DAF DITTY 10: Springmaus/Jerboa

Half Mouse Half Earth

The spiritual world of the Jewish sages in the and period (1th -5 th centuries), as well as the doors of the study halls, were open to news from the external/secular world in various areas. The article below focuses on vermin or mouse that is half flesh and half earth. This creature was mentioned in the Mishna and Talmud literature in halakhic and ideological contexts. This miraculous hybrid creature was also described in the writings of Greek and Roman sages, and this phenomenon is grounded in a broader outlook mentioned by Aristotle concerning spontaneously generating creatures. According to the Greek and Roman sages, such as Diodorus, Ovid and Pliny, the mice can be seen in the area of the Nile in Egypt, when the water that floods the fields retreats to the river‟s normal channel. According to the Amoraim the mouse is created in a valley, apparently because it is a low place where the ground is normally moist and sometimes muddy. It seems that the origin of this belief is the fact the mice emerge from the earth with part of their body covered in mud and those observing from afar may receive the impression that they are half earth and half flesh.

Abraham Ofir Shemesh1

1 http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/80/1_Shemesh.pdf

1

It must be . דב י הק רצ י ך ,and then find crumbs ץמח If we see a mouse go into a house with a piece of elsewhere - the mouse did not eat it, because mice do not typically leave crumbs. In the same דב י ק ,a child - ית נ קו situation with a

2

Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are from the loaf snatched by the mouse. And Rava also said: If one saw a child enter with a loaf in his hand, and he entered after the child and found crumbs, the house does not require additional searching, because a child typically generates crumbs, and one can therefore assume that the crumbs are from that loaf.

Jastrow

3

And if you say that we accept the contention that if it is so, that if the marten took it from the mouse the mouse itself would be in its mouth, in regard to a case where one saw a mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with both a loaf of bread and a mouse in its mouth, what is the halakha?

Do I say that this is certainly the same mouse and loaf, or perhaps even this conclusion can be disputed: If it is so, that this is the same mouse, the loaf would have been found in the mouse’s mouth rather than in the marten’s mouth.

Consequently, this must be a different loaf of bread. Or perhaps the loaf of bread fell from the mouse’s mouth due to its fear and the marten took it separately.

No satisfactory answer was found for these dilemmas and the concludes: Let them stand unresolved.

4

5

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of , and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the removal of leaven. And the Rabbis say: that is not the case; however, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth, he should search on the fourteenth during the day.

If he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of . If he did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival, as any leaven that remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during Passover, which one is obligated to remove. And the principle is: With regard to the leaven that

6 one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location where it will most likely be left untouched, so that it will not require searching after it if it goes missing.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that one must conduct a search three times? The Gemara answers: It is Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna who both say: The requirement to conduct three searches corresponds to the three times that the removal of leaven is mentioned in the . One verse says: “Matzot shall be eaten for seven days, and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7), and another verse states: “Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19), while a third verse says: “Seven days shall you eat matzot, yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” (Exodus 12:15).

TOSAFOS

'סות ה"ד םאו אל קדב ךותב דעומה ךותב קדב אל םאו ה"ד 'סות

Tosfos discusses his disagreement with Rashi's explanation in 'be'Soch ha'Mo'ed'.)

יפ ' וקה ,סרטנ העשב .תישש העשב ,סרטנ וקה ' יפ

Rashi explains in the sixth hour.

קו ,הש יברלד הדוהי ירק היל תעש' 'רועיבה , המלו הניש ?ונושל הניש המלו , 'רועיבה תעש' היל ירק הדוהי יברלד ,הש

But Rebbi Yehudah calls this same period 'the time of Bi'ur', so why does the Gemara change the expression.

אלא ךותב' 'דעומה יה י נ ו תלחתמ עבש דע ףוס ;חספה ו רחאל' 'דעומה קודבי ידכ אלש ברעתי ול ץמח לש רוסיא רוסיא לש ץמח ול ברעתי אלש ידכ קודבי 'דעומה רחאל' ו ;חספה ףוס דע עבש תלחתמ ו נ י יה 'דעומה ךותב' אלא לשב ה י ת ר , ו י א כ ל נ ו . ש

7 'B'soch ha'Mo'ed' therefore means from the beginning of the seventh hour until the end of Pesach, and the obligation to search after the Mo'ed is based on the concern that one of Isur might get mixed up with Chametz of Heter, and one eats it.

ו "שר י ל א ר הצ ל פ שר כ ן , מ פ נ י פש י שר ב שמ נ ה םיקדובד אלש רובעי לב'ב 'הארי .'אי בברבי ל ידב

Rashi however, did not want to explain it like this, because he explains in the Mishnah that the reason for searching for Chametz is in order not to transgress the Isur of 'Bal Yera'eh'.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

Rabbi Yehudah maintains that we search for chametz three times and the Chachamim dispute this. Rabbi Yehudah says that we search for chametz on the night of the fourteenth of Nissan, on the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time when the chametz is removed, which is during the sixth hour on the fourteenth. The Chachamim, however, maintain that if one did not search for chametz on the night of the fourteenth, he should search for chametz on the morning of the fourteenth. If he did not search on the morning of the fourteenth, he should search during the appointed time that one removes chametz, which is during the sixth hour of the fourteenth. If he did not search during that appointed time, he should search after the appointed time until dark.

Rabbi Yehudah does not allow one to search for chametz after the chametz prohibition goes into effect because he may find chametz and eat it. Initially, the Gemora understood that the reason why Rabbi Yehudah requires three searches of chametz is because they correspond to the three terms that the Torah uses regarding removing chametz from one’s possession. It is said: chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you. It is also said: for a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes. It is further said: but on the first day you shall eliminate leaven from your homes.

These three terms teach us that if one did not discover chametz during the first search, he will discover chametz during the second or third search. This explanation is challenged, however, from a braisa that records Rabbi Yehduah’s own statement that if one did not search for chametz in those three times, he does not search any more, and this indicates that Rabbi Yehudah only disagrees with the Chachamim regarding searching after the time of removing the chametz, but Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim regarding the number of searches that are required. The Gemora therefore explains that Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim that only one search for chametz is required, and the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim is that Rabbi Yehudah maintains one can only search for chametz while chametz is permitted, but once chametz is prohibited, one cannot search for chametz, because if he were to find chametz, he may come to eat it.

2 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Pesachim_10.pdf

8

The Chachamim, however, maintain that if one did not search for chametz before the chametz was prohibited, he must still search for chametz afterwards. This ruling only applies on the fourteenth of Nissan, when chametz is forbidden, but one is not liable the penalty of kares, excision. Regarding Pesach itself, however, the Chachamim agree that one cannot search for chametz, because on Pesach one is liable kares if he were to eat chametz.

After R’ Yosef rejects R’ Chisda and Rabbah bar R’ Huna’s explanation of R’ Yehudah’s ruling in the Mishnah he explains that the dispute revolves around whether one who did not search for chometz should search even after the prohibition began. According to R’ Yehudah, it is prohibited because of the fear one may eat the chometz whereas according to Rabanan it is not only permitted but obligatory. The Gemara begins to question whether R’ Yehudah is concerned with the possibility one may inadvertently eat chometz.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin writes:3

Today’s daf continues to struggle with the challenges of trying to systematically rid one’s home of hametz before Passover begins. The rabbis acknowledge that it is difficult to control and contain food in a world where little rodents move things around, babies drop crumbs and grown-ups just plain forget where they left things. Arguably, in our day the invention of Tupperware has made this easier — but many of us are still overwhelmed by the task of ridding our house of leaven in time for Passover. There is always a nagging uncertainty that leaven lurks somewhere. It is a real comfort that numerous times on our page the rabbis end a short discussion with “teiko” — let Elijah the Prophet come and answer our questions, because we certainly can’t.

