SACRED MONSTERS Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash Rabbi Natan Slifkin Zoo Torah/ Gefen BooksContents Preface Introduction: Confronting Monsters Chapter One: Unicorns of Different Colors Chapter Two: Mermaids, Krakens, & Wild Men Chapter Three: Gigantic Giants Chapter Four: Diminutive Dwarfs Chapter Five: Sea Monsters & Leviathan Chapter Six: Behold the Behemoth Chapter Seven: The Fabulous Shamir Chapter Eight: Two-Headed Men & Other Mutants Chapter Nine: The Phoenix from the Flames Chapter Ten: Royal Griffins Chapter Eleven: The Remarkable Roc Chapter Twelve: Dragons & Fiery Flying Serpents Chapter Thirteen; The Secret of the Salamander Chapter Fourteen: Vegetable-Men & Tree-Geese Chapter Fifteen: The Marvelous Mud-Mouse Chapter Sixteen: The § Pontancous Sweat-Louse Bibliography 11 43 85 117: 153 169 187 201 215 231 247 261 275 289 311 331 347 383Confronting Monsters A Variety of Approaches lor the most part, classical Jewish literature deals with matters of law and theology that are entirely unrelated to zoology or any form of science. However, scattered here and there are a host of references to mysterious creatures, including unicorns, giants, mermaids, griffins, rocs, the phoenix, and other monsters. Some of them are referred to in Scripture itself. Others are mentioned in the Talmud or Midrash. Yet while for much of history, people believed in the existence of such creatures, many modern readers considers them to be strictly fictional. What, then are we to make of the references to such creatures in our tradition? Both historically and today, Torah scholars have taken a variety of different approaches to resolving such conflicts. In this chapter, we shall explore these various approaches. Icis important to realize that one should not feel constrained to any one of them; in any given case, one can choose to adopt whichever approach seems the most appropriate. I. Remaining With the Question One could simply confess ignorance. We should not expect, with our limited knowledge and experience, to be able to resolve all difficulties in the Talmud, This author is still left with many questions and difficulties, not only concerning the topics in this volume, but also many others. 1 For further discussion, see Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah, pp. \-20. 19Sacrep Monsrers Often, the most honest, accurate and suitable response is to simply admit and accept that one does not have the solution. In today’s era of instant gratification, people want to have answers to all their questions—preferably bite-sized, for easy consumption, Unfortunately, life does not work that way. No matter who we are, we never have all our questions answered. At such times, there is an important Yiddish expression to bear in mind: Fin a kashya shtarbt mon nisht—"From a question, a person doesn’t die.” It conveys the advice that we should not be overly distressed when we do not find answers for all our questions, ‘There is no system of thought that is entirely free of questions and difficulties. There are always limitations on human knowledge. Modern physics has many unanswered questions, yet it survives and is valid nonetheless. The Torah is a font of wisdom that has maintained us for millennia, and we can trust that solutions to our questions do exist. The Talmud tells us that even Moses remained with an unanswered question, and it was che most difficule one of all: Why do bad things happen to good people? Moses asked God Himself, and did not receive an answer. Talmudic literature is replete with questions that are left unresolved, with the Talmud concluding teyk—let it stand.”? This word is sometimes homiletically interpreted as an acronym: Tishbi yetareitz kushyos wvayos—Tishbi (i.c., Eliyahu the Tishbite, who will attive in the Messianic era) will answer our difficulties and questions.” Using this approach to avoid providing answers for conflicts between the Talmud and science is passionately favored by many people today. Shas (the Talmud) is faith-based knowledge. When faced with the most difficult questions, we don’t take the easy way out. We would rather wait for Eliyahu to come! Why settle for a makeshift answer, if we will be 2. “The Talmud (Bava Metzia 13a) refers to the last will of a dying man as daytckis which Rashi explains to be a conjunction of de eyku and translates into Hebrew 5 20 tokum, “this shall stand; this is also how the word is explained by Musaf Ha-Aruch However, others relate it to the Aramaic verb for weighing (sala), thus, “eis balanced”: accordingly, the implication is not that we are lacking information, but rather that there i ea defi no way to have a definite outcome between two competing claims and we have arrived ata stalemate. 