Kiddushin 12b ~ The Surprising Birth of Rebbi Chiyyah's Twins

Today’s page of Talmud continues an analysis of the fluctuating value of a perutah, the minimum amount that a man must pay to purchase his wife. For reasons that need not detain us, Rav Chisdah mentions a strange fact about Yehudit, the wife of the Rebbi Chiyyah:

קידושין יב, ב

לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּיהוּדִית דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דַּהֲוָה לַהּ צַעַר לֵידָה

Rav Chisdah explained: Is this not similar to the case of Yehudit, wife of Rabbi Chiyyah, who would have painful childbirths [and therefore wished to leave Rabbi Chiyyah]?

Elsewhere in the Talmud, (on a page that we will study on April 22nd, 2027,) there is more detail about one of Yehudit’s pregnancies. When I first read the story, I considered it to be entirely fanciful. It was impossible, so it seemed to me, to have actually occurred. Then I read the science, and I changed my mind. Let’s see if it changes yours. So let’s take a look at Niddah 27a:

Yehudit’s Special Twins

נדה כז, א

א"ר אבין בר רב אדא אמר רב מנחם איש כפר שערים ואמרי לה בית שערים מעשה ונשתהה ולד אחד אחר חבירו ג' חדשים והרי הם יושבים לפנינו בבית המדרש ומאן נינהו יהודה וחזקיה בני רבי חייא

Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda says that Rav Menachem of the village of She’arim, and some say that he was from Beit She’arim, says: An incident occurred where one offspring remained in the womb after the other was born for three months, and both twins are sitting before us in the study hall. And who are they? They are Yehuda and Chizkiyya, the sons of Rabbi Chiyyah.

Delayed Interval births - what you need to know

When you look at the medical literature, it turns out that there are many case reports of delayed-interval twin births. This is probably because the number of multiple pregnancies has increased due to the expansion of assisted reproductive technology. In nearly all, the first twin died soon after delivery because it is too premature to survive.

Here is just one example. In 2019 a group from the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine at the University of Pisa in Italy published a case report with a very lengthy title: Delayed delivery of the second twin: Case report and literature review of diamniotic dichorionic twin pregnancy with very early preterm premature rupture of membranes. A mother went into very early labor and delivered the first of two twins at about 26 weeks’ gestation. The second twin remained in her uterus, and was delivered 29 days later by cesarean section. The first very premature twin died, but happily the second survived and at 6-month follow-up, “no neurological, cardiac or other defects could be detected.”

A 2016 systematic review found 13 articles reporting a total of 128 cases of delayed-interval twin births. It reported that the second born twin had a significantly lower mortality risk compared to the first born (relative risk = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = 0.34 – 0.57, P<0.0001,) which makes sense since the second twin had the benefit of a longer period of uterine gestation.

Results of individual studies, mortality of the second born versus the first born. From Feys S. Jacquemyn Y. Delayed-interval delivery can save the second twin: evidence from a systematic review. Facts Views Vis Obgyn, 2016, 8 (4): 223-231.

Interval twin births - the world Record

There is even an official world record for delayed-interval twin births. According to Guinness World Records, the longest verified interval between the birth of twins is 87 days (and 1 hour 45 minutes). Twin girls Amy Ann and Kate Marie Elliot were born 87 days apart, at Waterford Regional Hospital in County Kilkenny, Ireland. Amy was born prematurely on 1 June 2012 and Kate followed on 27 August. Because Amy Ann was born at 09:16 and Kate Marie at 11:01, the exact interval is 87 days, 1 hour and 45 minutes. That’s a little shy of three months. Just like the story in the Talmud.

Actually, there is a report that in 2018 this record was beaten, though I’d be careful about believing what you read in perhaps the smuttiest paper in Britain, The Sun. But here it is anyway. And note that the twins were born just over three months apart.