Here is an example of one such quandary the rabbis tackle on today’s page:

In a case where there is one pile of leavened bread in front of two houses that were already searched, and a mouse came and took a morsel from the pile, and we do not know if it entered this house or if it entered that house, this is akin to the case of two paths, as we learned in a mishnah: There were two paths, one of which was ritually impure due to a corpse buried there, and one of which was ritually pure, and he walked on one of them but does not know which…

In this scenario, two households have already cleaned for Passover, but there is a pile of leaven outside in front of them. Someone sees a mouse grab some leaven from that pile, and then it is thought to have entered one of the houses, but we do not know which. What do we do? Do we assume the houses are clean? Do we search one? Both?

To answer this question, the Gemara brings an analogous case — of a person who may have walked on a path that imparts impurity, but is uncertain whether they in fact took a different route. On the one hand, it’s helpful to have a parallel case which helps us resolve our problem of a mouse, a pile of hametz and two already-searched homes. On the other hand, it is somewhat jarring to mix up

3 Myjewishlearning.com

9 the joyous holiday of Passover with concerns about a path that might happen to have a corpse lying on it. But that’s the rabbis — eager to resolve our dilemma with whatever it takes.

The challenging scenarios keep coming. What if we see a mouse snatch some leaven but we don’t know if it has entered a clean house? What if we saw a mouse carrying leaven enter a house, but then we subsequently can’t find any leaven in that house? What if we see the mouse carry leaven into the house, and then we find some leaven in the house, but we’re not sure if it is the same leaven that the mouse was carrying? What if a mouse enters with a full loaf of bread in its mouth (a strong mouse!) but later only crumbs are found? What if a child enters with a loaf, and later we see crumbs? What if we see a mouse bring a loaf of bread into the house, and then we see a marten leaving the same house with a loaf of bread in its mouth? On it goes…

Despite careful discussion and clever halakhic parallels for each scenario, our confidence in solving each cases diminishes as the daf continues, until finally things feel completely out of control as we contemplate a white mouse entering the house with a chunk of hametz and a black mouse leaving the house, or worse, a mouse entering the house with hametz and a marten leaving the house with a mouse in its mouth and the hametz is either still in the mouse’s mouth or in the marten's mouth as well. And if a snake is holding hametz in its mouth, do you have to hire a snake charmer to get it out? Teiko! Don’t worry about it — and wait for Elijah who will answer all these questions!

Passover is in many ways a holiday which asks us to control a great deal: our eating, our cooking, even what is in our homes. But the real world is also chaotic and difficult. Our rabbis understood this and accepted it.

Rav David Silverberg writes:4

The Mishna in Pesachim (10b) records a debate among the Tanna’im concerning the case of a person who neglected to perform bedikat chametz before the time on Erev Pesach when chametz becomes forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda rules that one should no longer perform the bedika, whereas the majority view among the Sages held that one should search for chametz at that point and then destroy any chametz he finds. Even if one neglected to search for chametz before the onset of Pesach, according to the majority view, he should search during Pesach. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda stated his position out of concern that the person might discover chametz and then eat it, in violation of the Torah’s prohibition. The other Sages disagree, and maintain that there is no reason for such concern, for since the person specifically searches for chametz in order to destroy it, he would not mistakenly eat it.

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Musar Ha-mishna, draws an intriguing connection between this debate and a debate between these same Tanna’im in Masekhet Sota (7a). The question surrounds the procedure followed in the case of a married woman suspected of infidelity, who would be brought to the Beit Ha-mikdash and given special waters to drink. If she survived, this would prove her innocence, and she and her husband could then resume their marital relationship.

4 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/salt-erev-pesach-monday-14-nisan-5777-april-10-2017

10 The Mishnayot in Masekhet Sota describe several measures that were taken to exhaust and intimidate the woman in the hope that, if she was guilty, she would confess and thereby be spared the deadly effects of the water. According to the majority view, these measures included exposing her hair and parts of her body, which would cause her embarrassment. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed, arguing that this could arouse inappropriate thoughts and desires among the kohen who performs this procedure.

The likely reason why the majority view discounts this consideration, Rav Ginsburg suggests, is the fact that this entire process is being done for the sake of eliminating sexual impropriety. There is no reason to be concerned about the kohen experiencing illicit thoughts or desires while he is intensely focused upon the effort to confront the problem of illicit relationships among the nation. Just as the majority view feels no need to be concerned about a person eating during Pesach chametz which he finds while in the process of seeking to destroy chametz, it similarly allows the kohen to expose the sota’s hair and parts of her body while he is in the process of trying to eliminate the scourge of sexual impropriety. Rabbi Yehuda is similarly consistent, forbidding bedikat chametz once the chametz prohibition has set in, and forbidding exposing a kohen to potentially arousing sights even as he conducts the sota ritual.

Reflecting upon the broader concepts at play in this debate, there is certainly a degree of truth to both perspectives. Rabbi Yehuda is undoubtedly correct that we human beings are frail and inconsistent enough to stumble and succumb even while working to combat that precise form of wrongdoing.

Even as we involve ourselves in the effort to oppose a certain negative phenomenon, exposure to that temptation could cause us to succumb. The other Sages, presumably, do not deny this possibility, only in their view, the small risk of failure does not justify withdrawing and abandoning the effort to eliminate “chametz” from our society. Although this effort will, invariably, expose us to the ills we seek to cure, the majority view maintains that this work is too important to neglect for the sake of avoiding all exposure to any forms of “chametz.”

Previously, we noted the question surrounding the relationship between two Mishnayot in the beginning of Masekhet Pesachim (2a, 9a) that discuss the laws of bedikat chametz. The first Mishna establishes that one is not required to search areas in the home where chametz is not brought, and the second Mishna (as understood by Rashi and Tosefot) establishes that after one searched an area in his home, it is considered chametz-free, despite the possibility that a rodent subsequently brought chametz there.

Chazal do not expect a person to concern himself with this possibility, the second Mishna explains, because there would then be “no end,” as one would never be able to declare any part of his home free of chametz. Tosefot, as we saw, raised the question of why the second Mishna’s ruling needed explication, as it is seemingly implied by the first Mishna’s ruling.

After all, once the first Mishna teaches that a place where one does not bring chametz does not require checking, we can logically deduce that Halakha does not require us to concern ourselves with the possibility of animals bringing chametz to different parts of the home. Why, then, does

11 the second Mishna need to instruct that an area that had been searched is presumed chametz-free even if it is possible that an animal brought chametz there subsequently?

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Mussar Ha-mishna, answers by suggesting a distinction between an area where chametz is never brought, and searching is therefore not required in the first place, and an area where chametz is brought and that was checked for chametz. In the latter case, the bedikat chametz obligation applies, requiring one to thoroughly search to ensure the absence of chametz, whereas in the former case, no bedika obligation applies at all. One might have thought that in areas where bedika is required, a higher level of certainty in required to assure the absence of chametz. And thus, even though we do not have to be concerned that an animal may have brought chametz to an area where chametz is not normally brought, one might have considered the possibility that such concern is warranted in areas that require bedika, after bedika has been performed. Since the bedika obligation had taken effect in these areas, it may have been reasonable to assume that one must be extremely thorough in his efforts to ensure the absence of chametz, to the point where he must repeat his search again later to ensure that an animal did not subsequently bring chametz there. The second Mishna therefore instructs that even though an area is subject to the bedikat chametz requirement, there is a limit to the extent of his responsibility to ensure the absence of chametz, and he does not have to concern himself with the risk of rodents bringing chametz there after the search.

