Berachot 28b ~ How Many Vertebrae Do We Have?

In this page of Talmud the rabbis want to know why there were originally eighteen blessings recited in the silent prayer known as the Amidah. One rabbi suggested they correspond to the eighteen mentions of God in Psalm 29. Another thought they correspond to the number of times God’s name appeared in the Shema. But a third opinion was that they do not correspond to God’s name, but to something else entirely. A feature of human anatomy:

ברכות כח, ב

אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּנֶגֶד שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה חוּלְיוֹת שֶׁבַּשִּׁדְרָה

…Rabbi Tanchum in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: They correspond to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine

Now this is all well and good, but didn’t Rabbi Tanchum know there are actually many more than eighteen vertebrae in the spine?

How many vertebraE are there in the spine?

As you can see in the colored image, there are seven cervical vertebrae, and they end at the shoulders. Below these are twelve thoracic vertebrae, that end at the hips. Then come five lumbar vertebrae, which end at the sacrum, which itself consists of five fused vertebrae. And right at the bottom of your bottom is the coccyx, also known as the tail bone, which consists of three or five fused vertebrae, depending on how you count. That’s a total of 24 individual vertebrae and at least eight more that are fused. One thing is for sure: it’s not eighteen.

So How do we get to Eighteen?

The Koren English Talmud is sensitive to this anatomical conundrum, and explains that it is the number of vertebrae “in the spine beneath the ribs.” But the twelve ribs are attached to the twelve thoracic vertebrae, which would leave either seven vertebrae (five lumbar plus a sarcrum and coccyx) or thirteen to fifteen vertebra in various degrees of fusion. But not eighteen.

Here is the explanation of the Schottenstein (ArtScroll) English Talmud:“In stating the number of vertebrae in the spine the Rabbis apparently referred only to those below the neck. This accounts for seventeen vertebrae. The identity of the eighteenth vertebra mentioned here is unclear.” But that’s not quite right either. There are nineteen (12 thoracic and 7 lumber) spine below the neck. Not eighteen. So that doesn’t work.

We get closer to a plausible explanation when we read the commentary of the ArtScroll Hebrew Talmud. Here it is, in free translation:

In the language of the Rabbis, the word “spine” (שדרה) does not include the entire vertebral column, because the vertebrae in the neck are counted separately in the Mishnah (Ohalot 1:8). The Rabbis count of eighteen vertebrae apparently includes the back [thorax], the hips [lumbar] and one additional vertebra, either in the neck or in the base of the spine…

In other words, perhaps the rabbis of the Talmud saw the division of the spine in a different way than we do today. Just because we count seven cervical vertebrae this does not mean that is the number that others before us counted. Just ask Leonardo DaVinci.

“We can see a clear progression in terms of the accuracy with which da Vinci’s anatomical drawings were developed and how his drawings were influenced by his mindset, not just as an anatomist but also as an engineer and scientist; and to some extent, by the prevailing scholastic views at that time. His anatomical depictions were clearly far ahead of their era and have served to improve our understanding of the true anatomy and function of the vertebral column and spinal cord.”

— Bowen G. Gonazales J. Iwnaga J et al. Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) and his depictions of the human spine. Childs Nerv Syst (2017) 33: 2067–2070.

The Spine in Leonardo’s Drawings

The way that the great anatomist Leonardo da Vinci (d. 1519) drew the spine evolved over time. In a 2017 paper on da Vinci’s depictions of the human spine, the authors note that in an early sketch “he may have used his knowledge of engineering to devise a concept that would functionally fit the movements of which the cervical spine is capable rather than trying to illustrate the exact anatomical detail.” They continue:

The vertebrae are portrayed in a rudimentary manner, many lacking a foramen to convey the neurovascular supply, an intervertebral disc, or the spinous process necessary for muscular insertion and rib articulation in the thoracic spine. It may be better to view this depiction as a conceptual illustration of how the structure accommodates its function. 

Just take a moment to count the number of vertebrae in the neck that Leonardo drew below.