Mum Oxana went into labour initially at just 26 weeks pregnant and gave birth to Liana prematurely on November 17, 2018. She weighed just 2lbs. Three months later, she finally gave birth to Leonie - four days after her initial due date. A spokeswoman for Holweide hospital in Cologne said: "After the birth of the first twin, the cervix closed again and the unborn sister could remain in the womb.” As contractions ceased, doctors decided that Oxana could carry her second baby girl to term.

Maternity chief Dr Uwe Schellenberger said: "The conditions were very good as well due to the existing second placenta and we wanted to try to let the second child mature as long as possible in the womb." Leonie was born a total of 97 days difference with her twin sister Liana and was born weighing 8.1lbs. Dr Schellenberger said: "It's also a rare case for our maternity clinic, but it was not the first time that twins were born on different days at the Holweide hospital. "But the time difference of 97 days is unique for us and also special worldwide."

According to the hospital, the girls may have broken a world record. "Such a 'two-time twin birth' is very rare worldwide," the spokeswoman explained. "According to our own research, twins with a time difference of 87 days were born in Ireland in 2012." Liana spent her first few weeks in a neonatal care unit at the hospital where she stayed until she was strong enough to go home.Both girls now weigh around 12.5lbs and have developed well.The spokeswoman said that they've both been reunited at their family home and are set to grow up healthy.

What would it have taken for Yehuda and Chizkiyya to survive?

In its English translation, the Artscroll Talmud introduces this story in Niddah as a “fantastic incident.” If by “fantastic” it means “based on fantasy” or “not real,” it this commentary is mistaken. If however, it means “so extreme as to challenge belief,” well, then it is correct. It is indeed an extremely unlikely story, but not an impossible one. Here is what it would take for the story of Yehudit and her twins to have actually occurred.

1. The first born twin would have had to be born at around six months gestation. Even today, with neonatal intensive care units, incubators, respirators, antibiotics and specialist staff, this is the very limit of survivability. The mortality rate in babies born between the 23rd and 25th week is 32%.

2. Next, Yehudit, the mother, would have had to survive the preterm premature rupture of the amniotic membranes which carries a risk of 17-52% of introducing an intrauterine infection, and a risk of 4-22% of causing maternal sepsis.

3.Then Yehudit would have had to carry the second twin to a full-term birth, and that twin must survive.

4. Finally - and this is important - the Talmud lets us know that the boys were “sitting in the study hall.” In other words, they both had a fairly normal cognitive ability, which in very premature infants is often not the case.

Tosafot Agrees - it is really rare

The chances of all this happening are very low. In fact the medieval compendium of commentaries on the Talmud known as Tosafot makes this very point (Niddah 26b ד’ה ילדה):

ילדה ואח"כ הפילה שליא אפי' עד י' ימים אין חוששין לולד אחר. אע"ג דאמר לקמן דנשתהא הולד שלשה חדשים מ"מ לא שכיח וכל כמה דלא חזינן לא חיישינן

Even though the Talmud states that “one offspring remained in the womb after the other was born for three months,” this is not common. And when something is so rare that it almost never happens, it may [for practical purposes] be ignored.

But a very low likelihood of something happening does not make it impossible. The three month delay in the birth of the boys was indeed scientifically possible. I hope Yehuda and Chizzkiya realized just how lucky they were.

““We feel so blessed to be here,” their mother said. “The only thing that’s gotten me through this... is to say, ‘God is in control,’” she noted.
”

— Kristen Miiler, mother of twins born five and a half weeks apart. See "Doctors stunned by rare twins born more than five weeks apart." Washington Post April 7, 2016

Kiddushin 7a ~ Does Marriage Make You Happier?

קידושין ז, א

אמר ריש לקיש: טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו

Resh Lakish said: It is better for a woman to live as tad du than to live alone...

In a 1975 lecture to the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi J.B. ("the Rav") Soloveitchik,  quoted the aphorism of Resh Lakish found in today's page of Talmud.  The Rav went on to explain that it was "based not upon sociological factors...[but] is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine personality. This is not a psychological fact; it is an existential fact." Wow.  Is this statement of Resh Lakish really an existential fact? To answer this, we need to first answer another question - what do his words actually mean?

