Bava Kamma 18b ~ Braying Donkeys and Broken Glasses

Do you remember the ad for Memorex video and cassette tapes that aired in the 1970s? It showed the late great Ella Fitzgerald breaking a glass with her pitch perfect voice, and was followed by the catchy jingle “is it live, or is it Memorex?” Here’s the ad, to refresh your memory.

Today’s page of Talmud mentions the ability of roosters, horses and donkeys to shatter glassware and pottery with their cries:

בבא קמא יח, ב

תא שמע דתני רמי בר יחזקאל תרנגול שהושיט ראשו לאויר כלי זכוכית ותקע בו ושברו משלם נזק שלם ואמר רב יוסף אמרי בי רב סוס שצנף וחמור שנער ושיבר את הכלים משלם חצי נזק

Come and learn:Rami bar Yechezkel taught a Baraisa that states: If a rooster put its head into the hollow of a glass vessel, and cried out and broke it, the rooster’s owner pays full damages.  But Rav Yosef said that they say in the academy of Rav: if a horse neighed or a donkey brayed and broke vessels with the noise, the animal’s owner pays only half damages..

Rashi is very clear (and this does appear to be the plain meaning of the Talmud) that these cases do not refer to damage that was caused by the animal’s body, but rather by its voice.

ותקע בו ושברו. שנבקע הכלי מחמת הקול:

סוס שצנף ושיבר כלים. בקולו וכל הני צרורות נינהו דכחו הוא

 Which raises the question: can you actually break a glass with your voice – and can animals do so?

How to shatter a glass with perfect pitch

It would appear that Ella Fitzgerald’s Memorex feat was achieved by sleight of hand – she did in fact break the glass, but her voice was amplified.  Which is kind of cheating. But as The Scientific American explained, this trick should be physically possible:

Every piece of glass has a natural resonant frequency—the speed at which it will vibrate if bumped or otherwise disturbed by some stimulus, such as a sound wave—as does every other material on Earth. Glass wine goblets are especially resonant because of their hollow tubular shape, which is why they make a pleasant ringing sound when clinked. If a person sings the same tone as that ringing note—a high C in legend but in reality the matching pitch could be any note—the sound of her voice will vibrate the air molecules around the glass at its resonant frequency, causing the glass to start vibrating as well. And if she sings loudly enough, the glass will vibrate itself to smithereens. 

But singing the correct note does not guarantee breaking the glass. For that to happen, there needs to be microscopic defects in it that will buckle and fracture under pressure. The volume can help a lot too (hence the amplification in Ella’s Memorex commercial), because the louder the note, the more forceful the pressure exerted on the glass molecules.

The ability for a human voice to break a glass – usually a wine glass – was considered by many to be an urban legend, but it is in fact perfectly feasible. If you are a trained opera singer.  In 2005 the entertaining television series Mythbusters dedicated an episode to exploring the myth, and concluded that it is indeed possible. In so doing, the show provided the first documented evidence that a natural, un-amplified human voice can break a glass. It took twenty attempts, and a voice that reached 105 decibels (that's louder than jackhammer) and could hit a perfect 566 Hz.  Here's a montage that recaps the attempt. If you are impatient, fast-forward to minute 2.05

All of this raises the question: how on earth could a braying donkey or crying rooster achieve the same feat? It takes incredible volume, a perfect pitch, and close proximity to be able to pull of a stunt like that. Perhaps that's why the Baraisa noted that the rooster would have to have put its head inside the hollow of the glass vessel (שהושיט ראשו לאויר כלי זכוכית). But even so, there's the volume and pitch thing.  Given what we know about the difficulty in shattering a glass with the human voice, talmudic donkeys and roosters must have had incredible musical talent.  Or perhaps the pots and glasses used in the talmudic era tended to break much more readily than do ours, and the animals were convenient to blame.

It's too bad that the 282nd episode of Mythbusters, which aired in March 2016, was its last. Perhaps it could have replaced Jaime Vendera, the vocal coach who broke the glass, with a couple of chickens and a donkey.  Now that would be worth watching.

