By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel


CHULA VISTA, California — One of the best-known blessings Orthodox Jews recite every day is the blessing, “Thank you God for not making me a woman.”

The recent transformation on the cover of Vanity Fair’s 22-page cover story featuring Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce, raises a number of fascinating questions pertaining to Halacha as well as Jewish ethics.

To begin with, persons wishing to undergo transsexual surgery are a minority—in fact one per million men and even less with regard to women. Historically, such surgery began in Europe in the 1930s and in the United States in the 1960s.

Historically, the subject of the saris (eunuch) is recorded about forty times in the Tanakh. Ancient societies often positioned the eunuch as court officials, military commanders, and other positions of high authority (Gen. 37:36; 2 Kgs. 9:32; 25:19; Esther 1:10). In the case of Potiphar, he was married—and his status as  a eunuch probably became the principle reason Madam Potiphar fooled around when he wasn’t looking (see Gen. 39ff.).

Traditional Judaic texts raise a number of issues involved:

• The prohibition against castration pertains to human beings and animals (Lev. 22:24; cf. BT Shabbat 110b-111a)
• The prohibition against wounding or crushing genitalia entering the Jewish community (Deut. 23:2).
• The prohibition against cross-dressing, which would some scholars argue includes acting like someone of the opposite sex (Deut. 22:5).

Superficially, castrating or neutering an animal is prohibited in the Torah—and this applies no less to human beings.[1] The fundamental proof text derives from the Scriptural text, “He did not create it as a chaos, but to be inhabited” (Isa. 45:18). However, we should note that many people—including homosexuals and transgendered people can raise children to fulfill the precept of procreation, much like a heterosexual couple can if one is medically unable to sire or bear children.

According to the 13th century anonymous author of the famous Sefer HaChinuch:

• The Creator blessed all living beings, to be fruitful and multiply, and even commanded the male of the species of the human on this, that it might endure. Without this imperative, a species would eventually die, as would all of its kind. Therefore, if anyone who destroys the procreative organs of generation, demonstrates that this person cannot tolerate the work of the Creator and desires the destruction of God’s good world.”[2]

If a man underwent such a surgery, would he have to grant his wife a religious divorce?

This question applies no less to performing the levirate marriage, which is now effectively been made null and void.

Traditionalist also wonder “Is intimacy with a transsexual permitted or not?’

In the case of a woman who undergoes the procedure, is she obliged to observe ritual circumcision?

Already, in Israel a practical question arose: A transsexual Jew was prohibited from praying with men in the men’s section, as well as in the women’s section! If Caitlyn were visiting Israel, which section would she attend services at the Western Wall?

In short, some Halachic scholars think that appearance is the driving issue here; ergo, if a man undergoes this procedure, then he is now exempt from performing all the precepts that are traditionally incumbent upon men.  One notable Orthodox scholar who makes this point was Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, who served as a judge in the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem. [3]

Of course other scholars differ and think that the transsexual surgery does not impact the halacha in any meaningful way.—Caitlyn  is still considered “Bruce” in terms of fulfilling his manly obligations. According to this perspective, human sexuality is something that is fixed and rigid.[4]  Most notably, Rabbi David Bleich’s views offers a sober exposition of the more conservative Halacha perspective:

• The commandment, “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment” (Deut. 22:5)  is not limited to the wearing of apparel associated with the opposite sex but encompasses any action uniquely identified with the opposite sex, proscribing, for example, shaving of armpits or dyeing of hair by a male.” In this vein, “a procedure designed to transform sexual characteristics violates the very essence of this prohibition.”[5]

One must always keep in mind that among many Orthodox scholars the maintenance of the patriarchal order is one of the most important principles that define masculine power in the Orthodox Jewish community. When a person willfully undergoes such a procedure, the act is often perceived as a serious threat to masculine power. In the Muslim community, this same attitude exists as well.

In short, it is intriguing to note that in Jewish tradition, answers come and go, but a good question is an eternal constant. Some of the questions we discussed here in this brief article may be a good case in point. In any event, personal choices like this question are ultimately a matter of personal conscience–and each person must be true to him or herself. In any event, Jewish ethics demands that we never embarrass or shame any human being–which applies no less to transgender men and women.

As society continues to change, it is this writer’s view that Halachic responses will continue to evolve with time.

[1] See BT Sanhedrin 56b.

[2] Sefer HaHinnukh, No. 291.

[3] Tzitz Eliezer 2:78.

[4] R. Moshe Steinberg, Assia Vol. 1., p. 144; Nishmat Avraham Even HaEzer 44:3.

