Menachot 42b ~ How Do You Make Techelet?

From here.

From here.

מנחות מב, ב

אמר ליה אביי לרב שמואל בר רב יהודה הא תכילתא היכי צבעיתו לה אמר ליה מייתינן דם חלזון וסמנין ורמינן להו ביורה [ומרתחינן ליה] ושקלינא פורתא בביעתא וטעמינן להו באודרא ושדינן ליה לההוא ביעתא וקלינן ליה לאודרא

Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda: How do you dye this sky-blue wool to be used for ritual fringes? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said to Abaye: We bring blood of a chilazon and various herbs and put them in a pot and boil them. And then we take a bit of the resulting dye in an egg shell and test it by using it to dye a wad of wool to see if it has attained the desired hue. And then we throw away that egg shell and its contents and burn the wad of wool.

It is clear from Rav Shmuel's detailed instructions that the entire process depends on one ingredient - "the blood of the chilazon" - which was used to make the dye that produced techelet and color the ritual fringes known as tzitzit. But what exactly is the chilazon? It turns out to be a rather common snail found in the Mediterranean, but for centuries the identity of the chilazon was lost. Here is the story of how it was re-discovered.

Pliny the Elder and his recipe

It wasn't just the Jews that were boiling up blue dye. Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE.) lived at least two  centuries before Abaye and Rav Shmuel, and left us his own version of the process outlined in today's page of Talmud:

The most favourable season for taking these fish is after the rising of the Dog-star, or else before spring... After it is taken, the vein is extracted...to which it is requisite to add salt, a sextarius [~20oz] to every hundred pounds of juice...leave them to steep for a period of three days...then set to boil in vessels of tin... About the tenth day, generally, the whole contents of the cauldron are in a liquified state, upon which a fleece...is plunged into it by way of making trial...The wool is left to lie in soak for five hours, and then, after carding it, it is thrown in again, until it has fully imbibed the colour... To produce the Tyrian hue the wool is soaked in the juice of the pelagiæ while the mixture is in an uncooked and raw state; after which its tint is changed by being dipped in the juice of the buccinum [a sea snail]. It is considered of the best quality when it has exactly the colour of clotted blood, and is of a blackish hue to the sight, but of a shining appearance when held up to the light; hence it is that we find Homer speaking of "purple blood".

So Pliny described a “fish” as the source of the dye. Was this the sea creature called the chilazon? Later in this tractate, (44a) we have another description of the mysterious chilazon.

ת"ר חלזון זהו גופו דומה לים וברייתו דומה לדג ועולה אחד לשבעים שנה ובדמו צובעין תכלת לפיכך דמיו יקרים

The Sages taught: This chilazon, [which is the source of the sky-blue dye used in ritual fringes, has the following characteristics:] Its body resembles the sea, its form resembles that of a fish, it emerges once in seventy years, and with its blood one dyes wool sky-blue for ritual fringes. It is scarce, and therefore it is expensive.

It is sea-like and fish-like and is rare ("once in seventy years"), and it is hard to find. OK, but not terribly helpful in figuring out its identity.

As early as 2,000 BCE the Phoenicians had been producing a blue-purple dye from shellfish. The identity of this chilazon creature was clear to the Romans and to sages of the Talmud, but it was lost over the centuries. Or almost lost. It was a point of scholarly and religious debate in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and then some neighbors of mine when I lived in Eftat figured it out

As early as 2,000BCE purple dye was associated with the Phoenicians, who traded in purple-dyed fabrics...The word “Canaan” may derive from the Akkadian kinahhu, “red-purple,” while “phoenicia” probably comes from the Greek phoinos, “dark-red”...the shellfish utilized for these dyes are the Murex trunculus and the Murex brandaris. The shellfish were crushed, boiled in salt, and placed in the sun; afterwards the secretions turned purple. Eight thousand mollusks yielded one gram of purple dye.
— Philip King & Lawrence Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Wstminster John Knox Press 2001. 161

Identifying the Chilazon

1. The Rebbe of Radzyn

The tradition of using a sea creature to dye clothing was never entirely lost. In 1685, for example, a Mr William Cole of Bristol reported that a "purple-fish" (by which he meant a sea snail or mollusk) was being used to dye "fine linens of ladies and gentlemen" on the coast of Ireland. But it wasn't until the nineteenth century that the search was taken seriously by the Jewish community.

