The Shafan

Dear Reader;

After a much-anticipated arrival, we are happy to announce the publication of the book The Enigma of the Biblical Shafan by Dr. Yitzchak Betech and Dr. Obadia Maya. The material contained in this book is the result of decades of research and is accompanied by the haskamos of a number of gedoley Torah.

The following is the Abstract as found on page 3 of the book.

The Torah included the shafan and the arnebet among the non-kosher animals with only one kosher sign. Throughout the centuries, the traditional translations of these terms were, respectively, rabbit and hare.

Indeed, current science shows that all the characteristics Jewish classic literature attributes to these animals do occur in the rabbit and the hare. 

This publication will make the case that the Torah/Talmudic definition of “maaleh gerah” includes a qualified form of cecothropy practiced by the rabbit and hare. 

The following essay B”H refutes different options (like the hyrax, the llama and the pika) suggested and published by some as the identity of the shafan. And additionally, it answers in a systematic approach, the published challenges to our conclusions regarding the identity of the shafan. 

 After extensive research, as presented in a comprehensive chapter (which analyzes the kangaroo and the capybara among other animals), we did not find any additional species with only one kosher sign besides the four enumerated in the Torah, and we can recognize with admiration, today as always, that only the Master of the World could state this accurate information thousands of years ago.  

Dr. Betech is a frequent contributor to this blog and has graciously consented to respond to any queries relating to the conclusions of his thesis.

If you would like to preview the book, please visit this link

Lacking in derech eretz and in knowledge

B”H

Lacking in derech eretz and in knowledge

This post is the continuation of the previous

1)

If someone sent a letter by electronic means, how long is it reasonable to wait until it is acceptable to say: I did not receive an answer?

Of course it is relative, but I have Natan Slifkin’s own criteria, i.e. two days (January 29, 2013 at 7:06 PM)

So I will use the same one.

After hundreds of comments in NS’s rationalist blogspot, I sent the following:

B”H
Dear Natan,

My latest questions that you have not answered are:

IB: 17.1 My insistence that you have to provide the source is based on common sense (whoever presents a piece of information, has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it) and in what I wrote above on 7.1 IB

And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.


IB: Do you agree or disagree with the following:
Whoever presents a piece of information has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it.
If you disagree, please explain why.

IB 19.1 … If you think they are incompatible please explain why.

IB 20.1 ... Please tell me where you wrote in your book your definition of maale gera?

IB 21.1 Could you please give me your definition of “compatible”?


Are you planning to answer the unanswered questions?

The latter could be summarized in my posts dated:

February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB) 
February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM
February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part) 
February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)
February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM
February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM
February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM
February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM (first and second part)
March 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM (first and second part)
March 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM
March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM
March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Dear Natan:
Are you planning to answer all the unanswered questions?

March 10, 2013 at 8:12 AM

More than two days after that, I did not receive any answer from Natan Slifkin, so it seems that he is not ready to provide answers to my challenges against the letter he sent Dialogue Magazine in response to my article on the Biblical shafan = rabbit.

2)

A few days ago, in response to one of NS’s comments, I wrote an answer that I am now expanding with additional bracketed recent developments:

IB:
13.1 There is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, about thirty leading Great Talmidei Chachamim already signed letters disqualifying the religious contents of your books. 
On the other hand, meanwhile you have not published letters of support of leading Great Talmidei Chachamim.

Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, you have publicly acknowledged that you do not believe in a basic Chapter of the written Torah, as you wrote:

“Sorry to shock you, but I don't believe in a global flood, either!...”
February 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM

[Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, you have publicly shared your pictures eating locust which reveal your hallachic standards...]

[Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows you have not answered the following public challenge:

March 7, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Anyhow, the entire conversation with xxx and Natan Slifkin is fruitless until we determine one fundamental point – do you believe that Torah study contributes to the security and the economic wellbeing of the Jewish people?

If your answer is no, I would like to know how you explain the Gemara in Sanhedrin which seems to declare you Apikorsim. We can then move forward.]

Now, I am operating in the framework of an academic approach because people probably do not know that even your publications in zoology-related-issues, are not easy to support in light of modern zoology (as written in the front cover of your hyrax book).

