Credible Science

Recently a group of scientists with the European Organization for Nuclear Research reported that over a three year period they had fired 15,000 neutrino beams approximately 750 kilometers away to a lab in Italy and found that the beams arrived 6 billionths of a second faster than the speed of light. Before announcing what they had found, the physicists working on the experiment claim that they checked and rechecked their findings over many months eliminating anything that could have produced a misreading. They then presented their findings to a room full of skeptical scientists.

Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

A number of people wrote to me about last week's report that a group of scientists at CERN tentatively claimed to have measured neutrino particles traveling faster than the speed of light - which modern science, based on special relativity, deems impossible. "If scientists were wrong about this, then maybe they were wrong about everything!" Maybe the universe isn't really 14 billion years old - maybe it's only 5771 years old!

To this question, Rabbi Slifkin offers the following sagely response.

Of course, the correct view is that some scientific facts are better grounded than others. Scientists might have to change their mind one day about the universe being 14 billion years old, but they are not going to discover that it is only a few thousand years old… For the non-specialist, it might be difficult to determine how well-established different scientific facts are. But it should be relatively easy to find out that the issues which concern (some) Jews - the antiquity of the universe, the common ancestry of living creatures, the non-existence of a global Flood… are very well grounded and will not ever be overturned.

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief, or perhaps, despair. For those interested in the truth, here are some facts.

Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has been tested thousands of times in the past hundred years. It is hard to find a more solidly based “scientific fact” than Special Relativity (SR). The CERN report is startling! And if it turns out to be true, it has the potential of overturning the entire science of Physics as we know it.

Here’s another fact. Evolutionary Common Ancestry (ECA) has never been tested, not even once! The entire theory is based on wild and un-testable speculation, nothing else. Furthermore, there isn’t even a shred of evidence for ECA. On the contrary, the fossil record reveals the sudden appearance of life-forms, a scenario that is diametrically opposed to that of ECA.

Here’s yet another fact. The age of the universe (13.7byr) is based on a theory which is entirely speculative. Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) is based on assumptions that have never been proven. Its fundamental tenets are opposed by contradictory evidence which can only be reconciled by inventing hypothetical entities which have never been observed to exist.

To equate SR with ECA and BBC is the height of scientific folly. The former is founded on solid evidence and extensive experimentation. The latter two are not. The fact that Rabbi Slifkin is able to equate SR with ECA and BBC, indeed even consider the latter two more well-founded than the former, clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding regarding the level of scientific evidence attributable to these theories. The truth is Rabbi Slifkin’s readers are right. If even Special Relativity can be questioned this should serve as a wake-up call to people like Rabbi Slifkin who allow silly theories like ECA to mold their theology in direct contradiction to our well-supported and rational traditions.  

As far as the non-existence of the global flood, I would love to know how scientists are absolutely sure this phenomenon never existed. I would also like to know how Rabbi Slifkin accounts for the presence of marine fossils on the tops of mountains all over the world. This, of course, is only one of many lines of evidence for a global flood. The Christian creationists have done a lovely job documenting the evidence for a global flood and the evidence is compelling. And although they deserve a big yasher koach for their efforts, it’s really too bad. We should be the ones on the forefront of defending the Torah. Instead, we are doing our best to align ourselves with the speculative drivel of the atheistic scientific community in direct contradiction to our ancient and well-founded traditions. Shame on us...

Esrogim – More of the Same

In response to our previous post, Rabbi Slifkin posted a clarification of his original position. Unfortunately his elucidation did not provide any clarity. In fact, it had the complete opposite effect. Here are his words followed by our analysis.

Rav Ettlinger was well aware that there is no absolute frame of reference. Indeed, in formulating his question, he himself says that the same question applies the other way around… But in my view… this sort of question would not be asked today. It would be inconceivable to us to be concerned about the position of the tree in Australia relative to Israel, and vice-versa… This question was only asked by Rav Ettlinger because people at that time were still in the process of internalizing the knowledge of the shape of the world…

As they say in the colloquial, this is bubba maasos! Rabbi Etlinger penned his  teshuva over 350 years after mankind became aware that the world was round! On the contrary, it was this awareness, and its internalization, that was the very cause of Rabbi Etlinger’s halachic quandary. Since the world is round, therefore the derech gidul is different in Australia than it is in Israel and we now have a sha’ala; which frame of reference should be used to define the halachic requirement of derech gidulo? Should we use the geographical growth of the lulav, or should we use the geographical location of its owner? Without a round world, an upside-down lulav sha’ala would be incoherent.

