Techeiles 5 – Creature Features: Of Mice (and Lice) and Men

Author’s Note- As usually happens, my simple preamble posts spontaneously expand. This post is the continuation and conclusion of my previous Techeiles post on how advanced Chazal were in the natural sciences. In the previous post we covered astronomy and this post covers biology. It consists of two sections, human and animal so I could have easily broken it into two separate posts and posted them separately. However, these are all background posts to the main topic and I want to finish with the background and write about actual Techeiles in time for Parshat Shelach (I get two chances this year). So I left this post intact but broke it into two sections so the reader can take one section at a time and “catch his breath”.
For the opening Techeiles post (recommended) see HERE.



Section 1 – The Birth of Man

It seems that my Murex trunculus Techeiles series is still moving along at a snail’s pace {groan} despite the fact that in the previous Techeiles post we covered a lot of ground {double groan}.

Let’s move on and discuss – well…us.

Biology, human physiology, sickness and healing and other medical conditions have always been part of the human experience and have been observed and studied close-up from day one. These things are a lot easier to observe than the relationship between the Earth and the sun. We do not really expect Chazal to tell us things that we don’t notice ourselves.

We are taught that there were some changes from the world before Adam ate from the Eitz HaDaas to afterward and before the great flood to afterward. There may also be a few things for which Chazal tell us מיום שחרב בית המקדש which, from the gemara in Sotah, appears to refer to the first Beis HaMikdash.

Nevertheless, Shlomo HaMelech says to us אין כל חדש תחת השמש to imply that nothing new was created after מעשה בראשית (see Shabbos 30b). HKBH set the biology of man and beast with plan and purpose. He knew from the get-go how things should work and there are reasons for everything even if we do not know the reasons. After all, it is all His plan. How, when and why should anything change?

As youngsters, many of us may have heard our cheder Rebbe (or teacher) tell over an obscure Midrash (Midrash Avkir) about Noach. The Midrash says that until Noach was born the fingers of a man’s hand were fused together like a mitten. When Noach was born, suddenly everybody had fingers (or were now born with fingers – see Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says, Beraishis pg. 78).

As young cheder children, we usually accept the enchanted parts of our mesorah at face value. But when we grow older and think back at them, they may not all look the same way to us. This specific one invokes a whole slew of questions:

Was Adam HaRishon created without fingers even before the Eitz HaDaas and only from the birth of Noach did this change, or was Adam HaRishon born with fingers and then they closed up – presumably due to the sin of the Eitz HaDaas – and only reopened 1000 years later? If the former, what was G-d’s original plan for our hands and why did this change now? If the latter, now that we need to work even harder to produce food, is this when HKBH is going to cripple us with [s]mitten hands? Why isn’t the fact of the fingers getting fused brought in any Midrashim about the Eitz HaDaas episode? Were our toes also fused together or just the fingers? Did apes and monkeys have fingers while humans did not? If Adam HaRishon was created without fingers and maybe even without toes, then the mystical number of 248 limbs was not really applicable from creation but from the birth of Noach. It was only some kind of afterthought. If so, why is it so mystical? (Besides, we could have gotten off with 16 less mitzvos!)

This is similar to the age-old question of what kind of tefillin did the Jews wear before the machlokes of Rashi and Rabenu Tam? If you want to answer that there were always two opinions and customs, when did these two customs diverge and why?

In any case, even though I think many of us have heard this Midrash about Noach’s fingers, it comes from an obscure source that only surfaced in the times of the Rishonim and does not have any other known source in Chazal. Legend has it that in his famous disputation, Ramban stated that we do not need to accept all Midrashim. I will take him up on this one.

This “Chazal” doesn’t matter much anyway because we do not have any Halachos that depend on it (maybe mayim achronim??). My purpose is to talk about divrei Chazal that do serve as a basis for Halacha. So let us discuss another strange biological concept that carries a lot more weight: seven month pregnancy.

When I was a lad, about the same time that I learned about mitten hands, I was also taught that “in the old days”, some women had full term babies after seven months instead of nine. But only some women. There were two types. Amazingly, quite a few Biblical heroes including virtually all of the Shevatim, Zerach and Peretz, Chur and Betzalel (Sanhedrin 69b), Moshe Rabbenu, Shmuel HaNavi (Niddah 38b), and Yitzchok Avinu (Rosh HaShanna 11a) were born full and complete after a seven-month gestation and a shortened one at that. Among all of these, apparently only Yaakov and Eisav are singled out as being born after nine whole months.

All through Shas, the concept of the seven-month gestation is taken for granted. So much so, that the gemara (Yevamos 37a) indicates that the phenomenon was alive and well, albeit as the exception to the norm, even in its post-Biblical Talmudic era. As a result, we have the very firm Halacha of שלשה חודשי הבחנה - the three month waiting period from when a woman who has ended her earlier marriage must wait before entering into a later marriage – in order to avoid a question of paternity that we call ספק בן תשעה לראשון, ספק בן שבעה לאחרון – a doubt whether the baby is a nine-month offspring of the earlier husband or a seven-month offspring of the later husband.

There is even a more serious Halacha. Shulchan Aruch (YD 266:11) says that if a child is born after eight months, if we see underdevelopment in hair and nails, it means the child is a premature nine-month baby and not likely to survive. We cannot do a briss for him on Shabbos. But if he was born at seven months, we classify him as a full-term baby and do the briss on Shabbos even if it is not fully developed!!!

Both of these Halachos are in force to this very day and there are no plans to modify them (not that we ever modify our traditional Halacha). But, is there really such a thing as a full term seven-month gestation (or…was there)?

As you may guess, I did a thorough Googling and, outside of some Jewish discussions, I found absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever, in medical sources and elsewhere, that such a phenomenon exists today or that it ever did. Nothing.

It does not happen at all now and there is no indication from any other culture that it ever did. Human physiology does not indicate it under normal conditions. There is nothing known that should trigger such a thing.

We are forced to say one of two things:

Option One - This was an actual and normal phenomenon up to a certain point in time, but at some point it (inexplicably?) changed and does not occur anymore. This is the fail-safe rationale which we term נשתנה הטבע meaning “the natural course has changed” but this never explains anything. It carries the same baggage as the mitten hands - when did this change? And why did this change? And, if this is how things were meant to be “before”, why should they be different now? Why should there be two types of pregnancies? Why not three types? And, of course, why is there no mention of this in any non-Jewish source?

Option Two - This was never a real phenomenon in the times of Chazal (it is hard to understand the world of Biblical days when there were open miracles and prophets – but prophecy and Biblical miracles ended with Chagai, Zecharia and Malachi - Rabi Chanina ben Dosa notwithstanding). If women had babies after only 6 or 7 months, they were really nine-month babies that were premature. Those who thought that this is an alternative normal gestation period were misinterpreting what they were observing.

The second option makes us very uncomfortable and tells us that Chazal were not on the mark on biology. As such, the Halacha about the three-month waiting period is not medically justified. This is not something that we want to hear and is difficult to accept. Perhaps they were riding on the coattails of the Midrashic traditions even though it wasn’t really going on in their days. It bursts our bubble. But it doesn’t carry all the baggage of option one.

Neither of these options are ideal but there are no other ones. I prefer not to take sides. All I can say is that what we see today does not “shtim” with what Chazal tell us.

While we are in the neighborhood, let’s look at another very interesting Halacha. This is in Even HaEzer 4:14.

If a woman’s husband has been away for more than a year and then gives birth and she claims that she has not been naughty and there is no evidence that she was, there is a dispute if we must call the child a mamzer. The Rema clarifies that this is talking about an absence of more than a year. But less than that, up to a full year, there is no dispute and the child is considered kosher!

This is apparently based on an opinion of Rava Tosefaah in Yevamos 80b that a fetus can stay in the womb for up to three additional months. In other words, in rare cases there can even be a 12-month pregnancy. This is not suggesting a different type of pregnancy but a regular nine-month gestation that happens to drag out a few extra months.

Well, I Googled this up and found a 1945 Time Magazine article which claims a record pregnancy of 375 days. Next best was 317 days (10 ½ months). The woman was 25 years old and do you know what her first name was?

Beulah. (I am not making this up. Evidently, this was no virgin birth.)

So, perhaps something like this is more scientifically feasible today. The Sefer HaMeiri (Yevamos 80b) claims that in his days, a woman gave birth after a 15-month pregnancy. But then, in all seriousness, we can ask: why is there only a three-month wait between husbands to distinguish between a nine-month baby from the first husband or a seven-month from the second? There should be a six month wait in order to rule out an eleven or twelve-month baby from the first husband?

