Chullin 22b ~ Yellow Pigeons, Folk Medicine and Hepatitis

It was while working as a physician in Jerusalem in the 1990s that I first heard of a bizarre remedy to treat jaundice. A pigeon is placed on the belly of the yellow patient. After a few minutes, the jaundice is drawn out of the patient and enters the bird, which promptly dies. I never got to see the miracle in person, but people swore by it. I was reminded of this folk remedy by a passage in today’s page of Talmud, about which more below.

Pigeons for jaundice, Really?

At this point, a few of you are nodding and saying “sure, I’ve heard of that.” One or two of you might be saying “hey, I’ve seen that work/not work with my own eyes.” But most of you will be saying “what on earth is this all about?” So before we go on, let’s talk about the myth of using pigeons to cure jaundice.

We will never know how, where or when the myth began. It is mentioned in a book called Ta’ami Haminhagim טעמי המנהגים (Reasons for the Customs) by Abraham Isaac Sperling, first published in Poland in 1896. It is still in print today. At the back of the book is a small section called “Remedies” ( סגולות) where you will read this gem (based, apparently on this source):

אברהם יצחק שפרלינג טעמי המנהגים, ירושלים הוצאת אשכול 1957

“A remedy for yellowness:
Take a male pigeon for a man and a female pigeon for a woman. Place it on the umbilicus, and the pigeon will draw out all of the yellowness until there is none left, and the pigeon dies. This has been tested (בדוק).”

— אברהם יצחק שפרלינג טעמי המנהגים, ירושלים הוצאת אשכול 1957

APPARENTLY It’s not just PIGEONS

In 1801 Frances Barrett (“Professor of chemistry, natural and occult Philosophy, the Cabala, &c. &c.”) published The Magus, or Celestial Intelligencer; being a Complete System of Occult Philosophy. The illustrious professor had come across the pigeon-cures-jaundice myth in a slightly different form: it was the duck-cures-colic. “It is expedient for us to know” he helpfully informs us on page 37,“that there are some things which retain virtue only while they are living, others even after death. So in the colic, if a live duck is applied to the belly, it takes away pain, and the duck dies.”

Suffocation and a Ruptured Spleen

People still do this; you can find it discussed at sites like The Yeshiva World, (“A close relative of mine did this procedure for his father and it worked”) Ohr Somayach (“strong hearsay evidence”) and on the Hebrew site Ynet (אני מכיר רופא מכובד ומוכר …לאחר פרק זמן של חודשים הסכים לתת לביתו את הטיפול ביונים הוא עשה זאת ) And in case you want to see it in action, here is a video of the process. Watch through to the end and count how many pigeons were crushed to death by the charlatan performing the procedure. Warning: for anyone with a modicum of sensitivity, it’s hard to watch.

I know what you are thinking. The guy in the white coat simply crushed the pigeons to death. And you are correct. In fact a post mortem on the bodies of some of these poor birds revealed the cause of death as was a ruptured spleen.

A primer on Jaundice

Jaundice is a yellowing of the skin, though it is even more noticeable in the sclera. It is not a disease, but a symptom. Jaundice becomes apparent when when there is a buildup of bilirubin in the blood. Bilirubin is a breakdown product of heme, which is produced when red blood cells are broken down. It is then excreted via the liver.

There are several causes of jaundice, the most common of which is hepatitis (literally, an inflammation of the liver). Hepatitis itself has many different causes. Viral hepatitis is most often caused by hepatitis A - that’s the one you see when people in close contact don’t wash their hands enough. It is a self limiting disease lasting a few days or so. Hepatitis B, C and D are far more serious, and can lead to liver failure and chronic jaundice. Alcohol is another leading cause of hepatitis, and causes cirrhosis of the liver. But not all jaundice is caused by a liver problem. Newborn babies are very often jaundiced. This happens because they are busy breaking down their fetal hemoglobin, releasing heme in the process, which is then turned into bilirubin. Their livers are working just fine.

So now you understand why crushing a pigeon to death on a person with hepatitis A might appear to work. It is because hepatitis A is a self-limiting disease; it goes away after a few days, as does the jaundice. The pigeon had nothing to do with it. You could clap your hands three times and the hepatitis would also go away. The other causes of hepatitis are chronic, and sometimes fatal. In these cases, no amount of chicanery would be associated with a cure, because there wouldn’t be one (unless you have hepatitis C, in which case a new and very expensive drug will actually cure you, no pigeons needed).