All this is obvious to the unbiased individual. Unfortunately Rabbi Slifkin is on a mission. He is constantly on the lookout for examples which, to his mind, demonstrate the fallibility of our ba’alei mesorah. His eagerness to demonstrate the advanced sensibilities of the modern man over his predecessors is what caused him to pen his original erroneous post. And it is precisely this eagerness which caused him to defend his position with an argument that is as equally erroneous as his initial one.

Please note: It is not my intention to highlight Rabbi Slifkin’s personal failings chs’v. This blog is above that (I hope). The purpose of this blog is to defend the validity of our mesorah against its attackers, foreign (goyim) or domestic (yidden). Rabbi Slifkin is a young, talented rabbi and a prolific writer. Unfortunately, he is on the wrong side of the fence.

Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

even we today have still not entirely internalized the correct view, and we feel uncomfortable with an "upside-down" map of the world.

This has nothing to do with the mandate of this blog but I’d like to comment on this statement.

First of all, we will always be uncomfortable with an upside-down map of the world. It is no different than trying to read a book upside down. We are used to seeing maps with North on top and South on the bottom. If one day they decide to make maps with South on top, then our previous comfort level will eventually change to conform to the new convention.

Second of all, I think I can offer an explanation as to why North was chosen as an absolute frame of reference (the other cardinal directions are defined as degrees from North) while simultaneously explaining why North is considered up and South down.

There are many stars in the sky and their seeming position changes over the course of the night as they appear to rotate around the earth’s celestial axis. Imagine a pole which travels through the center of the earth and upon which the earth rotates. This imaginary pole goes way up into the sky and the stars seem to change their positions at night as they rotate around this pole. Actually the earth is rotating and the stars are stationary but this is what appears to be happening. However, there is one visible exception to this rule.

The star Polaris remains relatively fixed above the North Pole. It is defined as the prominent (i.e. visible to the naked eye) star which lies directly overhead when viewed from the North Pole. Historically the North Star has served as an indispensible tool for purposes of navigation. This explains why North was chosen as an absolute frame of reference for the four cardinal directions and it also explains why North is synonymous with an upwards direction. How? Since North is identified as the direction which possesses a fixed star above it, it is thus used as the absolute direction from which the other directions flow. And since the defining element of the direction North is a star which is fixed above it in space, any point on earth below the North Pole is considered further below this star thereby making the direction North on earth an upwards direction.

I’m not such a chacham. I’m sure I read this somewhere, sometime. I just can’t find it right now. Maybe I’m wrong… comments welcome…

Lulavim and Rationalism

In his most recent post, Rabbi Slifkin tries to explain his rationalist approach to the statements of Chazal. He justifies this approach by pointing out that just because someone errs does not make him stupid. The adoption of this attitude is supposed to make it easier for the reader to swallow his rationalist approach to Chazal. It goes without saying that the authors of this blog possess a radically different opinion of the concept of "Rationalism" and how it interfaces with the statements of Chazal. But now is not the time and place. What I’d like to focus on is Rabbi Slifkin’s example. In his eagerness to demonstrate his point, he commits a serious blunder while simultaneously contravening his very own justification for Rationalism.

In reference to the halachic question of which direction an Australian lulav should be held by one who is celebrating Succos in the northern hemisphere, Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

No less an authority than Rav Yaakov Ettlinger, famed author of Aruch LaNer and a university graduate, discussed this question. He suggested that it was more reasonable that they should be held in the normal position. Others, however, apparently disagreed. To the modern reader, this sounds ludicrous. Australians are not "upside-down"! There is no absolute frame of reference! This case exemplifies the challenge that I have faced many times in teaching the rationalist approach to Chazal. Very few people are able to appreciate that errors made by people in very different eras and cultures do not reflect any sort of stupidity.