To date, I haven’t found anyone who asks this question and I am certainly stumped.

Let’s move on and see how well Chazal shtim with anatomy. And we will begin at the mystifying Mishna in Niddah 17b.

The Mishna tells us that the sages used a parable to describe the reproductive organs of a woman – the cheder (chamber), the prozdor (passageway), and the aliyah (attic). On impulse this seems to be very intuitive because I assume all most of us have seen diagrams of the female organs at some point in their lives and the figure can be described precisely as such. No worries, mate.

In truth, what we know about the prozdor and cheder make a lot of sense. There is a passage and there is a chamber. The problem is in the attic. What exactly is this? Intuitively, we assume this is the upper portion of the womb which opens out to the tubes and the ovaries (known as the adnexa). Fits on the pictures. However, the Mishna itself throws us two curve balls.

One is that it tells us that the blood discharged from the “attic” is tahor. Come again? Tahor? What is this “attic” and why does it discharge blood at all? The only internal organ in anybody’s anatomy that is meant to discharge blood is what we (or at least I) understand to be the “chamber”. The uterine lining. And the uterine blood is certainly tamei.

The second curve ball is the insinuation that it is even possible to find discharge in the chamber and not only in the prozdor. A living person has no access to anything but the “passage” that we know. This is where everything is found. The only question would be where did it come from?

If only the sages of the gemara could help us understand the enigmatic words of the Mishna. Alas, they only make it worse. The gemara indicates that this “attic” is wedged somewhere between the prozdor and the cheder and has direct access to the prozdor by way of an enclosure they call a “lul” (cage with no top). As such, all of the discharge that we see today is actually only a safek if it comes from the chamber or not and whether it is tamei or tahor.

Talmudic scholars and frum medical experts over the centuries have burnt gallons of midnight oil trying to get this Mishna to shtim with what we can see but it is now 5780 (2020) and nobody has produced a satisfactory explanation. It is known that the Chasam Sofer had to reject the descriptions of Rashi and Tosefos as incompatible to the facts and referred to a diagram from a very learned 17^th century Jewish Doctor (Tuvia HaKohen from Paduah). Unfortunately, his diagram is not all that accurate, either.

For a full overview, see HERE.

Unfortunately, it isn’t only the female reproductive anatomy that Chazal have difficulties with. There seem to incongruencies on both sides of the mechitzah. This brings us to Perek HaArel in Yevamos and the rules of petzuah daka.  

As my loyal readers know, I previously devoted an entire four-part series to analyzing the Halachos of petzuah daka and krus shafcha (PD/KS). In one post, I pointed out several areas where the rulings of Chazal do not “shtim” with empirical reproductive science. I also noted that I am not the first to take notice. Firstly, the gemara itself takes issue with the guidelines of the Braitha in Yevamos 75a. Here is how I wrote it over there:

The gemara quotes a Braitha which defines a petzuah daka as “one who sustained a wound to even one of his 'eggs' or even just a pierce or even…” don’t ask. The gemara on the spot challenges this Braitha with an incident of an accidental injury to one egg (we note from here that even accidental injuries count) and yet he had more children.

So, how does the gemara deal with this?

Shmuel sent the question to the attention of Rav and Rav said: Go and investigate the children where do they come from?

Rav is suggesting that the Braitha’s guidelines are scientifically immutable. So much so, that the more likely explanation is that the children do not come from this man and that his wife must have been “playing the field” (Rashi). The gemara does not tell us if the case was actually investigated and, since the Rabbanut have forbidden DNA tests, how would we carry out this investigation.

Let us assume that the later children resemble the father in question and all the previous children, and that the wife is a pious woman who is not very likely to or have much opportunity to engage in monkey business. Is Rav suggesting that we must declare the later children mamzeirim on the strength of the Braitha?

Tough question.

Even so, Tosefos is not satisfied with the Braitha either. Here is what I wrote:

Tosefos challenges the scientific accuracy of this Braitha that we see those who have lost one testicle and still procreate. The only response that Rabeinu Tam can give us is to distinguish between where a testicle is totally removed – can procreate – to where one is wounded but not removed (and the other is intact) – cannot procreate. 

Despite this distinction, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and, according to Rema, most Rishonim rule like the Braitha. If the Braitha says one is pasul it means he cannot procreate. Period. 

As the post continues, I discussed a 1963 ruling by HRHG Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZT”L (IGM E”H 2:3), to permit a doctor to do a partial removal on a married man because the doctors said that this will not diminish his ability to procreate.

I wrote:

We must recognize that Rav Moshe had to struggle with Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and many previous piskei din in 9 ½ columns of small print to make his case. And he had to insist that reproductive conditions of today are not the same as in the times of Chazal.

In other words, Rav Moshe ZT”L had to fall back on the נשתנה הטבע trick to get this fellow off the hook.

Now, all the above has to do with reproductive physiology, which is how do the body parts that we are acquainted with behave. So far, there is no suggestion that the male reproductive anatomy is any different than in the times of Chazal as we have suggested by the female. Or is there?

The seventh perek of Bechoros discusses the blemishes in Human beings that will render such a person unfit for Temple service if he is a Kohen. In daf 44b the Braitha states:

Tanu Rabbanan (Our sages taught) – A man has two orifices. One releases urine and the other releases semen. And there is nothing dividing these two orifices except a membrane that is like the peel of a garlic. When a man has his needs if the two passages are open one to the other, the man becomes sterile.

Based on this, the gemara in Yevamos 75b tells us of an incident in Pumbedisa regarding one whose passage for seed was obstructed and the seed would exit from the passage of the urine. Initially, Rav Bibi (no jokes please) bar Abaye wanted to permit this fellow to marry (or remain married). But, rest assured, he won’t get away with it. Comes Rav Papi and sets him straight, “In its proper place it (the seed) ripens (and can impregnate) and out of its proper place it does not ripen.” And, as such, Rav Papi saved his wife from a forbidden marriage.

And, sure enough, this Halacha is recorded for generations in Rambam Issurei Biah 16:6 and Even HaEzer 5:6. There seem to be no objections to this Halacha in the Rishonim and early poskim. Note, that the Rambam was one of the most renowned physicians of his time.

Despite this, I personally happen to be an alpha male and I cannot identify with this phenomenon. I consulted with a number of other certified males and the consensus seems to be unanimous. It just ain’t so.

Don’t take my word for it. The Schottenstein edition of Shas in Yevamos 75b (footnote 27) takes up the issue. First, they quote that the Chazon Ish in Even HaEzer 12:7 says that we don’t know from such a thing today and he even consulted with doctors (not the Rambam). His first suggestion is – you guessed it - אפשר ונשתנה הטבע בדבר הזה. Aside from this being a strong dochek, the problem with this is that we are not discussing physiology. This is anatomy. Anatomy is not טבע, it is מציאות. We do not readily say נשתנה המציאות. The second problem is that the Rambam (12^th century) and Shulchan Aruch (16^th century) all seems to uphold this phenomenon. We are back to our mitten and seven-month question as to exactly when did this change, how and why? Lastly, to say נשתנה הטבע when it comes to anatomy is a slippery slope. It can give us cause to disqualify all of our Hilchos treifos.

His second approach is to suggest that this is not and was not the normal anatomy even in the times of Chazal, but rather that even then it was a rare occurrence and Chazal were merely addressing the rare case. This is also very difficult to support because the Braitha in Bechoros presents this as a matter of common circumstance. Conversely, there does not seem to be any acknowledgement of such a condition in today’s world even as a rare occurrence.

The Schottenstein footnote references one other opinion which is that of the Teshuvos Yeshuas Malko who wants to suggest that this is referring to an internal point deeper within the male body “as we know to be the case”.  

This is likewise extremely difficult to uphold. Firstly, how can we determine what is going on anywhere deep within the body short of an ultrasound or biopsy? Secondly, the implication of the Braitha is that these two passages run parallel to each other separated by only a very thin membrane; and that they both present two distinct exits for the respective fluids. This, again, is not the case. Lastly, there is nothing in today’s medicine to support the idea of the passages “interchanging” and that it has any detrimental effect on the virility of the seed.

As far as I can determine, it just doesn’t shtim.

With this, we can conclude our discussion on human biology and finally discuss what really matters. Loathsome creatures.





