Sotah 31a ~ What Can a Fetus See?

In tomorrow’s post we will study an aggadic statement, that is to say, a homiletic teaching, that is not to be taken literally - or so one would think.  In that daf the Talmud discusses the miracles which occurred as the Children of Israel crossed through the parted waters of the Red Sea. Rabbi Meir taught that even a fetus in its mother's womb praised God, saying "This is my God and I will glorify him." Now we might have considered this a homiletic teaching that is meant to simply express a degree of amazement and thanks.  But the Talmud then asks a question that suggests Rabbi Meir meant what he said more literally:

סוטה לא, א

והא לא חזו! אמר רבי תנחום כרס נעשה להן כאספקלריא המאירה וראו

These fetuses in the womb could not see the Divine presence, so how could they sing praise? Rabbi Tanchum said: Their mother's abdomen became as clear as glass for them and they were able to see.

While Rabbi Tanchum suggested that it takes physical sight rather than emotional insight to see the divine, it turns out that the fetus can see - and hear, while still in the womb.

Increased Fetal Heart Rate in Response to Light

In 1980, two Israelis published a preliminary report on the response to light of ten fetuses between 38 and 43 weeks' gestation. They inserted an amnioscope through the cervix and shone a light into the womb for thirty seconds while monitoring the heart rate of the little fetus. They found that eight of the ten little fetuses had an acceleration of their heartbeat in response to the light. That's interesting you say, but hardly what Rabbi Tanchum was describing. And you'd be correct.  So let's turn to some other studies.

Increased Fetal Brain Activity in Response to Light

A review in the European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology published in 1996 was sceptical that the fetus could see much of anything while inside the womb: 

In utero visual stimulation appears to be very limited...in a dark room the amniotic cavity may be candled with a torch light, especially in the case of a polyhydramnios [an excess of amniotic fluid]. Measurements performed during rat and guinea-pig gestation have demonstrated that if only 2% of incoming light was transmitted in utero below 550 nm, this value increases with wavelength of the signal to reach 10% around 650 nm. Thus, a limited portion of external light may reach the human fetal retina when eyelids are open (this behavior starts at 20 weeks) or through the eyelids. 

But in 2003 a group of researchers from the United Kingdom (with apparently nothing else to do for amusement) built a light source from a "cardboard tube lined with non-conducting aluminised plastic, resulting in a light intensity of 1,100–1,200 Lux at the maternal abdomen as measured with a hand-held light meter." After an ultra-sound confirmed that the fetus was looking forward (really, they did this too) they turned the light on and off. And all this took place while the mother and her in-utero child were lying in a functional MRI scanner, which was used to look for activation of the little fetal brain in response to the light. Of the nine subjects they tortured in this way, one could not be analyzed due to motion, three did not show any significant activation, and five showed significant activation. Oddly, none of the fetal brains that responded showed any activation of the occipital lobe, that part of the brain in which the primary visual cortex is located and which responds to light.  Instead, it was the fetal frontal cortex showed a response to the light being shone.  Hmmm.

The Fetal Response to Sound

So much for vision. Researchers have also studied what - if anything - a fetus may be able to hear.  A group from Rambam Hospital and the Technion in Haifa studied the effect of music on fetal activity. Back in 1982 they took twenty pregnant women and played them either 25 minutes of nothing, or 25 minutes of classical or pop music through headphones. If you are wondering, the music was either a canon and songs composed by Pachelbel, or "the pop-hits of the [sic] Boney-M." (Give yourself an extra point if you can recall any of the pop hits of the Boney M.) Anyway, they played the music in random sequence and monitored the fetus for breathing and body movements.  They found that compared to no music, when music was piped into the mothers' ears there was a significant increase in the breathing movements of the fetus, but there was no difference between classical and pop music.  

“..it seems that the fetus moves into a more active state when music is played to the mother.”

— Zimmer, EZ. et al. Maternal Exposure to music and fetal activity. Europ. J. Obstet. Gyec. Reprod. Biol. 1982 (13) 210.

