Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck ISSN 0944–5706 JSQ 24(2017),289–317 * pin diverse and contradictory “Judeo-Christian” positions. The divinizing philosophy, and politics, tselem the elohim retains its potent ability to under loomed large inJewish and discourse. Christian In realms the of theology, 1:26of inGen The humans idea as created image the “in of God” has Introduction Key words: science ofreproduction; Rabbinic likeness;bodilyvariation; species. as animals. species), rabbinic reproductive biologynonethelessimplicates humansamongand disavows genealogical linksbetween humansandanimals(andindeedacross other terms ofreproduction, resemblance andvariation. shows how,The article even asit amid ancient conversations aboutwhat constitutes aproper memberofaspecies, in andoverlapsaries between species. This rabbinic biologyought to beunderstood ofareproductive biologythat sought andis part to determine thebound law and of menstrualpurity Temple lawand sacrificial inthe tractates ofNiddah tion, zoology andspeciescrossings. The humanhere emerges at theintersection species, andembeddedtheiraccount withinbroader considerations ofreproduc how the and oftheMishnah setthehumansideby sidewithother Abstract: Science and SpeciesNonconformity inEarlyRabbinic The ofSpecies:Humans, Reproduction Animals USA University ofMichigan, Neis Rachel and invaluable comments. editing and smart observations and Ezra Gerard for his marvelous research assistance reviewer for helpful their comments. Sincere thanks to Kashdan Harry for his diligent JonSecunda, Schofer, Azzan Yadin, Wimpfheimer, Barry Moulie Vidas, and JSQ’s Novick, Max Strassfeld, Daphna Stroumsa, Sarah Stroumsa, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Shai Fonrobert, Chaya Halberstam, Kessler, Gwynn Sarra Lev, Gil Klein, Daniel Neis, Tzvi Berkowitz, Anna Bonnell-Freidin, Clara Bosak-Schroeder,ʾanan Ra Boustan, Charlotte of project this that I presented. My gratitude Julia to Mira Balberg, Watts Belser, Beth sity, University of Michigan, and New of College Florida for discussion about portions allowed headway. me to make further Thanks to audiences at UTAustin, Univer Duke Mesli, Sarah Linwick, and Melanie Yergeau. A UM ADVANCE Summer Writing Grant fellowsthe for Sara feedback, their particularly Ahbel-Rappe, Holly Hughes, Rostom enabled research grateful to Sid Smith for and an early version of article. this I am A fellowship at Humanities the Institute at University the of Michigan in2014–15 Tracing rabbinic analyzes an early approach to the human, this article * © 2017 Mohr Siebeck © 2017Mohr DOI 10.1628/094457017X15072727130648

- - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck the inclusionthe of LGBT people; to natural death.” establisheswhich sanctity the of “innocent human life … from fertilization may result innaturalized violence. basis of animalized, raced, gendered, or sexed disability-related variation) entities (e. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 hierarchical of binary human and non-human intselem based elohim finds entities certain or as non-human, describe animal or “mere” material. The for life, and death, disposal value human wethe when set over other entities, in multivariate ways. vividly display cases These material the consequences ent entities (from reproductive material to non-humans to LGBTQ people) and not deformities man half and ape.” half demning offspring the of interracial marriage, for it called “images of God forport Black the Lives Matter movement; people with disabilities, ity. Examples abound: from the Vatican Committee’s statement on basis ofthe variation across sexuality, gender, animality, race, and (dis)abil notion of human the is for enlisted to call inclusion both and exclusion on 9 racial purityracial and against is set disabled, animalized and others. racialized “an protest embodied against of aesthetics the image the of God.” against marriage,same-sex justice, 290 normative connotations therein. Hitler, 178. Adolf Hitler, Kampf Mein tion Movement,” In Defence of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985)2–3. E. www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PERM-PLATFORM.pdf.See ent-catholic-health-association-conference. www.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/09/remarks-presidSee denominations_a3spreads.pdf. Harvey Belovski, www.keshetuk.org/uploads/1/3/8/6/13861493/keshetuk_factsheet_ 927. with-or-without-us-ted-cruz-asks-pastors-to-preach-pray-against-gay-marriage-137 www.christianpost.com/news/marriage-was-gods-idea-and-he-will-preserve-it-See Dei” of t-shirts Black Campus Ministries, www.newengland.intervarsity.org/swag. www.ucc.org/justice_racism_black_lives_matter;See “Black also Lives Matter Imago www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/jubilevents/jub_disabled_20001203_scheda5_en.htm. While dubbed being an image (tselem of God elohim) may endow certain In examples, these of logics the tselem elohim or link oppose quite differ act, would “aact, be mockery, like marriage with amonkey,” 94)and hetero racialized, the Press, 2012)89–126,on John Austin’s discussion of marriage without (which, aspeech

g., towardg., Peter animals; see Singer, “Prologue, Ethics and New the Animal Libera Rachel Neis Rachel 5 to second the principle of Texas the Republican Party’s Platform, Mein Kampf Mein g., zygotes)g., with “sanctity,” exclusion from category this (on the

6 , 402.Compare Mel Animacies Chen, 1 , trans. Manheim Ralph to United the Church of for calling Christ sup 3 to an Jewish Orthodox advocating for 4 and from Barack Obama urging for health 7 Hitler’s Kampf Mein 9 Here, the 2 (Boston: Houghton 1998) Mifflin, from Ted inveighing Cruz (Durham: University Duke imago dei undergirds described as described 8 Con JSQ ------Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck the notionthe of divine the body. by partly not effected This has been shying away from implications the of or blurring differences the human between and non-human. living/dead;of human/non-human), agency/passivity; re-centering while tend to de-emphasize kinds the of dualisms just mentioned (including those 14 13 12 11 10 alisms. studies, feminist studies, science disability studies and feminist materi new problems foregoing inthe examples, inposthumanist scholarship, animal heaven and and soul body, earth, mind and matter, and man and woman. notion of divine, the with corollary dualisms of humanity and animality, support inalong tradition of commentary that upholds atranscendent 24 (2017) tselem elohim as adistinctive contribution to humanity’s self-conception. (and self-congratulatory) on reflection tselem the elohim and to cast the to go to rabbinic notions of human the solely for “high” or spiritualizing studies scholarship, we amore find recent modulation of an earlier tendency to human. the give twist to an what embodied is nonetheless aspecies-exclusive approach M. inRabbinic Self-Formation,”Body inReligion and the Self in Antiquity, ed. D. Brakke, angel as residing of human. body the inthe Jonathan See W. However, Schofer the finds disrupting hierarchical expected, binaries of beast/ Image in Rabbinic of Literature,” God the Society for Textual Reasoning as 4/3(2006);Alon GoshenGottstein, Body “The Chicago Press, 1998)117–136;Jonathan W. in Antiquity Neis,Rachel The E. Dignity,” Religion of Journal E. notions of purity”; Transpositions “writes hybridity into and symbolic our sphere social and as such it challenges all 112, 120. Braidotti considers possibilities the techno-scientific in the present, which and Jane Vibrant Bennett, Matter e. On non-human entities, and such enfolding as their bacteria, within human, the see, Haraway, Frost,tha eds., J. Wolfe,2013); Cary “Human, Too All Human,” e. See, We cautions find against humanisms, uncritical related to some of the and M. Hird, “Biologically Queer,” inAshgate Companion to Queer Theory, ed. g., Myrag., Hird, “Animal Transex,” Studies Feminist Australian g., Yairg., Lorberbaum, In God’s Image(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Alexanderg., Altmann, “‘Homo Imago Dei’ in Jewish and Theology,” Christian Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. L. Satlow and S.Weitzman (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005) 10 In differing ways, scholarly these and philosophical approaches g., Chen, Animacies Chen, g., O’Rourke (Aldershot: Ashgate Press, and 2009)347–362;Diana Saman Coole

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013);Daniel “Gender,” Boyarin, Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 9–10(1982–83)127–185. When Species Meet (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007). 14 New Materialisms (Durham: University Duke Press, 2010); Donna

Sense ofSense Sight in Rabbinic Culture: Jewish Ways of Seeing in Late 48(1968)235–259;Yaakov Blidstein, (Gerald) “Great Is Human Posthuman Braidotti,; Rosie Posthuman 13 (Polity, 2006)99. (Durham: University Duke Press, 2010)12,23,48, Yet, more eventhese materialist versions Harvard Review Theological Schofer, Image “The of God,” of Journal 124,no.PMLA 2(2009)564–575;Mira The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction Taylor (Chicago: University of (Cambridge: Polity Press, 21,no. 49(2006)35–50, Schofer, Beastly “The 12 (1996) 137–162. 11 In Jewish

Giffney N. Giffney 197–221.