Section 2 – From Dust Thou Comest

The issue of how we are to reconcile the descriptions of Chazal to unfamiliar creatures (and even some familiar ones) is the subject of a number of works put out by Rabbi Natan Slifkin in the previous decade. I refer the reader to his works for an honest and comprehensive analysis. Some of my observations may coincide with his (and I am using his book Sacred Monsters for reference), but they are independent all the same.

To avoid making an already-too-long post into a way-too-long post, the prosecution will suffice with calling only two witnesses. The first are those pesky, annoying, indestructible house lice (Reb Slifkin calls them sweat-lice).  

The gemara in Shabbos 107b implies that the Rabbanan permitted one to kill lice on Shabbos because they do not breed biologically. The gemara goes so far as to differentiate these common lice from a sub-species called beitzel kinim (eggs of lice) which are really another species of true lice that do breed. Apparently, the gemara expects us to know the difference.

The obvious problem is that any form of louse known to us today reproduces biologically. There are no proven observations of lice that spontaneously generate. In short, the lice we know of today do not “shtim” with what it says in Chazal.

Reb Slifkin has a very thorough 25-page essay on this matter at the end of his book Sacred Monsters. His essay focuses on the question of whether the standing lenient Halacha in Shulchan Aruch should be upheld or not. The reader can find all the opinions and sources right there.

For our purposes we are stuck with two inescapable options:

The first option is that the lice that are being discussed in the Talmud are not the same lice as we have today. Those lice are now extinct. This of course brings us back to the question oft-repeated in this post: When did they go extinct, how, and why? (Reb Slifkin asks the “how” question in footnote 10 of his chapter.)

As for Halacha, it would clearly mean that we must change the ruling and forbid the killing of all lice. It is not possible to rely on the concept that the hetter is a tradition in Halacha and there are other esoteric reasons and Chazal only presented this specific reason to give a perceptible rationale because this can only apply if they are the same lice. But our lice are different creatures and not the ones referenced in Shabbos and, as such, there was never a hetter for these.

All this is mentioned by Reb Slifkin (pp. 353-4). But, another downside of this option which I did not notice in is essay is the question: Where were today’s lice during the time of Chazal? It is clear that Chazal did not acknowledge their existence because, if they had, they would have drawn a distinction in the gemara between the two species just as they did with beitzei kinim – unless today’s lice are beitzei kinim (not very likely)! To say that they did not exist at all at that time implies that they “evolved” later. Certainly, incompatible with our creed and a challenge to Shlomo Hamelech אין כל חדש תחת השמש. To say that they did exist at that time but Chazal were not aware of their existence once again challenges the notion that Chazal were fully acquainted with scientific knowledge.

The second option is that these are indeed the same lice and Chazal were mistaken about their biological capabilities. This gives us the luxury to maintain that the Halacha is a standing tradition and is not really dictated by how they reproduce so the hetter stands firm. Of course, to go this route we need to pay the price of conceding that Chazal were not spiritually scientifically advanced and we also need to say that Chazal were not telling us the real story of why it is muttar.

All told, clearly HRHG Yisroel Reisman, Shlita will have to go with Option 1 and renounce the Halachic hetter because the lice that we have today do not shtim with Chazal and they have a 0% chance of being from the creatures described in Rambam Shabbos 11:2.

The final witness that I wish to call to the stand display case [of the Museum of Super-Natural History] is the elusive “mud-mouse”. In the Yeshiva world it’s called the “mudna” (weird) mouse.

The Mishna in Chullin 126b states:

A [dead] mouse that is half flesh and half earth, if one touches the flesh, he is tamei, if he touches the earth, he remains tahor.

Rashi describes this creature (the Bartenura in Mishnayos quotes Rashi word for word): 

There is a species of mouse that does not breed but rather forms itself from earth like refuse that swarms with worms, and if this mouse has not been fully formed, just the right side or the left, one who only touches the earth on the other side remains tahor.

Lest anybody should suggest that the Mishna does not really mean spontaneous generation but some other cause for a mouse to be “part-earth”, we must point to the Braitha quoted in the gemara at the end of the daf and top of the next that explicitly refers to the mouse "that does not breed".

The issues relating both to the [presumed] fallacy of spontaneous generation and the Halachic implications are, more or less, identical to those of the lice. Once again, I refer the reader to the complete subject on the chapter in R’ Slifkin’s Sacred Monsters replete with sources. There is one subtle difference between the two and this is what I want to focus on.

The lice in question in Masechet Shabbos were actually seen at that time. Nobody had any doubt what creature is being analyzed. The only thing is that nobody could see how they generated so there was room to believe that they formed themselves (even if they actually did form themselves, I am sure nobody saw it happen).

The mud[na] mouse is slightly different. Yes, the Mishna presents it as a known creature and has its characteristics down pat so it can determine the Halacha, but-but-but…is there any indication from the Mishna or anywhere that anybody has actually seen this creature?

As I said, the Mishna presents it as a familiar creature. Whose words are those of the Mishna? We can say that a “stam Mishna” is the wording of Rabi Meir or that the Mishna was edited by Rabi Yehuda HaNasi. Did either of them ever see this mouse?

There is no way we can tell, but all the same, there is no indication that they did. Clearly in those times, virtually “everybody” just “knew” they were there, but nobody really saw one.  It is highly possible that, even then, there were those who were skeptical of such a mouse. The Tanaim of the Mishna were ruling the halacha hypothetically based on the common belief – if it exists, this is the Halacha, if it does not, it is just like any ordinary mouse. It is not testifying to its existence.

I have always been fascinated by Rashi’s description. For what does he need to describe it? Isn’t it common knowledge? 

The first place (actually the only place) the Torah mentions a dog – כלב – is in Shmos 11:6. Rashi expends a lot of ink to explain what “yecheratz” means but not a speck on what a kelev is. Why not? Rashi in Eilu Metzios doesn’t bother explaining us what מחרוזות דגים are nor igulei d’veila (pressed figs). Why not? Don’t we need to know what a dag is? Don’t answer that Rashi knows that we learned about fish together with fins and scales in Parshat Shemini and Re’eh because the term דג is not mentioned there. Indeed, HKBH says of man: וירדו בדגת הים but Rashi doesn’t think it’s important to tell us what a dag is over there, either. How does he expect us to know?

The answer is quite obvious. We all know what a kelev is. We see them all over the place. What does Rashi need to tell us something so obvious? We all know what a fish is (and a loaf of figs). There is no need to describe it. So, if this mouse is so ubiquitous, why does Rashi need to tell us that there is such a thing?

Apparently, Rashi does not expect us to know what this creature is. If he needs to tell us that it exists, then he thinks that many, if not most or all, of his readers will have never heard of such a thing. And this is in the middle ages (circa 1050 CE) when everyone believed in spontaneous generation. Rashi didn’t think most people ever saw such a thing. And do you know why?

Because Rashi never saw such a thing!

Rashi accepts the gemara carte blanche (this is Rashi’s style throughout Shas) and how his Rabbaim described it to him and he helps us out by assuring us that it is around somewhere, but he is not testifying that he ever saw it. No, I cannot prove this is so, but I think it interesting that Rav Ovadia of Bartenura quotes Rashi’s description verbatum as if it’s his own. Did he (Rav Ovadia) ever see it?

Before we go on, we must note that the Mishna in Chullin is not the only place in Shas that features our mud[na] mouse. It does a cameo “appearance” in Sanhedrin 91a. This is the sugya of Techiyas HaMeisim. A heretic approached Rabi Ami and said to him that once a man dies, he changes to dust. The natural trend is that the living turn to dust, how can the dust reverse the trend and turn into the living?

Rabi Ami first give him a parabolic argument. He follows up by saying, “And if you don’t accept this, then go out to the valleys and see the mouse that today is half earth and half flesh and tomorrow it becomes totally flesh.”

Rashi first identifies this creature as a squirrel and then tells us that there are some species among them that do not come to existence by breeding. Once again, he has to teach the reader what this is. Though it is a bit odd that he needs to identify it as a squirrel in particular (perhaps he just means “rodent”).

I was always bothered by this gemara. Was the heretic aware of this creature? If so, why didn’t Rabi Ami just refer to it instead of sending him to look for it? If he was not aware of this creature, how was Rabi Ami so confident that he would be able to locate it? Better, why didn’t Rabi Ami just show it to him? And, this thought brings me to my strongest curiosity – did Rabi Ami ever see this creature himself?

I have no idea, but my spider-mouse sense tells me - no.

All told, this creature is featured two places in Shas but neither place is testifying that anybody actually saw it.