Rav Ginsburg proceeds to note the broader implications of this distinction. When it comes to our efforts to rid ourselves of the “chametz” within our beings – our flaws and shortcomings – a higher standard of vigilance is required in regard to those areas “she-makhnisin bo chametz,” where we know we have a particular weakness. Once we have failed in regard to a certain matter, we must be especially careful and attentive to that area of religious life. When it comes to our areas of weakness, we require an extra level of care and concern, and must work especially hard to ensure the absence of any “chametz” – of any likelihood of repeating the mistake.

By the same token, we must also remember the Mishna’s conclusion – “im kein ein la-davar sof.” As in the case of bedikat chametz, we must acknowledge the inherent limits on our ability to guarantee the absence of “chametz.” Human beings are, by nature, imperfect, and thus no matter how vigilantly we work to rid ourselves of “chametz,” we will never reach a point where perfection is guaranteed. We must therefore follow Rabbi Tarfon’s timeless dictum in Avot (2:16), “Lo alekha ha-melakha li-gmor, ve-lo ata ben chorin le-hibatel mimena” – “You are not responsible to complete the work, but neither are you free to ignore it.”

We are to work hard to eliminate the “chametz” from our beings, paying especially close attention to our areas of weakness, while acknowledging our limits and accepting the inalterable reality of human imperfection.

When a Mouse Enters Your House with Bread in his Mouth

12 Steinzaltz (OBM) writes5

While the Mishna (9a) introduced us to a hulda – a marten – that we suspect may hoard hametz in houses already cleaned for Pesah, on our daf Rava presents us with another small animal, an akhbar. The akhbar discussed is, apparently, a conventional house mouse (Mus musculus), a small rodent that grows up to eight centimeters. This small creature sustains itself by eating food that is left around the house, usually breadcrumbs and other such things.

Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are from the loaf snatched by the mouse.

The Maharam Halavah quotes the Rif as explaining that mice do not make crumbs when they eat, so the crumbs that are found cannot possibly be from the loaf of bread brought in by the mouse, forcing us to check the house a second time.

The Ramban understands Rava’s ruling to mean that a mouse usually finishes the crumbs that he makes. According to this reasoning, if the amount of crumbs that is found is the size of the piece that the mouse was carrying, it could not possibly be from the piece that was recently brought in, since the mouse would have finished the crumbs.

If, however, only a small amount of crumbs were found, we can rely on the fact that the mouse ate the bread, leaving behind a small amount of crumbs, but the house does not need to be rechecked.

This discussion leads Rava to ask a series of hypothetical questions about this case: • What if the mouse was seen bringing in a loaf of bread and carrying out a loaf of bread? Do we assume that it is the same loaf, or not?

• If we assume that it is the same loaf, what if we see a mouse carrying in a loaf, and a mouse of a different color carrying out a loaf?

Do we still say that it is the same one?

• If we assume it could not be the same loaf because mice do not take from one another, what if a mouse carried in a loaf of bread and a rat is seen carrying out bread? Can we assume that the rat took the loaf from the mouse?

• And what if we see the rat carrying out a mouse and a loaf? Would that prove that it was the same hametz that was carried in?

5 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim10/

13 To all of these questions the Gemara answers Teiku – the question stands.

The Shulhan Arukh declines to bring these cases, with the explanation that they are so unlikely to occur that they do not require a pesak halakha.

And the Sages say; if one did not search on the night of the 14th he should search on the morning of the 14th. If one did not search on the morning of the 14th he should search during the (appointed time). If one did not search during the moed he should search after the moed.

The Rishonim differ over the understanding of the word ‘moed’ (appointed time).

Rashi explains that it refers to the sixth hour which is the appointed time for the elimination of all chometz from the person’s domain. Tosafos (1) and Ritva comment that Rashi explains this way because he maintains (2) that the requirement for the bedikah is in order that one will not transgress no chometz should be seen or found in his ( לב לב י הצמ and הארי לב the Torah prohibitions of possession). Therefore ‘moed’ cannot be referring to the festival of Pesach. This is because the latter requirement of the Mishna (to search after the moed) would be unnecessary since there are (after Pesach has finished. (3 אצמי לב and הארי לב no prohibitions of

Others (4) deduce another halachic implication from Rashi’s explanation. Since the reason for the search is in order to find chometz and to eliminate it in order not to transgress the Torah Rashi understands that the cases discussed in the Mishnayos , אצמי לב and הארי לב prohibitions of annulment of chometz). Had he made the ( ץמח ב י ט ו ל are when a person has not performed he would no longer be liable for any chometz in his possession. Based on ץמח ב י ט ו ל declaration of this, on Yom Tov itself, Rashi would maintain that there would be no reason to do a bedikah. Even if he found chometz he could not eliminate it on Yom Tov and he would transgress the prohibitions . אצמי לב and הארי לב of

According to Tosafos, however, (who maintains that the reason for the bedikah is to prevent a person from coming to eat chometz on Pesach) even on Yom Tov a person would be required to search for chometz in order to locate potential chometz and cover it with a vessel in order to prevent him from eating it (5).

14

Orach Chayim 435

The Shulchan Aruch above, (6) follows the view of Tosafos that one is obligated to perform the bedikah even after the festival of Pesach.

The Mishna Berura above, (7) cites a dispute regarding whether a person should search for chometz on Yom Tov.

There are those (8) that write that nowadays since people clean their houses thoroughly prior to Pesach one should not search for chometz on Yom Tov but only on Chol HaMoed.

The above stated halachos are relevant for one someone who did a bedikah but forgot to check a particular area e.g., a car, basement etc. (9)

15

BEDIKAS CHAMETZ ON PESACH AND AFTER PESACH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:6

The Mishnah says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the time to perform Bedikas Chametz is until the sixth hour of the day on the fourteenth of Nisan, when Chametz must be destroyed. According to the Chachamim, if one did not search for Chametz at the proper time on the fourteenth of Nisan, one may search during the "Mo'ed" or even after the "Mo'ed." What does "Mo'ed" refer to in the Mishnah?

TOSFOS (see above) and other Rishonim explain that "Mo'ed" means literally during Pesach itself. If one did not check before Pesach arrived, then one must check even on Yom Tov. If one failed to check during Pesach, then one must check after the festival because of the rabbinical prohibition against using Chametz after Pesach that was in the possession of a Jew during Pesach.

RASHI explains that "Mo'ed" refers to the sixth hour on Erev Pesach. If one did not check for Chametz before the sixth hour, he may check after the sixth hour, until nightfall. However, if he failed to check after the sixth hour and did not remember until nightfall, on Pesach itself he may not perform Bedikah.

6 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-010.htm

16 Rashi argues with Tosfos on two points. First, Rashi understands that the Mishnah teaches that there is no obligation to check after Pesach for Chametz that was in one's possession during Pesach. Second, according to Rashi, one does not have to check for Chametz on Pesach itself, even when he did not check for Chametz before Pesach. What is Rashi's source for these two Halachos?

TOSFOS explains why Rashi maintains that there is no obligation to check for Chametz after Pesach. Rashi follows his own opinion as expressed elsewhere (2a), where he says that the purpose of Bedikah is to prevent one from transgressing the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei.