291 12 - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck animal bodies. Both tractates consider Both ofanimal cases cross-species bodies. offspring. woman’s uterus, in Bekhorot those variant discuss human and non-human in treat human the fetus amid various materials emitted from a related to liveness, death and reproductive politics). called Judeo-Christiancalled tradition is often rhetorically deployed. to upendclassical rabbinic facility the with so- the which thought, I hope human clusters tractates inthe Niddah and Bekhorot. of interms of aspecies, reproduction, resemblance and variation. inancientpartakes conversations about what constitutes aproper member overlaps –the This rabbinic species. between biology more importantly through arabbinic that to “biology” determine boundaries seeks the and – and zoology.embryology What emerges about is athinking humanness of humans and otherinbroader species considerations of reproduction, andspecies consider arange variation. of account bodily this embed They how Tannaim the human, I show human the set sideby sidewith other 18 17 16 15 literature inlight of and critical feminist studies. science sations about “generation” and consider briefly ancient and science rabbinic Galen. This allowsGalen. us to of deliberations are profoundly interrelated, just are as they inAristotle and formaking case the abroader “rabbinic biology,” I show how two sets these 292 I begin byI begin laying out some of stakes the inancient “scientific” conver of Aristotle’s Generation of Animals,” as aprocess inalarger occurs which natural nexus”; D. facture ofand ancientartifacts, the on focus procreation and begetting of living things conceptsmodern of reproduction leaning on metaphors of production and manu (e. refer to or male female dimensions of procreation (e. ting implied inGreek, (gennao Latin, The term “generation” conveys ancient the meanings of creating, and bearing, beget “technologically bio-mediated” present, Braidotti, see Posthuman of mixedOn the effects life-centered rhetoric, anthropocentric individualism and the Interspecies and cross-species offspring may same. the look and Y) or resembles parent male the rabbinic (the (Y) termfor such entities is kil offspring of two different Xand (species that Y) species manifests hybrid features (X novo an entity that resembles Y. species By “cross-species” where to cases two parents of Xdelivers offspring, species I refer mandel Wahrman, (: 1970). man (New York: Jewish Seminary, Theological 1962)or Tosephta Mosad 1957–59)and Bialik, Tosefta the according to Tosefta Kifeshuta I cite Mishnah the Sidre according to Shishah forThe evidence across-species and bodily-variant account of the to offerI seek an alternative: tracing an early rabbinic approach to the

g., Gen 2:4, heaven and earth). Daryl McGowan 2:4,heaven Gen g., andDaryl Tress earth). notes “the contrast between Rachel Neis Rachel and not does derive from parents. their By “interspecies” offspring, I refer to the

side-stepsome noted contemporary reflexes (as These areThese entities species-appearance whose is de

and generare and ) and Hebrew can (y-l-d).These in Feminism and Ancient Philosophy, ed. Julie g., Gen 4:1and Gen g., 5:3)and beyond M. Tress, “Metaphysical Science , ed. H. 17 And by drawing on 15 18 While sources the I then turn to the , 105–42. Albeck (Jerusalem: (Jerusalem: Albeck , ed. M. , ed. Saul Lieber S. Zucker ʿ ayim 16 JSQ In In ). - - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck from ahorse, ahorse; iffrom ahuman, ahuman.” seed” produces something that “comes naturally to be like” source: the “if materials that emerge from likeness. human the body: 20 19 monster). of identity species (human or animal) or same, able-bodiedness (the or a iswhich whatrial, ensures likeness,mimetic in terms a strictly whether tinguished by derivation their or deviation from right the kindof mate The author-compiler of Problems 1.1. 1. implicatesbiology humans among and as animals. humans between links genealogical and animals, rabbinic reproductive attempts to distinguish human the founder, arguing that, even as it disavows with close adiscussion of two key instances tractates where inthese I creaturely classification, of as part a broader rabbinic reproductive biology. sources inNiddah and Bekhorot, focusing on shared their concerns with 24 (2017) 22 21 seed” same the as “worms” generated by excrement. offspring, making uterine entities “called monsters” of born “corrupted Human Embryo Human human generates human” the and D. towithin fish, swallowed the fish by other Cf. fish). Aristotle’s repeated maxim “the births to excretions and of varieties nested entities (e. distinctions to t.Bekhorot topics 1:5–13,whose range from cross-species classifying Ps. Aristotle, Problems 4,878a1–3and 878a20–28.Compare questions these and Ps.See Aristotle, Problems something is like us, is it more our own, but ifit is like another, it is not?” many things come from to be what is putrefying as why, well as from So seed. if then, our offspring, but ifit comes from some other or part excretion, it is not ours? For Ps. Aristotle, Problems workthe of more than one author and to have inlate redacted been antiquity. See Cambridge University Press, 2014)208–229.Scholars consider Problems theticals, and Counterfactuals in Ancient Greek Thought, ed. Victoria Wohl (New York: Lehoux,“Why Daryn See Doesn’t My Baby Me?” Like in Probabilities, Look Hyop [LCL]), vol. 316). Pseudo-Aristotle, municating Reproduction,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine (2015)380,384. 89 replication) instead of “generation,” Nick see Hopwood et cept of “reproduction” century(and mid-19th inthe its association with mechanized K. Ancient reproductive science Sources from Antiquity Ward (New York: Routledge, emergence 1996)33(and32).Onthe see of con the

(University of Exeter Press, 1990)20–31. Problems, ed. and Mayhew Library trans. Classical Robert (Loeb 4, 878a1–4:“Why, animal ifthe is from born is our it seed, 4, 878a20–24;Lehoux, “Baby,” 210. 19 has a strict criterion has astrict by he which assesses M. Balme, “AnthroposM. Balme, anthropon gennai, ” in The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction g., honeyg., from to eggs fish bees, 22 Materials are thus dis 21 al., “Introduction: Com 20 Only “uncorrupted Deviations are not to contain

293 - - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck and materiality combine inAristotle’s reproductive system. that of an animal only” – properly was still offspring. called thata delivery “no longer has appearance the of ahuman at being but all, some ways had atighter notion of what likeness should consist: resem of generation theory seed continued influential inlate to be antiquity, in 28 27 26 25 24 23 gested that variation or “misshapenness,” including nonconformity, species within reproduction. same-species Aristotle inaccepting nonconformity species as offspring and as variation parents both inwhich cratic theory contribute two-seed he followed seed, blance to parent. male the material that caused deviation. imparting(blood), form to it, and it was failure the to master of seed the the upon acted resemblance female matter seed male to seed: male was tied progeny, were steps toward monstrosity, 294 humans and horses successfully reproducing. possibility the rejected of centaurs (horse-human hybrids) due to impossibility the of Wiley(LOC: Blackwell, 2016) 331. In Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. L. Georgia animal andbetween human systems; Wilberding, see “Embryology,” to Companion through human reproduction to inparallel animal reproduction, assuming parallels and identity, species Seed the On Galen, per p.19 (1986) 47–77; see Michael “Galen’sSee Boylan, Conception Theory,” Journal of the History of Biology “medicalization” and (10–12). aesthetics atalizes of ends human the of curve the variation” (20)and shows between links the through having marked radically abody by its own particularity, that abody materi inist presses disability us theory to ask what kinds of knowledge might produced be Transforming Feminist,” NWSAJournal she 14(2002)1–32,inwhich argues that “fem Columbia University her Press, “Integrating also 2017) 19–20,27–28.See Disability, and disability,”(New York: Bodies Garland Rosemarie see Thomson, Extraordinary of Generation section On this of Animals 2014). disrupts reproductive the Symptom process; Feminine of generationtheory overlooks role the of “unruly” female matter (necessarily) which E. See more individual characteristic of human. Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle, While acontemporary Galen, of Tannaim, the drew from Hippo the Not ancient all thinkers took such ahard line. Aristotle, single- whose and female” entity 1:26). Gen per Adam 5:3,inwhich Gen “begets” ason inhis image and likeness (no Eve, no “male

Rachel Neis Rachel Bianchi, argues who that an active/passive dualistic hierarchy for Aristotle’s GA GA Generation of Animals 767b 8–10. 769b 8–11(and 767b5–7).The animal (zōon

67 on female matter (in addition conferring to featuresseed) 23 Deviations from with female beginning this, 767b–769b, ed. A. 26 We how see gender, animality, disability 28 Others, such Others, as Pliny and Soranus, sug Usefulness of the Parts of the Body 3.1, Galen as “the founding association of femaleness 24 2.2. Galen, Aristotle 2.2.Galen, and others thought but evenextreme dissemblance – L. Peck (LCL, vol. 336).Compare (New York: Fordham University, ) is more general than the 27 25 For Aristotle, JSQ Irby - - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck Indians mated who with animals. births and “monstrous races,” including one report of offspring to born of cases animal-humanracial hybridity in his discussions of “monstrous” on how likeness comes and to be on how to explain and dissem classify a fixation on resemblance (or “mimetic dissemblance”), differ though they “resemblances only.” outcome of inter-breeding (due to gestational differences): such were cases hybridity Aristotle occurs, and that denied creatures Galen these were the While admitting that variation bodily including nonconformity species or instead “mimetic dissemblance.” interrupted processes of generation as replicating likenesses, introducing 34 33 32 31 30 29 rabbinic texts. orpied mechanics the with seed of generation. This is in contrast to later similar concerns about likeness and variation, but were far less preoccu regarding identity species and race. As Tannaim the see, we will entertained of gender and (dis)ability (or “monstrosity”), but dovetails also with those blance. through Their thinking of processes these not only crosses issues was result the of sense-impressions during conception. 24 (2017) at monkeys during conception delivered monkey-like infants. 2 (2009).Sources such as Rabbah Genesis it (123). See also Reuven also Kipperwasser,it (123).See procreation but “disassociates intercourse,” sexual parents and reproductive from fluids Israel ceiving that the through embryos to think Israel’s used relationship (Con with God textualizing inlight arguing them of while and Greco-Roman embryology gynecology Kesslermale, and Gwynn God. treats primarily Amoraic sources on embryology, con name three “partners” contribute who different elements to fetus: the human female, E. Human Animal: Natural History, Book 7(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005)46–47. hippocentaur, The Beagon, Pliny Mary Elder body Pliny See whose viewed). on the Hist. Examples of “races”: Pliny, Nat. Hist. Aristotle, Soranus, 364–374. Michaud, Éric See “Potent Image,” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 65–66(2015) Heliodorus, refers to either parent’s impressions. sensory Versions of found can idea be this in amorphos Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994)37–38and 48renders kakamorphos both Soranus,See Gynecology samplesThese of late ancient of theories reproduction revolve all around Another explanation for nonconformity species was inter-breeding. Rachel Neis,Rachel of Sense Sight, 36,39,131–137,159–166(and sources there). g. 14:6,9;y. Rabbah Leviticus g. 31c;b.ʾim 8:4, Kila Niddah later 31a–b:These sources 7:32–34, women elephants birthed who or snakes, and hybrid births (such as a