Incidentally, an additional facet is becoming public, that instead of intellectually defending your two books on the hyrax, and defending what you wrote in your recent letter to Dialogue Magazine, you are evading and making false accusations against an academic opponent.

March 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM

3)

Recently, when NS’s locust-eating was publicly challenged, NS wrote the following:

... It's just a pity that almost every time I am attacked from the right, my opponents reveal themselves to be somewhat lacking in derech eretz (aside from lacking in knowledge).

MARCH 6, 2013 AT 6:38 PM

“lacking in derech eretz”

If the reader is interested, he could check the lack of derech eretz of NS’s writings the same dates in his rationalist blogspot...

“lacking in knowledge”

Let me present three examples of lacking in zoological knowledge by the “zoo-rabbi” as evident from NS’s letter to Dialogue magazine and the subsequent comments thread:

a)

NS wrote:

“But rabbits do not, and did not, live in Eretz Yisrael or anywhere nearby.”

IB:

This is not true.

b)

NS wrote:

“With the hare and rabbit, interpreting ma’aleh gerah as caecotrophy requires going against all classical interpretations of ma’aleh gerah.”

IB:

This is not true.

c)

NS wrote:

“Some zoologists, however, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication...”

NS wrote:

“Well, you can find the names of two zoologists in my book, and I could add two or three others...”

IB published many days ago:

Please provide me the page number of your book where the zoologists have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication, and please add the two or three others that you are offering me.

IB:

NS is still refusing to give the page number on his book where the names of the two zoologists that said what he claims they said are written.

This seems to be another evasive strategy to cover NS’s lie.

PS

Nevertheless, I am still willing B”H to continue this interchange with Natan Slifkin (the author of the letter to Dialogue Magazine) immediately after he publishes the names of “the two zoologist appearing in his book” and answers the unanswered questions.

And the “Zoo-Rabbi” did not answer!

B”H

“Chazaka” in Torah literature means that if something happened three times in a similar way, you may presume that it was not an accident but follows a particular pattern.

Natan Slifkin (NS) in his “rationalist blogspot” explicitly refused three times to answer my questions which challenged his published position.

A brief background:

1. I published an article on Dialogue Magazine No. 3 (Fall 5773) about the identity of the Biblical shafan, where 15 reasons are presented to support the rabbit as the Biblical shafan and 6 reasons to disqualify the hyrax as a candidate.

Being that it is a short article, I did not include in it an analysis of the objections that could be presented to my identification of the rabbit or against my suggested definition of “maale gera” and my response to them.

2. NS published in his blogspot an extensive but non-systematic response to it.

3. I asked if he was ready to discuss the contents of his letter.

4. He initially agreed.

5. I decided to begin the discussion by pointing out to one of his published erroneous statements written in his response, i.e.

“But rabbits do not, and did not, live in Eretz Yisrael or anywhere nearby”.

6. Since I think that the above statement is not accurate, I posted a comment including nine sources, among them, six supporting the existence of native rabbits in Egypt.

The latter is particularly significant -even according to my opponents’ position- for the following reasons:

a) Bene Yisrael lived in Egypt for more than two hundred years.

b) Egypt is very close to Eretz Yisrael and both countries were connected by a common trade route.

7. Then, a long comment-thread developed, where most of my questions and challenges were repeatedly ignored.

Many evasive strategies were used by NS, including omissions, distortions, taking texts out of context, citing mutilated paragraphs, inadequate generalizations, unsupported claims, faulty cause-effect connections, “appeal to authority”, proclaiming premature conclusions, sarcasm, “straw man arguments”, etc.

8. Although NS initially agreed to discuss, now despite a long list of unanswered questions, he has decided to stop answering my challenges, questions and comments.

The unanswered points could be summarized in my posts dated:

February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB)

February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM

February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part)

February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)

February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM

February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM

February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Additional thoughts:

9. An important point is that even if no evidence of rabbits in the ancient Middle East could be found, that would not be a challenge to my suggestion that the Biblical Shafan is the rabbit, since Bene Yisrael got acquainted with the rabbit when Moshe presented it to them.

