Aaron Levy of London, Long Zanvil of Australia, and the 27,000 Mile Mission to Obtain a Get

גיטין ב,א

המביא גט ממדינת הים צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם

If an envoy brings a Get to Israel from abroad, he must declare "it was written in my presence and signed in my presence" (Gittin 2a)

The Neptune, a convict ship that brought prisoners to Australia.

In the first chapter of Gittin, we have been addressing the laws that apply to an envoy (שליח) who is charged with bringing a Get, a Jewish Bill of Divorce, to a woman living overseas.  Such cases were clearly prevalent, so much so that they open this tractate, devoted to the rules of divorce.

For many hundreds of years, these messengers carried out their religious duties and delivered the Get, but did so without much recognition in our literature.  Today, one such envoy will be recognized for perhaps the most arduous trip ever undertaken to deliver a Get. That trip, which began in 1830, was from London to Sydney, Australia, and back again. It covered over 27,000 nautical miles and took close to thirteen months. The trip is detailed in Jeremy Pfeffer's book From One End of the Earth to the Other, from where the following information is taken. 

Rabbi Aaron Levy of Lissa

The envoy who undertook this daunting trip was Aaron Levy, born in 1795 in western Poland. He arrived in London in 1811, where he taught in cheder and worked as a calligrapher and sofer. At the time, many convicted of crimes were sentenced to exile in Australia. Of the Jewish population of Australia, which numbered about 1,550, about 44%  - some 684 (!) - were convicts. Rabbi Levy was to find one of those convicts - a serial counterfeiter who used many aliases - by the name (or rather a name) of  Samuel Levi. Levi had been sentenced to death in London for repeated crimes of  counterfeiting, but the sentence had been commuted to transportation for life in 1808.  Samuel had left behind his wife in London, and now, after some 29 years of marriage, she wanted to obtain a Get and divorce him. Here is the charge to Levy, as recorded in the notes of the London Bet Din:

On 23rd Menachem Av 5590 [August 12, 1830] there appeared before us...a woman Mindela who is commonly known as Minka bat Yehuda Leib, and she appointed R. Aaron ben R. Yehuda of Lissa to be her agent to receive a Get from her husband Samuel who is commonly known as Long Zanvil ben Mordechai ben Meir who lives in Sydney on the sea coast in the State of South Wales...And let it be known that after discussing the matter the Gaon, Head of the Bet Din, and the Bet Din determined that the above R. Aaron, who is the agent for receipt (שליח לקבלה) of the above woman, will first affect the Get as an agent of acceptance before a Bet Din and witness to the handing over [of the Get].  And after he has received the Get from him with the intent of receiving, he will instruct the man to appoint him as his agent of delivery (שליח להולכה) and execute the Get as is required for an agent for transmission.

The kind of agency that Rabbi Levy used was not common. Usually the envoy was acting on the husband's behalf to deliver a Get to his wife. Here however, Levy was acting on the wife's behalf to receive the Get from her husband. Once Levy received the Get, it would immediately take effect, even if the good rabbi never made it back to London. In addition Rabbi Levy would have to act as a Sofer and write the Get, and convene a Bet Din in Australia to verify the procedure.  But first he would have to find Long Zanvil.

R. Levy left for Australia on August 17, 1830 and arrived some three months later, on December 21, 1830.  While there, he managed to track down Long Zanvil and convinced him to give a Get to his estranged wife. He then wrote the Get, and found five Jewish laymen: three to to act as a Bet Din and two to witness the handing over of the Get from the husband to the Rabbi. Rabbi Levy stayed in Sydney for five months, during which time his skills as a Sofer were put to good use. He sold a new Sefer Torah to the community, which he likely wrote himself, and repaired mistakes in several others.  

In early May 1831, Levy set sail to London, with a cow, a gift from the Jewish community of Sydney, which would provide him with fresh milk during his long voyage.  He arrived home after four months at sea, and a couple of weeks later the London Bet Din convened a session to formally hand over the Get to Minka. Here is what happened, as recorded in the notes of the London Bet Din: 

On the 27th of Tishrei 5592 [October 4, 1831], further to what is written above, the Gaon, Head of the Bet Din, executed the Get in accordance with the law of an agent for transmission...And when the agent gave the Get to the woman Mindela, who is commonly known as Minka bat Yehuda Leib, he declared "I wrote the Get with intent (לשמה) and the witnesses also signed it before me with the intent for the purpose of divorce.