Bava Kamma 15b ~ Where the Wild Things Are

 בבא קמא טו,ב

הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש הרי אלו מועדין רבי אלעזר אומר בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדין והנחש מועד לעולם

The the wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the bardalis and the snake are considered to be forewarned [so that if they cause damage their owner must pay in full].  R. Eleazar says: if they have been tamed, they are not forewarned; the snake, however, is always forwarned.

Wild Animals gone...Wild

In July 2012, while touring a hospital in Johannesburg, I was given a brutal reminder of the dangers posed by the wild animals were were about to see on safari. In the Intensive Care unit and fighting for his life was a young American named Andrew Oberle, who had come to South Africa to study the chimps. Oberle, a twenty-six year old student, had left the group he was guiding and entered a 'no-go' zone. Two chimps interpreted this as an act of aggression, grabbed the young American, and dragged him into their enclosure. By the time he was finally rescued, Oberline had suffered these injuries: 

The chimps tore away his scalp down to the skull. His ears and nose are gone, and he can’t close his right eye. He has wounds on his trunk and all four limbs. He’s lost most of his fingers, and his right forearm has been eaten, the tendons gone. He’s lost parts of his feet, and his right ankle is destroyed.

(Oberle survived his attack, and in December 2017 he talked about it on podcast which you can listen to here.)

Then there was bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell (who later became the subject of an excellent 2005 documentary by Werner Herzog).  Treadwell was a self-described bear conservationist, although he lacked any formal training in the field and was frequently at odds with the Park Service. In October 2003, Treadwell and his girlfriend were mauled and eaten by a Grizzly bear in Alaska's Katmai National Park. Thus far, two examples of wild animals acting, well, wild.  

What about training these wild animals to perform tricks?  Well, there's a cautionary tale in that too. Do you recall the great illusionists Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn, the pair of magicians who became world famous for their performances with white lions? For over thirteen years Siegfried and Roy performed at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, until um, they stopped. On October 3, 2003 Roy was bitten in the neck by a seven year old tiger named Manticore, who dragged him off the stage "like a ragdoll." He almost bled to death, and remains partially paralyzed as a result of the attack.  So how could Rabbi Eleazar possibly claim that animals as wild as a lion or a bear ever be considered tame or domesticated? Well, read on...

Domestication

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines domestication as

the process of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into domestic and cultivated forms according to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims and are adapted to the conditions of continuous care and solicitude people maintain for them.

Thus we speak of domesticated horses and wild horses, domesticated bees and wild bees, and domesticated plants -(think tobacco, and corn)- and wild plants. What turns a species from a wild to a domesticated form is human patience and careful breeding. But the late professor of anthropology Charles Reed (d. 2000) wrote that many animals are naturally tame - or at least not afraid of human contact:

Among these are manatees, who may not even move aside as one swim among them; sea-otters, from whom one can take the young without any defense by the mother; various basking seals, elephant-seals and sea-lions, among who (other than the males in breeding season) one can walk unconcerned, and whose young, if they've lost their mothers, will follow any human hoping to be fed; various of the porpoises and dolphins, who seem to have no fear of man, and even the great whales.

Can Wolves be Tamed?

The Mishnah on today's page of Talmud stated that six species of animal can never be relied upon to have been domesticated. One of these is the wolf, which seems kind of reasonable, even allowing for the fact that our dogs are descended from them.  But wolves have also been successfully raised as family pets, (though you should probably check with your spouse before bringing home a wolf cub for the family). "Actually" wrote Charles Reed, "wolf pups reared as a group in Alaskan isolation or a single pup brought up with children and dogs in an urban family are wonderfully affectionate, social, dynamic, interesting, and of course intelligent fellow citizens." Which sounds rather like the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, who believed that wolves, (and bears, lions and leopards) may be tamed so successfully that they end up about as aggressive as domestic goats.

“Wild animals ain’t so wild, as shown again by a wild-caught penned wolverine in Alaska, which, within a few days of capture, was taking food from the hand...when the hand was empty, the wolverine gently, with its incisor teeth, held the lady’s fingertips without braking the skin.”

— Charles A. Reed. Wild Animals Ain't So Wild, Domesticating Them Not So Difficult. Expedition 1986. 28 (2) 8-15.

