Torah’s Call to Dissent: Making Space for Neurodivergent and Gender-Expansive Jews

A personal Torah reflection on queerness, neurodivergence, and holiness, rooted in traditional sources and lived experience. (It will continue to be updated as I learn more.)

An honest, raw Torah reflection on being genderqueer and neurodivergent, and how that connects to holiness, rooted in traditional sources and lived experience.

I'm still learning and growing in my understanding of these concepts and in no way claim to be an expert. I'm very much open to critique and dialogue. I will continue updating this sheet with new information as I learn more. I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts.

I identify as a nonbinary woman. I am also disabled and autistic. My connection to my gender and embodiment has, for the longest time, been a mystical and mysterious journey. So, in addition to never quite grasping things like social cues, I didn't quite fit the descriptions of femininity either. Yet, I knew that womanhood in some ways connected to me, as did masculinity in some ways. I often wondered where I fit, and spent years trying to master the art of "being a woman." Since coming out as a nonbinary woman and changing my pronouns to she/they, life has been much simpler. I found peace outside the binary. Then, the question becomes, "is there a place for my queer soul in Judaism?"

For some, being queer or neurodivergent are considered minutia, not identities. The emphasis is placed on the physicality of these experiences, and not the combination of physical and spiritual experiences that create these identities. Thus, people often assume that being queer, disabled, or neurodivergent means I'm not observant or that I have unholy flaws to fix or heal—instead of truths to honor and identities to embrace. I, too, once thought this way.

So, why did I change my mind? I’ve asked myself this question. The truth is, an unbridled, radical rediscovery of Torah changed my mind. I've witnessed firsthand the harm caused by shaming those who are different. Upon reflecting on my Jewish journey and reevaluating my connection to halakha, I began to question whether these beliefs aligned with the essence of Torah. I concluded that embracing my unique identities does not appear to fall into the category of a “sin,” but rather represents one expression of ultimate gratitude and an acknowledgement of Hashem’s distinct presence in my life. Queerness and neurodivergence then become as much a physical rejection of conformity as they are a spiritual acceptance of Hashem's desire to be consciously unique. Observance then becomes a means of reconnecting with my essence, a natural result of this pursuit.

Holiness: Torah's Radical Call for Nonconformity

The more I studied, the more I felt drawn towards observance, not away from it. I came to think of it this way: The essence of Torah is embodied in the singular word, kadosh. קָדוֹשׁ. It is a command, an invitation, and a responsibility. It is also a state of being. Following Torah adds the expectation to stand out because observance is and has always been a call to be intentionally distinct and nonconformist, otherwise known as holy, sacred, and set apart. I believe our varied identities reflect this call.

ויקרא כ׳:כ״ו

(כו) וִהְיִ֤יתֶם לִי֙ קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אֲנִ֣י יהוה וָאַבְדִּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֛ם מִן־הָֽעַמִּ֖ים לִהְי֥וֹת לִֽי׃

Leviticus 20:26

(26) You shall be holy to Me, for I יהוה am holy, and I have set you apart from other peoples to be Mine.

Some could even conclude, as I did, that the Torah was ultimately as much a form of divinely inspired rebellion and/or revolution as it was a revelation for its time, because its requirements were deeply rooted in resistance to the traditional social norms, hierarchies, and establishments of the era. Violating Torah's commands almost always meant following what society deemed acceptable (i.e., idol worship, stealing, murder) over what Hashem deemed necessary (i.e., kindness, love, justice). This is how I view my queer and neurodivergent identities: as distinct expressions of the timeless, divine, and holy dissent embodied in the reception and observance of the Torah, which has reverberated throughout the ages.

Torah does not require sameness. It demands difference. To be kadosh—holy, sacred, set apart—is the essence of Torah. To embrace it is to reject the norms of society in favor of the design of the Divine.

