Ta'anit 11 ~ Marital Intimacy During a Pandemic

Of all the unusual questions that were asked of rabbis during the COIVD pandemic, one was surprisingly personal: may a husband and wife have intercourse during the pandemic? The question is based on a solid Talmudic source, and it is found in today’s page of Talmud. According to the third century sage Reish Lakish , “it is prohibited for a person to have conjugal relations in years of famine…nevertheless, those without children may have marital relations in years of famine.”

תענית יא, א

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְיוֹסֵף יֻלַּד שְׁנֵי בָנִים בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא שְׁנַת הָרָעָב״. תָּנָא: חֲסוּכֵי בָּנִים מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מִטּוֹתֵיהֶן בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן

Reish Lakish said: It is prohibited for a person to have conjugal relations in years of famine, so that children not be born during these difficult years. As it is stated: “And to Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came” (Genesis 41:50). It was taught in a baraita: Nevertheless, those without children may have marital relations in years of famine, as they must strive to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.

Another sage, Rav Avin, who lived in the early fourth century had a similar teaching. It is found in the Jerusalem Talmud, where he cited a verse from the Book of Job “Wasted from want and starvation, they flee to a parched land,“ and taught “when there is any want in the word, make your wife lonely.”

ירושלמי תענית א,ו

א"ר אבון כתיב (איוב ל) ’בחסר ובכפן גלמוד’ בשעה שאת רואה חסרון בא לעולם עשה אשתך גלמודה

These two teachings found their way into normative Jewish law. The first was codified in Shulkhan Arukh, first published in Venice in 1565, and the second was added to a gloss on it written by the Polish rabbi Moshe Isserles who died in 1572 (and who had himself once fled from a pandemic). “This applies,” he added to his gloss that became the accepted code of practice for Ashkenazi Jews, “to all kinds of natural disasters, for they are just like a famine.”

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים 240:12

אסור לשמש מטתו בשני רעבון אלא לחשוכי בנים [פירוש מי שאין לו בנים] הגה וע"ל סי' תקע"ד ס"ד וה"ה בשאר צרות שהם כרעבון [ירושלמי דתענית]

marItal intimacy during COVID

It was with this background that the question of sexual intercourse during the COVID pandemic was asked, and according to Rabbi Shai Tahan of Brooklyn, New York it was asked “many times” (see his Shut Shuf Veyativ, 97).

The answer would depend on the reason behind the Talmudic prohibition, and here context is important. The statement of Reish Lakish was cited as one of several rabbinic rulings that forbade a person to separate from the community during a natural disaster. Following Reish Lakish, the Talmud added that “when the community is deeply suffering, a person may not say: “I will go to my home and I will eat and drink, and peace be upon you, my soul.” Instead, “a person should be distressed together with the community. As we found with Moses our teacher that he was distressed together with the community.” Intercourse during a natural disaster suggests a level of personal pleasure that is not consonant with the parallel communal suffering. This was the way that the French medieval commentator Rashi (1040-1105) understood the prohibition, observing that during a famine “a person must conduct himself as if he is suffering” even if, perhaps, he is not. This was also the understanding of a super commentary on Rashi written by Eliyahu ben Abraham Mizrahi of Constantinople, (c.1475 - c.1525); the reason of prohibition is that “he should not be enjoying life while the rest of the world suffers” (Mizrachi on Gen. 41:3).

As Rabbi Tahan pointed out, the medieval commentary on the Talmud known as Tosafot explained that refraining from intercourse during a famine was a “pious action” but was not required, and furthermore, during COVID, the majority of the population was not technically “in distress.” Rabbi Tahan therefore ruled that there was no prohibition for a husband and wife to have intercourse during the pandemic, regardless of whether they had children. Rabbi Nahman Steinmetz of the community of Skverer Hasidim in New York also issued permission, as did Rabbi Asher Kleinman of Flatbush. (See Steinmetz, Sefer Ateret Nevonim, 379-383. Kleinman, Bigdei Hamudot, 286-288.)

