One of the great recent controversies was how to define the word Shafan in the Torah.
Rabbi Slifkin argues for the Hyrax. Dr. Betech argues for the Rabbit. Rabbi Lubin argues for the Llama.
Much of Rabbi Slifkin's view rides on the fact that there are "no alternative candidates". Well, that theory is not air-tight if in the year 2013 we are still finding new species.
I think you will find that one of the main defining criteria for Rabbi Slifkin is that it had to be an animal known to the Jewish people at the time the Torah was given (and at the time of the Gemara). That is one of the main reasons that Rabbi Slifkin rejects both rabbit and llama as candidates.
ReplyDeleteDr Betech will accept a candidate which was unknown at the time of Matan Torah, but he is pretty convinced it is the rabbit because the Rishonim said so (so new discoveries are irrelevant).
Perhaps those who believe it is the llama will have to reassess their position as new animals are discovered.
What Rabbi Slifkin does stress is that he does not believe in animals which go against all known scientific rules (such as an animal that grows from a plant). So far every newly discovered animal (and I know of 3 in 2013 alone) has agreed with this prediction of his. That means that every new discovery strengthens his position (in the same way that the discovery of a mermaid would destroy his position). I am not sure that the "rabbit" or "llama" view would be either strengthened or weakened by new discoveries, since as far as I can tell they make no predictions at all.
B”H
DeleteDear Rabbi Sedley
Thank you for your comment.
You wrote:
Dr Betech will accept a candidate which was unknown at the time of Matan Torah, but he is pretty convinced it is the rabbit because the Rishonim said so (so new discoveries are irrelevant).
IB:
I consider that it is probable that the Biblical shafan is the rabbit, because it is factually compatible with all the Biblical and post-Biblical (up until and including the Rishonim) descriptions attributed to the Biblical shafan, so new factual discoveries are relevant to my position.
You wrote:
I am not sure that the "rabbit" or "llama" view would be either strengthened or weakened by new discoveries, since as far as I can tell they make no predictions at all.
IB:
The position of our book – based on Chulin 59a – indeed make the “prediction” that no additional one-signed “min” (Torah-type) will be found, thus new discoveries certainly strengthen our position.
Dr. Betech
DeleteWhat intrigues me about your position is that you bring much support from many Rishonim that the Shafan is the Rabbit, but these same Rishonim clearly did not agree that Cecotrophy is the meaning of Maalah Geira.
B”H
DeleteDear “SoMeHoW Frum”
Thank you for your comment.
The first Appendix of the book is:
THE RISHONIM’S DESCRIPTIONS OF MAALEH GERAH AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH CAECOTROPHY
I am aware that one could shoehorn cecotrophy into the Rishonim's words, but being that this phenomenon was not really understood or discovered until recent times, do you really think that the Rishonim had cecotrophy in mind when describing Maalah Geira?
DeleteThe Rashbam, for example, says מעלת את מאכלה בגרגרת לאחר אכילתה, but according to cecotrophy, the pellet is not raised up in the throat after eating...
B”H
DeleteDear “SoMeHoW Frum”
You wrote:
I am aware that one could shoehorn cecotrophy into the Rishonim's words, but being that this phenomenon was not really understood or discovered until recent times, do you really think that the Rishonim had cecotrophy in mind when describing Maalah Geira?
IB:
What the Rishonim had in mind when describing “maaleh gerah”, obviously is something I do not know. Nevertheless since cecotrophy in rabbits is practiced daily, and can be observed by any human being without any technological aid, I have no reason to think that the Rishonim could not be aware of this nutritionally imperative practice which is physiologically analogous to rumination.
You wrote:
The Rashbam, for example, says מעלת את מאכלה בגרגרת לאחר אכילתה, but according to cecotrophy, the pellet is not raised up in the throat after eating...
IB:
Indeed, in the cecotrophy process the pellet is raised up in the throat after eating, since the rabbit first ingests herbs as every herbivorous animal does, and after that, the semi-digested soft pellets pass again through the throat.
and after that, the semi-digested soft pellets pass again through the throat.