20Introduction: Confronting Monsters handed the reliable solution at a later date? Zeykw is the answer! From the graves of these giants of wisdom and purity, Abaya and Rava, emerges the truth that can never be repudiated by the midgets of our generation. Rabbi Mattisyahu Salomon, address at the 1th Duf Yomi Siywm, transcript in Mishpacha, 319/05 Limitations of this Approach While this approach has a very valuable place in ‘Torah study, it is widely misused and abused. It is legitimate to adopt approach for oneself whenever one wants. It is unreasonable, however, to always expect other people to accept it. All too often, this approach is used to brush off important questions that should be answered and for which great authorities have already provided answers. When a teacher is faced with a question and does not appreciate its seriousness, or is unaware of or uncomfortable with the potential answers, iis all t00 easy for him to wave it away by saying, “You dont die from question.” But in the mind of the questioner, with questions such as those wre are discussing, the very authenticity of religion may be at stake. When a rabbi dismisses his student's concerns and tells him that “You don't die from a question,” the questioner suspects (often correctly) that the rabbi riousness of the question or is reluctant to face does not appreciate the se the facts. ‘Telling someone that risks and should be avoi “you dont die from a question” carries serious ded wherever possible, ‘The great Torah scholars Of hry did nor generally use this approach with people who were struggling with faith-challenging, issues. When Rambam encountered people who were grappling with the questions raised by Aristotelian philosophy, he did not simply say, “You don’ die from a question.” Trwtead, he worked hard to write his Guide for the Perplexed, and provided newere wherever possible—cven though these answers were not popular with many segments of Jewry. ‘Avoiding the risks involved i tiske All too often, telling someone “You don't die from a question” is icit message that the questioner should not But the unwillingness to seriously deal with in less-than-ideal answers carries its own accompanied by the impli be asking such questions. 21np MONsTERS Sact questions can itself lead to a criss of Ba a eee Loew of Prague (better known as Maharal, 1525-1 det sO ‘A person should not reject something which is agin ie own ies, especially if ic is nor presented a5 a0 anrack ea “ ion but is simply an honest expression of the other persons belief. Even if ci agnins his own religious beliefs and faith, he should not say, “Be au and shut your mouth,” because there will not be a clarification of that person's religious understanding, In fact, in such cases we should tell a person to speak his mind frely and fully express how he feels, such that he should not feel that he has not been able to fully speak his mind. If sincere questions are silenced, this is indicative that the religion is weak, as discussed earlier. This attitude is the opposite of what some people think, They mistakenly chink that forbidding people from discussing religion strengthens religious faith, but this is not the case. Suppression of dissent and prohibiting people from speaking is a weakening of religion. Maharal, Beer HaGolah7 Maharal himself strongly attacked Azariah de Rossi for responding to difficulties in the Talmud with answers that Maharal deemed unacceptable, But—and this is a point that some people miss—Maharal provided alternate solutions! He did not simply dismiss the questions and leave the questioner with no answers. Of course, the importance of giving answers does not justify giving any kind of answer; we cannot compromise the integrity of Torah. Even legitimate answers sometimes require difficult adjustments and can involve certain risks. In some cases, they should be presented only to those who are sincerely bothered by the questions, But where answers have been given by authoritative Torah scholars, we should not insist that the questioner remain with his questions. II. Mistranslations and Misunderstandings One possible solution to cases where Scripture or the Talmud describes a creature that does not exist is that we have misunderstood what the Passage is talking about, We may have mistranslated some words, or the 22Introduction: Confronting Monsters English translations that we use may be accompanied by certain baggage thar does not exist with che original Hebrew or Aramaic terms. example: The Basilisk ing co several translations of Scripture, there are several verses Accordi on the basilisk, also known as the cockatrice: that mentit Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent. Ieaiah 14:29, according to the King James Bible see too 11:8, 59:5, and Jeremiah 8:17 “The basilisk, according to legend, had the body of a snake, the head and wings of a rooster, two to eight birdlike legs, and killed people merely by looking at them, According to some secular works, this is therefore evidence of a mythical creature in the Bible. However, properly translated, the words in these verses simply refer to venomous snakes, as we shall discuss later in the chapter on dragons. In earlier centuries, the name “basilisk” was used for venomous snakes, which may have been the source of the error, Ie was later, in medieval times, that the basilisk underwent a dramatic metamorphosis and became a fabulous monster. The mythical creature that is presumed to appear in Scripture is nothing more than a mistranslation. ‘A medieval woodcut of a basilisk Limitations of this Approach : In many cases, itis clear that this approach is appropriate, and solves the ificulties. However, there are cases where it is difficult or unreasonable to Suggest that we have misunderstood what the Sages were saying. This is especially the case where the conventional translation is one that is 23i iti sases, we shi supported by numerous earlier authorities. In such ca all seek to find other resolutions to the problem. III. Metaphor, Metaphysics and Exaggeration A very important approach in understanding fabulous accounts in the ‘Talmud and Midrash is to realize that, according to many rabbinicscholars, the