A Pet Grizzly Bear called ben franklin

In the Mishnah, Rabbi Eleazar spoke not only of a tame wolf - but of a tame bear.  While our modern sensibilities would be outraged at the notion of raising a wild bear as a pet, these sensibilities are, to be sure, modern indeed. In a charming article published in the American Naturalist in 1886, John Caton described the domestication of the grizzly bear. Just to remind you- a small grizzly bear weights 400 pounds and stands about six and a half feet tall. Now read on:

Among others he [a certain James Adams] fairly domesticated quite a number of the grizzly bear (Ursus ferox Lewis and Clark) with complete success. This is the largest and fiercest known of all the species, and it might be expected the most intractable or unsubmissive to human control, yet such appears not to have been the case.

The first specimens experimented with were two cubs, over a year old when caught, taken in Washington Territory, between Lewis and Clark's fork of the Columbia. They were brother and sister; the latter was retained by Adams, and his experiments were principally conducted on her, which he called " Lady Washington." She seems to have been the more tractable and submissive. The male he parted with to a friend, after he had received but the rudiments of his education. At first they were chained to trees near the camp-fire, and resisted all attempts at familiarity and kindness; then severity was adopted, until they finally submitted.

Soon after the male was parted with, and we have no account of his subsequent career. The female was always after treated with the utmost kindness, and in a few months became as tractable as a dog. She followed her master in his hunting excursions, fought for him with other grizzlies, and saved him from the greatest perils.

She slept at his feet around the camp-fire, and took the place of a most vigilant watch-dog. He taught her to carry burdens with the docility of a mule, and as she grew up her great strength enabled her to render him great assistance in this way.

Another bear of the same species he captured in the Sierras in California before its eyes were open, and raised it on a greyhound bitch in company with her own pup. This he called Ben Franklin, and proved more docile even than the first. He never found it necessary to confine in any way this specimen, but he was allowed to roam and hunt with his foster brother, the grayhound [sic]. They were inseparable companions, and seemed to have as much affection for each other as if they had been of the same species, Before he was full-grown, when his master was attacked by a wounded grizzly, he joined in the fight with such ferocity as to save his master's life, and though he was severely wounded in this contest, with careful nursing he survived, and ever after showed as much courage in attacking his own species as if he had not met with this severe punishment.

I know what you are thinking: grizzly bears are found only in North America, but bears in Israel were a species of the brown bear called Ursus arctos syriacus, or the Syrian Brown Bear. Well that's true, but it's not only grizzly bears that make cuddly pets; the same owner of Ben Franklin, the pet grizzly, also kept black bears (and who knows, perhaps brown ones too):

He found the black bear, when raised in camp, as readily domesticated as the grizzly, and as fond of his society, following him about the camp and through the woods with fidelity and attachment.

So there we have it. Evidence to support Rabbi Eleazar's dissenting opinion that many wild animals may become as domesticated as a dog or cat.  Still, best to stick with dogs and cats as pets.  They take up far less space than the enormous, though very cute, grizzly bear.

Talmudology on the Parsha, Toledot: Esau and Orangutans

בראשית 25:27

וַֽיִּגְדְּלוּ֙ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וַיְהִ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ צַ֖יִד אִ֣ישׁ שָׂדֶ֑ה וְיַעֲקֹב֙ אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם יֹשֵׁ֖ב אֹהָלִֽים׃

And the boys grew: and ῾Esav was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Ya῾aqov was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

In explaining the meaning of the phrase “a man of the field” Rashi has no problem adopting a straightforward and non-midrashic approach:

איש שדה. כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, אָדָם בָּטֵל וְצוֹדֶה בְקַשְׁתּוֹ חַיּוֹת וְעוֹפוֹת

איש שדה A MAN OF THE FIELD — Explain it literally (i.e., not in a Midrashic manner): a man without regular occupation, hunting beasts and birds with his bow.

The Seforno (Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno, Italy, 1475–1549) followed Rashi’s example:

איש שדה. יודע בעבודת האדמה

איש שדה A MAN OF THE FIELD - He was skilled as a farmer

Esau hunted mysterious animals

But the Gaon of Vilna, Rabbi Elijah ben Solomon (1720-1797) thought this verse deserved a more fanciful explanation. And boy, he does not disappoint:

דברי אליהו תילדות

פרשת תולדות ויגדלו נערים ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד איש שדה הפי' של איש שדה י ל עד"ז דהכתוב סיפר שעשו היה יודע איך יצוד את איש השדה והוא אדני השדה הנזכר בכלאים פ ח מ׳ה והוא ידעוני הכתוב בתורה וצורתו צורת אדם בפרצוף וידים ורגלים והוא מחובר בטבורו בחבל גדול היוצא מן הארץ.

