Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
¿Sabias que...
¿Sabias que...
The history of Jewish discourse on law and philosophy was transformed from
an oral teaching to a written teaching around the beginning of the Common Era.
The result of these written laws and commentaries is known today as the
Talmud. Many pages of the Talmud discuss illnesses and diseases and their
potential treatments, however very few of these potential treatments involve
invasive surgery. In one instance, involving a painful skin ailment called ra'aton,
the authors of the Talmud suggest cranial surgery as the cure and describe the
preparation of a potential anesthetic, the surgery environment, and the removal
of a growth. Although this account raises several questions about the ailment
itself, it provides us with a rare look at invasive cranial surgery dating back
nearly 2,000 years.
Keywords: Talmud; Gemara; cranial surgery; brain surgery; history
Español
REFERENCES
Introduction
In Jewish tradition, a physician is given specific divine license to
practice medicine. According to MosesMaimonides (1138–1204) and
other codifiers of Jewish law, the physician is obligated to use
hismedical skills to heal the sick. Not only is the physician permitted
and even obligated to minister to the sick, but the patients are also
obligated to care for their health and life. Men and women do not
have title over their lives or bodies, since they are charged with
preserving, dignifying and hallowing these. They must eat and drink
for sustenance and must seek healing when ill. Thus, the physician
has an obligation and authority to heal, and the patient has a co-
responsibility to maintain health.
In talmudic times (2nd – 6th centuries, CE), healing arts were taught
primarily through apprenticeships and frommedical books, some of
which were written by famous Greek and Persian physicians. None of
these precluded a search for other healing modalities. Although the
term “complementary or alternative therapy” has a decidedly modern
ring to it, a rich biblical, Talmudic and post-talmudic literature exists
about prayers, amulets, incantations, astrology and nostrums for the
healing and prevention of certain illnesses. Does Judaism condone
their use, either as a supplement to or as a substitute for
conventional medicine? This essay examines this question and
concludes that some forms of what we consider “unorthodox
therapies” are acceptable in Judaism, whereas others, such as
quackery, superstition, sorcery and witchcraft are not. The criterion
for rejection is the theological test of God as the Ultimate Healer.
Those therapies that rely on God’s healing power are acceptable in
traditional Judaism, even if they are considered complementary
today.
Prayer
At one time or another, most human beings offer prayers for the relief
of their own illness or that of others. These prayers may differ in
content and in the manner in which they are offered, by both religious
and non-religious people (1). Recourse to prayer in Judaism during
illness is not necessarily an indication that the person lacks
confidence in traditional medical therapy.
One should never be discouraged from praying, even under the most
difficult and troublesome conditions. The Talmud says (2) that “even
if a sharp sword rests upon a man’s neck, he should not desist from
prayer.” On the other hand, a person should never stand in a place of
danger and say that a miracle will be wrought for him. One should not
count on being cured by direct intervention by God without first
having sought out the advice and treatment offered by conventional
human medical practitioners. The Jewish attitude toward prayer is
succinctly summarized by Jakobovits (3) as follows: ...while every
encouragement was given for the sick to exploit their adversity for
moral and religious ends and to strengthen their faith in recovery by
prayer, confidence in the healing powers of God was never allowed to
usurp the essential functions of the physician and of medical science.
Amulets
Since antiquity, people have attempted to ward off misfortune,
sickness, and “evil spirits” by wearing pieces of paper, parchment, or
metal discs inscribed with various formulae which would protect or
heal the bearers. Such artifacts, known as amulets or talismans, are
frequently mentioned in talmudic literature, where they are called
kemiya. Consisting either of a written parchment or of roots or herbs,
the amulet is worn on a small chain, in a signet ring or in a tube.
It was considered to be of proven efficacy when a physician certified
that it had cured either one sick person on three different occasions
or three different patients. In the ancient world, amulets were
considered part of the legitimate therapeutic armamentarium of the
physician (4).