That’s right. There are thirteen! That can’t be right! Because of these clear inaccuracies the authors wrote that this drawing was made prior to Leonardo’s any dissection of the anatomical region in question. (By the end of his life Leonardo claimed to have dissected thirty human bodies, as well as those of countless sheep and oxen.)

Now take a look at the drawing below, made later in Leonardo’s career, which is much more anatomically accurate. But as you can see, there is no obvious place to end the cervical vertebrae and start the thoracic. Or end the thoracic and start the lumbar. It’s just one one long beautiful anatomical structure.

Leonardo da Vinci. The vertebral column c.1510-1. Detail of the first accurate depiction of the spine in history, with its distinct sections and curvatures all correctly shown. From the Royal Collection Trust.

Leonardo suggested a division of sorts which are shown by the thin lines, one of which is labeled with the shape of a “d.” Take a look at the same Leonardo image, with the count of the number of vertebrae in between each division added.

As you can see they add up to 18 if you count the spines of the vertebrae. But there is one missing vertebrae, the very first one at the top of the neck. Take another look. See it? It is called the atlas, and its unique feature is that it has no spinous process, as you can see below:

The first vertebra, known as the atlas.

The atlas is the first of what we count as the seven cervical vertebrae. But it looks very different from the other six below it.

So if you don’t count the vertebrae without a spinous process - and it is very different from all the other (unfused) vertebrae - then you don’t need to look for the missing vertebra. It never got lost. We just started our numbering based on a different criteria. Why on earth would the rabbis have counted seven cervical vertebrae as we do, rather than six or even eight? (And yes, I know there is this Mishnah that states there are eighteen vertebrae, eight of which are in the neck: “וּשְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה חֻלְיוֹת בַּשִּׁדְרָה…שְׁמֹנָה בַצַּוָּאר.” But read it agin. It does not appear to be actually counting only bones.)

Leonardo’s anatomical drawings is a reminder that the human body has been seen and dissected in different ways, and Rabbi Tanchum’s count is as precise as our own. Different, but precise.

Niddah 24a ~ Halachic Reality and Anatomic Reality: Treif People and Treif Animals

In tomorrow’s page of Talmud we read of a dispute about survivability of an infant with a birth defect. According to Rav Zakkai, an infant lacking legs from the knees downward cannot live, and is classified as a treifah. Rav Yannai declared that such a child could live, but agreed that it is classified as a treifah. Rav Yannai believed that only a birth defect that included the urinary opening was severe enough to be incompatible with life. In both cases the child is declared a treifah, but what is in dispute is the prognosis of such a treifah.

נדה כד,א

בין רבי זכאי לרבי ינאי איכא בינייהו טרפה חיה מר סבר טרפה חיה ומר סבר טרפה אינה חיה

The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai and that of Rabbi Yannai is whether a tereifa [can survive beyond twelve months]. One sage, [Rabbi Yannai,] holds that a tereifah can survive [beyond twelve months. Therefore, although one whose legs were removed until above the knee has the status of a tereifa, if a woman discharges a fetus of this form she is impure. Only if the fetus lacks legs until his orifices is the woman pure, as such a person cannot survive.] And one sage, [Rabbi Zakkai], holds that a tereifah cannot survive [beyond twelve months]. …

Treifah Animals

We have previously met the concept of treifah when we studied Chullin and the laws of rural slaughter called shechitah. Here is a reminder, from the start of the third chapter of Chullin (42a) where we took a deep dive into animal anatomy.

אלו טרפות בבהמה נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת ניקב קרום של מוח ניקב הלב לבית חללו נשברה השדרה ונפסק החוט שלה ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום הריאה שניקבה או שחסרה ר"ש אומר עד שתינקב לבית הסמפונות ניקבה הקבה ניקבה המרה ניקבו הדקין הכרס הפנימית שניקבה או שנקרע רוב החיצונה רבי יהודה אומר הגדולה טפח והקטנה ברובה המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו לחוץ נפלה מן הגג נשתברו רוב צלעותיה ודרוסת הזאב רבי יהודה אומר דרוסת הזאב בדקה ודרוסת ארי בגסה דרוסת הנץ בעוף הדק ודרוסת הגס בעוף הגס זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה

These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal,rendering them prohibited for consumption:

1. A perforated esophagus, where the perforation goes through the wall , 

2. or a cut trachea.