Gynecology as “misshapen.” Soranus just mentions women; Pliny, Natural 7.52 History GA Aethiopica , 77–126).Shenotes 14elevates also how Rabbah God’s Leviticus role in 34 769b18–19. In Tannaitic sources, we few references find to notion the , 1:39. 32 De hist. phil hist. De 4.8;Galen, Pliny was ambiguous, citing individual both and , 1:39and 1:47.In Temkin his edition, Owsei (Baltimore: 30 33 7:23and 7:30;examples of individual Nat. cases: In Soranus’ example, women gazed who “‘Three Partners inaPerson’,” difficilior lectio 26:7; b. 20a,b; 58a,b;Bava . 116and Theriaca De ad Pisonem . See The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction 29 31 Vision thus

295 and and - - - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck few exceptions, Tannaitic texts considerations embed of likeness and vari spectrum of differentspectrum of fields knowledge.” writers clearly of thought as part a of about expertise of bodies all these 37 36 35 ordering.” expand to field encompass the “the of whole industry ancient knowledge- that restrict its domain to what is now considered and scientific, instead havethem, critiqued anachronistic and narrow understandings of science torians of science, and scholars of ancient Greek and sources Latin among claims of authority, neutrality and science. His objectivity inmodern studiesscience and of history science.The former have taught us to unpack inlight so of insightsa rabbinic from feminist biology, and critical I do sophical and other genres of Greek and thought, Latin and out instaking When situating Niddah and Bekhorot alongside ancient philo scientific, 1.2. far focus which more on shape the and features of offspring the itself. ation of offspring into sources the inNiddah and below, Bekhorot discussed that humans owe origin to their a“drop,” areference to seed. male 38 who workswho into seed male afetus that has “his father’s form.” actively imprinting female the material with form, only the player is God, most elaborate text of we echoes find Aristotle, but instead of seed male the 296 and Greg Woolf expansive approach (Cambridge, 2017) 3.A similarly to knowledge Writing,” inAuthority in and Ancient Expertise Scientific Culture , ed. Jason König Jason König, “Self-Assertion and Its Alternatives in Ancient and Scientific Technical Chicago Press, 2014) Lehoux, Whatsources, Daryn see Did the Romans Know? (Chicago: University of “theology” and “science,” and interpreting “all monsters” silly those inancient Roman and other subjects for analyzing ancient knowledge-production, interlacing the of Routledge: mismatch 2011)409–422.Onthe of distinctions science modern between panion to Literature and Science Clarke, ed. Bruce and Manuela Rossini (London: On “science” across genres, “Greece Emma Gee, see and Rome,” Com inRoutledge Kessler,(see Israel Conceiving 20. Not only parent’s is male the role over taken by but God, no mother is mentioned Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, 8;cf. Mekhilta deRabbi Beshallah, Shimon bar Yohai 19and by awoman (e. Niddah 4:1;t.Niddah 2:4,6);some 2:8–9;t. sources of it talk discharged being zerah (tipah shel mayim, (tipah shelzenut, “a drop of promiscuity”); and Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, 8 Beshallah, areThese m. Avot serukhah 3:1(tipah 129–35, 154–55. Metsia 84aconsider impressions visual on fetus. the further, See Neis, of Sense Sight ,

Situating science Rachel Neis Rachel , Lev 15:16)inTannaitic, Lev sources is not explicitly related to reproduction (e. 37 Whereas might moderns separate law from medicine, “ancient

g., m.Miqvaotg., 8:4). “a drop of water”). The more common “emission of seed” (shikhvat 8–15. , 14–16,78,82,104). , “a putrid drop”); Tannaim on Deut 32:2 38 Thus, rather than aspiring to a 36

Besides these these Besides 35 In the g., m. g., JSQ - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck as engaged. laconic Tannaitic sources, or rabbis the viewing as “influenced” rather than without simply going to Greco-Roman sources gaps inthe to more inthe fill approach and gendered political, the social contexts of rabbinic content encyclopedic genresencyclopedic of knowledge in Pliny’s gendered, and contexts political social of knowledge-making. Thus, the stood within contexts the stood of Roman imperialism. forms of knowledge production. are opening up what included can be realm in the of “science” and various as unworthy participants of because religious their nature, who I join those either to restore to them canon a reified of ancient or science to them reject positivist, evaluative or account teleological of rabbinic “sciences” that seeks 24 (2017) 42 41 40 39 rabbinic forms have on content the itself. is incidental science the rather than significant), we may ask what impact former contain rabbinic (halakhah rulings by juxtaposition to “canonical” sources scientific and concluding that the inGreco-Romanthose writings. Instead of evaluating rabbinic writings are ifthey rather different or from especially – of rabbinic science, even – no. 2004) 4; Kottek, 259; Berlin, “Medicine;” Solomon, “Natural Sciences.” The contrast Therapies in the Babylonian (Max Planck Institute for History the of Science determinations; of halakhic real purpose e. see, Rabbinic “sciences” are as fragmentary, often described incidental or subordinate to the issues.these 5 (1998)300–317.Thanks to Peggy McCracken for helping through me think some of Pace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 2004), and Jason König and Tim Whitmarsh, Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire TrevorSee Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 195–254. Jonathan Sanders and Ben-Dov (New Seth York: New York University Press, 2014) Ancient Jewish Science and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature , ed. Annettesee “‘Ancient Reed, Jewish Sciences’ and Historiography the of ,” in tive to such approaches, alongside ahistoriographical and reflection, methodological (Dordrecht:Oviedo Springer Netherlands, 2013)1404–1414.For an important correc in Judaism,” Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions, ed. Anne L. drecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997)714–17,and Norman Solomon, “Natural Sciences of Science, Technology, Samuelscience, see Kottek, “Medicine Talmud,” inthe inEncyclopaedia of the History For two among many examples of laudatory or apologetic evaluation of rabbinic French, sources, Markus see Asper, Writing Gruyter, De Science (Berlin: 2013)4–5,and Roger considerations with using “science” modern on difficulties the to write about ancient of particularly making, “natural philosophy,” is inLehoux, taken Romans Historicizing hand goes science inhand with investigation the of the Giuseppe Veltri, “On Influence the of ‘Greek Wisdom’,” Studies Jewish Quarterly

Ancient Natural History (London: Routledge, 1994)x–xiii. 41 We may seriously take then discursive the contexts and forms and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, ed. Helaine Selin 39 42 g., Markhamg., Geller, Healing Akkadian Part of answering question this ) rather than (or science that The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction Natural History 40 It is possible to similarly C. Runehov and Lluis can be under can be . For nuanced

(Dor 297 - - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck of menstruation gendered encode and notions embryology of bodies, 44 43 ishness and divinity. science. rabbinicwhich concerns about purity and gender substantively shape this attendingside Greco-Roman while theories, gynecological to ways the in analysis, inher study of tractate the of Niddah as a“science of blood” along Charlotte Fonrobert how has modelled one might kind of this undertake 1.3. science. contexts,with these not considering least when politics the of reproductive and contexts. Jewish social And considerations of gender are bound up of science the human and animal reproduction own their Roman inboth involves considering situation political the of rabbis the were who making of women’s uterine contents to animal reproduction not, does of course, Haraway, Myra Hird and Eva Hayward might embrace – rabbis’ the linking studiesscience and queer and transgender studies scholars such as Donna –amove that feminist considerationtheir of cross-species possibilities in Niddah are only While a part). rabbis the separatism undo species in humanbetween and animal my argument is precisely about and strong the potential overlaps – links – maintaining(while elision the of female the reproductive body). of ona science species reproductive the materials of women and animals (Kessler), model theological moves us here to consider how rabbis the built (Fonrobert), and how women elided they infavor of developing fetuses as a rabbis built authority their by inventing of and ascience blood gynecology contents and reproduction complements work. their Their attention to how 298 Press, 2001). Flemming, e. see, sity of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).OnGreco-Roman medicine, authority and gender, Fonrobert, 103–127. CharlotteSee Fonrobert, lawsfarming and framing such dietary material are important but not oppositional. germane. are The purposefully concernszoology of purity law, temple offerings, tractates like Niddah, Bekhorot and Kilʿayim, gynecology, in which embryology, and and serendipitous” and “full the text” medical inGreco-Roman sources oversimplifies andGeller others draw inrabbinic science between literature as “purely coincidental Unlike donot solely Fonrobert focus on human and Kessler, cases: I

Feminist Science Studies Rachel Neis Rachel 43 g., Heleng., King, Hippocrates’ Woman (London: Routledge, 1998),and Rebecca She and Kessler Gwynn have shown how rabbinic the “sciences” Menstrual Purity Kessler,; Gwynn Israel Conceiving Medicine and the Making of Roman Women (Oxford: Oxford University