Yellow Pigeons in today’s Daf

In this page of Talmud there is a discussion about sacrificing pigeons and doves. And the color yellow features prominently:

חולין כב, ב

ת"ר יכול יהו כל התורים וכל בני היונה כשרים תלמוד לומר מן התורים ולא כל התורים מן בני היונה ולא כל בני יונה פרט לתחילת הציהוב שבזה ושבזה שפסול מאימתי התורים כשרים משיזהיבו מאימתי בני יונה פסולין משיצהיבו

The Sages taught in a baraita: I might have thought all  old doves or all young pigeons would be fit for sacrifice; therefore, the verse states: “Of doves,” and not all doves; “of young pigeons,” and not all young pigeons.This serves to exclude birds at the beginning of the yellowing of their neck plumage, which is a marker of both doves and pigeons. They are unfit as doves because they are not sufficiently old and as pigeons because they are no longer young. The tanna elaborates: From when are the doves fit? It is from when the color of their feathers turns a glistening gold. From when are the pigeons unfit? It is from when their feathers turn yellow.

The Sages here describe how the color of both doves and pigeons changes from or to a yellow. (But I have not been able to find a description of this actually happening in any of the ornithology texts I consulted. )

Transference

So now we can understand why these birds were associated with jaundice - because they were once described as changing from being yellow or becoming yellow themselves. By the act of transference, the pigeons were able to draw out the jaundice. There are many examples of transference in Judaism, where an animal symbolically absorbs and removes sin. There was the Temple ritual in Jerusalem, in which the owner lay his hands on the head of the animal brought as a sacrifice to expiated for sin. There is the ritual of Tashlich on Rosh Hashanah, in which our sins are symbolically cast away as we throw bread into a stream. And there is the controversial ritual of Kaparrot, in which a chicken (or, more kindly, money) is swung over the head while reciting “this is my exchange, this is my substitute, this is my atonement. This rooster will go to its death, while I will enter and proceed to a good long life and to peace.” It doesn’t end well for the chicken, but at least it is slaughtered for food and given to the poor. If only those pigeons had it so lucky.

Chullin 15a ~ Secrecy, Consequentialism, and Extra-Judicial Killings

In today’s page of Talmud, we learn of a dispute between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehuda regarding food that had been cooked on Shabbat, violating one of the 39 acts that are forbidden on that day.

חולין טו, א

הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית

With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat what he cooked. If he acted intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. This is the statement of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehuda says: If he cooked the food unwittingly, he may eat it at the conclusion of Shabbat, (as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly by prohibiting him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked). If he cooked it intentionally, he may never eat from it.

Then comes this strange detail:

וְהָאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי: כִּי מוֹרִי לְהוּ רַב לְתַלְמִידֵיהּ – מוֹרֵי לְהוּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכִי דָּרֵישׁ בְּפִירְקָא – דָּרֵישׁ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִשּׁוּם עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ

Rav Chanan bar Ami said: When Rav issues a ruling to his students, he issues a ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and when he teaches in his public lecture delivered on the Festival, he teaches in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, due to his concern that the עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ (ignoramuses) would treat the prohibition of labor on Shabbat with disdain?

Rav would change his halakhic guidance based on who was listening. If the audience was his students, who were a serious group and took the prohibition of cooking very seriously, he would teach the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who is somewhat more lenient. The students would understand the paramaters of this leniency, and would not abuse it. However, when teaching a group of עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ - those who were not learned or particularly careful about Jewish Law, the same Rav would teach the opinion of Rebbi Yehuda. Had Rav taught the opinion of Rebbi Meir, the עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ would conclude that violation of the rules of Shabbat can be taken lightly.

This notion that the rules can change based on who is listening has an echo in the Torah and in several other places in the Talmud. So let’s take a deep dive into the topic, starting with the story of Pinchas and his extra-judicial killing of Zimri and Cozbi:

The Murder of Cozbi and Zimri

The Torah recounts the murder of Zimri, one of the leaders of the tribe of Shimon and Cozbi, a Midianite woman who were caught in flagrante delicto by Pinchas. Here is a reminder of what Pinchas did:

במדבר 25:7-8

וַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וַיָּקם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ׃ וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הַקֻּבָּה וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־קֳבָתָהּ וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃

When Pinchas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, he followed the Israelite into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly…

God approves of these killings, as the opening of Parshat Pinchas makes clear:

במדבר 25: 10-15

וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת־חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא־כִלִּיתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי׃ לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם׃ וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו וַיְכַפֵּר עַל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִית זִמְרִי בֶּן־סָלוּא נְשִׂיא בֵית־אָב לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי׃ ושֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית כזְבִּי בַת־צוּר רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית־אָב בְּמִדְיָן הוּא׃

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,:

“Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion. Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship. It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time, because he took impassioned action for his God, thus making expiation for the Israelites.’”

