Within certain strands of Jewish interpretive tradition, particularly from the rabbinic and mystical periods, a concept emerged suggesting that the original Adam was created androgynous—that is, a being combining both male and female aspects. This idea is often drawn from Genesis 1:27 (“male and female created he them”) and Genesis 5:2 (“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam”), which some Jewish interpreters took to mean that the first human was a composite being, later separated into male and female through the act described in Genesis 2:21–22.
Kenneth A. Mathews notes that, “In Jewish tradition Adam was believed originally androgynous… for Genesis 5:2 says, ‘And when they were created, he [God] called them man.’”[1] This view appears most explicitly in Midrashic literature, such as Genesis Rabbah 8:1, where Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman asserts that “When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He created him with two faces, and [subsequently] He sawed him in two and made [for] him two backs, a back here and a back there.”[2] The rabbinic discussion plays on the ambiguity of the Hebrew word צֵלָע (tsēlāʿ) in Genesis 2:21, typically translated “rib,” which can also mean “side.” On this basis, some interpreters proposed that God split Adam in half, separating the originally unified being into male and female counterparts.
Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BC–50 AD) also embraced a dual-gendered anthropology, influenced by Platonic and Stoic thought. In his allegorical reading of Genesis, Adam represents the rational, spiritual principle, and Eve the sensory or earthly aspect.[3] The creation of the woman thus becomes symbolic of the division within the soul, rather than a literal historical act. While Philo’s influence was significant in shaping later Jewish mystical traditions (e.g., in the Zohar), his framework diverged sharply from a plain reading of the biblical narrative.
While such interpretations are creative and reflect genuine linguistic and philosophical exploration, they depart significantly from the historical-grammatical reading of Genesis 2:21–22. The biblical text presents the woman’s creation not as a splitting of a dual-natured human, but as a separate creative act, initiated after God declares it “not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18). The text emphasizes Adam’s individuality prior to the woman’s formation: he is alone, receives divine command, names the animals, and experiences a state of need. Genesis 2:21–22 then narrates a distinct and purposeful procedure: God causes a deep sleep, takes from the man’s side, and builds (bānāh) the woman, whom He then presents to the man.
Moreover, the “androgynous Adam” concept introduces theological problems. It blurs the clear complementarity affirmed in Genesis 2 and elsewhere in Scripture, and undermines the gendered distinctiveness established in creation. The Bible’s emphasis is not on a division of sameness, but on the creation of a partner who is like man in nature, yet distinct in person, a “help meet” (ʿēzer keneḡdô), fashioned from him but not identical to him.
In sum, while certain Jewish traditions speculated that Adam was originally androgynous, based on ambiguous readings of tsēlāʿ and Genesis 5:2, the canonical text of Genesis 2:21–22 presents a very different picture: the woman is intentionally and uniquely created by God from the man, not as a severed part of a unified self, but as a complementary companion, equal in dignity and distinct in role, and the divinely designed solution to Adam’s solitude.
[1] Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC 1A; Nashville: B&H Publishing, 1996), 216.
[2] Genesis Rabbah 8:1, Sefaria, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.sefaria.org/Bereshit_Rabbah.8.1?lang=en
[3] Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, Book II, trans. C. D. Yonge, in The Works of Philo, accessed July 18, 2025, https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book3.html.