ואין כל בריה רשאה לקרב אליו במלא מדת החבל כי חוא הורג וטורף כל הקרב אליו.

וכשרוצים לצודו מורים בחצים בחבל עד שנפסק החבל וצועק בקול מר ומיד הוא מת ועשו היה יודע איך לצודו חיים ושיעור הכתוב הוא כאילו נכתב ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד לאיש שדה

The phrase “a cunning hunter, a man of the field” means the following: Esau was an excellent hunter who was able to hunt the creature known as the Ish Sadeh (איש שדה). This is the creature that rules over the fields (אדני השדה) that is mentioned in the Mishnah in Kila’im (8:5). This is also the creature known as the yidoni (ידעוני) in the Torah (Lev 19:31). Its face has the features of a person, as are his arms and legs, and it is attached from its umbilicus with what appears to be thick cord which comes from the earth.

No creature may venture close to it because it kills and maims all who approach it.

When it is hunted, they aim their arrows at the cord until it breaks. The creature then cries out and immediately dies. However, Esau was able to capture it alive, and the verse should be understood as if it were written “and Esau knew how to hunt the Ish Hasadeh (איש שדה).”

Incidentally, this is explanation is not original to the Gaon. It can be found, word for word, in the commentary of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro (c. 1445-1515) to the Mishnah (Kila’im 8:5). But it goes back as far at the thirteenth century, as we will see below.

The Yidoni was ….an orangutan

As the Gaon mentions, the yidoni that he posits was hunted by Esau is mentioned in the Torah, though its identity is uncertain. The Koren Bible thinks it is a wizard:

ויקרא יט, לא

אַל־תִּפְנ֤וּ אֶל־הָאֹבֹת֙ וְאֶל־הַיִּדְּעֹנִ֔ים אַל־תְּבַקְשׁ֖וּ לְטמְאָ֣ה בָהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹ’ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם׃

You shall not apply to mediums or wizards, nor seek to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.

But let’s take a look at the commentary on the Mishnah of Rabbi Israel Lipschitz (1782–1860), known as the Tiferes Yisrael. In one of his commentaries called Yachin, he offers a precise identification of the yidoni:

נ"ל דר"ל וואלדמענש הנקרא אוראנגאוטאנג והוא מין קוף גדול בקומת וצורת אדם ממש

This is the “wild-man” known as an orangutan; it is a large monkey whose size and shape is exactly like that of a human.

And he continues:

רק שזרעותיו ארוכים ומגיעין עד ברכיו ומלמדין אותו לחטוב עצים ולשאוב מים וגם ללבוש בגדים כבן אדם ממש. ולהסב על השולחן ולאכול בכף ובסכין ובמזלג, ובזמנינו אינו מצוי רק ביערות גדולות שבאפריקא, אולם כפי הנראה היה מצוי גם בסביבות ארץ ישראל בהרי הלבנון

It has long arms that reach down to its knees. It can be trained to carry wood and draw water, and even to wear people’s clothing. It can sit at the table and eat with a spoon, knife and fork. Today, however, it is only found in large jungles in Africa, but it appears that it one could be found around Israel, in the forests of Lebanon.

Although he does not mention this fun fact, it turns out that the etymology of the word orangutan is from the Malay words orang, meaning "person", and hutan, meaning "forest.” This is, I think you will agree, awfully close to the meaning of איש שדה, no?

If this seems to be a bit of a cholent, it is. The description of the Ish Sadeh as being attached to the earth by some kind of umbilical cord invokes another legend, known as the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary, or alternatively, the Barometz. This was a mythical creature that was half-plant and half animal, usually in the form of a sheep. Like this:

From Duret, Claude (d.1611), Histoire admirable des plantes et herbes esmerueillables et miraculeuses en nature: mesmes d'aucunes qui sont vrays zoophytes, ou plant-animales. Paris : N. Bvon, 1605 Plate, p.330: 'Portrait du boramets de Scythie ou Tartarie'

Except instead of a lamb, think orangutan.