The inherent difficulty[1] in identifying these species and their signs is evident from the very first moment when Hashem instructed Moshe Rabbenu regarding them, and told him (Leviticus 11:2):

“Zot hachaya asher tochelu…” (This is the living thing that ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth).

The Talmud (Chulin 42a) reports that, as indicated by the words “this is”, when enumerating the various species, the Almighty miraculously showed Moshe each and every species[2] and exclaimed, “this one you may eat” or, “this one you may not eat”.

It is also reported that Moshe did the same with Bene Yisrael.[3]

Thus, even in the remote case that Bene Yisrael were not yet acquainted with the rabbit in Egypt, and even if there were no rabbits in Eretz Yisrael, nevertheless David HaMelech and Shelomo HaMelech were not speaking about an unfamiliar species.

Even if rabbits were absent in Eretz Yisrael in Biblical times, and even in the whole Middle East, Am Yisrael -in any case- would become familiar with them in their journeys through the exile-long centuries; thus it would be necessary to warn them against their consumption.

10. Besides questions regarding rabbits in the ancient Middle East, NS refused to answer additional important questions, among them:

a) NS wrote in his response to my article in Dialogue Magazine:

“Some zoologists, however, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication”,

IB:

Could you please provide the sources supporting that?

NS never published any support to his questionable statement. Nullius in verba.

b) IB: The hyrax cannot be the shafan, because even the proponents of identifying the hyrax as the shafan acknowledge that there is no evidence that the hyrax practices rumination, caecotrophy or even merycism; thus, the hyrax is not “maaleh gerah”.

In any case, as explained elsewhere, merycism (practiced by the kangaroo) is not equivalent to “maaleh gerah”, because nutritionally it does not resemble rumination or caecotrophy.

NS never tried to engage in discussing with me to refute this argument.

11. More challenges against NS’s response could not be presented because the discussion was abruptly aborted by NS on February 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM.

12. As a side note, it should be emphasized that NS’s refusal to debate is very significant, because I agreed to debate with NS in a clearly non-neutral environment, i.e. in his blogspot, a forum where comments are moderated by NS himself, where he can decide what to publish and what not, when to publish, when to erase a comment, allowing or not bloggers using simultaneously double identities, etc. All this censorship and manipulation is done without the public’s awareness.

13. Sadly, the number and intensity of ad hominem attacks made by NS and other “bloggers” (not filtered by NS), were a big hindrance to the flux of ideas. Needless to say, these attacks were not reciprocated by me.

14. With NS´s refusal to continue the discussion on the Biblical shafan we could integrate another “chazaka”.

In the past NS declined to debate the scientific evidences in favor of “his” evolution of the species, then he refused to debate the reproductive characteristics of lice and now the zoological characteristics of the biblical shafan.

15. All the above, should give us something to think about...

Finally, I do believe I have partially presented my case for any objective reader.

Yitzchak Betech

P.S. Nevertheless, I am still willing B"H to continue this interchange immediately after NS will start answering the unanswered questions.

  

---

[1] Bamidbar Rabba 15:4

[2] Midrash Tanchuma Shemini 8 s.v. “veim tameah”

[3] Sifra Shemini 11:62

Torah MiSinai

Professor Martin Lockshin teaches Humanities and Hebrew at York University in Toronto. In a recent article in the Canadian Jewish News, Lockshin reviews a “courageous new book” by Rabbi Norman Solomon entitled “Torah from Heaven: The Reconstruction of Faith”. This is not the proper forum for a detailed refutation of Rabbi Solomon’s thesis, but some of Professor Lockshin’s comments do call for a response.

Lockshin writes as follows:

Usually “Torah from heaven” in Orthodox circles is understood to mean that God dictated the entire text of the first five books of the Bible (with the possible exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy) to Moses, who then wrote it down.

So far, so good.  

Furthermore, the text of the Torah scroll that we have in our synagogues today is precisely what Moses wrote.