After Pesach, the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei do not apply. The Rabanan prohibited only eating Chametz after Pesach, and thus there is no reason to require Bedikah. (Tosfos there (2a, DH Or) argues and maintains that the purpose of Bedikah is to prevent one from eating Chametz, and therefore it applies after Pesach as well.)

What is the source for Rashi's opinion that one does not need to check for Chametz on Pesach itself? The Gemara implies the contrary. The Gemara clearly states that the Rabanan were not concerned that one might eat Chametz that he finds during the Bedikah. Accordingly, even on Pesach itself, and not just on Erev Pesach, one should be required to perform a Bedikah to avoid transgressing Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei!

RASHASH answers that Rashi derives this Halachah from the text of the Mishnah. Rashi explains that "after the Mo'ed" means after the sixth hour, but only until Pesach arrives, because if the Mishnah means after the sixth hour until after Pesach departs, then why does the Mishnah say only that one should check for Chametz "the evening of the fourteenth, [and if he forgets, then] on the morning of the fourteenth, [and if he forgets, then] during the sixth hour, and [and if he forgets, then] after the sixth hour"?

If it is true that one checks for Chametz even during Pesach itself, then the Mishnah should have added that if he can, he must check for Chametz before Pesach arrives rather than wait until after Pesach has arrived.

It certainly is better to check before Pesach arrives, when there is no Isur Kares for one who eats Chametz, than to check after Pesach arrives when there is an Isur Kares for one who eats Chametz. Why does the Mishnah leave out this extra stage? It must be that this extra stage does not exist, because one may not check for Chametz on Pesach itself.

Although the Gemara says that the Rabanan are not concerned that one might eat Chametz while he searches for it, the RAN explains that this is true only before Pesach, when there is only an Isur Lav not to eat Chametz.

However, when there is an Isur Kares (on Pesach itself), the Rabanan did not rely on the reasoning that when one searches for Chametz in order to destroy it, he will not eat it.

Telling Time

17

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:7

The halachic legal system is much more than a set of abstract principles or technical details. It incorporates factors such as human psychology (something that is so impactful during the mourning process), human error, and probability analysis.

These extra-legal aspects of the law can be seen in three Talmudic debates, which appear back-to- back-to-back, that discuss the prohibition of chametz.

The first step in ridding our home of chametz is bedikat chametz, the search for chametz. For obvious reasons, this bedikah must be done before the prohibition to eat or own chametz begins. The Mishnah (Pesachim 10b) records a debate in a case where one neglects to do bedikah before the prohibition of chametz sets in. Rav Yehuda claims that one should do nothing; searching for chametz at a time when it is prohibited to eat or even own it would be counterproductive. Why look for something you don't want to find? Doing so might just cause one to eat the chametz accidentally--a real fear, considering that one is used to eating chametz during the rest of the year. Best to rely an oral declaration nullifying the chametz, and hope none turns up during Pesach.

The Sages disagree, arguing that one must search for chametz even on Pesach itself: "He, himself, is searching after it to destroy it; need we be concerned that he eat it?" (ibid 11a). Chametz must be destroyed, and ignoring it is not an option. This holds true even after Pesach is over; and if no search was done prior to Pesach, it must be conducted post-Pesach, lest one violate the prohibition of eating chametz that was owned by a Jew during Pesach.

In the course of analyzing the above-noted view of Rabbi Yehuda, the Talmud discusses the case of a firstborn animal that must be relieved of some blood (this was a very common occurrence in Talmudic times, even for humans). One of the basic notions of Judaism is that the first of everything belongs to G-d. That is why we must redeem our firstborn, give the first of our crops to the kohen, bring the first of our fruit to the Temple. Even a firstborn animal has a degree of sanctity and may only be eaten by a Kohen, unless the animal develops a permanent blemish.

Rav Yehuda forbids one to perform the needed bloodletting, fearing that one will "accidentally" make a permanent blemish on the animal, which would conveniently allow the owner to eat it himself. "Adam bahul al mammono, a person gets very excited about his property"; one might, in violation of Jewish law, purposely inflict a permanent blemish. Apparently, a few crumbs of chametz are not temptation enough to cause one to violate the severe prohibition against eating chametz, and hence, there is no need to search for chametz once Pesach enters; but an entire animal brings one to a whole new level of monetary loss.

7 https://www.torahinmotion.org/users/rabbi-jay-kelman

18 Using the same premise, the Sages come to the exact opposite conclusion. Because people get excited (and irrational) when it comes to their money, we must allow the bloodletting. If we do not, the animal may become so sick as to become a treifah, an animal that has a life expectancy of less than a year which may not be eaten even if properly slaughtered. The Sages feared if we did not allow bloodletting, a person would be even more likely to inflict a blemish. Better to let him do the bloodletting, and not worry that he will "accidentally" cause a blemish.

This debate, while technical in nature, may reflect a much deeper divide, one we are most familiar with. Should we prevent any contact that may lead to sin, or is it better to allow for such contact in order to prevent that same sin?

A third debate (ibid 11b)--this time between Rav Yehuda and Rav Meir--regarding the time until which we may eat chametz on erev Pesach hinges on the extent of human error. According to biblical law, chametz may be eaten until noon. The Sages, fearful of a mistake in knowing the proper time--something quite reasonable when the best way to tell time was the sundial--extended the prohibition to either one (Rav Meir) or two hours (Rav Yehuda) prior, leading to a long debate as to what is a reasonable amount of human error. This goes well beyond the time to eat chametz, and impacts on cases--such as those involving capital punishment--where verification of time is crucial.

Halachic authorities must master not only Jewish law, but also human behavior--the latter being a much harder task than the former.

19 Spontaneous Generation

Jeremy Brown writes: 8 ח ןילו זכק א, כ ןל

רבכע יצחש ו רשב יצחו ו המדא יאש ן הרפ הברו ר ןישהד ויח רב צשרכ

There is a mouse that is hard made from flesh and half from dirt, and does not procreate

The spontaneous generation of the half-mouse

Deep into several pages about ritual impurity, the Talmud mentions in passing this strange creature, which has come to be called the mud-mouse. And what exactly is this strange creature? Here is the explanation of Rashi:

לכ רמו אלש היה הירפמ היברו לש רבכע יפל נש רצו ילאמ ו - יא ן הרפ הברו

It does not procreate: This means it does not sexually reproduce, but instead it spontaneously appears.

And here is Rashi from 127b:

שי ימ ן רבכע יאש נ ו הרפ הברו אלא ומצעמ נ ו רצ המדאמ הפשאכ תצרשמה ת ו על י ם

There is a species of mouse that does not reproduce sexually but is spontaneously generated from the earth, just as maggots appear at a garbage site.

The mud-mouse is also mentioned in (91):

ירדהנס ן ,אצ א ,אצ ן ירדהנס

אצ ל העקב ו האר רבכע יהש םו יצח ו רשב יצחו ו המדא רחמל ץירשה ו השענ ולכ רשב ולכ השענ ו ץירשה רחמל המדא ו יצחו רשב ו יצח םו יהש רבכע

Consider the mouse which today is half flesh and half earth, and tomorrow it has become a creeping thing made entirely of flesh.

Clearly, Rashi and the rabbis of the Talmud believed in spontaneous generation. Here is the opening of the Wiki article on the subject:

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that

8 talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2017/10/14/sanhedrin-91-spontaneous-generation-rbaf8

20 certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.

Everyone Believed it

How could the esteemed rabbis of the Talmud believed in this crazy idea of spontaneous generation? The answer is simple. Everyone believed it. Everyone, from the time of Aristotle until Louis Pasteur.