Rabbi Herman Adler Chief Rabbi, weighs in…

In 1887 Henry Lee published an entire book on the legend, called, appropriately enough The Vegetable Lamb of Tarty (London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, 1887). On pages 6–7, Lee describes his correspondence with Rabbi Hermann Adler, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire. Lee had heard that the legend is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, but he could not find the citation and so he wrote to Rabbi Adler for some help. Here is the rabbi’s answer. Make of it what you will.

“It affords me much gratification to give you the information you desire on the Borametz. In the Mishna Kilaim, chap. viii. § 5 (a portion of the Talmud), the passage occurs:—‘Creatures called Adne Hasadeh (literally, “lords of the field”) are regarded as beasts.’ There is a variant reading,—Abne Hasadeh (stones of the field). A commentator, Rabbi Simeon, of Sens (died about 1235), writes as follows on this passage:—‘It is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud that this is a human being of the mountains: it lives by means of its navel: if its navel be cut it cannot live. I have heard in the name of Rabbi Meir, the son of Kallonymos of Speyer, that this is the animal called ‘Jeduah.’ This is the ‘Jedoui’ mentioned in Scripture (lit. wizard, Leviticus xix. 31); with its bones witchcraft is practised. A kind of large stem issues from a root in the earth on which this animal, called ‘Jadua,’ grows, just as gourds and melons. Only the ‘Jadua’ has, in all respects, a human shape, in face, body, hands, and feet. By its navel it is joined to the stem that issues from the root. No creature can approach within the tether of the stem, for it seizes and kills them. Within the tether of the stem it devours the herbage all around. When they want to capture it no man dares approach it, but they tear at the stem until it is ruptured, whereupon the animal dies.’ Another commentator, Rabbi Obadja of Berbinoro, gives the same explanation, only substituting—’They aim arrows at the stem until it is ruptured,’ &c. The author of an ancient Hebrew work, Maase Tobia (Venice, 1705), gives an interesting description of this animal. In Part IV. c. 10, page 786, he mentions the Borametz found in Great Tartary. He repeats the description of Rabbi Simeon, and adds what he has found in ‘A New Work on Geography,’ namely, that ‘the Africans (sic) in Great Tartary, in the province of Sambulala, are enriched by means of seeds like the seeds of gourds, only shorter in size, which grow and blossom like a stem to the navel of an animal which is called Borametz in their language, i.e. ‘lamb,’ on account of its resembling a lamb in all its limbs, from head to foot; its hoofs are cloven, its skin is soft, its wool is adapted for clothing, but it has no horns, only the hairs of its head, which grow, and are intertwined like horns. Its height is half a cubit and more. According to those who speak of this wondrous thing, its taste is like the flesh of fish, its blood as sweet as honey, and it lives as long as there is herbage within reach of the stem, from which it derives its life. If the herbage is destroyed or perishes, the animal also dies away. It has rest from all beasts and birds of prey, except the wolf, which seeks to destroy it.’ The author concludes by expressing his belief, that this account of the animal having the shape of a lamb is more likely to be true than that it is of human form.”

If you check the commentary of Rabbi Shimshon of Senz (c. 1150-1230) you will indeed find this explanation of the Mishnah in Kila’im:

ירושלמי (הל' ד') אמר רבי חמא ברבי עוקבא בשם רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא טעמא דרבי יוסי וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה (במדבר י״ט:ט״ז) בגדל מן השדה כלומר מין אדם הוא א"ר בר נש דטור הוא והוא חיי מטיבורא פסק טיבורא לא חיי ושמעתי בשם הר' מאיר ברבי קלונימוס מאשפירא שהיא חיה ששמה ידוע והיא ידעוני דקרא ומעצם שלה עושין כמין כשפים וכמין חבל גדול יוצא משורש שבארץ שבו גדל אותה החיה ששמה ידוע כעין אותם קישואין ודלועים אלא הידוע צורתו כצורת אדם בכל דבר בצורת פנים וגוף וידים ורגלים ומטיבורו מחובר לחבל היוצא מן השורש ואין כל בריה רשאי ליקרב כמלא החבל שטורפת והורגת כמלא החבל ורועה כל סביבותיה וכשבאין לצודה אין אדם רשאי לקרב אצלה אלא גוררין אותה אל החבל עד שהוא נפסק והיא מיד מתה:

Rabbi Shimshon credited the legend to “Meir, the son of Kallonymous of Speyer” whose identity I am still figuring out. But this appears to be the earliest Hebrew source for the myth of the Ish Sadeh as the Barometz, (or something like it).