...there was a certain person living by the Sea-side in some Port or Creek in Ireland, who made considerable gain by marking with a delicate durable Crimson Color, fine Linnen of Ladies, Gent &c...made by some liquid substance taken out of a Shell-fish...
— A Letter from Mr William Cole of Bristol, to the Phil. Society of Oxford; Containing His Observations on the Purple Fish. Philosophical Transactions 1685. 15;1278-1286
The common cuttlefish - the source of the Radzyn techelet. Courtesy of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

The common cuttlefish - the source of the Radzyn techelet. Courtesy of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

It was R. Gershon Henoch Leiner, the Rebbe of Radzyn(1839-1890) who began the modern search for the clilazon. Once the creature had been identified he argued, it would be used dye the strings of the otherwise white tzitzit, and return to a more authentic observance of the mitzvah. The search brought the rebbe to Naples, Italy, where he concluded that the cuttlefish (sepia officinalis), a kind of squid, was the long-lost chilazon. The cuttlefish produced a dark ink when threatened, and after some help from local chemists, he hit on a method to turn that ink into a blue dye. 

However, there were three problems with the Radzyn techelet. First, Maimonides in his Mishnah Torah ruled that techelet must resist fading, but the Radzyn dye could be easily washed out.

וְהַתְּכֵלֶת הָאֲמוּרָה בַּצִּיצִית צָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה צְבִיעָתָהּ צְבִיעָה יְדוּעָה שֶׁעוֹמֶדֶת בְּיָפְיָהּ וְלֹא תִּשְׁתַּנֶּה
The blue thread mentioned in connection with fringes must be dyed with a special dye which retains its color and does not change...
— Maimonides. Laws of Tzitzit 2:1

 

Second, in order to produce Radzyn techelet, the cuttlefish needed to be killed to extract its ink.  But the Talmud (Shabbat 75a) notes that the longer the chilazon is alive, the better its dye (דכמה דאית ביה נשמה טפי ניחא ליה כי היכי דליציל ציבעיה).  And the third problem with the Radzyn-cuttlefish-is-techelt theory was Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog.

2. Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog

The Banded Dye-Murex, Murex trunculus. From here.

The Banded Dye-Murex, Murex trunculus. From here.

Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog (1888-1959) was born in Poland and at the age of ten emigrated with his family to Leeds in the north of England. There he was educated in talmudic studies mostly by his father, and he later attended the University of London There, the topic of his PhD thesis was "The Dying of Purple in Ancient Israel" and focused on the identity of the chilazon. R. Herzog went on to succeeded Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook as the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, a position he held from 1936-1948.

R. Herzog was critical of the conclusion of the Rebbe of Radzyn that identified the common cuttlefish as the chilazon.  In 1909 he had the Radzyn dye sent to the accomplished German chemist Paul Friedlander, who had earlier identified (or re-identified) the murex trunculus as the source of the dye called Tyrian purple (a discovery for which Friedlander was awarded the Lieben Prize in Chemistry). Friedlander tested the Radzyn dye and concluded it was itself unable to produce the blue color of techelet. Others chemists concluded that the Radzyn dye was in fact a synthetic compound known as Prussian blue, produced by the oxidation of ferrous ferrocyanide salts. This was confirmed when R. Herzog obtained the recipe for the dye from Radzyn hasidim. It called for the cuttlefish dye to be heated with iron filings and potash, and these hasidic dyers were actually making Prussian blue.  In fact the color of the Radzyn dye was nothing to do with the cuttlefish - it all came from the added chemicals. This left R. Herzog with a problem: if the cuttlefish was not in fact the chilazon, well then what was?   

Although it was known that the murex could produce a purple-blue dye, R. Herzog rejected this for the following reasons:

1. The snail does not appear "once every seventy years" yet this description appears in the Talmud (on 44a).  

2. The dye is not color fast. Or at least that is what he thought.  

3. The dye is a purple-blue color. But techelet is sky blue, as the great Rabbi Meir reminds us:

סוטה יז, א

היה ר"מ אומר מה נשתנה תכלת מכל מיני צבעונין מפני שהתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע ורקיע דומה לכסא הכבוד

R. Meir used to explain how techelt is different from all other colors: The color of techelet is similar to the color of the ocean; and the color of the ocean is similar to the color of the sky; and the color of the sky is similar to God's Glorious Throne.

Poor Rabbi Herzog never did reach a conclusion about the identity of the chilazon. But he was certain of two things. The Radzyn dye was not techelet, and the Radzyn cuttlefish was not the chilazon. Something was missing. And that something was sunlight.

It is all about the sunlight. From Ptil Tekhelet.

It is all about the sunlight. From Ptil Tekhelet.

The dye produced from the murex snails is indeed dark purple and not permanent, but (and this is super important) if it was exposed to bright sunshine it turned a magnificent sky-blue color, and it didn't fade or wash out.  This was discovered quite by accident in the early 1980s by Dr. Otto Elsner of the Shenkar Institute in Tel Aviv. Chemists who had produced the purple dye from the murex snail had done so in their labs, far away from natural sunshine.  But the dye extracted from the gland of the murex snail, when exposed to sunlight, turns blue in color. Bingo. Sky-blue techelet. 

