MEDICINAL PLANTS OF THE BIBLE ANOTHER VIEW

WALTER JACOB

There are many aspects of ancient life which interest us, but which were of no concern to the Biblical authors. Medicine and medicinal plants are among them. Nothing in the religion of ancient would necessitate an avoidance of the theme of medicine and physicians, but the subject simply was not included in the literature which is preserved. Instead, the Bible supplements the bare bones outline of Israel's history by constant references to the archives of the kings which have not survived. The authors of the Bible were interested in religious commitment, or the lack of it. They judged the rulers of ancient Israel and by those standards and saw everything including their occasional ill-health in this light. This pattern of neglecting medicine and many other aspects of life was not continued in subsequent Jewish literature particularly the , and the Talmud. That literature consciously and subconsciously expanded the range of religious interests. The Mishnah did so in a rather disciplined fashion governed by its systematic and reasonably tight organization, while the Talmud along with the earlier Tanaitic Midrashim was more discursive and permitted discussions to wander sometimes almost at will. The authorities quoted incorporated medical matters as well as much else. This literature deals with the from the third century B.C.E. to the sixth century C.E. but in a way which makes precise dating of material very difficult. The plants of the Talmud and the medicinal plants used during the Talmudic period have been extensively discussed particularly by Preuss and Ebstein. 1 As we try to reconstruct Biblical pharmaceuticals we may proceed down two different roads. We may assume that much of the medicinal and other horticultural information presented by the Talmud is valid for the earlier Biblical period. That assumption has been followed by both Preuss and Ebstein as indicated by the titles of their books. Any reader will soon realize that the line of demarcation between the Bible and the Talmud is rather vague and that much of the discussion deals with

1 J. Preuss, Biblische-talmudische Medizin (Berlin, 1923); W. Ebstein, Die Medizin im alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1901). 28 WALTER JACOB

Talmudic not Biblical medicine. The assumption which undergirds this approach is that of cultural continuity. After all the Tanaitic Midrashim and the Talmud purport to provide an interpretation of the Biblical text particularly of the Torah which is ancient. Therefore, just as one assumes continuity of interpretation, one may assume continuity of practice and a good case can obviously be made for this approach, occasionally buttressed by archaeology. So some mishnaic interpretations of criminal and civil law have counterparts in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian law which are as ancient as the Biblical text itself, if not older. Furthermore there is an innate conservatism in medical care unless a clearly better method has been found, so folk remedies linger even in corners of twentieth-century America. One may, however, move equally well in the opposite direction and state that in the Biblical and Tanaitic-Talmudic world were disjunctive. Although they purport to provide continuity, in reality they move in totally new directions and the world of rabbinic Judaism is grafted onto the earlier Biblical Judaism frequently with only the vaguest ties. This has been openly admitted in certain areas as for example with the sabbath laws. Tradition sees them as a "mountain suspended by a hair"2 The same is true of other matters for which we have only the slimmest support in the Biblical text. This is true for the definitions of categories of work which govern shabbat, laws of status, divorce, marriage and inheritance. Such institutions as the synagogue, the calendar, the daily, Sabbath and festival services, and many other ritual matters later taken for granted, were innovations which have no Biblical roots and only the most artificial bond with the past. In each of these matters there is virtually nothing in the earlier Biblical text which provides guidance, not to speak of detailed provisions. We have, therefore, in rabbinic Judaism, a religion which developed in a rather independent manner and followed a highly original path yet is tied in other ways to the earlier Biblical past. This development undoubtedly took place slowly over a long period of time and was both conscious and subconscious. The debates between the Pharisees and Sadducees, of which we possess only echoes, as well as earlier struggles perhaps even those with the Samaritans represent different interpretations of the religion of Israel. If we approach our topic from the same historical perspective we must say that there is no reason for assuming a continuity of medical tradition between the Biblical and Talmudic period, especially folk medicines which may have continued through the centuries with little interruption. Perhaps echoes of them may be found in the Talmud. To the

2 Hagigah 10a.