And remember the experiments with cardboard tubes shining light into the womb of forward facing fetuses? Well that same group also performed functional MRI scanning of the brains of a group of fetuses but this time they strapped "an MRI compatible headphone" to the maternal abdomen (or the maternal ears, as a control) and played 15 seconds of music. (The paper does not specify the kind of music that was chosen. I do hope it wasn't the Boney-M.) Five of the twelve fetuses that had music piped into their mother's abdomen showed activation of the temporal lobes, but despite this low number the authors enthusiastically concluded that their study showed "...that brain activity can be detected in response to stimulation prenatally..." 

“A ray of hope flitters in the sky
A tiny star lights up way up high
All across the land dawns a brand new morn
This comes to pass when a child is born”

— Boney M. When a Child is Born, 1981.

Giving Thanks - Thanksgiving

The Talmud describes how the Crossing of the Red Sea was a miracle of such extraordinary nature that even in-utero fetuses joined in singing a prayer of thanks with the Children of Israel. In his famous introduction to the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin, Maimonides describes how aggadah should not be taken literally. Instead, a deeper message should be sought. And so, over Shabbat, perhaps you can discuss what you are thankful for. For what blessings in your life might a fetus open its eyes and see, or say thanks while still in its mother's  womb? Now that I think of it, that's a question that everyone should answer.

“Human fetuses are, to a certain extent, able to memorize certain sensory properties...Despite the fact that they have only very short periods of wakefulness and that their brain is not mature enough to integrate sensory experiences, several experiments suggest that this does not prevent pre- and perinatal learning.”

— Lecanuet, J, Schaal B. Fetal Sensory Competencies. European Jopurnal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1996. 68: 1-23

The Nobel Prize, the Paratrooper, and the Maimonides Rule

Last year, we celebrated Yom Ha’atzmaut (Israel Independence Day) with a discussion of Israel’s many winners of the Nobel Prize. This year we will focus on just one of them, the economist Joshua Angrist.

Joshua Angrist.

Angrist was born in 1960, grew up in Pittsburgh, and from 1982-1985 he served in the Israel Defence Forces as a paratrooper. He then came back to the US where he earned a PhD from Princeton. (His thesis was on the Vietnam Draft Lottery.) He returned to Israel as a lecturer at the Hebrew University, and in 1996 he was appointed MIT's Ford Professor of Economics. He holds dual US-Israeli nationality, and has spent most of his career analyzing the economics of schooling and the effect of class size on academic achievement. One of his papers looks at the “Maimonides Rule,” named for, well, Maimonides, who apparently noted a correlation between class size and student achievement.

The Maimonides Rule

Angrist noted that the Talmudic sage Rava limited the size of a class of students to twenty-five. Any more than that, and the school must provide a second teacher:

בבא בתרא כא, א

וְאָמַר רָבָא סַךְ מַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי עֶשְׂרִין וְחַמְשָׁה יָנוֹקֵי וְאִי אִיכָּא חַמְשִׁין מוֹתְבִינַן תְּרֵי וְאִי אִיכָּא אַרְבְּעִין מוֹקְמִינַן רֵישׁ דּוּכְנָא וּמְסַיְּיעִין לֵיהּ מִמָּתָא

Rava said: The maximum number of students for one teacher of children is twenty-five children. And if there are fifty children in a single place, one establishes two teachers, so that each one teaches twenty-five students. And if there are forty children, one establishes an assistant, and the teacher receives help from the residents of the town to pay the salary of the assistant.

This ruling was later codified by Maimonides:

משנה תורה, הלכות תלמוד תורה 2:5

עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה תִּינוֹקוֹת לְמֵדִים אֵצֶל מְלַמֵּד אֶחָד. הָיוּ יוֹתֵר עַל עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה עַד אַרְבָּעִים מוֹשִׁיבִין עִמּוֹ אַחֵר לְסַיְּעוֹ בְּלִמּוּדָם. הָיוּ יוֹתֵר עַל אַרְבָּעִים מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶם שְׁנֵי מְלַמְּדֵי תִּינוֹקוֹת

[A maximum of] 25 students should study under one teacher. If there are more than 25, but fewer than 40, an assistant should be appointed to help him in their instruction. If there are more than forty students, two teachers should be appointed.