Elsner researched the chemical process taking place in his sun-drenched dye mixture and discovered that while in solution the dye molecules are less stable than in their natural condition. Ultraviolet energy - such as found in the rays of bright sunlight - can break the bonds that attach some of the atoms to each other within the dye molecule. These photochemical processes alter the purple and red constituents of the murex extract and leave primarily indigo, which is of course, pure sky blue.
— Baruch Sterman and Judy Taubes Sterman. The Rarest Blue. Efrat, Ptil Techelet 2012. 127.

3. my neighbors in efrat.

In the late 1990s I lived in Efrat, part of the Gush Etzion Block, and was a neighbor of Baruch and Judy Sterman.  It was their hard work, together with Ari Greenspan, Joel Guberman, and many others, who helped restore the ancient tradition of techelet. While the ability of the murex to produce the dye was already known, and the need for ultraviolet light to fix the dye had been fortuitously discovered, this group perfected the harvesting of the snails, (which involved, I kid you not, Greek and later Croatian fishermen) and set about manufacturing techelt-dyed tzitzit on a large scale. To date their organization Ptil Tekhelet have produced some 200,000 pairs, as well as this excellent guide to the process for those who are learning this passage in the Daf Yomi cycle. For a deep dive into all things techelet, I also recommend their fascinating book “The Rarest Blue.”

The ABSORPTION Spectrum of Murex Techelet

In 1991, Wouters and Verhecken published High-performance liquid chromatography of blue and purple indigoid natural dyes in the rather niche Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists. The two Belgium chemists measured the absorption spectra of various indigo containing dyes including “silk fabric, stained with the contents of the hypobranchial gland of Murex trunculus.” The absorption spectrum measures the wavelength of radiation (or light) absorbed by an object, and it is this absorption that gives objects their color. Here is the absorption spectrum of indigotin, the color-giving component of techelet:

Absorption spectrum in the u.v. and visible light region of Indigotin. From JWouters and A Verhecken. High-performance liquid chromatography of blue and purple indigoid natural dyes. JSDC 1991: 107; 266-269.

Absorption spectrum in the u.v. and visible light region of Indigotin. From JWouters and A Verhecken. High-performance liquid chromatography of blue and purple indigoid natural dyes. JSDC 1991: 107; 266-269.

As you can see there is a peak around 613nm. A similar finding was reported in 2015 by a researchers from the Israel Antiquities Authority and Bar-Ilan University, when they examined textiles found in a cave in Wadi Murabba'at, the Judean desert. The textiles date to the Roman period, were identified as having been dyed with using the murex sea snail Hexaplex trunculus. Here is the absorption spectrum they published:

UV–visible spectra of the compounds found in Murex species: indigotin (IND) and its derivatives, monobromoindigotin (MBI) and dibromoindigotin (DBI), with absorbance maxima between 601 nm and 613 nm; indirubin (INR), monobromoindirubin (MBIR), and d…

UV–visible spectra of the compounds found in Murex species: indigotin (IND) and its derivatives, monobromoindigotin (MBI) and dibromoindigotin (DBI), with absorbance maxima between 601 nm and 613 nm; indirubin (INR), monobromoindirubin (MBIR), and dibromoindirubin (DBIR) with absorbance maxima between 536 nm and 544 nm. From Sukenik et al. Chemical analysis of Murex-dyed textiles from wadi Murabba'at, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2015; 3:565–570.

It too reports that indigotin (and its derivatives) have absorbance maxima between 601nm and 613 nm.” The number 613 of course has a special significance in Judaism; it is the traditional number of commandments that Jews must observe. This coincidence was noted by the Ptil Tekhelet organization who note it in their guide to Menachot chapter 4:

Absorbtion at 613nm.jpg

Now in fact, as you can tell from the figures above, the peak absorption spectrum of indigotin is not 613nm, but in the 200-300nm range. However this peak lies in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, and so is not visible to us (though bees are able to see it). Make of this finding what you will.

A do-it-yourself guide to making techelet

This week I carried out a very unscientific survey of the number of techelt colored tzitizit worn in my shul. Out of a total of 58 talesim, 7 (12%) had techelet fringes (and I saw no techelet fringes in the women’s section). So if you want to get a set for yourself, you can either buy a ready-made pair, or do-it-yourself and follow this recipe (courtesy of Baruach Sterman).

  1. Find the snails, break them open and extract the glands

  2. Mush those glands in a food processor (they take on a dark purple hue), and then dry them out (at this point they are very stable and can be stored for a long time - even years - without refrigeration).

  3. When ready to dye, put the dye into solution and produce a chemical process called reduction. To do that add water and a base and a reducing agent (Baruch uses sodium dithionite) and heat moderately. (In ancient times this was done by a two-week fermentation process which has been replicated).

  4. Once the dye is in solution it takes on a green-yellow color (this is called leuco-indigo) and at that point expose to sunlight. Then immerse the wool/threads.

  5. When the wool is removed and exposed to air, the dye undergoes oxidation and takes on its final color - and becomes insoluble again which keeps it fixed in the wool matrix.

That’s all there is to it. So what are you waiting for?