Here is Aristotle (d. 322 BCE):

So, with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter. [History of Animals 539a, 18-26.]

Aristotle’s theory of spontaneous generation was as influential as his other teachings in philosophy and natural history; it was accepted with reverence, not only among his contemporaries but well into modern times

Jan Bondeson9

The great Roman poet Ovid (43 BCE-17/18 CE) is best known for his work Metamorphosis. It’s a bit of a long read (almost 12,000 lines contained in 15 books), and in it he mentions spontaneous generation three times. Actually, given its length, he probably mentions everything at least three times. Here is an example, from Metamorphosis I, 416-437.

So, when the seven-mouthed Nile retreats from the drowned fields and returns to its former bed, and the fresh mud boils in the sun, farmers find many creatures as they turn the lumps of earth. Amongst them they see some just spawned, on the edge of life, some with incomplete bodies and number of limbs, and often in the same matter one part is alive and the other is raw earth. In fact, when heat and moisture are mixed, they conceive, and from these two things the whole of life originates. And though fire and water fight each other, heat and moisture create everything, and this discordant union is suitable for growth. So, when the earth muddied from the recent flood glowed again heated by the deep heaven-sent light of the sun, she produced innumerable species, partly remaking previous forms, partly creating new monsters.

Spontaneous generation was an accepted theory throughout the middle ages and was found in the writings of Arab naturalists, such as Averroes.

9 The Feejee Mermaid and other Essays in Natural and Unnatural History. Cornell University Press 1999. p194

21

Sir Francis Bacon, (d.1626) the English "philosopher, statesman, scientist, jurist, orator, and author" accepted the theory. And so, did Willam Harvey, who discovered the circulation of the blood, - at least under certain circumstances. And why not believe is spontaneous generation? Before the invention of the microscope, it certainly explained how worms, fleas, bees and other insects could appear out of nowhere.

Well, not quite everyone In his commentary to the Mishnah on today’s page of Talmud, has this to say:

והו י תו רבכעה דבלב ןמ המדאה דע אצמיש ותצק רשב ותצקו רפע טיטו אוהו נע י ן םסרופמ דאמ יא ן רפסמ בורל בורל רפסמ ן יא דאמ םסרופמ ן י נע אוהו טיטו רפע ותצקו רשב ותצק אצמיש דע המדאה ידיגמה ן יל וארש הז פ"עא תואיצמש לעב יח םי הזכ רבד הימתמ אלו נ תעדו וב הנעט םושב נפ םינ ובהע ו עונ ל הממרדהכם חלבתאצשפע ז ור י ןיימ

The case of the mouse which uniquely grows from the earth so that it is half-flesh, and half dust and mud is very well known. There is no end to the countless numbers of those who have told me that they have seen it, even though the existence of this creature is astonishing, and there is no known explanation for it.

Maimonides did not reject the idea that the mouse grows directly from the earth, but he seems very skeptical of the idea. Still, it was a widely accepted explanation for centuries before, and centuries after Maimonides. For example, let’s consider…

22

Jan Baptista van Helmont and the recipe to grow a mud-mouse Jan Baptista van Helmont (1580-1644) knew a thing or two about science. Although still deeply embedded in alchemy, his many observations led the way to the scientific revolution. He was the first to suggest that the stomach contained somethings to aid in digestion (what we call today enzymes and acids).

And according to the Science History Institute, “he discovered that chemical reactions could produce substances that were neither solids nor liquids and coined the term gas to describe them.” “I call this spirit,” he wrote, “hitherto unknown, by the new name of gas…"(Hunc spiritum, incognitum hactenus, nero heroine Gas voco). This laid the groundwork for Robert Boyle’s later research on gases.

Spontaneous generation also occupied Van Helmont’s scientific worldview. Like everyone else, he believed in it, because it explained observations like fleas appearing around rotting meat or mice appearing in a farmer’s barn of grain. He was so certain of the reality of spontaneous generation that he provided a recipe to grow mice de novo.

23 If a dirty shirt is stuffed into the mouth of a vessel containing wheat, within a few days, say 21, the ferment produced by the shirt, modified by the smell of the grain, transforms the wheat itself, encased its husk into mice.

Pasteur's Experiments

Then came the microscope. Using one, in October 1676, Leeuwenhoek reported finding tiny micro-organisms in lake water. Now perhaps there was another explanation for how things were created, although not much progress was made for a couple of hundred more years. It was Louis Pasteur (d.1895) who finally disproved the theory of spontaneous generation with some elegant experiments. He boiled a meat broth in a flask like this, with its neck pointed downwards.

Boiling sterilized the mixture, and with the neck pointing down, no organisms could contaminate the broth. As a result, there was no growth of bacteria or could inside the flask. He did the same using a flask with a neck that was upturned. This allowed the broth to become contaminated with organisms in the outside air, and the mixture soon became cloudy. Spontaneous generation had been disproven.

24 The Rabbi who tried to get it right, but got it wrong

Israel Lipschutz of Danzig (1782-1860) wrote a very important two-part commentary on the Mishnah called Tiferet Yisrael. In it, R. Lipschutz got very excited about this whole mouse thing:

נאו י יתעמש םיסרוקיפא מ גלגל י ן לע הירב ז ו תרכזנש ןאכ ירדהנסבו ן א"צד[ 'א ] . םישיחכמו םירמואו יאש הנ תואיצמב תואיצמב הנ יאש םירמואו םישיחכמו . ] 'א א"צד[ ן ירדהנסבו ןאכ תרכזנש ו ז הירב לע ן י גלגל ללכ ןכל יתיאר ריכזהל ןאכ המ כ"מש רפסב נכשא ז י רביחש םכח דחא םסרופמ ימכחב .תומואה ומשו . יל .קנ ורפסב רס .ני .וש תמא יכבםרפ ארקנה ורוא טלעו קלח 'א דומע 327 . אצמנש הירב תאזכ ץראב םירצמ זוחמב .סיאבעחט קנו תאר רבכעה איהה ושלב ן שבאה בע א םירצמ סופיד סולוקאי . א"לבו ירפש ומגנ י ז . רשא קלחה נפלש הי שאר הזחו ו הידי םיראותמ .הפי הירוחאו ידע י ן ד יוא הי יאת ייו זו א ינל להרא מניפ "ב סלקי וי יצ גמ םימלו יבגרב .ץרא דע רחא יא הז םימי ךפהתת הלוכ .רשבל רמואו המ ובר ךישעמ ה ךישעמ ובר המ רמואו .רשבל הלוכ ךפהתת םימי הז יא רחא דע .ץרא יבגרב םימלו גמ

I have heard heretics mocking the existence of this creature, mentioned here and in the Talmud Sanhedrin. They deny its existence and claim it is not in any way real. So, I have found it appropriate to mention here what is published in a German book written by one of the wisest and most well-known of any nationality, named Link.

In his book Urwelt (Part I p327) he states that such a creature was indeed found in the district of Thebais in Egypt. In Egyptian this mouse is called Dipus Jaculus, and in German it is called the spring-mouse. Its head, chest and front paws are well-formed, but its rear is still unformed and is just bits of earth.

But after a few days, the mouse becomes made entirely of flesh. And I said “Lord, how great are your works!” (Ps.104:24)

25 So according to R. Lipschutz all the scoffers were wrong, and as proof he cites his contemporary, the well-respected naturalist Johan Heinrich Link (1738–1783), whose Die Urwelt und das Altertum, erläutert durch die Naturkunde (Prehistoric times and antiquity, explained by natural history) was first published in Berlin between 1820 and 1822. Great. A mid-19th century rabbi and scholar quoting a German naturalist in support of a statement made by the rabbis of the Talmud.