44 My investigation of related science the to uterine Menstrual Purity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000) reproductive (of biology uterine which entities (Philadelphia: Univer JSQ - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck 46 45 product. generation: “she expels” who versus rabbis the uterine the scrutinize who gendered division of “labor” at of heart the rabbinic the concept of human but tends to elide her infavor of her scrutinizing emissions. There is thus a in Niddah woman preserves as agrammatical subject (“she expels”) who The gendered, rhetorical framing that rabbis the to use “produce” humans mulate not only a human reproductive but science a broader also biology. away. mean that considerations of gender and other contexts political must fall 24 (2017) and is structured by same enterprises. these animality and reproduction, entails understanding how gender structures of rabbinic knowledge formation about humanness, variation, bodily 47 capacity of women’s or failures bodies, thereof, become an occasion to for Tannaim. minoritythe Jewish population; claiming itsis move abold mastery for the knowledge of humans and animals would have to vital particularly been (firstborns) is not aneutral or intellectual casual project. Reproductive generation through ritual the filters of niddah and Myra J. Hird (Burlington: Ashgate, 2008)249–263. Hayward, “Lessons from aStarfish,” in Myra Hird, “Animal Transex,” Studies Feminist Australian (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013)30(child mortality), 120–6(Roman dem case ofcase cross-confirming expertise). itemssmall Tosefta’s the to doctors affirm then in(who acurious general diagnosis – 4:12). In rabbis t.Niddah reports 4:3–4two describe case referring women expel who immersing inoil, sac afetal not water, by light the of sun the or tearing it (t.Niddah subjects tearingculine afleshy mass, and t.Niddah plural 4:11has masculine subjects submerges or crushes what she However, has expelled. t.Niddah 4:1has plural mas There are exceptions: m.Niddah 3:2and afemale t.Niddah subject who 4:2describe rabbinicfurther conceptions of Jewish (e. ographics). Fonrobert shows how uterine operates science blood beyond gender, to (bio)politicsimperial of knowledge, scientific Susan see Mattern, Deformity,” inKennedy and Jones-Lewis, Identity and the Environment , 45–61.Onthe Garland,Routledge, Robert 2016)373–389;also “Invention and Application of Racial and Medieval Worlds Antiquity,” inRoutledge Handbook of Identity and the Environment in the Classical variation,On race and Maja bodily see Kominko, “Monsters and Barbarians in Late Haraway, aboutideas generation, regeneration, contagion and interspecies possibilities, also see is what companion cannot species abide”; Haraway, When Species, 165.For different mates, of companions. Every is amulti-species species crowd. Human exceptionalism “Species, like body, the are internally oxymoronic, of own their full of others, mess full Samaritan) and non-Jewish “Blood and identity; Law,” Henoch In of case the uterine emissions and potential fetuses, reproductive the 45 Part of our and considering racial shaping political social, the 47

Paralleling is way this the that reproductive the of science animals Companion Species Manifesto Species Companion , ed. Rebecca Futo, ed. Rebecca Kennedy and Molly Jones-Lewis (London: Queering the Non/Human, ed. Noreen Giffney (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2003); g., rabbinic,g., Samaritan), para-Jewish (e. 46 The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction Making arabbinic of science (menstruation) and bekhorot 21,49 (2006) 35–50; Eva 30 (2008)243–266. Prince of Medicine of Prince

299 g., g., - - - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck tute a is to or determine whether not non-living, certain organic materials consti earlier chapters (per ucts intractate and m.Niddah task here 3:1–2a),the determination of or whether not some of entities these are prod menstrual fromexpelled awoman’s uterus (m.Niddah 3:1–7).Following initial the hamapelet vs.sheyaldah ofscenario Niddah, or living, as animal inthe of scenario Bekhorot: an entity that like looks another non-living, kind(whether as human inthe two eachenvisionThese scenarios one kind(min deliveries.species in terms of creaturely classification and resemblance and in terms of cross- In Niddah and Bekhorot considerations about reproduction areboth posed 2. slaughter) and life of different kinds of uterine material. together interms of rabbinic conceptualizations of death the (miscarriages, Temple and humans. In other words, analyses of gender and animality come in Bekhorot context inthe arises of consumptive the economies of the both 49 48 of inheritance , the law, or postpartum corpse-related sacrifices assemblages as anon-living human relate to concerns about redemption elsewhere inTannaitic sources, consequences the of these classifying concern is contraction the of childbirth-related impurity by parturient; the non-living materials as possible (i. miscarriages 300 or animals. Given context, the to translate I tend or birth as valid delivery. Valad One could translate“aborts” hamapelet as (as ininvoluntary abortion). m. Niddah (hamapelet 3:2b: One expels who The Niddah source is situated inalist of avarietyof materials that are a donkey, and one the must born adonkey. be and exempt from laws the of For firstborn. donkey it is written firstborn donkey or adonkey it that is delivers something like akindof (ke-min) horse – m. Bekhorot 1:2a:A cow that delivers (sheyaldah something of human form is not delivery. avalid for afemale: words the of R. she should sit [out days the of impurity] for amale, and iffemale she should sit domesticated animal, animal wild or bird, if it is pure male whether or impure – Reproducing andBekhorot SpeciesinNiddah

Rachel Neis Rachel valad firstborn donkey firstborn may translated be as fetus, embryo or offspring. The term can designate humans (a valid delivery, (avalid or offspring).

(Exod 13:13).[This means (Exod that one the both] birthing must be ). Meir. Anything And sages the say: that not does have ) 49 48 M. something like akindof (ke-min) ) something like akindof (ke-min) e., non-living humans). The Niddah these 3:2b assesses ) expelling or) expelling delivering (Exod 34:20) (Exod JSQ - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck 52 51 50 a resource, asubstance that converted can be into flesh. consider termination the of life. Thereby is animalnaturalized the body as inBekhorotcussed are living, and liveness their becomesopportunity the to other emissions, products and waste. This situates uterine material (as putatively human) along acontinuum of non-living organic substance, inorder to contemplate what makes ahuman. Niddah allows for aprofoundly materialist gaze on various permutations of reflexes around life (or personhood, viability) or sanctity. The in scenario short-circuits familiar contemporary material that miscarried – has been –uterine temporary discussions. occasion for The particular scrutiny genuine hybrid products of interspecies breeding). tractate considers cross-species resembling births novo, (de rather than 22:18–25.Amidst15:21–22 and its Lev regulation of animals, these the animals,of able-bodied of free idealized, animals to Temple, the principles the are drawn from biblical conceptions sequences invarious realms of ritual, and personal family law. impurity. 24 (2017) engage with notions the of liveness and value that are incon often posed Temple.the question inm.Bekhorot delivered the 1:2ais whether entity is suitable for deliveriesthese are strongly reminiscent of inMishnah those Niddah. The I owe felicitous this formulation to Mira Balberg. Bekhorot 1:5and t.Bekhorot 1:13. union and cross-species offspring. of use On the kil 5:3 distinguishes interspecies between births that are result the of aforbidden kil resembles which anotherery kind, but is not result the of interbreeding. T. ofborn two different kinds (kil tractate this andBoth Kilʿ t. also (see 9:4and 9:9). Ahilot 8:1consider precise the moment at alive which or fetus dead conveys impurity entities must offer (and consume) M. childbirth the sacrifice. question 1:1–5, 8, the a womanis whether delivers who one of various uterine uterine entities count as for afirstborn Temple the and for inheritance law. In m. Post-partum impurity is derived 12:2.M. from Lev In text the from Bekhorot, regulates which donation the of firstborn The Tannaitic considerations of uterine material inNiddah donot 50

Thus, humanness the or not of auterine entity hascon ramified ayim distinguish interspecies between offspring–offspring ʿ ayim ) – and cross-species) – offspring, the 52 By contrast, animal the offspring dis blemishes, as laid out inDeut The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction Bekhorot 8:1weighs inon which ʿ ayim ayim 51 Its formulations about bekhor offspring as bekhor 7:4, 7:6 and t. de novode deliv Kilʿayim see m. see

ʿ ayim ayim 301 - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck higher registershigher of classes). iswhich shorthand for more narrowly “species” defined (within three the egories of animal kinds, but pure also or impure animal kinds, latter the of terminology.zoological The Mishnah enumerates not only its tripartite cat pure or impure” (ben tahor ben tame ). The language here draws on rabbinic domesticated animal, animal or wild bird (behemah, hayah, ʿ In human the awoman case, delivers “something like akind of (ke-min) onfocus creaturely classification and naming the of nonhuman animals. and literally. m.Niddah 3:2and Both m.Bekhorot 1:2(and related sources) of creaturelyminology nomenclature and tractates kinds inboth seriously entity that resembles another. I argue that one must conceptual the take ter Niddah in both The cases and Bekhorot posit one giving to birth species an 2.1. the remainderthe of chapter, the with its varietyof materials from textured fetal and shape – is reinforced by progression. this This attention continues into attention solidity, their to materiality the of uterine solubility products – increasingly prominent materials as these coagulate into larger forms. The classificatory lines related to kind or Creaturely species. entities become 54 53 entities (e. gression of uterine solid materials from goes organic smaller materials and of various color, hue and texture inm.Niddah 2:6–7.The passage’s pro of sets materialThese solid follow adiscussion of liquid uterine materials 302 2:3). or limb that could potentially convey impurity corpse (e. Jewish Research 20[1951]396). on Cave the Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources,” Proceedings of the American Academy for itglosses “a general termfor generated insects inliquids” (Saul “Light Lieberman, found not inliquids. does Lieberman translate; noting its obscure etymology, he itdefines of as aspecies mosquito the Jastrow family; translates as gnat or red insect Hebrew sion The word as se is vocalized barley, something(2a) One expels who like akind of (ke-min like) peel, akindof (ke-min) a menstruant), and ifnot she is pure. Rabbi Judah says: either way she is impure. Niddah 3: Just before our text inNiddah 3,other material entities are enumerated: creeping creatures, ifthere with she them is is blood impure, and ifnot she is pure. somethingexpels like akindof (ke-min and) fish forbidden locusts, creatures and intothem water. If dissolve, they she is impure, and ifnot she is pure. (2b)One who

Creaturely nomenclature andkinds Rachel Neis Rachel ke-seʾ 53 like akind of (ke-min) dust, like akind of (ke-min) red flies, yavkhush g., red flies) to larger redg., flies) creatures (e. orah (1) One who expels apiece, (1)One expels who ifthere with it, is blood she is impure (as (like a [grain of] barley) is used to quantify barley) is used volume aminimal of bone (like a[grain of]