Some Questions about the Voyage

A number of questions remain about the trip.  Here are a few of them:

1. Why did Mindela wait for over twenty years before asking for a Get?

2. Who financed the voyage, which cost about 100 pounds, which is over $15,000 today?

3. Why did Rabbi Levy undertake the voyage without knowing where Long Zanvil was living, and whether he was prepared to give a Get? 

Jeremy Pfeffer, the author of the book that details the trip, believes that there had to have been some communication between the couple, and that the voyage was likely financed by Rabbi Levy himself. Pfeffer writes:

To the best of our knowledge, he was not related to any of the parties involved nor did he receive any great monetary remuneration for the mission. Putting our contemporary cynicism aside, we may believe that his motives were simply altruistic; there was a wrong that needed to be corrected and he alone could do so. And so we may fairly conclude that he undertook the mission to Australia simply for its own sake and for the sake of Heaven, לשמה ולשם שמים.

Two years after his return from Australia, Rabbi Levy was appointed to the London Bet Din where he served as Dayan and Secretary. His mission, now all but forgotten, is a wonderful example of a rabbi doing the right thing to help a women obtain a Get. יהי זכרו ברוך.

Gittin ~ On Divorce, Then and Now

From Salon.com

Today, those learning in the one-page-of-talmud-a-day daf yomi cycle begin a new tractate, called Gittin. As its title suggests, it is focussed on the laws of divorce. So let's look at divorce in the western world.    

Divorce in the Western WOrld

As you can see in the chart below, the current average rate of divorce in the countries that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is about two per thousand people; in the US the figure is almost three per thousand, while in Israel the figure is just below the OECD average. As you can see, in many countries the rate is lower than it was in 1995, but in nearly all it is much higher than it was way back in 1970.

Crude divorce rate, 1970, 1995 and 2012. From OECD Family Database.  

THE CHANGING RATES OF DIVORCE IN THE US

 In the 1970s there was a surge in the divorce rates in the US (and throughout the industrialized world), and in 1977 the sociologist Amir Etzioni issued a dire prediction. If the rates of divorce continued to rise as they had done over the preceding years, "not one American family" would be left intact by the 1990s. But by 1981 the divorce rates levelled off (and more couples were choosing to live together without getting married). By 1998 the divorce rate was 26% lower than it had been in 1979. (This data is found in Marriage, A History by Stephanie Coontz.)

“No party can oblige continuance in contradiction to its end and design.”

— Thomas Jefferson, in Norma Basch, Framing American Divorce. University Of California Press 2001.

In the US, statistics on rates of marriage and divorce are published by the National Center for Health Statistics, which is a branch of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.  The latest data for the US were published in 2021. These point out that the probability of divorce depends on the length of the marriage. Sadly the probability of divorce increases as the duration of the marriage increases.  The probability of a marriage of five years or less ending in divorce is about 20%; the probability of a marriage of twenty years ending in divorce is a massive 48%.  And second marriages fare a little worse: by ten years of marriage 32% of those married for the first time will have divorced in the US, compared to 46% of those in their second marriage.

In 2019 the US divorce rate dropped to its lowest rate in 50 years. But 2019 also saw the lowest rates of marriage in the US, which also reached a 50 year low. Perhaps the two go hand in hand.

Divorce rates in the US. Source: The New York Times.

Divorce in Christianity, The UK and the Colonial US

The Church essentially forbade divorce for most of its history, basing itself mostly on Mark 10:9: "what therefore God has joined, let no man put asunder." This left its mark on attitudes towards divorce. (We came across one example of the difficulty in obtaining a divorce when we examined King Henry VIII and his plight to get one of his marriages annulled.)  In the United Kingdom of 400 years ago, a divorce required a special Act of its Parliament; this, and its cost made it available only to those with money and privilege. It was only in 1857 that a new law was passed that removed divorce from the control of the Church and made it a civil affair. But husbands and wives were treated very differently by this new law. A husband could obtain a divorce on the grounds of his wife's adultery. But for a wife to obtain a divorce, she had to prove both adultery and an additional "matrimonial offense". The early colonists in the US had similar laws; divorce was allowed only in cases of adultery, habitual drunkenness, desertion, cruelty, or impotence. What we call today "no-fault" divorces have only been around since the 1970s.