One way to understand the aphorism is as follows:  "A widow would rather live in misery than live alone." But that's not the only translation, which depends on the exact meaning of the Aramaic phrase טן דו (tan du).  There are a number of possibilities.

Rashi

Let's start with Rashi and his explanation to our text:

בגופים שנים בעל ואשתו ואפילו אינו לה אלא לצוות בעלמא

Tan Du: Two bodies. A husband and wife; even if he is nothing more to her than company.

This explanation of Rashi's does not suggest that married misery is preferred over a single life. This is a slightly different explanation that Rashi gave in when we met this phrase in Yevamot.

טן דו - גוף שנים. משל הדיוט הוא, שהנשים אומרות טוב לשבת עם גוף שנים משבת אלמנה

Tan Du: Two bodies. This is a common maxim, for women say that it is better to live as two than to live alone.

So according to Rashi in both Yevamot and here in Kiddushin, Resh Lakish never addresses living in misery. He just made the observation that women prefer marriage over a single life.

JASTROW'S DICTIONARY

Not so Marcus Jastrow, whose dictionary (published 1886-1903) became a classic reference text for students of the Talmud. Jastrow translated טן דו as a load of grief, an unhappy married life. This will become very important later, so make note. 

THE SONCINO TRANSLATION

Moving on, the Soncino translation of Kiddushin (first published in 1966) echoes Jastrow's translation: "It is better to carry on living with trouble than to dwell in widowhood".  This is similar to the Soncino translation of the same phrase when found in Yevamot 118: "It is preferable to live in grief than to dwell in widowhood." However, a footnote to the text in Yevamot notes that "Levy compares it with the Pers., tandu, two persons." (The reference here is to Jacob Levy's  German Dictionary Chaldisches Worterbuch uber die Targumim - Aramic Dictionary of the Targums and a Large Part of Rabbinic Literature.) Why did Isidore Epstein, editor of the Soncino Talmud, choose to use Jastrow's translation over that of Levy - and that of Rashi? Answering that will take us too far off track, so we will leave it for another time... 

MELAMED'S ARAMAIC-HEBREW-ENGLISH DICTIONARY

Melamed's Aramaic-Hebrew-English Dictionary (Feldheim: Jerusalem 2005) follows Rashi : "טן דו = two bodies." 

THE ARTSCROLL TRANSLATION

The ArtScroll Schottenstein Talmud basis its translation on Rashi: "It is better to live as two together than to live alone." However a footnote (note 18) brings its meaning closer to that of Jastrow and the Soncino: "I.e it is better to be married  - even to a husband of mediocre stature - than to remain single." 

THE KOREN STEINSALTZ TRANSLATION

In his Hebrew translation of the Aramaic text found in Yevamot 118, Rabbi Steinsaltz follows Rashi, and translates  טן דו as "two bodies." A side note points out that the true origin of the phrase is not known, though it likely comes from Persian.

The newer English Koren Talmud follows the same translation: "It is better to sit as two bodies, ie., to be married, than to sit alone like as a widow. A woman prefers the any type of husband to being alone."  Elsewhere in the Koren series, (Yevamot 118a) there is a note, (written by Dr. Shai Secunda), which is more definitive than the Hebrew note. Tan Du is from middle Persian, meaning together.  It's nothing to do with being miserable.

TESHUVOT HAGE'ONIM

I've left perhaps the strongest textual witness for last: how the words Tan Du were understood during the period of the Geonim (c. 589-1038). In 1887 Avraham Harkavy published a collection of responsa from this period that he found in manuscripts held in the great library of St. Petersburg. In this collection is a reference to our mysterious words:

  טן דו בלשון פרסי שני בני אדם. ארמלו יחידות 

טן דו in Persian means two people. ארמלו means alone.

Chronologically, this is our earliest source, and, therefore, perhaps our most compelling. Case closed.

VARIATIONS OF THE RESH LAKISH RULE

So far we have the following four versions of what we will now call the Resh Lakish Rule:

It's better for a woman to be...

