Yevamot 16a ~ Copernicus is the Firstborn of Satan

On today’s page of Talmud, Rav Dosa calls his brother Yonatan a little devil. Literally:

יבמות טז, א

אָמַר לָהֶם: אָח קָטָן יֵשׁ לִי, בְּכוֹר שָׂטָן הוּא, וְיוֹנָתָן שְׁמוֹ, וְהוּא מִתַּלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי

I have a younger brother who is the firstborn of the Satan, and his name is Yonatan, and he is among the disciples of Shammai…

Rashi explains that he meant this in a good way:

בכור שטן הוא: חריף ועומד על שמועה ועושה מעשה ואינו שב משמועתו לעשות כרבים

The first born of Satan: He is very sharp. He stands by what he teaches, and doesn't give in to the majority…

which is why the Schottenstien Talmud translates the phrase as “he is a first-class adversary.”

Following Rashi’s lead, many other commentators explain that the phrase “firstborn of the Satan” is really a compliment. It means clever, or crafty, or, as we might say today, “devilishly clever.” But that is not how it was used by Tuviah Cohen, the seventeenth century physician who wrote an important encyclopedia called Ma’aseh Tuviah.

Tuviah Cohen

We learned about Tuviah in a previous post, which you can read here. To recap, Tuviah studied in a yeshivah in Cracow, and at the age of twenty-six, entered the University of Frankfurt, where he began to study medicine. Despite being taken under the wing of Fredrick William, the elector of Brandenburg, and receiving a stipend from him, anti-Jewish sentiment prevented Tuviah from graduating. As a result, he left for the University of Padua, where he graduated with a degree in medicine in 1683 and soon found employment as a physician in Turkey. He published his only work, Ma’aseh Tuviah (The Work of Tuviah), in Venice in 1708 and moved in 1715 to Jerusalem, where he died in 1729.

Portrait of Tuviah Cohen, from his work  Ma’aseh Tuviah, Venice, 1708.

Tuviah Cohen has long been a favorite of historians of science and Judaism. Perhaps this is because he was a reformer of sorts, ready to sweep away old superstitions and replace them with scientific knowledge. Perhaps it is because his book, Ma’aseh Tuviah, was “ ... the best-illustrated Hebrew medical work of the pre-modern era,” full of wonderful drawings about astronomy and anatomy. Perhaps it is because his book is so clearly printed and a pleasure to read in the original. Or perhaps it is because Cohen was so adamantly opposed to Copernicus that he called him the “Firstborn of Satan”—which made his the first Hebrew work to attack Copernicus and his heliocentric system.

Front page of the first edition of Ma’aseh Tuviah, Venice 1707.

Tuviah’s Famous Encyclopedia

Tuviah painfully remembered one particular area in which he lacked knowledge: the discipline of astronomy. It was astronomy that the Talmud considered to be the example par excellence of Jewish wisdom that would be acknowledged by Gentiles. Examining the verse “For this is your wisdom and understanding among the nations” [Deut. 4:6], the Talmud had concluded that it referred to “the calculation of the seasons and the constellations,” that is, the ability to create an accurate calendar and to forecast the positions of the stars and planets. Tuviah was especially troubled by the taunts that Jews had no proper astronomical understanding, given the pride of place of astronomy in the Talmud. He recalled his days in the university:

We would undertake long debates with us every day about questions of belief, and would many times embarrass us asking “where is your wisdom and understanding—it has been taken from you and given to us!” Although we were knowledgeable in Bible, Talmud and Midrashim, we were like paupers when we debated them. This is why I became a zealot for the Lord and swore that before I died I would neither sleep nor rest until I had written a work that included knowledge and skills...for although we walk in this dark and bitter exile God has been our light and there are still wise and learned men among us. . . .

He therefore addressed this topic in detail in his encyclopedic Ma’aseh Tuviah.

The first depiction of the heliocentric system in Hebrew literature. From Ma’aseh Tuviah, Venice, 1708, 50b.

Copernicus is “the Firstborn of Satan”

Which brings us, finally, to the phrase on today’s page of Talmud. Tuviah’s section on astronomy included the first depiction in Hebrew literature of the new(wish) heliocentric model of the universe, first published by Nicolas Copernicus in 1542. But having explained the new model (which by then was nearly two centuries old) he rejected it in favor of the traditional earth centered or geocentric model. And he did so with an unforgettable chapter title:

Chapter Four.
Bringing all the claims and proofs used by Copernicus and his supporters

showing that the Sun is at rest and the Earth is mobile;

and know how to refute him, for he is the Firstborn of Satan.

