Bechorot 7a ~ Pig x Sheep

This post is for the page of Talmud we will study on Friday.

(There’s a lot going on this week.)

On this page of Talmud there is a debate regarding the crossbreeding of different species, and the possibility that a non-kosher animal (say, a pig) could fertilize a kosher animal (like a sheep):

בכורות ז, א

והאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי לעולם אין מתעברת לא טמאה מן הטהור ולא טהורה מן הטמא ולא גסה מן הדקה ולא דקה מן הגסה ולא בהמה מן חיה ולא חיה מן בהמה חוץ מר' אליעזר ומחלוקתו שהיו אומרים חיה מתעברת מבהמה

...R. Yehoshua ben Levi said: A non-kosher female can never conceive from a kosher male, nor a kosher female from a non-kosher male, nor a large animal from a small animal, nor a small animal from a large animal, nor a domesticated animal from a non-domesticated animal, nor a non-domesticated animal from a domesticated animal, except for R. Eliezer and his disputant [in Chulin 79b], who claimed that a non-domesticated animal can conceive from a domesticated animal...(Bechorot 7a)

Here is the Talmud in Bava Kama that records that view of “R. Eliezer and his disputant.”

בבא קמא עז, ב – עח, א

ואמר רבא זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר שה אינו אלא להוציא את הכלאים ...אמר לך ר"א כי איתמר דרבא לטמא שנולד מן הטהור ועיבורו מן הטמא...וטהורה מטמאה מי מיעברא אין דקיי"ל דאיעבר מקלוט 

Rava said this establishes a model and teaches that wherever the term שה [seh] is stated in the Bible, it is meant to exclude a hybrid... R. Eliezer would say to you  - when did Rava state his model?  With respect to a non-kosher animal that was born from a kosher mother and a non-kosher father...But can a kosher animal conceive from a non-kosher animal? Yes, for it has been established that this case refers to a kosher animal that was conceived from a [kosher mutant animal that was] born with uncloven hooves. (Bava Kamma 77b-78a)

A pig in sheep's clothing? Nope. Just a pig.

Here the Talmud claims that a non-kosher animal (say, a pig) could not fertilize a kosher animal (like a sheep). If an animal appears to have the features of a sheep-pig cross-breed, it is, in fact, the offspring of a kosher animal that is breed with another kosher animal but which looks non-kosher because of a mutation that causes it to have non-cloven hooves. Here is that case:

k= kosher; m= mutant, born with non-cloven hooves

Which leads to the question of the day: Can a kosher animal indeed successfully breed with a non-kosher animal? Let's take a look.

When a pig loves a sheep

Pigs have been known to act, well, like pigs, and copulate with sheep. But could this lead to a baby peep, or ship, or whatever you'd like to call it? There are pictures that suggest this may be so, but in actual fact this pig with wool is the rare Hungarian Mangalitza pig, and has no sheep ancestry.  

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Foster Dwight Coburn, a farmer who also served as the secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture published Swine in America; a text-book for Breeder, Feeder and Student, and on page 63 he made the following observation: 

There exists in some sections of Old Mexico a type of “hog” represented as the product of crossing a ram with a sow, and the term “Cuino” has been applied to this rather violent combination. The ram used as a sire to produce the Cuino is kept with the hogs from the time he is weaned. A resident of Mexico has given the following description of the Cuino: “The sow used to produce the Cuino belongs to any race, but as a rule to the Razor-Back family, which is the more numerous. There is never any difficulty with her accepting the ram when breeding time comes. The progeny is a pig—unmistakably a pig—with the form and all the characteristics of the pig, but he is entirely different from his dam if she is a Razor-Back. He is round-ribbed and blocky, his short legs cannot take him far from his sty, and his snout is too short to root with. His head is not unlike that of the Berkshire. His body is covered with long, thick, curly hair, not soft enough to be called wool, but which nevertheless he takes from his sire. His color is black, white-black, and white-brown and white. He is a good grazer and is mostly fed on grass with one or two ears of corn a day, and on these he fattens quickly. The Cuino reproduces itself, and is often crossed a second and third time with a ram. Be it what it may, the Cuino is the most popular breed of hogs in the state of Oaxaca, and became so on account of their propensity to fatten on little food.”

It may have been the most popular pig breed in Oxaca, but it was still rather an oddity in the US; newspapers found them interesting, as evidenced by two reports, from 1902 and 1908 about sheep-pig hybrids.  

The Minneapolis Journal, September 24, 1902, from here.

Los Angeles Herald. October 3, 1908, from here.