The name of the Israelite who was killed, the one who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, chieftain of a Simeonite ancestral house. The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur; he was the tribal head of an ancestral house in Midian.

David Martin (1639–1721), published in Amsterdam by Pieter Mortier I (1661–1711), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

I described the actions of Pinchas as murder. There had been no trial, much less a sentence of execution, and Pinchas was acting outside of the law. This is also what some of the rabbis in the Talmud believed.

בבלי סנהדרין פד, א

א"ר חסדא הבא לימלך אין מורין לו איתמר נמי אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הבא לימלך אין מורין לו ולא עוד אלא שאם פירש זמרי והרגו פנחס נהרג עליו נהפך זמרי והרגו לפנחס אין נהרג עליו שהרי רודף הוא

Rav Chisda says: Concerning one who comes to consult with the court when he sees a Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman, the court does not instruct him that it is permitted to kill the transgressor. It was also stated that Rabba bar bar Chana says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Concerning one who comes to consult with the court, the court does not instruct him that it is permitted to kill the Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman.

Moreover, if Zimri had separated himself from the woman and only then Pinchas killed him, Pinchas would have been executed for killing him, because it is permitted for zealots to kill only while the transgressor is engaged in the act of intercourse. Furthermore, if Zimri would have turned and killed Pinchas in self-defense, he would not have been executed for killing him, as Pinchas was a pursuer [who may be killed self-defense].

An even stronger condemnation of Pinchas is found in the Yerushalmi:

תלמוד ירושלמי סנהדרין 9:4

תַּנֵּי שֶׁלֹּא כִרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים. וּפִינְחָס שֶׁלֹּא כִרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים? אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. בִּיקְשׁוּ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ אִילוּלֵי שֶׁקָּֽפְצָה עָלָיו רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וְאָֽמְרָה וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם

It was stated: [Pinchas’ actions were] not with the agreement of the Sages . Would Pinchas act against the Sages? Rebbi Yudah bar Pazi said, they wanted to excommunicate him, had not the Holy Spirit jumped on him and declared that וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם (Numbers 25:15) “an eternal covenant of priesthood shall be for him and his descendants after him.”

Pinchas was only spared a punishment for his murder because of divine intervention.

Pinchas in Psalm 106

The story is also told in Psalm 106.

תהילים קו, 28-30

וַיִּצָּמְדוּ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים׃ וַיַּכְעִיסוּ בְּמַעַלְלֵיהֶם וַתִּפְרץ־בָּם מַגֵּפָה׃ וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה׃

They attached themselves to Baal Peor, ate sacrifices offered to the dead. They provoked anger by their deeds, and a plague broke out among them. Pinchas stepped forth and intervened, and the plague ceased.

In this version of the story, there is no mention of a Midianite woman, and no detail as to how Pinchas intervened. Sensing the need to justify this extra-judicial killing, some of the commentaries imagined that Pinchas undertook some kind of legal process:

אבן עזרא תהילים 106: 30

ויעמד, ויפלל - עשה דין, כמו עון פלילי

And he intervened: He considered the legality…

מצודת ציון על תהילים ק״ו:ל׳:א׳

ויפלל. ענין דין ומשפט כמו ונתן בפלילים (שמות כא)

And he intervened: This concerned the law…

הלכה ואין מורין כן “This is the law, but do not tell anyone”

הלכה ואין מורין כן “This is the law, but do not tell anyone.” This phrase is used only a few times in the Talmud to indicate a very special set of laws. They are laws that are technically on the books, but are not to be approved as such or disseminated. They are “only for those in the know.” Although this specific phrase - הלכה ואין מורין כן - is not used to describe the actions of Pinchas, the Talmud’s approach to the legality of his extra-judicial killings is identical. That is what we read above in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin: “א"ר חסדא הבא לימלך אין מורין לו.” Maimonides makes this clear in his commentary on this Mishnah:

ואם ישאל לנו הקנאי אם יפגע בו אם לא ואפילו הוא בשעת מעשה אין מורין לו ואם פשט ידו והרגו אין עליו עונש וכמו כן אם התחזק הבועל בשעת המעשה והרג את הקנאי להציל נפשו ממנו אינו חייב מיתה לפי שהוא רודף אחריו להרגו והתורה לא גזרה הדין להרגו אלא על הדרך הנזכר

And he codified this in his Mishneh Torah:

רמב’ם משנה תורה הל׳ איסורי ביאה 12:5

כָּל הַבּוֹעֵל כּוּתִית בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת אִם בְּעָלָהּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא וְהוּא שֶׁיִּבְעל לְעֵינֵי עֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יֶתֶר אִם פָּגְעוּ בּוֹ קַנָּאִין וַהֲרָגוּהוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשֻׁבָּחִין וּזְרִיזִין [ו.] וְדָבָר זֶה הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הוּא. רְאָיָה לְדָבָר זֶה מַעֲשֶׂה פִּינְחָס בְּזִמְרִי

Whenever a man has relations with a gentile woman in public, i.e., the relations are carried out in the presence of ten or more Jews, if a zealous person strikes him and kills him, he is considered praiseworthy and ardent. [This applies whether the relations were] in the context of marriage or licentious in nature. This matter is a halachah conveyed to Moshe at Sinai. Support for this can be derived from Pinchas' slaying of Zimri.

But, the Rambam writes, there are limits:

וְאֵין הַקַּנַּאי רַשַּׁאי לִפְגֹּעַ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה כְּזִמְרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כה ח) "וְאֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶל קֳבָתָהּ". אֲבָל אִם פֵּרַשׁ אֵין הוֹרְגִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם הֲרָגוֹ נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו. וְאִם בָּא הַקַּנַּאי לִטּל רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין לְהָרְגוֹ אֵין מוֹרִין לוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אִם בָּא הַקַּנַּאי לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבּוֹעֵל וְנִשְׁמַט הַבּוֹעֵל וְהָרַג הַקַּנַּאי כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ מִיָּדוֹ אֵין הַבּוֹעֵל נֶהֱרַג עָלָיו. וְהַבָּא עַל בַּת גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֵין הַקַּנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִים בּוֹ אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת

The zealous person can strike [the fornicators] only at the time of relations, as was the case with regard to Zimri, as [Numbers 25:8] states: "[He pierced] the woman into her stomach." If, however, [the transgressor] withdraws, he should not be slain. Indeed, if [the zealous person] slays him, he may be executed [as a murderer].
If the zealous person comes to ask permission from the court to slay him, they do not instruct him [to], even if this takes place at the time [of relations]. Not only that, if the zealous person comes to kill the transgressor and he withdraws and kills the zealous person in order to save himself, the transgressor is not executed for killing him.

“‘it may be right to do and privately recommend, under certain circumstances, what it would not be right to advocate openly’.”

— Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan, 1907. p489.

SIDGWICK on esoteric morality

We can shed some new light on the rabbinic principle of הלכה ואין מורין כן and the actions of Rav as described on this page of Talmud from the work of the philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900). In his book The Methods of Ethics he divided society into two: there were “enlightened utilitarians” who can understand the subtleties of the law and when it may allow for exceptions, and there were the rest, for whom “such sophisticated rules would be dangerous.”

. . . on Utilitarian principles, it may be right to do and privately recommend, under certain circumstances, what it would not be right to advocate openly; it may be right to teach openly to one set of persons what it would be wrong to teach to others; it may be conceivably right to do, if it can be done with comparative secrecy, what it would be wrong to do in the face of the world; and even, if perfect secrecy can be reasonably expected, what it would be wrong to recommend by private advice and example.’

As Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer explain in their fascinating 2010 paper Secrecy on Consequentialism: a Defence of Esoteric Morality, Sidgwick here is endorsing what has come to be known as esoteric morality. They outline some of its important features:

• There are acts which are right only if no one – or virtually no one – will get to know about them. The rightness of an act, in other words, may depend on its secrecy. This can have implications for how often, and in what circumstances, such an act may be done.

• Some people know better, or can learn better, than others what it is right to do in certain circumstances.

• There are at least two different sets of instruction, or moral codes, suitable for the different categories of people. This raises the question whether there are also different standards by which we should judge what people do.

• Though the consequentialist believes that acts are right only if they have consequences at least as good as anything else the agent could have done, the consequentialist may need to discourage others from embracing consequentialism.

• Paradoxically, it may be the case that philosophers who support esoteric morality should not do so openly, because as Sidgwick said: ‘it seems expedient that the doctrine that esoteric morality is expedient should itself be kept esoteric’.

de Lazari-Radek and Singer provide a number of examples which, they claim, “help us to see what [Sidgwick] means and why he is right.” Here is one, to explain Sidgwick’s claim that “it may be conceivably right to do, if it can be done with comparative secrecy, what it would be wrong to do in the face of the world.”

A soldier is brought before a general, charged with desertion in battle, for which the mandatory penalty is a long term of imprisonment. The soldier admits that he did desert, but begs for pardon, saying that he does not want his two small children to grow up without a father. Only one or two other people, who the general feels he can trust, know that the soldier deserted. The general assigns the soldier to duties behind the front line, telling him he must never say a word to anyone about deserting, or being charged with desertion. He tells his administrative officers to destroy all records of the charge and forget all about it.