DeleteThey pass DOWN through the throat. The Rashbam and other Rishonim say that they RAISE it via the throat.
B”H
DeleteWe may suggest the following translation for the Rashba”m
רשב"ם על ויקרא פרק יא פסוק ג
מעלה גרה - מעלת את מאכלה בגרגרת לאחר אכילתה:
It passes its food through the throat after it was eaten.
In Biblical Hebrew, the word “maaleh” it’s not always upwards as in Jeremiah 33:6, please see there the Targum.
There is a big difference with a "Biblical Hebrew" term, and a Rishon using the term as an explanation. The Rashbam very clearly is trying to explain the process, and he says that the Shafan RAISES the food in the throat AFTER eating.
DeleteB”H
DeletePlease see also Ketubot 2a where the expression “Maaleh lah mezonot” does not speak about an upwards transference of food, but just providing her with food.
But Maaleh Bigargeres, is not an expression of providing sustenance. It is an explanation of how the digestion process works. And the Rashbam says that the food goes UP the Gargeres.
DeleteB”H
DeleteYou wrote:
And the Rashbam says that the food goes UP the Gargeres.
IB:
This is the question: what is the meaning of the word “maaleh”.
If in the classic Jewish literature the only meaning of “maaleh” is an upwards transference, then you are right, but since we have provided Biblical and Talmudic examples of an alternative meaning of the word “maaleh”, then I think the situation is still uncertain.
The biblical and talmudic sources you bring have no meaning within the context here in the Rashbam. If the Rashbam said that the food goes up the Gargeres, he is not talking about cecotrophy. He is talking about food going up the esophogus, which does not happen in rabbits.
DeleteB”H
DeleteI would like to know why you consider the Biblical and Talmudic examples of an alternative meaning of the word “maaleh” that I presented as “have no meaning within the context here in the Rashbam”.
Dr. Betech,
DeleteWhich of the alternative meanings is the Rashbam referring to here? Can you translate this Rashbam for me? Thank you in advance.
B”H
DeleteAs previously suggested:
רשב"ם על ויקרא פרק יא פסוק ג
מעלה גרה - מעלת את מאכלה בגרגרת לאחר אכילתה:
It passes its food through the throat after it was eaten.
Please remember that I also wrote that I think the situation is still uncertain, since what the Rashba”m had in mind when describing “maaleh gerah”, obviously is something I do not know.
Nevertheless since my suggested translation is a lexicological option, then I think B”H, you can not be certain that what Rashba”m wrote on Leviticus 11:3 is incompatible with caecotrophy.
Can you find any source that Maaleh means to "pass"? Also, as mentioned before, this is not some difficult text, this is a straight-forward explanation of a Rishon trying to explain to his readers the digestion process. If he was referring to cecotrophy, which many of his readers were not aware of, he would have explained it at much greater detail.
DeleteB”H
DeleteYou wrote:
Can you find any source that Maaleh means to "pass"?
IB:
As previously cited Ketubot 2a
I wrote:
It passes its food through the throat after it was eaten.
Where “passes” means “transfers” the food…
You wrote:
…If he was referring to cecotrophy, which many of his readers were not aware of, he would have explained it at much greater detail.
IB:
I am not suggesting that the Rashba”m on Leviticus 11:3 is only describing caecotrophy, but I am suggesting that his description besides being obviously compatible with classic rumination is also compatible with caecotrophy.
דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מלמד שתפס הקב"ה מכל מין ומין והראה לו למשה ואמר לו זאת אכול וזאת לא תיכול
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud in Chulin 42A above, states that Hashem showed Moshe ALL the animals, saying which can be eaten and which not. Being that the Torah is timeless, I don't see why an animal would be disincluded just because it was native to a foreign land.
Because the Torah had to be comprehensible to both us and our ancestors. Showing our ancestors an animal that they had never heard of and would never encounter would be irrelevant to them.
ReplyDeleteIt was comprehensible. Suppose it was the llama. They were told not to eat it and were shown what it was. The translation was forgotten over time, as there were no llamas in the Middle East.
Delete