• ....married and unhappy than single  (Jastrow)

• ...in a less desirable or mediocre marriage than no marriage at all (ArtScroll footnote).

• ...miserable and married than to be a widow (Soncino).

• ...with a husband than to be alone (ArtScroll, Koren, Melamed, Rashi, Teshuvot Hage'onim)

WHAT IF TAN DU MEANS MISERABLE?

It seems that the translation of  טן דו as miserable originated with Jastrow, and that those who translate Resh Lakish as saying "misery is better than being single" are following in the Jastrow tradition. If we were to evaluate the Resh Lakish Rule per Jastrow (and Soncino and an ArtScroll footnote), the question is, what, precisely, constitutes  a "miserable marriage"? One in which the woman feels physically safe but emotionally alone? One in which her husband loves her dearly but is  unable to provide for her financially? Or one in which she has all the money she needs but her husband is an alcoholic? Tolstoy has taught us that each unhappy family (and presumably each miserable marriage) is unhappy in its own unique way. The point here is not to rank which is worse. 

“[In the 1950s, a] bad marriage was usually a better option for a woman, especially if she had a child, than no marriage at all.”

— Stephanie Coontz. Marriage, A History.Viking 2005. p288

Today it would be utterly silly (and incredibly rude and insulting) to suggest that a woman is better off miserable than single.  But after our review, that does not appear to be what Resh Lakish ever said.  What he really said was this: a woman would be better off (טב) married than living alone (as a widow). Resh Lakish didn't explain what he meant by better off, so we will have to assume that what he meant was a measure of overall well-being, or what we call... happiness. What we want to know, is how this understanding of Resh Lakish stands up today. Was Rabbi Soloveitchik correct when he called this "an existential fact"?

MEASURING HAPPINESS & HAPPINESS INEQUALITY

Happiness inequality exists and has been well documented. University of Pennsylvania economists Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, (who live together, but not within the bonds of marriage), note that

“...the rich are typically happier than the poor; the educated are happier than those with less education; whites are happier than blacks; those who are married are happier than those who are not; and women—at least historically—have been happier than men.”

But why is this so? Don't we all oscillate around a set point of happiness, regardless of what life may throw at us? Some psychologists think so.

LOTTERY WINNERS & ACCIDENT VICTIMS: THE SET POINT THEORY OF HAPPINESS

According to the set point theory of happiness, we all revolve around our own, innate happiness point. When we are faced with adversity, we do, to be sure, become sadder. But we eventually bounce back to where we were before, back at our set point. Similarly, when met with some good mazal, we are, for a period, more happy. But then we return to our innate set point for happiness, wherever that was prior to the good fortune. The evidence for this comes from a classic study which found that "lottery winners were not much happier than controls" and that accident victims who were paralyzed "did not appear nearly as unhappy as might have been expected." (The problem is that this study used a tiny sample - there were only 22 lottery winners and 29 paralyzed accident victims - so we need to be very cautious in generalizing from it.) 

Married people are – on average – happier than those who are single, but perhaps this fact does not suggest causation. Some would argue that it's just a correlation. A grumpy person, unable to hold down a job and miserable to be around, is not likely to find another individual willing to marry him. So it’s not that marriage makes you happier –it’s that happier people are more likely to find a partner and get married. According to this set point theory of happiness, the Resh Lakish Rule would not be supported, since the act of marrying would have no overall long-term effect on happiness.

THE MORE IS BETTER THEORY OF HAPPINESS

However, evidence from a 15 year longitudinal study of 24,000 people suggests that "marital transitions can be associated with long-lasting changes in satisfaction."  This would support the claim that marriage is causally related to happiness. It's not that you went from being a happy person who was once single to being a similarly happy person who is now married. What actually happened was that the marriage had an effect on just how happy you became.  And data from other large cohort studies show that happiness increases when people marry. Just look at the happiness of women by marital status in the figure below. Was Resh Lakish onto something?