Species and interbreeding

Despite these reports, it would seem that the rule suggested by R. Yehoshua ben Levi is correct. Different species cannot successfully interbreed, because, well, because that's the definition of a species, as the Oxford English Dictionary makes clear:

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

So although it is a tautology, you get the idea: a species by definition can only breed with other members of its own species. If a pig and a sheep could breed and have offspring, they'd be members of the same species. But they are not. Pigs belong to genus Sus, and the species Scrofa, whereas sheep belong to the genus Ovis and the species Aries. Pigs have 38 chromosomes, and sheep have 54.  So they cannot cross-breed.  (Lions and tigers both have 38 chromosomes, so they can cross breed, and produce a liger.)

But it's not as simple as that.  Even if you don't have the same number of chromosomes, you can still sometimes breed outside your species. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Yet they can cross breed, resulting in a mule (if mom was a horse) or a hinny (if mum was a donkey), although both are nearly always sterile. Horses belong to the genus Equus and the species ferus, and donkeys belong to the same genus but to a different species, africanus.  Yet they can interbreed.  Which raises the question: should a horse and a donkey be re-classified as belonging to the same species? But that would be odd, because they look so different and act in very different ways.

These kinds of questions  are perplexing, and have challenged the world of biology since the time of Carl Linnaeus (d. 1778) who gave the world a way of categorizing and naming all living things called binomial nomenclature. Briefly it goes like this: the grey wolf belongs to the genus Canis and the species lupus.  Dogs belong to the same genus, Canis, and are a subspecies of wolves, so their scientific name is Canis lupus familiaris (which I suppose makes it a trinomial nomenclature).  We belong to the genus Homo and the species sapiens, whereas chimpanzees belong to a different genus and species, Pan troglodytes. Anyway just what gets a creature into one species class or another is a really challenging question, one that is still being played out in the scientific literature. There's even a 320 page book from the University of California Press in which the author "provides a new perspective on the relationship between philosophical and biological approaches" to the concept of a species. For now, though, R. Yehoshua ben Levi's generalization found in Bechorot is pretty close to the Linnaean taxonomy we use today.  We can also conclude that the general rule of the Talmud from today's daf, that a kosher animal could not successfully breed with a non-kosher one, is a pretty good rule of thumb.

“Every living thing loves its like,
and every person his own sort.
All creatures flock together with their kind.”

— Ecclesiasticus, 13:15.

[Repost from Bava Kama 77.]

Talmudology on the Parsha, Ha’azinu ~ Shabbat Shuva and Pandemic Behavior

As we speed towards Yom Kippur, we encounter the poetic parsha of Ha’azinu. It is a fire and brimstone poem, in which God threatens his people with all kinds of misfortunes because they abandoned his teachings:

דברים 32:15

וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ן יְשֻׁרוּן֙ וַיִּבְעָ֔ט שָׁמַ֖נְתָּ עָבִ֣יתָ כָּשִׂ֑יתָ וַיִּטֹּשׁ֙ אֱל֣וֹהַּ עָשָׂ֔הוּ וַיְנַבֵּ֖ל צ֥וּר יְשֻׁעָתֽוֹ׃        

So Jeshurun [i.e. Israel] grew fat and kicked—
You grew fat and gross and coarse—
They forsook the God who made them
And spurned the Rock of their support.

It is within this context that we read the verse on which we will focus our attention:

32:25 דברים

מִחוּץ֙ תְּשַׁכֶּל־חֶ֔רֶב וּמֵחֲדָרִ֖ים אֵימָ֑ה גַּם־בָּחוּר֙ גַּם־בְּתוּלָ֔ה יוֹנֵ֖ק עִם־אִ֥ישׁ שֵׂיבָֽה׃        

The sword shall deal death without,
As shall the terror within,
To youth and maiden alike,
The suckling as well as the aged.

The rabbis of the Talmud used this verse as a proof text for al ruling about behavior during a pandemic:

בבא קמא ס,ב

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דֶּבֶר בָּעִיר – כַּנֵּס רַגְלֶיךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתֶּם לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ עַד בֹּקֶר״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״לֵךְ עַמִּי בֹּא בַחֲדָרֶיךָ, וּסְגוֹר דְּלָתְךָ בַּעֲדֶךָ״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״מִחוּץ תְּשַׁכֶּל חֶרֶב, וּמֵחֲדָרִים אֵימָה״.

The Sages taught: If there is plague in the city, gather your feet, [i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house,] as it is stated in the verse: “And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning” (Exodus 12:22). And it says in another verse: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by” (Isaiah 26:20). And it says: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror” (Deuteronomy 32:25).

STAY Home

The Talmud has brought three proof-texts that support the advice to stay indoors during a pandemic. In the opening words of this important passage, the Talmud reverses what came to be the standard medical practice of isolating the sick. Instead, it isolated the healthy. Of course, the effect is the same: there is no contact between those who are ill and those who are well, but since there are usually many more healthy people than there are sick, the effort and social disruption of isolation of the former will be much greater.This talmudic intervention is also one that is now all too familiar to us from the widespread lockdowns and stay-at-home orders that began in 2020 during the COVID- 19 pandemic.

