Announcing an Online Talmudology Event

Save the date:

Thursday March 11 at 7.00PM EST

[=4pm in Los Angeles, Midnight in London, 2am in Israel, and 11am Friday March 12 in Sydney, Australia]

Jeremy Brown is the author of New Heavens and a New Earth: The Jewish Reception of Copernican Thought (OUP 2013) and Influenza: The Hundred Year Hunt to Cure the Deadliest Disease in History (Simon and Schuster 2018). He writes on science and medicine in the Talmud at Talmudology.com. Dr. Brown is an emergency physician and works at the National Institutes of Health.

This live stream Zoom event is presented in relation to the special exhibit Jews in Space: Members of the Tribe in Orbit, on view September 13, 2020 through April 11, 2021. 

For free tickets click here

From the Talmudology Purim Archives ~ Gender Fluidity, Male Lactation and Mordechai

Editor’s note: Unless you live in Australia, or New Zealand, or Jerusalem, today is the Jewish Festival of Purim, on which there is a tradition to create and recite spoofs called Purim Torah. These spoofs are usually very clever and witty, and may require a deep knowledge of rabbinic texts. But this post is not Purim Torah, although it may read as such if you have drunk a little too much alcohol. And drinking too much alcohol is definitely a Purim tradition. So drink up and read on…and I swear I am not making this stuff up.

Milk Producing Male Goats of The Talmud (MPMGOTT)

In the Talmud in tractate Chullin there is a discussion of about the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. There are several teachings that are derived from the three places in the Torah where we read “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (לא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִיח בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ) Here is one of them, attributed to Shmuel:

חולין קיג, ב

בחלב אמו” ולא בחלב זכר”

“…In its mother’s milk” indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a male goat

A male goat that grows udders and produces milk? Here is how the great exegete Rashi (1040-1105) explains the Talmud:

ולא בחלב זכר - שהיה לו חלב מועט מן הדדים כגון אם נשתנה והיו לו דדים

“And not in the milk of a male goat”: This means that there was a small amount of milk from the udder. For example if the male goat changed and grew udders.

To understand what on earth is going on here, we need to take a detour into the strange world of biologic gender fluidity. So strap in and here we go.

Fish

In their helpful 2003 paper Group Sex, Sex Change, and Parasitic Males: Sexual Strategies Among the Fishes and Their Neurobiological Correlates (published, obviously, in the Annual Review of Sex Research) the authors note that there is “tremendous sexual diversity exhibited by fishes” Consider for example the clownfish, also known as the anemonefish. They are sequential hermaphrodites, and first develop into males. These colorful fish thrive unharmed in the poisonous tentacles of the sea anemone, and while several fish may live within the same anemone, there is only one pair that mate. Should the dominant egg-laying female die, one of the largest males steps up and does what needs to be done. He changes into a female. This male-to-female change is called protandry. Other fish, like the sea wrasse, are all born female, and as the need arises change into a male. This trick is carried out in at least 500 species of fish, and is called protogyny.

Birds

The male Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) is a bright red color with a black mask over its beak and eyes. The female is a drab olive color, with a grey mask. In 2008 the ornithological world was rocked when a bird was sighted that was half-red and half-olive. Meaning it was half-male and half-female. The bird, sighted in the Black Hawk Forest Nature Preserve in northwestern Illinois, “was perched in a cockspur hawthorn tree.” Its right side was male, and its left, female. The cardinal evaded capture so it was not possible to analyze its genetic makeup. To be clear, this was not a bird that changed sex; it was one that appeared to be both sexes.

Humans

We all should have been taught in school that our gender is determined by which sex chromosomes we receive. If we get two female chromosomes -XX- (one from mom and one from dad) we are female, and if we get one X from mom and a Y from dad -XY- we are male. But like all things, it’s a little more complicated than that. In the 1980s, British researchers discovered the sex-determining gene on a tiny bit of the male Y chromosome and named it the sry gene. That gene tells the body to develop into a male or female appearing body. Sometimes the sry gene sneaks off of the Y gene and makes its way into the DNA of an XX female. As a result, she will develop male anatomy while genetically remaining an XX female. (Please read that sentence again, just to be sure you have understood it.) And sometimes the sry gene on an XY genetic male can mutate and not work. In that case, the genetic male appears to have the organs of a female, which is what occurs in Swyer syndrome. (You can hear more about the amazing sex-changing effects of sry in this fascinating podcast.)

Ready for more? In a small community in the Dominican Republic there have been a number of cases in which little girls grow a penis and turn into little boys. (Again, please re-read that sentence.) These observations were first reported to the scientific community in 1974, and are caused by a deficiency of the steroid 5a-Reductase. Here is how the BBC explained what is going on when they reported about it in 2015.