So, I do not see my neurodivergence and queerness as physical symptoms of a "problem." I think these experiences are as much physical as they are connected to the soul and embodiment. It’s about how we exist entirely, in body and spirit. So, regardless of how, many of us experience the world and/or our bodies in ways that diverge from societal norms. That divergence is not a flaw. It aligns deeply with Torah’s call to embody sacred distinctiveness and resist conformity. This is not to suggest that all queer or neurodivergent individuals are inherently radical or rebellious. These identities are simply part of the broad spectrum of human experiences—not better or flawed, just different. Still, this notion invites reflection: Is holiness something we strive toward, or is it something we inhabit and express by living authentically?

Hashem says, “Be holy, for I am holy.” What, then, is holiness? Is holiness found in hiding aspects of how Hashem created us, aspects that reflect His divine spark? Or does the holiness lie in expressing it? If so, holiness then becomes a call for radical nonconformity in all aspects of embodiment. Sacredness then becomes an invitation from Hashem for the full embrace of His divine essence, including self-expression, in a way that brings us closer to Him, the One who transcends the binary and physical limitations of embodiment.

If this is the case, the Torah can be viewed as a direct and covenantal invitation to be different and distinct from what is societally acceptable or conventional, extending far beyond religious obligation. It is our spiritual connection to this invitation that drives us away from conformity and into varied expressions of existence and identity.

The Genderqueer Neshama

I focus deeply on the expression of the neshama, which means soul, spirit, or breath of life. I see it as representing the divine spark within our inner person, our connection to the infinite that is Hashem. But I'm also referring to more than neat divisions of nefesh, ruach, and neshama. I’m also talking about soul in the way we often experience it—in the blur between spirit, brain, and body.

The Mishnah in Bikkurim (4:1) and the Tosefta (Bikkurim 2:2-3) codify categories beyond male and female, detailing descriptions and required levels of religious practice for other sexes (or gender expressions, depending on your framework), such as androgynos and tumtum.

While a general reading of these passages reads as though those outside the binary were considered outside the "norm," I look at these texts as designating those existing outside of the binary as both legal and spiritual realities. It adds people like me to the discussion. As in most ancient societies, rights and socioeconomic standing differed greatly from those of cis males, and oppression definitely existed. Yet, I admire that the rabbis were not afraid to discuss our existence, and they made an effort with what info they had to carve out a place for those outside of the binary in Jewish society. If we did the same today with what we know now, imagine how much progress we could make and how many people we could welcome.

What stands out to me in these discussions is that these identities are not excluded from halakhic discourse. This goes far beyond halakha and connects to a deeper understanding of and validation for the experiences of those typically existing on the margins of society.

משנה ביכורים ד׳:א׳

(א) אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַאֲנָשִׁים, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַנָּשִׁים, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוֶה לַאֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לֹא לַאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא לַנָּשִׁים:

Mishnah Bikkurim 4:1

(1) The hermaphrodite is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.

תוספתא ביכורים ב׳:ב׳-ג׳

(ב) אנדרוגינוס יש בו דרכים שוה לאנשים ויש בו דרכים שוה לנשים ויש בו דרכים שוה לאנשים ולנשים ויש בו שאינו שוה לא לאנשים ולא לנשים.
(ג) דרכים ששוה [בהן] לאנשים מטמא בלובן כאנשים נושא אבל לא נושא כאנשים ואין מתייחד עם הנשים כאנשים ואינו נתזן עם הבנות כאנשים [ואין מטמא למתים כאנשים] ועובר על בל תקיף [ועובר על בל] תשחית כאנשים וחייב בכל המצות האמורות בתורה כאנשים.

Tosefta Bikkurim 2:2-3

(2) An androgynous (i.e., a hermaphrodite) is in some ways like a man and in some ways like a woman. And in some ways he is like both a man and a woman, and in some ways he is like neither a man nor a woman.

All in all, the Talmud appears to identify a total of at least six genders (or sexes) beyond the traditional male-female binary (and probably more). This is not to say that the rabbis and sages of old envisioned gender in the same way we do now. Still, it is proof that Judaism offers a framework rooted in centuries of discourse, enabling and empowering us to think beyond the binary.

Moreover, some rabbis in the text, such as Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar in Bereshit Rabbah 8:1, even question whether the first man (known as Adam) was created intersex or androgynous before being later divided into Man/male (Adam) and Woman/female (Eve), which means that the first human created was possibly already existing outside of the gender barrier. The meaning of "male and female He made them" would then have a completely different meaning through this lens.

בראשית רבה ח׳:א׳

(א) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ (בראשית א, כו), רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַח (תהלים קלט, ה): אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם זָכָה אָדָם, אוֹכֵל שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי, וְאִם לָאו הוּא בָּא לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קלט, ה): וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בְּרָאוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית ה, ב): זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, דְּיוּ פַּרְצוּפִים בְּרָאוֹ, וְנִסְּרוֹ וַעֲשָׂאוֹ גַּבִּים, גַּב לְכָאן וְגַב לְכָאן. אֲתִיבוּן לֵיהּ וְהָכְתִיב (בראשית ב, כא): וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, אֲמַר לְהוֹן מִתְּרֵין סִטְרוֹהִי, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כו, כ): וּלְצֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, דִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן וְלִסְטַר מַשְׁכְּנָא וגו'. רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי בְּנָיָה וְרַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן גֹּלֶם בְּרָאוֹ, וְהָיָה מוּטָל מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ, הֲדָא הוא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קלט, טז): גָּלְמִי רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ וגו'. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּר נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר מְלֹא כָל הָעוֹלָם בְּרָאוֹ, מִן הַמִּזְרָח לַמַּעֲרָב מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קלט, ה): אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי וגו'. מִצָּפוֹן לַדָּרוֹם מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם. וּמִנַּיִן אַף בַּחֲלָלוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קלט, טז): וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה, כְּמָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (איוב יג, כא): כַּפְּךָ מֵעָלַי הַרְחַק. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וָקֶדֶם לְמַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן. הוּא דַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר (בראשית א, כד): תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ, זֶה רוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן, וָקֶדֶם לְמַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, הוּא דַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ (בראשית א, ב): וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם, זֶה רוּחוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ, הֵיךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמֵר (ישעיה יא, ב): וְנָחָה עָלָיו רוּחַ יהוה, אִם זָכָה אָדָם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אַתָּה קָדַמְתָּ לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, וְאִם לָאו אוֹמְרִים לוֹ זְבוּב קְדָמְךָ, יַתּוּשׁ קְדָמְךָ, שִׁלְשׁוּל זֶה קְדָמְךָ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָחוֹר לְכָל הַמַּעֲשִׂים, וָקֶדֶם לְכָל עֳנָשִׁין. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אַף בְּקִלּוּס אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קמח, א): הַלְּלוּ אֶת יהוה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וגו', וְאוֹמֵר כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ (תהלים קמח, ז): הַלְּלוּ אֶת יהוה מִן הָאָרֶץ וגו' וְאוֹמֵר כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹמֵר (תהלים קמח, יא): מַלְכֵי אֶרֶץ וְכָל לְאֻמִּים (תהלים קמח, יב): בַּחוּרִים וְגַם בְּתוּלוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׂמְלָאי כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקִּלּוּסוֹ אֵינָהּ אֶלָא אַחַר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף, כָּךְ בְּרִיָּתוֹ אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא אַחַר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, מַה טַּעְמֵיהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית א, כ): וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ (בראשית א, כד): וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ וגו', וְאַחַר כָּךְ (בראשית א, כו): וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם וגו'.

Bereshit Rabbah 8:1

(1)“And God said: Let us make Man in our image, in our likeness, and let them dominate over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26). “And God said: Let us make Man in our image, in our likeness.” Rabbi Yoḥanan began: “Back and front [aḥor vakedem], You shaped me…” (Psalms 139:5) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a person merits, he partakes of two worlds, as it is stated: “Back and front, You shaped me.” But if not, he will come to give an accounting, as it is stated: “You placed Your palm on me” (Psalms 139:5). Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He created him androgynous. That is what is written: “He created them male and female” (Genesis 5:2). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: 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. They raised an objection to him: But is it not written: “He took one of his ribs [tzalotav] … [and the Lord God built the rib that He took from the man into a woman]”? (Genesis 2:21–22). He said to them: [It means that He took] one of his two sides, as it says: “And for the tzela of the Tabernacle” (Exodus 26:20), which we translate: “And for the side of the Tabernacle...”. Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Benaya and Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Elazar said: When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He created him in an unformed state and he was situated from one end of the world to the other. That is what is written: “Your eyes saw my unformed parts...” (Psalms 139:16).