According to most rabbinic authorities, there is little or no objection in
Jewish religious law to the use of amulets for healing purposes. The
rabbinic literature of the past several hundred years is replete with
references to amulets as preventives to ward off the “evil eye,” to
avert demons, to prevent abortion, and to cure a variety of diseases
such as epilepsy, lunacy, fever, poisoning, hysteria, jaundice, and
colic (5).
Even Maimonides, who seriously questioned the efficacy of amulets,
allowed them to be worn and/or carried, even on the Sabbath,
because of their possible psychological and placebo effects on the
patient’s illness (Code of Maimonides, Laws of the Sabbath 19:13–14).
The use of amulets is quite widespread even today, particularly
among Jews of Moroccan origin living in Israel, and other Sephardic
Jews.
Astrology
The generally prevalent belief in astrology in ancient and medieval
times was fully shared by the Jews, many of whom believed that the
celestial bodies had the power to influence human destiny.
Astrologers ascribed occult virtues of heavenly bodies to earthly
objects.
Treatment for various illnesses consisted of a special image made by
an artist, with due reference to the appropriate constellation.
For example, Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham Adret, known as Rashba,
writes that people used to engrave the image of a tongueless lion on
a plate of silver or gold to cure pains in the loins or in the kidneys
(Response Rashba 1:167).
Moses Maimonides was one of the few authorities who not only dared
raise his voice against this almost universally held belief, but even
branded it as a superstition akin to idolatry He unequivocally
prohibited anyone from being influenced by astrology, and claimed
that such practice was an offense punishable by flogging. He
categorically rejected astrology (and other superstitious practices and
beliefs), and denounced it as a fallacy and delusion (6), an absurd
idea (7), and an irrational illusion of fools who mistake vanity for
wisdom, and superstition for knowledge (8).
Many talmudic and post–talmudic rabbis believed in astrology; a few,
such as Maimonides, did not. Traces of the belief are found in words
and phrases such as mazal tov (meaning a good star or planet), still
used by Jews today.
Nostrums
Zimmels (9) also describes the custom of transference, whereby an
illness can be transferred to an animal or a plant by a certain
procedure with or without the recitation of an incantation.
For example, patients with jaundice were told to put live fish under
their soles to transfer the jaundice to the fish. In more recent times,
pigeons have been placed on the abdomen of jaundiced patients to
transfer the illness to the pigeons and facilitate recovery of the
patient
(10).
This type of remedy is called a segulah or nostrum, a form of medical
treatment that has no rational or scientific basis other than as a
placebo. Nonetheless, the efficacy of this unorthodox therapy is not in
doubt to those who recommend it. A segulah is an alternative or
unconventional or unproven medical therapy having a place in
traditional Jewish practice alongside traditional scientific medicine.
The current popular belief among some Jews of the therapeutic
efficacy of pigeons in the treatment of jaundice is based on the
concept of organic disease transference from the patient to a non-
human living animal; it has its parallel in the transference of sins from
humans to animals in certain religious rituals.
The subjects of charms, incantations, nostrums, magic and other
similar topics are complicated. There are rabbis who believe in them,
those who oppose them, and those who say they do no harm. The
interested reader is referred elsewhere for more details (11–12).
Epilogue
Alternative or complementary medicine continues to be hotly debated
in the scientific community (16). Many practitioners of herbal and
other alternative therapies are physicians.
Others argue that alternative therapies must never displace or
replace proven conventional treatment (17). This essay presents a
religious perspective based on ancient and medieval Hebrew writings
on this modern debate.
References
1. Rosner F. The efficacy of prayer: Scientific versus religious evidence. J
Relig Health 1975; 14:294–298.
2. Rosner F. Medicine in the Bible and Talmud. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ) and
New York: Ktav and Yeshiva University Press; 1995. pp. 204–210.
3. Jakobovits I. Jewish medical ethics. New York: Bloch Publishing Co.; 1975.
pp. 15–23.
4. Preuss J. (F. Rosner, translator). Biblical and talmudic medicine. Northvale
(NJ): Jason Aronson; 1993. pp. 146–149.
5. Zimmels HJ. Magicians, theologians and doctors: Studies in folk medicine
and folklore as reflected in the rabbinical responsa (12th–19th centuries).
London: E. Goldston and Sons; 1952. pp. 135–137.
6. Halkin AS. Moses Maimonides’ epistle to Yemen. New York: American
Academy for Jewish Research; 1952. XX and 111 pp.
7. Garfinkle JL. The eight chapters of Maimonides on ethics. New York: AMS
Press; 1966. XII and 104 pp. (English); 55 pp. Hebrew.
8. Marx A. The correspondence between the rabbis of southern France and
Maimonides about astrology. Heb U Col Ann 1926; 3:311–358 and 1927;
4:493–494.
9. Zimmels HJ. Ref. 5. pp. 140–142.
10. Rosner F. Pigeons as a remedy (segulah) for jaundice. N Y State J Med
1992; 92:189–192.
11. Rosner F. Encyclopedia of medicine in the Bible and the Talmud.
Northvale NJ: Jason Aronson; 1999. in press.
12. Roth C. Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter; 1971
13. Rosner F. The best of physicians is destined for Gehenna. N Y State J
Med 1983; 83:970–972.
14. Jakobovits I. Ref. 3. pp. 202–203.
15. Rosner F. Modern medicine and Jewish ethics. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ) and
New York: Ktav and Yeshiva University Press; 1991. pp. 419–432.
16. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, et al. Unconventional medicine in
the United States – prevalence, costs and patterns of use. N Engl J Med
1993; 328:246–252.
17. Angell M, Kassirer JP. Alternative medicine – the risks of untested and
unregulated remedies. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:839–841.
A. Air Quality
Air pollution:
B. Water Quality
Water pollution:
C. Soil Quality
Tosefta Psahim, s.v. makom sh’nagu Talmud Bava Kama 91b. Cutting
down any (fruit or non-fruit) tree is punishable by Heaven.
Orchards:
F. Animals
Exodus 23:5. Help unload the fallen donkey of even your adversary.
Leviticus 7:26. Do not eat blood.
Leviticus 17:13. Spilled blood of a slaughtered kosher domestic
animal must be covered by earth.
Leviticus 19:19. Prohibition against cross-breeding. Sefer Ha’Hinukh:
this prohibition is a warning not to change the way of nature.
Deuteronomy 12:21. The basis of the laws of kosher
slaughterompendium ofources
Rashi on Deuteronomy 12:23. Do not eat flesh from living animals.
Deuteronomy 22:10. Do not plow with an ox and donkey yoked
together.
Deuteronomy 25:4. Do not muzzle an ox when it is treading grain.
Leviticus 25:7
Torat Kohanim 9, Parashat Be’Har 1:8
Talmud Psahim 52b
Jerusalem Talmud Shviit 9:2. During the sabbatical of the land all
crops can be eaten freely by domestic and wild animals.
Pest control:
Talmud Bava Kama 80a. It is permissible to raise dogs that are not
dangerous, cats, monkeys, and martens because they keep the house
clean [of rats –Rashi].
Talmud Psahim 112b. Do not go into a house in the dark that does not
have a cat, lest a dangerous snake be hiding there.
G. Urban Planning
Greenbelt:
Leviticus 25:34.
Numbers 35: 1-5
Mishna Bava Batra 2:7
Talmud Bava Batra 24b
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 2:7. A greenbelt of permanent width –
not containing fields or vineyards – must be built around the cities of
the Levites.
Mishna Arakhin 9:8; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shmita 13:1-
2, 4-5. The greenbelt command applies to all cities in the Land of
Israel.
Rashi on Talmud Sota 27:2. The urban greenbelt was a “wide space
free of agriculture, buildings, and trees to beautify the city and let it
have air.”
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Kinyan, Laws of Neighborly
Relations 10:1.
H. Damages to Neighbors
Construction:
Prevention of contagion:
Noise prevention:
Recycling:
Mishna Sukka 5:3. The material of old priestly garments is made into
wicks for the Temple lamps.