Angrist noted that Maimonides’ ruling leads to smaller class sizes and a lower student-teacher ratio, and that “this rule induces a nonlinear and non-monotonic relationship between enrollment size and class size.” Angrist used this rule as a basis for an investigation between the class size of fourth and fifth graders in Israel and the scores of their tests in math and reading. His work which you can read here, showed that reductions in class size induced a significant and substantial increase in reading and math scores.

“Besides being of methodological interest and providing new evidence on the class size question, these findings are of immediate policy interest in Israel where legislation to reduce the maximum class size is pending.”

— Angrist, J. D.; Lavy, V. (1999). "Using Maimonides' Rule to Estimate the Effect of Class Size on Scholastic Achievement". Quarterly Journal of Economics. 114 (2): 533–575.

Who would have thought that the Rava’s ruling as codified by Maimonides would play a role in the awarding of a Nobel prize to an Israeli ex-paratrooper?

Happy Yom Ha’atzmaut from Talmudology

Sotah 27 ~ When is a Woman Most Fertile?

Today's daf  has a gynecological theme. The Talmud describes a dispute about when a  woman is most fertile. One opinion is that "a woman only conceives close to her period"  (אין אשה מתעברת אלה סמוך לווסתה), and a second opinion is that "a woman only conceives close to her immersion in a mikvah" (אין אשה מתעברת אלה סמוך לטבילתה).  Today, we will figure out which of these competing medical theories is correct.

Medical students spend many hours learning the hormones whose rise and fall causes ovulation.  But understanding the ovulation cycle is the key to understanding this passage in the Talmud, so let's spend a paragraph on...

Ovulation in women

There are two important hormones that regulate ovulation in a woman. One is called Follicle Stimulation Hormone, or FSH. This is produced in the pituitary gland deep in the brain and it acts on the ovaries to produce follicles, which are little groups of cells that may produce an egg. Under the action of FSH, the ovaries produce many follicles, but usually only one will go on to produce and release an egg. (If more than one follicle releases an egg, and both are fertilized, the result is non-identical twins.)  

A sudden spike in FSH and another hormone called Luteinizing Hormone (LH) causes the winning follicle to release its egg, which floats down the Fallopian tube and into the uterus. If the egg meets a sperm cell, they unite and start down the pathway to producing a baby. But if no sperm cell is encountered, there is a drop in the level of two other critical hormones, progesterone and estrogen (also known as oestrogen for our British readers). This causes the lining of the uterus to slough off, and menstrual bleeding begins, until the whole cycle begins again.

Diagram from here.

Assuming a twenty-eight day cycle, the FSH-LH level peaks just before or around day fourteen, and these hormones trigger ovulation - the release of the egg from the ovaries - soon after.

“Scholars of the ancient world thought that menstruation represented an excess of blood from which the woman must periodically rid herself in order to cleanse her body from noxious substances. Only during the twentieth century has the scientific basis for the menstrual cycle and its hormonal relationships been clarified.”

— Avraham Steinberg. Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics. Feldehim 2003. Vol II p650.

Counting the Days to Mikveh

As outlined in the Torah (Leviticus 15:19), a menstruating woman is ritually unclean - Niddah - for seven days. After that she undergoes a ritual bathing in a mikveh, and she may resume physical and intimate contact with her husband. However the biblical seven day period was transformed in talmudic and later rabbinic tradition. The result was the addition of another (minimum) of five days to the length of time that a couple must abstain from physical intimacy. As a result, if we assume that day one of the onset of menstruation is the first day of the 28 day average menstrual cycle we discussed above, then the earliest day for a woman to immerse in the mikveh is on day twelve, or two days before ovulation is likely to occur.

The length of the menstrual cycle varies to a remarkable degree among different populations and in different age groups. In women age 19-41 in the US it varies from about 23 to 38 days (with a mean of 31 days.) In Danish women aged 20-35, however, the cycle is about 26-31 days, with a mean of 28 days. And each different cycle length will have its own ovulation day, and each varied ovulation day will affect the day on which conception is most likely.