words of the Talmud and Midrash are not always to be interpreted literally. While it seems that the rabbinic authorities of medieval Ashkenaz, (Northern France and Germany) took the position that all statements in the Talmud are to be understood literally,’ the scholars of medieval Sephard (Spain) were of the view that many of the Aggadic (i.e. non- ions of the Talmud are not to be taken literally at all. are several possibilities. The Rishonim dos as metaphor and allegory. halachic) se Within this approach, there (medieval scholars) interpreted these Aga Rambam, in his categorization of different types of people who study Aggados, harshly condemns those who interpret all the outlandish statements of the Sages literally, and presents the correct approach: - people who are clea as to the greatness of the Sages, and the excellence of their intellects, based on the general gamut of their writings... itis lear to them as to which things are impossible, and which things must be true. And they know that the sages do not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the Sages’ words contain revealed and hidden matters, and that all the impossible things of which they spoke was their way 1g by way of riddles and parables; for such is the way of great, Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Introduction to Perek Chelek of Maseches Sanhedrin 3. “The one surviving polemical leer from French anti-rationalists equates non-ltenl interpretation of aggadah with rejection"—Bernard Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Carer ane Controversies of Ramab, citing.a manuscript printed in Zion 34 (196 0.39. Se a fe Lawes, “The Reception of Rashi's Commentary on the Torth in Spain: ‘the Case of Adam's Mating with the Animals,” The Jew oy Review Vol. 97, No, | (Winter 2007) pp. 33-66, 5.” The Jewish Quarterly 24 ——————Introductio : Confronting Monsters Mahara, on the other hand, innovated a diferent type of non-literal interpretation: the idea that such Aggados arc referring to a metaphysical rather than physical reality, We shall explore an example of his approach in the chapter on giants, Another type of non-literal interpretation of the Sages’ words is the view that the Sages were sometimes using exaggerations. Rabbi Yeshayah of Trani II (known as Riaz, 1235-1300) describes three categories of outlandish Aggadic material. One is material relating genuinely miraculous events that occurred for righteous people. Another is expositions of Scripture which are not intended to present a factual description of reality, but rather to give some added insight. And another category that Riaz describes is that of accounts which are exaggerated. Presumably these exaggerations were given for dramatic effect, and/or to grab people’ attention. R. Shlomo ben Aderes (“Rashba,” 1235-1310) combines both ideas, of metaphor and exaggeration, together. He writes that a Sage would sometimes insert outlandish statements in his lecture in order to prevent people from dozing off’ The outlandish statements were themselves @ metaphor, but the reason why an outlandish metaphor was chosen, instead of stating matters straightforwardly, was to stimulate interest on the part of the students.° Example: ‘The Biggest Frog in the World Frogs come in many shapes and sizes. The largest of them all is the Affican goliath frog; this monstrous amphibian grows to be as much as twenty-six inches long (with outstretched legs) and can weigh 4.5 kg (10 Ib), Buc even that does not approach the size of a fog described in the Talmud: Rabbah bar bar Chanah said: I saw a certain frog that was the size of the city of Hegronia. And how big is the city of Hegronia? Sixty houses. A 4, Riaz, Introduction to Perek Chelek of Sanhedrin. 5. Rashba, Perushei HaHaggados to Berachos 54b, 6 For further elaboration, see R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes, Introduction to the Talmud, chapter 26. 25SacreD MONSTERS and then a raven came and swallowed the Consider how strong that tree wast cen there myself, I would not snake came and swallowed it, snake, It lew up and sat on a tree. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: IF hal not b have believed it pe rarsiere A literal understanding of this would mean thac there was a frog measuring several hundred feet in length. Following from this, the snake that was able to eat it would have measured several miles in length. The raven that ate the snake would have defied the imagination, and the tree upon which it sat would have had branches stretching far above the clouds, And as for Rav Pappa bar Shmuel’s statement that he wouldn't have believed Rabbah bar bar Chanah had he not seen it himself, it leads us to conclude that since we didn't see it, why should we believe it?! The stories of Rabbah bar bar Chanah have long been subject to dispute, with many rabbinic authorities understanding them as being allegories rather than factual accounts, while some insist that they are also true on a factual level.” Bur there are powerful reasons for adopting the former approach, that this account of the Talmud is designed as a metaphor for teaching deeper lessons rather than a literal description of extremely large creatures.’ The reasons for adopting this approach are not only that a literal understanding is too improbable to be true. A more profound reason is that the Talmud is not some ancient version of the Guinness Book of World Records. It is a section of the Torah, a book of law and teachings, not a record of the largest creatures ever discovered. Ie therefore comes as no surprise to find that the Vilna Gaon expounded this story as relating an important message concerning Torah study. The 7 Mahatsha, in his commentary to the first of Rabbah bar bar Chanah’s stories, and apparently referring to all of them, docs say that these stories are true in their literal meaning 2s well asin their deeper meaning; he notes that sailors see weird and wonderful things. Rashbam and the Vilna Gaon write similarly. 8 Ic is plausible chat even the authorities who cook a literalist approach would not explain these stories in this way, were they to be alive today with the knowledge that we now possess about the natural world, Cf. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in lgras Moshe, Choshen Mishpat vol. 11 73:4, p. 308, regarding how Rashba would change his strong views on tereifos were he alive today. 26Introduction: Confronting Monsters Saas eer Er eeeeeeerreere ree eee een perpewall-croaking frog represents the perpetually-studying scholar. It is vein of sixty houses whic represent che sity tacats ofthe Mishnah. Mee ae described as being encompassed in a single city rather than 1 sixty separate cntties; this alludes to the fear of Heaven that must encompass all of a scholar’s learning, ‘The snake that swallows the frog represents the trials of financial hardship that threaten to consume the ‘Torah scholar. The raven represents the trust in God to provide sustenance, thereby overcoming the serpent. God grants help to the scholar in the form of'a financial supporter, symbolized by the tree on which the raven sits. Rabbah bar bar Chanah commented on the tremendous accomplishment of this supporter. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who came from Babylon, where “hewealthy were less helpful, commented that he would not have believed how helpfal were the wealthy people of Israel, had he not seen it with his ‘own eyes.” Ina different explanation, Maharal states that the frog, snake and bird refer to the different lowly elements of the natural world that all have their place in the hierarchy (“tree”) of creation."° There are also a variety of other Explanations, which are likewise based on understanding the aceount to be a metaphor." Limitations of this Approach “The advantage ofthis approach is clear: it enables one to take the view that both the Sages and science are correct. There are many cases where this approach is undoubtedly appropriate. Many of the mysterious monsters discussed in this book fall into this category. ‘The disadvantage of this approach is that it application. Sometimes, many of the commentators are of the opinion that the statement of the Sages is to be taken at face value. On numerous occasions, it is difficult to accept thac the statement was not intended is somewhat limited in 9 Fora comprehensive explanation of the Vilna Gaon’s commentary, see Rabbi Aharon Feldman, The Juggler and she King. 10 Maharal, Beer HaCialah, ‘This explanation in Maharal: Beer HaGolab, M1. Sce Akeidas Vitechak 24, and Yalaras Devash 2:16. 1 is elucidated by Rabbi Yitchak Adlerstein 27Sacre Monsters OT literally, such as when it is made in the context oe fe discusion, While some authorities still take an allegorical approach in er it may stretch credulity to accept that this is what i ages : the almud actually had in mind; it may appear that such deeper layers of meaning are being created rather than discovered. TV. Changes in Nature In medieval times, another approach was introduced to account for disparities between the Talmud and the natural world as perceived in that era, This was that the physical nature of the world had changed since the time of the Sages. Following this approach, termed nishtaneh hateva, both the Sages of the Talmud and modern scientists are correct; they are simply describing the world at different times in history. Example: Animal Births ‘The primary source for this concept stems from a ruling in the Talmud relating ro the age a which catle and donieys can bear young, Establishing this age is important because a firstborn animal of thess species auromatially belongs to a Kohen; thus, when purchasing an animal fiom a non-Jew, one must ascertain if the animal could hve given birth already. If not, then when the animal gives birth, the calf must be given toa Kohen. The Talmud rules that if they ar when they give birth, their frst offipring definitely Tosafos notes that this is contrast to the facts know: three years old, then belongs to the Kohen. nin his time: The explanation of this they can certainly not h; we see all the time tha answer that times have carlier generations, (ruling) is that before they are three years old, ave given birth. But this is astonishing—surely ¥ two-year-old cows can give birth! One can certainly changed from how matters were in Tesafos to Avodal Zarah 24b sv. Parah Vchamor!? —— 12 See too Tosafos to Yona 77h s, v. Mishum Shivta and Tosafos to Mo'ed Katan 11a s.v, Kava for further examples, 28Introduction: Confronting Monsters In the case of such familiar events, ic is unreasonable to posi errors of tei i . abservation. Instead, i is nature itself that has changed over time Limitations of this Approach Several Torah scholars point out that this approach should only be used asa hast resort. While this approach is attractive in not requiring one to assert that anyone is mistaken, it is extremely limited in application. The changes of nature that are mentioned by medieval Torah authorities relate to the physiology or functions of existing biological organisms. They are the sorts of small-scale changes that we see all the time, such as the average height of people continually increasing, of insects building up a resistance to pesticides; they are not changes in the fundamental nature of nature itself, But proposals (that we shall later discuss) such as that salamanders are born from fire, that there are mermaids which are half human and half fish, or that there are animals which grow from plants, go against the most basic principles of biology. There is a limit to how much nature changes, barring supernatural intervention."