JEWISH DIVORCE, THEN AND NOW

It is challenging to get a good count of the rates of divorce in the Jewish communities around the world.  One of the rare examples of such data can be found in Jeremy Pfeffer's book From One End of the Earth to the Other, which examines the London Bet Din in the first half of the nineteenth century, and its relationship to the Jewish convicts deported to Australia. (We will return to this fascinating book in our next post.) Pfeffer examined in great detail the marriage and divorce records of the London Bet Din, and discovered that between 1805 and 1855 there were 347 divorces. This turns out to be about one divorce per thousand married Jews, and he notes that the current rate of divorce is "an order of magnitude greater." In fact the current divorce rates in England and Wales are about twelve per thousand married persons, "and there is no reason to suppose that it is significantly lower amongst present day English Jews." 

“The indissolubility of marriage is a main principle of English law, asserted without any exception or reserve in the formularies of the Church, in which the parties pledge themselves, either to other, that they will live together so long as they both shall live, and until death shall part them.”

— Hector Davies Morgan (of Trinity College Oxford). The Doctrine and Law of Marriage, Adultery and Divorce. 1826. p214

Divorce Rates and Religious Committment

Another study published over 30 years ago reviewed the relationship between rates of divorce and levels of religious commitment. It was based on the 1981 Greater New York Population study which sampled over 4,000 Jewish households, and it made the following observation:

As one might expect, we see the lowest rate of divorce among the Orthodox. In comparison, we see a slight rise among the Conservative, a doubling among the Reform, and a quadrupling for those who do not identify themselves as members of the major denominations. It is the Orthodox community that is most frequently held up as the most effective transmitter of traditional Jewish family values, and these results are consistent with our thesis of a relationship between Jewish commitment and divorce. 

Further support for these findings can be found in more recent work from Focus on the Family ("a global Christian ministry dedicated to helping families thrive"). They report the following relationships between faith affiliation and divorce rates:

From Focus on the Family

Of course we have no idea about whether the lower rate of divorce among active Protestants, Catholics and Jews is because religious practice increases marital harmony or, as a cynic might claim, peer pressure makes those who are more actively religious are reluctant to divorce. Still, a 97% reduction in the divorce rate in those who are "actively Jewish" is pretty impressive.

As we have noted, it took many centuries for secular societies (even in countries that are deeply Catholic) and the church to allow for more equitable divorce laws. For most of that time, Jewish divorce law was in some aspects the most enlightened of any society.  It allowed for divorce on the grounds of incompatibility, but at the same time allowed only the husband to control the process. If he did not wish to divorce, no divorce could take place.   But the last great change to Jewish divorce law was over 900 years ago, when Rabbenu Gershom forbade a man from divorcing his wife against her will. It is probably time for orthodox Judaism to take another look at the issue. 

Sotah 45b ~ Talmudic Embryology

As we approach the end of Sotah, we turn our attention to a new topic: theories of embryonic development, and compare talmudic views with those of modern science. Here is what this page of Talmud - daf yomi - has to say on the topic:

סוטה מה, ב

מהיכן הולד נוצר מראשו וכן הוא אומר ממעי אמי אתה גוזי ואומר גזי נזרך והשליכי וגו' אבא שאול אומר מטיבורו ומשלח שרשו אילך ואילך

From where is the fetus formed? From its head, as the verse says (Ps.71:6): "From my mother's womb you pulled me out (gozi)". And it says later (Jeremian 7:29) "Pull out (gozi) your hair and throw it away.." [This second verse shows that the verb goz is used to describe the head. So the verse from Psalms must also refer to the head. According to Rashi the verse in Psalms should be read as "You formed me from my head."] Abba Shaul says that the fetus is created from its navel, and from there it sends out roots in all directions. (Sotah 45b)

Embryonic Development in Antiquity

In 1934, Joseph Needham, a British historian and embryologist, published A History of Embryology, in which he traced the history of how the embryo was thought to develop from antiquity to modern times. In this fascinating book we learn that Hippocrates (c. 460-370 BCE) believed that the fetus was formed by extracting breath from its mother, and that a series of small fires within the uterus gave rise to the bones and other organs of the embryo.  Aristotle (384-322 BCE) added some details about the role of the umbilical cord.  According to Needham, Aristotle understood that the role of the umbilicus was to nourish the fetus: The vessels of the umbilicus join onto the uterus like the root of a plant and through the cord the fetus receives its nourishment. Elsewhere, Aristotle claims that head of the fetus forms first. Galen (c. 129-216 CE) also used the analogy of the umbilicus serving like the root of a plant.  According to Galen, the embryo grew from menstrual blood, and then from the blood that nourished it through the umbilical cord.