So to recap:

Here is what we have discovered:

There was a legend about a half-plant-half animal that appears to begin around the 11th century with a Rabbi Meir, who perhaps lived before 1196, perhaps in Speyer. Rabbi Shimshon of Sens passed the legend down, and it travelled from Ashkenaz to Italy where it appears in the writings of the Seforno. It then appears in some form in Ma’aseh Tuvia published in 1707, and then finds its way to the Gaon of Vilna, who sort of mixed it together with the Ish Sadeh, from where, perhaps, the Tiferet Yisrael got his explanation of an orangutan (but not a Boramtez). I am sure there are others along the way, but it is time to stop. There are tehilim that must be said for our brothers and sisters in Israel.

אַחֵינוּ כָּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל

הַנְּתוּנִים בַּצָּרָה וּבַשִּׁבְיָה

הָעוֹמְדִים בֵּין בַּיָּם וּבֵין בַּיַּבָּשָׁה

הַמָּקוֹם יְרַחֵם עֲלֵיהֶם

וְיוֹצִיאֵם מִצָּרָה לִרְוָחָה

וּמֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹרָה

וּמִשִּׁעְבּוּד לִגְאֻלָּה

הָשָׁתָא בַּעֲגָלָא וּבִזְמַן קָרִיב

Talmudology on the Parsha, Chayei Sarah: Camels

בראשית 24: 10–19

וַיִּקַּ֣ח הָ֠עֶ֠בֶד עֲשָׂרָ֨ה גְמַלִּ֜ים מִגְּמַלֵּ֤י אֲדֹנָיו֙ וַיֵּ֔לֶךְ וְכל־ט֥וּב אֲדֹנָ֖יו בְּיָד֑וֹ וַיָּ֗קם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ אֶל־אֲרַ֥ם נַֽהֲרַ֖יִם אֶל־עִ֥יר נָחֽוֹר׃

וַיַּבְרֵ֧ךְ הַגְּמַלִּ֛ים מִח֥וּץ לָעִ֖יר אֶל־בְּאֵ֣ר הַמָּ֑יִם לְעֵ֣ת עֶ֔רֶב לְעֵ֖ת צֵ֥את הַשֹּׁאֲבֹֽת׃

וַיֹּאמַ֓ר יְהֹוָ֗ה אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם הַקְרֵה־נָ֥א לְפָנַ֖י הַיּ֑וֹם וַעֲשֵׂה־חֶ֕סֶד עִ֖ם אֲדֹנִ֥י אַבְרָהָֽם׃

הִנֵּ֛ה אָנֹכִ֥י נִצָּ֖ב עַל־עֵ֣ין הַמָּ֑יִם וּבְנוֹת֙ אַנְשֵׁ֣י הָעִ֔יר יֹצְאֹ֖ת לִשְׁאֹ֥ב מָֽיִם׃

וְהָיָ֣ה הַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֹמַ֤ר אֵלֶ֙יהָ֙ הַטִּי־נָ֤א כַדֵּךְ֙ וְאֶשְׁתֶּ֔ה וְאָמְרָ֣ה שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַם־גְּמַלֶּ֖יךָ אַשְׁקֶ֑ה אֹתָ֤הּ הֹכַ֙חְתָּ֙ לְעַבְדְּךָ֣ לְיִצְחָ֔ק וּבָ֣הּ אֵדַ֔ע כִּי־עָשִׂ֥יתָ חֶ֖סֶד עִם־אֲדֹנִֽי׃

