|
(The Occident, vol. XIV, reprinted in the American Jewish Advocate).
[I have included this letter because from the style and the wording thereof I
feel certain that my father himself wrote it so that he might have the opportunity of
saying, what he did, in reply. The cause therefor was the common practice of the so-called
Reform-Rabbis, and especially of the more ignorant ones, of ridiculing the Talmud, of
putting forth all sorts of preposterous statements as to the ignorance of the Talmudists
in matters of science. (The Editor).]
To the Rev. Dr. Illowy.
Dear Sir:--
I have been taught to believe in the teachings of our sages, as implicitly as in those
of the written laws of G-d, delivered through his faithful servant Moses. My teachers have
impressed on my mind, that it is better to follow unhesitatingly in the footsteps of the
Talmudists, and to travel slowly on the obscure and seemingly narrow path of the ancients,
though derided by the moderns as absurd, than to hurry along with careless haste on the
way of life which the present age opens to us, enlightened as it pretends to be by the
dazzling glare of a false philosophy. I have been admonished never to give place in my
heart to any doubts about the truth of the views of the Talmud; but I acknowledge with
full sincerity, that it was rather filial love for paternal precepts, and the respect
which I owe to my teachers, than real piety, which inspired me with the moral strength to
struggle against all the doubts which threatened so often to overpower my mind; and when I
met with any difficulty which others might in their belief, the above mentioned causes
induced me to regard this only as the result of my ignorance. But, notwithstanding all the
good instruction I have enjoyed, I cannot conceal from you that I have met with several
hypotheses in the Talmud, which I can never acknowledge as true, since they are opposed to
common sense, and facts speak loudly against their reality. I beg leave now to lay before
you some of these things; and if you should succeed in convincing me of their truth and
correctness, I will never more raise my voice against our sages, and will believe even any
seeming absurdity I may discover in their writings, under the full persuasion that a
better acquaintance with the subject will remove the difficulty which at first sight
appears to exist.
First. It is states in the Yoreh Deah. ch. xlviii, par. 15, that
there exists a certain bird, though its name is not mentioned, which grows on a peculiar
tree, and which is suspended by its beak in embryo, and falls down when fully ripe. This
chimerical bird, which grows only on trees of their own imagination, gave rise to a
discussion among the casuists, whether it be allowed to any Israelite to eat of it or not.
Secondly.Another sypothesis adopted by the Talmudists is as follows: "The
sages, teach, that an unclean fish, to wit: one not having fins and scales produces living
young, but the clean fish lay eggs." In another passage this hypothesis is
contradicted by a different authority, which admits that both clean and unclean fish lay
eggs, with this difference, that in unclean fishes, the fetus is fully developed in the
egg, as soon as produced, while in the eggs of the clean fish the germ is developed in the
water, where, according to Rashi, the eggs will not hatch without a due degree of heat
being imparted to them by the brooding of the parent fish. I need not exhibit to you any
argument to prove the absurdity of both these hypotheses, as the first is contradicted by
the second, and both by daily experience to the contrary.
Thirdly. The pediculus [louse] owes its existence, according to
Talmud Shabbath 107b, and Tosaphot, ib., 12a, to spontaneous
generation in the perspiration and moisture of man and animals although it cannot, in
point of fact, be denied that like all other oviparous animals it originates from eggs.
Fourthly. Another theory is indicated in Bekorot 7b, "All the
animals which have living young are mammiferous, and all that lay eggs pick up food for
the young, except the bat." I am not learned enough to contradict this assumption;
but I would merely ask, why no naturalist, beside the Talmudists, so far as known to me,
was sufficiently well acquainted with the habits of the bat, as to know that it is
oviparous and a mammal at the same time, and why did no one up to the present time
discover an ovary in the bat.
I trust you will have the goodness to give me a satisfactory solution on these
subjects, and confer thus a lasting favor on your obedient servant.
Hananel S.
My Dear Young Friend:--
Your letter came duly to hand, and I read it with the attention which it
deserves; but I regret to state, that your expressions of regard for the opinion of our
sages do by no means afford me any satisfaction; since all your efforts do not hide the
mournful fact, that you belong to some extent to the self-styled enlightened class among
the moderns, whose business it seems to be to demolish the sacred structure which the
ancient Israelites have erected with so much care and labor, and who in making war against
the Oral Law, use the Talmud only as a weapon against itself, and strive to exhibit their
forefathers as ignorant dreamers and thoughtless deceivers. It will be my duty, however,
as one of your teachers, to use all proper efforts to bring you back to the truth from
which you have deviated, being misled by erroneous guides and their false teaching, and to
show you that the mistakes you seem to discover in the Talmud are only the reflex of your
own want of knowledge, just as the mirror gives back to the beholder his own image,
deformed as it may be, though the surface on which he looks is pure and faultless.