Unfortunately, this idea is not part of the doctrine of “Torah from Heaven” and is, most likely, not correct. Anyone possessing even a passing familiarity with Rabbinic literature (Talmud, Midrashim, and subsequent halachic texts), knows that the Torah scrolls we possess today are not necessarily identical, letter for letter, with what Moses wrote. Yes, the sentences – along with the message they convey – are indeed the same. However, the precise spelling of the words has, in some cases, been lost to us. The biblical phenomenon of Defective and Plene Spellings (chaseiros v’yisairos) is well-known to students of the Talmud and is clearly not dogmatic to the doctrine of “Torah from Heaven”. This point cannot be overemphasized. Its assumption renders the vast majority of issues raised by Solomon/Lockshin irrelevant.

Lockshin continues:

But Rabbi Solomon notes that the Hebrew word “torah” in the Bible just means “teaching” or “instruction.”… Only many centuries after Moses did people begin to use the word Torah to refer to the first five books of the Bible and did anyone write down the claim that Moses was the author of the so-called Five Books of Moses.

This remark is a product of rank ignorance. The very first book after the Torah makes several references to the “Book of the Torah of Moshe” and the “Book of the Torah”. When Joshua (chapter 8) gathers the people to fulfill the covenant at Mount Gerizim and Eival, he does so in conformance with the “Book of the Torah of Moshe” and the “Book of the Torah”. Joshua built an altar at Mount Eival “as was instructed in the Book of the Torah of Moshe” and wrote the “Repetition of the Torah” on large rocks “as Moshe wrote down for the Jewish nation”. He then “read all of the words of the Torah, the blessings and the curses in conformity with all that was written in the Book of the Torah”! Jews have been referring to the teachings of Moses as the Book of the Torah from the day he died. The claim that it took centuries for this to occur is patently false.

Lockshin writes:

Rabbi Solomon argues further that historical scholarship makes it impossible to believe that Moses was the author of Genesis to Deuteronomy, or that our text of the Torah today is identical to the original one. The Talmud often quotes biblical verses whose wording or spelling differs from our own (as do Rashi and basically every other Bible commentator who lived before the days of the printing press).

Ever since Julius Wellhausen and the advent of biblical criticism, modern academia has been on a mission to undermine the historical authenticity of the Torah. In line with this attitude, Lockshin quotes the same old tired canard of the Bible critics, to wit, “historical scholarship makes it impossible to believe that Moses was the author of Genesis to Deuteronomy”. He then repeats his original error of conflation by attempting to identify “absolute textual identicalness” with the doctrine of “Torah from Heaven”. As we noted above, there are several examples of defective and plene spellings in our traditional rabbinic literature. This phenomenon was fully acknowledged by our sages. The doctrine of Torah from Heaven is in no way compromised by this fact.

There is much more to say on this topic, perhaps for another time. Comments welcome.

Simcha Coffer

Toronto, Ontario                     

Lice: response to NS

B”H

Dear Natan

A few days ago I published a very short version of my approach regarding the biological characteristics of lice as related to the Talmudic statement in Masechet Shabbat 107b (http://www.toriah.com/pdf/Betech-MesechtaShabbos-On-Lice.pdf).

In your blogspot you said that the four refutations you wrote on your website refute my approach.

I will copy your four claims verbatim (emphasis mine) and I will try B”H to analyze them by interspersing my comments:

NS: Some have attempted to defend the notion of the scientific infallibility of the Talmud, or at least the applicability of this ruling, by reinterpreting this statement about lice. A popular argument is that the Sages actually meant only that the eggs of lice are halachically insignificant due to their small size, not that they do not exist.

1.1. IB 20/Jan/13:

I did not claim that.

NS: Similarly, some claim that the life-force of a louse is not halachically classified as an animal life-force (just as a plant is alive and yet is not classified in a halachah as a living creature). An alternate claim that is advanced is that since the eggs or larvae require this particular environment in which to develop, it can be said that they are generated from there.

1.2. IB 20/Jan/13:

Although these are not my claims, some could think that my approach can be categorized together with the two above. Thus, I will try to analyze the continuation of your “refutations” as they could theoretically apply to my approach. Please continue reading.

NS: However, there are numerous problems with such explanations, notwithstanding their obvious appeal.

1.3. IB 20/Jan/13:

I agree that “appeal” is not enough.