When you are conceived you normally have a pair of X chromosomes if you are to become a girl and a set of XY chromosomes if you are destined to be male. For the first weeks of life in womb you are neither…Then, around eight weeks after conception, the sex hormones kick in. If you're genetically male the Y chromosome instructs your gonads to become testicles and sends testosterone to a structure called the tubercle, where it is converted into a more potent hormone called dihydro-testosterone. This in turn transforms the tubercle into a penis. If you're female and you don't make dihydro-testosterone then your tubercle becomes a clitoris…the reason [some genetic males] don't have male genitalia when they are born is because they are deficient in an enzyme called 5-alpha-reductase, which normally converts testosterone into dihydro-testosterone.

So the boys, despite having an XY chromosome, appear female when they are born. At puberty, like other boys, they get a second surge of testosterone. This time the body does respond and they sprout muscles, testes and a penis.

So there you have it. Little girls, brought up as little girls, turn into boys, who develop male genitalia, and live as men. You see, they were never really girls in the XX sense. They were XY boys whose lack of sex hormones caused them to look like girls. Which brings us back to that page in the Talmud and the strange case of…

That male goat that produced milk

We have seen that there is great deal of natural gender fluidity in the animal world (and if for no other reason, this should make us more sensitive and understanding of those people who want to change their birth gender). But what about that milk-producing male goat? Well according to the website dedicated to “Goat Milk Stuff,” as bizarre as it seems, “there have even been bucks that have been known to give milk (yes, all bucks have teats, and no, a milking buck is not normal).” This was not a case of a male-to-female transformation. It was a case of male lactation.

Writing in the 13th century in his classic commentary on the Talmud called Bet Habechirah, Menachem ben Solomon Meiri, known as the Meiri(1249–1306) wrote that he had seen examples of male milk-producing goats:

בית הבחירה. מכון התלמוד הישראלי השלם.ירושלים, תשל׳ד 432

“There are a few male [goats] in whom the works of creation are slightly changed and whose nipples become larger such that they produce a little milk. And we have seen them with our own eyes...”

— Meiri, Bet Habechirah Chullin, 432

So too, did Khalifa al Nuaimi, a shepherd in the United Arab Emirates: Here is the 2009 report from The National, a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates.

As one of his prized male goats trotted up for some feed, he noticed the animal had seemingly developed a large udder. While he could not quite believe his eyes, the luckless creature proceeded to produce milk on demand, much like his female companions in the pen.

The local farmer made the discovery four days ago at his goat pen in Masakin, a suburb of Al Ain, the government news agency, WAM, reported yesterday. The animal's male organs are said to have been pushed back by the udder, described as "big and bulky". Mr al Nuaimi got a half-litre of good-quality milk from the goat. Dr Martin Wyness, of the British Veterinary Centre in Abu Dhabi, said it was unusual but not unheard of for male mammals to produce milk. "It's absolutely possible," he said.

what may be happening

The structure of the cells involved in producing milk in the male goat has been studied using immunofluorescence and electron microscopy techniques. It turns out they are smaller but higher in number than those found in normal males, which suggests that the anterior pituitary gland, which controls their function is probably acting in a weird way.

Another explanation of the milk-producing male goats of the Talmud (MPMGOTT) is that it is linked to estrogen-like compounds in the plants upon which they were feeding.

“It is now known that more than 50 plant species contain estrogen mimics known as phytoestrogens. Although the mechanisms are not completely understood, several plant secondary metabolites…can mimic the effects of steroidal estrogens. These non-steroidal compounds have similar overall structures or active sites as natural steroidal estrogen and can compete for binding sites on estrogen receptor proteins. Thus, plant compounds can have effects similar to endogenous estrogens”

This comes from an intriguing 2008 paper, Male lactation: why, why not and is it care? published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution. It points out that there are other mammalian species in which the male has been known to lactate, including sheep, rats, free-ranging Dayak fruit bats in Malaysia and the masked flying fox bats of Papua New Guinea. Male lactation was also recorded “in World War II prisoner of war camps when malnourished detainees were later liberated and provided with adequate nutrition. During the period of limited food supply, the prisoners suffered liver, testicular and pituitary atrophy” which messed things up. Once fully nourished, the lactation quickly ended.

But whatever the cause, Shmuel was neither drunk nor hallucinating when he claimed that male goats can produce milk. Because sometimes they do.

mordechai lactating on demand

Male lactation. It’s not just for goats and bats. Human males might do it too. Here is a story told in the Talmud (Shabbat 53b) and knowing what we now do, perhaps it not as fanciful as it might seem.