Print Friendly and PDF

Mencahot 37a ~ Conjoined Twins

מנחות לז, א

בעא מיניה פלימו מרבי מי שיש לו שני ראשים באיזה מהן מניח תפילין א"ל או קום גלי או קבל עלך שמתא אדהכי אתא ההוא גברא א"ל איתיליד לי ינוקא דאית ליה תרי רישי כמה בעינן למיתב לכהן אתא ההוא סבא תנא ליה חייב ליתן לו י' סלעים

The Sage Peleimu asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of one who has two heads, on which of them does he don tefillin [phylacteries]? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Either get up and exile yourself from here or accept upon yourself excommunication [for asking such a ridiculous question]. In the meantime, a certain man arrived and said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: A firstborn child has been born to me who has two heads. How much money must I give to the priest for the redemption of the firstborn? A certain elder came and taught him: You are obligated to give him ten sela,the requisite five for each head.

Conjoined parapagus twins. This is likely the case brought before Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi, because these twins may have two, three, or four arms and two or three legs. The twins share the umbilicus, lower abdomen, pelvis and genitourinary tract. From Pi…

Conjoined parapagus twins. This is likely the case brought before Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi, because these twins may have two, three, or four arms and two or three legs. The twins share the umbilicus, lower abdomen, pelvis and genitourinary tract. From Pierro A. Kiley E. Spitz, L. Classification and clinical evaluation. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 24 (2015): 207–211.

The epidemiology and classification of Conjoined Twins


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was indignant: there surely could be no such creature as a human with two heads. His belief was quickly challenged when he was asked about a real case of a child born with two heads - what today we call conjoined twins.

Today, conjoined twins are rare. According to a recent paper in Seminars in Pediatric Surgery, the incidence of conjoined twins ranges from 1:50,000 to 1:100,000 live births, although it is higher in Africa and in South-East Asia. Most pregnancies that are carrying conjoined twins result in miscarriages and stillbirths. Despite this, 18% of all conjoined infants survive to delivery: however about a third die in the first 24 hours, and only 18% of all conjoined twins survive longer than that. If these survival rates were similar in the times of the Mishnah (and back then the survival rate was surely even lower,) the reaction of Rabbi Yehuda’ HaNasi to the question was certainly understandable. It was extremely unlikely that they would live long enough to start the mitzvah of tefillin.

Parapagus twins lie side to side with ventrolateral fusion. The twins share the umbilicus, lower abdomen, pelvis (single symphysis pubis), and genitourinary tract. They can have anorectal anomaly and colovesical fistula and may be at risk of anencephaly. The conjoined pelvis usually has a single symphysis pubis and one or two sacra. The thorax may be involved. The twins can have (i) separate heads (dicephalic) but the entire trunk is conjoined and (ii) separate thoraces (dithoracic) with the fusion involving the abdomen and pelvis. They can have two, three, or four arms and two or three legs.
— Pierro, A. Kiley E. Spitz L. Classification and Clinical Evaluation. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 24 (2015) 207–211

There are two main kinds of conjoined twins: (i) symmetric conjoined twins (this is the kind discussed in today’s Daf Yomi) and (ii) heteropagus or parasitic twins. (A parasitic twin is a grossly abnormal fetus, or fetal parts, attached externally to a relatively normal twin. They are usually comprised of externally attached additional limbs but may also contain body parts. Today, after removing these additional parts and some plastic surgery, the surviving child usually appears normal.) The most likely kind of conjoined twins that Peleimu asked about were parapagus twins. These may be born with two, three or four arms, and it is likely that in the Peleimu’s case they were born with only two arms.


One classification of conjoined twins. 1=thoracopagus, 2=omphalopagus, 3=pygopagus, 4=ischiopagus, 5=craniopagus, 6=parapagus, 7=cephalopagus, 8=rachipagus. From Pierro A. Kiley E. Spitz, L. Classification and clinical evaluation. Seminars in Pediat…

One classification of conjoined twins. 1=thoracopagus, 2=omphalopagus, 3=pygopagus, 4=ischiopagus, 5=craniopagus, 6=parapagus, 7=cephalopagus, 8=rachipagus. From Pierro A. Kiley E. Spitz, L. Classification and clinical evaluation. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 24 (2015): 207–211.

Conjoined twins in later rabbinic literature

Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz (1620–1674) was born in Fez, Morocco. For a while he lived in Italy, and around 1657 he settled in Jerusalem, where he founded a yeshivah. He described a case of conjoined male twins that he had seen.