* ‘The aforementioned approaches are all comforting in that they allow one to maintain that the Sages of the Talmud and Midrash were not making any statements that are inconsistent with modern science. But sometimes it may be that none of these approaches is viable. Suppose that one is confident the terms have been correctly translated (such as when there is a strong historical consensus to this effect); that it seems unreasonable ‘0 suggest the Talmud is speaking metaphorically; and that it is too far- fetched that changes in nature would account for such a creature having existed in the past. What then? In such cases, one would have to choose between the following two approaches. 13 "Te : a Gu U Tess Yaave 8 Bel Aomahann pees ginesar 22, See co Rarbam . forthe Perplexed 2:29, | ae in nau tithe ironie tha people who sweepingly use the approach of posting change “I science are usually the same IM nature to ad, aedes all conflicts between the Talmud and sence 16 Prop ‘ Pie who reject standard thenries af evolution as being scientl 29SacreD Monsters 7 V. Deferral to the Sages r edieva authortiesand many contemporary authors i ane the Sages shouldbe relied upon inal thee satan even these concerning the natural wold, and even iii difeyrf® to understand how these statements could be tue. They explain ye fllow tis course because in making their scientific statements ihe either possessed Divine inspiration, * received such natural wisdom fa Sinatc tradition, or were able to extrac this information fom kage layers of meaningin the Torah. An example of his approach sto befgy in the writings of Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Avulai (1724-1809), ahs known by his acronym Chida: --OF the great ones, there were some who decided t0 move anay somewhat from the words of the Sages in some aspects. This was when they were wise in their studies and in the sciences, and they had breadth of knowledge, and they believed that the Sages were sages alone. And this was why they said that they also possess wisdom and understanding, up to the point that they were wiser. But they should have paid attention to the fact that the Sages possessed Divine inspiration, and Eliyahu, of blessed memory, was frequently found with them, and their souls were from the uppermost heights, and were pure; and there is no connection between these people and the Sages. We need to bow our heads and accept the truth from the masters of truth... I have been brief, and thisis a small point, but itis a precious pearl against those who would think 0 object to the words of the Sages, and this should suffice. Chida, Shem HaGedolim, Sefearim, os hei 82 Proponents of this approach cast doubt on the validity of modem science. They point out that scientists are fallible and that science of changes. Accordingly, they argue that one should not reject statements in the Talmud on the basis of modern science. eee 15 It should be noted, however, Secrets are revealed to those who fe fear Him’), used to account for the Sages pose s Pematural knowledge of the natural world, was expanded in recent times far bo SS oFiginal usage, See my monograph on this topic, available at wiwwerationalisiveae™ that the concept of sod Hashem liyreyav (Gt 30 — y|Introduction: Confronting Monsters mple: Bat’s Eggs ‘The Talmud discusses various methods of reproduction in the animal kingdom. Included in this discussion is an account of the bat: Everything that bears live young, nurses them, and everything that lays exuss gathers food for its young, except for the bat (atalefi, which, even though it lays eggs, nurses its young, ‘Talmud, Bechoros 7b In contrast to the ‘Talmud’s statement, modern zoology asserts that none of the 950 species of bats lay eggs. Now, in this conflict, it is not reasonable to say that there is a mistranslation. Rashi translates atalef as bat, and no classical commentator has ever disputed this. It cannot be a Platypus or echidna (which lay eggs and nurse their young), since these animals do not fly and the atalefis listed in the Torah as a flying creature. Even if one were to posit that itis a bird, which does lay eggs, there would still be a problem in hae the Talmud describes it as nursing its young, which no bird does. It is likewise not reasonable to address this conflict by arguing that the Talmud is speaking metaphorically. The statement about bats is not ‘ggadeta (homiletic discourses), but rather part of a discussion about the natural world. No commentator has ever suggested that it is not meant as a factual statement. Nor can one solve this conflict by positing that nature has changed. Modern science asserts not only that bats do not lay eggs today, but that they have never laid eggs. The only egg-laying