< chamber BEFORE TWO, THERE WAS ONE. ========================== 2026-08-24 When we think about the creation of Adam and Eve, the image that usually comes to mind is simple: God first creates the man, realizes that he is alone, causes him to fall into a deep sleep, and removes one of his ribs to form the woman. This is the narrative that has crossed centuries of art, religious teaching, and popular culture. But within Jewish tradition itself there is a much stranger interpretation and, in a way, a much more beautiful one. Parc Abbey Bible, 1148, fólio 6v. According to some of the ancient sages, the first human being was not only male. Adam would have been created containing both male and female at the same time. In another version of the same tradition, he possessed two faces, two human sides joined together in a single body, one male and the other female. Eve, therefore, would not have been created later from a small rib removed from the man. She was already there from the beginning. What God does afterward is not exactly to create a second person. He separates into two what was originally one. This tradition appears explicitly in Bereshit Rabbah, or Genesis Rabbah, reappears in Leviticus Rabbah, is discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, was known to medieval commentators such as Rashi and Nachmanides, and centuries later found a new life in the Zohar and in Kabbalah. [](#the-problem-begins-within-genesis-itself "Jump to this heading")The problem begins within Genesis itself -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everything begins with a difficulty that ancient readers of the Torah knew very well. The Book of Genesis seems to tell the creation of man and woman twice, but not in exactly the same way. In Genesis 1:27 we read that God creates ha adam, the human being, in his image. The sentence begins by speaking of this creature in the singular and ends in a curious way: “male and female he created them.” Soon afterward, Genesis 5:2 returns to the subject: “male and female he created them, blessed them, and called their name Adam.” It is not only the man who receives the name Adam. The text says that their name was Adam. Then we reach the second chapter and the order seems to change. The human being is alone. God declares that it is not good for him to remain that way, causes a deep sleep, removes a tzela from his body and, from that part, forms the woman. For the ancient interpreters, there was an unavoidable question. If male and female had already been created in the first chapter, what exactly was happening in the second? One of the answers given by the rabbis was extraordinary: the two chapters were not describing two different creations, but two moments of the same creation. First there appears a complete human being, containing both. Then comes the separation. [](#the-first-adam-was-an-androgyne "Jump to this heading")The first Adam was an androgyne -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most famous formulation appears in Bereshit Rabbah 8:1. There, Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Elazar declares that when the Holy One created the first Adam, he created him as an androgynos. The rabbi supports his interpretation precisely with the passage according to which God created the human being “male and female.” The word immediately draws attention because it is not originally Hebrew. Androgynos comes from Greek and combines the ideas of man and woman. The term already circulated in the ancient world and also appears in other contexts of rabbinic literature to designate a person who presents both male and female sexual characteristics. But in Genesis Rabbah the word is applied to none other than Adam HaRishon, the first human being. This produces a completely different image from the one made familiar by Western art. In the beginning, there would not yet have been “Adam” on one side and “Eve” on the other. There would have been a humanity concentrated in a single creature. Male and female would not initially appear as two separate beings. They would be two dimensions present within the first human body. The sexual division of humanity would come later. [](#the-being-with-two-faces "Jump to this heading")The being with two faces ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The same passage of Bereshit Rabbah preserves another interpretation, one that is even more visual. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman teaches that God created the first human being du partzufin, something like “of two faces” or “of two countenances.” Then, according to the vocabulary of the midrash itself, God sawed or cut him, producing two separate sides, with “one back here and another back there.” This is not simply a being with male and female characteristics mixed together. The image seems to be that of two complete people still fused together, one male and one female. They are not facing each other. They are joined. The tradition usually imagines this creature as two bodies or two human sides connected at the back, each facing in a different direction. There is a male face and a female face. What will later become Adam and what will later become Eve still constitute a single bodily reality. God then performs the nesirah, the separation. The word related to the verb used by the midrash conveys precisely the idea of cutting or sawing. This is not the discreet removal of a small bone from the male chest. The scene is almost surgical. God divides the first human being in half. Humanity is born from a separation. [](#and-the-rib "Jump to this heading")And the rib? --------------------------------------------------- Naturally, the rabbis themselves noticed the problem. Genesis 2:21 says that God took one of Adam’s