…Or don’t stay home

The talmudic advice to stay at home during an epidemic outbreak was ignored by later commentators and those who wrote the halakhic codes of Jewish law. commentators on the Talmud added their own rulings about social isolation during a pandemic. The Polish exegete Rabbi Shmuel Eidels known by his acronym as Maharsha (1555– 1631) wrote that the rabbis of the Talmud could not have been suggesting that one should not flee from the locus of a pandemic.

This is certainly not the case, because if there is an outbreak of plague in a town it is best to leave and flee for one’s life. Rather, the intent of the Talmud is that if one cannot flee, then do not go outside into the streets.

The Maharsha’s ruling was precicely the opposite of that in Bava Kamma.

In true talmudic fashion, this comment of the Maharsha was itself commented on by a later rabbi, Yosef Hayyim from Baghdad (1835– 1909) who is better known by the title of his major work on Jewish law, Ben Ish Hai. In his commentary on the Talmud, he wrote that

the words of the Maharsha are only applicable to [bubonic] plague. But in the case of cholera, even when arrangements could be made to care for a sick person at home, it is best to flee the city. Because cholera also frightens a person, and he can be consumed by the illness on account of this fear . . . Therefore it is best to flee far away so that his ears cannot hear and his eyes cannot see the sickness that rules over everyone, lest he be overtaken with fear, and he himself be taken, God forbid.

Several other medieval commentators ruled like Maharsha. They include Rabbi Ya’akov ben Moshe Moellin (c. 1365– 1427) who is better known by his acronym Maharil; the Polish Rabbi Shlomo Luria (1510–1573), better known as Maharshal, (who descended from a family line that it was claimed could be traced back to Rashi, and whose mother was herself a Talmudist of some repute); The Sefer Hasidim (The Book of the Pious), a collection of folk stories, customs, and ethical adjurations that originated in the German Jewish community around Regensberg in the thirteenth century; and the Polish Rabbi Moshe Isserles (1530– 1572), known as Rema. Without doubt the work of his that had the greatest influence on Ashkenazi Jewry was his gloss on the Shulhan Arukh, which had been written by a Sephardic Jew, Joseph Caro (d. 1575). Isserles’ gloss is the authoritative reference work for Ashkenazi Jews. Less well known is the fact that as a young man, the Rema Isserles had himself fled from a plague. Here is his description of what had happened.

I Moshe, (son of my father the honorable benefactor and leader Israel, may he live long) called Isserles from Krakow, was exiled having left our city in [5]‌ 316 [= 1556] because of the polluted air (may it not befall us). We were sojourners in a land that was not ours in the city of Shidlov which has neither figs nor vines and there is barely any water to drink. . . we could not celebrate [the minor festival of] Purim with the usual joy and happiness. In order to remove the sadness and dejection I resolved to stand and take pride in my creativity, for my wisdom helped me . . . and so I decided to investigate and expound on the meaning of the Megillah [The Book of Esther].

Minghag becomes normative law

In what he described as a self- imposed exile, Isserles wrote a book called Mehir Yayyin [The Cost of Wine] which was published some three years later in 1559.This experience surely played a part when he wrote a legal commentary called Darkhei Moshe [The Paths of Moses]. He cited Maharil, of course, but then quoted a rather unexpected source. It was from the Zohar, the central mystical text of the kabbalah, which had been printed for the very first time in 1558, the year before Isserles fled from the epidemic in Krakow.

. . . It is likewise written in Zohar, Parashat Vayera Elav, that one should flee the city. And even though the Talmud states, “If there is plague in the city, gather your feet” [i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house,] it seems to me that fleeing is certainly better, but if one can go inside and not leave [he need not flee]. If this is not possible, he is required to flee. And the custom of Israel is Torah [i.e., this custom is now normative law].

Martin Luther and Muslim Law on Fleeing

To put the writings of Moshe Isserles, Maharil and Maharshah into context, we should pause to consider the work of the German priest Martin Luther (1483–1546). It is of course well known that Luther was, even by the standard of his own day, virulently anti- Semitic. However, his thoughts on fleeing from a pandemic allow a comparison across very two religious traditions.