What Actually Happens

Development of the Umbilical cord. A: The posterior body wall is established. B: the vitelline duct form as the cells form a head and tail end, fold inwards on their lateral sides. C: The umbilical cord forms as the yolk sac and vitelline duct fuse. From O'Donnell K. Glick P, Caty M. Pediatric Umbilical Problems. Pediatric Clinics of North America. 1988 24 (1) 792.

At its earliest stage the embryo consists of a sheet of cells, an amniotic cavity and a yolk sac. The sheet of cells develops a head (cranial) and bottom (caudal) end, and grows around most of the yolk sac. This enclosed yolk sac then grows into the gut of the embryo.  The part of the yolk sac that is not surrounded by the embryo is still connected to it by a thin tube called the vitelline duct.  This duct then fuses with the contained yolk sac, and forms a larger bundle of vessels we call the umbilical cord. This occurs between the 4th-8th week of gestation (calculated from the first day of the last menstrual cycle).  

It is clear then, that embryo does not grow from the head or from umbilical cord.  As you can see from the diagram, the fetus do not grow from the head. In fact the head develops from the early cells of the embryo as it takes on a cranial-caudal polarity, sometime around 3-4 weeks gestation, when the embryo is about 3mm in length. Neither does the embryo grow from the umbilical cord, as Abba Shaul claimed. In fact it is the umbilical cord that grows out from the early embryo, and not the other way around. (For more on talmudic embryology, see Samuel Kottek's 1981 paper Embryology in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature.)

As we will see in more detail in the winter of 2019, talmudic embryology reflected the prevailing Greek theories of the times. But those theories developed without the benefit of microscopes and the other tools later available to scientists. It was perfectly reasonable to claim that the embryo grew from its head, since even in antiquity the importance of the head for life was clear. No less unreasonable was the view that the embryo grew from the umbilical cord, for that cord does in fact sustain the embryo as it grows and matures inside the womb. But two wrong but reasonable theories does not make one correct one. Sometimes however, the rabbis of the Talmud were spot on with their embryology. For example, here is Rav Simlai (3rd century CE, and the rabbi who brought you the famous count of 613 commandments) describing how the fetus sits within the womb.  Compare his words below with the famous sketch of Leonardo Da Vinci.Then answer this question: How did he know?

“R. Simlai delivered the following discourse: What does an embryo resemble when it is in the bowels of its mother? Folded writing tablets. Its hands rest on its two temples, its two elbows on its two legs and its two heels against its buttocks. Its head lies between its knees, its mouth is closed and its navel is open, and it eats what its mother eats and drinks what its mother drinks...”

— Niddah 30b

Leonardo Da Vinci. Studies of the Fetus in the Womb. Drawn between 1510-1513.

Sotah 42~ Goliath, Polydactyly and Hereditary Gigantism

On today’s long page of Talmud, we read how the rabbinic imagination described the giant Goliath. It was Goliath who, you will recall, was smitten by a slingshot from David, the future King of Israel. The rabbis of the Talmud painted quite the picture of this not so gentle giant. While Goliath himself was “unblemished”, his mother cohabited with one-hundred men (plus one dog) or possibly even more, and when doing so she engaged in all manner of sexual positions.

סוטה מב, ב

״וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ הַבֵּינַיִם מִמַּחֲנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי ״בֵּינַיִם״? אָמַר רַב: שֶׁמְּבוּנֶּה מִכל מוּם. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בֵּינוֹנִי שֶׁבְּאֶחָיו. דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא אָמַר: שֶׁהוּא עָשׂוּי כְּבִנְיַן. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בַּר מְאָה פָּפֵי וַחֲדָא נָאנָאי.