Science and Judaism at their best! Well no. Not so fast.

In a paper devoted to this topic, Dr. Sid Leiman noted that the passage cited by R. Lipschutz only appeared in the first edition of Link’s book, and was removed from later ones. But more importantly, R. Lipschutz misread the context of the passage he was citing. Rather than attesting to the reality of the mud-mouse, Link was quoting from a passage in the book Bibliotheca historica by Diodorus Siculas, a Greek historian of the first century.

It was Diodorus who was describing what his contemporaries believed. But what about that reference to the Latin and German names for the mouse? Diodorus wrote in Greek and could not have thought that Dipus Jaculus (Latin) is an Egyptian phrase. Let’s have Prof. Leiman explain:

What happened is that Link added a footnote to the Diodorus passage, in an attempt to account for the belief in the existence of this strange creature in antiquity.

Link’s note reads (in translation):

“The Springmaus (Dipus Jaculus), which dwells in Upper Egypt and is characterized by very short forelegs, doubtless could lead one to conclude that it is a not yet fully developed creature.” Link was suggesting that the very existence of the Springmaus, or jerboa, a small, leaping kangaroo- like rodent found to this day in the arid parts of North Africa, and characterized by long hindfeet and short forelegs, may have misled the ancients into thinking that the different parts of the body of some mice fully matured at different times…The upshot of this was that Lipschutz was persuaded, quite mistakenly, that the mouse described by the rabbis as being half flesh and half earth was alive and well in nineteenth-century Egypt, as attested by no less a scholar than Professor Link!

Wrong, but for the right reasons

The rabbis of the Talmud were not fools for believing in spontaneous generation. They would have been fools had they not. If was an explanation for many natural phenomena and was believed by heroes of the scientific revolution, along with everyone else, until Pasteur proved them all wrong.

And what about our Rabbi Lipschutz? Let’s give the last word on him to Prof. Sid Leiman.

26 One would like to think that Rabbi Israel Lipschutz, whose seminal work is everywhere characterized by intellectual honesty, would have retracted his garbled reading of Link if only the error had been brought to his attention.

If only indeed.

27 Half Mouse Half Earth10

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 91 relates that a certain heretic challenged Rebbi Ami regarding Techiyas ha'Mesim, saying that it is not possible for a decomposed body, which turns into earth, to rise again as a living body. One of Rebbi Ami's proofs for Techiyas ha'Mesim was the fact that "there is a rodent that lives in the valley that today is half-flesh and half-earth, and tomorrow it becomes completely flesh."

We find this creature mentioned elsewhere in the Gemara in a different context. The Mishnah in Chulin (126b) mentions a mouse "which is half-flesh and half-earth; one who touches the flesh part is Tamei, and one who touches the earth part is Tahor."

Is there any evidence today to support the existence of rodents that are formed from the earth? (The following discussion is culled primarily from the research of Rabbi Nosson Slifkin 11

• RAMBAM seems to confirm the existence of such a creature. In Perush ha'Mishnayos (Chulin, ibid.) he writes, "This is a well-known matter; there is no end to the number of people who have told me that they have seen it. Such a thing is indeed astonishing, and I have no explanation for it."

TIFERES YISRAEL (Bo'az, Chulin 9:6) also defends the existence of such a creature. He writes, "I have heard heretics mocking with regard to the creature that is discussed here and in Sanhedrin 91a, and denying it, saying that there is no such thing at all. Therefore, I have seen fit to mention here that which I found written in a Western European work compiled by a scholar renowned among the scholars of the world. His name is Link, and the book is titled 'Auervelt.' In volume I, page 327, he writes that such a creature was found in Egypt in the district of Thebes, and in the Egyptian language that rodent is called 'dipus jaculus;' and in German it is called 'springmaus.' Its forequarters -- head, chest, and hands -- are perfectly formed, but its hindquarters are still embedded in the earth, until after several days when it fully changes to flesh. And I say, 'How great are Your works, Hashem!'"

• However, Professor S. Z. Leiman has raised doubts about the accuracy of the Tiferes Yisrael's understanding of Link's words (in his article entitled, "Rav Yisrael Lipshutz and the Mouse that is Half Flesh and Half Earth,"12 Link cites Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian, who reports that the Egyptians maintain that life first began in Egypt, and as proof of this they note that mice are generated in vast numbers from the soil of their land. Diodorus himself testifies, "Indeed, even in our day during the inundations of Egypt, the generation of forms of animal life can clearly be seen taking place in the pools which remain the longest, for, whenever the river begun to recede and the sun has thoroughly dried the surface of the slime, living animals, they say, take shape, some of them fully formed, but some only half so and still actually united with the very earth."

10 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/sn-gr-01.htm

28

11 (www.zootorah.com), see also his book, "Mysterious Creatures," Targum Press, summer 2003. 12 printed in Chazon Nachum, New York, University 1998

29 Link then adds a footnote to Diodorus' account. He writes, "The springmaus (dipus jaculus), which dwells in Upper Egypt and is characterized by very short forelegs, looks as though it is a creature that is not yet fully developed."

This "springmaus" is the jerboa. The jerboa belongs to a family of tiny to large rodents that have very small forelegs (which they hold against their bodies) and long back legs for jumping and dig burrows in which they sleep. One of the three small subfamilies is known as Dipodinae and it includes the genus Jaculus. This is the dipus jaculus mentioned by Link.

jarbūʻ ) are hopping desert rodents found ﺮﺟ ﺑ عﻮ :Jerboas (from Arabic throughout Arabia, Northern Africa and Asia. Jerboas form the bulk of the membership of the family Dipodidae. They tend to live in hot deserts.

When chased, jerboas can run at up to 24 kilometres per hour (15 mph). Some species are preyed on by little owls (Athene noctua) in central Asia. Most species of jerboa have excellent hearing that they use to avoid becoming the prey of nocturnal predators. The typical lifespan of a jerboa is around six years.

It is clear that Link himself, who lived in the nineteenth century and was very familiar with the jerboa, did not believe that it or any other animal grows from the ground. Rather, he is saying that this creature may be the source of the Egyptian myth. Because the jerboa's forelegs are not visible while it is jumping, it appears to be a two-legged mouse (which is why it is called "dipus," or "two legs"). One who observes it sitting on the ground or jumping in the air, it appears that the two hind- legs are actually the forelegs, and the rear part of the mouse has not yet been formed.

30 HALF FLESH AND HALF EARTH CREATURE IN CLASSICAL

Abraham Ofir Shemesh writes:13

The ancient classical literature, both non-Jewish and Jewish, contains considerable documentation of creatures with irregular or unusual features. Some examples are people and animals with irregular dimensions, such as Cyclical Snake (οὐροβóρος, Ouroboros) [1], dragons [2, 3], a fire- resistant salamander created in furnaces [3, Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 27a, Sanhedrin 63b; 4-6], a hyena (Hyaena hyaena syriaca) that can change its sex and may change into a bat [3, Baba Kamma 16b; 7; 8], and the shamir, a fabled creature (worm) capable of cutting through rock, which helped King Solomon and his people to cut rocks for building the First Temple [2, avot 5:6, Sota 9:12; 3, Sota 48b, 68a; 9]. Other sources attest to hybrid creatures originating from the mating of humans with angels, i.e. the giants (nefilim) who lived in Noah‟s period that are described in the biblical text as those born to the sons of God and the daughters of humans (Genesis 6.4) [10-12]; mating of humans with animals, such as centaur, a mythological creature which is half human, half horse creature [13]; as well as the hybrid products of different types of animals, such as the ostrich perceived as a cross between a bird and a camel [14], the arvad or habarbar, formed by crossbreeding a snake and a lizard [7, 8:6, 12b; 3, 127a; 15; 16], and others [17-19]. Discussions of mythological animals that do not exist in reality indicate the ancients‟ world of beliefs and views and raise the question of how such views were formed and developed. It seems that in the ancient Jewish sources mythological creatures express the greatness of God and the complexity of his creation.

