Thursday, August 18, 2011

Daf Yomi, Chullin 52a: Do Hawks, Martens, and Cats have Venom?

Here is an interesting clash of modern scientific knowledge and a statement put forth by Chazal.

In Chullin 52b:
מר רב עמרם אמר רב חסדא דרוסת חתול ונמייה בגדיים וטלאים דרוסת חולדה בעופות מיתיבי דרוסת חתול נץ ונמייה עד שתינקב לחלל
Or, in English:
An objection was raised: The clawing by a cat or a hawk or a marten [does not render trefah] unless the claw actually penetrated into [the abdominal] cavity.17
Why the abdominal cavity? Rashi explains:
עד שתינקב לחלל - כקוץ בעלמא ועד שניקבו הדקין ומדשוי להו כקוץ בנקובה מכלל דארס שלה אין מזיק אפילו לעופות וכל שכן לגדיים וטלאים:
It has to do with the venom, and its strength. Read through the whole gemara to get a better sense of it. But for a (seeming) explicit statement that there is venom involved, see this:
הא ההיא תרנגולת דהואי בי רב כהנא דרהט חתול בתרה ועל לאידרונא ואיתחיד דשא באפיה  ומחייה לדשא בסיחופיה ואשתכח עלה חמשה קורטי דמא
הצלת עצמה נמי כהצלת אחרים דמי ורבנן זיהרא אית ליה ולא קלי זיהריה 
But it once happened that a hen belonging to R. Kahana was being pursued by a cat and it ran into a room. The door shut in the face of the cat so that [in its fury] it struck the door with its paw. There were then found on it five spots of blood!21— When the attacked animal tries to save itself it is the same as when others are present to save it. But [does not this incident contradict the view of] the Rabbis?22— They maintain that it has venom, but the venom does not burn.23
The "blood" is red venom, as Rashi explains -- ארס של חמש אצבעות:

(I might be able to "save" Chazal from maintaining this by distinguishing between the Amoraim and the setama de-gemara, but I will leave this alone for this post.)

Could the "venom" be bacterial infection, and 'cat scratch disease'? I don't see how this would account for finding five spots of 'blood' (=venom) on the door, in the case of Rav Kahana. And furthermore, on the next amud, 53a, we have:
Abaye said: We have it on tradition that clawing is only with the fore-leg, thus excluding the hind leg; that clawing is only with the claws, thus excluding the teeth; that the clawing must be intentional, thus excluding an unintentional act;5and that the clawing must be by a living animal,thus excluding the clawing by a dead animal.6But since you have already said it must not be unintentional, is it then at all necessary to say that it must not be by a dead animal? — It is indeed necessary for the case where the animal struck with its claw and it was immediately amputated. Now you might have thought that it discharges the poison at once when it strikes with the claw, we therefore learn that it discharges the poison only when it withdraws the claw.
Does this strike you as Chazal discussing bacterial infection? It is speaking of discharging poison on withdrawal of the claw. Should the bacteria not infect the wound as it enters, but only as it exits? No. This is, rather, a conflict between a gemara and the metzius as we presently know it.

The Kuzari, in maamar 4, section 31, brings this as proof to Chazal's deep knowledge of science:

It is interesting how a 'proof' can so swiftly turn into a 'disproof'.

We have another "out" besides saying that Chazal erred in science. In other contexts, some folks try to claim that conflicts with Chazal's descriptions demonstrate that another animal must be under discussion. Or, they say this about a statement by a Rishon. This occurs in apologetics, such as in identifying the shafan, where it cannot be a hyrex, since a Rishon who never encountered a shafan described a feature which instead belongs to the, common in that place, rabbit. Or people reject the best candidate for the chilazon, because an aggadic statement of Chazal or a position of a Rishon does not fit with what we presently know about murex trunculus. So, in like manner, Chazal must have been speaking about other animals. It could not be a cat or a hawk, because we know that they don't have venom. It must, instead, be an otherwise unknown species.

Perhaps there are other resolutions out there. This is not something I have spent a good time researching.

Note: Right before publishing this to the web, I saw that Rabbi Slifkin posted this morning on this very topic, on Rationalist Judaism.

14 comments:

Dr. Isaac Betech said...

B"H
Dear Rab Waxman.
You wrote:
This occurs in apologetics, such as in identifying the shafan, where it cannot be a hyrex, since a Rishon who never encountered a shafan described a feature which instead belongs to the, common in that place, rabbit.

IB:
The hyrax cannot be the biblical shafan because the hyrax is not "maale gerah", i.e. it does not practices rumination, nor caeotrophy or even merycism.

joshwaxman said...

well, that is ONE of the reasons you offered. iirc, you offered a bunch of others including opinions of Rishonim, but refused to discuss those others. to those who agreed with (1), because there was purportedly nothing to discuss. to those who disagreed with (1), because you demanded to discuss your claims in order.

that is, you "cleverly" hid behind claim (1), so that you could put forth a bunch of other weak claims without needing to defend them.

this is an example of your dishonesty.

and again here, you put forth claim (1) as a smokescreen. how dishonest!

for the record, i disagree with you on claim (1). i already told you what Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan says about it. and i would say "dibra Torah kilshon bnei adam", such that an ancient accepted belief that they ruminate would suffice to justify the pasuk's description; or that 'maaleh gera' means 'makes a rumination-like motion'. and that the masorah from Saadia Gaon and comparative linguistic evidence more than justify such a reinterpretation or interpretation.

but that was not the point of my post, and you know that i don't want to argue with you.