Rambam, who vouches for spontaneous generation and codifies the Halacha as presented, tells us that, “There is no end to the number of people who have told me that they have seen it. This is despite the fact that the existence of such a creature is astonishing and I do not know of any explanation for it.”

This seems to imply that Rambam accepted spontaneous generation for insects and worms where the entire organism arose from the rot. But something that was earth and gradually transformed itself into flesh and blood over the copurse of time is way over the top. One thing is certain – Rambam is admitting to the world that he never saw it!

What comes out of all this is that, even though the Talmud refers to this mouse in two places as a known creature, the Talmud is not really assuring us that it ever existed. As such, one who wishes to claim that the gemara is not really telling us that such a creature exists, but rather what is the Halacha if it does, is on solid ground (although it may be a bit muddy.)

What do Gedolim say about it today?

Many are those who understand the gemara to mean that this creature definitely exist[s]/[ed] and if the gemara says it exist[s]/[ed] there is no room to argue.

R' Slifkin writes (Sacred Monsters pg. 333) that the Klausenberger Rebbe, ZT”L “presented the Talmud’s description of this rodent as proof of spontaneous generation and ridiculed the idea that a non-Jewish scientist would know better than the sages.” (Note – The Rebbe may have been using this concept to permit some of the parasites that we find in fish). I sincerely cannot describe how much unlimited admiration I have for the Klausenberger Rebbe ZT”L. But still…did he ever see this mouse?

Likewise, HRHG Rav Moshe Sternbuch, who lives near me in Har Nof, said in a Headlines podcast on Feb. 20, 2016 that it certainly existed and is currently hidden or extinct. This recalls Reb Slifkin’s comment about the lice – how can a creature that does not need to breed become extinct? (Perhaps the right type of mud became extinct.)

Conversely, HRHG Rav Moshe Meiselman, who lives near me in Har Nof, said in a Headlines podcast seven weeks earlier on Jan. 2, 2016 that Chazal knew “the truth” about reproduction and that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. But the heretics did believe in it. As such, Rabi Ami in Sanhedrin 91a, in an effort to make the heretic accept the concept of techiyas hameisim, tried to convince the heretic by impressing on what he (the heretic) believes in. But Rabi Ami did not believe in it. This would answer why Rabi Ami sent him hunting and did not attempt to produce the creature himself.

This approach is mostly incompatible with the Mishna in Chullin unless we say that there, as well, Chazal were only speaking hypothetically. It is very hard to read such a thing into the Braitha at the end of the daf. And, for sure, Rashi takes both references quite literally.

HRHG Rav Moshe Maimonides, ZT”L, who lived far away from me in Egypt, is reluctant to accept that any mammal can generate without breeding, like Rav Meiselman, but is also reluctant to say it doesn’t exist, like Rav Sternbuch, but, unlike Rav Sternbuch, he is also reluctant to say that it is extinct, since so many people claim to have seen it. But he admits that he hasn’t seen it. (All this was 800 years ago.)

From Moshe to Moshe there is no one like Moshe.

All I can say is that I live in Har Nof but my name is not Moshe. It is hard for me to believe that this creature ever existed. It does not seem to exist now. It is also hard for me to believe that Chazal, in their time, did not sincerely believe it exists. If they did not really believe it exists, why would they fool us into believing what they didn’t believe?

With the two “Rav Moshe”s, we are clearly wearing two watches. I am not sure what time it is. The two watches don’t shtim. But, unlike Rav Reisman, Shita, I have come to terms with the sincere belief that not all things in Chazal need to shtim.

I think we are finally ready to talk about the Murex trunculus.

Stay tuned...

Taryag Mitzvos – Part 1: The Heart Beats…the Odds

Author’s note: In honor of Shavuos – Z’man Matan Torasenu – and in honor of the upcoming “bar-mitzvah” anniversary of the release of my book, I am interrupting the series on Techeiles to insert a special series on Taryag mitzvos. This series is an actual chapter from my book, One Above and Seven Below, which I edited to make it more blog friendly. The original title of this chapter is Getting to the Heart of the Matter.

I plan to reprint this chapter in four parts and this is Part 1, the pilot portion. My next Techeiles post should come out shortly after Shavuos. Thereupon, Part 2 of this series will converge with the Techeiles series. I hope to have it out by Parshat Shelach Lecha.

“I’m a good Jew at heart. G-d understands me.”

How many times have we heard this sentiment, emanating predominantly from a non-observant or marginally observant Jew? The observant Jew will typically respond with, “Try telling the tax authorities that you have been paying your taxes at heart. I’m sure they will understand.” or “I suppose your heart will go to Gan Eden but we can’t be sure about the rest of you.”

Regardless, it cannot be said that this sentiment is totally without basis for even (especially) chareidim are wont to quote the well-known Talmudic phrase רחמנא ליבא בעי - "The Holy One requests the heart”. It must be that the chareidim understand this phrase differently than the average consumer.

What lies at the heart of the chareidi mindset?

In One Above and Seven Below, we defined a chareidi as one who adheres to the directive of the pasuk in Vayikra 26:3 to observe the mitzvos with ameilus (toil) b’Torah. Thus far, we have elaborated on the import of the ‘toil in Torah’ aspect to imply that this aspect is what distinguishes the chareidi from the non-chareidi Orthodox Jew (NCOJ). It would seem that in the ‘mitzvos’ department, the chareidi and NCOJ stand on equal footing. But even this can only be true if both entities conceptualize the significance of mitzvos in the same way; and I, for one, am not convinced that such is the case. I am not clear as to how NCOJs conceptualize the significance of mitzvos nor does it seem as if there is total collusion among their ranks.

The chareidim have a bit of an edge. They can learn these concepts from the words of Chazal; however, their words are succinct. Their implications must be excavated from beneath the surface - and this requires a bit of toil.

The last words of the Mishna in Makkoth (23b) characterize the chareidi perception of mitzvos:

Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One wanted to confer merit on Israel, accordingly, He increased for them [the quantities of] Torah and mjitzvos as it is written, “G-d desires, for the sake of deeming him (i.e., the individual Jew) as righteous, [that he is] to enlarge the Torah and to strengthen it.”

This statement implies that G-d did not ‘have to’ give us such an extended list of mitzvos nor such a vast and complex Torah, but that He did it in order to enable every Jew to readily attain righteousness. How are we to understand this? Can mitzvos be superfluous? Isn’t every mitzvah essential? Doesn’t each one embrace a unique and vital purpose?

The gemara (ibid.) gives us a clue:

Rabbi Smalai expounded: 613 mitzvos were dictated to Moshe - 365 negative mitzvos corresponding to the days of a solar year and 248 positive mitzvos corresponding to the number of organs in a human being. Said Rav Hamenuna: What is the [indicative] pasuk? “Torah was commanded to us by Moshe as a legacy…” Torah has a numerical value of 611; Anochi (I am the Hashem your G-d) and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha (There shall not be any other gods before Me) were heard directly from the mouth of the Almighty. 

David came and reduced the amount to eleven as it states (Tehillim 15:1-5), “A song to David. G-d, who will reside in Your tent, who will dwell in Your holy mountain? One who walks with simplicity, one who performs righteousness…” Yeshaya came and reduced the amount to six as is written (Yeshaya 33:15), “One who goes with righteousness, one who speaks with straightforwardness…” Michah came and reduced the amount to three as is written… Yeshaya returned and reduced the amount to two as is written… Chabakuk came and reduced the number to one as is written (Chabakuk 2:4), וצדיק באמונתו יחיה “And a righteous man with his loyalty (emunah) shall he live.”

Hey, hold on there! How many mitzvos are there? Weren’t there supposed to be lots of them – for our own benefit?

Another question: What is the significance that Moshe relayed to us 611 mitzvos and that we received two mitzvos directly from HKBH? Didn’t all of the mitzvos emanate from HKBH? Many of us are familiar with the Talmudic legend (Shabbos 88b) that as HKBH uttered the first mitzvah the entire nation fell dead. HKBH dispersed a divine dew and revived them. He then uttered the second mitzvah and, once again, the entire nation fell dead and were again revived. Thereupon, they insisted on hearing the mitzvos only via relay through Moshe. It seems that the direct mitzvos were limited to two only for this ‘technical’ reason. If the Jews would have had more stamina, perhaps they would have heard three or thirty or all of them. Is this truly so, or is there some special significance that they heard these two, not more and not less?

Lastly, it is a splendid bit of symbolism that the number of negative mitzvos corresponds to the days of the solar year and that the number of positive mitzvos corresponds to the number of organs in the human body, but are we to understand this as merely a mnemonic symbol or is something deeper than that being implied?

