B”H
Dear friends:
Finally –after a few weeks– Natan Slifkin
decided to write about Chulin 59a on the issue of the shafan.
He published in his
blogspot the letter he sent to Artscroll.
Following are some comments related to Natan
Slifkin’s letter. (Emphasis by bold letters added by me in the whole document).
I will try to ignore ad hominem attacks
and his psychoanalytical analysis of my personality.
1.1 NS wrote:
…It is
disappointing to see that a certain note was added to the latest edition of the
Artscroll Talmud. (As you may recall, 16 years ago you hired me as
zoological consultant for Chullin.)
IB:
16 years ago, was 2003. The year when Artscroll hired
you was 2003.
In 2005, about
30 Gedole Yisrael signed letters disqualifying your writings, so it’s understandable
that Artscroll hired you in 2003, two years before the letters were published.
2.1 NS wrote:
…Dr. Betech
is single-minded in his religious obsession that the shafan must
not be the hyrax (because in order to contrive his own particular
forced explanation of how the Torah's four animals with one kosher sign are the
only such animals on the planet, he wants the shafan to be the
rabbit).
IB:
This is not
my own particular explanation, but a statement written in Chullin 59a and
followed by all the Rishonim I have found, as amply documented in “The
enigma of the Biblical shafan” book in chapter 8 entitled: “The
exhaustive list of one-signed animals”.
3.1 NS wrote:
And
amazingly, in a book that professes to be the definitive and comprehensive
study of this topic with "more than 1000 bibliographical Torah and
scientific sources," he fails to cite the only dedicated work on this
topic that had ever been published - because it was written by me!
IB:
In the main
collective letter signed by 23 Gedole Yisrael in 2005 they wrote that it is
forbidden to propagate NS’s teachings, therefore I decided not to quote that
book. Anyway we tried to address all the intellectual arguments presented by that
author, usually being arguments that historically preceded him.
If someone
thinks that we didn’t address any specific argument made in NS’s book, please
point it out in the comments to this blogspot.
4.1 NS wrote:
But far
more problematic is the description of Betech as attempting to defend the
"traditional" view. The view that the shafan is
the rabbit is not the "traditional" view; it's the medieval European
view, because they didn't have hyraxes in Europe .
They broke from the original tradition of people from the Geonic era,
who lived in the region of Israel
IB:
Regarding
the identification of the Biblical shafan from the Geonic era, I only
remember Rab Saadia Gaon who just wrote “wabr” without describing
that species; as we explained in the book we doubt that he meant the hyrax, and
even if he was referring to the hyrax, nevertheless Ibn Ezra in Bereshit
2:11 wrote that Rab Saadia Gaon didn’t have a kabala for the
identification of the Biblical animals.
We also found
that Ibn Janach -who lived less than a century later than Rab Saadia
Gaon- translated shafan as wabr and wabr as conilio (rabbit),
so the hyrax can hardly be called a Geonic era tradition.
5.1 NS wrote:
You can ask
anyone in the field of Biblical natural history (such as Dr. Zohar Amar and Dr.
Moshe Raanan), and they will all tell you that it's clear beyond any doubt
that the shafan is the hyrax, and cannot possibly be the
rabbit.
IB:
In science, appealing to authority is not acceptable (ad
verecundiam fallacy).
Furthermore,
as any scientist knows, in the field of natural history, experts do not write
grandiose statements like “clear beyond any doubt”. The latter is the reason
the title and subtitle of our book is “The enigma of the Biblical shafan.
Torah and scientific research suggesting a solution”.
6.1 NS wrote:
…The reason is the very clear passuk in
Barchi Nafshi
הָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים
לַיְּעֵלִים סְלָעִים מַחְסֶה לַשְׁפַנִּים: תהילים קד:יח
"The
high hills are for the ya'elim, the rocks are a refuge for
the shefanim."
The pasuk tells
us two things about shefanim: that they hide in rocks,
and that they are associated with ya'elim…
IB:
Indeed the pasuk
tells us that shefanim hide in rocks, as rabbits do.
Nevertheless,
I’m not sure that the pasuk tells us that the shefanim are associated in
the same habitat with yaelim, since an “atnach/etnachta”
separates between the two elements of this pasuk.
For textual
and pictorial evidence that common rabbits hide in rocks, please see the linked document (taken
from the forthcoming 2nd expanded edition of our shafan book).
7.1 NS wrote:
Instead, he
claims, David HaMelech was speaking about the rabbit of Spain - an animal that never lived anywhere
near the Land of Israel
IB:
In chapter
5 (b) of our book we wrote nine ways of refuting these arguments.
8.1 NS wrote:
(The hyrax also matches the description in Shemini of
an animal that brings up food via its throat, which it does in small
quantities, as I have observed and filmed on several occasions.
IB:
With the last statement, Natan Slifkin reminded me
what he himself published on 17th
March 13 in his website:
My video of my own hyrax engaged in what appeared to me to be merycism has been dismissed by some zoologists as showing a form of threat gesture instead.
And NS added in response to a question in the comments
of the same blogspot the following:
Sure. I'm not committed to the hyrax engaging in merycism.
Nevertheless,
I will very much enjoy if Natan Slifkin is able to present even one source from
the professional scientific literature stating that the hyrax practices any
kind of redigestion.
Otherwise,
even the Biblical primary criteria of being maale gerah would not
be met by the hyrax.
9.1 NS wrote:
And
contrary to Betech's claim, the shafan is no more of a sheretz than
is a rabbit - in fact, it is much larger, and more of a leaper.)
IB:
NS does not
present any source from the classic Jewish literature that mentions the size of
the animal as a requirement to be classified as a sheretz.
As
explained in the linked document, the hyrax is a sheretz because it is a short-legged creature.
10.1 NS wrote:
I
understand that you were probably placed under a lot of pressure - Isaac
Betech is experienced at manipulating Gedolei Torah to
write letters in support of his agenda, which he uses to bully people into
kowtowing to his demands. Indeed, a few years ago he launched a massive campaign
to prevent Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks from coming to Mexico
IB:
Indeed
people who are interested in searching for the truth find it difficult to
withstand the intellectual pressure that emanates from the sources
presented and carefully studied.
Regarding
Dr. Jonathan Sacks, here is not the place to detail who invited him, and why
they invited him, nevertheless Dr. Jonathan Sacks was not ready to intellectually
defend his ideological statements which oppose Judaism, similar to NS who
refused 12 times when challenged some years ago (documented here).
Finally, any respectful question or comment signed with the real full name is
welcomed.
Dr. Yizchak Betech