שבת נג,ב

מעשה באחד שמתה אשתו והניחה בן לינק ולא היה לו שכר מניקה ליתן ונעשה לו נס ונפתחו לו דדין כשני דדי אשה והניק את בנו

There was an incident where a man’s wife died, and she left him a son to nurse, and he did not have money to pay for a wet-nurse. And a miracle was performed on his behalf, and he developed breasts like the two breasts of a woman, and he nursed his son.

That’s a pretty impressive miracle, although it may seem a little less miraculous now that we understand so much about the role of the anterior pituitary gland. This father is not identified in the Talmud, but another lactating male is. And his name was Mordechai, the hero of the Purim story we read today. In the Book of Esther (2:7) we read וַיְהִ֨י אֹמֵ֜ן אֶת־הֲדַסָּ֗ה - that Mordechai “raised” or “sustained” Esther. Let’s pickup the story in Beresheet Rabbah (30:8), compiled between 300 and 500 CE.

מָרְדְּכַי זָן וּפִרְנֵס, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן פַּעַם אַחַת חִזֵּר עַל כָּל הַמֵּנִיקוֹת וְלֹא מָצָא לְאֶסְתֵּר לְאַלְתָּר מֵינִיקָה, וְהָיָה מֵינִיקָהּ הוּא, רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בָּא לוֹ חָלָב וְהָיָה מֵינִיקָהּ. כַּד דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּצִבּוּרָא גָּחוֹךְ צִבּוּרָא לְקָלֵיהּ,

But did Mordecai really feed and sustain Esther? R. Yudan said: On one occasion he went round to all the wet nurses but could not find one for Esther, so he himself suckled her. R. Berekiah and R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Eleazar: Milk came to him and he suckled her [and he never even tried to find a wet nurse]. When R. Abbahu taught this publicly, the congregation laughed…

They laughed. Of course they did. It sounded like Purim Torah. But it can happen. Just ask those lactating goats. Now that’s some real Purim Torah.

happy purim from Talmudology

---

Pesachim 96 ~ Blood to Prevent Plague

The Mishnah outlines some of the differences between the very first Passover that was celebrated while the Jews were still in Egypt, and the Passovers that were celebrated in the Temple in Jerusalem in the centuries that followed.

פסחים צו, א

מַתְנִי׳ מָה בֵּין פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם לְפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת? פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם מִקָּחוֹ מִבֶּעָשׂוֹר, וְטָעוּן הַזָּאָה בַּאֲגוּדַּת אֵזוֹב, וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת, וְנֶאֱכָל בְּחִפָּזוֹן, בַּלַּיְלָה אֶחָד. וּפֶסַח דּוֹרוֹת נוֹהֵג כׇּל שִׁבְעָה 

Image from here.

MISHNA: What are the differences between the Paschal lamb that the Jewish people offered in Egypt and the Paschal lamb offered in all later generations? The Paschal lamb the Jewish people offered in Egypt had to be taken from the tenth of the month of Nisan and required the people to sprinkle its blood with a bundle of hyssop, unlike the Paschal lamb in all later years, and its blood was also sprinkled upon the lintel and the two doorposts, and it was eaten with haste; in addition, the Paschal lamb in Egypt was only on one night, whereas the Paschal lamb throughout the generations is observed for seven days. 

The Talmud spends several pages discussing the differences between that first Passover and all those that came later. As a rule, we don’t do much sprinkling of blood on our doorposts these days, but that was not always the case. Since we are still in the throes of a pandemic, let’s take a look at an overlooked custom that arose in Turkey during a pandemic there, and how it was connected to this Mishnah.

The BLoody Question

Rabbi Chaim Palagi (1788-1868) was an important rabbi and leader of the Jewish community in Izmir (Smyrna), Turkey, and his influence was felt far beyond. Among his many books (somewhere between seventy and eighty!) is a collection of responsa called Chaim Beyad (חיים ביד), in which he was asked the following question:

Come and listen and I will tell you about whether the custom to write God’s name [שם הוי׳ה ב׳ה] with the blood from a circumcision is appropriate. And if it is argued that it is indeed permitted, because it provides protection during an epidemic (heaven forbid), whether it is permitted to write God’s name in red or in any color other than in black ink…

So apparently the Jews of Izmir used to take the blood from a Jewish baby that had just been circumcised paint God’s ineffable name with it onto a flag or poster and presumably hang it somewhere for protection against a pandemic. (I know what you are thinking: why on earth was there so much blood? What exactly were they doing wrong? Fair questions, but let’s stay focussed.) This practice had its roots in that very first Passover, where the blood of a lamb painted on a doorpost signaled that there would be no death in the house, for it was under God’s protection.