The Maharsha confronts all of these issues and presents a detailed explanation of this obscure Talmudic passage. He begins by quoting some earlier commentaries, one of which maintains that the later prophets (David, Yeshaya, etc.) were not actually reducing the quantity of mitzvos but were merely categorizing them into groups to enable people to reach great levels. The Maharsha rejects this idea by noting that at one point the Talmud derives that one need not cover all eleven line items (in the case of David’s list) to qualify for the trophy, but, actually, any one of them will suffice.

The Maharsha goes on to offer his explanation. He begins by quoting the commentary of Rambam to the aforementioned Mishna comprising the statement of Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya. Rambam states:

And it is among the principles of our faith in the Torah that if a person should fulfill any one mitzvah of the Creator’s 613 mitzvos as it should be fulfilled, and he does not combine with it any intent of an earthly nature whatsoever, but rather that it is done for its own sake out of love [for G-d]… he is deserving of life in the World to Come.  This is because, as there are numerous mitzvos, it is not possible (i.e., likely) that a person, over the duration of his life, will not perform at least one mitzvah fully and as directed.

To summarize, Rambam is telling us that we need only perform one solitary mitzva with complete devotion and our fortune is made.

Based on Rambam, Maharsha interprets the statement of Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya to mean that there are two vantage points – that of Man in the physical world and that of G-d in the spiritual world. From G-d’s spiritual ‘vantage point’ physical embodiments have no significance in and of themselves. They are only tools or instruments that enable the physical man to enact a spiritual impulse. This means to say that the physical form of the daily tefillin and tzitzit, the matzo of Passover, the shofar of Rosh HaShanna, the sukka of Sukkot, etc., are, in actuality, nothing but instruments through which Man can display his allegiance to HKBH and forge a connection. This is all that Hashem requests from Man.

In other words, to G-d, there is only one mitzvah – EMUNAH (Loyalty to G-d). This automatically splits into two mitzvos, the positive and the negative, similar to a Venn diagram – A and A-complement. A is Anochi Hashem (I am Hashem your G-d…). This is the positive – to be loyal to HKBH, to acknowledge G-d as One, to fulfill Anochi Hashem. A-complement is Lo Yihiyeh Lecha (There shall be no other gods before Me). This is the negative - not to be disloyal to G-d, to disavow any other power, to observe Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

All that Man has to do to merit Olam Habah is to fulfill this one mitzvah of Loyalty or Emunah (or, as Chovos Halevavos calls it: Yichud Hashem), which, in effect, means to fulfill Anochi and to observe Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. This is what Dovid HaMelech refers to as Sur MeRah (turn away from evil) i.e., observe Lo Yihiyeh and VaAseh Tov (do good) i.e., fulfill Anochi. Hence, he writes: “Who is the man who desires life (World to Come) who has a longing for days to see [pure] good? ...Turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.” Fulfilling Anochi and observing Lo Yihiyeh is the complete ticket. Rambam implies that this goal is achieved by a single pristine fulfillment or observance. What a deal!

It pays to waste no time to achieve this one mitzvah of Emunah. Paradise awaits! But, wait just a second – slow down. How exactly does one fulfill this mitzvah in ‘real-time’?

We physical beings cannot connect to the spiritual CPU without a graphical user interface. (No, Maharsha does not use this terminology.) So HKBH has developed one for us with a full set of applications and utilities. 611 to be exact. There are 247 positive mitzvos, all of which are applications for accessing Anochi. Likewise, there are 364 negative mitzvos, all of which are ‘bugs’ that will trigger Lo Yihiyeh Lecha (and crash the system).  According to Rambam, any single time we access Anochi or consciously avoid a ‘bug’ (observe Lo Yihiyeh Lecha) we ‘score a hit’. Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya is telling us that G-d, in His unbridled benevolence, gave us a host of methods of achieving this single mitzvah of Loyalty to G-d (Emuna) to facilitate each of us to make the grade at least once in his life and to earn a share of Eternity.

The point is that, although each mitzvah is indeed different and has a distinct physical imprint, at the ‘receiving station’ they all accomplish a like result – lighting up a display of Emuna. All of the mitzvos of the Torah are a light switch for this one light. Therefore, performing one mitzvah properly has the same result as if one has performed numerous mitzvos or even the entire Torah. It is similar to the quaint carnival game where one has to hit a disk with a sledgehammer whereupon a puck flies up a shaft. If it flies high enough it rings a bell and the contestant wins a prize. It shouldn’t matter if he uses a sledgehammer, a baseball bat, a paddle, a shoe, or whatever. If he hits it hard enough the bell rings and sounds exactly the same. One cannot discern what striking implement was used by the sound of the bell. Even if he uses two or more items to do the job, the bell sounds the same as if he used one. So, whether with one stick or 100 sticks, if he hits it right and rings the bell, he gets his prize, and if not, not.

Of course, he is well advised not to quit after one success, but this is not merely because the goal is to win more prizes, but because a Jew must be loyal to G‑d (and display said loyalty) all of the time.

The Maharsha goes on to explain the significance of the symbols. Man was given a body to enable him to ‘do’ – to perform positive actions – and, consequently, to fulfill Anochi. Therefore, the quantity of mitzvos (bell ringers or light switches) was set to correspond with the quantity of parts of the body. The most vital human organ is the heart and every other organ is subordinate to it. Therefore, says Maharsha, the heart represents the parent mitzvah of Anochi that we heard directly from G-d and all the other organs represent the physical manifestations of Anochi, i.e., the 247 positive mitzvos that we heard from Moshe.

On the flipside (literally), the negative mitzvos are represented by the number of days in the solar year. This is because the observance of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha and negative mitzvos is fulfilled when we have the opportunity and temptation to transgress them. G-d empowered our yetzer harah, also called the Satan (Bava Bathra 16a), to present us with ample opportunity to transgress. This is actually for our benefit as in this way we can ‘ring the bell’ of Emunah by, technically, doing nothing. The Hebrew term השטן (the Satan) has a numerical value of 364. This is because the Satan is empowered to test our Loyalty 364 days a year. Only one day is his power restrained, Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur almost all physical activities are prohibited and we focus on refraining from all of the negative mitzvos on the list. This is the purest manifestation of the Lo Yihiyeh Lecha side of the Loyalty mitzvah. By restraining ourselves on the Yom Kippur we make a clear declaration (ring the bell) of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha and in this way we likewise merit a share in Olam Habah. Since Hashem’s Lo Yihiyeh Lecha is equivalent to all of Moshe’s 364 negative mitzvos, when we observe Lo Yihiyeh Lecha on Yom Kippur it is considered as if we observed all 364 earthly prohibitions (which, in effect, we have) and thus we are atoned for the failed opportunities that transpired throughout the year.

With this in mind, the Maharsha offers an explanation to a puzzling passage in masechet Eruvin (13b). The gemara relates that the students of Shammai and the students of Hillel debated (for 2 ½ years) the issue of whether it is more ‘convenient’ for Man to have been created or more convenient to not have been created. The gemara resolves that they ‘counted’ and concluded that it would be more convenient for Man to not have been created and now that he is created, he should scrutinize his actions.

The questions abound: What is the crux of the argument? What is meant by the adjective “more” and what is meant by the term “convenient”? What was counted and how does that resolve the issue? (Note - The classical interpretation is that they simply took a vote and concluded as they did based on the opinion of the majority. The notion that a deep philosophical issue is resolved based on how many members of either party showed up to the plenum on that day is a bit difficult to digest, especially if the vote fell squarely along party lines.) And, most vexing: if the merciful G-d created Man and said “and behold it is very good” (Breishis 1:31) then is it not obvious that being created is to our advantage?

Says Maharsha that in line with our discussion we can explain it as follows. From G-d’s vantage point there is only one two-sided mitzvah - Loyalty to G-d (Emuna) – which can be achieved via either of two approaches: action, by fulfilling Anochi, or inaction, by observing Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

Clearly, if Man was not created, he would be incapable of the Anochi aspect though he would excel at observing Lo Yihiyeh Lecha (see Note at the end of this paragraph). The observing of Lo Yihiyeh would be quite convenient. Conversely, if he is created, he now has the opportunity to fulfill Anochi but is likewise vulnerable to transgress on prohibitions and negate Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. In this case, only the Anochi aspect is convenient.

Each situation has a gain and a risk. The debate centers around which of the two positions is comparatively the “more convenient” approach of achieving Loyalty.