שו"ת הלכות קטנות חלק א סימן רמה

זכורני שראיתי במדינות איטלייא גוי א' כבן כ"ה שנים שנולד דבוק עם תאומו עד הטבור חזה כנגד חזה ושם נדבקו והוא היה הולך ושלם כשאר בני אדם וראש הקטן מוטה לצד א' ורגליו תלויות ומגיעות עד ארכובותיו של גדול ולא היה בו הרגשה כלל אלא כאבר שנתבטל חושו ונתקיים כך כמה שנים עם תאומו. נסתפקו ההורגו מאי ואם מלין אותו ומהיכן הוא מתקיים מה שמתקיים צ"ל שטבורו דבוק עם של תאומו והכבד של אחיו שולח דם דרך שריון לכבד שלו ומשם ניזון כמו במעי אמו: ואפשר לדונו כדין גוסס ומלין אותו וממעט חלק ירושה ולכל דבר דינו כגוסס ואם יברך משנה הבריות כתבתי בפי' הש"ע דעל הגדול אין לברך ועל הקטן אומר דיין האמת כי רוב גוססים למיתה

A certain gentile, about twenty-five years old, who was born with a twin joined from his chest to his abdomen…who was able to walk normally like any other person. The head of the smaller twin was tilted to one side and his feet hung down and reached the thighs of the larger twin…it is possible to view the smaller twin as a goses [in the throws of death]…the blessing “he who creates different creatures”(משנה הבריות) is not to be made seeing the larger twin, but on seeing the smaller twin one should make the blessing “he who is the true judge” (דיין האמת)

Another eyewitness account of conjoined twins was recorded by Rabbi Jacob ben Joseph Reischer (~1670-1733). He served in various rabbinical positions in Prague, Worms, and Metz. In his book of responsa, Shevut Yaakov, (Vol 1 no. 4) he was asked about “an entirely new thing” brought from abroad and seen over the winter of 1708:

Two Gentile male twins joined at their skull. Each had all his limbs and feeling in them, like any other person…their faces were joined at the side, meaning that the left ear of one was next to the right ear of the other…from behind it appeared as if there was only a single extremely wide head. The rest of their bodies were quite separate; each would suckle and eat and drink and speak and feel by himself. They were more than a year old. I saw this with my own eyes and I made the correct blessing when I saw them..

Conjoined brothers from Nuremberg Chronicle (1493). From here.

Conjoined brothers from Nuremberg Chronicle (1493). From here.

…I was asked what would happen if, God forbid, there was such a case among the Jews…the case discussed in Menachot 37 is quite different from this one….Here there are two separate bodies…and there is nothing new in this, for this is what happened when the world was created…as stated in the Talmud in Berachot and in Eruvin. And the Midrash tells us that he [Adam] was created with two faces, as it states (Gen 5:2): “ זכר ונקבה בראם ויקרא שמם אדם - male and female he created them, and he called them Adam” …Since they are clearly two people each requires to put on the head tefillin (phylacteries), and place it between their own eyes. However they may not marry for there is a question of the prohibition against adultery, for they must sleep together in one bed. It is also forbidden for one to have intercourse because the other is watching… and may the Merciful One deliver us from all the odd and deformed creatures…

The Case in Menachot, and the Hensel twins

In 2002 Michael Barilan from the Meir Hospital and the Sackler School of Medicine in Tel Aviv, published a lengthy paper (Head Counting and Heart Counting) which questioned the assumption that a conjoined twin’s natural interest and wish is separation. “Too often” he wrote, “we tend to oversimplify bioethical problems and see them as a zero-sum game between rival individuals. Conjoinment challenges our sense of selfhood and identity. Rising to this challenge may refresh many commonplace notions about individuality, identity, and being with other people as a fundamental manifestation of being alive as human beings.”

Abby and Brittany Hensel. From here.

Abby and Brittany Hensel. From here.

Abby and Brittany Hensel are a perfect example of Barilan’s thesis. Born in 1990 in Minnesota, their parents decided not to seperate them at birth after learning that the chances of either surviving such an operation was extremely low. They have a single body and each controls the arms and leg on her side. They learned to walk at a normal age, graduated high school in 2008 and although each twin had to take her own test, they have driver’s licenses (and you can watch them driving here). The twins featured in a three part reality show on TLC in 2012, which later aired on the BBC. It featured their graduation from Bethel University, subsequent job search, and their travels in Europe. Their story, and those of many other unseparated twins, demonstrates that conjoined people may lead loving, meaningful and fulfilling lives together, whether or not they decide to don tefillin each day.