Rabbi Palagi’s answer is technical and difficult to follow, but in the end he seems to allow the practice if the scribe is “a person of great learning and an expert in Kabbalah and there is a great need.” Moderns would, I am sure, find the whole practice quite distasteful, but it reminds us that when things are desperate and there aren’t a lot of options, prayer and folk magic are invoked in the face of a pandemic. Today there is no need to adopt this practice. We have a vaccine.

Pesachim 94 ~ The Orbit of the Sun around the Earth

Today we will discuss two passages that are well known and difficult to understand. They concern the movement of the stars and the orbit of the Sun around the Earth. Here is the first one:

פסחים צד,ב

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים: גַּלְגַּל קָבוּעַ, וּמַזָּלוֹת חוֹזְרִין. וְחַכְמֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אוֹמְרִים: גַּלְגַּל חוֹזֵר, וּמַזָּלוֹת קְבוּעִין. אָמַר רַבִּי: תְּשׁוּבָה לְדִבְרֵיהֶם — מֵעוֹלָם לֹא מָצִינוּ עֲגָלָה בַּדָּרוֹם וְעַקְרָב בַּצָּפוֹן

The Sages taught: The Jewish Sages say the celestial sphere [גלגל] of the zodiac is stationary, and the constellations revolve in their place within the sphere; and the sages of the nations of the world say the entire celestial sphere revolves, and the constellations are stationary within the sphere. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: A refutation of their opinion [that the entire sphere moves] can be derived from the fact that we have never found the constellation of Ursa Major in the South or Scorpio in the North. [This indicates that it is the stars themselves that revolve in place and not the celestial sphere as a whole, because otherwise it would be impossible for Ursa Major to remain in the North and Scorpio to remain in the South].

The meaning of this passage is unclear, and as the late Isidore Twersky pointed out, it “has a long history of interpretation, reflecting various moods: embarrassment, perplexity, satisfaction, with some attempts at harmonization or reinterpretation or restricting the significance of the report.”

What could this passage mean?

Many different interpretations have been offered. One is that the galgal refers to the Sun, and the mazzalot refer to the planets; in this understanding, the sages of the Talmud anticipated the Copernican heliocentric system. However, this explanation must be rejected because in the very next line of the discussion, the Talmud makes it clear that the mazzalot contain the constellations Eglah (Taurus) and Akrav (Scorpio). It is therefore apparent that the mazzalot in this rabbinic passage are not to be identified with any of the planets. It is also clear that the system being described is not the Ptolemaic one in which the stars and planets revolve around the Earth, because the Earth is never referred to as galgal. The most likely explanation of this passage is that the galgal refers to a sphere and that, according to the Gentile sages, the constellations are fixed within a revolving sphere. The Jewish sages believed the sky to be both solid and immovable; according to them, the constellations—which are clearly seen to revolve, do so independently of the fixed heavens beneath them.

“We have never found Ursa Major in the SoutH”

According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the constellation known as Agalah is always found in the southern sky, and that known as Akrav is always found in the north. These two constellations should be easy to identify. Let’s start with the second one mentioned. The word Akrav עַקְרָב means a scorpion, and Scorpio is one of the twelve signs of the zodiac. Good. But what about the first constellation eglah or agalah (there is a big difference)? To what constellation might this refer? Agalah - עֲגָלָה means either a “wagon” or, when the same letters are vocalized as eglah, a “calf.” And then things really get interesting. So interesting that we did an entire post just on this topic. You can read it here.

Where does the sun go at night?

And now the second passage. Incidentally, it is also the text seen in the header on the landing page of Talmudology. It is from a manuscript of the Talmud held at the Jewish Theological Seminary MS Rab. 1623.

פסחים צד, ב

חכמי ישראל אומרים ביום חמה מהלכת למטה מן הרקיע ובלילה למעלה מן הרקיע וחכמי אומות העולם אומרים ביום חמה מהלכת למטה מן הרקיע ובלילה למטה מן הקרקע א"ר ונראין דבריהן מדברינו שביום מעינות צוננין ובלילה רותחין

The wise men of Israel say that during the day the Sun travels under the rakia, and at night it travels above the rakia. And Gentile wise men say: during the day the Sun travels under the rakia and at night under the Earth. Rabbi [Yehudah Hanasi] said: their view is more logical than ours for during the day springs are cold and at night they are warm.