Assume that if it were to become generally known that the fathers of small children may desert with impunity, this would materially hinder the ability of the army to fight, and that this would have bad consequences. Therefore it would have been wrong for the general to allow all the world to know of his decision regarding the deserter. It may still have been right for him to make that decision. Two children will have their father at home, the soldier and his wife will have a much better life, and the army’s fighting ability will suffer no material harm.

Consequentialism is a moral theory that believes that it is the consequences of conduct that determine whether that conduct was right or wrong. For the consequentialist, like Sidgwick, the morally right action is the one that produces a good outcome. So the murder of Zimri and Cozbi was justifiable, even if it is in a sort legal grey area. And Rav was correct in teaching two versions of halakha depending on who was listening.

“Consequentialism generally accepts that it is desirable for a society that there is a publicly accepted set of rules or principles that people internalize and generally follow. Consequentialists can agree that it is important for people to be able to rely on the moral rules and to know that others will follow them – society will function better if there is a generally accepted set of rules than if there is not.
”

— Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer, Secrecy on Consequentialism: a Defence of Esoteric Morality. Ratio XXIII 2010. 54.

Why הלכה ואין מורין כן is (generally) a bad idea

There are of course objections to the notion of an esoteric morality, or what we call הלכה ואין מורין כן. The moral philosopher Bernard Gert (1924-2011) for example, wrote that “hardly anyone denies that morality must be such that a person who adopts it must also propose its adoption by everyone.” And Thomas Scanlon believed that “ ‘thinking about right and wrong is, at the most basic level, thinking about what could be justified to others on grounds that they, if appropriately motivated, could not reasonably reject.” de Lazari-Radek and Singer address these and other challenges, and give several examples of where they believe esoteric morality (הלכה ואין מורין כן) is justifiable. However, they most certainly agree that there are good reasons why consequentialists should share in the broad support for transparency in ethics, and in most circumstances, esoteric morality should be avoided. They list five:

a. The benefits of a shared code

It is plausible to hold that if a society is to work well, it needs to have a shared moral code that its members can internalize, follow and expect others to follow. Many studies indicate that trust is an important factor in ensuring social welfare.

b. The benefits of open discussion

Transparency permits open discussion and criticism of rules and policies that are being considered for implementation. To accept a morality that is only for the elite implies that we are permitted to manipulate those who are not part of the elite, in order to produce the best consequences. When we do so, we are unable to seek the opinions of those who we are manipulating on the policies we are actually implementing…. We imagine the white colonial administrators sitting around in their cane arm-chairs under the ceiling fans, discussing how best to rule the natives. They may discuss their policies among themselves, and with the imperial government back home, but not with those who are most directly affected by them, the natives themselves. Under these circumstances they will have a tendency to convince themselves that what is in the best interests of the imperial power is the right thing to do. The danger is great that it will all go wrong because of the absence of exchange of ideas that could have happened if the policies had been transparent.

c. The dangers of elitism

Even if the lack of transparency does not lead to evils in any way comparable to those of oppressive colonial regimes, there are good grounds for objecting to dividing society into an elite and the masses. Whether it is nobles over peasants, whites over blacks, capitalists over workers, bolsheviks over the masses, or men over women, we know that those who are part of the elite will feel superior and have no difficulty in justifying, in their own terms, giving themselves privileges that in no way benefit – and often grievously harm – those they consider beneath them.

d. The public nature of education

We must also remember that morality is, at least in part, a social institution that exists only because each generation of children is educated to accept it. Since education is a public process, this cannot be education in an esoteric morality, at least not unless the children of a special elite were to be educated in secret, which would have the undesirable implications just mentioned. So a large part of morality must consist of rules or principles that are known by everyone, including teachers and children….

When we deceive people about the reasons why they should act in a certain way, we make it impossible for them to develop their critical capacities, at least in respect of those reasons for action about which they are being deceived. The ideal kind of political entity, we may well think, is one in which all citizens are capable of deliberating on the reasons for acting and for adopting particular policies. If they are unaware of the true reasons for the principles and policies they are following, they will not learn these habits of deliberating, or will not learn them well.

e. Respecting Preferences

Suppose that we prefer that our friends always give us their honest opinion about our work, never sparing our feelings, but they fear that if they tell the truth, we may become discouraged, so occasionally they are dishonest. We never find out about this. Nevertheless, our preference that they be honest with us has not been satisfied. On a preference utilitarian view, the fact that this preference was not satisfied means that our lives went less well, other things being equal, than they would have if our friends had told the truth.