3. If the membrane of the brain was perforated, 

4. or if the heart was perforated to its chamber; 

5. if the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut; 

6. if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it…

7. a lung that was perforated

8. or a lung missing a piece….

9. If the abomasum was perforated

10. or the gallbladder was perforated, 

11. or the small intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa…

This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a treifa, the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law. 

The original meaning of the term treif in the Torah is torn, and it describes a domestic animal that was attacked by a wild animal and suffered an injury that led to its death.

“וְאַנְשֵׁי־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ׃
You will be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs.”

— Exodus 22:30

But the rabbis of the Talmud greatly expanded this category - hence the list in this Mishnah in Chullin. Elsewhere in Chullin (57b) there is a dispute as to the prognosis of living animal that has been declared treif. According to Rav Hunna, if an animal is treif, by definition it cannot live for longer than a year (אמר רב הונא סימן לטרפה י"ב חדש). But there are other opinions. The great editor of the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi held that a treifa is destined to die within 30 days, while a berasia states that a treif animal cannot give birth (leaving open the question about male animals).

““Jason Marcus, chef and owner of the new Traif restaurant on S. Fourth Street in Williamsburg, says the name is just cheeky, not a slap at his mostly Kosher eaters.”

“But [the name] really represents our philosophical view of how restaurants should be free of rules. We’re just people who live for good food.””

It is generally agreed upon that list in Chullin detailed the kinds of lesions that would be fatal within a year. And that’s when the problems begin. Some of them are certainly likely to be fatal. For example a perforated esophagus (נקובת הוושט) leads to mediastinitis, an inflammation of the chest cavity. And that is commonly fatal. If the animal swallows something sharp it can pierce not only the esophagus, but the membranes that surround the heart, called the pericardium. Way back in 1955 - at the start of the era of antibiotics - The Australian Veterinary Journal published a case series of twenty-one dairy cows that developed traumatic pericarditis. “Fifteen cases were treated with sulphonamide [an antibiotic] and six were not. ” The six animals untreated cows all died, and even among the cows treated with antibiotics, almost half died. So yes, some lesions recorded in the Mishanh (and later refined in the talmudic discussion which follows) are indeed fatal.

The Case of Serachot

But other lesions that render an animal treif are certainly not fatal. Take for example lung adhesions, called סרחות (serachot, or sircha in the singular), which are discussed elsewhere in the tractate Chullin (46b et. seq). These adhesions are fibrous tissues that may run between different lung lobes, or between the lungs and the rib cage. They are common and are caused by a number of conditions, including trauma or previous infections. Many kinds of serichot render an animal treif. But lung adhesions are certainly not lethal. Animals and humans live quite happily with them. In fact this doctor recently told me that the presence of lung adhesions does not prevent lungs from being donated and used for a lung transplant. Now, if they are used in that delicate situation, they most certainly do not have a fatal defect, or anything even close.

the case of the missing liver (and the missing heart)

Opening paragraph of the famous responsa on “the chicken that had no heart”. From שו׳ת חכם צבי, Amsterdam 1712.

Equally puzzling to the modern reader is the sixth category in the Mishna’s list: ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום - if the slaughtered animal was found to have no liver. Here’s the thing: an animal cannot live without a liver. If a healthy looking cow - or indeed any cow -was well enough to be slaughtered, it must have had a liver. So this is not an example of a treif animal - it’s an example of one that could not possibly have existed. But don’t take my word for it.