tzalot. Traditional translation turned tzela into “rib,” and from there came the familiar image of Eve being formed from one of Adam’s ribs. The defenders of the theory of the double human being answered cleverly: the word tzela can also mean “side.” Bereshit Rabbah itself offers the Book of Exodus as evidence. When Exodus 26 describes the construction of the Tabernacle, it uses tzela to speak of one of its sides. Obviously, no one imagines that the Tabernacle had anatomical ribs. There the word means side, flank, or lateral wall. So the passage in Genesis could be read differently. God did not necessarily take a rib from Adam. God took one of Adam’s sides. If the primordial human being possessed a male side and a female side, Genesis 2 would be describing precisely the moment when God separates these two halves. Eve would not arise, in this reading, from a small part of the man. She would be an entire half of the first human being. Bible, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 36, fólio 6, c. 1150–1174. [](#the-talmud-takes-the-question-seriously "Jump to this heading")The Talmud takes the question seriously -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This interpretation did not remain confined to an obscure midrash. It also appears in discussions of the Babylonian Talmud, particularly in the tractates Berakhot 61a and Eruvin 18a. The sages discuss the meaning of the creation of woman and preserve the tradition according to which the first Adam had two faces. The discussion reaches precisely the meaning of tzela, attempting to determine what kind of part was taken from the first human being. This is important because it shows that we are not dealing with a very late esoteric invention that appeared on the margins of Judaism. The idea of the two faced Adam was part of rabbinic discussions concerning the text of Genesis itself. The rabbis could disagree over details, but the idea was well known enough that it had to be discussed. It also appears in Vayikra Rabbah, or Leviticus Rabbah, 14:1. There we again find two formulations: one according to which the first human being was created androgynos, and another in which he was created with two faces, later divided to produce a male side and a female side. The image crossed different collections of rabbinic literature. [](#perhaps-adam-was-not-yet-adam "Jump to this heading")Perhaps “Adam” was not yet Adam -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a linguistic detail that makes all of this even more interesting. In the opening chapters of Genesis, the Hebrew word adam does not necessarily need to be understood immediately as the proper name “Adam.” With the article, ha adam, it can simply mean “the human,” “the human being,” or “humanity.” There is also the obvious play between adam, human being, and adamah, earth or soil. God forms ha adam from ha adamah. The human comes from the earth. This allows us to read the beginning of the story without immediately imagining a man named Adam walking alone through the garden. First there is the human being. Only after the division do the relational categories ish and ishah, man and woman, clearly appear. It is precisely after the formation of the woman that Genesis 2:23 places these words side by side: she will be called ishah because she was taken from ish. Within the tradition of the primordial Adam, this makes almost perfect sense. First there is ha adam, undivided humanity. After the separation, man and woman emerge as two distinct people. Sexual difference would not be present as separation from the very first moment. It would emerge through the division of the original unity. [](#rashi-knew-this-tradition "Jump to this heading")Rashi knew this tradition ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The interpretation continued to circulate long after the time of the ancient midrashim. Rashi, one of the most important Jewish commentators on the Bible, when explaining Genesis 1:27 in the eleventh century, directly mentions the tradition. To explain how the text can say that God created “male and female” and later narrate the formation of the woman, Rashi says that, according to the midrashic interpretation, God initially created the human being with two faces and then divided him. This means that a medieval reader of the Torah using one of the most influential commentaries in all of Jewish tradition could encounter this idea directly beside the biblical text. It did not disappear. Nachmanides, known as Ramban, also discusses the possibility in his commentary on Genesis 2:18. Reflecting on the divine declaration that “it is not good that the man should be alone,” he considers the opinion according to which Adam had been created with two faces, male and female, later separated. At this point a beautiful question appears: how could someone be “alone” if he already contained the other? The answer would lead the tradition toward a much deeper interpretation of the separation. [](#joined-together-but-unable-to-look-at-each-other "Jump to this heading")Joined together, but unable to look at each other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem of the first human being would not simply be the absence of companionship. He already had it. But that companion was attached to his own body. If Adam and his female part were joined at the back, neither could truly encounter the face of the other. There was absolute proximity, but no face to face relationship. The other existed, but could not yet be contemplated as another. This idea would become especially important in Kabbalistic literature. In the Zohar, the ancient rabbinic tradition of the two faced Adam receives a new interpretation. The text describes the first man and the first woman joined