Cycle length distributions for selected samples from various human populations. The numbers at the far left of each sample identify the corresponding sample and data. From Amy L. Harris & Virginia J. Vitzthum. Darwin's Legacy: An Evolutionary View of Women's Reproductive and Sexual Functioning, The Journal of Sex Research 2013. 50:3-4, 207-246.

The Timing of Sexual Intercourse and the Probability of Conception

The next issue in deciding which of the two opinions in today's page of  Talmud might be correct is this:  on which days around ovulation is a woman most fertile?  This question was addressed in a study published in the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine in 1995. The authors followed 221 healthy woman who were trying to become pregnant (for a total of 625 menstrual cycles!!).  The women kept records of when they had sexual intercourse, and their urine was tested for hormone metabolites to estimate the day of ovulation.  The study found that  "conception occurred only when intercourse took place during a six-day period that ended on the estimated day of ovulation." The authors note that couples who abstain from sexual intercourse until they have evidence of ovulation may miss the opportunity for conception.   

Probability of Conception on Specific Days near the Day of Ovulation.
The bars represent probabilities calculated from data on 129 menstrual cycles in which sexual intercourse was recorded to have occurred on only a single day during the six-day interval ending on the day of ovulation (day 0). The solid line shows daily probabilities based on all 625 cycles, as estimated by a statistical model. From Wilcox A. et al. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1517-21.

As you can see in the graph below, the day on which women are most likely to conceive is two to three days before ovulation. This is independent of their age.

Fertile window for four age groups. Probability of conception is highest for an act of intercourse occurring two days prior to ovulation. Redrawn from Dunson et al. (2002). Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Human Reproduction, 17(5), 1399–1403, and cited in Amy L. Harris & Virginia J. Vitzthum. Darwin's Legacy: An Evolutionary View of Women's Reproductive and Sexual Functioning, The Journal of Sex Research 2013. 50:3-4, 207-246.

The chances of conception on a random day

In a review of the variability in ovarian function, Amy Harris and Virginia Vitzthum from Indiana University note that although it is the case that the fertile window is fairly narrow (about six days, ending within 24 hours after ovulation) “it does not follow that the fertile window occurs during a narrow range of days during the menstrual cycle. To the contrary, because the timing of ovulation during a cycle is quite variable, women have a 10% or greater probability of being in their fertile window on every day from cycle days 6 through 21, and more than 70% of women are in their fertile window before cycle day 10 or after cycle day 17.”

So they plotted the probability of conception on each cycle day and then calculated the mean probability of conception (i.e., clinical pregnancy following a single act of unprotected intercourse on a random day). What they found was that the average probability during cycle days 7-14 was 25% higher than that during cycle days 14-21. The average probability during the first two weeks of the cycle was 16% higher than that during the next two weeks. “Furthermore, in that subset of women who reported having irregular cycles, a not uncommon pattern, the average probability during cycle days 7-14 is less than half of that during cycle days 14 to 21.”

“Among healthy women trying to conceive, nearly all pregnancies can be attributed to intercourse during a six-day period ending on the day of ovulation. ”

— Wilcox A. et al. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1517-21.

Panel A: The probability of ovulation by cycle day. Normal variation in the length of the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle: effect of chronological age.

Panel B: Daily probability of conception on each cycle day; mean probability of conception during cycle days 7 to 14= 6% and during cycle days 14 to 21 = 4.8%

Panel C: Daily probability of conception on each cycle day for women reporting regular cycles (thick line) and for those reporting irregular cycles (thin line); in latter sample, the average probability of conception during cycle days 7 to 14 is 2.5% and during cycle days 14 to 21 it is 5.8%.

Halakhic Infertility

Sometimes, a woman may be biologically fertile, but unable to conceive because of halakhic considerations. If a woman has a menstrual cycle that is shorter than the average 28 days (and about 20% of women have just that), or if a woman bleeds for more than 5 days (resulting in a longer Niddah time, in which the couple may not have intercourse,) then  - and pay attention to this - then ovulation takes place during the Niddah time. And if that happens, as we noted above, then conception is all but impossible. This might be called halakhic infertility, and it is more common than you might have thought.    