J. Public Sanitation
Midrash Shoher Tov 137: “‘By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept’
(Psalms 137:1)
Why did the Jews cry by the rivers of Babylon? Rabbi Yohanan said,
‘The Euphrates killed more of them than the wicked Nebukhadnetser
did. When the Jews lived in the Land of Israel, they drank only
rainwater, freshwater and springwater. When they were exiled to
Babylon they drank the water of the Euphrates, and many of them
died.
Midrash Rabba on Genesis 10:8: “Even things which seem extraneous
such as snakes, scorpions, flies, fleas, and mosquitoes are part of the
Creation, and G-d makes use of all of them.”
See also:
Aryeh Carmell, “Judaism and the Quality of the Environment” in A. Carmell
and C. Don editors, Challenge (New York/ Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1976), pages
500-525.
Ora Sheinson, “Lessons from the Jewish Law of Property Rights for the
Modern American Takings Debate.” In Columbia Journal of Environmental
Law (26 pg 483, 20 pgs
Medicus Judaicus
Bad Breath ± A Major Disability According to the Talmud
If you marvel at the waters of the sea, that the sweet and
salty do not mingle, Think of the tiny human head, where the
fluids of its many fountains do not mingle.
Midrash B’midbar/Numbers Rabbah, 18:22
Once, when Hillel was taking leave of his disciples, they said
to him: “Master where are you going?’ He replied, “To do a
pious deed.” They asked, “What may that be?” He replied,
“To take a bath.” They said, “Is that a pious deed?” He
replied, “Yes. If, in the theaters and circuses, the images of
the king must be kept clean by the person to whom they have
been entrusted, how much more is it a duty of a person to
care for the body, since we have been created in the divine
image and likeness.”
(In a parallel situation, Hillel answered the disciples’
question:)
“I am going to do a kindness to the guest in the house.”
When the disciples asked whether he had a guest every day,
Hillel answered, “Is not my poor soul a guest in the body?
Today it is here, tomorrow it is gone.”
Tosefta Sotah 4:13
Cold water for the eyes in the morning and hot water for the
limbs at night Are far better than all the salves in the world.
R. Samuel in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 108b
Example 3: Privacy
Issue A: After a lengthy Talmudic debate the conclusion is reached
that violating privacy is a tort.12 I cannot for example build a window
overlooking my neighbors courtyard.13 I also cannot leave our two
adjacent courtyards unfenced.14 Issue B: My neighbor can sue me
for privacy. He can force me to shut down the window I build
overlooking his courtyard.15 Similarly he can build a fence between
our two courtyards and then sue me for 50% of reasonable
expenses.16 Issue C: A variety of waiver vehicles are sometimes
permitted. For example: If my neighbor gives me some window
cleaner after I build my new window then he is deemed to tacitly
approve of it and can no longer require me to shut it down. Similarly if
he is silent for several weeks after the window is built he loses his
right to sue me (His silence is considered a tacit approval)17
Example 4: Nuisances
Issue A: It is prohibited for me to create nuisances on my property if
they annoy my neighbor. For example I can not perform woodcutting
work if the sawdust travels to his property.18 Issue B: My neighbor
has the right to sue me to abstain from the work (However he cannot
collect damages except under special circumstances)19 Issue C: A
strong waiver is possible but a weak waiver is not possible: If my
neighbor has put up with my woodcutting activities for several years
he can still turn around and sue me(to stop).
However if he contractually agrees to allow me the woodcutting then
the waiver is binding.20
Summary: Let us summarize what we have learned: Issue A: It is
prohibited for me to damage--this prohibition exists whether I damage
a persons body, a persons property, or just cause a nuisance. Issue
B: Certain damages carry with them the right to sue for monetary
compensation (with from 1 to 5 dimensions of lawsuit damages
possible). Other damages carry with them the right to sue for
cessation but not for monetary compensation.
Issue C: In general one can not waive ones right to damage. In
certain circumstances a waiver is allowed but Jewish law may require
an assertion of seriousness of intent (Such as a contractual
agreement).