The verse introduces Goliath: “And a champion [ish habeinayim] went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath” (I Samuel 17:4). The Gemara asks: What is indicated by the term beinayim? Rav said: The word is related to the root beit, nun, heh, meaning build, and means that he is built [muvneh] perfectly and free of any blemish. And Shmuel said: The word is related to the word bein, meaning between, and means that he was the middle [beinoni] among his brothers. A Sage from the school of Rabbi Sheila said: The word is related to the root beit, nun, heh, meaning build, and means that he was made strong as a building [binyan]. Rabbi Yochanan said: The word is related to the word bein, meaning between, and means that he was born from among many, as follows: He was the son of one hundred fathers [pappi] and one dog [nanai], as his mother engaged in sexual intercourse with one hundred men and a dog, and he was fathered from among them.

״וְגלְיָת שְׁמוֹ מִגַּת״. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין אֶת אִמּוֹ כְּגַת. כְּתִיב ״מַעֲרוֹת״, וְקָרֵינַן ״מַעַרְכוֹת״. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שֶׁהַכֹּל הֶעֱרוּ בְּאִמּוֹ

The verse recounts that he was “named Goliath, of Gath” (I Samuel 17:4). Rav Yosef taught: This is because everyone would thresh his mother by cohabiting with her like people do in a winepress [gat], where everyone tramples. It is written that Goliath came from “the caves [me’arot] of the Philistines” (I Samuel 17:23), but we read, according to the Masoretic text: He came from among “the ranks [ma’arkhot] of the Philistines.” What is meant by the written term me’arot? Rav Yosef taught: The word is related to the word he’era, meaning penetrated, and implies that everyone penetrated [he’eru], i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse with, his mother.

כְּתִיב ״הָרָפָה״, וּכְתִיב ״ערְפָּה״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל חַד אָמַר: ״הָרָפָה״ שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״ערְפָּה״ — שֶׁהַכֹּל עוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ מֵאַחֲרֶיהָ, וְחַד אָמַר: ״ערְפָּה״ שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״הָרָפָה״ — שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין אוֹתָהּ כְּהָרִיפוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַתִּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה וְתִפְרֹשׁ הַמָּסָךְ עַל פְּנֵי הַבְּאֵר וַתִּשְׁטַח עָלָיו הָרִפוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״אִם תִּכְתּוֹשׁ אֶת הָאֱוִיל בַּמַּכְתֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת בַּעֱלִי״.

It is written that Goliath’s mother was: “Harafa” (II Samuel 21:16), and in another place it is written: “Orpah” (Ruth 1:4), and the Gemara will soon explain that this was the same woman. Rav and Shmuel engaged in a dispute concerning this matter. One of them said: Her name was Harafa, and why is she called by the name Orpah? It is because everyone came at her from behind [orfin] her, i.e., sodomized her. And one of them said: Her name was Orpah, and why is she called by the name Harafa? It is because everyone threshed her like groats [harifot], i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and so it says that this word means groats: “And the woman took and spread the covering over the well’s mouth, and strewed groats [harifot] thereon” (II Samuel 17:19). And if you wish, you can say from here: “Though you should crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats [harifot], yet will not his foolishness depart from him” (Proverbs 27:22).

״וְאֶת אַרְבַּעַת אֵלֶּה יֻלְּדוּ לְהָרָפָה בְּגַת וַיִּפְּלוּ בְיַד דָּוִד וּבְיַד עֲבָדָיו״. מַאי נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: סַף וּמָדוֹן גלְיָת וְיִשְׁבִּי בְּנוֹב.

The Gemara continues its discussion of the battle of David and Goliath. “These four were born to Harafa in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants” (II Samuel 21:22). The Gemara asks: What are the names of the four siblings mentioned here? Rav Chisdah said: They are Saph, and Madon, Goliath, and Ishbi in Nob (see II Samuel 21:16–20).