mammals, the duck-billed Platypus and echidna, live in Australia and are very physiologically unusual creatures. They are on an extremely remote branch of the mammalian family tree, both geographically and Physiologically. An egg-laying bat would be completely contradictory to the neat nested hierarchy of the animal kingdom, We therefore have a case in which there is an unavoidable conflict tween the Talmud and science. ‘Those who subsctibe to the approach atthe Sages were infallible in their scientific pronouncements will insist ber th 31Sacrep MONSTERS _ Lee eS that, at least in Talmudic times, bats really did lay eggs, and that modern zoology is mistaken in denying this. Concerns with this Approach While this approach would seem to strengthen religious faith and commitment, this is not always the case. IF someone discovers a mounting case against the Talmud’s position, his confidence in the correctness of the Talmud is likely to waiver. If he has been taught that the veracity of the Sages’ scientific statements is an integral part of the veracity of the Talmud as a whole, then his faith in the entire Torah enterprise can be severely tested. A frequent scenario is one in which a teacher insists that to reject the scientific pronouncements of the Talmud is tantamount to rejecting the entire Torah, but the student simply cannot bring himself o believe the Talmud’s pronouncements and thus despairs that his faith is fundamentally flawed. As we shall now see, such an attitude is unnecessary and avoidable. VI. Accepting Modern Science Many authorities take the opposite approach to the previous one, and state that the Talmud may indeed contain scientific inaccuracies. Not everything in the Talmud is from Sinaitic revelation. And notwithstanding the Sages’ greatness in Torah scholarship and their closeness to the revelation at Sinai, they did not possess special knowledge of the natural world. In matters of the natural sciences, the Sages relied upon the knowledge of people in their era, which was very limited. Two thousand years later, our knowledge of the natural world is far superior. One of the most explicit statements to this effect is made by Rambam: Do not ask of me to reconcile everything chat they [the Sages} state! about astronomy with the actual reality, for the science of those days was deficient, and they did not speak out of traditions from the prophets regarding these matters... Rambam, Guide forthe Pepesed 314 in should be noted chat nowadays this approach is vehementy opposed sectors of the Orthodox community, and even denowne 32i ‘ ‘ 6 Introduction: Confronting Monsters by some as heretical. Nevertheless, it was a prevalent view amongst the Rishonim (the great Torah sages of the medieval period), and the legacy of this approach has continued throughout the centuries to modern times. Example: The Sun’s Path at Night ‘The Talmud relates a dispute concerning where the sun goes at night: The Sages of Israel say, “During the day, the sun travels below the firmament, and at night, above the firmament.” And the scholars of the nations say, “During the day, che sun travels below the firmament, and at night, below the ground.” Talmud, Pesachim 94b the sun travels behind the sky ) back to its morning starting '® The gentile scholars believed that the sun travels around the far side of the earth at night. We now know that che non-Jewish scholars were correct. But, significantly, the Talmud itself records that Rebbe (Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi) himself acknowledged this: Rebbe said, “Their opinion seems more correct than ours, the day, the wellsprings are cool, but in the night, “because the sun heats them under the ground’).” ‘The Jewish Sages believed that at night, (which was believed to be an opaque dom position, hidden from sight. because in they steam (Rashi — Talmud, Pesachim 94 por that one sees rising from bodies of water plains cha this is due to the sun heating the Underground sources of water when it passes beneath the ground at night. We now know that this is not the case, but itis nevertheless trae that the sun does pass on the far side of the earth at night, just as the gentile sages maintained and as Rebbe conceded. ‘Those who insist upon the Sa Passage of the Talmud different! conceded that the non-Jewish s Rebbe is referring to the va in the early morning, Rashi e ges infalliblity in science interpret this y. Rabbeinu Tam states that while Rebbe cholars had more convincing arguments, ——___ 16 For a full discus in Rabbinic Res www.rationalise ssion of this topic, see “The Sun's Path at Night: The Revolution panses co the Prolemaic Revolution” by this author, available online at ism.com, 33— Sac Monet RRSP esate gS cere eet the truth still lay with the Jewish sages.” Yet, while this view is sti enthusiastically cited by some people today, we can be utterly certain that the sun does not pass behind the sky at night Maharal innovated the view that the Jewish Sages were referring to a metaphysical reality, not to the physical path of the sun at night." Yer the vast majority of Torah scholars over the ages have interpreted this passage literally,” understanding it as attesting, that the Sages of the Talmud made a scientific error. ‘This was not viewed as being religiously problematic, 17. Rabbeinu Tam, cited in Shitah Mekubetzes, Kesuvos 13b- 18. Beer HaGoluh 5, See too Netziv, Halamek Davar to Deuteronomy 4:19. 