Premature Babies: why are we scared? because 7 8 9
אָמַר מָר: וְלֹא סָפֵק דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּן שִׁבְעָה, מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וּבֶן שְׁמוֹנָה, אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Mar said: The circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What case of uncertainty does this statement come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught: To circumcise a child born after seven months of pregnancy, one should desecrate Shabbat, as it will likely live. However, to circumcise a child born after eight months of pregnancy, with regard to whom the presumption was that he would not survive, one may not desecrate Shabbat.
(ז) הולד שנולד עושין לו כל צרכיו ומרחיצין אותו ומולחין אותו וטומנין השליא כדי שיחם הולד וחותכין את הטבור והני מילי בנולד לט' או לז' אבל נולד לח' או ספק בן ז' או בן ח' אין מחללין עליו אלא אם כן נגמרו שערו וצפרניו:
(ח) נולד לח' או ספק בן ז' בן ח' שלא גמרו שעריו וצפרניו אסור לטלטלו אבל אמו שוחה עליו ומניקתו מפני צער החלב שמצערה וכן היא בעצמה יכולה להוצי' בידה החלב המצער אותה:
(7) For the newborn, we take care of all of his needs. We wash him, salt him, hide the placenta so that the child will be warm, and cut the umbilical cord. This is for a nine-month or a seven-month infant, but for an eight-month infant or possibly seven and possibly eight, we do not desecrate the Shabbat unless he has grown hair and nails.
(8) If the infant was born after an eight-month pregnancy or after a pregnancy which may be either seven or eight months and he does not have grown hair or nails, it is forbidden to carry him. His mother leans over him and breastfeeds him because the milk pains her. She can also use her hand to release the milk that pains her.
“Rabbi Abbahu was asked: ‘How do we know that when the fetus is fully developed at seven months it is viable?’ ‘From your (the Greek's) own [language] I will prove it to you,’ replied he: ‘Live, seven – Go, eight’.” In greek, zito means “live;” moreover, the letter zeta has the numerical value seven. If born in the seventh month, the child lives. “Go” euphemistically means “die.” In Greek ito means “go;” it is also associated with the letter eta, pronounced ita, which has the numerical value of eight.
The Hippocratic writer of Fleshes explains the association of the seven-month baby with the number 7: Children born with numbers divisible by 7 live; 7 months = 210 and 9 months = 280 days, assuming months of exactly 30 days. As both 210 and 280 are divisible by 7, viability is strengthened. An eight-month child, however, would be in gestation for 240 days, which is not divisible by 7. Such a baby, according to the theory, has little support for viability
Summary; Shabbat should be broken to circumcise and care for a baby born at 7 or 9 months gestation but not for a baby born at 8 months gestation. Shabbat can only be broken if it is thought that the baby is going to survive and they believed that babies born at 8 months gestation were not compatible with life. This phenomenon is reflected in other ancient medical works such as those by Hippocrates and Galen.
With current scientific knowledge, we say that the closer to a full gestational period (40 weeks/ a little under 10 months) the more likely the baby is to live. Meaning a baby born at 8 months gestation will have a higher survival rate than a baby born at 7 months gestation. (however, the current 'viable' gestational age is 24 weeks/ 6 months and there are a significant amount of babies born at 21 weeks that have survived)
What happens when the scientific belief the rabbis, such as 7 months of gestation not being viable, used isn't the modern scientific belief?
Astronomy: Flat Earth and Hiding Sun?
Context: As the Mishna discusses multiple aspects of astronomy, the rabbis discuss where the Sun goes at night. This is relevant to determine what water may be used for matzah making for Passover.
If you are unfamiliar with the firmament, then imagine for a moment the horizon, where the earth appears to meet with the sky. Only try and picture it as a connecting point between two solids: a flat plate-like earth, and a rigid dome like an upside-down bowl that vaults it, blue as ocean, from the vast stores of water it contains.
The Jewish Sages say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament and is therefore visible, and at night it travels above the firmament. And the sages of the nations of the world say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament, and at night it travels beneath the earth and around to the other side of the world. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: And the statement of the sages of the nations of the world appears to be more accurate than our statement. A proof to this is that during the day, springs that originate deep in the ground are cold, and during the night they are hot compared to the air temperature, which supports the theory that these springs are warmed by the sun as it travels beneath the earth.
- What is the difference between what the Jewish Sages believed vs what the Greek Sages believed? (specifically about where the sun is at night)
- Do you think Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's proof is a good proof?
(יא) אֵין לָשִׁין בְּפֶסַח עִסָּה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁמָּא תַּחֲמִיץ אֶלָּא כְּשִׁעוּר חַלָּה בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין לָשִׁין לֹא בְּחַמִּין וְלֹא בְּחַמֵּי חַמָּה. וְלֹא בְּמַיִם שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲבוּ בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם אֶלָּא בְּמַיִם שֶׁלָּנוּ. וְאִם עָבַר וְלָשׁ בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה:
(11) We may not knead a large dough on Passover, lest it become leavened - but rather only like the requisite amount for the challah-tithe. And we may not knead with heated water, nor with water heated by the sun nor with water that was drawn on the same day, but rather with water that rested overnight. But if one transgressed and kneaded with one of all of these, the bread (that he wants to consider matsa) is surely forbidden bread (and not matsa).
The Tosafist R. Eliezer b. Shmuel of Metz (1115-1198) suggests that the reason why one must knead matzah dough only with water that had sat the night after being drawn is to prevent it from being heated during the night by the sun, which is passing beneath the earth at that time. He notes that this follows the view of the gentile scholars, which Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi had concluded to appear correct.
Summary; basically they are saying at night the sun goes beneath the earth, and therefore it heats any water at the bottom of a well or spring. Matzah can not be made with warmed water because we are concerned it might rise, and hot water will make it rise quicker. So to avoid the use of warm water the water must be removed from the well and rest on land overnight before using it to make matzah.
However, we have proven through current scientific knowledge that the earth is round, there is no such thing as the firmament, and even though the sun goes underneath us in a way it does not heat the water underground at night.
With this discovery; do we still need to let our water rest overnight before using it to make matzah?
Spontaneus Generation: Magical Lice
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַהוֹרֵג כִּינָּה בְּשַׁבָּת — כְּהוֹרֵג גָּמָל בְּשַׁבָּת. מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּכִינָּה, דְּאֵינָהּ פָּרָה וְרָבָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים דְּפָרִין וְרָבִין — לָא פְּלִיגִי.
As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who kills lice on Shabbat is akin to one who kills a camel on Shabbat. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Perhaps this is not so, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to lice, which do not procreate. However, with regard to other abominations and crawling things that procreate, they do not disagree with him.
(לח) ואסור להרגו - הטעם דמחלקינן בין פרעוש לכנה הוא דכל מלאכות דשבת ממשכן ילפינן להן ... ואמרינן מה אילים מאדמים שפרים ורבים אף כל שפרים ורבים לאפוקי כנה דאינה באה מזכר ונקבה אלא באה מן הזיעה לא חשיבא בריה אבל פרעוש אע"פ שגם היא אינה פרה ורבה מ"מ כיון שהוייתה מן העפר יש בה חיות כאלו נברא מזכר ונקבה וחייב עליה משום נטילת נשמה ואפילו אם הפרעוש עוקצו אסור להרגו:
And it is forbidden to kill it - The reason that we differentiate between a flea and a louse is that all of the forms of work (melachot) of shabbat are derived from the tabernacle... And it is said, just as dyed-red rams reproduce sexually, so too all [animals] that reproduce sexually - [this comes] to exclude the louse, which does not come from a male and female but comes from perspiration, [and thus] is not considered a living creature. However, a flea, despite the fact that it does not reproduce sexually, regardless since it arises from dust it contains life as if it were created from a male and female, one is liable for taking its life. Even if the flea bit him, it is forbidden to kill it.
Summary; They believed that lice spontaneously generated from dust and therefore can be killed on Shabbat. Modern science has clearly proven spontaneous generation doesn't exist and lice do procreate.
Does this mean that lice can no longer be killed on shabbat?
Fish are only to be eaten alone
הָהִיא בִּינִיתָא דְּאִיטְּווֹא בַּהֲדֵי בִּישְׂרָא, אַסְרַהּ רָבָא מִפַּרְזִיקְיָא לְמֵיכְלַיהּ בְּכוּתָּחָא. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִילְחָא נָמֵי אֲסוּרָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לְרֵיחָא וּלְדָבָר אַחֵר.
There was a certain fish that was roasted together with meat, Rava of Parzikiyya prohibited it from being eaten with kutaḥ, due to the meat flavor absorbed in the fish. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Even to merely eat it with salt is also prohibited because meat that is roasted or cooked with fish is bad for odor, meaning it causes bad breath, and for something else, i.e., leprosy. Therefore, one should avoid eating it due to the danger involved.
(ב) צריך ליזהר שלא לאכול בשר ודג ביחד מפני שקשה לצרעת:
You should be careful not to eat meat and fish at the same time as it could cause leprosy.
A speculative secular suggestion for the avoidance of fish and meat consumption together might be that fish have bones and people are very careful when they eat fish not to swallow or choke on the bones. Since meat is boneless, there is no such concern. Perhaps a person consuming a fish and meat dish may concentrate on the meat and pay less attention to the bony fish and then choke on a fish bone. Even if that were the case, the Talmud and all subsequent rabbinic writings do not offer ths explanation, and no ancient Greek or Roman sources attest to any danger
Summary; historically it was thought that eating meat and fish together was dangerous. One opinion is that the combination will cause bad breath, which for some reason was considered especially horrible. Another says that fish and meat when eaten together will result in leprosy. Secularly at the time, there was concern that people will choke on the small bones of the fish. While the small bones in fish can still be a reasonable cause of concern, this is not the reason given rabbinically to explain the halacha of not eating fish and meat together. Also, this would not explain why the same piece of silverware can not be used for both without being washed in between.
We no longer are scared that eating meat and fish together is going to cause leprosy, and we do not think that bad breath is the end of the world. With that said do we still need to avoid eating fish and meat together?
Conclusion
There are a few main approaches taken on what to do anytime there is a case of a Halacha created based off, now known as incorrect, scientific knowledge;
- Halacha Changes
- Chazal was correct at the time and nature has just changed; if science changed then so does the halacha
- Tosafot (Moed Katan 11a)
- Anciently at 7 months gestation babies had a higher chance of survival than those born at 8 months gestation. This is no longer true so now we would break Shabbat for such a baby.
- Chazal used a scientifically inaccurate basis for the halacha; now we know the science was wrong the halacha no longer stands
- Rav Sherira Gaon
- It was never true that babies born at 8 months gestation were less viable than those of 7 months.
- Chazal was correct at the time and nature has just changed; if science changed then so does the halacha
- Halacha Stays
- Science is constantly changing and for all we know, what we have used to disprove the scientific beliefs of Chazal will also be disproven. We can't just constantly change halacha. Only in the presence of a Sanhedrin can halacha change.
- Chazon Ish, Yevamot 57:3
- It doesn't matter that now we know that babies born at 8 months gestation are viable, we still don't break Shabbat for them.
- Chazal was/can not be wrong because halacha is divine and their knowledge was superior to ours.
- Chedia
- Babies born at 8 months gestation are actually less viable and modern science has just not yet discovered this. Chazal knew this via divine knowledge.
- Science is constantly changing and for all we know, what we have used to disprove the scientific beliefs of Chazal will also be disproven. We can't just constantly change halacha. Only in the presence of a Sanhedrin can halacha change.
ולא תבקש ממני שיסכים כל מה שזכרוהו מענין התכונה למה שהענין נמצא - כי החכמות הלימודיות היו בזמנים ההם חסרות ולא דברו בהם על דרך קבלה מן הנביאים אבל מאשר הם חכמי הדורות ההם בענינים ההם או מאשר שמעום מחכמי הדורות ההם.
...You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days: and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science.
3. Case-By-Case Basis
- Whether or not we change the halacha is dependent on if that specific halacha was created on the basis of the scientific belief or Chazal was simply using the scientific belief to explain and support an already existing divine halacha.
- Rambam ruled in Hilchot Gerushin (13:16) vs Hilchot Shabbat (11:3
- Whether we break Shabbat to tend to a baby born 8 months gestation is dependent on whether the halacha of not tending to them was divine and Chazal were viability as a way to explain it or if they decide we don't tend to such babies because they believed they were less viable.