וַֽיְהִי־ה֗וּא טֶ֘רֶם֮ כִּלָּ֣ה לְדַבֵּר֒ וְהִנֵּ֧ה רִבְקָ֣ה יֹצֵ֗את אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֻלְּדָה֙ לִבְתוּאֵ֣ל בֶּן־מִלְכָּ֔ה אֵ֥שֶׁת נָח֖וֹר אֲחִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֑ם וְכַדָּ֖הּ עַל־שִׁכְמָֽהּ׃

וְהַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ טֹבַ֤ת מַרְאֶה֙ מְאֹ֔ד בְּתוּלָ֕ה וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יְדָעָ֑הּ וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל׃

וַיָּ֥רץ הָעֶ֖בֶד לִקְרָאתָ֑הּ וַיֹּ֕אמֶר הַגְמִיאִ֥ינִי נָ֛א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם מִכַּדֵּֽךְ׃

וַתֹּ֖אמֶר שְׁתֵ֣ה אֲדֹנִ֑י וַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתֹּ֧רֶד כַּדָּ֛הּ עַל־יָדָ֖הּ וַתַּשְׁקֵֽהוּ׃

וַתְּכַ֖ל לְהַשְׁקֹת֑וֹ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר גַּ֤ם לִגְמַלֶּ֙יךָ֙ אֶשְׁאָ֔ב עַ֥ד אִם־כִּלּ֖וּ לִשְׁתֹּֽת׃

וַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתְּעַ֤ר כַּדָּהּ֙ אֶל־הַשֹּׁ֔קֶת וַתָּ֥רץ ע֛וֹד אֶֽל־הַבְּאֵ֖ר לִשְׁאֹ֑ב וַתִּשְׁאַ֖ב לְכל־גְּמַלָּֽיו׃

And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Aram-naharayim, to the city of Nahor. And he made his camels kneel down outside the city by a well of water at the time of evening, at the time that the women go out to draw water. And he said, O Lord God of my master Avraham, I pray Thee, send me good speed this day, and show kindness to my master Avraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: and let it come to pass, that the girl to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let her be she that Thou hast appointed for Thy servant Yitzhaq; and thereby shall I know that Thou hast shown kindness to my master.

And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rivkah came out, who was born to Betu᾽el, son of Milka, the wife of Nahor, Avraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder.And the girl was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hastened, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.

There are a lot of camels mentioned in this week’s parsha. And they needed a lot of water. And about ten years ago, there were a lot of reactions to a paper published by a couple of archeologists from Tel Aviv University. It had this catchy title: The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley.

When were the first Levantine Camels?

Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef had set out to answer a simple question: What is the earliest evidence of camels in the Levant, that is to say, the area around Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. They hypothesised that the camel “substantially facilitated trade across the vast deserts of Arabia, promoting both economic and social change.” So when, they wondered, did that all happen?

The evidence

Camels had been depicted in the 10-9th centuries B.C.E. at the earliest, and appeared in text as early as the 9th century B.C.E. But none of this could answer the question as to whether or not domesticated camels were used before the Iron Age, about 1200-600 B.C.E. In and around Israel, the earliest evidence of domestic camels from analysis of fragments of their bones was dated to the 11th–9th centuries B.C.E. Here is what the archeologists concluded:

Current data from copper smelting sites of the Aravah Valley enable us to pinpoint the introduction of domestic camels to the southern Levant more precisely based on stratigraphic contexts associated with an extensive suite of radiocarbon dates. The data indicate that this event occurred not earlier than the last third of the 10th century BCE and most probably during this time. The coincidence of this event with a major reorganization of the copper industry of the region—attributed to the results of the campaign of Pharaoh Shoshenq I—raises the possibility that the two were connected, and that camels were introduced as part of the efforts to improve efficiency by facilitating trade.

Camel remains from Late Bronze and Iron Age sites in the Aravah Valley. From Sapir-Hen, Lidar, and Erez Ben-Yosef. "The introduction of domestic camels to the southern Levant: evidence from the Aravah Valley." Tel Aviv 40.2 (2013): 277-285.

More recent evidence has come from the genetic analysis of wild and domesticated camels and reveals that “at least two, but more likely a minimum of six wild maternal lineages were captured during the process of domestication.” Still, this doesn’t shed light on the question of when exactly camels were domesticated.