(Note - I must postulate that the intention here is not to say that Man would not be created at all, but rather, that he would exist without any physical form. This would help to alleviate the obvious question as to how is it possible for Man to be virtuous in his observance of Lo Yihiyeh Lecha if he does not exist?)

To resolve the dilemma, the group took a rather mathematical approach – they simply counted and compared the quantity of positive mitzvos versus the quantity of negative mitzvos to determine what are the true ‘odds’. The resulting tabulation was, as we know, 365 negative mitzvos versus 248 positive ones. This means that for every two opportunities that we have to earn paradise we have close to three opportunities to botch it up. Not such favorable odds. Based on this calculation, the group concluded that it would be more convenient for Man to have not been created because, in that condition, it would be a cinch to observe the numerous negative mitzvos although he is thereby hindered from performing any positive ones. The fact that he is created into a physical form is not a convenience as the odds are not in his favor. Therefore, now that he is created, his only recourse is to overcome the odds by “scrutinizing his actions”, i.e., by capitalizing on his ability to perform actions and focusing those actions on those that fulfill Anochi.

With this, the Maharsha goes on to interpret the pasuk (Shir HaShirim 5:2), “I am asleep, yet my heart is awake.” (אני ישנה ולבי ער)

Ani yeshaina – I am asleep. We would be at an advantage were we to be asleep – i.e., not physically created – because, in that way we would be in full compliance of the 365 negative mitzvos. Maharsha notes that the numerical value of ישנה (asleep) is 365.

V’Libi ehr – yet my heart is awake. Maharsha quotes a Midrash on this pasuk:

Says Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: From where do we know that the Holy One is the heart of Israel? As the pasuk states (Tehillim 73:26), “The rock of my heart and my portion is G-d”.

In G-d’s realm there is but one mitzvah, the positive side of which, Anochi Hashem, is represented by the heart of the human body which is the root of vitality for all of the other organs. As Man was indeed created, he must activate his heart, i.e., scrutinize his actions to fulfill Anochi.

We now have a clearer understanding – the chareidi understanding – of the Talmudic edict רחמנא ליבא בעי - “The Holy One requests the heart.” The heart represents the sole positive mitzvah from G-d’s vantage point and likewise translates into all of the positive mitzvos in our physical world. To be a “good Jew at heart” one must focus his actions toward fulfilling Anochi and ‘beating the odds’. And he must undertake those actions for, if not, it would be more convenient if he were not created.

Finally, the Maharsha offers his explanation to the ensuing lines of the Talmud which states that David reduced the number to eleven, Yeshaya reduced it to six, Michah to three, Yeshaya again to two, and, ultimately, Chabakuk reduced it to one.

He says that we now understand that every physical mitzvah is merely a method of fulfilling Anochi and that any individual one is equally capable of achieving this goal and conferring the doer with a share in Olam Haba. Nevertheless, not all the mitzvos are equally accessible as some only apply to certain classes (e.g., Cohen or Levi), to particular callings (e.g., farmers, landowners, moneylenders, employers), to the different genders, and at specified times (e.g., day or night, festivals, Shmitta and Jubilee, etc.)

As such, King David endeavored to isolate those mitzvos that are accessible to all people at all times and to package them into categories to facilitate the individual to find at least one convenient mitzvah by which to merit Eternity. He compiled eleven categories. Subsequently, Yeshaya merged them into six categories that are more rudimentary and that every human being is expected to uphold. Michah was able to further glean the list into three fundamentals: doing justice, loving kindness, and behaving modestly before G-d. Yeshaya further presents that of these three, the two that involve inter-human relations are the primary ones. Finally, comes Chabakuk and brings us right back to where we started; that all of the mitzvos are actually exercises in one grand undertaking: Emunah – faith and loyalty to G-d – and that this endeavor is in affect for all Jews at all times.

End of Part 1.

Chag Sameach!!!

Techeiles 4 - Adama V’Shamayim

Author’s note – This post is a continuation of the series on techeiles which was presented back in 2018. To appreciate this post, it is highly recommended to at least see the opening post of the series (HERE). The other two posts are available HERE and HERE.



I all but abandoned my series on techeiles but it deserves some closure.

The series began in August 2018 after I wrote in a post that one of my sons is a techeiles enthusiast. The only comments I received to that post came from an anonymous (how brave!) gentleman who asserted that two well-respected poskim have rejected today’s techeiles – Murex trunculus – so therefore, it cannot be techeiles. He neglected to acknowledge that others have accepted it (or, at least, declined to rule it out).

The more vocal of these two well-respected poskim, Harav Yisroel Reisman, Shlita of Brooklyn, has gone so far to claim that, in his opinion, there is a 0% chance that the Murex trunculus is the true Talmudic techeiles – or so this commenter claimed. For the sake of accuracy, after reviewing his recorded shiur from June, 2011 and it seems that Harav Reisman only attributed the extreme non-probability of 0% to the Rambam. Nevertheless, he is clearly applying this 0% figure from the Rambam to his own shita.

Harav Reisman’s key contention is that the properties of the Murex snail do not “shtim with Chazal” and therefore it must be ruled out. This prompted me to open a series of discussions about how are we to understand puzzling aspects of Chazal and what exactly are the standards of “shtimming” with Chazal?

The opening post of the series – a must read – was the introduction to the topic. It pointed out how Chazal are so literal in their discussions that they commonly base Halachic opinions on Aggadic literature even though the Aggadic literature can be deemed to be “fanciful”.

The second post pointed out that, in many instances, there is quite a bit of room to question what exactly was it that Chazal said? When we see conflicting versions of the words of Chazal and disputes on “facts” among members of Chazal themselves, we are never left with a precise statement to use as a baseline for “shtimming”.

The third post illustrated how we must inevitably conclude that Chazal were not precise when it comes to numbers, sizes and distances. There is a great amount of exaggeration. This was written in October 2018 and there I paused. I have not written about this topic since.

I have been meaning to get back to it and close the series but I let myself get sidetracked. With the “Messianic fever” that has come along with the Corona outbreak, perhaps the time has come to get back to it.

This post will deal with the touchiest issue of all – how much can we rely on Chazal’s portrayal of the natural sciences, particularly zoology and biology? How well did Chazal understand natural phenomena, anatomy and reproduction? How do we deal with statements of Chazal that clearly do not “shtim” with what we know today?

Much of this discussion was the basis of the great “Slifkin” controversy that goes back about 15 years. Rav Natan Slifkin wrote several books that worked very hard to reconcile these conflicts. He brought up many questions of incongruency between Chazal and observable phenomenon that had been hitherto swept under the rug.

For this he was strongly censured by many Torah scholars for having the audacity to question the “accuracy” of Chazal – unjustly so, in my opinion. One renowned Torah authority is quoted to have said, “His Torah is not Torah, and his science is not science”. Well and good, but this did not answer any of the questions or resolve any of the conflicts.

If I understand correctly, his fundamental position is that Chazal did not always mean for their statements to be taken literally despite that they actually base many Halachos on their assertions, and that they were no more advanced in the natural sciences than were the secular philosophers and scientists of their times. Their opinions on phenomenon that could not be observed or studied was based on the prevailing theory, traditions and even mythology or legend and not solely on ruach hakodesh. As such, they were not always right.

In short, Chazal and empirical science – i.e., astronomy, zoology, and biology – do not always shtim.

In my previous post, I was talking about raw numbers and maybe we should pick up right where we left off. We were discussing how it is not possible that the Land of Israel as delineated in the Torah can be 400 parsaos by 400 parsaos. And, in fact, there is no real source for this.

But the gemara does give these dimensions to some other parts of the globe and here we will travel to Pesachim 94a. The gemara tells us:

Mitzrayim (Egypt) is 400 parsaos by 400 parsaos, and Egypt is one sixtieth of Kush (Ethiopia), and Kush is one sixtieth of “the world”… (it continues into Gan Eden and Gehinnom but we won’t go there – right now – I hope).

If you recall, we calculated a parsah to be about four Km. Thus, 400 parsaos are 1600 Km. 1600 Km squared comes to 2.56 million Km². Hence, the Mitzrayim that is being referred to is 2.56 million Km². The Kush being referred to is 60 times greater and must then be about 153.6 million Km². Perhaps Kush is meant to include Mitzrayim just like “the world” must also include Kush.

We certainly don’t know the borders of Mitzrayim and Kush at the time of this Chazal but let’s work with what we do know. It’s amazing how all of this trivial information is at our fingertips on Google.