Mean happiness of women by marital status, birth cohort of 1953-1972, from ages 18-19 and 28-29. From Easterlin, RA. Explaining Happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003. 100 (19): 11176-11183.

All this supports the Resh Lakish Rule that people are happier when they are married. (I say people because all the evidence applies equally to men too.) But we can get even more specific, because Resh Lakish used the word ארמלא, which most likely means widowed (and hence has a secondary meaning of being alone). There is actually data that applies to this more specific Resh Lakish claim about widows, and it comes from The Roper Center at the University of Connecticut. 

From Economics and Happiness, ed Bruni L. Oxford University Press 2005.

As shown in the table, 62% of women who are widowed want to be happily married.  (Of course this also means that about 40% of widowed women would rather not be married -  even happily. That’s a huge proportion. Still, the overall finding still supports the Resh Lakish Rule.) The women's perspective is the most important perspective in this conversation, and when women (widows) were asked, most wanted to be married again. Widows indeed wish to live as two rather than live alone. I don't think this amounts to anything like an existential fact, as claimed by the Rav. But the evidence from the social sciences would certainly support the Resh Lakish Rule.

Gittin 89a ~ Breastfeeding in Public

גיטין פט,א 

אכלה בשוק, גירגרה בשוק, הניקה בשוק – בכולן רבי מאיר אומר תצא

If a married woman ate in the street, or walked with her head held high in the street, or nursed in the street - in all these cases Rabbi Meir said that she must leave her husband.

In the penultimate page of Gittin, the Talmud discusses immodest behavior. Rabbi Meir declared that three displays are so immodest that  any wife who expressed them should also be suspected of adultery. One of these behaviors is "nursing in the street." As a consequence, if a wife were to breastfeed in public, she cannot stay with her husband because of the possibility (- or is it the probability? -) that she had also committed adultery. 

Let's clear one thing up right away. Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah rejects the position of Rabbi Meir, as does the definitive Shulchan Aruch  (אבן העזר ו, טז) :

רמב"ם הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק יז הלכה כא 

יצא קול על הבתולה שהיא בעולה אין חוששין לה ותנשא לכהן גדול, יצא עליה קול שהיא שפחה אין חוששין לה ותנשא אפילו לכהן, יצא לה שם מזנה בעיר אין חוששין לה, ואפילו הוציאה בעלה משום שעברה על דת יהודית או בעדי דבר מכוער ומת קודם שיתן לה גט הרי זו מותרת לכהן שאין אוסרין אשה מאלו אלא בעדות ברורה או בהודאת פיה

...if a husband divorced his wife because she transgressed Jewish practice or because she did a repulsive thing - and he died before he was able to give her the Get (Bill of Divorce), she is permitted to marry a Cohen [who is normally forbidden to marry a divorcee]. For we do not forbid a woman to her husband for any of these reasons unless there is clear evidence, or she admits to it herself (Mishneh Torah Hil. Issurei Biah 17:21).

As we have noted many times, societal definitions of immodest behavior change over time and between locations, and are continuing to evolve. Perhaps no better example of this evolution are attitudes towards breastfeeding in a public space. Rabbi Meir's attitude, while it may appear extreme, was in fact one that prevailed until recently in many cultures - especially our own. (That is why in 2014 Pope Francis made headlines when he encouraged mothers in the Sistine Chapel to nurse their children.)

Public Breastfeeding laws

1.  THE US

Back in 2013, a review of  breastfeeding laws in the US, researchers at Harvard noted that the majority of states have legislation permitting women to breastfeed in any location and exempting breastfeeding from indecency laws.  However, a decade ago fewer than half the states required employers to provide break time accommodations, prohibit employment discrimination based on breastfeeding, or offer breastfeeding women exemption from jury duty.

“The first breastfeeding law was passed in New York in 1984 with legislation exempting breastfeeding from public indecency offences. In 1993, Florida and North Carolina enacted laws to permit women to breastfeed in any public or private location. In 1994, Iowa passed the first legislation to excuse or postpone jury duty for breastfeeding women... Minnesota passed a law that required employers to provide break time and a private space for mothers to express milk. ”

— Nguyen, TT. Hawkins, SS. Current state of US breastfeeding laws. Maternal & Child Nutrition 2013. 9: 350-358.