Is it possible that since the phrase could be taken as a backhanded compliment, Tuviah also meant it that way? One historian, Noah Rozenbloom, believes that this may indeed be the case. He suggested that Cohen may actually have been a secret admirer of Copernicus, and that the name “Firstborn son of Satan” should not be understood as an affront. 

Although Rozenbloom’s suggestion is an intriguing possibility, it is highly unlikely that Tuviah Cohen was a closet Copernican. The entire structure of the chapter (as well as its very title Olam Hagalgalim—The World of the Spheres) demonstrated Cohen’s allegiance to the old Ptolemaic system in which the earth was stationary, and he laid out several objections to the Copernican model. Tuviah was not a closet Copernican. But he was certainly persistent in his opposing the new astronomy. He was gifted, and refused to be swayed by others. Perhaps, then, it is Tuviah who should be given the accolade “the firstborn of Satan.” In a good way, of course.

[Want to read more about Ma’aseh Tuviah? Checkout Chapter Five of this book.]

Yevamot 15a ~ The Aylonit & Turner’s Syndrome

Today’s page of Talmud reveals an intimate medical detail about one of the daughters of Rabban Gamliel. She was an aylonit:

יבמות טו, א

בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאַיְלוֹנִית הֲוַא

Earlier in this tractate, Rav Assi ruled that if a woman is an aylonit, she exempts her co-wife from the ritual of yibbum:

יבמות יב, א

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: צָרַת אַיְלוֹנִית אֲסוּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד״ — פְּרָט לָאַיְלוֹנִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת

Rav Asi said: The rival wife of an aylonit is forbidden.

Rashi (loc cit) explains the nature of the aylonit (basing his explanation on the Talmud in Ketuvot):

אילונית: דוכרניתא דלא ילדה לשון איל זכר מן הצאן

Aylonit - she is known as a duchranita, and is infertile.As if she is a ram [דכר is the Aramic translation of the Hebrew word איל– a ram] which [being a male] cannot give birth"

And so today on Talmudology we will examine the science behind the aylonit syndrome.

“ איילונית - אין לה לא קנס ולא פיתוי
​ There is no fine for the rape or seduction of an Aylonit

”

— Ketuvot, 36a

Aylonit Syndrome

An Aylonit is a woman who is congenitally unable to have childern.  In the fifth chapter of Niddah (47b) the Mishnah describes the signs which suggest that a woman is an Aylonit:

תלמוד בבלי נדה דף מז עמוד ב 

...בת עשרים שנה שלא הביאה שתי שערות, תביא ראיה שהיא בת עשרים שנה - והיא איילונית, לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת

A woman who is twenty years old and has not grown two pubic hairs..is classified as an Aylonit...

In tractate Ketuvot (11a), the Talmud suggests the etymology of the word Aylonit:  "איילונית - דוכרנית דלא ילדה - an Aylonit [is given this name] as if she is a ram [דכר is the Aramic translation of the Hebrew word איל– a ram] which [being a male] cannot give birth." This is where Rashi got his explanation on today’s daf.

Later in Yevamot (80b) the Talmud gives four other signs of this condition, which are codified by Maimonides:

רמב"ם הלכות אישות פרק ב הלכה ו 

ואלו הן סימני אילונית, כל שאין לה דדין, ומתקשה בשעת תשמיש, ואין לה שיפולי מעיים כנשים, וקולה עבה ואינה ניכרת בין איש לאשה

These are the signs that a woman is an Aylonit: She has not developed breasts, she has difficulty during sexual intercourse [that is, she has a diminished libido], the mons pubis is lacking, and she has such a deep voice that it is indistinguishable from that of a man...(Mishneh Torah, Hil. Ishus, 2:6)

There are many reasons for a woman to be infertile, but because the Talmud lists a number of signs other than infertility, we are able to narrow down the possible causes in the special case of the Aylonit. As many have previously noted, the cause of the Aylonit is likely to be what, (since 1938) we now call Turner's Syndrome.  