Dr. Isaac Betech said...

B"H
Dear Rab Waxman.
You wrote at your bottom line:
but that was not the point of my post, and you know that i don't want to argue with you.

IB:
In case you ever want to argue with me about the biblical shafan identity, please let me know, it will be a pleasure to analyze everyone of the arguments you presented.

Yitz Waxman said...

These debates seem to be pleasurable only for Doctor Betech. Everyone else that I see attempting to dialogue with him online is quickly antagonized and exasperated.

Yitz Waxman said...

btw - no relation to the blog author

Dave said...

Rabbi Betech,

You only replied to the last line of Rabbi Josh's comment. Would you mind to reply to his main comment (namely, that you hide behind one claim in order to not to have to defend your other claims)? My feeling is that you're right on the hyrax debate but I have a hard time defending your position rationally.

Dr. Isaac Betech said...

B"H
Dear Dave,
You wrote:
My feeling is that you're right on the hyrax debate but I have a hard time defending your position rationally.

IB:
Sorry.
Which position is difficult to defend rationally?
a)That the biblical shafan is not the hyrax?
b) That the biblical shafan is the rabbit?

Dave said...

Dr. Betech

It's hard to defend your position that the hyrax is not the biblical shafan.

Dr. Isaac Betech said...

B"H
Dear Dave
Please provide a definition of maale gerah that includes the hyrax and all the animals the Torah called maale gerah.

joshwaxman said...

Dr. Betech:
See, this is not the way that normal people usually conduct a discussion.

Do you think that Dave was being disingenuous in saying that he felt the conclusion was like you but that he wished to know the details of a rational path towards that conclusion.

It certainly is possible that he was being disingenuous, but if so, you should note that you consider him so. Your response does not, and yet appears to make the leap to treating him as a hostile disputant.

Please provide a definition of maale gerah that includes the hyrax and all the animals the Torah called maale gerah.
You are not the one to assign homework to others.

This is a debating tactic. (a) Make the other people do the legwork, for the "honor" of arguing with you. (b) Meanwhile, imply that there *is* no such comprehensive definition, without explicitly asserting it, thus ascribing deficiency to those you argue against. And (c), at the same time, establish as axiomatic that there MUST be such a (comprehensive) definition.

While I don't take a position that such a comprehensive definition does or does not exist, I don't personally deem it necessary and axiomatic. For instance, things which are ruminants, and things which ancients might have deemed ruminants, and things which have some action which might be termed rumination, all might fit.

A proper response would be something like:

"Dear Dave:
I suspect that you are speaking disingenuously.

Therefore I will not respond here.

[Alternatively]:
Despite this, I will outlay here an argument against the hyrax being the Biblical shafan.

I believe that there must be a [comprehensive / single] definition of maaleh gera, for reason X. (Optionally: If we incorporate definition Y into maaleh gera, it would include the following animals which are not maaleh gera according to Torah source Z. And so on and so forth.)

After exhausting all the permutations, we see that there are none left. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's definition does not work for reason A. Josh's definition does not work for reason B.

Since there is no such definition, we are forced to either discard or reinterpret Rav Saadia Gaon's definition of shafan, and Rabbi Yonah Ibn Janach's definition of shafan, and to dismiss the linguistic evidence."


I think Dave was hoping for something along those lines, rather than a terse avoidance of an answer coupled with a homework assignment.

Dave said...

Dr. Betech

Although I agree with Reb Josh on how you "should have" answered me, I will nonetheless answer your question.

Please provide a definition of maale gerah that includes the hyrax and all the animals the Torah called maale gerah.

Rumination-style movement of the mouth of the animal in a way which would lead the people who were living in the times of Matan Torah to believe that the animal is a true ruminant (brings up the cud) would be enough for that animal to be considered Maaleh Gerah.

Dr. Isaac Betech said...

B"H
Dear Dave and Rab Waxman
Although I have been debating Torah-Sciene issues for many decades, these debates have been face to face or by direct email interchange with identified persons, so I am sorry if I do not know the proper debate protocol for debating in a public forum with unidentified persons. Sorry again!
Nevertheless, Dave, I just now published an answer to your suggested definiton of maaleh gerah at
The Day of the Rabbit
http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/08/day-of-rabbit.html

Yitz Waxman said...

I think that Rav Josh gave you an excellent "protocol" and took great pains to demonstrate exactly how to go about it.

My unsolicited advice to you is to simply speak sincerely, honestly and most importantly RESPECTFULLY and just forget about the protocol.

Dr. Isaac Betech said...

B"H
Dear Yitz
I will try to continue following your advice.
Thanks

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin