gen. 5:2 and Gen. 9:6, the latter one stating “for in His image did God make man, hā-ādām” – notably, using a singular form. His explanation is also given: at first, it was God’s intention to create two, but at the end only one was created. The interpretation is further tested in connection with Gen. 2:21 announcing that God “closed up the flesh at that spot” to which the meaning of a “tail” would be difficult to adjust. To this, rabbi Yirmeya or rav Zevid (4th-century Babylonian āmôrāʾ), or rav Naḥman b. Isaac, has ear-
lier said that the word would only be applicable to the place of the incision.
The previous evidence for “face” is challenged by referring to Gen. 2:22 and “God fashioned [built] the rib, ṣēlaʿ, that He had taken from the man into a woman” in it. The gǝmārāʾ suggests that the word way-yiven, “and he built”, should be interpreted as previously suggested by rabbi Simeon b. Menasya (2nd–3rd-century tannāʾ), according to whom the verse teaches that
God plaited Eve’s hair and brought her to Adam. This idea is based on the fact that braiding hair, qǝlîʿatāʾ, is called “building” in coastal cities. A similar tradition was presented in the name of rabbi Aibu already in Genesis Rabba 18:1.401 Here, however, no precarious conclusions
are drawn right away. Instead, an explication by rav Ḥisda (3rd–4th-century Palestinian āmôrāʾ)
provides an alternative, possibly also taught in a bārāytāʾ: “building” could be understood as a description of her basic shape, indicating that Eve was built like the structure of a storehouse,
kǝ-binyān, yielded from the consonantal root of bny.402 Just like a storehouse, built narrow on
top and wide on bottom, a woman is created narrow on top and wide on the bottom, in order to hold the fetus. This could have been meant as a courtesy indicating that motherhood is the ulti- mate goal of female life.403 However, it strongly emphasizes the physical disparity of women.
Lastly, the gǝmārāʾ poses a question about which one of the two faces discussed above went ahead. Rav Naḥman b. Isaac answers that it is reasonable for the man to have gone ahead, as it has been taught: a man should not walk behind a woman on a road, and even if his wife
401 Cf. Theodor 1912, 161.
402 The consonants have previously been discussed in connection with “understanding” in Genesis Rabba 18:1 (Theodor 1912, 160–161).
happens to be in front of him on a bridge, he should move her to his side. Furthermore, anyone who crosses a river behind a woman has no portion in the World-to-Come. The rabbinic discus- sion continues with several misogynous statements, also extending to the next folio, however, not referring to human creation anymore. Despite the lingering discussion, no final resolution to the concept of ṣēlaʿ representing either face or tail, nor to rabbi Abbahu’s effort to explain the controversy between Gen. 5:2 and Gen. 9:6, is given. This is, indeed, distinctive of talmudic deliberations. Nevertheless, the part of which the primal woman was created from seems to have become just a small part of Adam, not half.