Turner's Syndrome

In 1938 an American endocrinologist names Henry Turner published a paper describing a newly observed syndrome in seven female patients. (A syndrome is a series of medical abnormalities which occur together.) It consisted of a triad of infantilism, a webbed neck, and a deformity of the elbow. It was found only in female patients, and was associated with delayed or absent sexual development. We now know (and Turner did not) that it is caused by a genetic aberration in which the patient has a missing X chromosome. Instead of carrying 44 regular and two X chromosomes, a woman with (what we now call) Turner's Syndrome has one missing X chromosome. (It gets a little more complicated: in some cases of Turner's Syndrome the woman has only part of one of the X chromosomes missing. And in others, the women's cells contain a mixture of both normal - 45XX - and abnormal - 45X - chromosomes. This is called mosaicism. But let's keep our focus.)

Sex chromosome analyses in Turner's Syndrome.  Here the 22 pairs of autosomes are grouped according to size and the sex chromosomes placed at the end; in this case, there is only one X chromosome.  From Saenger and Bondy. Turner Syndrome. In Sperling M. (ed.) Pediatric Endocrinology. Pittsburgh PA, Elsevier 2014.

Turner's Syndrome occurs in about 1 out of every 2,000 live-born girls. In addition to infertility in most, there are liver problems, high blood pressure, cardiac disorders and various metabolic disorders. Most of the girls with Turner's Syndrome have skeletal abnormalities and a short stature. In girls with the 45X variant, there is ovarian failure and hence infertility, although the cause is not yet clear.    

The variable appearance of Turner syndrome. Both of these 7-year-old girls with short stature have the 45X variant of Turner syndrome. The girl on the left was diagnosed at birth due to prominent neck webbing and low-set and posteriorly rotated ears. She also has micrognathia and a low posterior hairline. In contrast, the girl on the right was diagnosed at age 7 due to short stature without “classical” stigmata of Turner syndrome, and she is more typical of the clinical presentation of the majority of girls with Turner syndrome diagnosed in the 21st century.  From Saenger and Bondy. Turner Syndrome. In Sperling M. (ed.) Pediatric Endocrinology. Pittsburgh PA, Elsevier 2014. 

“Girls and women with Turner syndrome may have low self-esteem and more shyness and social anxiety than controls. In a population-based study of 566 French women with Turner syndrome, low self- esteem was associated with hearing impairment and limited sexual experience, whereas age at first sexual intercourse was related to age at puberty and paternal socioeconomic class.”

— Levitsky, L. Turner Syndrome. Current Opinion Endocrinology, Feb 2015

A study of Polish women with Turner's Syndrome, found that these women had less "...interest in males, less frequent sexual activity, later initiation of sexual life and a less frequent orgasm rate." Other studies found that women with this syndrome were less likely to establish a relationship with a partner, and were less sexually active than women from the general population. All this suggests that the Talmud's description in which they suffer from "difficulties during intercourse" (מתקשה בשעת תשמיש) may be correct.   

Let's remember that behind these scientific findings are real women with the same range of  sensitivities, feelings, hopes and aspirations as those of us who have two functioning sex chromosomes.  Let's give the last word to Harley Gould, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health:

“Moreover, it is important to remember that society continues to dis- criminate against people that are different, and that being short, or infertile, or looking different impose quite a social burden on individuals... Our demonstration of very similar academic, employment...suggests that genomic imprinting of X-linked genes has little to do with functioning in school or socially...We would like to add to that concept the positive observation that many individuals with Turner Syndrome display excellent coping skills, including perseverance in the face of adversity and equability of temperament.”

— Harley Gould et al. High Levels of Education and Employment Among Women with Turner Syndrome. Journal of Women's Health 2013. 22:(3) 230-235.

Rabbinic Philosophies and the Scientific Method

Last time on Talmudology

Although permitted by Jewish law, in Victorian Britain it was illegal for a man to marry his dead wife’s sister – though many did.  There were attempts to change the law and permit this kind of marriage, but many in the Church of England remained opposed. Writing in 1887 in The British Medical Journal, an anonymous surgeon claimed that science could provide support for the permissive movement. But we now know that the science he offered (that all future children of a woman, regardless of the father, carry the traits of the man who first impregnated her) is wrong. This shows that science changes. But if science changes, what should we do when it seems to challenge Jewish tradition? 

What is stuff made of?

Several years ago, I had the pleasure of studying science with my then 13-year-old daughter Ayelet. She was preparing for a test, and the subject was “Atomic Structure.” Here is some of the content she shared with me: (Read it through - it's really not scary.)