In the summer of 1527, bubonic plague struck northern Germany and despite an order to leave, Luther stayed to minister to the sick. He then published a pamphlet titled On Whether One Has To Flee Death [Ob man fur dem sterben fliehen muge], which proved to be very popular; it was published in four separate editions in 1527 alone, and there were a further eleven editions over the next several decades. Luther adopted a position that was quite different from the Jewish responsa of the time, for he wrote that not all who flee from a pandemic acted correctly. Only some had. The decision depended both on who the person was and the degree of faith they possessed. “Christ does not want his weak ones to be abandoned,” he wrote, citing the New Testament.Luther made it clear that it was forbidden to flee if the goal was disobedience to God’s word or command. But if the motive was to avoid infection, some leaders might be able to flee if others remained to minister and to keep social order. Otherwise, abandoning the local community [Gemeinda] was a great sin. Luther cited the biblical story of Abraham “who feared death and escaped it [furcht er den Tod und floch yhn] through pretending Sarah was his sister.

Muslims, or at least Ottoman Muslims, also adopted a theological stand in which fleeing from a plague was acceptable. It is still a point of academic debate as to how much Muslim law permitted these actions. But regardless of the finer points of Muslim law, during the 1604 outbreak of plague in Constantinople, the Muftis fled, like everyone else.

Why Bother to flee?

What lay at the core of these rulings, which ever way they went, was the belief that pandemics are a divine response to human sin. If falling ill was a punishment, then what sense did it make to flee, as if by doing so, God could no-longer find you and strike you with bubonic plague or diphtheria?

This is also the central message of the Book of Jonah that we read in the afternoon of Yom Kippur. There is no escaping God’s presence, and no escaping his justice. On this Shabbat Shuva, what better message could there be?

Shabbat Shalom from Talmudology

Chullin 134b ~ The Right. Always to the Right

חולין קלד, ב

ת"ר (דברים יח, ג) הזרוע זה זרוע ימין אתה אומר זה זרוע ימין או אינו אלא זרוע שמאל ת"ל הזרוע

The rabbis taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg…” (Deuteronomy 18:3)…is this the right foreleg, or is it only the left foreleg? The verse states: “The foreleg.” The definite article indicates that the verse is referring to the right foreleg.

מאי תלמודא? כדאמר רבא ’הירך’ - המיומנת שבירך. הכא נמי הזרוע - המיומן שבזרוע

But how is it understood from the definite article that the verse is referring to the right foreleg? It is derived like that which Rava said with regard to the verse: [“Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve which is upon the hollow of the thigh”(Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is referring to the most important thigh. Here too, the definite article in the term “the foreleg” indicates that the verse is referring to the most important foreleg, i.e., the right foreleg.

But why did the rabbis derive that “the most important” thigh is the right one? Why not the left one?

Let’s take a trip into the worlds of comparative religion, chirality, astronomy, and neuroscience to find out.

The importance of the right side in Judaism

In the Talmud and in normative Jewish practice, the preference to favor the right over the left is everywhere. Here are just a few. (How many more can you think of?)

• When walking up the ramp to the top of the Altar in the Temple, the Cohen must make a right turn at the top. Following that, every turn he makes must be a right turn. (זבחים נד,ב)

• Actually, the entire service in the Temple in Jerusalem must be performed with the right hand. (ביאת המקדש 5:18 )

• Rav Ashi rules that Tefillin must placed it on the left arm, because it is weaker than the right and the action of placing them should be performed with the stronger right hand (מנחות לז, א).

• The Talmud teaches that a right-handed person who writes with her left hand on Shabbat has not violated the prohibition against writing. It doesn't count. Maimonides (הלכות שבת 11:14) agrees:

הַכּוֹתֵב בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ אוֹ לְאַחַר יָדוֹ בְּרַגְלוֹ בְּפִיו וּבְמַרְפֵּקוֹ פָּטוּר

• According to Rava, walking should start with the right leg, and not the left (יומא יא, ב)

• The rite of חליצה must be performed with the right leg and a right shoe (יבמות קד, א).

• The mezuzah can only be placed on the right side of the door (רמבם הל׳ מזוזה 6:12).

• The best student of a rabbi should walk on the rabbi's right side, relegating the second best to the left (יומא לז, א).

• After observing his teacher Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva taught that the left hand should be used after using the bathroom, out of respect to the right hand (ברכות סב,ב). When challenged as to why Rabbi Akiva was impertinent enough to report on which hand his teacher wiped himself he replied תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך - "this too is Torah, and I must study it".

“לֵ֤ב חָכָם֙ לִֽימִינ֔וֹ וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִ֖יל לִשְׂמֹאלֽוֹ׃

A wise man’s mind tends toward the right hand, a fool’s toward the left.

”

— Kohelet 10:2

It's not Just Judaism

1. Islam

The importance of all things right handed is found in other religions. For example, when Muslims perform any of the following, it is mustahabb [مستحبّ‎, - "recommended"] to start on the right or use the right hand.