In 1709 the great rabbi of Hamburg, Zevi Ashkenazi, (better known as the Chacham Zevi, after the name of his responsa) was asked the following question. A young woman had opened a slaughtered chicken to remove the unwanted entrails, while her cat sat at her feet “waiting patiently for anything that may fall to the ground.” To her great surprise, the young woman found that the chicken did not have a heart, and so assumed the bird was treif. Not so, claimed her mother, who apparently owned the chicken. The cat must have eaten it, when it was thrown to the ground together with the entrails. The young women was however quite adamant, and insisted she had never fed anything that resembled a heart to the cat. The bird had been perfectly healthy before it was slaughtered, eating and drinking like any other healthy chicken, (וגם בעודנה בחיים חיותה היתה חזקה ובריאה ובכל כחה לאכול ולשתות). The question of the kashrut of the bird was brought to the local rabbis, who declared it to be treif, on the basis that while alive, it had no heart.

The Chacham Zevi was asked to weigh in on the matter. “It is absolutely clear to any person who has a wise heart” he wrote, apparently enjoying the play on words, “or who has a brain in his skull, that it is impossible for any creature to live for even a moment without a heart…Clearly, the heart fell out when the bird was opened, and that cat ate it…It is obvious that the chicken is permitted” Strike one for common sense. You would think. But not so fast. This answer of the Chacham Zevi engendered one of the great halachic disputes of the eighteenth century. In one corner, the Chacham, and in the other at least four leading rabbinic figures who vehemently opposed this ruling: Naphtali Katz of Frankfurt, Moses Rothenburg, David Oppenheim (who was the Chief Rabbi of Prague, no less) and Jonathan Eyebeschuetz (who spent much of his later life fighting halachic battles against Rabbi Yaakov Emden, who was the son of the Chacham Zevi). It got nasty, but that’s a story for another day.

Halachic Reality

No bird or animal can live without a heart, and none can do so without a liver. So there can be no case, like the one in the Mishnah, in which a healthy living animal was slaughtered and found to be without a liver.

Some of the categories of treifot overlap with conditions that are indeed incompatible with life. Others are perfectly innocuous and compatible with a long and healthy life. And a few make no sense given what we know about animal physiology. But none should be thought of as describing an anatomical reality. They describe instead a halachic reality, a reality that reflected a world some 1,500 years ago. And while our understanding of physiology has changed, these halachic classes remain a fixed part of Jewish tradition. Here is the great Maimonides, who was obviously troubled by the chasm that sometimes exists between halacha and facts.

רמב’ם משנה תורה הלכות שחיטה י, יג וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן טְרֵפָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן אֵינָן מְמִיתִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא)"עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ

Each one of these lesions that were declared treif remain so even if modern medicine can demonstrate that some of them are not actually fatal, and that it is indeed possible to live despite them. Rather we must follow these rabbinic categories, as the Torah states“ You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; [you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left.]

In more recent times, Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, better known as the Chazon Ish, also addressed this question. “We see today” he wrote, “that very often surgeons operate on the abdomen of a person [with an injury like one found in a treif animal], and he is completely cured, and lives a long life.” But this does nothing to change the way we view the categories of treif. These depend solely on what was decided by the rabbis of the Talmud, and no modern findings can change them.

[Repost from here.]

Niddah 17b ~The Chatam Sofer, Rationalism, and Anatomy That Isn't There

This is the first of two posts for Niddah 17, which will studied on Shabbat. The second post will be published tomorrow, Friday.

Print them up and enjoy.

In August 2013 a paper published in the otherwise sleepy Journal of Anatomy caused quite a sensation. Although doctors have been dissecting the human body for centuries, it seems that they missed a bit. A team from Belgium announced that they had discovered a new knee ligament, which they called the anterolateral ligament. On today’s page of Talmud the rabbis describe the opposite phenomena. They identify an anatomical part that in reality does not exist at all.  This part is called the aliyah, which usually refers to an attic or the upper chamber of a house.

נדה יז, ב

משל משלו חכמים באשה החדר והפרוזדור והעלייה דם החדר טמא דם העלייה טהור נמצא בפרוזדור ספקו טמא לפי שחזקתו מן המקור

The Sages had a parable with regard to the structure of the sexual organs of a woman [based on the structure of a house]: The inner room represents the uterus, and the corridor [perozdor] leading to the inner room represents the vaginal canal, and the upper story represents the bladder. 