(All slides courtesy of Berman Hebrew Academy, 8th Grade Science Class)

So to sum it up, Ayelet taught me that in addition to the model of Aristotle, we've had at least five explanations of what stuff is made of:

why don't kids reject science?

Now here is a fascinating thing. My daughter had no existential breakdown when she realized that the way scientists understand the world changes over time. She did not once say to me “Scientists are useless. They change their minds all the time. They must have no idea what they are talking about. I’m done with learning science…” Not even close (though, by the end, she was most certainly done with studying for her science test). Let's compare this attitude towards the changing nature of scientific knowledge with that of some Jewish thinkers, past and present.  

reuven landau & foucault's pendulum

Let’s start with someone who is not well known (unless you read the book).  Reuven Landau (d. 1883?) wrote strongly against the Copernican model of the solar system in which the sun is stationary and the earth revolves around it.  But in 1851 Foucault demonstrated with his pendulum that the earth really was revolving, (though it didn’t prove that it revolved around the sun). What to do with this evidence? Landau had no doubt. Science was fickle and changed all the time, so don’t worry about it.

Although the astronomers of our time pride themselves on finding a compelling demonstration that the earth moves by using the pendulum, you should dismiss this too. For it has happened many times that an earlier scientist proved a point beyond a doubt using an unequivocal demonstration, and yet a later one came and disproved that which was established earlier, including the [previously] convincing demonstrations, and showed a new explanation for the findings...

This skepticism about accepting the results of the famous pendulum experiment reflected Landau's attitude towards science in general, which can be best summed up like this. Since all scientific theories are in a state of constant flux, it's best not to pay too much attention to them. When Jewish beliefs are challenged by science, take the long view; in doing so, tradition will ultimately be vindicated. (His view was actually more nuanced than that, insofar as he was willing to quote from the science when it supported his anti-Copernican position, but criticized the same science as being fickle when it proved to be problematic.) 

Rav Kook 

Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the first chief rabbi of Palestine, is thought to have welcomed science as a tool to understudying God's universe. While this is generally correct, (he was famously sympathetic to Darwin's theory, though in none of his writings does he mention Darwin by name,) Rav Kook cautioned against accepting  all scientific theories "...even those about which there is general agreement, for they are like a fading flower (כי הן כציץ נובל). Soon enough new instruments will be developed, and people will mock these new theories . . . only the word of our God will last forever." Because scientific theories come and go so quickly, Rav Kook felt it was best not to get too attached to them.

The Ben Ish Hai

Joseph Hayyim (1834–1909) was born in Baghdad, where at the age of twenty-five, he succeeded his father as leader of the Jewish community. He authored a work that is widely read by Sephardic Jews to this day called Ben Ish Hai, but it was in another work that he advanced an example of extreme rabbinic skepticism towards science.

Even when [a scientific idea seems] persuasive, it is likely to be rejected and overturned, because later enlightened people will come to understand something that arises from the natural world that had not been understood by those earlier. [These earlier people] had invented their own system based on their understanding. When an objection to an earlier system arises, the entire system is destroyed, because when a foundation is destroyed the whole house crumbles...Over the last two thousand years a number of systems have been developed and overridden in the fields of natural sciences and astronomy. One builds and another destroys, like the building of [the Egyptian cities of] Pitom and Ramses. 

Note the language the Ben Ish Hai uses here.

“When an objection to an earlier system arises, the entire system is destroyed, because when a foundation is destroyed the whole house crumbles.”

But is this a fair description of the scientific method? Did Bohr's atomic model (work for which he won the Nobel prize in 1922) really destroy the entire edifice of physics, or did it nudge it closer to the truth? 

Pinhas hurwitz & Sefer Haberit

Sefer Haberit is probably the best selling Jewish book of science ever written. First published anonymously in 1797, it remains in print to this day.  Its author, Pinhas Hurwitz from Vilna, wrote the book in two parts; the first was a scientific encyclopedia dealing with what he called human wisdom, and the second part dealt with divine wisdom, (and was ostensibly focussed on explaining a sixteenth century kabbalistic work by Hayyim Vital).  