NS: First, there is no independent evidence for these explanations; they are presented simply on the grounds that there could not be a scientific error in the Talmud.

1.4. IB 20/Jan/13:

Although absence of “independent evidence” is not an evidence that Chaza”l did not mean that particular suggested explanation on their statements about lice, nevertheless I want to present the following that could be an independent evidence.

I have found three[1] [2] [3]  Rishonim that clearly spoke about the “nits” (the eggs of lice), so they understood that there are lice and additionally there are egg-lice (besides the “betze kinim” a type of organism which is called eggs of lice).

NS: Yet, as we discussed in the introduction to this work, most authorities understand that the Sages of the Talmud did make a scientific error in believing that the sun passes behind the sky at night.

1.5. IB 20/Jan/13:

Undoubtedly this is an important issue I have also written about; but by now, it is beyond the scope of this short analysis on the reproduction of lice.

NS: And since the Sages spoke of a mouse that grows from dirt, they clearly did believe in spontaneous generation.

1.6. IB 20/Jan/13:

I do not agree that it is so “clear” in the case of the mouse that you have mentioned.

I will write B”H my view on this specific case you mentioned. But it should be clear that a detailed discussion of the mouse, is beyond the scope of this short analysis on the reproduction of lice.

In the case of this Talmudical “half-mouse” we are not discussing inanimate matter transforming into animate matter, but soil that is already an integral part of a preexisting living entity, which transforms (by an unidentified process) to organic material.

In this soil, maybe there were already organic residua, or certain organic material migrated from the flesh-part to the soil-part, and then became flesh.

Today we know from the cloning of Dolly, that from a single cell, we may obtain a complete organism, not only from a zygote, but even, a differentiated cell may recover its totipotentiality.

Therefore the case of the half-mouse is not a “clear” case of spontaneous generation (ד"ע).

NS: Thus there is no reason to accept that they could not have believed that lice generate this way, which was the common belief in their era.

1.7. IB 20/Jan/13:

We have found some cases where Chazal “scientific” statements were independent from which was the common belief in their era.

NS: Second, the words of the Talmud say nothing about the eggs being halachically insignificant, or about the life-force of lice not being like that of other animals. It simply states that they do not reproduce sexually.

2.1. IB 20/Jan/13:

I could not find the latter in Chazal writings.

NS: While it is not impossible that this could be a shorthand reference for something else, the burden of proof is certainly upon those who would make such a claim. Especially since, in Talmudic times, the entire world believed that lice spontaneously generate, it is highly unreasonable to state that when the Sages spoke of lice as not reproducing sexually, they intended a different meaning entirely.

2.2. IB 20/Jan/13:

See above 1.7 and 2.1

NS:

Third, such explanations are inconsistent with the views of the traditional Talmudic commentators. Rambam, Rashba, Ran, Tosafos and others all state that lice spontaneously generate from sweat or dust. True, it is not impossible that they misunderstood the nature of the Talmud’s ruling—indeed, we posited similarly in the case of mermaids. Yet in the case of mermaids, there was compelling textual evidence that the Talmud was referring to dolphins instead; here, no such evidence exists. Furthermore, those who posit that the Talmudic statement about lice must be scientifically correct are usually the same people who are reluctant to posit that the traditional commentators all erred in their understanding of the Talmud.

3.1. IB 20/Jan/13:

The apparent inconsistency between my approach and the Rishonim’s commentaries is addressed in the Hebrew expanded version of my article on lice.

Please see the linked document.

http://www.toriah.com/pdf/Betech-MesechtaShabbos-On-Lice3.pdf

NS: The final objection to such reinterpretations of the Talmud’s statement is that there is a straightforward refutation from the continuation of the Talmud: 

Abaye said: And do lice not reproduce? Surely it was said, “God sits and sustains from the horns of aurochsen to the eggs of lice” (which shows that lice come from eggs)? — That refers to a type [of organism] which is called eggs of lice (but not that lice actually hatch from these).