Wait a minute! R’ Yaakov Etlinger lived in the nineteenth century! He died just before Albert Einstein was born. He was aware of the law of gravity, he was aware of the vastness of space, and he was aware that the world was round. Concordantly, he should have been aware that people in Australia were not “upside down”. If his shaa’la hinged on the fact that Australians are "upside-down", it sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it? According to Rabbi Slifkin, any “modern reader” understands the ludicrousness of this position. Why didn’t Rabbi Etlinger understand it?

The answer is, Rabbi Etlinger was not stupid at all. On the contrary, anyone who believes that Rabbi Etlinger committed such a serious faux pas is lacking in plain common sense. Rabbi Etlinger was not talking about Australians; he was talking about Australian lulavim and the direction they grow. When it comes to the concept of derech gidulo, there most definitely is an absolute frame of reference. It’s very simple. The direction a lulav grows in Australia is diametrically opposed to the direction a lulav grows in Alaska. Thus, an individual holding an Australian lulav in Alaska derech gidul of Alaska is holding the lulav upside down in reference to the derech gidul of Australia. This concept is simple. It requires a minimum of thought to grasp. So why didn’t Rabbi Slifkin pick up on it? There is a saying amongst our sages: ha’ahava mikalkeles es ha’shura. Loosely translated, "personal involvement corrupts common sense".

Last of the hyrax

Slifkin writes "we should not be viewing the Torah as some sort of ultimate scientific text reflecting perfect Divine knowledge of the physical universe". It is an imperfect flawed document and thus although the hyrax does not practice classical rumination, caecotrophy, and possibly not even merycism, Slifkin writes that nevertheless the hyrax is the shafan because: “Rumination-style movement of the mouth of the animal in a way which would lead the people who were living in the times of Matan Torah to believe that the animal is a true ruminant (brings up the cud) would be enough for that animal to be considered Maaleh Gerah”.

Slifkin’s approach is puzzling. As I stated earlier, he is asserting a metaphysical falsehood. G-d is the transcendent Creator of the universe. In the context of the four types of animals that have only one sign of kashrut, the Talmud describes G-d as the שליט בעולמו the Ruler of His world, the One Who knows the animals that He Created and Who has codified His Divine Wisdom for us in the Torah. The Ramban talks about the wisdom of King Solomon to whom “G-d had given wisdom and knowledge, derived it all from the Torah, and from it studied until he knew the secret of all things created” (see Ramban’s introduction to the Chumash).

In this context, it would not be surprising that the Torah might be talking about rabbits, whether they were native to the land of Israel or not. In fact the Torah and the Tanach do refer to animals apparently not native to the land of Israel (such as the elephant, giraffe, monkey and peacock). What is surprising is that Slifkin, as a believing Jew, finds all this difficult, given that the Rishonim and Rav Hirsch describe shafan as a rabbit, and given that the Targum uses a word for shafan whose root meaning is a hopping/dancing rabbit-like species. Now to Slifkin’s latest blog aptly titled Last of the hyrax (August 28, 2011). He writes:

Jonathan/Yoel Ostroff is a follower of Rav Shlomo Miller from Toronto, and a passionate advocate of the idea that the universe was created 5771 years ago.

Slifkin might well want to look at his kesuva for the date of the world at the time of his marriage. So what is the intention of his above remark? How does it add to the shafan discussion? Yes, I have looked into modern dating dating methods and have found them to be based on many untested suppositions and inconsistent with each other (readers may want to look into some older debates on Avodah). Slifkin believes in a 13.7 billion year “big bang” universe. Perhaps he is not aware of how many unsubstantiated assumptions that commits him to. See here for six of them. Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg, a believer in big bang cosmology writes:

“Nevertheless, there is one great uncertainty that hangs like a dark cloud over the standard model. Underlying all the calculations described in this chapter is the Cosmological Principle, the assumption that the universe is homogenous and isotropic. (By homogenous we mean that the universe looks the same to any observer who is carried along by the general expansion of the universe, wherever that observer may be located; by “isotropic” we mean that the universe looks the same in all directions to such an observer.) … However, we have no
evidence that the Cosmological Principle was valid at earlier times.
[WEINBERG, S., The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Basic Books, New York, 1993. page 119-120.]