The Prohibition during World War II

The question of whether it was appropriate for a husband and wife to have intercourse during a natural disaster was also asked about a man-made one. In 1940, Rabbi Yisroel Alter Landau (c.1884-1942), who was the Head of the Rabbinic Court in the northern Hungarian town of Edeleny (in Yiddish, Edelen) was asked whether under the present circumstances (which at the time were the Hungarian siding with the Axis powers), the Talmudic prohibition was in order. “As a result of our many sins this is a time of great hardship for Jacob and Israel,” wrote his interlocutor.  

Israel is enslaved in most countries [in Europe] and also here [in Edeleny] both physically and spiritually. We are made to work very hard, just as it was in Egypt. We have to repair the roads, and in many places the yeshivot and mikva’ot [ritual baths] have been closed…and because of our many sins there are new decrees against Israel each and every day. May God have mercy on us and may we see His deliverance very soon. As a result, it would seem fitting for every Jewish husband to separate physically from his wife and not engage in marital relations, even if he himself is not in any danger, for it is still a time of great hardship for Israel.

But his lengthy responsa concluded that there was no need to rule strictly and forbid conjugal relations, although each person should decide for themselves “for a wise person has eyes in his head.” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rabbi Landau died of natural causes in 1942; his wife Rachel, and several of their adult children were murdered by the Nazis in 1941 and 1942.

The most pessimistic book in Hebrew literature

However, during the First World War there was a rabbinic ruling that did in fact forbid conjugal relations. It was published in 1916 by Shimon Pollak who lived in Waitzen (today Vac in Hungary, some twenty-two miles north of Budapest.) In a short book called Kol Haramah Vehafrasha - קול הרמה והפרשה - he reviewed the awful situation in which the Jews found themselves in war-stricken Eastern Europe:

Shimon Pollak. Kol Haramah Vehafrasha. Waitzen 1916, 31.

…Consider the many terrible troubles, blows, the sword, murder, loss and the fires consuming the women of Zion and the countless young girls in Jewish towns who are ravaged, and the young Jewish men who are hanged by the enemy, not to mention the elderly and the infants. We could never end mourning for them…and then there is the desecration of Shabbat, and the eating of non-kosher food that thousands upon thousands have committed…and there are the women who do not know what has become of their husbands, and the many children who depend upon them, all of whom wander without respite for their weary feet…they do not know the fates of their fathers or their mothers, their sons or their daughters, their brothers and sisters. Where are they wandering? Are they even still alive? ...It is certain therefore that there is a complete and utter prohibition for conjugal relations.

This is surely one of the most pessimistic books ever to appear in Hebrew literature, for while Jeremiah told of the destruction of Jerusalem, Rabbi Pollak recounted not a sad Jewish past, but a bleak Jewish future. So bleak, in fact, that there was no place in it for any new Jewish life.

The Munkacz Rebbe Disagreed

Rabbi Hayyim Elazar Spira (1871-1937), head of the Rabbinic Court of Munkacz (today Mukachevo) in western Ukraine also addressed the question in a work published in 1930. He noted that during and after the First World War the question of prohibiting conjugal relations had arisen, but that it had been permitted. One of the reasons for permitting relations was that the war and the later troubles that befell the Jewish people (including the Bolshevik uprising) seemed endless. Under these depressing circumstances, it would be necessary to prohibit conjugal relations” forever,” and that would clearly be improper.

Rabbi Spira also wrote that he had heard of “a certain leader who ruled that conjugal relations were absolutely forbidden for the duration of the [First World] war.” And then comes this remarkable passage.

This brought me incredible laughter, that which this old man (close to eighty) had warned against, and that which he ruled for his children. It made a laughingstock of us all. When we heard of this our hearts would sink for their ruling had no basis, and it is terrible to continue to speak of such a thing. Perhaps much was hidden from the eyes and the thinking of this old man. May the Master [God] forgive him! [c.f. Sanhedrin 99a.] Still, he should be given some respect. But nevertheless, the practical halakha is that Heaven forbid would we ever prohibit this.

Although Rabbi Spira did not identify the “old man” whose ruling he so disparaged, it was almost certainly Rabbi Pollak of Waitzen. See Hayyim Elazar Spira, Nimukei Orah Hayyim [Legal Descisions on Orah Hayyim] (New York: Edison Lithographic, 1930), (Hebrew)# 574, 106. Rabbi Pollak’s pessimism was rejected, even at a time when the Jewish feature seemed far more bleak than ever before.