The Path of the Sun, per the Talmud

In the talmudic view, the sky is completely opaque. As the Sun passes over the top of the sky at night, it is not in the slightest way visible. The rabbis of the Talmud also believed that the Earth was a flat disc, and that above the sky was an opaque covering called the rakia. During the day the Sun was visible under the rakia, and then at night it zipped back from where it set in the west to where it would rise again in the east by traveling over the rakia. Something like this: 

From Judah Landa. Torah and Science. Ktav 1991. p63

This orbit of sorts comes up again in another discussion, found in tractate Bava Basra: There is an argument whether at night the sun zips across the top of the opaque rakia, as Rabbi Eliezer believed, or zips behind it, as it were, which is what Rabbi Yehoshua believed.

בבא בתרא כה, א–ב

תניא ר"א אומר עולם לאכסדרה הוא דומה ורוח צפונית אינה מסובבת וכיון שהגיעה חמה אצל קרן מערבית צפונית נכפפת ועולה למעלה מן הרקיע ורבי יהושע אומר עולם לקובה הוא דומה ורוח צפונית מסובבת וכיון שחמה מגעת לקרן מערבית צפונית מקפת וחוזרת אחורי כיפה 

Rabbi Eliezer taught: The world is similar to a partially enclosed veranda [אכסדרה], [which is enclosed on three sides] and the northern side of the world is not enclosed with a partition like the other directions. When the sun reaches the northwestern corner it turns around and ascends throughout the night above the rakia [to the east side and does not pass the north side].

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The world is similar to a small tent [קובה], [and the north side is enclosed too,] and when the sun reaches the northwestern corner it orbits and passes behind the dome.

From Judah Landa. Torah and Science. Ktav 1991. p66.

It is hardly news to point out that a long time ago people believed that the universe was different to the way that we understand it to be today. But the belief of the rabbis of the Talmud was standard until only very recently, by which I mean only a few hundred years ago. (And if you want to learn more about that comment “during the day springs are cold and at night they are warm” there is a recent Talmudology post that explains it. You can enjoy it here.)

Copernicus and his critics

When Nicolas Copernicus (d. 1543) proposed his heliocentric universe he did so for a number of mathematical reasons but without any evidence. The experimental evidence that supported his claim did not appear for over three hundred years, when in 1838 the first measurement of stellar parallax occurred. Without evidence to support the Copernican model, many rejected it.  For example, the famous Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) rejected the Copernican model, and came up with one of his own in which all the planets orbited the sun, which in turn dragged them around a stationary earth. For about one hundred years after Copernicus, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge ignored the heliocentric model entirely, and the English philosopher, statesman, and member of Parliament Francis Bacon (1561–1626) rejected the Copernican model as having “too many and great inconveniences.”

Galileo and the Catholic Church

Galileo published his discovery of the four satellites of Jupiter in Sidereus Nuncius in 1610. This discovery did not prove that Copernicus was correct, but it lent a great deal of corroborative evidence to the Copernican model. In addition Galileo noted that Venus seemed to change shape, just as the Moon did, sometimes appearing almost (but never quite) full, sometimes as a semi-circle, and at other times as sickle-shaped. The best explanation was that Venus was not orbiting the earth, but that it was in fact orbiting the Sun. And that turned out to be correct too. But as we know, things didn't turn out too well for Galileo. The Catholic Church, which by now had placed Copernicus' book on its Index of Banned Books, also banned Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - the book in which he outlined his proofs that the earth orbited the sun. The works of the astronomer Johannes Kepler (d.1630) were also added to the Index.  

The Jesuit Edition of Newton's Principa

In 1687 the Copernican model found support with the publication of Newton’s Principa Mathematica. In that work, Newton described the universal laws of gravitation and motion that were behind the observations of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.  The book went through three Latin editions in Newton’s life-time, and an English edition was published two years after his death in 1727.  A new three-volume edition of the Principia was published in Geneva between 1739 and 1742. This edition contained a commentary on each of the book’s propositions by two Franciscan friars but was noteworthy for another reason. In its final volume, the “Jesuit edition”  contained a disclaimer by the friars distancing themselves from the heliocentric assumptions contained in the book:

Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the motion of the Earth. The propositions of the author cannot be explained otherwise than by making the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees promulgated by sovereign pontiffs against the motion of the Earth.

So it wasn't just the rabbis of the Talmud who believed the earth stood still. In fact they believed what (nearly) everyone else continued to believe for at least a thousand years. The sun certainly looked like it revolved around the earth, so the rabbis created a model of the universe in which it did so, either by circling under the earth at night, or by zig-zagging back across the top of the rakia. Neither model turned out to be correct. But in believing this, the rabbis were firmly in the majority.

***

[If you want more on this subject, I'm also told there's an excellent book on the Jewish reception of Copernican thought.]