. Albeck describes this as a type of as this atype water Even-Shoshan describes insect; . Albeck ʾ orah (barley)inMSKaufmann and MSParma. The expres g., birds),g., and moves along g., m.Keritotg., 3:8,m.Ohalot of 54 ) “whether lether put JSQ - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck species designations.species In Bekhorot the excerpt above we have spe three very animal or bird may “pure be or impure,” is which shorthand for particular Finally,flies. m.Niddah 3:2belaborates that domesticated the animal, wild on classificatory ahigher register than more designations specific like red creatures). classes not These only refer to larger creatures, but operate also impure entities ingestion whose is forbidden. (sheqatsim u-remasim) functions as aTannaitic exemplar of stereotypically Conversely pairing, the “forbidden creatures and creeping creatures” 56 55 priestly inthe portionsterminology of 11. 1and Genesis Leviticus of rabbinic these terms for creatures and classes adopt and adapt similar and impure and kinds, smaller larger domesticated land animals). Many many kinds, but other considers particular also other registers (e. animalscific named: cow, donkey, and horse. The tractate not only names size thatsmaller are pure and potentially permitted for consumption. (dagim ve-hagavim) is astereotypical rabbinic exemplum of of species a rabbinic classificatory systems. ard nomenclature for non-human that species is indebted to broader parallels. It and elaborated reflected is further inTosefta Niddah and other Tannaitic tosacs flattened fetuses, from placentae to variant and parts. body bodies 24 (2017) 57 of animal, wild domesticated animal and bird (hayah, behemah, ʿ animalpairing versus wild domesticated animal grouping and ternary the ignates eight forbidden and tame describes termsThese are not same inthe way used , inthe nor are paired. they Leviticus 6:8. t. animals,wild see of animals. For various pairings and contrasts, such asand fish versus locusts fowl and 8:2; t. Nedarim 3:5; and m. Keritot 5:1) and often also contrast with them other classes andfish as apair (e. locusts 11:22marks permitted withlemineihu Lev tag the locusts sometimes also fowl,sometimes also donot map onto priestly ones (land-water-heavens See, trinary). The rabbis’ versus distinctions wild primary between domesticated animals, and The descriptions of uterine materials inm.Niddah 3:1–2deploy stand they “dothey not have something of human form,” MS.Vatican per and other the mss). Parashah 1:7excludes entities these from transmitting childbirth impurity because (m. Keritot 1:5; m. Bekhorot entities 8:1)these are out ruled as material.menstrual The Tosefta makes no mention of and set, this inother parallels mss).6, all M. onlyoccurs once outside of uterine the context (Mekhilta de- Bahodesh (e. creeping things or reptiles. Sheqatsim u-remasim appear as apair inTannaitic literature Biblical Priestly Terms,” MAARAV 6(1992)107–16.Remes and to other also creatures Jacob 11:10,20,23,41–42).S;see inLev Milgrom, “Two g., m.Shabbatg., 14:1).The joining of four these entities together inTannaitic sources

sheqetsim Niddah 3:2is only the is considered placeset this inwhich as potential as forbidden for consumption but not tame g., t.Terumotg., 9:6,m.Oktsin 3:9;m. 8:1;t.Hullin species), yet sheqets species), For example, pairing the “fish and locusts” The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction 56 Also typical are Also binary the is

applied to sherets , “of its kind.” The rabbis often is general the termfor (whereas sherets veladot . in Lev 11:41 in Lev ,Sifra of – of – 57 g., pureg.,

land land des 303 55 - - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck or of specificity members withingroup. this onethe hand to members of agroup, and on other the hand to variety the organization of animal life of 11, 1and Genesis Leviticus of ofuse aterm that is initself about 62 61 60 59 58 min isters of as with Aristotle’s generality and specificity: of use m. Bekhorot 1:2a). (min dagim ve-hagavim, m.Niddah 3:2b)or “donkey kind” (min hamor featuresalso inevennarrower designations, such as “fish-and-locust kind” creature as a pure or impure kind (m. Niddah 3:2b, m. Bekhorot 1:2).Min kind (min behemah within a broader class, such as a domesticated-animal kind or awild-animal followalso usage flexible this of min 304 min min kinds” (e. falcon, raven, hawk, heron, and locusts more, as are “according described to their to kinds.” their greater degree is of found 11,inwhich particularity inLeviticus A we subspeciesor might e. varieties), call but not to any other kind(mino).” For min Rabbi Yosi hayah says, animal kind (min awild e. See, of sense min flexible term“species” the I use instead of “kind” indiscussing rabbinic it inthe texts, I mean notions with modern ofare inflected evolution further and heredity. However, when graduated terms such as order, family, genus, going way the all down which to species, regulate which of rules the logical their not have abiological eidos genos and Things Living Pierre Pellegrin,See “Aristotle,” trans. Anthony Preuss, inAristotle on Nature and to its kind,” and on goes to enumerate behemah the E. See, e. See, 3:9; Sifra ,Bikkurim 3:9;Sifra 12,17;m.Hallah 1:1,2;m.Kilʿayim 2:1). foralso plant-life e. 11:14–29;Deut 14:13–18.The termmin 1:11–25;6:19–20;7:14;Lev Gen See e. In addition to animal classificatory nomenclature, we iterated the find behemah 1:20–21. Sometimes behemah Press, 2015)41. Knowing Review Theological 1:24) or versa vice (e.

g., the trinaries in Gen 1:28 and usages 1:26; in the Gen trinaries the in Gen g., of is logical ratheris logical than taxonomical sense. modern in the g., Gen 1:24–25 refers Gen g., to living the creature brought forth from land the “according Rachel Neis Rachel with various registers of creaturely nomenclature found is also inthe g., m.Bavag., Kamma 4:2,“If an ox was an attested danger to its own g., m.Kilʿayimg., 8:6:“the ox wild is adomesticated animal(min kind behemah). , ed. Catherine M. g., Lev 11:14–16,19,22, 29). Lev g., , ed. Allan Gotthelf, ed. Allan (Bristol: Bristol Press, Classical 1985)95,inwhich

, “far from prefigurations being of our notions of genus and do species, 62 101 (2008) 203–229, and Beth Berkowitz, 101(2008)203–229,and “Animal,” Beth inLate Ancient g. Genesis 1:11–12(in Genesis g. , . min hayah min sense: to understandsense: biological their use g., Lev 1:2). See Naphtali 1:2).See Lev g., Meshel, “Food for Thought,” Harvard Chin andChin Moulie Vidas University (Oakland: of California is asub-category of broader the class of hayot ), 61 classification: but by designating may specify a further functioning.” Modern taxonomists carefully use g., twog., kinds of m.Peah wheat, see 2:5. . They regularly. They designate creatures Tannaitic literature m.Bikkurim 1:3;m. see, as designating varietywithin kinds (what .” ) 59 , the hayah , the

Min Min min min operates at various reg (kind). The association and the remes and the , we must not sight lose 58 hayah hayah where it refers on and eidos genos and 60 and and The rabbis kind “according (e. ʿ of of in Gen in Gen g., Gen Gen g., is used used is (mino) JSQ - , , Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck therefore forbidden. kinds thatthose transmit impurity to humans upon ingestion and are designation inand of itself (following 11).Impure Leviticus creatures are classificationthe of animals as pure or impure functions as akind of species of acow slaughtered can be and consumed, despite that fact the donkeys are identity, of even incases dissemblance. Thus, adonkey-like creature born maternal uterus from an which animal emerges that determines its species eligibility for human ingestion. The reproductive principle is that it is the eligibility for Temple, the but rather by kindas signaled its (im)purity and 66 65 64 63 (and donkey, the is which redeemed with a pure animal). The obligation of to firstborns (male) pertains firstborn of the pure kinds determination of such entities has material consequences: m. Bekhorot 1:2and across similar cases Bekhorot, where, the see, as we will kinds context inthe sify of ambiguous entities. expelled This is obvious in phor. Rather, its is deliberate use of because tractates’ the concerns to clas Niddah and Bekhorot and just examined, is not merely convenient meta The descriptive tissue of creaturely nomenclature and kind, found inboth 2.2. 24 (2017) delivered by acow from offered being as afirstborn. m. Bekhorot acreature 1:2adisqualifies resembling adonkey-kind that is excluding with “blemishes” those (mumim properly slaughtered pure animals, but Temple the has narrower standards, latter it not case does (cf. m.Kilʿ prohibition against mating offspring the with maternal the applies, species but inthe parents are Xand species offspring In Y). like looks species former the kil the case, and matches appearance the of offspring) the and cross-species differentiates interspecies offspring (where parent male the is different to female the parent, using similar language: “x that delivered a kind of y.” In Tosefta the each case T. and Fred Skolnik (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA,2007)650–659. Hayes, Christine See Laws,” “Dietary inEncyclopedia Judaica t.Bekhorot donkeyOn the see firstborn, 1:2. M. Bekhorot 1:2,parallels int.Bekhorot 1:6and 1:9. However, ultimate the test for creature’s this designation species is not its (min tehorah) eat offspring). (the If an impure animal delivers something that is like apure kind animal delivers something like an impure kind (ke-min temeʿ exempt from laws the of (2b)But firstborn. the what about eating If them? apure hamor that deliversm. Bekhorot something like donkey the kind(ke-min 1:(2a)A cow impure, and that emerges which from pure the is pure. Kil X delivers/expels of somethinglike akind Y ʿ ayim 5:3 lists four of cases offspring that resemble a kinddifferent to birthing the ) or adonkey that delivers something like horse the kind (ke-min sus )– it is

, it is forbidden to eat. For that emerges which from impure the is 65 Both divine altar Both and human table can only accept ayim 8:4). ). It is on grounds these that The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction 63 66 , ed. Michael Berenbaum ah) offspring (where both 64 , it is permissible to As mentioned,