• putting on one's garment and pants and shoes

• entering the mosque, using the siwaak [ a kind of toothpick]

• putting on kohl [an ancient blue eye cosmetic]

• clipping the nails

• trimming the mustache

• combing the hair plucking the armpit hair

• shaving the head

• saying salaam at the end of prayer

• washing the limbs when purifying oneself

• exiting the toilet, eating and drinking

• shaking hands

• touching the Black Stone [ٱلْحَجَرُ ٱلْأَسْوَد‎, al-Ḥajaru al-Aswad, a rock set into the eastern corner of the Kaaba, the ancient building located in the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Legend has it that the rock dates back to Adam and Eve.]

• Conversely, the Bukhari Sharif , one of the six major hadith collections of Sunni Islam rules along the lines of Rabbi Akiva:

"... when you urinate, do not touch your penis with your right hand. And when you cleanse yourself after defecation, do not use your right hand."

“The right hand of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was for his purification and food, and his left hand was for using the toilet and anything that was dirty... ”

— Sunan Abi Dawood (33)

2. Christianity

• In the New Testament, Jesus sits at the right hand of God. The Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas who worked to synthesize Aristotelian philosophy with the principles of Christianity (and in that respect was a kind of Maimonides of the Church,) explained at some length how the notion of the right or left hand of God can have any meaning since God is incorporeal. (Spoiler alert: it is all metaphorical.)

• Those at prayer make the sign of the cross with their right hand.

• When Jesus is depicted in sacred images giving out blessings, he does so with his right hand raised.

• When genuflecting, it is the right knee that is bent while the left hip is extended, "because genuflecting on the right knee is a sign of worship and is reserved for God alone."

3. Hinduism

• Offerings, such as flowers or garlands, are carried with both hands on the right side of the body.

• "Pointing with the forefinger of the right hand or shaking the forefinger in emphasis while talking is never done. This is because the right hand possesses a powerful, aggressive pranic force, and an energy that moves the forces of the world."

• Vāmācāra ( वामाचार, meaning "left-handed attainment" in Sanskrit) describes the "Left-Hand Path" or "Left-path" It is used to describe a particular mode of worship that is heterodox to standard Vedic teachings.

• In Benares, the holiest of the seven sacred cities and sitting on the Ganges, "pilgrims circumambulate with their right hands towards the center, as Krishna is alleged to have done at the sacred mountain."

Well, you get the point.  Judaism, along with all the major religions (and some you've never heard of) emphasize the dominance of the right hand in all things holy. Or mundane.

“The Ngaga of southern Borneo believe everything in the after-world is reversed, “sweet” becoming “bitter”, “straight” becoming “crooked”, and “right” becoming “left”. Likewise the Toraja of Celebes (Sulawesi) believed the dead do everything backwards, even pronouncing words backwards... the dead therefore use their left hand...”

— I. C. Mcmanus. Right Hand, Left Hand: The Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Cultures. Phoenix 2003, p27.

 and It's not just religions

There are lots of things that have chirality - meaning they have a mirror image but cannot be mapped onto that mirror image by rotations and translations. They exist in left or right-handed versions. Let's start with in easy example. Um, your hands. Although your right hand mirrors your left, your right hand cannot (comfortably) fit into a handed-glove.

From here.

Here's another example. Bend your fingers and extend your thumb as in the figure. You've made two mirror images that cannot be mapped onto each other. (Go on. Give it a try. See what I mean?) That's chirality.

If we extend this to molecules, they are left or right-handed, meaning they are mirror images but they cannot be superimposed on each other. These are isomers. Like this:

From here.

And here is where things start to get really weird. Nearly everything in the universe - from chemicals and medications to fundamental particles and even galaxies themselves have a right-handed or left-handed preference. No, really. 

Let's start with the essential building blocks of life: amino acids and sugars. Almost all amino acids (not you, glycine) used by life on earth (but not necessarily elsewhere in the universe) are left-handed.  Right-handed amino acids exist of course. They're just not utilized by any life form on earth. Any.  If you sit in a lab and cook up an amino acid from its ingredients, you will make an equal amount of the left and right handed variates. That's just good old chemistry at work. But life on earth can only use half the mixture: the L form. Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.

Like amino acids, sugars also come in two isomers, but those that are used by life forms on earth are the right-handed variety. All the enzymes that living things use to manipulate amino acids and sugars only work on left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars. They simply can't use the opposites. Why did life turn out this way? Truth is, nobody knows.  

Medications also exhibit chirality. For example, propranolol is commonly used to help control high blood pressure. Some of you reading this may be taking it. The left form (L-propranolol) is the one that helps. The right form (known as D-propranolol) is inactive. (The Latin for left and right is laevus and dexter, respectively.)

Quinine is an antimalarial drug. It has an isomer called quinidine, and quinidine has no anti-malarial action. But it's a great drug to reduce arrhythmias of the heart. One compound, with two isomers, each with their own remarkable and very different healing properties.