Both modern canon law and common law determine human individuation by the head. Possibly they had better count hearts. Head-counting is close to a Cartesian view of the soul as a distinct entity that is anchored in the head but not directly engaged with the human body. The Cartesian body is related to its mind as chattel to owner, thus promoting the economic language of division and distribution of lives and limbs...Heart-counting isless metaphysically ambitious or economically domineering and is more attuned to the practical constraints of embodied life, particularly of social beings.
— Y. Michael Barilan. Head-Counting vs. Heart-Counting: An Examination of the Recent Case of the Conjoined Twins from Malta. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 2002. 45; 4; 593-603.
Print Friendly and PDF

Zevachim 113b ~ On the Identity of the Re'em

Auroch (Bull No 18) Hall of Bulls Lascaux.jpg

The enormous Re'em

In tomorrow's daf yomi there is a rare and welcome break from the detailed discussions of the laws of sacrifices. It addresses the רימא, the re'em, an animal of enormous size.  How, the Talmud wonders, did it survive the Great Flood of Noah? One possibility is that it fled to Israel, where, according to some, the waters of the flood did not reach. But there were other opinions that the Flood even reached Israel. In that case, how did the re'em survive? It could not have hid in Israel and it would have been too big to fit inside the Ark. Rabbi Yannai had an answer:

זבחים קיג, ב

 א"ר ינאי גוריות הכניסו בתיבה והאמר רבה בר בר חנה לדידי חזי לי אורזילא דרימא בת יומא והוי כהר תבור והר תבור כמה הויא ארבעין פרסי משכא דצואריה תלתא פרסי מרבעתא דרישא פרסא ופלגא רמא כבא וסכר ירדנא א"ר יוחנן ראשו הכניסו לתיבה והאמר מר מרבעתא דרישא פרסא ופלגא אלא ראש חוטמו הכניסו לתיבה

Rabbi Yannai says: They brought re'em cubs into the ark, and they survived the flood. [The Gemara asks:] But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Chana say: I have seen a day-old offspring of the reima, and it was as large as Mount Tabor. And how large is Mount Tabor? It is forty parasangs. And the length of the cub’s neck was three parasangs, and the place where its head rests, i.e., its neck, was a parasang and a half. When it cast its feces, it dammed up the Jordan river. [So even the cub would have been too large for the ark.] Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They brought only the head of the cub into the ark, while its body remained outside. The Gemara asks: But didn't Rabba bar bar Chana say that the size of the place where its head rests was a parasang and a half? [Consequently, even its head alone would not fit into the ark.] Rather, they brought the edge, of its nose into the ark, so that it might breathe. 

Just what might be the identity of this mysterious, enormous animal?  Let's take a look. But first some background.

The re'em in the Bible

The word ראם, re'em appears several times in the Hebrew Bible. Here, for example, is a verse from Deuteronomy (33:17) which describes the offspring of Joseph.

דברים לג: יז

בְּכ֨וֹר שׁוֹר֜וֹ הָדָ֣ר ל֗וֹ וְקַרְנֵ֤י רְאֵם֙ קַרְנָ֔יו בָּהֶ֗ם עַמִּ֛ים יְנַגַּ֥ח יַחְדָּ֖ו אַפְסֵי־אָ֑רֶץ וְהֵם֙ רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְהֵ֖ם אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃

Like a firstling bull in his majesty, He has horns like the horns of the re'em; With them he gores the peoples, The ends of the earth one and all. These are the myriads of Ephraim, Those are the thousands of Manasseh. 

The re'em is specifically identified by the great translator of the Bible Oneklos (~35-120 CE) as one of the species singled out in the Torah as being kosher:

דברים יד: ד–ה

 זֹ֥את הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֹּאכֵ֑לוּ שׁ֕וֹר שֵׂ֥ה כְשָׂבִ֖ים וְשֵׂ֥ה עִזִּֽים׃ אַיָּ֥ל וּצְבִ֖י וְיַחְמ֑וּר וְאַקּ֥וֹ וְדִישֹׁ֖ן וּתְא֥וֹ וָזָֽמֶר׃

These are the animals that you may eat; the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the dishon, the antelope, the mountain sheep.

Onkelos translates that word דִישֹׁ֖ן into Aramaic as רֵימָא - the re'em. And then there is this passage from the Book of Job (39:9-12):

איוב לט:ט–יב

הֲיֹ֣אבֶה רֵּ֣ים עָבְדֶ֑ךָ אִם־יָ֝לִ֗ין עַל־אֲבוּסֶֽךָ׃ הֲ‍ֽתִקְשָׁר־רֵ֭ים בְּתֶ֣לֶם עֲבֹת֑וֹ אִם־יְשַׂדֵּ֖ד עֲמָקִ֣ים אַחֲרֶֽיךָ׃

Most English versions of this passage translate the word re'em as "wild ox"and so read: 

Would the wild ox agree to serve you? Would he spend the night at your crib?  Can you hold the wild ox by ropes to the furrow? Would he plow up the valleys behind you?

But not the King James Bible. It goes in an entirely different direction: 

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

So according to the King James Bible, the re'em is a unicorn. Why on earth would the translators have chosen, of all creatures, the mythical unicorn as the re'em?

The men who [produced the King James Bible], who pored over the Greek and Hebrew texts, comparing the accuracy and felicity of previous translations, arguing with each other over the finest details of chapter and verse, were many of them obscure at the time and are generally forgotten now, a gaggle of fifty or so black-gowned divines whose names are almost unknown but whose words continue to resonate with us.
— Adam Nicoloson. God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. Harper Collins 2005. xi

The re'em is a unicorn. Or maybe not.

Well, they didn't. They merely followed the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the third century BCE. And the Septuagint translated the Hebrew re'em as μονόκερως - monokeros, or "one horned". Which is why the King James Bible translated it as a unicorn, from the Latin uni meaning "single" and cornu meaning "horn". And since, according to the Talmud, the Septuagint was created at the command of Ptolemy II by seventy-two Jewish sages, you could claim that the King James translation was following a long Jewish tradition.

King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one’s room and said: “Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher”. God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.
— TB Megillah 9a-b

This translation made its way into later rabbinic commentary. For example, R. Dovid Kimche (1160-1235), in his dictionary of the Hebrew language called Sefer Hashorashim, wrote that the re'em has only one horn. And Abraham Yagel, (1553 – 1623), the Italian rabbi and exegete, mentioned a one-horned re'em that had been captured and brought to Portugal:

Book IV, ch. 45: 108a בית יער הלבנון 

ובימנו הובא בארץ פורטוגאלי מן האי האינדי׳ ראם אחד במצודה צדו אותו ומראה צורתו הביאו אח׳כ עוברי אורחות ימים והוא גדול מהפיל ומזרין בקסקשיו בכל עורו וקרן חזות עב על חוטמו אשר בו לחם מלחמות עם הפיל ועם שאר החיות

And in our days a re'em was brought to Portugal from India having been ambushed and trapped, and afterwards sea travellers reported how it looked. It is larger than an elephant and its scales cover all its skin. It has a thick horn on its nose which it uses in fights with the elephant and with other creatures...

As Natan Slifkin points out, what Yagel what was actually describing was a rhinoceros: "It was given to King Manuel of Portugal by Alfonso de Albuquerque, governor of Portuguese India. This was the first rhinoceros to be brought to Europe since Roman times, and it caused quite a sensation." Quite so.

But before we conclude that the re'em was a rhinoceros, there are a couple of problems. First, although it was once found in the Land of Israel, the rhinoceros remains so far discovered only go back to the Mousterian era, which ended about 35,000 years ago. That's quite a few years before the biblical period. Thus it is very unlikely that there were rhinoceri in Israel in the biblical period. And second, the re'em in the Bible is described as having two horns.  Two. "וְקַרְנֵ֤י רְאֵם֙ קַרְנָ֔יו" His horns are like the horns of the re'em" (Deut.33:17). So much for the rhinoceros or unicorn.

Artist's rendering of the aurochs. Is this the re'em mentioned in the Torah? From here.

Artist's rendering of the aurochs. Is this the re'em mentioned in the Torah? From here.

A better candidate: The Aurochs

There is a better candidate for the mysterious re'em, but it is an animal neither you, nor I, nor anyone we know has ever seen. It is the aurochs, Bos primigenius, an enormous species of cattle that became extinct in 1627. The aurochs (pronounced oar-ox) weighed in somewhere around 1,500lb - or 700kg. That's certainly a big animal, though not as big as the Mount Tabor-sized beast described by Rabba bar bar Chana. It also has the added bonus of having two horns, just like the re'em described in the Torah. The suggestion that the re'em is the aurochs seems to have become popular with late nineteenth-century Christian scholars, as you can see here:

Sunday-School Teacher's Bible. Philadelphia, A.J Holman & Co. 1895. p115.

Sunday-School Teacher's Bible. Philadelphia, A.J Holman & Co. 1895. p115.

Matthew George Easton Illustrated Bible Dictionary. London, T. Nelson & Sons 1894. p678.

Matthew George Easton Illustrated Bible Dictionary. London, T. Nelson & Sons 1894. p678.

The Aurochs and the prehistoric cave paintings of Lasaux

Of all the animals that have intrigued human beings, perhaps none goes further back in time than the aurochs. Among the cave paintings of animals found in the Lasaux cave, are aurochs. And these paintings (there are nearly 6,000 of them) are from the Paleolithic period, 17,000 years ago.  The largest of the aurochs depicted there is over 15 feet long. There are similar paintings of the aurochs  in another cave system called La-Tete-Du-Lion in southern France, which has been dated to 26,000 BCE. We will, of course, never know with certainty whether the long-extinct aurochs was the re'em. But we have been fascinated with the aurochs for as long as we have walked the earth.  What better candidate could there be for the mysterious creature that somehow survived Noah's flood. 

Detail from the Lascaux cave drawing, about 17,000 years old.

Detail from the Lascaux cave drawing, about 17,000 years old.

Print Friendly and PDF

Zevachim 112a ~ Caesarean Section in Cows and Ewes

Since its construction in Jerusalem, it was prohibited to offer a sacrifice outside of the Temple.  However, in today's page of Talmud there is a list of animals which, even if offered outside of the Temple, incur no penalty to their owner.  Among these are an animal that was born by caesarean section:

זבחים קיב, א

ויוצא דופן שהקריבן בחוץ פטור

One who sacrifices an animal born by caesarian section, outside of the

Temple, is exempt from punishment.