The current article discusses vermin (sheretz) or mouse “that is half flesh and half earth” (henceforth also “half-mouse”), mentioned in the Mishna and Talmud literature in halakhic and ideological contexts. (The Mishna was redacted by R. Judah the Prince at the end of the second century CE. The Mishna is the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions and laws. Tannaim („repeaters‟ or „teachers‟) were the rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah. The Talmud is a collection of commentaries on and elaborations of the Mishnah and certain auxiliary materials. The term „Talmud‟ refers to the Talmud which was compiled in the Land of Israel (c. 400 CE), and the collection known as the Babylonian Talmud compiled by the scholars of Babylonia (c. 500 CE). Amoraim were the rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Talmud.) I shall discuss rabbinical sources dealing with the phenomenon and show how Jewish sages were influenced by the world of beliefs common in their non-Jewish environment. The questions explored in the discussion of this issue are:

1. What underlies the view concerning the existence of this creature?

2. Where and how was this mouse created?

13 http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/80/1_Shemesh.pdf

31 A mouse that is half earth and half flesh in classical literature

Much of the sages‟ knowledge derived from the scientific and natural world of the classical era, such as from the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC), Pliny (23- 79 CE) and Dioscorides (c. 40-90 CE). A miraculous hybrid mouse was described in the writings of Greek and Roman sages [17, p. 183-184; 22, p. 345-347; 25; 26], and this phenomenon is grounded in a broader outlook mentioned by Aristotle concerning spontaneously generating creatures (Aristotle, Historia Animailum, V, 1) [6, 27, 28]. One of those who testified to the existence of half-mice was the Roman naturalist and natural philosopher Pliny the Elder in his book „Naturalis Historia‟. Pliny mentions these mice when describing the flooding in areas near the Nile in Egypt. He writes: “But credibility is given to all these statements by the flooding of the Nile, with a marvel that surpasses them all: this is that, when the river withdraws its covering, water-mice are found with the work of generative water and earth uncompleted – they are already alive in a part of their body, but the most recently formed part of their structure is still of earth” [Pliny, Naturalis Historia, IX, 84].

The Egyptian culture, religion and nature very interested the Greek and Roman authors, so they reported on many phenomena related to the Nile and its plants and animals. Pliny relates that the mice can be seen when the water that floods the fields retreats to the river‟s normal channel. It is evident that these mice are alive, but one part of their body is incomplete and is made of earth. According to Pliny, half-mice are real creatures. He does not try to explain its feasibility, maybe because as others in the classical world he believed in spontaneously generating. It is clear that Pliny was not witness to the existence of the exceptional mouse, but he relies on testimonies of others. We shall explain the possible reasons for this misconception further on. The Jewish sages who heard of this unusual creature from their surroundings appear to have clarified its halakhic status in their learned discussions. The attitude to spontaneously generating creatures was voiced in Talmudic sources with regard to other creatures. The Talmud discusses whether it is allowed to kill lice formed from sweat and dirt in Sabbath, because it is created spontaneously and not by matting of male and female (Babylonian Talmud Sabbath 107b). In another case the early rabbis discussed whether it is not forbidden to eat worms that develop spontaneously in fruit and not by matting (Hullin 67a-b) [29].

Conclusions

The spiritual world of the Tannaim and Amoraim, as well as the doors of the study halls (batei ), were open to news from the external-secular world, and in the current article we dealt with a topic related to the natural world – a vermin/mouse that is half flesh and half earth. In general, the sages‟ knowledge of natural matters came from two major sources: observation by the sages and information that entered their world from the surroundings, i.e., the classical world. The sages‟ occupation with the issue of the half-mouse shows that they were attentive to news that reached them through rumors or from educated and knowledgeable people in their times [6]. The belief in spontaneous generation was common in the Roman world, and as stated it was also reflected in Jewish sources dealing with the formation of lice, worms, and mice (Babylonian Talmud Sabbath 107b).

The belief in the existence of this irregular mouse is evident in the classical literature, such as in the works of Diodorus, Ovid and Pliny. These sources associate the half-mouse with the Nile‟s

32 high and low tide, and it is interesting that later sources also limit its geographical range to Egypt. This phenomenon raises the question, of course, of whether it was a myth that developed in this area and spread to the Greco-Roman world, or a phenomenon observed in other regions as well. We saw that the Babylonian source associates the creature with a „valley‟ in general and even recommends observing it in real time. Namely, some saw the mouse as a more extensive phenomenon and not only one that develops in a certain geographical region.

It may be assumed that it was attributed to areas with moist ground that has „loose matter‟ (mud), enabling new formation of the mice. The source of the perception whereby the mouse was formed from earth appears to be the biblical source that speaks of the formation of animals from the earth on the sixth day of the Creation (Genesis 2.19). On one hand, it seems that the mud in wet regions created a misconception among the ancients that mice mired in mud, particularly during the high and low tide, were formed from the earth. In Jewish literature, the Mishna is the initial source that documents “vermin that is half earth and half flesh” (this is the wording in most of the versions), however over the generations some sources replaced this with “mouse”, following the and the Babylonian Talmud.

Interestingly, this mouse is not mentioned in the discussions of the and no explanation for it has been found to date. The Jewish sources deal with a half-vermin or mouse in two contexts: matters of halakha (laws of purity and impurity) and philosophy (proof of the resurrection of dead from the earth). Notably, the Jewish sources do not mention the phenomenon in order to enrich existing zoological knowledge, rather it is discussed in the study halls only in a religious context.

The experiments conducted by the famous French biologist, chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) in the latter half of the 19th century proved that the spontaneous generation outlook is baseless.

The new scientific discoveries that disproved the spontaneous development of creatures from rot or earth are one of many manifestations of the contradiction between science and religion. In the rabbinical literature of the 20th -21st centuries there are still rabbis who advocate the approach of the ancient sages. (R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) claimed that, in general, the Torah should be seen as a source of absolute Divine truth versus science that is based on conjectures [35- 38].) Others, in contrast, claim that the sages issued their halakic rulings taking into account the knowledge of their times, however once it has been proven otherwise the new knowledge cannot be disregarded and contemporary halakha must be determined based on the conclusions of modern knowledge.