Intimacy during a war in Israel

In volume eleven of his responsa, Rabbi Elhanan Prince of Mahon Meir in Jerusalem addressed another question that arises from the passage in today’s daf yomi: In Israel, may a married couple have intercourse during a military offensive? Here is the opening passage:

At a time when there is great danger to the House of Jacob, while our enemies are sewing fear and concern among our people, and our soldiers are risking their lives to restore peace and security to our borders, and fighting with all their strength to defeat those who would rise up to destroy us, and many are fighting on foreign territory, the question arises whether a married soldier who is on leave may have marital relations. Indeed, the same may be asked of any civilian: is it permitted to have marital relations at a time that we are at war and in mortal danger?

Having studied today’s page of Talmud, this is, of course a perfectly reasonable question. His responsa is a fascinating read. It cites, for example, the opinion of the Torah Temimah (Gen. 41:50) who wrote that the ruling only applied to those who were wealthy, for they are generally insulated from communal troubles. But for a person who is already personally familiar with the challenge of the moment - like a soldier - “why” asked Rabbi Prince “is is necessary to add to his pain?”

תורה תמימה בראשית 41:50

ונראה באור דבריהם, דבאמת לאיש שהוא מסובל בצער הרעב אין סברא להוסיף צער במניעת תה"מ שנקרא ענוי [ע"ל ס"פ ויצא], אלא רק למי שאין לו כל צער ודאגה מחמת הרעב, כמו עשירים גדולים ובעלי אוצרות תבואה וכדומה, כמו יוסף, להם ראוי להשתתף עם הצבור בצער זה תמורת צער הרעב שאין מרגישים בו

After citing many lenient authorities, Rabbi Prince also rules that in fact, during a military offensive, Israeli civilians and soldiers are permitted to have marital intimacy. While at first blush this question is perhaps slightly unusual, at its core it is a reminder that the Jewish people should share life’s burdens, or at least feel them. For those who live outside of Israel, just reading today’s page of Talmud is a good way to recall that while we sit in comfort, each and every day soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces sacrifice for the security of us all. Their safety should always be part of our prayers.

משנה ברורה או’ח 240:12:46

ואם יצרו מתגבר עליו ויש חשש שיבוא לידי השחתת זרע כתב א"ר בשם ספר דברי דוד בסימן תקע"ד להקל וכ"כ בספר בית מאיר לאה"ע

Tonight - The Longest Lunar Eclipse This Century

In the early hours of Friday morning, November 19, there will be another partial lunar eclipse. We have noted them before, and they are not rare. But this one will be special because it will be the longest lunar eclipse of the century, lasting a total of almost three and a half hours. It will also look almost as spectacular as a total lunar eclipse, for at its peak the moon will be 97% eclipsed.

Who will be able to see the eclipse?

The partial lunar eclipse will be visible from North and South America, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Europe and Asia. But sadly, it will not be visible from Israel. The challenge for many, though, will be waking up to see it. It will begin at Friday morning at 1:02am EST, reach its maximum at 4:02am EST, and end at 7:03am EST. So for those on the east coast, that’s the middle of the night!

Why we see an eclipse

As we've noted before, a solar eclipse can only occur at the start of  a Hebrew month, as the moon gets between the sun and the earth.  A lunar eclipse is also linked to the Jewish month, and can only occur around the 15th day of the month, when the moon is full.  As the earth passes between the sun and the moon, its shadow is cast onto the moon, resulting in an eclipse.

 So why don't we see a lunar eclipse every month? The answer is simple. The moon's orbit is inclined at 5 degrees from the sun-earth plane, so that each month the moon may be slightly above, or slightly below that plane. And a lunar eclipse will occur only when the three bodies line up on the same plane as earth’s orbit, called the ecliptic. 

The Talmud on Eclipses

תלמוד בבלי סוכה דף כט עמוד א 

תנו רבנן: בזמן שהחמה לוקה - סימן רע לעובדי כוכבים, לבנה לוקה - סימן רע לשונאיהם של ישראל, מפני שישראל מונין ללבנה ועובדי כוכבים לחמה...

