tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post6219597309091952228..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Is the atalef really a bat? Do bats lay eggs?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-10919764473027416622015-08-16T04:09:03.207-04:002015-08-16T04:09:03.207-04:00Another piece of obscure information from my notes...Another piece of obscure information from my notes:<br /><br />The letter "l" in talpia (Latin) has been lost (Lutheringian influence) but not in the word calves<br />Calves soriz is from calvis sorices - bald mice from pop. Latin. <br />Maybe because cawas sound like kawas middle German for bird of prey. Rashi here is talpas and chalve soriz while Kara writes tapas and calves soriz.<br />The German cawas becomes becomes chouette (owl) in modern French.<br />The mole of ארץ ישראל is the spalanx (חולד). It is only found in Israel. It is not the mole חפפורת which is native to Europe and the rest of the world. <br />Aryeh Shorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18081199817730557774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-21802913034038809842015-08-15T22:18:48.442-04:002015-08-15T22:18:48.442-04:00Rashi on the Torah does not translate .עטלף The ...Rashi on the Torah does not translate .עטלף The word תנשמת is translated as calves soriz. Rav Shamayah, his student, says that Rashi does not identify the עטלף of the Torah with the bat (Sefer Rashi). In the Talmud, Rashi always translates עטלף as bat.<br />רבי שמעיה היה מחכמי אשכנז במאה ה-11 ובתחילת המאה ה-12 <br />תנשמת שבשרצים טלפא ודומות זו לזו הגוף ובלתי ראות אבל עטלף אין לו לעז ועטלף דרבנן משל לתרנגול ועטלף שהיו מצפין לאורה נראה קלבא שוריץ עוף בלי ראות והאומר שעטלף הוא טלפא אינו אלא טעות.<br />ד"ר אברהם ברלינר . תולדות פירוש רשי, ספר רשי, עורך רב מימן תשט"ז, מוסד הרב קוק.<br /><br /><br />Aryeh Shorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18081199817730557774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-3854401612120156782010-12-07T06:17:33.300-05:002010-12-07T06:17:33.300-05:00thanks. though if you read my post carefully, you ...thanks. though if you read my post carefully, you will find this is irrelevant. pliny WAS considered a reliable naturalist at the time, at least. and we are talking about Chazal relying upon contemporary science, not modern-day science. which is why it is relevant that the patterns match.<br /><br />(pigeon-milk, made in the crop, is not necessarily to be considred "milk".)<br /><br />all the best,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-42323261864806645392010-12-06T22:11:23.217-05:002010-12-06T22:11:23.217-05:004) The bat is the only flying creature that bears ...<i>4) The bat is the only flying creature that bears live young and feeds them with its milk; it also carries its children in its arms as it flies.<br />The pattern of this statement matches the pattern found in the brayta.</i><br /><br />Just one problem. This is incorrect<br /><br />a) The bat does not carry its children as it flies.<br /><br />b) The pigeon feeds its young with milk.<br /><br />c) Bats do not have poor vision.<br /><br />d) Pliny cannot be considered a reliable naturalist. Many of the animals he described do not exist. Many of his observations are comically wrong.Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15839788161602002776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5298071598620530272010-06-02T11:13:33.859-04:002010-06-02T11:13:33.859-04:00interesting. thanks.
joshinteresting. thanks.<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-86385496585422387972010-06-02T11:02:47.291-04:002010-06-02T11:02:47.291-04:00You are right about that fact that it is a brayta,...You are right about that fact that it is a brayta, and therefore tannaitic. My mistake. Interestingly, I found the following quote describing the evolution of scientific beliefs in Persia (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4o_YRth54O4C&pg=PA468&lpg=PA468&dq=sassanian+zoology&source=bl&ots=AE3MxFO1Qh&sig=EzGlbAoP9XsWp9hEUMJi2qFnH54&hl=en&ei=nW8GTJKtDIi80gSBpc2dDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=sassanian%20zoology&f=false) :<br /><br />Nevertheless, detailed descriptive and analytical works like those presented in the writings of the foregoing scientists, particularly Aristotle, have not been found in the fragments belonging to the pre-Sasanian period. However, under Sasanians (226-651 A.D.). when the works of the most famous writers of Greece, notably Plato and Aristotle, were translated at the University of Gondishapur into the Pahlavi language, Greek zoological philosophy was introduced to the Persian tradition. <br /><br />So it's perfectly plausible that Persian Amoraim would have been familiar with Pliny etc.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-35537955281751118812010-06-02T10:53:27.098-04:002010-06-02T10:53:27.098-04:00"Excellent post as usual."
thanks
"..."Excellent post as usual."<br />thanks<br /><br />"What needs to be ascertained is the extent to which 5th century Persians were aware of Pliny"<br />in general, yes, for statements by Amoraim. in this instance, it is a brayta, which is then Tannaitic. (i disagree with Neusner and those who follow him about dating even early statements at the latest possible date.) then, we are looking at Eretz Yisrael at about the same time as Pliny, rather than several centuries later in Persia. this would greatly increase the odds.<br /><br />there are other demonstrable cases of accord between statements of Chazal and those in Pliny. off the top of my head, the one about a (dead) human spine turning into a snake after seven years.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-22290371040723134922010-06-02T10:42:52.344-04:002010-06-02T10:42:52.344-04:00Excellent post as usual. You write that we should ...Excellent post as usual. You write that we should assume that Chazal's statements would be likely to comport with the scientific beliefs of the time. What needs to be ascertained is the extent to which 5th century Persians were aware of Pliny and other such works, or whether there are any sources that record contemporaneous Persian zoological beliefs.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59254958474554358542010-06-02T10:26:04.618-04:002010-06-02T10:26:04.618-04:00Thanks for the clarification.Thanks for the clarification.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-18043271504955755222010-06-02T10:00:24.736-04:002010-06-02T10:00:24.736-04:00"Superb post!"
Thanks!
"Or are you..."Superb post!"<br />Thanks!<br /><br />"Or are you saying it is a real creature, the owl, but chazal mistook it for a mythical creature?"<br />more like the latter. Chazal understood it to be an owl or owl-like creature, but were misled about this one aspect of the owl. Or else, as you write, they mistook it entirely for a creature that turns out not to be real.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-22894357885623405792010-06-02T09:49:40.003-04:002010-06-02T09:49:40.003-04:00Josh, if the stix is not a real creature then why ...Josh, if the stix is not a real creature then why is it in the Torah? Or are you saying it is a real creature, the owl, but chazal mistook it for a mythical creature?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49048530250062601662010-06-02T09:23:04.521-04:002010-06-02T09:23:04.521-04:00Superb post! Yasher koach.Superb post! Yasher koach.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.com