Double Dip: The Torah Temimah On Science in Chazal and an Important R”osh

by rabbifink on December 24, 2012 · 43 comments

6081358_f520This week we had two somewhat interesting Torah Temimahs. Neither are bombshells from the Torah Temimah, but they are still worth noting.

I. Science and Chazal

“These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore unto Jacob in Paddan-aram, with his daughter Dinah; all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three.” (Genesis 46:15)

R. Isaac citing R. Ammi stated: If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male child; if the man emits his semen first she bears a female child; for it is said, If a woman emits semen and bear a man-child.” (Babylonian Talmud Nida 31A, translation Soncino)

The Talmud offers the verse from Vayigash as support for this statement. The idea is that the verse connects the sons to Leah and the daughter to Yaakov (thanks commenter Benny).

Now obviously, this is scientifically incorrect. There are several ways to deal with this kind of problem. Some will say Chazal were correct and science is incorrect. Others will say science is correct and Chazal are wrong. Others will say that the Talmud is speaking in metaphors, or mysticism, or some other non-literal interpretation.

It seems that the Torah Temimah is unaware that the science in this Talmudic statement was wrong, but he provides important insight nonetheless.

If one were to try to say that Chazal were wrong about science in this instance, one might also need to say that the Torah was wrong. After all, Chazal are apparently gleaning this insight from the words in the Torah. While it is a matter of controversy to say Chazal were wrong about science, it is a matter of heresy to say the Torah is “wrong”.

Says the Torah Temimah (translation my own): It seems obvious that substance of this idea was known to Chazal from the science [of their day] that everything goes according to the last force, and therefore if the man seeds first his force ends earlier and the embryo will follow the force of the end which is her seed and therefore the child will be female and vice versa. But only as a hint and sign did they rely on this verse. Then the Torah Temimah proves from another Talmudic statement that this verse is not really a proof per se.

With this, the Torah Temimah has opened the door for one to say that Chazal were obviously basing their statement on contemporary science as opposed to some revealed wisdom and they were simply using the verse as a way of hinting toward their accepted wisdom. While this remains a matter of controversy in orthodox Jewish circles, it’s apparent that many great scholars held this way, including the Torah Temimah.

II. An Important R’osh

Chazal famously say that Yocheved was born between the walls of Egypt. They say this to explain a problem in the text. That is, the verse says that 70 people went with Yaakov to Egypt. The problem is that if you count the people mentioned in the Torah, it’s only 69 people and the Torah doesn’t mention her name because she was only a fetus. The Talmud even provides some textual support for this interpretation. The verse merely says that Yocheved was born in Egypt (Numbers 26:59), so we can infer that she was not conceived in Egypt.

The Torah Temimah alerts us to a comment of the R”osh (Rabeinu Asher) at the end of Mesechta Pesachim §40. Some of the rishonim are bothered by the fact that the Torah says that we should count 50 days from Pesach to Shavuos and a different verse says to count seven complete weeks (49 days). The R”osh quotes some weak answers to this question and then drops the bomb. Says the R”osh: There is no question here because the way of Scripture is when it gets to a round number minus one, Scripture uses the round number and it ignores the lower number. Similarly, we find the count of Yaakov’s family to be 70 (and another example).

This is huge. It is presumed by almost every serious orthodox Jew and most of the commentaries that every word in the Torah is absolutely precise and true. The R”osh obviously would agree. However, he has opened a door here. He is saying that the Torah is sometimes imprecise – specifically with regard to numbers. Would this also apply to a number like 600,000? Maybe. Maybe not. Is this an extension of dibra Torah kilshon bnei adam? Maybe.

The Torah Temimah asks several good questions to poke holes in this R”osh. The gist of his attack is that Chazal and the Rishonim all took the numbers in the Torah to be precise so how could the R”osh disagree? So it’s unclear if the Torah Temimah likes this R”osh or not. But I like it either way.

Read the Torah Temimah here: I. II.

  • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

    The proof from the posuk in Vayigash is that it first states \”these are the sons of the Leah\” linking the boys to Leah and then it says in reference to Yakov \”and Dina, his daughter\” linking the girl to Yakov.

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      Ah. That does make more sense. I will fix the post. Thanks.

  • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

    Rabbi Fink, you appear to be assuming that Chazal (or the scientist they relied on) were wrong in this case (assuming this was meant to be a scientific statement and not a \”reward\” for pleasuring one\’s wife), but that it not clearly true. It is unclear what exactly R\’ Ammi is referring to when he says \”Isha mazraas techilah\” and it is unclear if he is saying that this is tendency (i.e. it is more likely) or it is ironclad causation. If R\’Ammi means orgasm, there is at least some scientific basis for concluding that the odds of having a boy increase after the female orgasm due to a more hospitable environment for Y chromosome sperm cells.

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      It\’s possible. Though I doubt it. And there is no scientific evidence to support that theory. It\’s just a theory that is unsupported by science.

      • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

        I assumed there was some data supporting it. Wasn\’t this theory published in a couple of scientific journals? Even assuming there is no data to support it, unless there is data against it, I wouldn\’t call it scientifically incorrect. It would be scientifically unknown.

        • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

          The journals debunked it. But isn\’t it a huge stretch to say mazra\’as means orgasm?

          • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

            Can you find me an article for the debunking? I had seen an article disputing previous findings relating to ovulation (cited in Yehuda Levi\’s book) but I haven\’t seen an article relating to the orgasm pshat.

            I actually thought it was poshut pshat that mazra\’as means orgasm. It is the corollary to the male mazra\’as which definitely means the male orgasm. What do you think it means?

            • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

              Soncino says \”emits semen\” and I think that is correct.

              • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                I think it is referring to the female equivalent of emitting semen. I think that even then they knew that women didn\’t emit actual semen (there is no place in chazal that I know of, for example, where what a woman emits is called \”keri\”).

                • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                  Right. A female equivalent of semen (which doesn\’t exist).

                  • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                    I guess equivalent is strong word. I meant the female analogue to emitting semen (i.e. orgasm). I don\’t think it was ever thought by any group of people at any time that women actually emitted some sort of semen. I don\’t think R\’Ammi could possibly have meant that. It is much more likely that he meant either orgasm or just significant vaginal lubrication.

                    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                      Here is an unsourced site that says that the Romans (contemporaries of Chazal) believed it the way I said Chazal believed it. Hard to hear that Chazal used a language that sounds like this and MEANT something different.

                      http://www.unexplainable.net/ancients/ancient-roman-views-on-conception-ii.php

                    • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                      Obviously, this important terms here are an english translation of Latin or Greek. I would posit that like Chazal the Romans used the same word for male and female orgasm. It boggles the mind to think that either Chazal or the Romans failed to notice that women do not emit semen as the modern word is understood.

                      I think that the Romans and Chazal (maybe this was the height of obstetrics back in the day) likely believed that if the women climaxed before the man it increased the likelihood of a boy.

                    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                      I don\’t think they thought that a woman had semen. I think they thought that there was a seed inside a woman that had to mix with the man\’s semen.

                    • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                      Okay. I hear how that could be a possibility. But if your pshat is right how could this ever have been of practical advice to people, how does one know if the woman has emitted her \”seed\”?

                    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                      It wasn\’t advice. It was an explanation for a phenomena they could not otherwise explain.

                    • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                      The very next gemara (moving onto amud B) is a parallel which says that a man can get boys by holding back from being zoreiya until his wife is mazria. That sure sounds like orgasm to me. The gemara right after, in what is definitely advice, says that if you want boys you should have intercourse and then immediately have intercourse again. Once again this sounds like an attempt to get a woman to orgasm.

                    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                      Interesting. Could be. I\’ll try to look into it.

            • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink
              • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                That is referring to the theory of timing intercourse in relation to ovulation, not orgasm.

                • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                  Shettles includes orgasm as part of the cheshbon.

                  • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                    I am going to have go read this article by article (groan).

                    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                      Here:

                      To Get A Boy (According to Shettles):

                      [...]

                      Women have an orgasm: According to Shettles, female orgasm increases the alkaline secretions in the vagina that are favorable to the Y-chromosome carrying sperm. Shettles recommends having an orgasm before or at the same time as the male partner.

                      source: http://www.fertilityfriend.com/Faqs/Gender-Selection-The-Shettles-Method.html

                  • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                    I went through each of the (3) articles cited in that link. None tested the orgasm aspect of Shettles, they only tested the timing.

                    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

                      Don\’t you think they would have tested it if they thought it was something worth examining? :)

                    • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

                      It\’s certainly a lot harder to analyze in a lab (honest reporting is likely to be a problem). :)

  • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

    One last comment. I have taken it as a given for years that the Torah rounded off numbers. When the Torah lists the numbers of people in each tribe every number ends with a 50 or 100. The odds of each tribe actually being at exactly 50 or 100 is staggering.

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      Yet, almost everyone is so bothered by the miscount of Yaakov\’s children!

      • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

        I have my own pshat in Yakov\’s children. But the real kasha by Yakov\’s children is not the 70 v. 69. The Ibin Ezra\’s answer is very simple for that. The 70 includes Yakov himself (he is presumably a \”nefesh in Bais Yakov\”). Rather the question which drives the \”Yocheved\” pshat is that in counting Leah\’s offspring there are 32 names listed and the Torah says 33. And, of course, rounding off won\’t help for that question.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aaron.greenwald.18 Aaron Greenwald

    About the 600,000 thing: I vaguely recall the number 603,550 from yeshiva. I\’m not sure if that number is mentioned anywhere in the Torah, but it\’s definitely mentioned in the Talmud (Sotah). So there seems to be some recognition that there was rounding going on.

    Unless that number represents something else? I forget.

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      There are a few different numbers at a few different times.

  • kman

    See Dr Leo Levi\’s \”The Science Of Torah\” which explains this maamar chazal based on modern fertility science. Chazal may have been quite right.

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      What does he say? Shettles? Or something else?

      • http://twitter.com/Benignuman Benny Hutman

        He says Shettles. And he mentions that later studies question Shettles validity.

        • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

          There ya go…

    • MarkSoFla

      Chazal may have been quite right.

      Maybe there was a habit of sneaking into peoples bedrooms and hiding under the bed while a couple had relations and taking data for later analysis?

      :-)

      • kman

        Do you mean like Berachos (62??) where Rav Chiya did that to Rav and his wife?

        • MarkSoFla

          Bingo! :)

  • Marty Bluke

    The proof that is brought for this is that Dina is called Yaakov\’s daughter leading Chazal to conclude that he was responsible for her being a girl. However, this contradicts the famous Chazal in Berachos (quoted by Rashi in Vayetze) that Dina was conceived as a BOY and only turned into a girl after Leah davened (so that Rachel would have at least 2 sons). Clearly, according to the Gemara in Berachos we cannot bring any proof from Dina that the father is responsible for the child being a girl as Dina is the miraculous exception, conceived as a boy and turning into a girl later. I have a fascinating post about this Who was the mother of דינה?

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      That\’s how the Torah Temimah proves that this Gemara is not a proof for how a gender is chosen. :)

      • Marty Bluke

        The Maharsha\’s answer is a lot more exciting and is very interesting from a halachic standpoint today regarding surrogate mothers.

  • Yair_Daar

    Quote from Ibn Ezra regarding the different wording in the two records of the aseres hadibros (courtesy of R\’ Dr. Yonatan Grossman from the VBM website – article translated by a student):

    \”Biblical language sometimes includes lengthy explanations, and sometimes makes do with brief words that the listener can understand. Know that the words are like the body and the meaning is like the soul, and the body is a vessel for the soul. So, too, all scholars of any language try to maintain the meaning, and they don’t care which words they use as long as they communicate the same meaning.\”

    So, according to Ibn Ezra, it seems that literary precision was not necessarily utilized in the writing of the Torah.

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      Great quote from the IE. Thanks.

Previous post:

Next post: