Yentyl the Yeshiva Boy

Regarding the debate here about whether Yentl was a feminist or a transsexual, I weigh in on the transgender side -- for all the reasons other reviewers have already listed here, and which I have also discussed on my Hasidism FAQ website. So I won't reinvent the wheel in this review. I agree that the movie was definitely a feminist statement, but the book, well, that's another story altogether. We should remember that before the movie, there was the stage play. It followed the book pretty closely, (which the movie did not!) and was very popular in lesbian and avant garde theaters. When I saw the play performed in the 1970s, Yentl was played as the Jewish version of a "butch" lesbian. (In terms of social roles, not machismo. The ideal Jewish male in the timeframe of this story was a scholar, not a redneck.) In the play, like in the book, Yentl remains living as the man Anshel in Eastern Europe. In the movie, Streisand changed this very important point and had Yentl revert to wearing women's clothes and then going to America. So nu, what was the relationship between Yentl/Anshel and Avigdor? They were study partners -- chaverim in Hebrew -- a relationship that doesn't seem to exist outside of the Orthodox Jewish community, so here's some background. The Talmud is written in dialogue mode with different rabbis agreeing and disagreeing on various points of Jewish law and theology. Talmud is traditionally studied out loud, by two people hotly debating, going point-by-point over the discussions on the page together. In the traditional yeshiva world -- even today -- the schools are not co-ed. So naturally, your study partner is going to be the same sex as yourself. And very often, your study partner is also your very best friend. You not only sit together in school, you confide in each other, hang out together, encourage each other in life's struggles, etc. And this can be a very close relationship. But it's not sexual. It's male bonding. If Anshel had joined the army, then he and Avigdor would have been "buddies" who fought battles together. Anshel loves Avigdor, yes. But as a study partner, not a lover. What Anshel misses in Avigdor when he changes study halls is not sexual attraction, it's their learning together. Nobody else in the yeshiva is as serious or as brilliant a student as Avigdor. Nobody else is an intellectual match for Anshel -- and so, he studies alone. When Anshel reveals to Avigdor that s/he is really the woman Yentl, Avigdor suggests that they could get married and still study together -- but Yentl/Anshel says no. S/he tells him that s/he is "neither one [sex] nor the other" and that s/he has "the soul of a man in the body of a woman." This teaches us that Yentl DID INDEED have a gender identity crisis. If she had just wanted to study Talmud, if she were in love with Avigdor, she could have married him and that would be that. But she chose instead to remain living as Anshel for the rest of her li

I first read this story way back when it first came out -- long before Streisand turned it into a third-wave feminist polemic. (Which, by the way, upset the author, I.B. Singer, so much that he tries to stop production. Unfortunately, he did not have artistic control over the film rights to his story, and so this travesty of his work was produced and lives on in infamy.) Upon re-reading it, I still think it is about a transgender person, not a feminist. The reviewer here who said that another reviewer "should be shot" (such violent intolerance!) for claiming that Yentl was transgender by making a reference to "even heaven makes mistakes" obviously did not read the book -- because that's word-for-word what Yentl's father tells her on page 8. The story also clearly states that Yentl has "the soul of a man." (page 8 also). So, I suggest ignoring those PC polemicists who are talking about the movie only, which is VERY DIFFERENT from the book, and has ITS OWN PAGE for reviews! (If you haven't read the book, why are you reviewing here in the first place?) Singer was writing in the 1960s. He wrote respectfully of Jewish culture in this story. He did not mock it the way Streisand later did in her movie. The book has no barkers shouting "Story books for women, holy books for men," and as far as I know, nobody even did that in real life. The line is anti-Hasidic propaganda, as is much of the movie. Streisand's film is a comedy. Singer's story is serious drama. In the book, When Yentl says, "I wasn't created for plucking feathers and chattering with females," (page 47) is she really speaking like a radical 20th-century feminist about social roles -- or is she speaking literally, on a mystical spiritual level? If she were merely objecting to "plucking feathers" (woman's work) why does she also object to "chattering with females" -- and why use the word "females," as if to stress this is about GENDER? I think she means that she was not created to be a woman, period, regardless of roles. She certainly does not object when her father tells her that she has a man's soul and that "even heaven makes mistakes." She reaffirms this transgender identity on page 49, where Avigdor asks her, "Tell me the truth, are you a heretic?" Yentl answers, "God forbid!" Clearly, she believes in Orthodox Judaism and respects it, IN SPITE OF her personal dilemma. As their discussion continues: "... All Anshel's [Yentl's] explanations seemed to point to one thing: she had the soul of a man in a woman's body." How much plainer can you get? But today, in the 2000s, being a female-to-male transgender person is no longer politically correct in the feminist movement. Since the days when Singer wrote this story, the radical feminists have trashed and reviled female-to-male (FTM) transgender people for being "politically incorrect" to the point that they (the feminists) simply cannot stomach the idea that THIS IS WHAT SINGER WAS WRITING ABOUT!!!!! Yentl doesn't a

The IBS short story (but not the movie) certainly IS about a transsexual. Tha character, Yentle/Anshel, is a woman who wants to be a man, and the study of Talmud is a major part of it only because Singer used 19th-early Eastern Europe as a setting. While Yentl is briliant and enjoys studying the Talmud this is not why she gets into her situation. Rather it's a literary mechanism. Singer clearly describes Yentl as a man inside a woman's body, and the reason why Talmud is emphasized is because of the setting in an eastern european jewish community. That is what the most respected men did in that culture; in modern Israel, it would be piloting an F-16 in the air force. Although Yentl had studied secretly with her father, there were things that she had been hiding even from him: while he slept on shabbat afternoons she would dress up in his clothing, and smoke his pipe. She had not one female friend, then on the morning after the night when Anshel had married Haddass, the parents of Haddass held of the bed sheet and saw the blood. Singer writes that "Anshel had found a way to deflower Haddass", and that Haddass being so innocent and in love with Anshel hadn't realized that what was supposed to happen had not happened. IN OTHER WORDS...something happened SEXUALLY between Yentl/Anshel and Haddass, such that Haddass' hymen ruptured. Singer leaves the precise mechanism to the imagination, but it stands to reason that it was not the spilling of wine on the sheet as occured in the movie. It the short story it is actual blood. It seems hard to imagine but keep in mind that it is a culture wherein young women might never be told much if anything about sex before their marriage, the expectation being that they would find out from their husbands. Moreover the marriage goes on for several months with Haddass believing that her marriage is within a standard deviation of the norm. It's just not conceivable that Yentl/Anshel is doing this -being intimate with Haddass via petting or whatever for several months - because of a heterosexual attraction to Avigdor. Then finally when she reveals herself to him and he suggest that they (Avigdor and Yentl) marry she says it wouldn't be good and that she's "neither one [gender] nor the other". And so she continues dressing as a man. She does not take a ship to another country as in the movie which would have been the right thing to do had she wanted to live as a woman and study the Talmud. She could have done that in western europe or america, but in the book she didn't and went on living as a man.

The movie does attack the issues of feminism - albeit somewhat unrealistically. Yes, as one reviewer put, there are many restrictions on Chasidic women (and men!), but not necessarily in an oppressive manner. The laws of Judaism are really quite complex (and no I am not orthodox). Nevertheless, I believe the book is a story about s transsexual, Yentl (Anshel) who felt as though she were a man in a woman's body. Incidentally, she was brilliant and capable of the complex studies of the Talmud, but the book has very little to do with feminism or oppression of women. Nevertheless, it is an excellent read, highly recommended. For the period on which it was written, Singer was very much ahead of his time in tackling such an issue.

Anybody who sees the Barbara Streisand movie should also read this, the original I.B. Singer story. On page one it is made clear that Yentl has "the soul of a man in a woman's body" because "even Heaven makes mistakes." So I think the story is about a female-to-male transexual, not a lesbian or a feminist. I even read somewhere that this originally came out in the same year that Chrisitne Jorgensen had a sex change. (But the other way -- Jorgensen was a man who became a woman.) So I would guess that Singer was trying to explore gender identity with this story.The focus of the story is not on homoerotic love between two women, but on a person who is born female but feels herself to be male inside, and decides to act out that feeling by dressing and living as a man. An important difference between this story and the Streisand movie is that in the story, Yentl keeps living as a man in the end, saying that "I must remain as I am."I thought the story was very good in how it dealt with the subject in a very open way. That was surprising for something that was written over 30 years ago.