Hurwitz cautioned against ever accepting any particular scientific theory.  His notion of the way science changes is certainly not as extreme as that of the Ben Ish Hai, but it placed him in a rather odd situation. Hurwitz didn't much like the new Copernican model of the universe with the earth revolving around the sun, but neither could he go back to the old geocentric model. So in the spirit of compromise he suggested following the model proposed by Tycho Brahe some two centuries earlier, the details of which need not detain us.  But Hurwitz knew that this model had been utterly discredited in the scientific community. No problem, wrote Hurwitz, because science is always changing its mind.  Perhaps one day this old discredited model will come back into favor, and when it does, it will pose less of a problem for traditional Jewish belief than the current widely accepted Copernican model.

. . . who knows if at a later time or in one of the many future generations that will come after ours, [Tycho's discredited] theory may be accepted. Then it may become permanently accepted, for this is the way among the Gentiles that some opinions have their moment. At times they are rejected and at other times they are accepted. Even if a theory is rejected from its very inception . . . eventually there may arise a person who adopts the theory and succeeds in spreading it across the entire world...  

So according to Hurwitz, it made sense to accept a discredited theory that supported his notion of Jewish belief, because one day, perhaps, the scientists will go back to believing what they now reject as false.  It is as if today, we claimed that it's perfectly reasonable to believe the world is flat, because that was once an accepted belief, and who knows, perhaps one day scientists will return to the flat-earth theory and believe once again that it is a true description of the world.

The Maharal of Prague

Another Jewish skeptic of science is the great Rabbi Judah Loew (d.1609), known by his acronym Maharal. In a long essay he contrasted knowledge attained from observation of the universe and knowledge obtained from Jewish tradition.  The former is constantly changing, and inferior to the unchanging wisdom received through divine revelation.

 ... the [Gentile] nations want nothing more than to become wise through this knowledge, and indeed they became expert in this field of knowledge, as all know. Yet there always came other experts afterwards who overturned the knowledge that they had worked so hard to attain...However the Sages of Israel who received their information from Moses at Sinai—and who himself received this from God—are the only ones who alone possess the Truth...

Note that the Maharal made an expansive claim (and one that was very popular circa 1580): all true knowledge comes from religion  - or more precisely - from the rabbis. He did not say that the rabbis provided spiritual insights while "experts" (who we'd call "scientists" today) provided insights into the physical universe. Rather he claimed that truth can only come from the "Sages of Israel who received their information from Moses at Sinai".  As a consequence, scientists really have no seat at the table when we discuss knowledge.  

rabbi moshe meiselman

The last example we will look at is a contemporary figure, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman. His recent book states that he "was trained by some of the great names in mathematics, philosophy and the sciences at two of America's premier universities." Great! Rabbi Meiselman has studied outside of the walls of the Jewish ghetto - something the Maharal could not do, even if he had wanted.  So we should expect a fresh and sophisticated approach from a rabbi who gets science, right? Wrong.

Science has no sacred cows. Over the past hundred years, scientific theories have changed with unprecedented rapidity. Whoever weds his belief system to any particular scientific theory will soon find that system outdated and will be forced to look for a new one... (585)

Rabbi Meiselman here has the same old understanding of science as the Ben Ish Hai. When a new scientific theory replaces an older one, everything comes crashing down and we are left wandering in search of something new to grab on to. Elsewhere though, he sounds more like the Maharal, who objected to scientific hubris, and reminded us that science can make no truth claims, for these are reserved for the rabbis.

[A]t every juncture, just as soon as the dust of the latest revolution has settled, one inevitably finds scientists claiming that the ultimate secrets often universe have finally been unlocked and that there are few surprises left in store...Absolute truth has been attained! (584)

Now in fairness to Rabbi Meisleman, elsewhere in his long book he shows a better understanding of the  scientific method.

Science, when properly understood, lays no claim to the knowledge of truth. It embodies the search for theories that approach the truth. It inches in the direction of truth, but it never claims to be in possession of that precious commodity. (579)

Which is it then, Rabbi Meiselman? Do scientists claim to have attained the Truth (as he writes), or rather are they engaged in a process that brings us ever closer to this goal without their having arrived (as he also writes)? His is a a peculiar mix of positions. (You can read other critiques of Rabbi Meiselman's book here and here.)

Got a spare five minutes? Great, then we can go a little deeper, and see why these rabbinic philosophies don't really reflect what science is all about. To do that, let's consider the truth claims of the following pairs of scientific statements. 

1. The earth is flat vs The earth is round.

Both of these statements are incorrect. The earth is actually an oblate spheroid, that is, a globe which is slightly flattened at the poles.  But the statement "the earth is round" is much closer to the truth than the claim that "the earth is flat."  