In a study of the prevalence of halakhic infertility in a population of ultra-orthodox Jews seeking help from a fertility clinic, a group from Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem studied 45 infertile women. They found that precoital ovulation was prevalent in one-fifth (21%) of the patients.  "Since not obeying the halachic code of conduct is non-negotiable, and in view of the void of halachic solutions, most couples (68%) seek medical advice and treatment."  Fortunately such treatment is available: taking an an oral estrogen can delay ovulation to after the time of mikveh, and allow intercourse to take place at a time when conception is more likely.  

“A fifth of infertile couples were diagnosed as suffering from infertility due to a religious rather than biological cause...This significant proportion of infertile couples who suffer from sociocultural infertility mandates special attention, primarily of the Rabbinate [sic] authorities.”

— Haimov-Kochman R. et al. Infertility associated with Precoital Ovulation in Observant Jewish Couples; Prevalence, Treatment, Efficacy, and Side Effects. Israel Medical Association Journal 14 (2011): 100-103.

Back to the Daf - Which Opinion is Correct?

Let's now return to the question with which we opened; which of the following two opinions is correct?

1. A woman only conceives close to her period(אין אשה מתעברת אלה סמוך לווסתה).

2. A woman only conceives close to her immersion in a mikvah (אין אשה מתעברת אלה סמוך לטבילתה).

The first opinion is most certainly not supported by modern medicine. The second opinion is often likely to be true, but - and this is a BIG BUT - only for women for whom both the menstrual cycle is not short and menstrual bleeding is not long. For a sizable number of women, conception is no longer possible when they are ready to go to the mikveh.

It is a remarkable fact (and one I have never seen addressed or even acknowledged) that orthodox Jewish practice has evolved to permit intercourse only in that part of the menstrual cycle which has a lower chance of conception. As a result, orthodox Jews have become in this respect, halachically subfertile. Fortunately that doesn’t seem to have made much of a dent in their rates of reproduction. “Being Orthodox” wrote Michelle Shain of the Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis, “increases the odds of having any births by a factor of 7.18 and, among women who have given birth, increases the expected number of births by a factor of 6.14.” Remarkably, this is in spite of, and not because of, the laws of ritual impurity that are a foundation of Jewish practice.

Mean expected number of births by age, education and Orthodoxy. From Michelle Shain, Understanding the Demographic Challenge: Education, Orthodoxy and the Fertility of American Jews. Contemporary Jewry 2019. 39: 273.

“Consultation with a Rabbinate [sic] authority was reported by 64% of women, but no halachic solution was provided to any of the applicants. ”

— Haimov-Kochman R. et al. Infertility associated with Precoital Ovulation in Observant Jewish Couples; Prevalence, Treatment, Efficacy, and Side Effects. Israel Medical Association Journal 14 (2011): 101.

Sotah 26 ~ When a Man (or Woman) Loves an Animal

First, A Warning

As we noted last year, the Talmud often discusses hypothetical cases. But not all unusual cases are hypothetical, even if they seem to be so. So please be advised that this post will discuss sexual relations between people and animals. If this is something that you would rather not read over breakfast, please skip this post, as well as page 26 of Sotah, (and pages 59a-b and bits of 63a of Yevamot).

This page of Talmud discusses details about bestiality, and whether a woman can undergo the Sotah orderal if she is suspected, not of adultery, but rather of bestiality, which is a legal a term for sexual relations between a human and an animal. (The preferred psychiatric term is zoophilia.) This ruling is derived from the Mishnah that we learned two days ago, which teaches that a husband cannot forbid his wife against seclusion “with one who is not a person [lit. a man].”

סוטה כו, ב

וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּהֵמָה, דְּאֵין זְנוּת בִּבְהֵמָה

On today’s page of Talmud, Rav Pappa suggests exactly what is meant by the phrase “with one who is not a person.”

Rav Pappa says: This serves to exclude an animal, as the concept of licentiousness does not apply with regard to an animal. Therefore, the halakhot of a sota do not apply in this case.

What about a Cohen?

In Yevamot we learned that according to Rabbi Shimi bar Hiyyah, a woman who had relations with an animal may marry a Cohen (though he does not clarify why the Cohen would want to marry such a woman). This is learned from that phrase again “one who is not a person.”