Example 4: Joseph
Several places in the Talmud reference is made to the fact that
Joseph and his descendants could not be affected by the public
eye.25
Using our conceptual model this is not hard to understand. Joseph
was a religious Jew in a high public position of the Egyptian
government. Such a person is in the public eye anyway. So Joseph got
use to the public eye -- it did not cause him the anxiety it causes the
rest of us. Furthermore adding a bit more of publicity to these already
public officials does not affect them the way it would affect those who
are not in the public eye.
Still another way to look at the Joseph immunity is the following:
Public eye is not intrinsically evil--public figures sometimes help
people. Thus the desire to be blessed like Joseph and be free of the
public eye is a simply a desire that one should appreciate publicity as
a force for good instead of possible threat. Nevertheless, this is a
personal decision and Rabbinic law protects those of us who are not
yet at Josephs level from the public eye.
A similar perspective holds in the privacy laws. Privacy is not
intrinsically evil. True, I may nmind my neighbor seeing what I do in
my courtyard; but I might also want a good neighbor who can oversee
my yard and help me when I need it. Hence the privacy laws allow the
concept of waiver even though other personal torts do not allow
waivers.
Acknowledgment
The basic idea expressed in this article, appeared in various forms,
several times on the email group Torah.Form located at www.Torah-
Forum.Org. The author expresses his gratitude to the moderators of
Torah-Forum for hosting a site where original Torah ideas can
develop. The present article develops the thesis more fully with
complete references
This article was also published in the September 2003 issue of Kol
HaShomrim – a periodic publication of Congregation Shomrei Emunah
of Baltimore.
Notes
1. e.g. The Rambam includes all prohibitions against superstition in the Laws
of Idolatry (Chapter 11)
2. Deuteronomy Chapter 18 Verse 13
3. Compare Rambam Idolatry Chapter 11 Paragraph 16
4. This law does not occur in the Talmud but is brought down in the Code of
Jewish law in the Laws of Torah leining and is commonly accepted in all
synagogues.
5. Rambam Idolatry Chapter 11 Paragraph 5. Note that this prohibition is
Biblical: Deuteronomy 18:10
6. Rambam Torts Chapter 5 Paragraph 1
7. Rambam Torts Chapter 1, Paragraph 1
8. Rambam Torts, Chapter 5, Paragraph 13
9. Rambam Torts, Chapter 6, Paragraph 1
10. Rambam Torts Chapter 6, Paragraph 1
11. Rambam Torts, Chapter 5, Paragraph 12
12. Rambam Neighbors, Chapter 2, Paragraph 13
13. Rambam Neighbors, Chapter 5, Paragraph 6
14. Rambam Neighbors, Chapter 3, Paragraph 1
15. Rambam Neighbors, Chapter 5, Paragraph 6
16. Rambam Neighbors, Chapter 3, Paragraphs 1-4
17. Compare Rambam Neighbors Chapter 2 Paragraph 13 Chapter 7,
Paragraph 6. (Thus there is a waiver by silence for the window but no such
waiver for a fence)
18. Rambam Neighbors Chapter 11, Paragraph 1
19. Rambam Neighbors Chapter 11, Paragraph 2
20. Rambam Neighbors Chapter 11, Paragraph 4
21. I used the Davka Soncino CD Rom. It found 51 instances of evil-eye
covering 25 distinct Talmudic portfolio. Several of the portfolio had identical
citations. The citations are from the Soncino Talmud.
22. Pesachim 50b
23. Baba Metziah 107a
24. Baba Metziah 30a
25. e.g. Beracoth 20a and many others
26. e.g. Samuel 1, Chapter 20, Verses 30-31 or Samuel 1, Chapter 18,
Verses 6-9
27. e.g. Samuel 1, Chapter 18, Verses 10-13 or Samuel 1, Chapter 22,
Verses 17-19
28. See Talmudic comments on the verse,1 Samuel 28,19 Tomorrow you are
with me (In Paradise), implying that Saul was not punished further for his
actions
29. Samuel 1, Chapter 18, Verse 10
30. Samuel 1, Chapter 22, Verses 17-19
David Vogel
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California, 94720
E-mail: vogel@haas.berkeley.edu
Phone: 510-642-5294
November 1999
“When you besiege a town for many days, waging-war against it, to
seize it: you are not to bring-ruin upon its trees, by swinging-away
(with) an ax against them, for from them you eat, them you are not to
cut-down – for are the trees of the field human beings, (able) to come
against you in a siege? Only those trees of which you know that they
are not trees for eating, them you may bring- to-ruin and cut-down,
that you may build siegeworks against the town that is making war
against you, until its downfall.” (Deuteronomy 20:19-20)7
This is perhaps the most frequently cited passage in contemporary
writings on Jewish environmental ethics and is often evoked as a
textual basis for Jewish environmental ethics. Yet it contains an
important ambiguity. Put simply: why should one not destroy the fruit
trees?