19 Rashi, as cited above, is the most obvious commentator who interprets it literally, and yet is often strangely ignored. 20. R. Eliezer of Metz (1115-1198), Sefer Yercim vol. , section 2, achilos #52; Tosafos Rid (R. Yeshayah di‘Trani, 1180-1250) Shabbos 34b, s.v. Eizebu; R. Avraham ben HaRambam (1186-1237), ma‘amar al aggadas Chazal; R. Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy (13th century), Sefer Mitavos HaGadol, Lo Tue #79, Rosh (R. Asher ben Yechiel, 1250-1328), Pesachim 2:30 and Sheeilos U'Teshuvos HaRosh, Kelal 14, #2; Riva (R. Yom Tov ben ‘Avraham Alascvilli, 1250-1330), Commentary on the Haggadah, s.v. Mateah zo sheanu ochlim; R. Bachya b. Asher (d. 1340), commentary to Genesis 1:14; R. Yerucham ben Meshullam (1280-1350), Tildas Adam VeChavah, Nesiv 5, Part 3; R. Manoach (13th- 14th century), Commentary to Mishneh Torah, Hilehos Chametz U-Matzah 5:11, s.. Ela bemayim shelanu; R. Eliyahu Mizrachi (1450-1526), Responsum #57; R. Yirechak Arama (1420-1494), Akeidas Yitechak, Parashas Bo, Chap. 37; Maharam Alashkar (R. Moshe ben Yirzchak Alashkar, 1456-1542), Responsum #96; Radbaz (R. David ben Shlomo ibn Zimra) (1479-1573), Responsa, Part IV, #282; R. Moshe Cordovero (1522-1570). Pardes Rimonim 6:3; Lechem Mishneh (R. Avraham ben Moshe de Boton, 1545-1585) © Mishneh Torah, Hilehos Shabbos 5:4; Maharsha (R. Shmuel Eliezer Edels, 1555-1630) to Bava Basra 25b; Minchas Kohen (R. Avraham Kohen Pimentel, d. 1697), Sefer Mew mesh 1:4; Re tim Bacharach (1638-1702), Chavos Yair, Responsum #210: R. Chizkiyah da Silva (author of Pri Chadash, 1659-1698), Kuntrus Binah VeDae P 5b; Maharif (R, Yaakov Feraji Mahmah, c. 1660-1730) Responsum #47; R. Yitechak Lampronti (1679-1756), Pachad Yitechuk, erech tzeidah R. Yistac| Friedman of Ruzhin (1797-1850), cited by R. Menachem Nachum Friedman in. Maseches Avos fm Perih Man, p. 8; R. Moshe Schick (1805-1879), Responsa Maharam Schick, Respons#™ 47; R. Hilever Lipman Newsatz, Mei Menuchos (Pressburg 1884) p. 36b; R Samse? Raphael Hirsch (1808-188), letter written to R, Pinchos Wechsler, published by R Dr. Mordechal Breuer ln Hamaiayan (1976); 1. David Yehuda Silberstein (1820-1889, Shevilel David, Orach Chaim #455; R. Yeshua Shimon Chaim Ovadyah (1872-1952), Responsa Yesamach Leow, Orach Chaim #10, #12; R. Menachem Nachum Friedman 34Confronting Monsters Intodu | Rabbi Moshe (Maharam) Schick (1805-1879) interpreted this demonstrating doubt concerning the correctness of the Sages even when science cannot conclusively prove In fa passage 3 scientific pronouncements them incorrect: Ie seems to me that with regard to matters that were nor received by as a law to Moses from Sinai (halachal leMoshe miSinai), the Sag an but rather which they said according to their own reasoning, and that were not received and have no root in our Torah, bur rather comes ation and experience, it is difficult to conclusively decide Indeed, in the dispute on Pesachim 94b, Rebbi said that the gentile sages’ view appeared more probable, but he did not express inty; for a matter like this, which is investigated only by bringing cannot be resolved with certainty. In truth, according to the reading of the Talmud found in Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed, the Jewish sages recanted their position; but according to our reading, Rebbi said only that the gentile sages’ view appears more correct (i.e. because he could not be certain). Maharam Schicl , Even Ha-Ezer, Responsum 7 Concerns with this Approach If we conclude that a given creature described by the Talmud does not exist, what are the implications for those who believed that it does exist? Some fear that concluding that the Sages believed in the existence of fictional creatures implies that they were overly credulous, gullible or even foolish. But the belief of earlier generations in creatures that have now been determined to be fictional does not mean that our ancestors were at all gullible or foolish. Gulliblity has to be measured against the knowledge that one already possesses. The test of gullibility is not, “What is the likelihood of such a creature existing?” but rather, “What was the Perccived likelihood of such a creature existing according to the state of Scientific knowledge in those days?” For example, consider how people would respond if th told about a lizard with three eyes on its head or with three tas, ar ree tails. The Tecani/Stefanest (1873-1933), Maseches Avos Im Perush Man pp. 7-8 35Sacrep MONSTERS average person might be skeptical. However, a zoologist, who possesses a thorough knowledge of the animal kingdom, would not be so skeptical there actually are lizards, called tuataras, that have a third rudimentary eye, and ifa lizards tail fragments in two places it can grow an additional two tails. But if someone were told about a lizard with three toes on each foot, there would be no particular reason for the average person not to believe it, and he would not be considered gullible for accepting the report as true. The zoologist, on the other hand, would have reason to be skeptical, for there have been no three-toed reptiles since the time of the dinosaurs. Thus, gullibilicy has to be measured against the information that one already possesses. Since in ancient times there was very litte information on hand about the natural world, it was not ridiculous to believe in bizarre creatures, As one expert in mythological creatures puts it: _..Given a world filled with such a diversity and abundance of animal life, how could anyone be expected to distinguish between actual animals and fabulous ones, particularly when authoritative authors compared the parts of exotic creatures to animals with which one was familiar? Joseph Nigg, The Book of Fabulous Beast, p. 14 One must also consider whether it was particularly important in the given context that the information be accurate. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Ramchal, 1707-1746) writes: You should further know that many fundamental secrets were alluded to by the Sages by way of matters of nature or science... However the point is not the information about science or nature, but rather the secret that they wanted to allude to with i. Thus it does not make a difference (© the truth of this allusion whether the parable with which they clothed itis rue or not. Ramichal, Maamar al hablagaddos ‘As we shall learn in the chapter on spontaneous generation, the Sages were interested in clarifying laws and it was not important to them investigate whether a reported creature actually existed. 36Introduction: While it is true that Rabbi Yisrael Lipschitz castigates those who scoff at one of the creatures mentioned in the Mishnah,?! being skeptical is not the same as scoffing, It is perfectly acceptable to state that some creatures are fictional, especially in light of the multitude of Torah scholars over the ages who did not believe that the Sages of the Talmud were omniscient regarding the natural world, A scoffer, however, goes beyond a skeptic; he draws negative inferences about those who believed something and derides chem for it. But one who is skeptical can remain respectful. Finally, and perhaps most critically, it should be noted that these scientific errors do not represent oversights, intellectual ability, or any other deficiency on th simply the information provided to them that poor judgment, lack of 1 part of our Sages. It was was flawed, Yer it must be acknowledged that many people lack the sophistication to make these distinctions. For such people, learning that the Sages erred in science will indeed harm their faith and religious commitment. Provided that they will remain insulated from modern science books (or the internet, or people) that would inform chem otherwise, such people are perhaps better off remaining in innocence. ‘The Approach of this Book In the cases discussed in this book, we will docum approaches described above have been used by often, these authorities differed in their approaches even in the samme case, and such differences continue through to today, We will also draw our own conclusions as to which approach seems most appropriate in exch case. Sometimes, the seemingly impossible monsters that are described in Jewish lcerature turn out t0 be ordinary creatures, the descriptions of Which have been mistranslated or misunderstood, Often, it appears that the accounts of monsters were never intended to be literal descriptions of {gual creacures, but wer instead metaphors designed to convey theoloyial lessons, In some cases, we shall see that those who were skeptical of the ent how the various different authorities. Very a te 21 Tiferes Yisrael, Commentary t Mishnah, Chullin 9:10. See the later chapter Concerning spontaneous generation, 37SacreD MONSTERS PEEP EEE ere ete eee “Talmudic accounts were proven wrong, And in other cases, where there is no reasonable alternative, we shall cite authorities who concluded that the Sages were following the beliefs oftheir time regarding the natural word, Every effort will be made to spell out all che steps of reasoning involved in each case. In determining whether a creatu of analysis is used. re could exist, the following method 1. How reliable and unambiguous is the evidence? ‘Are there actually people who have claimed to have witnessed the creature first hand, or is it just a legend? What precisely does the report say? How reliable are the witnesses? Could they have been misled by false information? And if it is a Talmudic account—does the account mean that itis areal creature, or is it a metaphor? Is there any physical evidence, and could that evidence be interpreted in different ways? II. What is the biological viability of such a creature? Zoology is a highly developed science, and contemporary scientists are extremely knowledgeable about the natural world. Of course, there are wondrous new discoveries that are made every week. Nevertheless, we now possess a fairly good idea of which types of creatures are biologically viable, and one can now predict what type of wonders will and will not be discovered. For instance, we can expect to find new wondrous evidence of intelligence in certain insects. But we can be sure that no insects fifty feet in length will be discovered, for reasons that we shall later discuss. However, sometimes people rule out the biological viability of a creature based on a popular conception of what the name of the creature refers t0. Yet by slightly redefining the creature, it is often possible to conceive of a creature that is indeed biologically viable. For example, a mermaid that is half human being and half fish is biologically impossible, but a member of the seal or manatee family with more humanlike arms and facial features is certainly viable. Some point out that even if the existence of such an animal contradicts the laws of science, it is possible that it exists by way of a supernatural miracle. This is indeed a possibility. Yet there are numerous classical 38