ʿ ayim 305 - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck corpse), then, in the case of case inthe then, Bekhorot,corpse), assessment the variant of bodily off emitted from ahuman uterus itsand affects disposal status (potentially as a 68 67 features close. Alongside of is classificatoryvery the terminology min an argumentalso for “like” the taking “like kind” recurring the inthe (ke- about generation, recalling Greco-Roman discussions of same. the This is and Bekhorot treat resemblance and dissemblance as central to questions seriously and literally allows substantive the us to see ways Niddah inwhich This argument about creaturely taking nomenclature and kind language 2.3. dissemblance mimetic think and nonconformity. species (X through nonconformity. species Thus kindXdelivering/expelling kind Y vividly illustrateBoth physical the literalism with rabbis the which think spring or triggers prevents such once-living material’s ingestion by humans. impure kinds. other “kind” signs of aparticular or of species animal. impact to onbut conjure ruling, the serves ascanning for split hooves or refersalso (pure to species or impure kinds). This last has detail no ultimate Mishnah not only enumerates its tripartite categories of animal kinds, but as earnest formal criteria by material which is This assessed. argument min fetus. substantiate They argument the that we must formula the take “ke- ofa vivid sense corporeality the and animality of putative this non-living partum impurity. Together two details of and these species gender make for one must to entity, assign the asex inorder of post- to calculate period the toward one of likeness and resemblance. ke-min behemah, like kind),weighting awild-animal meaning the of “like” undo metaphorical the force “like” of modifier the attached to “kind” (e. 306 pure versus impure kinds). determinations of gendered human adulthood, determinations to species (particularly marks or visible means of identification across a range of entities, from to objects, Throughout Mishnah the termsimanim the On signs (simanim creaturely classification; Purity M. Douglas, and Danger (London: Routledge, 2010). makes Douglas Mary point the fundamental laws that questions pose dietary of The scrutiny is further sharpened accordingThe sharpened scrutiny is further to Rabbi Meir, for whom sheyaldah/hamaplet ) seriously as well. In m.Niddah 3:2b, scrutiny the of possible the fetus’s

Like resemblance orunlike thekind: and variation + creature” as far more than arhetorical convenience, and instead Rachel Neis Rachel 67

If, of case inthe Niddah, designation the of non-living flesh ) and purity the m.Hullin of see species, 3:7,t.Hullin 3:25–26.

ke-min Y) is a very concrete isY) avery way through to which (calque of Greek semeia) 68 These details thus These means distinctive min, JSQ the the g., g., - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck requirements for resemblance mimetic with to respect animal kinds else 69 species-nonconforming, entities to count as offspring. view the This is also (though not with author the of within category the of human avalid delivery. He agrees with Aristotle blance. For Rabbi Meir, an entity that is utterly nonconforming species falls stitute differing of theories reproduction reflect delivery avalid and resem apparentlyThese disagreements technical on what variations of con flesh 2.3.2. (mi- as long as it has “some also of” or bird register) delivered by ahuman may categorized be delivery, as avalid likelooks anon-human creature (of domesticated the animal, animal wild inm.Niddah: do,ruling they after concede all, that an entity that largely mother”). where (e. resemblance of 1:26. Gen mimesis of patrilineal the 5:3andlacks both Gen Aristotle, and divine the accounts of generation. of reproduction as mimesis with strains of biblical both and Aristotelian (adam adam that “anything that not does have something of human form (mi-tsurat ha- notion of reproduction expressed as mimesis is sages’ partially in the view ling Pseudo-Aristotle, alike kind(per Problems ). The resemblance-based a normative of reproduction theory that would limit it to one kindexpel The dissemblances mimetic inNiddah and Bekhorot are departures from 2.3.1. language tractate inthe of Bekhorot cross-species that deliveries. describe is enhanced we when into take account many the instances of same the 24 (2017) 70 See m.Bekhorot 2:5;t.BekhorotSee 2:6;t.Bekhorot t.Kilʿ 1:5,6,9(also spring into “form the of his father.” 10–30, 735a5),and Mekhilta the to likens an icon God painter shapes who off the and sculptor shaping his material (Generation, 724a20,30,725a25,729b15,730b of use the language: artisanal agentive the is likened to acarpenter, seed male painter of reproductive theory Ishmael, patrilineal 8,this mimesis is enhanced Beshallah, by totle’s notion as contributing of seed male form. In Aristotle both and Mekhilta deRabbi 5:3’s Gen See account patrilineal of generation, and Generation, As important as conceptual their apparatus, is substance the of sages’ the ) is not(m.Niddah delivery” 3:2b).Here avalid kind is the human Human form ), with concept the of form (tsurah Partial andradicalPartial dissemblance

g., t.Bekhorotg., 1:9,“its and head majority the of it resemble its However, notion the of human form 70 Instead it marker is aspecies to minimal akin Problems), allowing variant, radically even ) the features) the of ahuman. ; cf. eidos The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction ) infusing notion the 767b–769b for Aris expressed here ayim 5:3).

307 69 ------Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck halakhic radar (perhapshalakhic similar to Problems). like an animal is effectively an unclassifiedfleshy mass, invisible under the nonconforming: for neither them, nor menstrual that fetal, a body looks 73 72 71 is evident insome of “blemishes” the noted inBekhorot. degreeswhich of nonconformity species (and thus hybridity) obtained and animal cross-species deliveries, that Tannaim the lived inaworld in form” and reproductive the principle). restrictions sages’these the (both requirement for “something of human Mishnah. However, Tosefta the section, final inthe see as we will softens more restrictiveof view human the cross-species in these phenomena in the produced by a human, points in Bekhorot, to asomewhat by an animal – –inNiddah nonconforming species the entity is two the cases between is according classed to its parent’s kind. We can speculate that difference the delivered by kind (e. unlike aradically different result of animal inthe case m.Bekhorot an 1:2inwhich entity sion of case inthe such an entity from expelled ahuman, with rather the classes of animal that bears human also elements. what is effectively ahybrid, i. Niddah 3:2bdonot accept such an entity as human, but doaccept they expressed reproductive inthe principle of m.Bekhorot 1:2b. The sages in 74 ­animal-like features are from service, disqualified mouths like look pigs’ or human eyes look whose are excluded from the 308 marked as simile. an overbite “like a pig’s” (m. Bekorot 7:5).The language here is more ambiguous, being “as5:3); soles as wide agoose” (m.Bekhorot 7:6), breasts that hang “like a woman’s” or with eyes“asThose big asor acalf, as agoose” as small (m.Bekhorot 7:4,t.Bekhorot Miscellany, torical For other examples of interspecies births among non-human Aelian, animals, see decomposed. In it asense was always already outside of that material economy. thatbody was once capable of entering circuit the of im/purity that has fragmented or but of “wrong” the “kind.” And of course temporal the context differs: is this not a fetus), except that here it is not aquantitative issue but aformal one: we have abody, relationships the discusses Balberg which human between form, corpse, and the the of material Purity, case person inthe corpse (Balberg, accordsthis with Balberg’s characterization of inverse the relationship ofto body/ flesh system that to include seeks entire the material world under its In aegis. many ways This nonliving thus body transmits no impurity: acurious result for aritual legal convey impurity corpse according to one sage (m.Kilayim 8:5). the E. g., Where sages the draw line the is with completely the ­ species- Regardless of subtle the difference majority between on rulings human

Rachel Neis Rachel adneh ha-sadeh (mastersadneh or ha-sadeh men of are field) the categorized as hayah

1:29 and Josephus, Jewish War e. an entity that resembles one of tripartite the g., adonkey-likeg., of kindborn acow) , 6.5.3. 72 We may contrast exclu this 71 96–121, especially p.96–121, especially 74 and animals whose 73 Priests with 110 in , but JSQ His - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck What to make of apparently these contradictory positions: arelative open likeness to parent the meaning species, that hybridity species is tolerated. Second, according to sages the inNiddah, there must some degree be of from pure”), from species the entity the which derives is determinative. 3:2b and reproductive the principle of m.Bekhorot 1:2(“pure emerges that emerge from animals and humans. First: Rabbi Meir per inm.Niddah identities).species 76 75 broader biological scheme (as expressed by reproductive the principle)? entities delivered by humans indicate that humans are exceptions inthe that view the refuses to species-nonconformity allowDoes radical for 3.1. underminingness, it while at same the time. and Tosefta Niddah makes adual move of supporting human distinctive to distinguish human, the implicates fully actually it inrabbinic biology, reproductive principle inTosefta Bekhorot, may which on first blush seem of m.Bekhorot on 1:2’s image(of the based sort A variation the of God). many creatures and undoing some of its vaunted uniqueness or superiority ples that govern non-human kinds, thereby implicating human the as one of even efforts to distinguish human the apply same the reproductive princi blance and variation? species demonstrates This section that ultimately How human the does into fall broader the scheme of reproduction, resem 3. human case? it acoincidence that somewhat the more restrictive position inthe arises spring versus more inflexibility with entities emitted by humans? And is ness to accommodating species-nonconforming radically deliveries as off altar 24 (2017) To recapitulate: there are of two views species-nonconforming entities creature that like is looks afish probably not avalad ofEarlier parts m.Niddah require of that mass be acertain or delivery the size; a (suchcases as eyes“as big as acalf’s”) are more attenuated for marked being as similes. eyes “as big as” and acalf saying it has amouth “like” apig’s. that human the I think forSchroeder her insight that there is adifference saying between that acreature has of agoat that resembles (domeh While (ke, simile Distinguishing thehumaninreproductiveDistinguishing biology 75 “Not ahumanfrom any ofthem, norany ofthem from ahuman” (though even in these cases the priests the cases and (though eveninthese animals maintain their

“like”) insome is of used animal the examples, “the find we also tail ) that of apig” (m. Bekhorot 6:9).I thank Clara Bosak- The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction even for Rabbi Meir.