יבמות נט, ב

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: נִבְעֲלָה לִבְהֵמָה — כְּשֵׁרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: נִבְעֲלָה לְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אִישׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּסְקִילָה — כְּשֵׁרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה

Rabbi Shimi bar Hiyya said: A woman who had intercourse with an animal is permitted to marry into the priesthood. This is also taught in a baraita: If a woman had intercourse with one who is not a person, i.e., an animal, although she is liable to stoning if she did so intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who forewarned her of her punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood.

Moving right along, the Talmud in Yevamot then relates this very disturbing story:

מַעֲשֵׂה בְּרִיבָה אַחַת בְּהַיְתָלוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְכַבֶּדֶת אֶת הַבַּיִת, וּרְבָעָהּ כֶּלֶב כּוּפְרִי מֵאַחֲרֶיהָ, וְהִכְשִׁירָהּ רַבִּי לַכְּהוּנָּה. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וּלְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. בִּימֵי רַבִּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִי הֲוָה? אֶלָּא — רְאוּיָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל

There was an incident involving a certain girl [riva] in the village of Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village dog sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her to the priesthood,as she was not considered a zona. Shmuel said: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her even to a High Priest, as she was still considered a virgin. The Gemara is puzzled by this comment: Was there a High Priest in the days of RabbiYehuda HaNasi? Rather, Shmuel meant that she is fit for a High Priest.

Just to be clear: this incident is not cited as a hypothetical “what would happen if?” kind of case. It actually happened, or was believed to have been true.

It’s Time not to be WEIRD

Almost all of the readers of Talmudology, you included, are likely to have fall into the WEIRD demographic, where WEIRD stands for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic. But WEIRD people represent only about 12% of the current population of the world, and certainly did not exist during the era in which the Talmuds were written. To appreciate the rest of this post, we need to leave behind our WEIRD mindsets. Just because we can’t imagine, doesn’t mean it ain’t so.

The Case of William HAtchett

Buried in the Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England for 1642, just after the granting of 600 acres of land to a Mr. Stephen Day, and right before the authorization to publish some new law books, is the following sentence:

William Hatchet, for beastuality with a cowe, is condemned to bee hanged, and the code to bee slayne & burnt or buried

The historian John M. Murrin, in his classic paper Bestiality in Colonial America, described what happened next:

Only then did Hatchet confess "the full completing this foul fact, and attempting the like before." He became so penitent that his execution was postponed an extra week to let the grace of the Lord complete its work. "There is no doubt to be made but the Lord hath received his soul to his mercy," Winthrop affirmed.

In March 1643 the Court of Assistants sentenced an Irish servant, Teagu Ocrimi, to stand at the place of execution with a halter around his neck and to be severely whipped "for a foule, & divilish attempt to bugger a cow of Mr. Makepeaces."

Whether or not William Hatchet was really guilty of the crime is not known. Remember, he was tried by the same people who brought you the Salem witch trials, in which over two hundred people were accused of being witches. Nineteen were hung. But bestiality was certainly on the minds of the Puritan settlers of New England, and it is the topic of at least two fascinating scholarly papers (one here, the other here). John Carnup, the author of one of these papers noted that William Bradford (d. 1657) who served as Governor of Plymouth Colony for some thirty years

…was probably right in ascribing the greater evidence of bestiality in Plymouth to the magistrates' diligence in bringing the guilty to trial. And it is possible that the Puritans' intense biblical-mindedness, especially in their reading of Leviticus, encouraged them to detect and prosecute crimes that justices in England were more inclined to ignore. Two years after Samuel Danforth inquired into the cry of Sodom, a writer in England remarked that 'such crimes as these are rarely heard of among us.' Rarely heard of does not mean rarely committed. Bestiality may indeed have been a common practice among young men in England's rural areas, as Thomas Granger hinted when he confessed that he had acquired the habit from a man who, in turn, had picked it up among keepers of cattle in England.

But how widespread was this practice in the rest of the world?

“Bestiality - human sexual relations with animals, has been part of the human race throughout history, in every place and culture in the world.”

— Hani Miletski. A history of bestiality. In Beetz E.M. and Podberscek A.L. Bestiality and Zoophilia. Berg, 2009. 1.