How do we feel about Rav’s decision to change his ruling for different audiences? What about the actions of Pinchas, and, perhaps even more importantly, about the very idea of הלכה ואין מורין כן? Does it may you a little uncomfortable? According to de Lazari-Radek and Singer, it should. That is the whole point of an esoteric morality; in public, it should be disavowed.

Given that, it is not surprising that the idea of esoteric morality should meet with resistance, for to resist it is to publicly disavow it. To defend this position in public is therefore to be involved in a paradox. Most of you reading this may be philosophers, but you are also members of the public, and your resistance is therefore, the ‘right’ response, in the sense that it is good that you should have that response. You should be reluctant to embrace esoteric morality, and you should feel strongly that there is something wrong with our conclusion [that an esoteric morality, or הלכה ואין מורין כן is sometimes morally justifiable]. Nevertheless, sometimes we are right to do in secret what it would be wrong to do, or to advocate, in public.

“Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act).”

— Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, "Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).

Chullin 10a ~ On the Safety of Drinking Snake Venom

חולין י,א

תנן התם ג' משקין אסורין משום גלוי מים ויין וחלב כמה ישהו ויהיו אסורין כדי שיצא הרחש ממקום קרוב וישתה וכמה מקום קרוב א"ר יצחק בריה דרב יהודה כדי שיצא מתחת אוזן כלי וישתה

We learned in a mishna there (Terumot 8:4): Three liquids are forbidden if they were left exposed [ie they were not in a covered container]: Water, wine, and milk. How long shall they remain exposed and their contents will be forbidden? It is a period equivalent to the time necessary so that a snake could emerge from a proximate place and drink. And how far away is considered a proximate place? Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: Even a period equivalent to the time necessary so that a snake could emerge from beneath the handle of the vessel and drink.

We last read about the fear of snakes contaminating water or beer back in July 2025. So let’s take an encore look at two important questions that arise from the Talmud.1) How dangerous is it to drink a liquid that contains snake venom, and 2) do snakes in fact leave venom behind when they drink?

Don't Touch That Beer !

There was a widespread belief was that snakes will drink from liquids left out overnight, (especially when left under the bed) and in doing so would leave fatal venom behind.  In Avodah Zarah 30b Rabbi Yehoshua even categorized three different kinds of liquid contaminated by a thirsty snake:

עבודה זרה ל,ב

שלשה מיני ארס הן של בחור שוקע של בינוני מפעפע ושל זקן צף

There are three kinds of snake venom: that from a juvenile snake sinks; from a middle-aged snake is found in the mid-section of a liquid, and that from an old snake floats on the top.

The Talmud also concluded that a snake would risk its own life to drink from undiluted wine, but is not willing to do so if the wine is diluted. Elsewhere, the Talmud delves into a series of questions about how thoroughly snake venom can infiltrate the lining a water pitcher, and how it will contaminate milk. For this reason (among others) cheese made by idol worshippers is forbidden. Apparently the milk from which the cheese was curdled could be contaminated by the venom in a way that Jewish cheeses were not.

So do snakes really contaminate a liquid from which they are drinking? The answer is no.  Absolutely not. Here is why.

A deep dive into snake venom

בבא קמא קטו, ב

והתניא מים שנתגלו הרי זה לא ישפכם ברשות הרבים ולא יגבל בהן את הטיט ולא ירבץ בהן את הבית ולא ישקה מהם את בהמתו ולא בהמת חבירו

It was taught in a Baraisa: water that was left uncovered should not be spilled out in a public area, nor should one knead clay with it, nor should one lay in the dust with it, nor should one give it to his animal, nor the animal of his friend, to drink. (Bava Kamma 115b)

The rabbis of the Talmud were very worried indeed about the health effects of water that had been left uncovered.  This concern was codified by Maimonides, and later by Ya'akov ben Asher (d. 1340) in his famous halakhic work called the Arba'ah Turim. 

טור יורה דעה הלכות מאכלי עובדי כוכבים סימן קטז 

דברים האסורים משום סכנה
  יש דברים שאסרום חכמים משום סכנה כגון משקין שנתגלו שיש לחוש שמא שתה מהן נחש והטיל בהן ארס אפי' אם שתו מהן אחרים ולא הוזקו אין לשתות מהן  שיש נחש שהארס צף למעלה ויש שארס שלו מפעפע עד אמצעית המשקה  ויש שהארס שלו שוקע לשולי הכלי לפיכך אפי' שתו ממנו אחרים ולא הוזקו אין לשתות מהן דשמא ארס של הנחש ששתה מהן שוקע ואלו המשקין שיש בהן משום גילוי מים יין חלב ודבש ושום כתוש 