Blood from the inner room is ritually impure. Blood from the upper story is ritually pure. If blood was found in the corridor, there is uncertainty whether it came from the uterus and is impure, or from the bladder and is pure. Despite its state of uncertainty ,it is deemed definitely impure, due to the fact that its presumptive status is of blood that came from the source ,i.e., the uterus, and not from the bladder. 

What anatomy is being discussed here? In particular, what is the aliyah, the “attic” of female genital anatomy? It turns out to be complicated.

the Aliyah surrounds the ovaries

From the Mishanh in Niddah, it is clear that the aliyah sometimes bleeds, and that this blood becomes visible when it passes into the vagina. Maimonides identifies the aliyah with the space that contains the ovaries and the fallopian tubes. In modern medicine the ovaries and the Fallopian tubes and tissues that support them are called the adenxa. They are further from the vagina that the uterus, and so this identification does not fit in with Abaye's anatomy in which the aliyah is closer to the vagina than is the uterus.

רמב׳ם הל׳ איסורי ביאה ה, ד

ולמעלה מן החדר ומן הפרוזדוד, בין חדר לפרוזדוד, והוא המקום שיש בו שתי ביצים של אישה, והשבילים שבהן מתבשלת שכבת זרע שלה--מקום זה הוא הנקרא עלייה.  וכמו נקב פתוח מן העלייה לגג הפרוזדוד, ונקב זה קוראין אותו לול; והאבר נכנס לפנים מן הלול, בשעת גמר ביאה

Above the uterus and the vagina, between the uterus and the vagina, is the place in which the two ovaries are found, and the tubes along which the sperm from intercourse matures, this place is called the aliyah. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Issurie Bi'ah 5:4)

As we said, the problem is that the space which contains the ovaries is inside the abdomen, and this space does not connect with the vagina. It connects via the Fallopian tubes with the uterus.  Although Maimonides does not identify the aliyah as the ovaries themselves, some have done so. But the problem with this is that the ovaries don't bleed unless they develop a large cyst which then ruptures. But even in this case they bleed into the abdomen, or into the uterus, again via the Fallopian tubes, and not directly into the vagina.

Menachem ben Shalom (1249-1306) known as the Meiri, wrote an important commentary on the Talmud call Bet Habechirah - בית הבחירה and in it he too identifies the aliyah as the space between the uterus and the vagina in which the ovaries are found. He notes that in this space there are many blood vessels which may rupture and bleed directly into the vagina (עורקים שמתבקעים לפעמים), but as we have noted this is not biologically correct. Any bleeding from the adnexa is via the Fallopian tubes into the uterus itself, and certainly not directly into the vagina.

The Aliyah is the vagina

In his classic Biblisch-Talmudische Medezin published in 1911, Jacob Preuss identified the aliyah as the vagina. "It can be assumed with reasonable certainty" he wrote "that the cheder refers to the uterus, that the prosdor is the vulva, and that the aliyah is the vagina." However certain he may have been, Preuss is the only one to make this identification, which does not fit in with the text of the Mishanh. So let's try another suggestion.

The Aliyah is the Bladder

Sefer Ha'Arukh, Venice 1552.

Natan ben Yechiel of Rome, who died in 1106, wrote an influential lexicon of talmudic terms called the Sefer Ha'Arukh (ספר הערוך) which was first published around 1470. In that work the aliyah is identified as the urinary bladder. This identification also cannot be correct, because the bladder does not empty into the vagina, and because it does not lie between the uterus and the vagina but anterior to them. The commentary in the Schottenstein Talmud to Niddah 17b notes that a connection between the urethra and the vagina (known as a urethero-vaginal fistula) might account for bleeding from the bladder into the vagina. This is possible - though it is of course not normal anatomy.  

From here.