 

I would be happy to debate big bang cosmology with Slifkin. So here is an open challenge! Natan -- would you like to debate big bang cosmology? There are now more problems than I identified in my earlier article and this would make a good test of your “rationalist” pressuppositions. If you do not wish to debate your embrace of big bang cosmology then kindly refrain from entering the dating game!
So yes, I take our mesora seriously and we are in the year 5771 according to Maimonides and our baalei mesora (see here). Slifkin writes:

He is also known to to readers of this blog as someone with bizarre debating tactics who consistently distorts my views regarding both the science and theology of evolution.

See the post “R. Slifkin and mental illness” here for more on his debating style (also here). Slifkin continues:

He has now entered the hyrax fray, with a post for which the commenting feature appears to be currently disabled. As a result, I am responding to his comments here.

So far as I can tell comments are enabled and Slifkin is free to comment as always. Slifkin continues:

1. The fact that Alexander Kohut, Marcus Jastrow and other such scholars of language explained the shafan to be the rabbit is irrelevant. It is knowledge of animals, not Aramaic, which is relevant here. The European Rishonim and many later European scholars were entirely unfamiliar with the hyrax. So of course they would translate shafan and its Aramaic translation of tafza into an animal that they knew of - they could not and would not translate it with a word that would have no meaning for them or their readers! This is just as they mistakenly thought that the tzvi was a hirsch (deer) - in spite of the Gemara which says that its horns are not branched. (Is Ostroff going to argue that the tzvi is in fact the deer?) In fact, what Ostroff - significantly - does not mention is that Jastrow presents the alternative translation of "coney" - itself a term which was sometimes used for rabbits and sometimes for hyraxes - and he may well have meant the latter, in light of his presenting it as an alternative to rabbit.

The Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan ben Uziel translate shafan as טפזא. Now what does that mean? For that we go to experts in Aramaic such as Jastrow and Kohut who say it is a rabbit (Jastrow) or hopping animal similar to the hare (Kohut). How does Slifkin know that Kohut, for example, who was in contact with German scholarship, did not know of the hyrax? Can Slifkin produce an Aramaic expert in the Targum who translates טפזא as hyrax?

2. Having personally owned both rabbits and hyraxes, and having spent many hours observing them in captivity and in the wild, I can attest that the hyrax is much more of a tafza/ jumper than the rabbit! Rabbits rarely jump in the wild; hyraxes do it all the time, in order to get from rock to rock, and they are much better at it than rabbits. The hyrax is also much LESS of a sheretz than the rabbit.

Hyraxes used to play in the veld near where I grew up (a flat grass area with very few rocks). I do not recall them having the characteristic hopping action of rabbits, although they are good at jumping from rock to rock. Their normal gait is waddle/creep as I recall it.
Aruch HaShalem refers to the fact that the טפזא has unequal legs. Their large hind legs may be what gives the rabbit their characteristic hopping motion. The link here describe hyraxes as having "short legs" (as I recall it too), and perhaps it is more a sheretz than a chaya, and hence not even a candidate for shafan. Dr Betech has referred me to "The behavior guide to African mammals: including hoofed mammals, carnivores", Richard Estes, 1992, page 252 which describes hyraxes as “moving in a creeping walk”.

Slifkin is free to bring sources that support his observations.
The rabbit fits all the criteria of the Talmud and meforshim. The hyrax does not. Here are six problems with identifying the shafan as the hyrax.
It seems to me that Slifkin’s post is aptly named  “Last of the hyrax”.

3. Ostroff cites the the example of monkeys and peacocks, mentioned in Tenach, as examples of Tenach speaking about non-local animals. But these were brought as royal gifts, and are highlighted as such. What evidence is there that rabbits were brought? Furthermore, the pesukim in Tehillim and Mishlei specifically describe the shafan in its natural habitat. Is it possible that David was told about that, or knew it by ruach hakodesh? Sure, it's possible. But is it remotely reasonable, in comparison to saying that he was talking about a local animal with which everyone was familiar and was known in other dialects by the same name? Only if one is an extremely irrational person. When David speaks about the aryeh roaring, is it possible that he is actually speaking about a Tyrannosaurus rex, which he knew about via ruach hakodesh? Sure. (And if the aryeh is really the T-Rex, perhaps you can resolve the Gemara which gives a gestation period for the aryeh that is different from that known with lions!) But is it remotely reasonable to say this?
4. Ostroff writes that "The Radak and Malbim explain that Borchi Nafshi is talking about the whole of creation as is obvious from even a supeficial reading of the psalm." But what does that even mean? Yes, it makes mention of the sun, which shines over the whole world. But does it talk about octopi or supernova or quarks? If so, I must have missed that passuk! Barchi Nafshi is speaking about the entirety of creation - from the perspective of its author!