תנו רבנן: בשביל ארבעה דברים חמה לוקה: על אב בית דין שמת ואינו נספד כהלכה, ועל נערה המאורסה שצעקה בעיר ואין מושיע לה, ועל משכב זכור, ועל שני אחין שנשפך דמן כאחד

Our Rabbis taught, A solar eclipse is a bad omen for idolaters; a lunar eclipse is a bad omen for Israel, because Israel reckons [its calendar] by the moon, and idolaters by the sun...

Our Rabbis taught, A solar eclipse happens because of four things:
1. When an Av Bet Din [head of the Rabbinic Court] died and was not properly eulogized;
2. If a betrothed girl cried out aloud in the city and there was no-one to save her [from being raped];
3. Because of homosexuality; and
4 If two brothers were killed at the same time.

That's what we have - four causes of a solar eclipse, and none for a lunar eclipse - we are just told that it is a "bad omen for Israel." And how does Rashi explain this passage?  לא שמעתי טעם בדבר  - "I have not heard any explanation for this." 

LATER JEWISH EXPLANATIONS OF A SOLAR ECLIPSE

If we know that eclipses are regular celestial events whose timing is predictable and precise, how are we to understand Talmud in Sukkah, which suggests that an eclipse is a divine response to human conduct? We have already seen that Rashi was unable to explain the passage, but that didn't stop others from trying.  The Maharal of Prague (d. 1609) has a lengthy explanation which you can read here.  It goes something like this: "Yes, an eclipse is a mechanical and predictable event. But in truth, if there was no sin, there would be no eclipses, because God would have designed the universe differently, and in such a sin-free universe...there would be no need to design an eclipse." So the Maharal suggests that in a sin-free universe, the moon would not orbit as it does now, at a 5 degree angle to the sun-earth plane.  But where would the moon be? It couldn't be in the same plane as the sun and the earth, since then there would be an solar eclipse every month. If it were at say 20 degrees above the plane, then there would still be both solar and lunar eclipses, though they would be more rare. The only way for there to be no solar eclipses (in the Maharal's sin-free imaginary universe) would be for the moon to orbit the earth at 90 degrees to the sun-earth axis.  Then it would never come between the sun and the earth, and there could never be a solar eclipse. Perfect, except then there would never be a Rosh Chodesh, and the moon would always be visible. Oy.

יערות דבש דרוש י׳ב

Another attempt to explain the Talmud was offered by Jonatan Eybeschutz (d. 1764). In 1751 Eybeschutz was elected as chief rabbi of the Three Communities (Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek), and was later accused of being a secret follower of the false messiah Shabtai Zevi. In January 1751, Eybeschutz gave a drasha in Hamburg in which he addressed the very same problem that Maharal had noted: if a solar eclipse is a predictable event, how can it be related to human conduct? His answer was quite different: The Talmud in Sukkah is not actually addressing the phenomenon that we call a solar eclipse. According to Eybeschutz, the phrase in Sukkah "בזמן שהחמה לוקה" actually means - "when there are sunspots."

Inventive though this is, it is as implausible as the suggestion of the Maharal. In the first place, sunspots could not have been seen prior to the invention of the telescope. They were first described in March 1611 by a contemporary of Galileo named Christopher Scheiner (though Galileo lost no-time in claiming that he, not Scheiner was the first to correctly interpret what they were.)  Because sunspots could not have been seen, this cannot be what the rabbis in Gemara Sukkah were describing.

Christopher Scheine, Rosa Ursina sive Sol (Bracciai 1626-1630)

Second, according to Eybeschutz, sunspots "have no known cause, and have no fixed period to their appearance".  We can't fault Eybeschutz  for his first claim, but - even by the science of his day - his second was not correct. In fact both Scheiner and Galileo knew  - and wrote - that sunspots were permanent (at least for a while) and moved slowly across the face of the sun.

It's interesting to note that Galileo got very excited about the discovery that the spots moved across the face of the sun. This suggested (though it did not prove) that the sun itself was spinning. Galileo had also discovered that Jupiter was orbited by moons. Both of these discoveries now added further support to the Copernican model in which the Earth was spinning on its ownaxis, and was not the center of all the movement of objects in the sky. But Eybeschutz did not believe Copernicus was correct: "Copernicus and his supporters have made fools of themselves when they declare that the Earth orbits [the Sun]. They have left us with a lie, and the truth will bear itself witness that the Earth stands still for ever."  Eybeschutz wanted to have sunspots explain away a talmudic mystery, but he dismissed the evidence that they provided in other matters - namely, that the earth moves.