The AliyaH is a completely new structure

Meir ben Gedaliah of Lublin (d.1616) also considered the location of the aliyah in his modestly titled book Meir Einei Hakhamim - מאיר עיני חכמים - (Enlightening the Eyes of the Sages) first published in Venice in 1618.  He locates it between the uterus and the bladder, and provides two helpful schematics. The problem is that there is no such organ. You won't find it if you dissect a cadaver, and you won't find it in any textbook of anatomy (like this one). And as one astute radiologist and reader of Talmudology recently told me, you won't find it on an MRI either. Here is the text. 

Maharam Lublin. Meir Einei Hakhamim. Venice 1618. p255b.

This non-existent anatomy is also pictured in the Schottenstein Talmud (Niddah 17b), based on the difficult Mishanah.  

From Schottenstein Talmud Niddah 17b. Note that this does NOT correspond to the known female anatomy, but is a schematic based on Rashi's understanding.

The CHatam Sofer on the Aliyah

Moses Schreiber known as Chatam Sofer, (d. 1839) was a leader of Hungarian Jewry and he too weighed in on the issue in his talmudic commentary to Niddah (18a).

What is the "corridor" or the "room" or the "roof" or the "ground" or the "aliyah" ? After some investigation using books and authors experts and books about autopsies it is impossible to deny the facts that do not accord with the statements of Rashi or Tosafot or the diagrams of the Maharam of Lublin...but you will find the correct diagram in the book called Ma'asei Tuviah and in book Shvilei Emunah...therefore I have made no effort to explain the words of Rashi or Tosafot for they are incompatible with the facts...

Tuviah HaCohen, the Doctor from Padua

I couldn't find the diagram in any edition of the Shvilei Emunah to which the Chatam Sofer refers, so let's look at the diagram from Ma'asei Tuviah, (“the best illustrated Hebrew medical work of the pre-modern era”) which I happen to have in my own library.

Detail from Tuviah HaCohen, Ma'aseh Tuviah, Venice 1708. p132b.

A careful reading of the annotation (זז) reveals that Tuviah HaCohen (1652-1729) identifies the aliyah as that area containing the ovaries and the Fallopian tubes. In doing so he followed the opinion of Maimonides that we cited earlier, even though that does not in any way fit in with the understanding of Abaye and his ruling that blood found in the vagina that comes from the aliyah is not impure because it does not come from the uterus. Any gynecologist (or first year medical student completing their anatomy dissections) will tell you that blood from the adnexa (the ovaries and Fallopian tubes) can only get into the vagina via the uterus. But the most interesting part of this diagram is the very first line of text, at the top of the image. 

פירוש המחבר כפי ידיעת הנתוח  

The author's explanation according to knowledge gained from an autopsy

Anatomical Theatre, Palazzo del Bo, at the University of Padua. It was built in 1594 by the anatomist who helped found modern embryology, Girolamo Fabricius. From here.

Here, perhaps for the first time, anatomical knowledge from an autopsy is being shared in Hebrew. At the medical school in Padua, two bodies (one of each sex) had to be dissected each year, and all the students attended- Tuviah included.  As a medical student, Tuviah would have stood in the famous anatomical theater and watched the dissection, perhaps following along in one of the textbooks based on those dissections. 

Facts Matter

As the Chatam Sofer noted, facts matter. The illustration in the work of the Maharam of Lublin was an example of trying to get the facts to fit the text of the Mishnah (or more precisely, the explanations of Rashi and Tosafot) but in doing so the Maharam created a fictitious anatomical part.

It is very unlikely that the rabbis of the Talmud witnessed human dissections. In the ancient world two Greeks, Herophilus of Chalcedon and  Erasistratus of Ceos (who lived in the first half of the third century BCE) were "the first and last ancient scientists to perform dissections of human cadavers." Facts about human anatomy became clear once human dissection began in the fourteenth century, but as is demonstrated by the Maharam of Lublin, these lessons did not always diffuse into the Jewish community.  The Chatam Sofer is often - and rightly  - cited as a force for tradition against the challenges from the outside world. But the Hatam Sofer, at least in so far as gynecology was concerned, had no time for a theory when the facts show otherwise. In an age of "alternative facts" the Chatam Sofer is a model of rationalism.