״וַיִּפְּלוּ בְיַד דָּוִד וּבְיַד עֲבָדָיו״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתִּשַּׁק ערְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבוֹאוּ בְּנֵי הַנְּשׁוּקָה, וְיִפְּלוּ בְּיַד בְּנֵי הַדְּבוּקָה. דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: בִּשְׂכַר אַרְבַּע דְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהוֹרִידָה ערְפָּה עַל חֲמוֹתָהּ — זָכְתָה וְיָצְאוּ מִמֶּנָּה אַרְבָּעָה גִּבּוֹרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד״,

It says: “And they fell into the hands of David and his servants.” Why? It is because of the acts of their forebears, as it is written: “And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, and Ruth cleaved to her” (Ruth 1:14). Rabbi Yitzchak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The children of the one who kissed, referring to the four giants descended from Orpah, will come and fall into the hand of the children of the one who cleaved, referring to David, who was descended from Ruth. Rava taught: As a reward for the four tears that Orpah shed in sadness over her mother-in-law, she merited four mighty warriors descended from her, as it is stated: “And they lifted up their voice and wept again” (Ruth 1:14).

כְּתִיב: ״חֵץ חֲנִיתוֹ״, וְקָרֵינַן ״עֵץ חֲנִיתוֹ״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעָנוּ לַחֲצִי שִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע. מִכָּאן שֶׁאָסוּר לְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים. וְלָא לִפְתַּח בֵּיהּ כְּלָל! לְאוֹדוֹעֵי שְׁבָחֵיהּ דְּדָוִד.

It is written about Goliath: “And the half [chetz] of his spear was like a weaver’s beam” (I Samuel 17:7), and we read, according to the Masoretic tradition: “And the shaft [etz] of his spear.” Rabbi Elazar says: The written version of the text demonstrates that we have not yet reached half [chrtzi] of the praise of that wicked man. Only half of his spear was as long as a weaver’s beam, but the Masoretic reading offers a less impressive description. It is learned from here that it is prohibited to relate the praise of wicked people. The Gemara asks: If so, then the verse should not begin by praising him at all. The Gemara answers: It was necessary in this case in order to relate the praise of David, who defeated Goliath.

Let’s leave these imaginative rabbinic interpretations and read what the Bible itself has to say. In the Book of Samuel, the height of Goliath is described “six cubits and a span.” He was covered with armor, and his appearance was so awesome that none of the Israelites dared to fight against him. Until David showed up:

וַיֹּאמֶר֮ דָּוִד֒ יְהֹוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִצִּלַ֜נִי מִיַּ֤ד הָֽאֲרִי֙ וּמִיַּ֣ד הַדֹּ֔ב ה֣וּא יַצִּילֵ֔נִי מִיַּ֥ד הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֖י הַזֶּ֑ה {ס} וַיֹּ֨אמֶר שָׁא֤וּל אֶל־דָּוִד֙ לֵ֔ךְ וַיהֹוָ֖ה יִהְיֶ֥ה עִמָּֽךְ׃

The Lord,” David went on, “who saved me from lion and bear will also save me from that Philistine.” “Then go,” Saul said to David, “and may the Lord be with you!”

And you probably already know the end of the story:

וַיֶּחֱזַ֨ק דָּוִ֤ד מִן־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי֙ בַּקֶּ֣לַע וּבָאֶ֔בֶן וַיַּ֥ךְ אֶת־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֖י וַיְמִתֵ֑הוּ וְחֶ֖רֶב אֵ֥ין בְּיַד־דָּוִֽד׃

Thus David bested the Philistine with sling and stone; he struck him down and killed him. David had no sword;

וַיָּ֣רץ דָּ֠וִ֠ד וַיַּעֲמֹ֨ד אֶל־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֜י וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־חַ֠רְבּ֠וֹ וַֽיִּשְׁלְפָ֤הּ מִתַּעְרָהּ֙ וַיְמֹ֣תְתֵ֔הוּ וַיִּכְרת־בָּ֖הּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ וַיִּרְא֧וּ הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֛ים כִּי־מֵ֥ת גִּבּוֹרָ֖ם וַיָּנֻֽסוּ׃

So David ran up and stood over the Philistine, grasped his sword and pulled it from its sheath; and with it he dispatched him and cut off his head. When the Philistines saw that their warrior was dead, they ran.

Pierre Puget (1620-1694). David Gazing at Goliath's Head. From the collection of  the Museum of Civilization, Quebec City, Canada. 

Goliath certainly stuck fear into all he met. But why was he so tall, and did this have anything to do with David’s ability to knock him out with his slingshot? Today, Talmudology answers these pressing questions.