Ta'anit 2 ~ Rain, and the God of the Gaps

Today we start to study a new tractacte, Ta’anit, which opens with a declaration of God’s awesome power to bring rain, and the mystery of why it falls.

תענית ב, א

כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״עֹשֶׂה גְדֹלוֹת עַד אֵין חֵקֶר״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״הֲלוֹא יָדַעְתָּ אִם לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֱלֹהֵי עוֹלָם ה׳ בּוֹרֵא קְצוֹת הָאָרֶץ לֹא יִיעַף וְלֹא יִיגָע אֵין חֵקֶר לִתְבוּנָתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״מֵכִין הָרִים בְּכֹחוֹ נֶאְזָר בִּגְבוּרָה״.

It is written here: “Who does great things that are beyond comprehension,” and it is written there, with regard to the creation of the world: “Have you not known? Have you not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow faint or weary? His discernment is beyond comprehension” (Isaiah 40:28). This shows that both creation and rainfall are beyond comprehension.

Over the next several pages, the rabbis cite many further examples of this power.

תענית ז, ב

אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גָּדוֹל יוֹם הַגְּשָׁמִים כְּיוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ

Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said: The day of the rains is as great as the day on which the heavens and earth were created…

אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: גָּדוֹל יוֹם הַגְּשָׁמִים, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ יְשׁוּעָה פָּרָה וְרָבָה בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תִּפְתַּח אֶרֶץ וְיִפְרוּ יֶשַׁע״. אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר חֲנִילַאי: אֵין הַגְּשָׁמִים יוֹרְדִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִמְחֲלוּ עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רָצִיתָ ה׳ אַרְצֶךָ שַׁבְתָּ שְׁבִית יַעֲקֹב. נָשָׂאתָ עֲוֹן עַמֶּךָ כִּסִּיתָ כל חַטָּאתָם סֶלָה״.

Rabbi Oshaya likewise said: The day of rain is great, as rain even facilitates salvation, which is fruitful and multiplies on that day. It is a time of God’s favor, when salvation is brought forth into the world, as it is stated: “Let the earth open that they may bring forth salvation” (Isaiah 45:8).

And according to Rabbi Tanhum, a rainy day demonstrates that “all of the Jewish people’s transgressions have been forgiven.” It is like another Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Tanhum bar Hanilai said: Rain falls only if the Jewish people’s transgressions have been forgiven, as it is stated: “Lord, You have been favorable to Your land; You have turned the captivity of Jacob; You have forgiven the iniquity of Your people; You have pardoned all their sin. Selah”

why it rains

With science explaining more and more, the role of God seems to be rapidly shrinking. And the rain is a perfect example. We once thought that the only explanation for rain is that it is brought by God. We now understand that rain falls when water droplets condense onto one another within a cloud. Eventually these droplets grow too heavy to stay suspended, and they fall to the ground as rain. There are also larger regional effects, for example, like low pressure barometric systems whose origins lie in the irregular way in which the sun heats the surface of the earth. And then there is the El Nino climate pattern, which might not have done much to change the weather in the ancient Near East, but certainly cannot be ignored. It is caused by the unusual warming of surface waters in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. “The 1997-98 event produced drought conditions in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Peru experienced very heavy rains and severe flooding. In the United States, increased winter rainfall hit California, while the Midwest experienced record-breaking warm temperatures during a period known as “the year without a winter.” How then, might we think about the awesome power of God to bring rain, when we know so many of the steps that are involved?

The God of the Gaps

The God of the Gaps, in which God is invoked to explain that which science had not yet been able to, seems to have been first invoked by Nietzsche (1844-1900): “[I]nto every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God." (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufman (London: Penguin, 1988), 204). But to use God to explain that which our incomplete knowledge cannot is doomed to give the divine an ever-shrinking place. The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was murdered by the Nazis in 1945 understood this very well. “For the frontiers of knowledge are inevitably being pushed back further and further,” he wrote in his Letters from Prison, “which means that you only think of God as a stop-gap. He also is being pushed back further and further, and is in more or less continuous retreat. We should find God in what we do know, not in what we don't know. God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved. “ Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (New York: Touchstone, 1997, 311).

The challenge, then, for moderns, is not to view God as the source of rain because we don’t understand why it rains. It is to understand everything about the weather, and still allow Him a place. And that is far harder.

Rosh Hashanah 34a ~ On the Uses of Urine

Yesterday, we learned in a Mishnah that the quality of a shofar may be improved by immersing it in wine or water. Today, we continue with this theme.

ראש השנה לד, א

וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין אוֹתוֹ — בֵּין בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת, וּבֵין בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם רָצָה לִיתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם אוֹ יַיִן — יִתֵּן

And one may not cut the shofar to prepare it for use, neither with an object that is prohibited due to a rabbinic decree nor with an object that may not be used due to a prohibition by Torah law. However, if one wishes to place water or wine into the shofar on Rosh HaShana so that it emits a clear sound, he may place it, as this does not constitute a prohibited labor.

אֲבָל אִם רָצָה לִיתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם אוֹ יַיִן — יִתֵּן. מַיִם אוֹ יַיִן — אֵין, מֵי רַגְלַיִם — לָא

The Mishna continues. However, if one wishes to place water or wine into the shofar on Rosh HaShana, so that it should emit a clear sound, he may place it.The Gemara infers: Water or wine, yes, one may insert these substances into a shofar. However, urine, no.

So the Mishnah rules that a shofar may be bathed in water and wine because it helps to emit a clear sound. But urine may not be used to improve the quality of the shofar, because, as Abba Shaul goes on to teach

מֵי רַגְלַיִם — אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד 

With regard to water or wine, one is permitted to pour these liquids into a shofar on Rosh HaShana in order to make its sound clear. However, with regard to urine, one is prohibited to do so due to the respect that must be shown to the shofar. Although urine is beneficial, it is disrespectful to place it in a shofar, which serves for a mitzva. 

Fair enough. But Abba Shaul’s lesson is just the beginning of the story of the beneficial properties of urine for the Temple service, and for people too.

From here.

We don’t bring Urine into the Azarah (Courtyard)

In the famous Mishnah known as Pittum Haketoret with describes the preparation of the incense in the Temple, there is a complicated list of eleven ingredients. And then comes this:

יֵין קַפְרִיסִין שֶׁשּׁוֹרִין בּוֹ אֶת הַצִּפּוֹרֶן. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא עַזָּה. וַהֲלֹא מֵי רַגְלַיִם יָפִין לָהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין מֵי רַגְלַיִם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד׃

Why was Cyprus wine employed? To steep the onycha in it so as to make it more pungent. Though urine might have been suitable for that purpose, it was not decent to bring it into the Temple.

This Mishnah, recited every day by most Sephardim (and many Ashkenazi services in Israel) explains that like its use for the shofar, urine was good at improving the quality of some Temple accessories, but, regardless, “it’s not decent to bring it into Temple” for that purpose. So just what are the properties of urine that make it sometimes useful?

The Properties of Urine

The vast majority of urine (90-96%) is made up of water, with the remainder made of organic and inorganic salts, and urea. That last one, urea, is very important. Urea, which comes from the breakdown of proteins, is by itself odorless and colorless, but is a terrific fertilizer. Over time, however, the urea is further broken down in ammonia and other compounds, which give older, stale urine its characteristic odor. And there is a long tradition of using urine to improve lots of things, including, it turns out, our health.

Sefer Moshia Hosim

The Italian Jew Abraham ben Hananiah Yagel (1553- c.1624) was by any definition a polymath. His works include not one but two lengthy encyclopedias, a manual of belief “audaciously adapted from a Catholic manual” and a work in praise of women. But Yagel was first and foremost a physician, and it was in this role that in 1587 he published his first work, a short tract on plagues called Moshia Hosim (The Savior of Those Who Seek Refuge).

Moshia Hosim  opens with a declaration that was both theological and medical: “Every wise person knows that reality is divided into three realms: the elementary, the divine, and the intellectual. Every part of the lower world is moved and influenced by the upper, as the rabbis stated in Bereshit Rabbah: There is no blade of glass that sways without having been controlled by a constellation that directs it to grow.” The origins of any plague therefore depended on the precise interactions of these three realms. The stars and constellations would cause the release of foul, poisonous air, “for nothing happens on earth without the influence of the heavens.”