 

 

2. All matter consists of just four elements vs  All matter is made up of just electrons and protons.

Again, both are false, but the second statement is a lot less false than the first. Matter is certainly not just made up of  the four elements of earth, air, fire and water. But it's also not just made up of electrons and protons; matter is now known to be made up of neutrinos and muons, and up quarks and down quarks and charm quarks and who what knows other kinds of elementary particles still waiting to be discovered. The second statement is truer that the first, but physicists would not claim that it's the last word on the subject.  

3. Vitamins prevent cancer vs vitamins don't prevent cancer

Here is starts to get complicated. While some studies are pretty conclusive (no-one really suggests that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer) other scientific claims seem to change over time. For example, the relationship between vitamins (especially vitamin D) and cancer is one that we have had different scientific answers to at different times. In 1999 the N-HANES study of over 5,000 women followed for twenty years reported that vitamin D was associated with a reduction in breast cancer. Then in 2007 the Journal of the National Cancer Institute looked at a group of 36,000 women in the Women's Health Initiative.  It reported that there was no effect of vitamin D on the risk of breast cancer. Today, the official position of our National Cancer Institute is this: it still isn't sure if there is any association.

And now a forth scientific claim, this time from the field of mathematics

4. In a right angleD triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

This theorem (like all mathematical theorems) is true in a special way. So long as we're talking about two dimensional geometry, then this theorem will be true in all possible places in the universe; it was always true in the past, and it will always be true in the future.  That's what makes a mathematical theorem true in a different way from a medical truth, or a truth about the physical universe.  The latter two may be partially true, or true of the basis of the best equipment we have available, but these are not true in the way that the Pythagorean theorem is true.  

KINDS OF SCIENCE

So there are different kinds of scientific claims, some of which are more true than others. And scientific progress advances in different ways depending on which area of knowledge we are addressing.  These differences were not noted by any of the rabbinic critics we've cited above, but once understood, they allow us to appreciate that science can make different claims over time and that some of these can change without the entire scientific enterprise being called into question.

One last thing- be careful of any appeal to relativism. It could be argued that each of the rabbis we cited (well, other than Rabbi Meiselman) lived at a time when these subtleties were not appreciated. As a result we should not be a harsh judge of their philosophies of science, which just reflect the way people thought at that time.  I am sympathetic to this claim, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable explanation of how they may have arrived at their opinions. But if these rabbis were just reflecting the way everyone thought when they lived, we are most certainly not bound to consider these opinions as anything other than of  historical  interest.  And since we now know differently, we can ignore these rabbinic opinions as we forge our own Jewish philosophies towards science.  If, on the other hand, the claim is made that these rabbis were reflecting a profound Jewish Truth that will remain so for ever, well, then we have a problem. Because you are then forced to reject the science, and end up arguing for all kinds of things we know are simply not true.

One other last thing. This is not a claim that science is the only path to knowledge, happiness and enlightenment.  I am not suggesting anything like that.  Steven Pinker argued for something  along these lines in the pages of The New Republic (ז'לֹ), and Leon Wieseltier wrote a persuasive  response, both of which are well worth reading.  (I find myself more sympathetic to the latter than the former.) But when it comes to scientific questions, well, that is where science does, perhaps know best.

“Science confers no special authority, it confers no authority at all, for the attempt to answer a nonscientific question.”

— Leon Wieseltier

where we've been

We noted that 130 years ago the laws of Yibbum were explained with a scientific fact that today we know is incorrect. This example raises the possibility that the scientific enterprise is only ever tentative and should be best ignored when it seems to raise questions about Jewish teachings. But that doesn’t really capture the way science progresses. We examined six rabbinic understandings of the philosophy of science, and noted that they do not capture the different meanings we have when we way that something is a fact of science. 

We need some new Jewish philosophies of science. They must take into account these different meanings, and need to be more sophisticated than the rabbinic understandings that we examined. There have been some really good efforts to address this area (like here and here and here), but more work needs to be done.  Who wants a shot?

Happy Purim ~ “I am my own Grandpa”, plus Gender Fluidity, Male Lactation and Mordechai

This year, the study of tractate Yevamot coincides with the festival of Purim. This means that the following video is required viewing today. Sit back, enjoy, and see if you can follow along.

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

---