Today’s Egypt is listed at 1.01 million Km². This is merely 40% of the 2.56 million that it should be but, if we need to, it’s not that hard to find another 1.5 million Km² in the general vicinity. Today’s Ethiopia is a tad bigger than today’s Egypt at 1.104 Km² but this is only 10% bigger and not 6000% (sixty times) as it should be.

Well, maybe Kush is meant to be all of the African continent? Does this help?

This is a bit closer since total Africa is 30.37 million Km². But even so, the entire African continent is only 30 times bigger than today’s Egypt, not 60, and it’s only 11.8 times bigger than the Egypt of Chazal. Moving right along, the entire surface of the planet Earth sizes up at 510 million Km². This is merely 16.8 times the size of the African continent or about one eighth of what it should be according to our premise that Kush is all of Africa. And the world area is only 18% (less than one fifth) of what it should be according to the gemara in Pesachim.

Now, of course, many of us are aware of the Maharsha in Brachos 57b that tells us that when the gemara says one sixtieth, it is not being exact. It merely means that just as one sixtieth is recognized as the shiur of bitul – a quantity that is so insignificant in relation to the whole that we can consider it negligable – likewise, these territories are so insignificant in size in comparison to the host territory that they don’t even count. Problem is that it is not really feasible to look at today’s Egypt (40% of Chazal’s), which is 1/30^th  (3.3%) of Africa, or Africa itself, which is the second largest land mass on Earth comprising 1/5 of Earth’s land and 6% or 1/16 of the world surface including the oceans, as being insignificant (batel b’shishim).

Okay, okay. We already discussed exaggerated numbers in our last post. Why am I repeating it?

The problem is not only the numbers of square Km, but a general issue of how Chazal understand the “layout” of our planet and how it relates to other celestial bodies. Or what is known as Astronomy.

All of the observable information that we have today points to the following:

·       The Earth is a sphere

·       The sun is stationary in relation to the Earth.

·       The Earth rotates on its axis while the sun stays in place thus giving us the appearance that the sun moves across the sky.

·       The Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit that positions the northern part of the world closer to the sun in the northern summer months and the southern part of the world closer to the sun in northern winter months.

·       The heavens of the physical world (not the spiritual world) are just a vast expanse of space that surrounds our planet and other planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. It is not a blanket or covering of our planet. There is no evidence that it is dome shaped.

These “facts” have basically been proven by eclipses (Aristotle), air and space travel and photography, international communication, light refraction laws, and common sense. In today’s world these phenomena have been almost universally accepted as fact by the majority of mankind with very few dissenters.

In days of yore, for lack of current technology, our power of observation was much more limited. From our lowly position, the world does not appear as a sphere. It does not appear to move. We stand still on the ground and watch heavenly bodies move around. For lack of speedy travel and communication, nobody was able to determine how far the world goes. We think that the sun rises for the whole world and sets for the whole world. When the sun rises in Jerusalem, it is also rising in Rome and in Persia and Asia. When it sets for us, it sets for everyone.

This is what most people thought in the ancient world and all the evidence points out that this is what Chazal believed as well. Those who thought otherwise were the “lunatics”. To qualify this, we don’t have to go anywhere. We can stay right here in Pesachim 94a where we opened this discussion.

The gemara continues to tell us that the entire civilized world is positioned under a single star. To validate this, the gemara claims that anywhere one travels in the world, he can look up and see this star (the star does not seem to be identified). The gemara seems to challenge this with a mild variation that the whole of civilization is positioned between Taurus and Scorpio.

This gemara seems to indicate a total lack of acknowledgment of any kind of Southern hemisphere and civilization beneath the equator – or that there even is an equator.

As the gemara continues (94b), the gemara discusses two disputes between the Jewish philosophers and those of other nations. The first is about whether the stars are affixed to the dome of the sky and the dome moves and brings the stars along or the stars are not affixed and they move on their own while the dome stays still. This clearly indicates that both opinions held that the Earth is stationary and the fixed stars move around (we are not talking about the other planets).

The second dispute is about where does the sun go at the end of the day. The Jewish scholars hold that when it sets in the west, it ducks up behind the “rekiah” which is understood to be some kind of opaque blanket or canopy that covers the Earth. The United Nations scholars maintain that it goes underneath the Earth and heats up the water. Amazingly, Rebbe (Yehudah HaNasi) rules in favor of the non-Jewish scholars because we can see that the water becomes boiling hot overnight. Rashi says the proof is that in the mornings we see “smoke” on the rivers.

This clearly indicates that both sides maintained that the Earth is flat like a dish. At night the sun is cooking the barren underside of the world. Neither side can imagine that the sun moves to the other side of the world courtesy of the rotation of the Earth. Nobody dreams that when the sun is setting in Jerusalem (or Pumbadisa), it is up in the sky at high noon in New York. When it is midnight in Jerusalem, it is high noon in Honolulu.

Nobody dreams that it rises or sets other places on the Earth at different times that are hours apart and that when it is 6 am in one place, it is 6 pm in another. They maintain that when it rises at 6 am it rises for the whole world and it is 6 am in the whole world; and when it sets at 6 pm it sets for the whole world and it is 6 pm in the whole world. There are no time zones and there is no need for a Halachic date line.

So Chazal do not give us a clue how to determine an Halachic dateline and the matter is not even brought up by any Jewish scholar until the Baal HaMaor (cute, no?) broaches the issue in the 13^th century.

Back to our gemara in Pesachim 94b, the gemara goes on to quote a Braitha in the name of Rabi Nosson that:

In the summer, the sun is high in the sky and therefore the entire world is hot (the air temperature) and the water is cold. In the winter, the sun is low in the sky and therefore the entire world is cold (the air temperature) and the water is boiling hot.

This means that in the summer the sun is high so its heat affects the higher element which is the air on top of the surface. The water is further down so it does not get the heat from the sun in the summer. Hence, the water stays cold. In the winter the sun is low so its heat affects the lower element which is the water. It does not really affect the atmospheric air so the air gets cold.

Note that the fact that daylight and the sun are around for much longer in the summer and much shorter in the winter plays no part in this.

Both of these statements are in line with the belief that the total land mass of Earth is like the exposed top of an apple that is floating in the middle of a bowl of water with Eretz Yisrael smack in the middle. The great ocean is the “mayim hatachtonim” that both surrounds and goes under the Earth. The sky covers it like the cover of the entrée dish in a fancy restaurant. (This is how it is described in Teshuvos Chavos Yair 219.)

The sun rises for the whole mass and sets for the whole mass, so there are no time zones and no need for a Halachic dateline. It passes over the top of it, high in the summer and low in the winter, and at night, it reverses direction and goes back to its starting point either by taking the “high road” above and outside the “dish cover” concealed from view, or it takes the “low road” under the “bowl” and cooks all the water.

None of this will work and none is necessary if we know that the Earth is a sphere. Actually, the Yerushalmi in Avoda Zara does say the world is a sphere. But the Bavli seems to think it’s a dish. Perhaps we can explain this by saying that Eretz Yisrael was under the dominion of Rome who was the successor of Greece. As such, in Eretz Yisrael, even the Jewish scholars were aware of the more advanced Greek sciences. Conversely, Bavel was dominated by Persia and their astronomy was not as advanced. The Jewish scholars of Bavel pandered to the Persian “what-you-see-is-what-you-get” philosophy.

According to the round-Earth theory, the sun is busy cooking Hawaii when it’s night in Israel (which it certainly is) and is not cooking the water below ground. It seems that Chazal had not yet mastered the laws of calorics and heat exchange. Air temperature changes very quickly. Water temperature does not. Thus, in a summer day, the air temperature may start at 40°F at dawn and reach 80°F at noon and down to 70°F by sundown. The water starts at 60°F but won’t change much until the sun goes down and things cool anyway. But it won’t cool as fast either and so it will stay at 60°F day and night.

As such, when the day begins the air is 40°F and the water is 60°F so people think water is warm. Hey, it’s a lot warmer than the air. By noon, the air is 80°F and the water is still 60°F so all of a sudden, the water is freezing. Next morning the 60°F water is warm again in the 40°F air. It must have gotten cooked overnight, and what can cook it but the sun?

But the truth is that there were no thermometers in those days. The water temperature barely changed. Only the air temperature changed.

So Chazal tell us that the sun goes underneath the world and heats the water.

What is the Halachic ramification of all this?