The term יוצא דופן literally means "brought out through the wall", the wall in question being the abdomen. Animals born by c-section may not be used as sacrifices in the Temple. There is something different, not quire right, perhaps not normal, about them. That's why these same c-sectioned animals may be offered outside of the Temple without penalty.  Or as the Mishnah on today's page puts it, "whatever is not fit to come as a sacrifice in the Tabernacle [used in the wilderness], carries no liability if offered as a sacrifice outside of it."

The indications for a caesarean section in a cow

Before we go further, a clarification. The surgical procedure about which we are discussing can be spelled in various ways: caesarean, Caesarean, cesarean or just plain "c." Take your pick. Anyway, according to the American College of Veterinary Surgeons, there are several indications for performing a c-section in a cow:

  • Inadequate cervical dilation (not enough relaxation of the cervix muscles)
  • Abnormal pelvic bone conformation (shape) in the cow
  • Rupture of the cow's abdominal musculature
  • Problems with uterine position or uterine function
  • Abnormalities of the cow's uterus or vagina
  • Abnormal calf position that is not correctable through the vagina
  • Fetal monsters (congenital defects)
  • Presence of a dead fetus
Standing left oblique celiotomy approach. The placement of the incision is indicated by the dashed line. From Schultz L.G. et al. Surgical approaches for cesarean section in cattle. Can Vet J 2008;49:565–568

Standing left oblique celiotomy approach. The placement of the incision is indicated by the dashed line. From Schultz L.G. et al. Surgical approaches for cesarean section in cattle. Can Vet J 2008;49:565–568

Having decided that your cow needs a c-section, there are no fewer that eight different ways you could operate on her to pull this off. Eight! Here they are: (The positions described are that of the cow, not that of the surgeon.)

  1. standing left paralumbar celiotomy,
  2. standing right paralumbar celiotomy,
  3. recumbent left paralumbar celiotomy,
  4. recumbent right paralumbar celiotomy,
  5. recumbent ventral midline celiotomy,
  6. recumbent ventral paramedian celiotomy,
  7. ventrolateral celiotomy,
  8. standing left oblique celiotomy

According to this helpful paper published in the Canadian Medical Journal, it is the left oblique approach that is preferable under most circumstances. This is because the uterus is readily removed from the abdominal cavity limiting contamination of the abdominal cavity.  

...and in sheep

In sheep, things are only slightly different. The most common cause for performing a c-section is a fetal lamb in the wrong position, one which cannot be safely corrected by manipulation. This is the cause of about 50% of all sheep c-sections.  The cause of about another third is incomplete or non-dilation of the cervix which has failed to respond to medical treatment.  Feto-pelvic disproportion, in which a single large lamb is too big to pass through the maternal pelvis account for another 5%.  There are generally three approaches to the c-section: through the flank, through the midline, and through an incision parallel to the midline, which is called the paramedian approach. Today the midline approach is not recommended, because it requires a general anesthetic, as opposed to a local injection. (You can read more about c-sections in the ewe in this helpful article.)

Exceptional animals with exceptional births

In modern Hebrew the phrase meaning a caesarean section, יוצא דופן, has another meaning: exceptional. Which certainly describes these animals born by c-section. In the pre-modern era, when there were neither local anesthetics nor antibiotics, there would have been only one survivor of a c-section if you were lucky, and it wasn't the mother. (We will have more to say about the c-section survival rate in women when we learn Bechorot 47 on June 3, 2019.)  For these animals who, but for the intervention of a skilled vet would otherwise have died in-utero, perhaps being spared from sacrifice was rather fitting.  If their birth was abrupt, bloody and at the hands of a human, perhaps their deaths could be different.  

בהמה המקשה ללדת ויש סכנה לחייה, כי הוולד מת, והרפתנים קובעים שצריכים לחתוך את הוולד ולהוציאו דבלי זה הפרה תמות. אם מותר לעשות זה בשבת. אם צער בע”ח דוחה איסור מוקצה. הב”ח בסימן שח סעיף כג, מדבריו משמע דמשום צער בע”ח שרי טלטול מוקצה. וכנראה שהמחמירים לא ראו דברי הב”ח ולכן יש להתיר וכדאי הוא הב”ח לסמוך עליו 

The question of performing an emergency caesarean section on animal on Shabbat: 

...Does the prohibition of not causing pain to animals override the prohibition of מוקצה muktzeh [not touching certain items on Shabbat]?...Those who are strict in this matter [and prohibit the c-section] have not seen the words of the Bach [R. Yoel Sirkis 1561-1640]. It is permissible [to perform the surgery] and appropriate to rely on the opinion of the Bach
— Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank [1874-1960]. Har Tzvi Tal Harim Shvut 3.
Print Friendly and PDF