While some plague were a divine punishment for sin, these were of a fundamentally different nature from others. Divinely sent plagues stuck suddenly and left no physical mark on their victim, unlike “naturally” occurring outbreaks. But whatever their celestial origins, certain groups like women and children were more vulnerable because of their humoral imbalance, as were naturally good-looking young adults. Yagel, like most of his medical contemporaries, understood that whatever agent it was that caused a plague, it could be transmitted through close physical contact. He cited the actions of three Talmudic sages who would be careful to avoid being bitten by flies during a pandemic, or who would not share food or close contact with a victim “for flies and birds transmit sickness from person to person.” Yagel prescribed a diet free of rich foods and avoiding sexual intercourse, both of which led to the dangerous condition of overheating. He also recommended theriac, a medieval concoction of herbs that was thought to be an antidote to all manner of poisons and diseases. “Do not fear the warmth brought on by theriac” he wrote, “for in small diluted doses it cannot harm anyone.”

The patient should dress in clean, comfortable clothes, “for they stimulate the sense of touch” and should be surrounded with sheets soaked in a mixture of vinegar and theriac, as well as fresh flowers and sweet-smelling roses “for they uplift the sprits of the sick.” Similarly the home should be clean, airy, and adorned with drawings “that make the heart happy.” The best time to undergo bloodletting depending on the complexion of the patient: those who were dark should have the procedure at sunrise, while those who were pale should do so at midnight, and the blood should be removed from the same side as the buboes. Regardless of when it was performed, the patient should first take a laxative.

And then there is this advice:

Avraham Yagel. Moshia Hosim. Venice 1587. 18a.

And there is the incredible thing mentioned in the first chapter of tractate Kerisut which states “and urine is good for it (the Temple incense).” In addition those who are learned about nature have taught that it is useful and good to take the urine of a young, handsome, and healthy boy, and to drink it each morning. It will filter out the bad air (that causes the plague).

Now some might use this as evidence that the rabbis of the post-talmudic era had no idea about medicine. But that is not the case. What this teaches is quite the opposite; that many were up-to-date with the very latest medical thinking - even if, by our standards, that thinking was quite wrong.

Everyone recommended drinking urine

The German medical historian Karl Sudhoff (1853-1938) made a career studying almost 300 plague texts from the early Middle Ages. He noted that in one Latin treatise on health written in 1405, “older patients who were sometimes counseled to drink a boy’s fresh urine might (understandably enough) feel some nausea.” Yup. And in the excellent recently published book Doctoring the Black Death, John Aberth, who seems to know everything about medieval Europe’s medical response to plague wrote that as an alternative to theriac, that ancient concoction that was supposed to prevent and cure any and all manner of diseases, people drank urine. For example in 1378, Cardo of Milan prescribed a potion “for the poor that combined the patient’s own urine with mustard, castor oil, pomegranate, juniper, sage and reddish, and which was to be boiled, clarified and strained, then taken morning and evening, five spoonfuls at a time. (205)” And an Italian physician named Dionysus Secundus Colle who recovered from the plague around 1348 had this to say (248):

I have seen women gathering snails and capturing lizards and newts, which they asserted that, once they had all been burnt down to a powder…they administered two drachmas of it in a boy’s urine, and they cured and persevered many, and afterward I was compelled to investigate [this sure myself] and afterwards I cured many.

Jewish folk remedies continued to use urine as a medicine. Yudel Rosenberg (1859-1935) mentioned it as a treatment for swelling in his book published in Peitrikow in 1911:

Yudel Rosenberg. Rafael Hamalakh Peitrikow 1911, 70

Swelling: Where there are no pharmacies, a popular physician can dip a rag into the urine from young children, and place it repeatedly on the swelling. This sometimes helps.

So urine was thought to have many helpful properties. It helps the tone of a shofar, improves theTemple incense, and was once thought to be a cure for the plague. Still, we are unlikely to use it in any of these ways any time soon. And, as Abba Shaul noted, that’s probably a good thing.