Well, we already discussed the necessity (or not) of a Halachic dateline. But, in addition, many Rishonim, with Rashi at the helm, attribute this sun-low-in-the-sky (or cooks-the-wells-at-night) theory as the reason for the puzzling Halacha that the matzos of Pesach can only be made using water that sat out overnight – מים שלנו – and not water that was freshly drawn from a well. Since the sun warms up well water at night, the early morning water is warm and will “leavenate” the dough.

Other Rishonim give explanations to the opposite extreme assuming that fresh well water is very cold and its coldness is the problem. Maharam Hallavah says that when one mixes something very cold into another substance at room temperature, the sudden coldness causes the second substance to generate some latent heat and this is what will cause the flour to “leavenate”.  

Perhaps the root of the dispute is that Rashi and his colleagues view the Bavli flat Earth theory as “Halacha l’maaseh” and Maharam Hallavah maintains the more contemporary (or Yerushalmi) round Earth theory.

In any case, it is known that HRHG Rav Moshe Sternbuch, Shlita was the Chief Rabbi of South Africa and he was asked whether there is a need forמים שלנו  to make matzos in S. Africa? After all, the sun was high in the sky all the past months?

I am told he ruled that they still need מים שלנו to satisfy the Maharam Hallavah. But, what would Rashi pasken if he was asked?

It goes without saying that very likely there are other esoteric and metaphysical explanations for these divrei Chazal that are not affected by modern developments. Still and all, it is very difficult to contend that Chazal were more advanced in the physical world than the rest of mankind. There are just too many things that we can see today that don’t “shtim” with Chazal.

The astronomical sciences are not going to influence our analysis of the Murex trunculus too much. I really wanted to discuss what Chazal understood about living organisms – biology, zoology, and anatomy. This part was just the opener. When I started writing this post, I did not anticipate I would expend so much ink on the Earth and Water.

We’ll continue in the next post which I really hope will not take another two years (hopefully not even another two weeks).

See you then.

Yechezkel HaNavi on Pesach and Corona[virus]

Hello readers. Yechezkel (HaNavi) Hirshman here.

Okay, we all know that I am an imposter. Not close to a Navi. But…there is a real Yechezkel HaNavi and he says some interesting things.  I will get to them in a minute.

I have been debating whether to write anything about our current situation over the past few weeks. Quite obviously, there is really no purpose because there are many prominent and well-respected Torah speakers who have given us both mussar and chizuk. You can access it all over the [newly discovered] Internet at Kol Halashon, Torah Anytime, as well as links posted by all the usual suspects – Yeshiva World News, Vos is Neis, MatzavBlasts, Chadrei Haredim, Kikar Shabbat and your personal WhatsApp contacts.

Owing that I am neither prominent nor well-respected, I don’t suppose I hold much sway. Besides, I don’t have a whole lot to add. And, lastly, the situation is changing so fast (בעתה אחישנה) that many of the initial insights are not relevant. I am sure we all learned our lesson about not making lavish weddings and bar-mitzvas and that just maybe shidduch dates over Zoom is not such a bad idea, after all. But what now?

Nevertheless, it is now erev bedikas chametz and the onset of Pesach which we hope will usher in our geulah shleima (אכי"ר) and there are one or two messages that I haven’t seen mentioned by anyone else. So – במקום שאין נביאים, השתדל להיות נביא.

Yea, hear the words of the prophet Yechezkel…

Message 1

Tomorrow night is the [first] seder and, as we know, the highlight of the seder is Maggid – sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. The Haggadah is an analysis of the four psaukim about the geulas mitzrayim that we recite when we bring the Bikurim to the Bais HaMikdash. The first pasuk is:

ארמי אבד אבי וירד מצרימה ויגר שם במתי מעט ויהי שם לגוי גדול עצום ורב  

In reference to the last word, ורב, the Hagaddah links us to a well known pasuk in Sefer Yechezkel 16:7:

רבבה כצמח השדה נתתיך ותרבי ותגדלי ותבאי בעדי עדיים שדים נכנו ושערך צמח ואת ערם ועריה  

Strangely, and for no clear reason, the Haggadah then adds the previous pasuk (reverse order):

   ואעבר עליך ואראך מתבוססת בדמיך ואמר לך בדמיך חיי ואמר לך בדמיך חיי

Most of us dip a finger in the wine and spill a drop each time we say “בדמיך חיי” to symbolize a “blood bond” with HKBH.

Interestingly, this is not the only time we recite this pasuk and “spill” wine to symbolize a “blood bond” with HKBH. We do this at every briss. We recite the pasuk and spill a drop of wine/blood into the baby’s mouth.  

We all know that this is the special blood bond that we have with HKBH which we commemorate with two special mitzvos – Korban Pesach (or now, our Seder) and briss milah. These are the two mitzvos that make us unique. The two mitzvos that almost all of Klal Yisrael observes, even if they observe no other mitzvos. And these are the only two positive mitzvos that are so vital to our identity that if one willfully neglects to do them, he is disconnecting himself from HKBH and His nation. He is liable for kares.

So let’s take a broader look at Yechezkel 16 which is the source of these powerful pasukim.

This entire perek of Navi is delivered as a mashal – a parable. It speaks about a baby girl who was cast away at birth and even the placenta was still attached. A well-to-do person chanced by this forlorn foundling and for the first 14 pasukim talks about how he nurtured her back to health and helped her grow into a beautiful young woman and adorned her with the finest clothes and jewels and took her as his bride. Finally, in pasuk 14 the Navi says that she was known among the nations of the world for her exquisite beauty:

 ויצא לך שם בגוים ביפיך כי כליל הוא בהדרי אשר שמתי עליך

But in the next pasuk, things start to turn sour. She becomes unfaithful and betrays they Great Benefactor who gathered her from the gutter and turned her into a princess. She begins to consort with everybody except her benefactor. This goes on for another 20 pasukim.

From pasuk 36-58 the Navi then describes what terrible punishments the princess turned harlot needs to undergo as retribution for her treachery. She will suffer along with those “lovers” (nations) that she consorted with in place of her loving suitor.  

Finally, in the last 5 pasukim of this perek, the Navi says that HKBH will still remember the covenant that He made with the young princess and take her back for His sake so we will all know “that I am G-d”.

So, we see that HKBH initially made us the crown of the nations. We were supposed to remain that way but we strayed. He needs us to come back to be worthy of the כליל that we had. The two crowns that we received at Har Sinai when we said נעשה ונשמע.

Let’s look one more time at that last pasuk just before the princess starts to turn sour:

 ויצא לך שם בגוים ביפיך כי כליל הוא בהדרי אשר שמתי עליך

What does Rashi say on this word “כליל”?

"כי כליל הוא" - לשון מכלול ד"א כי כליל הוא כי שלם היה ד"א כי כליל קרונ"א בלע"ז כמו נזר דמתרגמינן כלילא

I don't really know what to make of this, if anything, but did Rashi know something we don’t?

Message 2

This Shabbos will be Shabbos Chol HaMoed Pesach. On Shabbos Chol Hamoed Pesach we read the Haftara in Yechezkel 37 – The dry bones that Yechezkel HaNavi brought to life.

The Hebrew word Corona – קורונה – does not appear encoded in Tanach as a Roshei Teivos or Sofei Teivos. But, like almost any word, it can be found as an ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequence) code. The most significant ELS is always the shortest one, and the shortest ELS for the word קורונה (by far) is 9 letters. It is found in this pasuk from the upcoming Shabbos Chol HaMoed Haftara (Yechezkel 37:8-9):

וראיתי והנה עליהם גדים ובשר עלה ויקרם עליהם עור מלמעלה ורוח אין בהם ט ויאמר אלי הנבא אל הרוח הנבא בן אדם ואמרת אל הרוח כה אמר ה' אלקים מארבע רוחות באי הרוח ופחי בהרוגים האלה ויחיו

The gemara in Sanhedrin 92b discusses who were the dry bones and what became of them. Some say that they stood on their feet and sang songs of praise to HKBH and then died again. But others (Rabi Eliezer the son of Rabi Yosi HaGalili) says that they made aliya to Eretz Yisrael and married women and had sons and daughters.

Evidently, like this opinion, this is what they were brought back to life for. This was the purpose of their “קורונה”.

Amidst all of our tragedies and trials and tribulations, there is no room for despair. We are all praying for life and good health. Even for those who have succumbed to this plague, there is a future. The world says, “Where there is life, there is hope.” But Yechezkel HaNavi teaches us that, “Even where there is death, there is hope”.

ה' ממית ומחיה מוריד שאול ויעל.

Heed the words of Yechezkel HaNavi.

Have a happy, healthy, and Kosher Pesach.

With love to all the Jews,



Yechezkel