Tur, Yoreh De'ah 116. Things that are Prohibited Because they are Dangerous

There are things that the rabbis of the Talmud prohibited because they are dangerous. For example, liquids that were left uncovered, because of the possibility that a snake drank from the water and expelled some of its poison into them. Even if others had drunk from the liquid, and not been injured, one should not drink from them. For some snake venom floats on the surface, and some sinks to the middle and some moves to the edges of the vessel. Therefore, even if others had drunk and had suffered no harm, one should not drink from them, for perhaps the venom from the snake that had drunk the water had sunk to the bottom. The following liquids should not be drunk if they were left overnight in an uncovered vessel: water, wine, milk, honey, and crushed garlic...

The normative Code of Jewish Law, the שולחן ערוך agreed, but added an important caveat:

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה הלכות מאכלי עובדי כוכבים סימן קטז סעיף א 

משקים שנתגלו, אסרום חכמים דחיישינן שמא שתה נחש מהם והטיל בהם ארס. ועכשיו שאין נחשים מצויים בינינו, מותר

The rabbis forbade drinking from liquids that were left uncovered,. They were concerned that a snake may have drunk from them and expelled some of its poison into them. But now that snakes are not commonly encountered, this is permitted. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 116:1)

So today it is permitted for us to drink from an uncovered pot, but only in a place that does not have a problem with poisonous snakes.  Which is not helpful. There are poisonous snakes in nearly every state in the US, resulting in about 2,000 human envenomations each year, and we have noted before that Israel has its own problem with snakes, including the Palestinian Viper.  The World Health Organization estimates that snakes kill between 20,000 and 94,000 people per year. So exactly where this leniency of the Shulchan Aruch might apply is not clear.

But is drinking snake venom indeed dangerous? Nope. In 2012 India Today reported that police in New Delhi had seized about half a liter of snake venom to be used "in high-end raves planned for Valentine's Day in and around the national capital." Apparently the venom, when ingested, produces a euphoric state. Who knew?

Video evidence - Drinking Cobra Venom

It is really hard to find any peer-reviewed scientific studies about people drinking snake venom, because, um, it's a silly thing to do.  But that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. So where could we turn to find people people drinking venom? YouTube, of course! In this video you can watch the Indian guru Sadhguru drinking a cocktail of snake venom and milk. If you want to skip over the bit where he gets a pedicure, go straight to 1:30 and listen to that gasp! 

In case you were wondering how we know how snakes drink, here is a diagrammatic view of the apparatus used to record the kinematics and water transport during drinking. The video camera was placed to the left. LED, light-emitting diode. From Cundall, D. Drinking in snakes: kinematic cycling and water transport. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2000; 203, 2171–2185.

The Talmud was concerned that snakes leave venom in water from which they drank, and that a person drinking from that water would then suffer from envenomation. As we have seen, this concern has no biological basis, although theoretically, if there was an open cut or ulcer in the mouth, ingested venom could get into the bloodstream and then cause its havoc.  But there is another reason why the talmudic concern is overstated.  Snakes, you see, don't leave any venom when they drink water.  As you may have noted from watching the first video, it takes a lot to get a snake to expel its venom - like sticking a blue pen in its mouth.  Venom is a snake's most precious commodity, and it has evolved to protect that commodity. Snakes only release venom when they are in danger, or ready to strike their prey, and not otherwise. Want a great example? The venomous rattlesnake. That species has evolved a warning rattle to tell would-be predators that if they get any closer, they will be bitten. This only makes evolutionary sense if it was in the snake's best interest to do everything possible to conserve its venom.

In a fascinating article on how snakes drink published in The Journal of Experimental Biology, David Cundall notes that a snake's tongue does not carry or move water, and that "in many snakes, the tongue does not visibly move during drinking." That leads to the conclusion that snakes are suction drinkers. And that makes them even less likely to leave any venom behind in the water.

“As far as is known, all snakes are suction drinkers, and the only critical structural variations that might be predicted to influence drinking performance are the relative dimensions and shapes of the mandibles and their suspensorial elements and the arrangements of intermandibular muscles and connective tissues.”

— Cundall, D. Drinking in snakes: kinematic cycling and water transport. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2000; 203, 2171–2185.

So let's put this all together:

1. Snakes don't release their venom unless they are threatened or hunting.

2. Snakes use suction when they drink water. Their mouths are not open, which is needed when they are expelling venom.

3. Snake venom is not dangerous when drunk.

4. (If somehow venom did get into the water, it would be greatly diluted.)

So, there is no danger if you were to drink from water from which a venomous snake had drunk. None. What a relief.