The lion as T-rex example is just silly! To be more serious, how does Slifkin know that King David was not familiar with the rabbit? Perhaps some were brought to Eretz Yisroel as in the days of Shlomo when monkeys and peacocks were brought from Tarshish (possibly Cathage, North Africa). Why is it not relevant to know that animals were brought to Eretz Yisroel from faraway places? If monkeys and peacocks could arrive from Tarshish, why could rabbits not come from Tarshish or Spain?. Perhaps King David was told about these animals by others who had seen them. Or perhaps he and King Solomon (see Ramban above) knew through ruach hakodesh. The Radak and Malbim explain that Borchi Nafshi is talking about the whole of creation as is obvious from even a superficial reading of the psalm. I don't know how Slifkin knows for a fact  that this psalm is limited to phenomena in Eretz Yisroel?
And yes, the Borchi Nashi reviews parts of the meta-natural creation of the world in six days as also described in the Torah. This is not something that any human observed. And this psalm does address the entirety of creation (see Radak and Malbim).

5. Ostroff writes that "As you say, of course, He knows about the rabbits in Spain and elsewhere. So what is so difficult about Him writing about them in His Torah of Truth?" Because nobody would have had a clue what He was talking about. That's why He doesn't say the halachos of electricity or donor IVF (which would have been EXTREMELY useful), or describe anything else with which the ancient Jews were not familiar. Is there a single counterexample? And there is also the matter of Tehillim and Mishlei.
6. Ostroff makes the following incredible statement: "Your position is based on just too many suppositions."
That is too funny!
My position is based on translating shafan as the animal which is called by a similar name in local languages, which matches the descriptions given in the pesukim better than any other animal, which was very familiar to the Jewish People, and which is identified as such by those (such as Saadiah) who actually lived in the region, as well as by virtually every other researcher of this topic (without an anti-rationalist perspective).

Dr. Betech has researched Rav Saadiah use of the word "wabar" (meaning "hair or wool"). A few observations. 1. Rav Saadia's did not describe any specific characteristic of the animal that would force us to recognize its identity; he just called used the word "wabar", meaning hairy. Although this word is the modern common name in certain Arabic countries to name the hyrax, nevertheless we have not seen any proof (yet) that this was his intended meaning one thousand years ago. This is opposed to the case of Jastrow and Kohut who were experts in the Aramaic language of the Targum and who added additional qualities not found in the hyrax. 2. There is the possibility that Rav Saadia Gaon z"l was referring to the rabbit, which is no less hairy than the hyrax, and has wool no less valuable than the hyrax. 3. Ibn Ezra questions the reliability of Rab Saadia Gaon’s translations of the animals mentioned in the Torah.
אבן עזרא בראשית ב' י"ב
...רק שתרגם החוילה כפי צרכו, כי אין לו קבלה. וכן עשה במשפחות, ובמדינות ובחיות ובעופות ובאבנים. אולי בחלום ראם. וכבר טעה במקצתם כאשר אפרש במקומו. א"כ לא נשען על חלומותיו, אולי עשה כן לכבוד השם, בעבור שתרגם התורה בלשון ישמעאל ובכתיבתם, שלא יאמרו כי יש בתורה מצות לא ידענום.

Ostroff's position is based on the idea that David and Shlomo were speaking about a South African animal (the European rabbits don't hide in rocks) which they happened to know about via a hypothetical and inexplicable import, or by ruach hakodesh (even though there is no precedent for ruach hakodesh being used in this way), and then mentioned its behavior in its natural habitat to their readers/listeners even though none of them had seen one, and even though there is no other such case of the natural habits of foreign animals anywhere in Tenach - and they did so with a name that just so happens to be used by other peoples in the area to refer to a local animal that matches the description in the pesukim, and which lives together with the ibex that are mentioned in the same passuk! Furthermore, it means describing an unfamiliar animal in place of a familiar one which would be much more meaningful for them to tell the Jewish People about! If you want the nation to ponder God's wisdom as manifest in animals that hide in the rocks, why neglect describing the local animal which does that, in favor of describing a Southern African animal that none of them have ever seen - especially when in every other case that you mention animals, you describe familiar ones? (Honestly, does anyone think that ancient Jews in Israel saying Tehillim would have said "Hey, this is interesting, it's talking about a South African rock rabbit!") And Ostroff's alleged reasons for doing this are flimsy in the extreme - based EXCLUSIVELY on European translations by people who lacked knowledge of animals of Israel!
It is especially ironic that Ostroff claims to be "open to all reasonable possibilities"!
I know, I really shouldn't waste my time with Ostroff. Still, this topic is very dear to me, so I couldn't resist

Slifkin’s remarks are puzzling.

• Dismiss experts in Targum translation without bringing opposing experts who demur.
  
• Ask us to trust to his observations on the characteristic hyrax gait over that of the rabbit without sources to back his claim and in opposition to sources that appear to indicate that the hyrax is a sheretz rather than a chayah, i.e. that it has short legs and creeps.
  
• Assume that our mesora (Targum, Rishonim, Rav Hirsch) is wrong.
  
• Assume that there were never rabbits in the Middle East, or that they were never imported or at least described, even though they existed in Spain, North Africa etc.
  
• Assume that the psalm Borchi Nafshi is limited to phenomena in the land of Israel (contra Radak and Malbim) and was not written with ruach hakodeh.
  
• Assume that Hashem did not write about rabbits, even though the Talmud with respect to our very discussion calls Hashem שליט בעולמו the Ruler of our World, the one who knows all the animal that He created.

Puzzling indeed. If that is what “rational Judaism” is then count me out.
Now there is much more to say on this whole topic and Slifkin would not be wasting his time following up on the issues that we raised. Otherwise he will have to wait for Dr. Betech to publish his manuscript (still in the research stage at this point), and that might take some time. The best is yet to come, but the wait will be worth it.

Today is Shafan Day

Slifkin writes (Thursday, August 25, 2011):

Two of my readers told me last week that whenever they see the word "hyrax" in a post, they stop reading. I am sympathetic to that, but if you are such a person, I urge you to make today an exception! This post is more about the general idea of Rishonim having ruach hakodesh; the hyrax is only appearing incidentally.

Today is Hyrax Day - the day that Daf Yomi studies Chullin 59b, which launches the discussion of the camel, the hare and the hyrax. There are those who suggest that the shafan is not the hyrax, but instead is the rabbit. Previously, I noted that the reason why some Rishonim (medieval Torah scholars) believed that is that they lived in Spain, and were thus familiar with rabbits, but not with hyraxes. The shafan of the Chumash, Mishlei and Tehillim, on the other hand, must have been an animal from the Land of Israel - and in Israel there are plenty of hyraxes (there is one ten feet away from me right now!) but no rabbits.

Slifkin writes that "we should not be viewing the Torah as some sort of ultimate scientific text reflecting perfect Divine knowledge of the physical universe". Slifkin's statements are both a scientific (see previous posts by Dr. Betech) and a metaphysical falsehood. Here are some of the problems with his statement quoted above.

1. It is not only the Rishonim who translated shafan as rabbit. The authors of the Targumim were familiar with our mesora (and with the Middle East) and they translate Shafan as טפזא (jumping). The Aruch Hashalem in one translation of טפזא has springhasse, i.e. jumping rabbit. Jastrow also translates טפזא as rabbit.

2. David Hamelech in Tehillim (also inspired by ruach Hakodesh) is addressing all of creation, not just the land of Israel. See for example how Radak and Malbim explain Borchi Nafshi. In the Tanach we are told about new animals brought to Eretz Yisroel in the times of Shlomo Hamelech.

The Talmud in Chulin 59a describes Hashem as Shalit beolamo, i.e.  the Ruler of the His World, the One Who knows that only the camel is maaleh geira and yet tamei. ... So, of course, Hashem knows all the animals of this world. Who could think otherwise?