Other Giants in the Bible

Before we proceed, we should note that Goliath’s gigantism was not the only example of its kind in the Bible. Giants first appear in Bereshit, as a sort of super-hero:

בראשית 6:4

הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָ֘רֶץ֮ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם׃ {פ}

It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth—when divine beings cohabited with the human women, who bore them offspring. Such were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

The exact relationship between the various races of biblical giants is a little hard to follow. The Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33), are found before and after the flood. The Emites, the Ammonites (or Anakites) and the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 2:10-11), existed only after the Flood, and they appear to be separate entities. Here is a quick recap:

The Anakim seem to be derived from the Nephilim. The Rephaim although similar to the Nephilim, appear to be distinct from them with respect to family lineage. Deuteronomy 2.21 states the Rephaim were largely subdued by the Ammonites which ‘dwelt in their stead’ One of the most prominent Rephaim was Og, King of Bashan, who slept in ‘a bedstead of iron; nine cubits was the length, and four cubits the breadth of it’ (Deuteronomy 3:11). A cubit was the distance from the elbow to the fingertips. He appears to be one of the last survivors of the Rephaim.

Now if there is a race of giants, then we are dealing with some hereditary element. Some believe that the cause of this gigantism was “hyperthyroidism, possibly due to underlying pituitary gland, or other endocrine, dysfunction.”

In 2014, two medical geneticists suggested that Goliath and his close kin likely had a hereditary autosomal dominant pituitary gene. First, they reconstructed Goliath’s family tree, based on the descriptions given in both the Book of Samuel and Divrie Hayomim, the Book of Chronicles:

From Donnelly and Morrison. Hereditary Gigantism – the biblical giant Goliath and his brothers. Ulster Med J 2014;83(2):86-8.

From Donnelly and Morrison. Hereditary Gigantism – the biblical giant Goliath and his brothers. Ulster Med J 2014;83(2):86-88.

Not all of the sons of Goliath are identified. His third son is not named, and so in the family tree above, the geneticists called him Exadactylus because “he had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes. (Samuel II, 21:20-21). This family tree suggests an inherited cause, or in medicalese, “a hereditary autosomal dominant pituitary gene, such as AIP,” where AIP is the gene for aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein. Other studies have shown that a mutation in this gene causes familial isolated pituitary adenoma (FIPA). Normally, the pituitary gland makes and then stops making growth hormone (GH). FIPA is a non-cancerous growth in the pituitary gland that causes it to make way too much GH. As a result, the bones and organs keep receiving the signal to grow and grow more. Hence gigantism, or in medicalese, acromegaly.

Sultan Kösen in 2010.

And here is a fun fact about acromegally. A Kurdish farmer named Sultan Kösen who was born in 1982 is the current Guinness World Record holder for tallest living male. He is 251 cm tall (and for you non-metric folks, that’s 8 feet 2.82 in). He had a pituitary tumor, and in 2010 doctors at the University of Virginia zapped the tumor in Kosen's pituitary gland to stop its excess production of growth hormone.

Now back to our medical geneticists, with their helpful explanation:

Pituitary adenomas can be present in a number of genetic conditions, such as multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, Carney complex, and Familial Isolated Pituitary Adenoma (FIPA). FIPA is an autosomal dominant condition with incomplete penetrance, caused by germline mutations of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein (AIP) gene4. Patients with AIP mutations have an earlier mean age at diagnosis than AIP mutation-negative patients. The age of Goliath is not clear, but early onset of pituitary tumours is typical of hereditary gigantism and limitation of lateral vision is common. Goliath himself had a shield bearer precede him, possibly to indicate to Goliath the direction of the approaching foe.

And this condition also explains why Goliath didn’t see that sling shot coming:

Goliath was killed by David who threw a stone at his forehead (Samuel 17:49). This gives further evidence that he suffered from pituitary gland dysfunction; a pituitary tumour pressing on his optic chiasm, and consequent visual disturbance due to pressure on his optic nerve, would have made it difficult for him to see the stone in his lateral vision. Pituitary giants look impressive in terms of stature, but may not have speed and agility to match their perceived strength.