309 76 - - - - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck versa. The phenomenon of kinds delivering offspring that like look different kinds (e. an impure kindcoming out of apure kind), but that also genuine larger human. It is not only that a genuine camel cannot emerge from a cow (i. distinctionsin t.Bekhorot among 1:6: further animals the and specifying two significant extensions to m.Bekhorot both 1:2and to earlier the version impure animal is not of born pure”). the This version contains of rule the t. Bekhorot 1:6)innot just positive and but negative also formulations (“an with arepetition of sages’ the reproductive principle (already cited in It that seems Rabbi Simon’s declaration motivated Tosefta the to counter rot 1:2).But version this introduces human the into equation: the principle that declares that pure kinds emerge from pure kinds (m.Bekho of its signs”). requirementunspecified by sages the for of bekhor the purposes the parent (“its and head species majority”) than is higher more the minimal blance for animal the fit for to be consumption. Its threshold of likeness to than m.Bekhorot stricter is still 1:2,givenview that it requires resem partial toborn acow may consumed be ifits and head most of it are bovine. This according to second the clause (perhaps camel-like the added?), creature (and may not consumed, be since camels are not pure kinds). However, m. Bekhorot 1:2, a camel-like entity is a camel regardless of whence it came duplication this uses to derive that, contrary to reproductive the principle of Invoking two biblical prohibitions against consuming camels, Rabbi Simon kind thatthe it resembles: (surprisingly)who ventures cross-speciesasto the ofbeing classify delivery about resemblance,theory variation, and reproduction by Rabbi Simon, This issue in t.Bekhorot surfaces 1:9,following introduction the of athird 77 310 T. Bekhorot 1:9 (parallels t.Kil from ahuman. onesmall from alarge one, and not ahuman from any of nor them, any of them is apure animal of born impure. the And not alarge one from one, asmall nor a emerges from pure the is pure, for an impure animal is not of born pure, the neither thatAnd sages the emergeswhich say: from impure the is impure, and that which eating. of acamel. And ifits and head majority resemble its mother’s, it is permitted for camel R. This view is immediatelyThis view opposed by an iteration of reproductive the

Simon says: what (Scripture) does come to teach you by having camel Rachel Neis Rachel (DeutTo 14:7)twice? include camel the that isof born acow as ifit were born g., cows)g., may not from born kinds (e. be smaller

77 ʿ ayim 8:5and b. Bekhorot 7a). g., sheep)g., and vice (Lev 11:4) (Lev (“some JSQ e., - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck 80 79 78 Aristotle’s musings in tive and modes gestational content the both echoes periods and form the of not possible. actually ductive principle, as ajustifying explanation serves for why interbreeding is gestation of avariety of periods creatures, right after expanded the repro This conspicuous display of knowledge about of modes reproduction and across various kinds: bythis offering an account of different the gestational and modes periods nonconforming deliveries: that are they products of interbreeding. It does demand for human minimal form inm.Niddah 3:2. parents.their In we respect, this have adirect contradiction to sages’ the agree that such cross-species-appearing births are separately classified from that fact the human-animal deliveries may rather, appear to occur; dis they (pure and impure, large and Yet, small). here too, sages the are not disputing apart from “any of them” (kulan Simon) that such offspring are not genuinely of other species. kinds is not initself negated; principle this simply confirms (contra Rabbi 24 (2017) and oxen. “widely different” gestation listing of those humans, periods, sheep, dogs “resemblances only,” Aristotle notes that interbreeding cannot occur, due to in human and (including animal cases hybrid entities) and dubbing them Aristotle, Aristotle, knowledge toof or local he which observation. ascribes to contactascribes among peoples “Hellenistic inthe Mediterranean world,” and others “natural science” and Aristotle (among other Greek philosophers), some of he which York: Jewish Seminary, Theological 1962)181–193,notes rabbinic parallels between Saul “Natural Lieberman, of Science Rabbis,” the inHellenism in Jewish Palestine (New reproductive habits and parental Pliny, affections, see Natural History 30). For ancient about ideas humans between affinities the and dolphins, including thatcould successfully inter-breed species believed certain (Generation, to oviparous to larviparous e. (see, Aristotle grouped kinds according to “modes their of reproduction,” from viviparous spawn; pure lay fish eggs.” years.seven Dolphins give and birth grow (offspring) like human; the impure fish lion, bear, panther, leopard, elephant, and baboon ape at three years; snake the at cat at 52 days; a pig at 60 days; a fox and creeping creatures at six months; wolf, the animal at nine months, an impure large animal at twelve months; adogat 50days; a “A pure domestic small animal gives at birth five months; alarge pure domestic The sequence of reasoning from cross-species resemblances to reproduc The Tosefta far so goes as to undermine another explanation for species- The attention to human the (adam

80 GA, The presence inrabbinic texts not only of but ideas, of also 769b 23–26. Generation. 78 (t.Bekhorot 1:10–11) ) – all the classes the of all non-human animals ) – 79 g., Generation,g., After discussing species nonconformityAfter discussing species ) here it set is isseemingly crucial: The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction 732b 15–36). Like the rabbis, the 732b 15–36).Like he 10,7–9. 738b 28;746a

311 - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck the sages:the tiveness, in time its this presentation of dispute the Rabbi Meir between and What follows is another example of Tosefta the softening human distinc 3.2. comes are not always mimetic. somewhat) and as one among other creatures reproductive inwhich out humanthe founders (though marked only being case between as aspecial Mishnah and Tosefta the of two tractates these of Niddah and Bekhorot, that explicitly marks human the as subject to its purview. the Between from emerge); they which and areiteration of reproductive the principle deliveries are as kind classed that the resemble they (rather than as kind the ing, minority (t.Bekhorot view 1:9)that­ species- radically for kindand thus kin. understanding of reproduction. Partially resembling entities make can still ofview m.Niddah not 3:2does entail apurist notion identity of strict inits of to kind looks parent. (birth) However, more even the restrictive majority horot reproductive the 1:2,inwhich principle establishes that classification only Rabbi Meir same inthe mishnah, simply material, fleshly neither human nor animal). This contradicts not as human, but not nonconforming radically ones are (which considered Niddah majority 3:2, the accepts view part-human, part-animal entities deliveries is tractates, imagined inboth classification their differs. In m. nonconformity.in species While possibility the of nonconforming-species contradictoryseemingly answers to questions about human implication resemblance and dissemblance: m.Bekhorot 1:2and m.Niddah 3:2offer andembedded transformed amid broader the concerns of Bekhorot. more interesting is way the about ideas these reproduction and variation are about of knowledge bodies the circulating inearly Roman Palestine. But sequences of deployed ideas in Aristotle’s writing may indicate something 81 312 distinguishes impurity and male between female abortuses. purebetween and impure kinds or present Mishnah’s the version of Rabbi Meir, which Presenting Mishnah’s the intruncated form, case t.Niddah not 4:5does distinguish animal orwild bird (is impure) words –the of R. Niddaht. 4: Looking to ToseftaLooking Bekhorot we two developments: find athird, surpris To return to question the about place the of human the inreproductive

Secunda FacieSecunda Rachel Neis Rachel (5) One who expels something (5)One expels who like akindof domesticated animal, a

but majority the also inm.Bek view Meir. 81 And the sages say: as long And sages the say: nonconforming JSQ - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck that is faceand the focus the its features panim (tsurat todeemed have human status. of having ahuman form, uterine entity as “a is described likeness of araven” (demut his compromiseaffirms reading of dispute, the the inwhich with aruling animal or bird). that The case follows about ahabitual (three-time) aborter bird-like out cases, of three original kinds the (domesticated animal, wild are thus intertwined. species-formal uniqueness. of but resemblance – insuch afashion as to simultaneously undermine its The requirementeyeballs. for human form is thereby upheld logic the via of (sufficient) human form resemble eyeballs their because (domin bythem declaring that domesticated and animals wild are already inherently andthem animals between and humans. It common finds ground between Rabbi Meirbetween and sages the by softening differences the between Rabbi Hanina’s harmonistic intervention terms the shifts of debate the 24 (2017) 86 85 84 83 82 t. Bekhorot Tosefta’s 1:9), the stipulation envisions resemblance, partial i. human form” (mi-tsurat ha-adam) or “its and head majority”rosho ( ve-rubo, If Rabbi Hanina eyes,t.Niddah highlighted the 4:7explicitly declares have something of human form is not delivery. avalid form (7)The facial three and times, came case the before sages, the and said: anything they that not does (6) There of was acase awoman from Sidon gave who to birth alikeness of araven something of human form. andeyeballs, words the of sages the withto respect abird, it because not does have fitting with to respect an of animal eyeballs the an because animal resemble human Rabbi Hanina’s reading effectively narrows earlier the dispute to only as it has human form. Note language mimetic the of demut humanbetween and animal vision is discussed. diction is up taken inb. Rabbah Genesis Niddah 23a.See that round “is like that of ahuman” (m.Bekhorot 6:8;t.Bekhorot contra 4:11);this Compare to exclusion the of an animal from obligation firstborn the for having an eye Judithsee Hauptman, Mishnah the Rereading that did not its find way into our current version of Mishnah; the on such instances, Tosefta elides human form form. with facial It possible is that also it cites atradition nah The Tosefta refers to “the form facial of spoke,” they which as ifciting mish aparallel (cf. t.Yevamot 14:7). 33:5(Marguliesappears Rabbah ed., 763)as on inLeviticus agloss m.Yevamot 16:3 To my knowledge not term does this appear elsewhere in Tannaitic literature. It Following MSVienna. Editio princeps has they spoke they , but we have no version of Mishnah the withphrase. this It is conceivable that the

84 can be one can be of any forms, facial except ears … the 82 R. Hanina son of Gamliel said: words the of Meir Rabban are this isthis “like akindof bird” (ke-min 85 The logics of The logics dissemblance and resemblance . אדם מצורת בה שיהא עד שיהא בה מצורת אדם (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005),37. The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction 8:11, where difference the ).