Bestiality: A Very Short History

In the introduction to her article on the history of bestiality, Hani Milestski wrote that “most of the material reviewed and discussed is anecdotal, some is unbelievable, and occasionally authors provide conflicting data. It is important to take into consideration that some of the facts and views presented came from works that are questionable with regard to their validity.” All of which makes for a rather poor foundation on which to build an edifice known as history. But let’s go on.

Bestiality seems to have been part of the very earliest human activities. Among the many cave paintings found at Valcamonica in the Italian Alps paintings is one depicting a man having sex with a horse. The painting may date back to the Paleolithic era, some 8,000 years ago (although it may also be considerably younger, say only 4,000 years old).

Continuing with Dr. Miletski’s study of anecdotal and unreliable sources, she notes that “animal–human sexual contacts are occasionally portrayed on Egyptian tombs. Apparently, “Egyptian men often had sexual intercourse with cattle or any other large domesticated animal, while the women resorted to dogs.” Despite this, bestiality was punishable in Egypt, “by a variety of torture mechanisms, leading to death,” though we have no way to weigh the truth of her claim, based as it is on self-published monographs more than fifty years old. Meanwhile, in ancient Rome,

Emperors, such as Tiberius (AD 14–37), his wife Julia, Claudius (AD 37–41), Nero (AD 54–68), Constantinus (a.k.a. Constantine the Great, AD 274–337), Theodora (Emperor Justinian’s wife, AD 520s), and Empress Irene (AD 797–802), had been known to either engage in bestiality or enjoy watching others engage in bestiality..

We will skip over the records of bestiality in the Middle Ages. There are many of them (and there’s an entire book on Sex in the Middle Ages. It might make a nice Mother’s Day gift). Instead, let’s move to more recent research. One of the first modern studies on the phenomenon was performed by Alfred Kinsey. In his 1940 survey of American sexuality, he discovered that with about 8% of all men reporting a history of sexual activity with animals and nearly half of boys growing up on a farm reporting at least one episode of sexual activity with an animal. In women, 1.5% of respondents had sex with an animal before adolescence and 3.6% had sex with an animal after adolescence. Subjects reported that three-quarters of the animals in these encounters were dogs. “Kinsey's findings” wrote one psychiatrist, “seem to suggest that bestiality may be a relatively common phenomenon.”

Bestiality and Psychiatric Illness

Psychiatrists have also learned that bestiality, or better, zoophilia, is far more common in those with psychiatric illness than it is in the general population. In one 1991 study demonstrated a lifetime bestiality prevalence rate of 30% in a group of 20 randomly selected psychiatric inpatients as compared to 0% in control groups of 20 medical inpatients and 20 psychiatric staff. Before generalizing, remember that this study has a very small sample size “and did not consider the presence of active symptoms of mental or general medical illness such as delusions, disorganized thought process, manipulative personality traits, or delirium that may have influenced their results.” In other words, perhaps some of the patients were making the whole thing up. Another (multi center!) study revealed that zoophilia is also associated with penile cancer.

Before leaving the topic, we should take note of the fact that psychiatrists encounter zoophilia often enough for one of them to have developed a new classification of it. Subtypes include a “zoophilic fantasizer” who only dreams about it, a “regular zoophile” who might turn to humans when animals are unavailable, and perhaps scariest of all, a “homicidal zoophile” whose proclivities extend to preferring to have sex with dead animals over living ones.

From Aggrawal A. A new classification of zoophilia. J Forensic Leg Med 2011;18(2):73–8.

Sometimes that Talmud discusses cases that are most certainly hypothetical. And sometimes it discusses cases that might seem to our WEIRD minds only to be hypothetical, when in fact they do occur. And sometimes it is hard to tell which is which.

“וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּא אָדָם עַל כל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְלֹא נִתְקָרְרָה דַּעְתּוֹ עַד שֶׁבָּא עַל חַוָּה

And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with each animal and beast in his search for his mate, and his mind was not at ease, in accordance with the verse: “And for Adam, there was not found a helpmate for him” (Genesis 2:20), until he had intercourse with Eve.”

— Yevamot 63a.