[Mostly a repost from here.]

Chullin 42a ~ Halachic Reality and Anatomic Reality: the Case of the Treif Animal

With the start of the third chapter of Chullin we take a deep dive into animal anatomy.

אלו טרפות בבהמה נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת ניקב קרום של מוח ניקב הלב לבית חללו נשברה השדרה ונפסק החוט שלה ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום הריאה שניקבה או שחסרה ר"ש אומר עד שתינקב לבית הסמפונות ניקבה הקבה ניקבה המרה ניקבו הדקין הכרס הפנימית שניקבה או שנקרע רוב החיצונה רבי יהודה אומר הגדולה טפח והקטנה ברובה המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו לחוץ נפלה מן הגג נשתברו רוב צלעותיה ודרוסת הזאב רבי יהודה אומר דרוסת הזאב בדקה ודרוסת ארי בגסה דרוסת הנץ בעוף הדק ודרוסת הגס בעוף הגס זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה

These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal,rendering them prohibited for consumption:

1. A perforated esophagus, where the perforation goes through the wall , 

2. or a cut trachea.

3. If the membrane of the brain was perforated, 

4. or if the heart was perforated to its chamber; 

5. if the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut; 

6. if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it…

7. a lung that was perforated

8. or a lung missing a piece….

9. If the abomasum was perforated

10. or the gallbladder was perforated, 

11. or the small intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa…

This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a treifa, the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law. 

The original meaning of the term treif in the Torah is torn, and it describes a domestic animal that was attacked by a wild animal and suffered an injury that led to its death.

“וְאַנְשֵׁי־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ׃
You will be holy people to Me: you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs.”

— Exodus 22:30

But the rabbis of the Talmud greatly expanded this category - hence the list in the Mishnah that we are studying today. Later in Chullin (57b) there is a dispute as to the prognosis of living animal were it to be declared treif. According to Rav Hunna, if an animal is treif, by definition it cannot live for longer than a year (אמר רב הונא סימן לטרפה י"ב חדש). But there are other opinions (this is, after all, the Talmud): the great editor of the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi opinion that a treifa is destined to die within 30 days, while a berasia states that a treif animal cannot give birth (leaving open the question about male animals).

““Jason Marcus, chef and owner of the new Traif restaurant on S. Fourth Street in Williamsburg, says the name is just cheeky, not a slap at his mostly Kosher eaters.”

“But [the name] really represents our philosophical view of how restaurants should be free of rules. We’re just people who live for good food.””

It is generally agreed upon that list in today’s Mishnah details the kinds of lesions that would be fatal within a year. And that’s when the problems begin. Some of them are certainly likely to be fatal. For example a perforated esophagus (נקובת הוושט) leads to mediastinitis, an inflammation of the chest cavity. And that is commonly fatal. If the animal swallows something sharp it can pierce not only the esophagus, but the membranes that surround the heart, called the pericardium. Way back in 1955 - at the start of the era of antibiotics - The Australian Veterinary Journal published a case series of twenty-one dairy cows that developed traumatic pericarditis. “Fifteen cases were treated with sulphonamide [an antibiotic] and six were not. ” The six animals untreated cows all died, and even among the cows treated with antibiotics, almost half died. So yes, some lesions recorded in the Mishanh (and later refined in the talmudic discussion which follows) are indeed fatal.

The Case of Serachot

But other lesions that render an animal treif are certainly not fatal. Take for example lung adhesions, called סרחות (serachot, or sircha in the singular), which are discussed in detail later (46b et. seq). These adhesions are fibrous tissues that may run between different lung lobes, or between the lungs and the rib cage. They are common and are caused by a number of conditions, including trauma or previous infections. Many kinds of serichot render an animal treif. But lung adhesions are certainly not lethal. Animals and humans live quite happily with them. In fact this doctor recently told me that the presence of lung adhesions does not prevent lungs from being donated and used for a lung transplant. Now, if they are used in that delicate situation, they most certainly do not have a fatal defect, or anything even close.

the case of the missing liver (and the missing heart)

Opening paragraph of the famous responsa on “the chicken that had no heart”. From שו׳ת חכם צבי, Amsterdam 1712.