“In conclusion, Goliath may have had an AIP mutation causing early onset autosomal dominant pituitary gigantism and one of his sons may have had a syndrome involving both AIP and BBS1, which could some way account for the physical characteristics of his family and their good success rate on the battle field until they met David.”

— From Donnelly and Morrison, op cit.

And what about the six fingers and six toes of Goliath’s unnamed son? We have discussed polydactyly before, when we noted Rav Hiyyah bar Ashi’s helpful ruling that “if a slave had an extra finger and his master cut it off, the slave is freed on account of this act. Rav Huna said this only applies if the extra finger is in line with the others [lit. counted alongside the hand],” but in Goliath’s family the polydactyly is a bit of a mystery:

Polydactyly has not been described in association with FIPA. The AIP gene lies on chromosome 11q13.3. The Bardet-Biedl gene, BBS1, is located close by on chromosome 11q13.2. Bardet-Biedl syndrome type I is characterized by rod-cone dystrophy, truncal obesity, cognitive impairment and postaxial polydactyly. The protein encoded by BBS1 is thought to play a role in limb development. It is unlikely that Goliath’s family had FIPA caused by a microdeletion which also involved BBS1, as the genetic distance between the BBS1 and AIP genes is separated by a 1 Mb gene- packed region. Such a gap makes an inherited contiguous gene syndrome unlikely as there would have been too many other features. Very rarely BBS1 patients have symmetric exadactyly; most commonly it is present in one or two extremities, upper and lower - not in all four.

We are not given much other detail about Exadactylus so a new BBS1 mutation due to some complex rearrangement is unlikely – a new mutation in an autosomal dominant polydactyly gene might explain his symmetrical phenotype. If he had pituitary disease and six digits – he may have looked an intimidating foe - but he may not have been a great warrior in action.

Roman Acromegally

Hereditary acromegaly. It’s not just for the Philistines. It can be found in the family of the Roman Emperor Maximinus Thrax (173-238). [Really. That is his name. He’s not a character from Asterix and Obelisk.] In a 2019 paper an international medical team suggested that the emperor (who was assassinated by his own troops during the siege of Aquileia in May 238) had “an endocrine disorder caused by a tumour in the anterior pituitary gland secreting an excess of growth hormone (GH) causing elevated insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) levels before puberty (prepubertal gigantism).” And it wasn’t only the emperor. The authors believe that his son Gaius Iulius Verus Maximus (217/220-238), was affected by the same disorder. This suggestion is supported by a passage in the Historia Augusta [XXVII.2] which describes Gaius in this way:

He gave such promise of height, moreover, that he might have reached his father’s stature [proceritatis videbatur posse illius esse, ut ad paternam staturam perveniret] had he not perished in his twenty-first year, in the very flower of his youth, or, as some say, in his eighteenth.”

The medical team continued:

“Even though concise, the source reveals two decisive elements: firstly, the emperor’s son was much taller than average and, secondly, he was still growing despite having already reached the postpubertal age. If he had not perished prematurely, he would have most likely reached his father’s stature. Besides the phenotypical descriptions provided by this classical source, Gaius Iulius Verus Maximus’ facial morphology, as can be appreciated on minted coins does reinforce the hypothesis that he also suffered from acromegalic gigantism, potentially of a hereditary nature. This is characterized by early-onset excessive acceleration of linear growth and body size caused by a pituitary somatotroph or lactosomatotroph adenoma. Patients who present with acromegalic gigantism show such phenotypical characteristics as coarse facial features, frontal bossing, prognathism, increased interdental space, diastema, as well as marked enlargement of hands and feet, soft tissue swelling and increased appetite. Insufficiency of other pituitary hormones, because of the presence of a pituitary macroadenoma compressing normal anterior pituitary structures, may result in central hypogonadism, hypothyroidism and hypocortisolism. The epiphysial growth plates will not close due to untreated hypogonadism leading to continuous growth, even after the age at which normal persons reach puberty. Mutations of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein (AIP) are at present the most frequent mutations causing pituitary gigantism.

Gaius Iulius Verus Maximus denarius, son of Maximinus.

So there it is. From a couple of biblical verses and a brief excerpt from a Roman history book we can learn so much about the natural causes of Goliath’s height.

Had enough acromegaly for now? OK. Next time, in our last post of this most fascinating masechet , we will discuss talmudic embryology.