[Partial repost from Bava Kamma 115, Avodah Zarah 30.]

Chullin 4b~ Circumcision, Shechita, and Hemophilia A

In today’s page of Talmud, we are deeply engrossed in the question of who is qualified to be a shochet, one who slaughters food in accordance with Jewish law. A baraita (a set of oral teachings that never quite made it into the Mishnah) is quoted that teaches that an uncircumcised man may be a shochet. Then the Talmud asks:

חולין ד, ב

ה"ד אילימא מתו אחיו מחמת מילה האי ישראל מעליא הוא אלא פשיטא מומר לערלות וקא סבר מומר לדבר אחד לא הוי מומר לכל התורה כולה

This uncircumcised man, what are the circumstances? If we say that he is an uncircumcised man whose brothers died due to circumcision and the concern is that he might suffer a similar fate, clearly he may slaughter, as he is a full-fledged Jew and not a transgressor at all. Rather, it is obvious that he is a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised, as he refuses to be circumcised, and the tanna holds that he may nevertheless slaughter an animal since a transgressor concerning one matter is not a transgressor concerning the entire Torah.

The Talmud here is referring to the sad case in which a mother loses her sons because they bleed to death following circumcision. In this encore presentation, let’s revisit the topic, which we first met way back in Yevamot 64a.

יבמות סד, א

תניא מלה הראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי לא תמול דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שלישי תמול רביעי לא תמול... א"ר יוחנן מעשה בארבע אחיות בצפורי שמלה ראשונה ומת שניה ומת שלישית ומת רביעית באת לפני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אמר לה אל תמולי

It was taught: If she circumcised her first son and he died, and her second son and he too died, she should not circumcise her third son, so taught Rebbi.  Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated that she should indeed circumcise her third child, but [if he died] she must not circumcise her fourth...Rabbi Yochanan said that there was once a case in Zippori in which four sisters had sons:  The first sister circumcised her son and he died, the second sister circumcised her son and he died, the third sister circumcised her son and he died, and the forth sister came to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and he told her "you must not circumcise your son" (Yevamot 64a).

The Talmud here is describing a disease that is affected through the maternal line (hence the four sisters - all of whom seem to pass this disease on to their male children). The disease is X-linked Hemophilia A; the term X-linked indicates that the faulty gene is carried on the X chromosome, which is men is always inherited from the mother. Hemophilia A is an X-linked recessive genetic disease, first described by the American physician John Conrad Otto, who in 1803 described a bleeding disorder that ran in families and mostly affected the men. John Hay from Massachusetts published an account of a "remarkable hemorrhagic disposition" in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1813.

Hay, John. Account of a Remarkable Haemorrhagic Disposition, Existing in Many Individuals of the Same Family. New England Journal of Medicine 1813:2;3;221-225.

 If the mother is a carrier  - as were each of the four sisters in Zippori - then she has a one in four chance of passing on the disease to a child, and that affected child will always be a son:

Courtesy NHLBI

The rabbis argued over a technical point - that is, how many cases of bleeding are needed to establish a pattern. According to Rebbi (that is  Rebbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi, c. 135-217 CE.) two cases were sufficient, while Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel insisted on three cases before ruling that there was a life threatening pattern.  Indeed the disease in boys must have been very perplexing, because (as you can see in the diagram above) not every boy would be affected. In fact, if the mother is a carrier and the father is not, there is only a 50% chance of a boy having hemophilia.  It is this fact that perhaps explains the dispute between Rebbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel regarding how many children need to exhibit the disease before we can assume that any future male child will also have it.  If every boy born in the family would have been a hemophiliac, Rabbi Shimon's ruling would have seemed unnecessarily cruel.  But since by chance, half of the boys born might not have hemophilia, the need to demonstrate the prevalence of the disease (in a society in which its genetic foundations were not known) seems eminently sensible.

In  Hemophilia A there are various genetic mutations that result in low levels of clotting factors. These levels may be only mildly decreased, or so low that severe life threatening hemophilia results. It is treated with transfusions of clotting factors which restore the levels to normal. Although these transfusions must be given several times a week in those with severe disease, there is hope that recombinant clotting factors can lengthen the time between the needed transfusions.

The hemophiliac as a shochet

The law discussed in Yevamot that forbids circumcision where there is a family history of hemophilia was certainly practiced. Later in Yevamot, the Mishnah records the case of a priest who was not circumcised -  because of the deaths of his brothers when they underwent the procedure. Today we read that a man who was not circumcised because he had hemophilia may serve as a shochet. The Talmud records not only the earliest known description of hemophilia, but the emphasis on the preservation of life as a normative Jewish practice.