33 References

[1] E. Nissan, Korot, 22 (2013/2014) 3–63. [2] ***, Mishnah, Ḥ. Albeck edition, Mossad Biyalik and Dvir, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1952, 332. [3] ***, Babylonian Talmud, The Widow and Brothers Romm, Vilna, 1882, Gittin 56b57a. [4] ***, Midrash Tanhuma, Levine–Epstin, Vilna, 1883, parashat vayeshev, 46b. [5] J.C. Cooper, Symbolic and Magical Animals, The Aquarian Press, England, 1992, 196. [6] A.O. Shemesh, Biology in Rabbinic Literature: Fact and Folklore, in Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (CRINT): The Literature of the Sages, S. Safrai (ed.), Part 2, Royal Van Gorcum, Fortress Press, Amsterdam, 2006, 509–519. [7] ***, Jerusalem Talmud, Venice edition, Daniel Bomberg, Venice, 1523, 1:3, 8a. [8] A.O. Shemesh, Arquivo Maaravi: Revista Digital de Estudos Judaicos Da Ufmg, 11(20) (2017) 2-13. [9] L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. 4: Bible Times and Characters from Joshua to Esther, Cosimo, New York, 2005, 165-169. [10] J. Theodor and Ḥ Albeck, Genesis Rababh, Itzkowski, Berlin, 1903, 285-286. [11] ***, Genesis Rabbah, The Widow and Brothers Romm, Vilna, 1885–1887, 116. [12] A. Kosman, HUCA, 73(1) (2002) 157-190. [13] ***, Genesis Rabbah, Theodor-Albeck edition, Itzkowski, Berlin, 1903, 227. [14] A.O. Shemesh, HTS Teologiese Studies-Theological Studies, 74(1) (2018) 1-14, online at https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/4938/11316. [15] Y. Feliks, Nature and Land in the Bible: Chapters in Biblical Ecology, Reuven Mass, Jerusalem, 1992, 21-22. [16] E. Nissan, Korot, 23 (2015/2016) 257-294. [17] S. Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Mossad Bialik, Jerusalem, 1963, 286-287. [18] M. Bar-Ilan, Mahanaim, 7(1) (1994) 104-113. [19] N. Slifkin, Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical; Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash, Zoo Torah, Jerusalem, 2007. [20] M.S. Zuckermandel, -Ta'arot, Bamberger and Wahrmann, Jerusalem, 1937, 3:6, 4:5-6, 11:1. [21] Oppian, Halieutica, Book I, LCL, Cambridge (MA), 1928, 173–178, 223. [22] L. Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmud, Joseph Baer, Frankfurt am Main, 1858, 269. [23] M. Dor, Animals in Biblical, Mishnah and Talmudic periods, Grafor-Deftel, Tel Aviv, 1997, 76. [24] J.L. Bannister, Baleen Whales (Mysticetes), in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig & J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), 2 nd edn., Academic Press, London, 2008, 80–89. [25] Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book I, LCL, Cambridge (MA), 1916, 423-438. [26] Pomponius Mela, Chorographia, Book I, Teubner, Lipsiae, 1880, 12. [27] C.R. Osten Sacken, On the Oxen-Born Bees of the Ancients (Bugonia) and Their Relation to Eristalis Tenax, J. Hoerning, Heidelberg, 1894 [28] E. Reichman, The Riddle of Samson and the Spontaneous Generation of Bees: The Bugonia Myth, the Crosspollination that Wasn’t, and the Heter for Honey That Might Have Been, in Essays for a Jewish Lifetime: Burton D. Morris Jubilee Volume, M. Butler & M.E. Frankston (eds.), Hakirah Press, New York, 1-12, online at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54694fa6e4b0eaec4530f99d/t/5ca3859f652 dea67a5954661/1554220448148/Spontaneous+generation+of+bees+-+Eddie+Reich man.pdf. [29] M. Kislev, Shanah be-Shanah, 42(1) (2002) 155-166. [30] R.N.N. Rabinovitch, Dikdukei Sofrim: Hullin, Oel Ya'akov, Permishla, 1897, 170b. [31] R.N.N. Rabinovitch, Dikdukei Sofrim: Sanhedrin, Brill, Magentza, 1878, 126a. [32] ***, Mishnah with the commentary of Maimonides, First Press, Napoli, 1492, A.M. Haberman edition, Sifriyat Makor, Jerusalem, 1970, Hullin, 87B. [33] Y.Y. Teppler, Birkat ha-Minim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world, translated by Susan Weingarten, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2007, 39-40. [34] J. Heller, Mollusca, in Plants and Animals of the Land of Israel: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, II: Terrestrial invertebrates, G. Levy (ed.), Ministry of Defense, Tel Aviv, 124-125. [35] M.M. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 18, Otzar Hasidim, New York, 1959, 493. [36] J. Ginsburg and J. Baranover, “O LORD, how manifold are thy works": Science and Technology in the doctrine of Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Shamir, Jerusalem, 2000, 275. [37] R. Ovadia Yosef, Hazon Ovadia, vol. 5, Maor Israel, Jerusalem, 2012, 128. [38] N. Gutel, Hishtanut ha-Teva'iim ba-Halakha (Change in Natural Realm in Halakha), Machon Yachdav, Jerusalem, 1995, 184.

34

Chametz and Matzah in a Deeper Sense

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:

The Gemora discusses situations where one is required to search his house for chametz a second time. The sefarim write that the word matzah is in numerical value 135, and this is equivalent to the word kalah which means light.

This alludes to the idea that one should not take “lightly” the mitzvah of eating matzah. According to the Arizal, one who is careful to not own even a crumb of chametz on Pesach is guaranteed that he will not sin the whole year. Great Torah scholars and pious ones would be meticulous to eat matzah until after Chanukah, as they wished to avoid the prohibition of eating chametz that had been owned by a Jew on Pesach.

The Arizal said that the difference between matzah and chametz is only a small line that distinguishes the letter ches in the word chametz and the letter hey in the word matzah. This alludes to the halachah that even a minute amount of chametz is prohibited on Pesach. The Radvaz said that of all prohibitions in the Torah, only chametz (and idolatry) is forbidden even in a minute amount, and this is because chametz alludes to the Evil Inclination, which one is forbidden to be tempted by even in the minutest amount.

Rabbi Shemelke of Nikolsburg said that there is an Evil Inclination for food and drink, and this is called chametz. There is also an Evil Inclination for anger and slander, which one cannot consume, and this is called seor, leaven, which causes the dough to rise.

Then there is the Evil Inclination of humility, which is the real Evil Inclination, chametz that is visible, and one must dispose of all the inclinations so he does not see them or find them. The difference between the simple meaning of chametz and the provided throughout the generations is that as long as Pharaoh was just Pharaoh and Egypt was just Egypt, they were drowned in the sea and they were destroyed forever. Once the Zohar revealed that Pharaoh alludes to the Evil Inclination and Egypt is the Evil Inclination's helpers, then we can no longer absolve ourselves from them.

When chametz is chametz, it can be burned easily, but the Evil Inclination is not so easy to be rid of.

This seemingly simple piece of advice that the mishnah gives also has a much deeper meaning to it. Bedikas Chometz by the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l was one of the biggest nights of the year.

35 The Rebbe would personally inspect all areas, getting down on his hands and knees where necessary. After finally collecting the Chometz, he would spend an inordinate amount of time tying it up and hanging it in a place where no mice should reach it. He even appointed a shomer to guard it when he was not present.

When questioned about the necessity of all these precautions, he related the following: In the times of R’ Mendel of Rimanov zt”l, a mouse once chewed off a part of the sack holding his shmurah wheat. Angry at the audacity of the mouse, R’ Mendel wished to banish all mice from Rimanov and its surroundings, only being appeased by the entreaties of the Malach appointed over all mice that the culprit would be punished.

of tum’ah which don’t want to let Jews fulfill the mitzvah חכ From this we see that mice represent a and why the Gemara constantly uses עשר י ם refers to them as ימלשורי of Pesach. That’s why the mice as the example of the animal that we worry will take the chometz.14

14 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20010.pdf

36