One interpretation of this passage, expressed by the medieval Jewish
commentator Ibn Ezra (1089-1164 ), is that we should not destroy the
fruit trees because our lives are dependent on them and the food
they produce. Thus destroying the fruittrees is forbidden because it is
not in the long-term interest of humans. However, the medieval
Jewish scholar Rashi (1040-1105), offers a rather different
interpretation.
He asks rhetorically: “Are trees like people that they can run away
from an advancing army and take refuge in the town? Of course not –
they are innocent bystanders. Therefore don’t involve them in your
conflicts, and don’t cut them down.”8 In short, the trees have a life of
their own: they don’t just exist to serve human needs.
The former interpretation is anthropocentric. It evokes the concept of
sustainable development: we are permitted to pick the fruit, but not
destroy the fruit tree because the fruit is a renewable resource while
the tree presumably is not.
The later interpretation is eco-centric or biocentric: it makes no
reference to human needs. It posits that trees have an intrinsic value
which is independent of human welfare or concerns.
Not only can one locate both perspectives within the Jewish tradition
but the very ambiguity of Deuteronomy 20: 19-20 contains an
important key to understanding the Jewish approach to environmental
ethics. The diverse interpretations of this passage suggests that
Jewish environmental ethics incorporates both anthropocentrism and
biocentrism.
To argue that nature exists only for the bene fit of man is to refuse to
acknowledge all nature as God’s creation. But it would be equally
misguided to claim that humans ought not use nature for their own
benefit.
Thus even if one were to agree with the eco-centric interpretation of
the prohibition against destroying fruit-trees, i.e. that they are to be
valued for their own sake, the fact remains is that is permissible to
cut down the non fruit-bearing for the purposes of waging war. But
these trees are no less a part of nature than fruit-bearing trees.
Neither are able to run away. Why are we then permitted to destroy
them? Are they not equally innocent? Why are they not also valued
for their own sake?
Clearly God does not want us to live in a world in which we are
forbidden to chop down all trees, since such a prohibition would make
the preservation and sustaining of human life impossible. At the same
time, neither does God want us to assume that the entire natural
world exists to satisfy our material needs, for as Psalm 24 reminds us:
“The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it.” The Torah’s distinction
between fruitbearing and non- fruit-bearing trees seems to suggest
both ideas: nature exists both for the benefit of humans and has a
value which is independent of human needs.
Both interpretations also inform the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22: 6–
7, another Biblical text frequently cited in contemporary discussions
of Jewish views on ecology:
“When you encounter the nest of a bird before you in the way, in any
tree or on the ground, (whether) fledglings or eggs, with the mother
crouching upon the fledging or upon the eggs, you are not to take
away the mother along with the children. Send-free, send- free the
mother, but the children you may take for yourself, in order it may go-
well with you and you may prolong (your ) life.” Once again: why
should one take the young but let the mother go?
According to Don Isaac Abravanel, (1437 – 1508) “God has
commanded us not to destroy that which generates progeny” adding
that “this commandment is given not for the sake of the animal world
but rather so that it shall be good for humankind when
Creation is perpetuated so that one will be able to partake of it again
in the future.”9 To translate this interpretation into a modern idiom,
Abravanel has invoked the concept of sustainable development.
Yet Nahmanides, (1194-1270) another Medieval commentator, views
this commandment in terms of an eco-centric understanding of the
value of species preservation. According to his interpretation of this
passage, “Scripture will not permit a destructive act that will bring
about the extinction of a species, even though it has permitted the
ritual slaughtering of that species for food. He who kills the mother
and offspring on one day is considered as if he destroyed the
species.”10 Thus according to Nahmanides, species extinction is
intrinsically wrong – regardless of how or whether it affects humans.
Perceptions of Nature
Practical Applications
24
1 . The author would like to thank the following individuals for their helpful
comments on earlier drafts of this article: Robert Alter, Eugene Bardach, Zev
Brinner, Kenneth Cohen, Edwin Epstein, Claude Fisher, Rabbi Stuart Kelman,
Christine Rosen, Eric Schulzke, Adam Weisberg.
3 Ellen Bernstein and Dan Fink, Let the Earth Teach You Torah Philadelphia:
Shomrei Adamah, 1992, David Stein, ed. A Garden of Choice Fruit Wyncote,
Penn. 1991.
5 For a discussion of these two perspectives, see Avner De-Shalit and Moti
Talias, “Green or Blue and White? Environmental Controversies in Israel,”
Environmental Politics Summer, 1995, pp. 273 – 294. For a discussion of
deep ecology, see Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, edited by George
Sessions, Boston: Shambhala, 1995. 25
6 See for example, Lynn White Jr. “The Historical Roots of our Ecologic
Crisis, Science , March 10, 1976, p. 1207
7 Unless otherwise noted, all Biblical quotations are from The Five Books of
Moses A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and notes by
Everett Fox, New York: Schocken Books, 1995
14 Berman, p. 15.
15 Schorsch, p. 6.
17 Gladis, p. 22.
18 Gordis, p. 8.
19 See, Gordis, p. 20.
20 See, for example, the various essays in Ecology: Key Concepts in Critical
Theory edited by Carolyn Merchant, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1994
21 Quoted in Swartz, p 6.
22 Quoted in Swartz, p. 4.
23 Swartz, p. 5.
24 Ibid.
25 Quoted in Stahl, p. 7.
34 Berman, p. 17.
35 Diamond, “Jewish Perspectives,” p. 82.
36 Arthur Waskow, “Redwoods, Tobacco, and Torah,” Tikkun, Vol. 12, no. 5,
p. 35.
37 For a very different interpretation, see, for example, the claim made by a
number of the contributors to Reweaving The World: The Emergence of
Ecofeminism edited by Irene Diamond and Gloria Orenstein, San Francisco:
Sierra Books, 1990.
BREASTFEEDING MEDICINE
Volume 1, Number 1, 2006
© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
TALMUDIC CITATIONS
Breast
As the human female was ordained with breasts that could provide
breast milk, it was inconceivable to the rabbis that a woman would
not breastfeed. The basis for this conclusion was the theological
concept that it was impossible to believe that something that was
created by God be without purpose or that man would counter God’s
wishes by ignoring its purpose. Thus, Rabbi Elazar in his interpretation
of the prayer of the childless Hannah (1 Samuel, chapter 1, verses
12–17) expressed her plea to God as follows:
Rabbi Abahu11 noted that, in the humans, the breasts were created
to be near the heart, the seat of insight (binah). Insight in turn
nurtures the soul (neshamah) and leads to “understanding of the
benefits” of God.12 In contrast, in ungulates the breasts are near the
anus.
As a result, in the words of Rabbi Masna and Rabbi Yedidyah,11 the
human infant who breastfeeds is not exposed to either “the unclean
space” (tinofet) of the anus, nor “gazes at the place of nakedness”
(ervah) of the perineum. Of interest to note, is that the term
nakedness/ervah of the perineum was Talmudic euphemism for
sexual sin, confirming that the breast per se was not conceptualized
as having a sexual purpose.
Thus, the exposure of the breast was not considered to be either a sin
or a lewd act.
Breast milk
Duration of breastfeeding
Bottle feeding
There is no mention in the Talmud of bottle feeding. The alternative
to the desired breastfeeding from the natural mother is either a wet
nurse, animals such as goats, or in extreme circumstances even
nursing from a non-kosher animal.20 The bottle is not an alternative.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
References