Of course, the more commonly discussed version tells us Adam was created first, with Eve formed from his rib or side—but this is only one layer. The midrash presents us with something more complex to grapple with.

The counterarguments based on the commonly taught version do not tend to take Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar’s theory into account and still follow the literal interpretation of the narrative, which posits that the first two humans were created according to “male and female He made them.” The verse is often used to state that any identity outside of that binary is antithetical to divine creation. I disagree with this claim.

Hashem is frequently described primarily in masculine language throughout the Torah; however, we cannot deny His feminine attributes, as referenced in Proverbs (Mishlei) and kabbalistic texts. If Hashem’s image was limited strictly to physical and binary categories of masculine and feminine, He would be limited to one expression. Wouldn't that posit that only man or woman could reflect Hashem’s image, but not both? The inclusion of both male and female implies that each emerged from a singular, unquantifiable divine source that was not distinctly one or the other. Both sexes, therefore, would reflect Hashem’s image equally—each with the capacity to identify with masculine and feminine energies in varying ways (including through gender identity and gender expression). Quite fascinating to consider.

Regardless of the interpretation, neither narrative appears to support rigid gender binaries. If Adam was intersex, then the verse cannot be used to restrict gender designations in accordance with "male and female He made them." If Hashem encompasses both masculine and feminine traits—as seen in kabbalistic references to the Shekhinah—then even separate male and female creations would still reflect a divine essence that is fluid and layered.

All souls are made in Hashem’s image—an image that transcends gender. Like Hashem, who is ultimately beyond embodiment or descriptions (often described as the Ein Sof), I believe that we, too, are created without a fixed gender in our ultimate essence. Hashem is not bound by physical form. His association with both masculine and feminine qualities is spiritual, not corporeal. To be made in His image, then, is to mirror that same spiritual fluidity—a reflection not of fixed categories, but of divine multiplicity.

So, if Hashem exists outside the confines of one or both genders, even perhaps reflecting qualities that, in modern terms, might be described as resembling genderfluid, nonbinary, agender, or demigender, and more, why can’t those made in His image living in His creative power do the same?

My summation: Hashem is boundless and infinite, and even gender binaries cannot contain Him or His essence. If even a portion of that boundless and infinite source is in us, we are also bound to reflect that same boundless and infinite nature of existence, where rigid binaries can't contain or define us either.

This all begs the question: If Hashem is infinite in His expressions, why wouldn't His creation reflect that as well?

Conclusion

This reframing invites us to read Torah not as a blueprint for uniformity, but as a tapestry woven with divergent threads. The idea of Hashem creating humans in His image ("B'tselem Elohim") brings clarity to this idea: the divine image spans boundaries, not conforms to them. Torah, in its essence, is an open embrace of His divine essence, rejecting conformity and inviting us to embrace the infinite through observance and expression. Expression then becomes a powerful form of observance, and not a disregard for it.

All in all, I do not believe that rigid binaries truly honor divine complexity. Instead, I think they flatten the very image of Hashem they were created to protect. To live queer, disabled, or neurodivergent is not to live apart from holiness. It is to reveal holiness in yet another of its infinite forms. It is an obligation and a call to see ourselves as sacred as we grow closer towards the originator of radical holiness.

By returning to Torah with a radical view of dissent and boundless love, we uncover a text that is no longer about containment, but liberation. Queer, disabled, and neurodivergent lives are then not exceptions to holiness—we are one of its many revelations.

Transparency Note: This sheet was authored by me. While the core ideas, complexity, and interpretations are my own, I received limited planning and editing support from AI to improve clarity, structure, and coherence.

Nasiyah Isra-Ul

Holiness: Torah's Radical Call for Nonconformity

The Genderqueer Neshama

Conclusion

Topics