Happily, things have gotten better. For example, in July 2019 Congress passed the Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act. And according to the National Conference of State Legislators, “all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have laws that specifically allow women to breastfeed in any public or private location.” To wit

• Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands exempt breastfeeding from public indecency laws. (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.)

• Thirty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have laws related to breastfeeding in the workplace. (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.)

• Twenty-two states and Puerto Rico exempt breastfeeding mothers from jury duty or allow jury service to be postponed. (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah and Virginia.)

• Four states and Puerto Rico have implemented or encouraged the development of a breastfeeding awareness education campaign. (California, Illinois, Minnesota and Missouri)

These laws are important because state laws that support breast feeding are associated with increased breastfeeding rates - and the health benefits that follow.

2.  THE UK

In the United Kingdom, breastfeeding in public was addressed in the Equality Act of 2010. Under this legislation, treating a woman unfavorably because she is breastfeeding is sex discrimination and against the law.  The Act protects nursing mothers in public places such as parks, sports and leisure facilities, and when using public transport.  They are also protected in stores, restaurants, hotels movie theatres (known as "cinemas" there), and gas stations. In Scotland it is a criminal offense to try to prevent a woman from feeding a child under two in any place in which the public has access and in which the child is entitled to be. Anyone who tries to do so can be prosecuted under the Equality Act.

3.  ISRAEL

A 2007 survey of pediatricians, family physicians, and gynecologists in Israel concluded that physicians had a positive disposition towards breastfeeding but that their knowledge about it was somewhat low. The authors noted that "it is highly important to increase physicians’ awareness of breastfeeding women’s needs," though they did not address the issue of nursing in public. A 2004 report from the Kenesset (עידוד הנקה בישראל) noted that only 32% of Jewish mothers were breastfeeding their infants a six months, (compared with 50% of Arab mothers,) but the report did not address nursing in public.

In an amendment to the 1954 חוק עבודת נשים, תשי"ד law to protect the rights of women, (סעיף7 (ג) (3)) a mother who is employed full-time may take up to one hour each day to breastfeed for the four months following her return from maternity leave. The Ministry of Health has published guidelines around the rights to breastfeed while at work.

Breastfeeding in Public - One Rabbi's Responsum

Rabbi Brad Artson of the Zeigler School of Rabbinic Studies in Los Angeles has written a thoughtful תשובה (responsum) on the question of breast feeding in public. "When it was possible to avoid baring the breast," he wrote, reviewing several talmudic passages, "it seems to be the preferred approach of the rabbis. Forced stripping [which was part of the Sotah ritual] was a sign of humiliation. And, finally, the rabbis dispute whether or not such an act as public breast-feeding is a sufficient cause for divorce (ultimately deciding that it is not)." He concluded his twelve page responsum  (which was approved 14 to 3) with these words: 

Reading the sources in the light of these considerations, I understand halakhah to permit public breast-feeding, including in a Beit Midrash or synagogue sanctuary during a worship service, so long as it is done in a modest, subtle, and dignified fashion. (This requirement would be met, for example, by using a cloth or towel to cover breast and baby, by the maternity shirts specially made for this purpose, or by nursing in the rear of the room.) It is also preferable that Jewish institutions provide places where mothers who prefer to nurse in private may do so.

Many synagogue arks are emblazoned with the words דע לפני מי אתה עומד , know before Whom you stand. In Torah study and in prayer, we are in the presence of the One whose salvation is intimated through human nursing:

לְמַעַן תִּינְקוּ וּשְֹבַעְתֶּם מִשֹּׁד תַּנְחֻמֶיהָ לְמַעַן תָּמֹצּוּ וְהִתְעַנַּגְתֶּם מִזִּיז כְּבוֹדָהּת

"That you may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that you may drink deeply, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.”