Like “somethingLike of . ʿ orev ʿ of ) and is not ). 86 83 ) human Instead of which

313 e., - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck a countenance that is uniquely varied. thatblended idea inthe humans are only the creatures that afaceor possess (as aperson). two In are these in particular fact, potentially related notions, face.the Thus humanness facesignifies the generically (as akind)and both ends up folding inwith them other kinds. commonalitytheir is drawn into relief. The effort to draw humans apart a humansdistinction between and larger animals (though not birds) that effectively share features facial (eyes).It is precisely requirement inthe for featuresfacial meaningless. The claim is that animals and humans already 90 89 88 87 person. is not iscern human, corpse the whether but to it identify as aparticular nose, evenifthere are (other) signs on and his body his clothes.” must “on be panim basis of the features facial the (partsuf lates that testimony the about a man’s that corpse allows his wife to remarry a cross-species hybrid with ahuman-like faceand an animal-like body. in laws regarding identification. corpse For example, m. Yevamot 16:3 stipu onThis focus faceis the ostensibly ahuman-centric move, is which echoed 314 510–11. See also Natural 11.138 and also Elder Beagon, 510–11. See Pliny, History 43–46. of specimens;” trans. Harris (Cambridge: Rackham Harvard University Press, 1999) athing that no could art supply by counterfeitnot distinct – anumber small inso thousands the all of human there beings exist no two countenances (effigies) that are our physiognomy (facie mindsdo their resemble one another.” Compare to Pliny, Natural History onewise of secrets, for facesdonot their resemble (domin perhaps 6:5where of sight the also t. of alarge crowd elicits a blessing to “the samethe adamic/human individual people seal, donot resemble one another, and Herein may of significance liethe claims 4:5,which m. that despite having express highest the kinds of impurity. corpse it amounts certain takes and of types material to symbolize a(living) person and so impuritygraded of various amounts and of material, types corpse argues Balberg that and of potency the its impurity, Purity, Balberg, see relationshipOn the nonliving between material, corpse its identification as aperson Cf. more the relaxed requirements inm.Yevamot 16:6and t.Yevamot 14:7. deliveries are parts of body “incised” certain versus “stumped” int.Niddah 4:11. shapes ekphrasis the or head undefined body, or one of two backs or two spines). A notion of human form kind of flattened entity fetal sandal called Human form requirement a minimal is also elsewhere: in t. Niddah 4:7 contd. (for a However, Rabbi Hanina’s harmonistic move renders on focus eventhe

Rachel Neis Rachel 89 Despite different their aims, two contexts these share on afocus

of textured the int.Niddah sac 4:10and of requirement the that ) contains ten features or only a few more, that to think among ); Sifra Tazria,); Sifra Parashah 1:7(for acreature of 90 96–121. Tracing through the ) one another, and neither ), including the 88 7:8:“though The con JSQ 87 - -

Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck weakens project the of resemblance mimetic by underwritten repro the lives of and nonhuman bodies beings. undeniably to ways the speaks that rabbinic the human claims power over and entailments legal (not to mention material and affective ones). This as human or nonhuman min 92 91 kind and kin. always entail complete or be can unlike likeness: also radically partial the fail to exhibit astrong commitment to notion the that reproduction must of reproduction that any rejects such variant entity as nonhuman. They sources and zoological naitic do not espouse a puristgynecological notion is capable of conceiving entities that likeness bear to other kinds. The Tan ductive mechanics of its potentially sanctioned ingestion by humans. a body’s life, death as and nonhuman, ifclassified disposal in particularly nonliving concerned. body The most glaring difference is impact the on designationsThese make fordifferent very outcomes for living the or materialkinds, menstrual or assemblages ofthat flesh are none of these. stance into legible kinds and materials: human whether offspring, animal of generation theory into and afull-bodied mold tissue the of organic sub nomenclature and classificatory terminology, engagements these coalesce like or variant kinds. In language the of mimesis or dissemblance, creaturely and inancient thought more broadly, with extent the to kinds which produce veniences. Rather, relate they to arobust engagement, inTannaitic sources kind” of creature Xor Yare not merely or fanciful similes descriptive con I have argued that descriptions of entities by expelled humans as “like the Conclusion: ofkinds Reproduction 24 (2017) Amoraic sources that living cross-species deliveries are discussed. of first few the chapters of Niddah, women’s scrutinize which excreta; it is only inlater, and menstrual the other uterine matter. This attention to materiality and is part parcel nonconforming entity emitted by ahuman much more prominent, as it set is among nonliving and animal the offspring are live. This makes materiality the of species- the animalthe ones inM. One noticeable difference human the between cross-species births inM. Haraway, At same the time, admission the of variant and as kin kind bodies

Companion, Companion, tselem elohim. Afterlike all, other animals, human the 96. Bekhorot human-delivered the is fact the uterine materials are maybe that turns out general the to condition. be inmybeing womb amember to of be another species; upthe pregnant,I always I wanted that knew ifI turned or different with it kindcarries very ritual The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction 92 Designation of a body Niddah and 91

315 - - - - Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck ster” that is hybrid the or cross-species offspring. highlighted bycan be contrast. Unlike later the Amoraim, passing amechanics of generation on based tual implications. grand science, I have imperial sought to elaborate substantive their concep crasies as merely provincializing localizing, or “rabbinizing” inflexions of a its and time yet curiously idiosyncratic. than Rather reading idiosyn these allow for these all that abiology recognizably is both ofas cross-species – reproductive their rules, dietary principle that admits deliveries that appear erations over cross-species animal offspring interms of Temple ritual and of uterine material as governed by various kinds of impurity, delib their that like looks non-human. the Their careful patterning of signification the even life. And it may involve matter the of animality. non-living uterine material, is not amatter of sanctity, potentiality, or soul in hybrid form. This conception of humanness, lineaments inthe traced of is thereby mitigated. It turns out that humans and animals are always already tinctiveness, mapped onto vaunted face (the the singular zone of humanity), byundermined human-animal viewing features (eyes)as alike. Human dis This is apparent Tosefta inthe human-animal inwhich distinctions are requirement of that trace avestigial tselem the to taken could be be elohim. ness as tselem elohim 94 93 lineaments of human the and other come kinds as they into Unlike being. rabbis the in which assume very the trace a posture as they of expertise treated and Here,embryological sciences. arelated menstrual area I have variousthe gendered, and ramifications political theological of rabbinic making of kinds (human rather and than Jewishness otherwise) se. per (that directly by is, discussed rabbis), the it is occasion the to consider the human that underpins negatively the marked, sometimes “mon racialized, image. Perhaps similarly they wrest it away Greco-Roman from idealized the fromboth divine the artisan/creator and from its tight linkage to divine the strainin this of interrelated texts paradoxically wrest human the fetus away 316 ness, “barbarians,” or mythical, eventhe geographically distant “monstrous races.” ofcases reproductive variation (or deviation) were discursively to linked non-Roman Kominko, “Monsters,” 373–389,and Garland, “Invention,” 45–61,show how individual Kessler,See Israel Conceiving Another significant, more direct counter to claim the of human unique The significance Theof significance embedding human into embryology zoology, or by- For ancient the rabbis, material the that is human may produce material The work of Kessler Gwynn and Charlotte Fonrobert has illuminated

Rachel Neis Rachel

si h nemnn f“ua om –itself a is undermining inthe of “human form” . replicating image the of God, 94 While it is “rabbinized” 93 the Tannaim the JSQ ------Delivered by Ingenta ? 141.211.4.224 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 14:58:54 Copyright Mohr Siebeck called reproduction.”called interruption of dualism sexed the that founds “the female-defining function posthumanist thinkers. There are surely differences Hara between crucial human-animal potentials technoscientific inthe present. of feminist, queer and anti-racist that she struggle embraces subversive the Enlightenmenta particularly and project, modernist and it is name inthe 97 96 95 nonhuman into human, the imagining gestatory the entanglement of both. human kinds and overlaps, their and (like Haraway) they incorporate the of generation, theory their Tannaim the actively engage human and non contradictions Introduction) inthe discussed implied intselem elohim. In of kinds the of separatism species (and variously the related problems and as much an approach to nonhuman, the and ends up short-circuiting some tents. And yet, as I have shown, early this Jewish approach to human the is through comparison their and overlap of women’s and animals’ uterine con way’s feminist fantasy and cross-species the kinds conjured by Tannaim the the potential of gesture this liesinits rejection of kinds the of mimesis upheld by porating – nonhuman the into of belly the human generation. The liberatory fantasyspecies-queer inher work. by She this does implicating – by incor distinctly rabbinic science. assimilationist, into coalesce embryology, this a and zoology gynecology Neither throughJewish rules. prism the bodies) of rejectionist dietary nor cross-species offspring, not while uniquely Jewish, (and become so enter valad uterinetheir products as Jewish, through mattering as them niddah way marks and women of embryology certain knowing and gynecology andGalenic Plinian reworkings of Aristotle and Hippocrates, rabbis’ the 24 (2017) It is hardly my aim to claim Tannaim the as proto-feminist, or utopian (such as contagion). assisted reproductive she technology), proposes alternative reproductive mechanisms from it which draws, and its historical and current coercive properties (e. attention to hybrid’s the implicit heterosexuality, legaciesof the separatism race/species asks, “While hybrid the is achieving avoice, are women losing (377)Drawing ours?” Susan Squier, “Interspecies Reproduction,” Studies Cultural with to respect historiesespecially of racist, classist and animalization, imperial see Haraway, “Monsters,” 324. Haraway, Studies tural This is another trope recurring inHaraway, e. see, 324. Feminist studies science and animal studies scholar Haraway invokes a imago dei . So, too, imbrication the of animals and humans and of specter the

When Species, 292.For assessment acritical of Haraway’s hybrid vision, , ed. L.Grossberg, J. Ratway and J. (what Haraway “the calls sacred image of same” the 96 Haraway’s battle is with “the law of father” the M. Wise (New York; Routledge, 1992) The Reproduction ofSpecies The Reproduction g., “Promisesg., of Monsters,” inCul 12 (1998) 360–381. Squier 12(1998)360–381.Squier 95 ) and its g., withg.,

97 317 as as or or - - - - -