Now consider muons, a fundamental particle in our universe. It is kind of like an electron, but about 200 times heavier. Muons have an average life-expectancy of 2.2 microseconds (so don't expect any kind of long-term relationship) after which time they decay into an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino. The direction that the electron will come out depends on the direction in which the muon spins. Now you would expect there to be equal amounts of electrons that are ejected spinning one way or another. But there aren't.  What happens is that 99.9% of muons decay in a right-handed fashion.

And while we are on the subject of decaying muons, let's talk about those neutrinos, which are a weird fundamental particle with the smallest mass of any known thing. They too, have a preference for the right or left. All neutrinos are left handed, while all anti-neutrinos (whatever that means) are right handed.

Left and right handed galaxies. From here.

Ready for more? Statistically speaking our universe should contain an equal amount of left and right handed galaxies (as noted in how they spin). But this does not occur. In an analysis of over 2,600 nearby spiral galaxies and a later analysis of 15,000 more, Michael Longo demonstrated that that left-handed spirals are more common in the northern hemisphere, above the northern galactic pole. And although the signal is less strong, right-handed spirals appear more frequently in the south.

It's good to be a leftie

About 10-13% of humans are left-handed. (Captive chimpanzees are more left-handed than us, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of righties to lefties. In us it's more like 8:1) But aside from the problem of not finding scissors that work for you, being a leftie gives you some pretty good advantages.

“...not only left-handers are over-represented in confrontational sports, but the closer the physical interaction of the opponents such as in boxing, fencing, judo, or karate, the greater the prevalence of left-handers. In basketball, football, handball, table tennis, tennis, and volleyball, for instance, competitors stand some distance apart and do not confront directly. But even in these sports, there are more than the expected number of left-handers...”

— Grouios G. et al. Do left-handed competitors have an innate superiority in sports? Perception and Motor Skills, 2000:90;1273-1282

At the undergraduate level they are more likely to take part in a whole range of events, from judo and fencing and soccer and volleyball. But when it comes to non-confrontational sports like cycle racing, running or swimming, the proportion of left handers fall back to that of the general population. Lefties make up about 10% of the population, but 23% of all Wimbledon tennis champions were lefties.

There is a lot more evidence that lefties have many advantages over (us) righties. In a complicated test of spatial skills which you can read about here, 47 lefties demonstrated faster and more accurate spatial skills than the 50 righties, along with strong executive control and mental flexibility. And in this study of 100 lefties and 100 righties, the left-handed demonstrated greater creativity than the right-handed on all 4 scales of the Torrance test which examines creative thinking.

And lefties appear to be smarter that righties.  In a study of some 300 gifted children, left (or mixed-handedness) occurred more frequently in those who were mathematically or verbally precocious (for our readers in the US, this meant an SAT-M score of more than 700 and an SAT-L score of more than 630). Of the last 15 US presidents, seven (about 47%) have been left-handed.  That's almost 1 in 2! Oh, and compared with righties, college-educated left-handers in the US earn 10-15% more.

“Leonardo da Vinci was a lefty, as were Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein.”

Despite these, and many other advantages, our cultures have stigmatized those who are left-handed. We all know that the word sinister (meaning something harmful or evil is going to happen) comes from the Latin sinister meaning left.  But there are more examples of anti-left associations in other languages too. Adroit, meaning clever or skillful comes from the French word for right droite, meaning dextrous. In German, linkisch means awkward, and it comes from the German links, meaning left. And so it goes on.

Back to the Jewish Bible

Left-handed people are mentioned only three times in Tanach, and all come from the tribe of Benjamin:

• There were the 700 men from the tribe of Benjamin who could use a sling with deadly accuracy (שופתים 20:16):

מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה שְׁבַ֤ע מֵאוֹת֙ אִ֣ישׁ בָּח֔וּר אִטֵּ֖ר יַד־יְמִינ֑וֹ כָּל־זֶ֗ה קֹלֵ֧עַ בָּאֶ֛בֶן אֶל־הַֽשַּׂעֲרָ֖ה וְלֹ֥א יַחֲטִֽא׃

• There were the ambidextrous men who came to fight for King David at Ziklag, who were from the tribe of Benjamin (דברי הימים א, 12:2)

נֹ֣שְׁקֵי קֶ֗שֶׁת מַיְמִינִ֤ים וּמַשְׂמִאלִים֙ בָּֽאֲבָנִ֔ים וּבַחִצִּ֖ים בַּקָּ֑שֶׁת מֵאֲחֵ֥י שָׁא֖וּל מִבִּנְיָמִֽן׃

• And perhaps most famously there was the left-handed Ehud ( אֶת־אֵה֤וּד בֶּן־גֵּרָא֙ בֶּן־הַיְמִינִ֔י אִ֥ישׁ אִטֵּ֖ר יַד־יְמִינ֑וֹ) who assassinated the Moabite king Eglon (שופתים 3:12-30). Because Ehud was left-handed he hid his dagger on his right side. In this way he got past the body search outside the throne room, where the guards looked for a weapon on the left. As for the rest, well, read on:

• וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח אֵהוּד֙ אֶת־יַ֣ד שְׂמֹאל֔וֹ וַיִּקַּח֙ אֶת־הַחֶ֔רֶב מֵעַ֖ל יֶ֣רֶךְ יְמִינ֑וֹ וַיִּתְקָעֶ֖הָ בְּבִטְנֽוֹ׃ וַיָּבֹ֨א גַֽם־הַנִּצָּ֜ב אַחַ֣ר הַלַּ֗הַב וַיִּסְגֹּ֤ר הַחֵ֙לֶב֙ בְּעַ֣ד הַלַּ֔הַב כִּ֣י לֹ֥א שָׁלַ֛ף הַחֶ֖רֶב מִבִּטְנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצֵ֖א הַֽפַּרְשְׁדֹֽנָה׃

  Reaching with his left hand, Ehud drew the dagger from his right side and drove it into [Eglon’s] belly. The fat closed over the blade and the hilt went in after the blade—for he did not pull the dagger out of his belly—and the filth came out.

All of this is really strange because of course the name of this tribe  - Benjamin - literally means "the son of the right" בן ימין.  

Back to Chhulin

Today's daf yomi page of Talmud has a very short instruction. Give to the priests the most choice of meat cuts: those from the right leg of the animal. But this phrase reveals a profound truth about who we are as humans, and of the very stuff from which we are made.  In culture after culture, in religion after religion, and in the very structure of our universe, there are left or right-handed preferences and predilections, many of which we simply cannot currently explain. Our religious and cultural preferences for the right likely stems from the simple fact that left-handedness is eight times less common. Unfortunately, a suspicion of the other, of those who are not like the majority, is a common trait that in one way or another we all share. But it needn't be so. The other, those in the minority, teach us and enrich our lives. Heck, they are often even smarter and quicker than the majority.  We are all better off with them.

[An oldie but a goodie originally posted here.]

On the Healing Power of Honey, and Happy Rosh Hashanah

Tomorrow evening (or later today if you are in Australia) we will welcome in the start of the Jewish New Year. Among the many traditional foods that are eaten, honey features prominently. Many of us will dip our apples and our challah in it, as we symbolically wish for a sweet new year (and let’s face it, we really need one of those). So in honor of Rosh Hashanah, let’s dig into the Talmudology archives and talk about…honey.

In the Talmud we learn that aside from being delicious, honey was once used as a salve to heal a wound:

שבת עז,ב

דְּבַשׁ כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן עַל הַכָּתִית. תָּנָא: כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן עַל פִּי כָתִית. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: ״עַל כָּתִית״ — אַפּוּמָּא דְּכוּלַּהּ כָּתִית, אוֹ דִילְמָא אַמּוּרְשָׁא קַמָּא דְּכָתִית, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הוּדְרָנָא דְּלָא — תֵּיקוּ

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out honey is equivalent to that which is used to place on a sore caused by chafing. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: The precise measure is equivalent to that which is placed on the opening of a sore, i.e., on the wound itself. Rav Ashi raised a dilemma: Does the term on a sore mean the measure of honey spread on the opening of the entire sore; or, perhaps it means the measure spread on the primary protuberance of the sore, to the exclusion of the surrounding area upon which he does not spread honey? No resolution was found for this dilemma either. Therefore, let it stand unresolved.

But elsewhere in the Talmud, honey was considered to be bad for a wound:

בבא קמא פה,א 

כדתניא הרי שעבר על דברי רופא ואכל דבש או כל מיני מתיקה מפני שדבש וכל מיני מתיקה קשין למכה והעלה מכתו גרגותני יכול יהא חייב לרפאותו ת"ל רק

It was taught in a Braisa: If the victim of an assault disobeyed the advice of his doctor and ate honey or all types of sweets - and this violated his doctor's instructions because honey and all types of sweets are harmful for a wound - it could be thought that the assailant is still obligated to heal the victim. Therefore the Torah uses the word רק (only) to teach otherwise...(Bava Kamma 85a)

Secretions of the honey bee. From Israili, Z. Antimicrobial Properties of Honey. American Journal of Therapeutics 2014. 21; 304–323.

But certainly according to the Talmud in Shabbat, honey was considered to be beneficial. In fact honey has been used as a medicine for at least the last 3,000 years.  And as we will see, honey has some quite amazing therapeutic uses.

FROM WHERE DOES HONEY COME?