I wish all our readers Shabbat Shalom. This week's parsha (and this week's daf yomi) are indeed providential. There is an additional mitzvah in learning about all the signs of kosher animals, to know how to distinguish between those animals that are tamei and those that are tahor.

The Day of the Rabbit

B”H

Today, in the daf yomi cycle, Chulin 59a was studied, where the Gemara mentions certain rules regarding the shafan, i.e. the rabbit.

Additionally, this week we are in Parashat Ree where also the shafan (rabbit) is mentioned and described as “maale gerah”.

Some people who believe that the hyrax may be the biblical shafan, are conscious that the hyrax does not practice classical rumination, nor caecotrophy, not even merycism, so I asked them the following:

Please provide a definition of maale gerah that includes the hyrax and all the animals the Torah called maale gerah.

Trying to save their position, they published recently in the Jewish blogosphera the following answer:

Rumination-style movement of the mouth of the animal in a way which would lead the people who were living in the times of Matan Torah to believe that the animal is a true ruminant (brings up the cud) would be enough for that animal to be considered Maaleh Gerah.

Which I refute B”H by the following:

The Torah wrote that the gamal, shafan and arnebet are maaleh gerah. Could it be that it meant to say that they only give an appearance of having this characteristic?

I.That couldn’t fit into the plain meaning of the pasuk which clearly calls them “maaleh gerah”.

ויקרא פרק יא

(ד) אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה אֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:

(ה) וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:

(ו) וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם:

II.The gamal (mentioned in the same verse[1] as similar to shafan and arnebet) is actually “maaleh gerah”.

III.The Midrash speaks of the shafan as an animal who indeed has Tahara (“purity”) signs:

ויקרא רבה (וילנא) פרשה יג ה' ד"ה א"ר שמואל

את השפן זו מדי, רבנן ור' יהודה ברבי סימון, רבנן אמרי מה השפן הזה יש בו סימני טומאה וסימני טהרה, כך היתה מלכות מדי מעמדת צדיק ורשע, אמר רבי יהודה ברבי סימון דריוש האחרון בנה של אסתר היה טהור מאמו וטמא מאביו.

So the shafan is “maaleh gerah”, and not just appears to be, as was suggested by some.

[1] Deuteronomy 14:7

The Eternity of the Torah

In a recent post entitled Ever Changing Morality, Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

It does weaken our ability to claim that the Torah's amazing morality is evidence of its truth/ superiority. For by what measure can we assert that the Torah is perfectly moral? We can only do so by claiming that it agrees with our own sense of morality…

This assertion is false. From a historical perspective, the Torah is the most dominant work mankind possesses. This alone is a demonstration of its superiority. The two largest systems of morality practiced today (Christianity and Islam) are fundamentally based on the Torah. Without the Torah mankind would lack many elements of societal harmony and self-preservation. Rambam writes that with the advent of matan Torah, a great light descended upon the gentile world. Although the goyim took the Torah and, in many cases, warped its teachings, it still serves as the most influential element in the civilization of mankind.

But the flip side of this is that it also means that those who claim that the Torah is immoral, in its attitudes to homosexuality, women, etc., are also severely weakened in their case. How can they judge the Torah to be lacking vis-a-vis their own modern Western standard of morality, when their own standard is so transient?

This makes no sense. If standards of morality are indeed transient, than what’s wrong with judging the Torah?

The truth of the matter is, the term “transient morality” is a misnomer. As soon as morality becomes transient, it loses its ability to act as an intrinsic standard for human behavior.

Yet, on the other hand, there is a school of Torah thought which claims that there is an ethic independent of Torah –

There’s obviously no such school of “Torah” thought. The Torah is the expressed Will of G-d and as such is the ultimate representation of Truth. Its guidelines are absolute. As it happens, the universe is also the expressed Will of G-d. Consequently, an astute observer of nature might be able to glean some of the truths of the Torah, perhaps even the majority. Our father Avraham followed such a system and, according to our sages, managed to glean all of the basic tenets of the Torah! But his conclusions were not independent of the Torah. The claim that there can be an ethic “independent” of the Torah, meaning, an ethic which is capable of expressing a conclusion or idea which is not in conformance with the Torah, is clearly anti-Jewish. To claim that there is a “school of Torah thought” that promotes such an idea is sheer folly.