Be careful what you read

Interestingly, the camel paper mentioned nothing about the Bible. But this did not stop sites like National Geographic from reporting that it had suggested that camels came to the area of Abraham and Eliezer “centuries later than the Bible says.” And in an article about the paper, The New York Times declared that “camels had no business in Genesis.”

In an interview with the Times, a Dr. Mizrahi, (not sure which one, could be this one or this one,) professor of Hebrew culture studies at Tel Aviv University who was not directly involved in the research, had this to say:

“One should be careful not to rush to the conclusion that the new archaeological findings automatically deny any historical value from the biblical stories…Rather, they established that these traditions were indeed reformulated in relatively late periods after camels had been integrated into the Near Eastern economic system. But this does not mean that these very traditions cannot capture other details that have an older historical background.”

Given the appalling reporting by The New York Times on the Gaza war, it’s best to heed this advice and not rush to a conclusion. Not in war, and not in peace.

Anyway, maybe there were camels…

Writing in 2020 in The Times of Israel, Joshua Berman from Bar-Ilan University (and author of Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth and the Thirteen Principles of Faith) was also critical of The New York Times:

Camels in Genesis are right where they belong. It is true that camels were not domesticated in Israel until the time of Solomon. But read Genesis carefully and you see that all its camels come from outside of Israel, from Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, where there is ample evidence of domestication of the camel during the period of the patriarchs.

Marc Chavalis, Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin, also addressed the question in an article he wrote in 2018 for Biblical Archaeology Review. Chavalis presented several pieces of evidence to suggest that camels were indeed domesticated in Mesopotamia long before the time of Abraham and Eliezer:

1. On a plaque from Eshnunna in modern Iraq there appears to be a camel being ridden by a person. This plaque dates from the mid-third millennium B.C.E, well before the time of Abraham et al.

2. A text from Puzrish-Dagan in modern Iraq (perhaps) records camel deliveries. It dates from the 21st-century B.C.E

3. An 18th-century B.C.E. text (quoting from an earlier third millennium text) from Nippur in modern Iraq says, “the milk of the camel is sweet.” Chavalas explained why he thinks this refers to a domesticated camel:

Having walked in many surveys through camel herds in Syria along the Middle Euphrates River, I believe that this text is describing a domesticated camel; who would want to milk a “wild camel”? At the very least, the Bactrian camel was being used for dairy needs at this time.

4. A 17th-century text from Alalakh in Turkey includes camels in a list of domesticated animals that required food.

5. Lastly, a cylindrical seal, probably from what is now the Turkish-Syrian border from the 18th-century B.C.E. shows a two-humped camel carrying two riders. It is now in the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore. Take a moment, and you can clearly see it:

All of these examples, Chavalis wrote,

…provide evidence that at the very least, the Bactrian camel was already known and domesticated in Mesopotamia by the time of Abraham. The relatively poor representation of camels in these texts does not imply their relative rarity; they may have been prestigious. So the Biblical writers may have been highlighting Abraham’s great wealth by mentioning camels. I think this evidence is more than enough to discount the idea that the Genesis source superimposed camels in the patriarchal narratives. The writer of Genesis wrote about camels anecdotally; they add little to the narrative, except for implying Abraham’s wealth.

And so we once again have an example in which absence of evidence (no camel remains found that date to before 1,000 B.C.E) does not mean evidence of absence (there were no camels earlier than 1,000 B.C.E.). Archaeologists beware.

“ ...by the second millennium, there were at least some domesticated camels. Thus, camel domestication had taken place in Mesopotamia by the time of Abraham. Accordingly, Chavalas argues that the camels in the stories of Abraham in Genesis are not anachronistic.”

— Megan Sauter, Did Camels Exist in Biblical Times? Bible History Daily, Jan 7, 2023

אַחֵינוּ כָּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל

הַנְּתוּנִים בַּצָּרָה וּבַשִּׁבְיָה

הָעוֹמְדִים בֵּין בַּיָּם וּבֵין בַּיַּבָּשָׁה

הַמָּקוֹם יְרַחֵם עֲלֵיהֶם

וְיוֹצִיאֵם מִצָּרָה לִרְוָחָה

וּמֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹרָה

וּמִשִּׁעְבּוּד לִגְאֻלָּה

הָשָׁתָא בַּעֲגָלָא וּבִזְמַן קָרִיב