If the Sages were not denying the existence of lice eggs, why do they reject the simple meaning of the statement that speaks about God sustaining the eggs of lice, and resort to difficult explanations instead? Let them simply state that although lice do hatch from eggs, these are too small to be halachically significant! It therefore seems that they did not consider this possibility. (I am aware that some claim that the Talmud means that since the eggs are halachically insignificant, they cannot be the subject of the statement about lice eggs. However such a reading is highly contrived, lacks any evidence, and is certainly not how the Rishonim and Acharonim understood the Talmud.)

4.1. IB 20/Jan/13:

The apparent inconsistency between my approach and the Gemara-text is addressed in the Hebrew expanded version of my article on lice.

Please see the linked document.

http://www.toriah.com/pdf/Betech-MesechtaShabbos-On-Lice2.pdf

P.S. IB 20/Jan/13:

I am ready B”H to analyze comments directly related to our issue:

Killing  lice  on  Shabbat --  scientific  analysis

(http://www.toriah.com/pdf/Betech-MesechtaShabbos-On-Lice.pdf).

---

[1] ע' רבינו חננאל על שבת דף ק"ז עמוד ב' (נמצא בדף ק"ח.)

[2] ספר הרוקח הגדול, רבינו אלעזר מגרמיזא. הלכות שבת, ס' ע"ח וע"ט

[3] ראבי"ה (רבי אליעזר בן יואל הלוי) ח"א - מסכת שבת סימן רל"ו

Lice redux: don't debate your critics

There is a fascinating exchange between R. Slifkin and Dr. Betech at "rationalist" Judaism. In the immediately preceding post to this one, Dr. Betech addresses the issue of lice (Mesechta Shabbos). This is one of R. Slifkin's classical "proofs" that Chazal are prone to scientific errors. Here is R. Slifkin's response to Dr. Betech's novel response (link):

 Natan Slifkin said... January 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Greetings Dr. Betech! Thank you for giving us a free extract from your book. However, if you were to have read the post that you just commented upon, you would have seen that I refuted your approach on numerous grounds. It's a pity that you didn't read my book before preparing yours. .......

I have read R. Slifkin's book and am not aware of where he has refuted Dr. Betech's approach (which is novel so far as I can see).  I think his approach merits further discussion. Hence:

 Dr. Isaac Betech said...  January 18, 2013 at 9:28 AM

BH
Dear Natan,
You wrote:
However, if you were to have read the post that you just commented upon, you would have seen that I refuted your approach on numerous grounds.

IB:
Lets go one by one. Please select one of your refutations to my approach, and will analyze it BH.

 Natan Slifkin said... January 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Sorry, I'm not falling into this trap again. Everything is spelled out in my post. You are welcome to prepare a comprehensive response, and post a link to it.


Don't debate. Don't debate shavan and arneves. Don't debate the so called facts of evolution.  Don't debate the rakia supposedly a solid dome. Don't debate the issue of lice. Not very rationalist. 

It is my sincere hope that R. Slifkin will engage in vigorous defense of his claim that he has already refuted Dr. Betech's approach to the sugya of kinnim. He can do this by presenting one of his refutations, perhaps starting with what he considers his strongest point.

Addendum: On p351 of Sacred Monsters, R. Slifkin discusses (and rejects) an approach based on the fact that larvae require a human host to develop and it can thus be said that the lice are generated from there (see his footnote 14). However, Dr. Betech's approach goes beyond that. Dr. Betech's post starts with the following biological fact that the blood-sucking lice are regarded by entomologists as being the most parasitic of all insects.  This would explain why Chazal select the louse as the exemplar for the halacha that lice are not para verava like the eilim in the mishkan whereas fleas, for example, are para verava (see Keren Orah to Shabbos 107b for the pashtus of the gemora). If one is a proponent of spontaneous generation one is forced to learn the gemora not according to its simple meaning as both lice and fleas are spontaneously generated. At any rate there are sufficient issues here to re-open and debate the sugya.

Louse biology in today´s Daf Yomi

B"H

In today’s Daf Yomi the famous matter of "kina ena para veraba" is mentioned.

In our forthcoming book "The enigma of the Biblical Shafan" we have included a short English appendix on this issue and also an expanded Hebrew version.

Please follow the link (here) for a version without footnotes and illustrations.