Equally puzzling to the modern reader is the sixth category in the Mishna’s list: ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום - if the slaughtered animal was found to have no liver. Here’s the thing: an animal cannot live without a liver. If a healthy looking cow - or indeed any cow -was well enough to be slaughtered, it must have had a liver. So this is not an example of a treif animal - it’s an example of one that could not possibly have existed. But don’t take my word for it.

In 1709 the great rabbi of Hamburg, Zevi Ashkenazi, (better known as the Chacham Zevi, after the name of his responsa) was asked the following question. A young woman had opened a slaughtered chicken to remove the unwanted entrails, while her cat sat at her feet “waiting patiently for anything that may fall to the ground.” To her great surprise, the young woman found that the chicken did not have a heart, and so assumed the bird was treif. Not so, claimed her mother, who apparently owned the chicken. The cat must have eaten it, when it was thrown to the ground together with the entrails. The young women was however quite adamant, and insisted she had never fed anything that resembled a heart to the cat. The bird had been perfectly healthy before it was slaughtered, eating and drinking like any other healthy chicken, (וגם בעודנה בחיים חיותה היתה חזקה ובריאה ובכל כחה לאכול ולשתות). The question of the kashrut of the bird was brought to the local rabbis, who declared it to be treif, on the basis that while alive, it had no heart.

The Chacham Zevi was asked to weigh in on the matter. “It is absolutely clear to any person who has a wise heart” he wrote, apparently enjoying the play on words, “or who has a brain in his skull, that it is impossible for any creature to live for even a moment without a heart…Clearly, the heart fell out when the bird was opened, and that cat ate it…It is obvious that the chicken is permitted” Strike one for common sense. You would think. But not so fast. This answer of the Chacham Zevi engendered one of the great halachic disputes of the eighteenth century. In one corner, the Chacham, and in the other at least four leading rabbinic figures who vehemently opposed this ruling: Naphtali Katz of Frankfurt, Moses Rothenburg, David Oppenheim (who was the Chief Rabbi of Prague, no less) and Jonathan Eyebeschuetz (who spent much of his later life fighting halachic battles against Rabbi Yaakov Emden, who was the son of the Chacham Zevi). It got nasty, but that’s a story for another day.

Halachic Reality

No bird or animal can live without a heart, and none can do so without a liver. So there can be no case, like the one in the Mishnah, in which a healthy living animal was slaughtered and found to be without a liver.

Some of the categories of treifot overlap with conditions that are indeed incompatible with life. Others are perfectly innocuous and compatible with a long and healthy life. And a few make no sense given what we know about animal physiology. But none should be thought of as describing an anatomical reality. They describe instead a halachic reality, a reality that reflected a world some 1,500 years ago. And while our understanding of physiology has changed, these halachic classes remain a fixed part of Jewish tradition. Here is the great Maimonides, who was obviously troubled by the chasm that sometimes exists between halacha and facts.

רמב’ם משנה תורה הלכות שחיטה י, יג וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן טְרֵפָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן אֵינָן מְמִיתִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא)"עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ

Each one of these lesions that were declared treif remain so even if modern medicine can demonstrate that some of them are not actually fatal, and that it is indeed possible to live despite them. Rather we must follow these rabbinic categories, as the Torah states“ You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; [you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left.]

In more recent times, Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, better known as the Chazon Ish, also addressed this question. “We see today” he wrote, “that very often surgeons operate on the abdomen of a person [with an injury like one found in a treif animal], and he is completely cured, and lives a long life.” But this does nothing to change the way we view the categories of treif . These depend solely on what was decided by the rabbis of the Talmud, and no modern findings can change them.

But what happens when science suggests that the act of shechita inflicts unnecessary pain on the animal? That’s coming up, on Talmudology.