[5] David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems (  New York: KTAV & Yeshiva University Press) Vol. 1 – Page 100

By Israel Drazin VINE VOICE on May 20, 2015
Philo (about 20 BCE to about 50 CE) of Alexandria, Egypt, is one of Judaism’s great philosophers. The noted scholar Harry Wolfson wrote in his book Philo that Philo was the first Jewish philosopher who “contributed anything new” to Jewish-Greek philosophy. Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel offers readers a good introduction to this famous thought-provoking philosopher in this third volume in his series “Torah from Alexandria: Philo as a Biblical Commentator.” Samuel’s prior two volumes were on Genesis and Exodus. This one is on Leviticus. Samuel gives us an easy to read translation of Philo’s own words and adds extensive explanatory notes.
Philo’s philosophy incorporated the somewhat mystical views of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (about 428 to about 348 BCE). About forty books that Philo wrote still exist. They were not composed as a systematic philosophy, as is Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, who based his philosophy on Aristotle (384-322 BCE). Philo’s books are, in essence, a collection of intelligent sermons and commentaries in which he explains the Bible frequently from an allegorical perspective.
Philo was convinced that the Bible should be understood on two levels. The first level contains its literal or plain meaning, words mean what they say. The second is an underlying or allegorical layer, which requires that the alert intelligent reader go beyond the obvious and delve deeper into the text. Philo used allegory to interpret virtually everything in Scripture, including names, dates, numbers, and events. Maimonides also read Scripture on two levels, but his second level was rational, not as mystical as those of Philo, and he used far less allegory.
Philo taught that although parts of the Torah are not literally true, they should be understood metaphorically or allegorically, for they transmit truth. Unrealistic tales, such as a snake enticing Eve or Balaam’s donkey having a conversation with him, can be mined and understood by using the allegorical or metaphorical approaches. Thus, Philo states that the tales of creation, which are not true facts or even remotely real science, are parables with profound truthful life-essential significance below their false literal surface.
Samuel states that Philo’s ultimate aim in interpreting Leviticus is “to teach us how to instill virtue in our daily lives.” One of many instances is the law prohibiting the slaughter a mother animal and its young on the same day which teaches that even among animals a mother feels for its young, and we must treat all God’s creations with respect.
The following examples are only a few of the many Philo ideas contained in this book on Leviticus on just the subject of food laws:
Philo saw the teachings of moderation and self-control in many biblical laws. During the temple days, for instance, the Torah forbid the Israelites from even tasting any foods before separating the first fruits and bringing it to the temple, for this teaches temperance and self-control. The Torah forbids consuming certain animal fats because fat represents gluttony and self-indulgence. Animals in the air, land, and water that are fleshy, fat, and tasty, such as swine and fish that have no scales, are forbidden because they are likely to excite treacherous pleasures. Also, carnivorous animals that feed on other animals are proscribed with only domestic animals being permitted to teach Jews to be gentle, not plot evil, and treat others, Jews and non-Jews, humans and animals, humanely.
Philo goes deeper into this subject by reading the laws allegorically. Scripture gives two signs concerning the animals that may be eaten: they must have split hoofs and chew the cud. The split hoofs teaches that “the course of life is two-fold, one leading to wickedness and the other to virtue,” and we must renounce the first and never forsake the other. The chewing of cuds teaches that just as animals chew the cud slowly, softening it, and then allowing it to descend unhurriedly to the belly, so people must consider new ideas carefully and hold the idea in mind until it is fully understood.
Similarly, fish must have fins and scales which make the fish capable of navigating difficult waters. This teaches allegorically that humans should fight against the turbulence of self-indulgence and incorrect philosophies that lead people astray. Only two classes of birds may be offered as sacrifices, turtledoves and pigeons, because these are gentle birds. Similarly only three species of animals may be offered - cattle, sheep, and goats - because these animals are domestic, even a child could lead them. People are forbidden to eat dead animals torn by wild beasts because it is not fitting for people to share a feast with untamable beasts and become a fellow reveler in carnivorous activities and, besides, it may cause disease.
Leaven bread is banned in temple sacrifices as well as honey. Philo writes that leaven represents arrogance and honey is outlawed because a bee is not a kosher animal and, again, because sweetness and pleasure needs to be moderated.
Modern readers may not agree with every Philo interpretation, especially his overuse of allegory. Maimonides, for example, gave radically different rational reasons for the food laws. Philo’s view that only male animals could be sacrificed because “the female is imperfect” and overly passive, is certainly sexist, as Samuel notes. Samuel explains that Philo was influenced by the Greek misconceptions of women. But even when we disagree this does not detract in any way from learning Philo’s views and certainly not from Samuel’s interpretations of them, because the book teaches us new ideas, many clearly acceptable, and prompts readers to think.

Torah from Alexandria: Philo as a Biblical Commentator (Leviticus) (Volume 3)