Jewish institutions, in particular, have an obligation to welcome, facilitate, and support nursing mothers and their babies.

These are words that Jews of any and all denominations should get behind.

“An amendment no. 6 and printed in the Congressional Record to establish that no funds may be used to enforce any prohibition on women breastfeeding their children in Federal buildings or on Federal property.”

— Bill Summary & Status 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) House Ammendment 295.

Former airwoman Tara Ruby photographed active duty soldiers at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, September 2015.

NEXT TIME ON TALMUDOLOGY: THE CHANGING INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE

Gittin 86b ~ How do Pigeons Drink?

In a brief digression from the rules of gittin, the Talmud digresses into ornithology. If a bird sips water in which ashes of the red heifer have been placed (known as מי חטאת) the water can no longer be used. This applies to all birds except for the pigeon, because it sips the water from the container and presumably none falls back into the water from its mouth. The source for this is a Mishnah from masechet (tractate) Parah (9:3).

כל הָעוֹפוֹת פּוֹסְלִין בְּמֵי חַטָּאת, חוּץ מִן הַיּוֹנָה – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹצֶצֶת.

All birds disqualify water of purification by drinking from it, (because some of the water spills from the bird’s beak back into the basin after being disqualified by having been in the bird’s mouth.) This is the halakha with regard to all birds except for the pigeon, because it sucks the water, (which prevents it from spilling back).

HOW PIGEONS DRINK

We are most fortunate that back in 1982 Professor G.A. Zweers from the zoological laboratory at the University of Leiden published what is surely the definitive paper on the topic, Drinking of the Pigeon (Columba Livia L.). Zweers opens his 43 page gem by noting that birds drink in many different ways. “Most of them drink like waterfowl; they walk to or through the water, move their beak open and close their beak several times, take some water, tip head and let the water run down by gravity.” However the way in which pigeons drink had for many years been a source of academic debate, and it was time to clear this up once and for all. So Zweers decided to “formulate a mechanical model for the drinking of pigeons….” and film them merrily drinking using high speed cameras. Now Talmudology readers are the lucky beneficiaries of these herculean efforts.

Using a frame by frame analysis of high speed films and X-ray motion pictures, Zweers figured out that thirsty pigeons use “a double-suction or vacuum-pump model” to drink. Here is how it works:

Consummatory drinking is a series of similar movement cycles, each transporting one dose of water into the oesophagus. The swallowing movement cycle shows five phases:

1, capillary action of the beak tips;

2, lingual suction

3, pharyngeal preparation

4, pharyngeal suction;

and 5, oesophageal collection.

A double build up of an area of low air pressure occurs. As a result of the retraction of the tongue in the mouth (acting as a piston in a cylinder) low air pressure develops in the buccal cavity and water is sucked into the mouth. Secondly, a lower air pressure area develops in the pharynx as a result of a depression of its floor, so that the water in the mouth is given a momentum caudad, by which it is forced over the larynx into the oesophagus.

It’s not only pigeons who suck…

The Mishnah rules that other than the pigeon any bird that drinks the waters of purification renders it unusable, because it is only the pigeon that sucks in water through its beak. All other birds drink using different mechanisms, during which time drops of water may fall back into the water, and render it unfit. But this isn’t quite the case. Some parrots like the parakeet (known in the United Kingdom and many parts of the Commonwealth as budgerigar) and the fig parrots also use a sucking mechanism to swallow, though they are native to Oceania and the islands of south-east Asia, so the rabbis of the Talmud could not have known this. The African fork-tailed drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis) sucks in water like pigeons, but then tip their heads back to swallow it. And finally, the common sandgrouse drinks using a very similar mechanism to pigeons.

To conclude: the pigeon is not the only bird that uses suction to drink, but it is certainly one of the few species that do so. We had the benefit of high-speed photography and a determined German professor, but the rabbis of the Mishnah had only their daily observations to guide them, and most of the time that was good enough.

“Pigeons and doves are among the few birds that can suck water while their head is down. They don’t need to look skyward to swallow.”

— Bird Watchers Digest