at the back. God then separates them, prepares the woman, and brings her to Adam so that they can finally exist face to face. The separation, in this reading, is not a tragedy. It is a necessity. Two beings completely fused together cannot establish a relationship because there is still no distance between them. They must cease to be a single thing before they can look at each other, recognize one another, and choose to draw close again. First God separates. Then they can unite. [](#the-nesirah "Jump to this heading")The nesirah -------------------------------------------------- Kabbalah transformed this separation into a much larger concept. The ancient rabbinic image of God “sawing” the first human being came to be known through the idea of nesirah, the cutting or separation of the sides that had been joined together. In the Zohar, especially in passages such as Zohar II, 55a and III, 44b, the original state of Adam and his female part is described as an existence back to back. Divine intervention transforms them into two people capable of standing face to face. It is an apparently physical change, but its meaning is much greater. Back to back represents a union in which there is no true encounter. Face to face means relationship. Difference ceases to be a problem and becomes precisely what makes conscious union possible. This causes the old story of the separation of the primordial body to acquire an almost philosophical dimension. For love to exist, the other must first exist as another. If two things remain completely fused, there is no encounter because there are not yet two people capable of meeting. Absolute unity must be broken so that a new unity can be chosen. Wiligelmo, Creation of Eve, Modena Cathedral, c. 1106. [](#souls-would-also-be-created-this-way "Jump to this heading")Souls would also be created this way -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Zohar takes this logic beyond the body of Adam. In Zohar I, 91b, there appears the idea that souls descending into the world also originally possess male and female dimensions united together. When they enter human existence, these dimensions are separated. Later, the possibility of reunion appears. At this point we are already very far from the simple discussion of a rib. The story of Adam becomes a kind of model for the human condition itself. First there is unity. Then separation. Then searching. Finally, when possible, reunion. The primordial body becomes an image of the functioning of souls and even of the relationships between masculine and feminine aspects within the spiritual structure imagined by the Kabbalists. It is one of the reasons why the story of the androgynous Adam continued to attract mystics for centuries. It offers something that the more literal reading of the rib does not: a cosmology of separation and reunion. [](#a-strange-resemblance-to-plato "Jump to this heading")A strange resemblance to Plato -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is also a historical coincidence that is difficult to ignore. Centuries before the composition of Genesis Rabbah, Plato had recorded in the Symposium a story told by Aristophanes in which the original human beings also possessed a double form. In Aristophanes’ account, there were originally three kinds of human beings. Some were entirely male, others entirely female, and others combined male and female. They were powerful creatures, with rounded bodies, multiple limbs, and two faces. Zeus, fearing their strength, decides to cut them in half. After the division, each half begins desperately longing to find the one from which it had been separated. For Aristophanes, this is where love comes from. To love would be to seek what was once part of us. The resemblance to the rabbinic tradition is striking. We have a double primordial being, two faces, a separation, and two halves that begin to exist individually. Even some of the words used by the rabbis, such as androgynos and forms related to du partzufin, have Greek origins. For this reason, scholars have long discussed the extent to which Jewish sages of Late Antiquity were in dialogue with ideas circulating in the Hellenistic world. But there is an essential difference between the stories. In the myth told by Aristophanes, the division is a punishment. Zeus cuts human beings because he fears their power. In the rabbinic tradition, the division belongs to creation itself. God does not separate man and woman in order to weaken them. He separates them so that they can exist before one another. The visual result is similar. The meaning is completely different. [](#the-first-woman-did-not-really-come-after "Jump to this heading")The first woman did not really come “after” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This tradition also profoundly changes the way Eve can be imagined. If Adam was created containing male and female, then the woman does not appear after the man as a secondary creation. Her individuality appears later, but her existence is already present within the first act of creation. When Genesis 1 states that God created the human being in his image, “male and female he created them,” both are already there. The episode in Genesis 2 then comes to represent not the creation of the feminine, but its differentiation. That difference is enormous. Eve is not manufactured from an extra piece of a male body. She is separated from a humanity that originally contained both. Even the sentence spoken before her takes on another weight: “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” It is not simply the recognition of something made from his body. It is the recognition of a part of an ancient unity. [](#and-where-does-lilith-fit-into-this "Jump to this heading")And where does Lilith fit into this? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is curious to place this tradition beside the story of Lilith discussed earlier, because the two offer completely different answers to the same problem in Genesis. One tradition imagines that the woman of Genesis 1 was Lilith, created from the earth together with Adam. She disappears from the story, and Eve is later created in Genesis 2. The tradition of the androgynous Adam solves the question differently. There are not two women. There is initially a single being containing man and woman. Genesis 1 describes its creation. Genesis 2 describes its division. They are two different mythological solutions to the same strangeness in the text. And both survived. The Zohar itself knows elements of both traditions, although it particularly develops the image of Adam and Eve originally joined together and later separated. This shows how Jewish mythology rarely functions as a single, perfectly organized narrative. Different sages preserved different answers, some incompatible with one another, and much of its richness was born precisely from this multiplicity. [](#what-existed-before-man-and-woman "Jump to this heading")What existed before man and woman? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps this is the most fascinating part of the entire story. Asking whether the first Adam was “man” or “woman” may already be the wrong question. According to this tradition, these categories did not yet exist separately. The first human being precedes the division. It is adam before it becomes ish and ishah. It is humanity before it becomes man and woman. It is one body before there are two. This also explains why the expression “androgynous” needs to be understood within the world of these texts. The rabbis were not writing a modern theory about gender identity. They were imagining something much more primordial: what would humanity have looked like before male and female were separated? Their answer was radical. Perhaps both were present from the beginning. [](#created-in-the-image-of-god "Jump to this heading")Created in the image of God -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question becomes even deeper when we remember where the story begins. “God created the human being in his image.” Immediately afterward: “Male and female he created them.” If the human being who represents the divine image originally contains male and female, it becomes almost inevitable to ask what this means for the very idea of the image of God. Rabbinic tradition does not offer a single answer to this question. Kabbalah, however, would develop a cosmology in which masculine and feminine also appear as fundamental dimensions of divine reality, especially through the relationships among the sefirot. The Zohar constantly uses images of masculine and feminine union to speak about the harmony of divine forces. The union that exists in the human world becomes a reflection of unions occurring in the higher world. The story of Adam then begins to function as a mirror. What happens within the primordial body also expresses something about the structure of the cosmos. Unity. Separation. Masculine and feminine. Distance. Encounter. Union once again. The small story of the creation of Eve becomes an architecture of the universe. [](#first-one-then-two "Jump to this heading")First one, then two ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps that is why the image is so difficult to forget once we encounter it. Before Adam looked at Eve, Eve was already with him. Before man and woman existed separately, there was a creature containing both. According to Genesis Rabbah, it could be imagined as an androgynos. According to another tradition preserved in the same text, it possessed two faces. Leviticus Rabbah repeats the image. The Talmud discusses the creature. Rashi still mentions it centuries later. Nachmanides attempts to understand its existence. The Zohar finally transforms its separation into a mystical image of enormous importance. And everything begins with a difficulty contained in only a few words in Genesis. “Male and female he created them.” The best known tradition answers by saying that God created Adam and then Eve. Another Jewish tradition gives a much stranger answer. God first created the two as one. Only afterward did he take the primordial body, separate its sides, and place one before the other. Perhaps that is why the story ends by saying that man and woman can once again become “one flesh.” They would not simply be forming a new unity. They would, in some way, be returning to the one that existed in the beginning. [](#where-this-tradition-can-be-found "Jump to this heading")Where this tradition can be found -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The idea appears mainly in Genesis 1:27, 2:18 to 24, and 5:2, which provide the basis for later interpretations; in Bereshit Rabbah (_Genesis Rabbah_) 8:1, where both the androgynos Adam and the two faced Adam appear; in Vayikra Rabbah (_Leviticus Rabbah_) 14:1, which preserves a parallel tradition; in the Babylonian Talmud, tractates Berakhot 61a and Eruvin 18a, where the creation of two faces and the nature of the tzela are discussed; in Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 1:27; in Nachmanides’ commentary on Genesis 2:18; and, within the mystical tradition, in passages of the Zohar such as II, 55a, III, 44b, and I, 91b, where the separation between masculine and feminine acquires a spiritual and cosmological dimension. For the curiously similar comparison outside Jewish tradition, the story of originally double human beings can be found in Plato’s Symposium, especially in the speech of Aristophanes. < chamber < the skull