But let me answer you, point by point.
First. You want to know the name of a certain bird which grows on
a particular tree and gave rise to a discussion among the casuists whether an Israelite be
permitted to eat it according to the law, and of which you positively maintain that such a
bird was growing only on trees of their own invention. -- But I would ask you first, how
you can make so bold an assertion? Is it because you have never seen it? Can your mere
negative gainsay the affirmative of many of the most celebrated ancient naturalists, who
affirm to have seen a bird precisely of this nature, as mentioned above? They called it
the Barnacle Goose, and placed its native region in some remote parts of the north of
Europe. Muenster, Saxo Grammaticus, Scaliger, and others have asserted that the trees
which bore these wonderful fruits resembled willows, which produced at the extremity of
the branches small balls, containing the embryo of a duck suspended by its bill, which,
when ripe, fell into the sea, and flew away. Bishop Leslie, Torquemada, and Olaus Magnus,
all attest the truth of the monstrous generation of the Barnacle Goose, wherefore it was
called "tree goose." Now, I have merely to observe, that, when the casuists
speak of a bird growing on a tree, it by no means proves that they had adopted the opinion
then generally prevalent, that Barnacle geese actually grew on trees; for it was not a
subject for them to investigate. The question for them to decide was, whether an Israelite
might lawfully eat the goose, which, by common consent, in those days, was the product of
a tree. Some held it was prohibited; others, again, as Mordecai and Rabbenu Tam, had
undoubtedly seen and examined the bird, without caring how it was produced, and decided it
to belong to those which may lawfully be eaten. Their investigation of the specimens
before them, satisfied them, their marks indicated their being permitted; according to
Yoreh Deah, ch. IXXXII, "that it is necessary to examine first an unknown bird by the
tokens, before it is allowed to eat it." This was all they needed to do, without
troubling themselves about the disputes of the naturalists, as regards the origin of the
Barnacle Goose; wherefore they gave no opinion on this point.
To your second objection, I would reply, that you would have done better
to ask for the simple meaning of the passage you quote, than endeavor to give it a
signification which it does not possess. In order to make the subject clear, let me
exhibit to you first the mode of the reproduction of fishes. Fishes are divided into two
classes. Rays, sharks, and others produce large eggs protected by a strong shell; these we
call oviparous. Blennius, silures, and others bring forth living young, and are called
viviparous. The first class is again subdivided into two classes; some fishes require
fecundation before they lay eggs, while a great many lay their roes in the water,
agglutinated by a kind of mucilage, which envelops and attaches them to stones or aquatic
plants, and they are then fecundated by the fluid or milt of the male, which passes over
them. This now, I which to show you, stands in perfect coincidence with the statement of
the Talmud, and there is consequently no contradiction whatever in both its hypotheses. In
the first instance, where the Talmud asserts that the unclean fish bring forth live young,
while the clean lay eggs, it does not intend to give us a lesson in natural history; but
it merely teaches us that all viviparous fishes are unclean, and they are
accordingly forbidden to us as food, whereas all the clean fishes are of an oviparous
nature. But, in order to guard us against the assumption that all of the latter class are
permitted to us, there is offered to us the second hypothesis, which teaches that this
class, too, contains some unclean species, discernible by the difference, that the unclean
fishes of this class required fecundation,m whereby the eggs are developed within, before
they are laid; while the clean ones lay their eggs in the water, where they are fecundated
by the male passing over them. But, as regards the remark ascribed to Rashi, in Bekorot,
cited by you, I venture to assert that this is based on a mistake, and is perhaps an
addition made by some person unacquainted with the subject.
In answer to your third query, I will state that it is not to be denied
that the pediculus is multiplied by eggs; but the eggs is nevertheless not the
origin of the existence of this race; and I must refer you to the famous Cuvier, who wrote
about these insects as follows: "Their generations are numerous and succeed each
other with great rapidity. Some particular causes, unknown to us, favor their first
existence, which is exemplified by the pedicular malady, or phtirosis, in man, and even in
our infancy." -- Probably these unknown causes induced the Talmud to presume that the
insect originates from the moisture of men and animals.
In reply to your fourth question, I will say that, as serpents sometimes
are oviparous, at others viviparous, there may be a species of
עטלף which is mammiferous, while another is oviparous.
Affectionately yours,
B. Illowy.
|