The honeybee is the only insect that produces food eaten by humans. Here is what happens: The female honeybees use their proboscis (a tube-like tongue) to up suck flower nectar and mix it with their saliva and enzymes. Then they store it in a honey sack. Back at the hive, the mixture is regurgitated into cells, dried to about 16% moisture, and stored as a primary food source. As you might expect, the content of the honey depends on a number of factors including the species of bee, the kind of flowers on which they fed, and the conditions in which the honey was stored.

Honey as an Antibiotic

In a review article that focuses on the antimicrobial properties of honey, Zafar Israili from the Emory School of Medicine noted that a large number of laboratory and clinical studies have confirmed the broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties of honey.  These include antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, and antimycobacterial.  “Honey,” wrote Israili, “was found to be an effective topical treatment for ringworms, athlete’s foot, jock itch, nail fungus, and yeast infections and reported to be comparable to many over-the-counter antifungal preparations.” These properties are likely due to the honey’s acidity, osmotic effect, high sugar concentration, and the presence of chemicals like hydrogen peroxide, antioxidants, and lysozymes.  

Honey contains more than 600 compounds (you can see a list of them here), and the wound healing properties of honey are probably its oldest and best studied medicinal property.  It has been shown to aid wound healing in conditions such as chronic pressure sores, traumatic and diabetic wounds, diabetic foot ulcers, boils, burns, fistulas, necrotizing fasciitis, and a very nasty condition called Fournier’s gangrene. (That's necrosis of the scrotum. Yes, quite gross.) So in contrast to the advice of the talmudic doctors that "honey is bad for an injury", honey turns out to be rather good for wounds, especially when applied directly to them.  But honey isn't just good for wounds...

“There is a large body of evidence to support the use of honey as a wound dressing for a wide range of types of wounds. Its antibacterial activity rapidly clears infection and protects wounds from becoming infected, and thus it provides a moist healing environment without the risk of bacterial growth occurring. It also rapidly debrides wounds and removes malodor.”

— Molan, PC. The Evidence supporting the use of honey as a wound dressing. Lower Extremity Wounds 2006. 5 (1); 52.

Your Mother was correct

A 2012 study from physicians at the Sackler School of Medicine in Tel Aviv tested the effects of honey on nocturnal cough and sleep quality.  They enrolled 150 children age 1-5 years (and presumably, their tired and exasperated parents) and half an hour before bedtime, gave half of them “a single dose of 10g of eucalyptus honey, citrus honey, or labiatae honey,” and the other half a placebo. (In case you were wondering, as was I, as to what the placebo was, here’s the answer: date extract, “because its structure, brown color, and taste are similar to that of honey.” True enough.) What they found might change the way you treat your own cough this winter. Each of the three honey groups had a better response compared with the date extract, and no significant differences were found among the different types of honey. The authors concluded that honey may be preferable to cough and cold medications for childhood respiratory infections. 

The effect of different types of honey and date extract on cough frequency (I), cough severity (II), cough bothersome to child (III), the child’s sleep (IV), parent’s sleep (V), and combined symptoms score (VI). P <0.05 for the comparisons between group D and the other groups. A, eucalyptus honey; B, citrus honey; C, labiatae honey; D, silan date extract. From Cohen, AH. et al. Effect of Honey on Nocturnal Cough and Sleep Quality: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study. Pediatrics 2012. 130 (3); 465-471.

Honey as a Medicine for Pretty much everything

There are dozens of other medical conditions for which honey may be used. Here is what the review from Israili has to say:

Honey has been reported to be of benefit in a large number of human pathologies including allergy, asthma, bronchitis, common cold, flu, hay fever, nasal congestion, rhinitis, sinusitis, upper respiratory infections, sore throat, cough, fatigue, anxiety, migraine (stress related), cuts, lacerations, burns, wounds (venous, arterial, diabetic, malignant), pressure ulcers, malignant ulcers, perianal and gluteofemoral fistulas, bed sores, adult and neonatal postoperative infections, necrotizing fasciitis, pilonidal sinus, insect bites, infections (bacterial including antibiotic-resistant strains and fungal), septicemia, conjunctivitis and other eye diseases, endophthalmitis, acne, chronic seborrheic dermatitis, dandruff, eczema, psoriasis, inflammation, gingivitis, stomach ache, stomach ulcers, digestive disorders, constipation, vomiting, diarrhea, colitis, dehydration, diabetes, osteoporosis, insomnia, chronic fatigue syndrome, anemia, hypertension, immune disorders, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, hepatitis, tumors, cancer, and radiation/chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis.

You'd have to check the references and decide if the evidence supports claims like this. But in any event, this list supports the observation in the Talmud that honey was used to heal wounds. If only it helped heal the present pandemic.

***

Want more Talmudology on honey? Click here on how to melify a corpse, and honey as a preservative. But don’t share it when your’re eating, ok?

***

SHannah TovaH From Talmudology