National Jewish Book Award ~ The Eleventh Plague

I am delighted to share the news that The Eleventh Plague: Jews and Pandemics from the Bible to COVID-19 has been awarded the 2024 National Jewish Book Award for Modern Jewish Thought and Experience.

The award ceremony will take place in New York City tomorrow evening. I am humbled by this award, and hope that it will allow new readers to learn of the fascinating - and until now the untold story - of the Jewish encounter with pandemics.

“...pandemics have interfered with the intellectual life of Jews for many centuries. However, their response was never to end their educational pursuits or to close the House of Study, the Bet Midrash, although they may have had to temporarily move it into the family home or a vacant field. Instead, their reaction was to use whatever was at hand in the struggle to continue Jewish life and Jewish study. Often they used a pandemic to push them to greater intellectual or religious productivity.”

— Introduction, The Eleventh Plague.

From the Talmudology Purim Archives ~ Gender Fluidity, Male Lactation and Mordechai

Editor’s note: Unless you live in Australia, or New Zealand, or Jerusalem, today is the Jewish Festival of Purim, on which there is a tradition to create and recite spoofs called Purim Torah. These spoofs are usually very clever and witty, and may require a deep knowledge of rabbinic texts. But this post is not Purim Torah, although it may read as such if you have drunk a little too much alcohol. And drinking too much alcohol is definitely a Purim tradition. So drink up and read on…and I promise I am not making this stuff up.

Milk Producing Male Goats of The Talmud (MPMGOTT)

In the Talmud in tractate Chullin there is a discussion of about the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. There are several teachings that are derived from the three places in the Torah where we read “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (לא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִיח בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ) Here is one of them, attributed to Shmuel:

חולין קיג, ב

בחלב אמו” ולא בחלב זכר”

“…In its mother’s milk” indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a male goat

A male goat that grows udders and produces milk? Here is how the great exegete Rashi (1040-1105) explains the Talmud:

ולא בחלב זכר - שהיה לו חלב מועט מן הדדים כגון אם נשתנה והיו לו דדים

“And not in the milk of a male goat”: This means that there was a small amount of milk from the udder. For example if the male goat changed and grew udders.

To understand what on earth is going on here, we need to take a detour into the strange world of biologic gender fluidity. So strap in and here we go.

Fish

In their helpful 2003 paper Group Sex, Sex Change, and Parasitic Males: Sexual Strategies Among the Fishes and Their Neurobiological Correlates (published, obviously, in the Annual Review of Sex Research) the authors note that there is “tremendous sexual diversity exhibited by fishes” Consider for example the clownfish, also known as the anemonefish. They are sequential hermaphrodites, and first develop into males. These colorful fish thrive unharmed in the poisonous tentacles of the sea anemone, and while several fish may live within the same anemone, there is only one pair that mate. Should the dominant egg-laying female die, one of the largest males steps up and does what needs to be done. He changes into a female. This male-to-female change is called protandry. Other fish, like the sea wrasse, are all born female, and as the need arises change into a male. This trick is carried out in at least 500 species of fish, and is called protogyny.

Birds

The male Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) is a bright red color with a black mask over its beak and eyes. The female is a drab olive color, with a grey mask. In 2008 the ornithological world was rocked when a bird was sighted that was half-red and half-olive. Meaning it was half-male and half-female. The bird, sighted in the Black Hawk Forest Nature Preserve in northwestern Illinois, “was perched in a cockspur hawthorn tree.” Its right side was male, and its left, female. The cardinal evaded capture so it was not possible to analyze its genetic makeup. To be clear, this was not a bird that changed sex; it was one that appeared to be both sexes.

Humans

We all should have been taught in school that our gender is determined by which sex chromosomes we receive. If we get two female chromosomes -XX- (one from mom and one from dad) we are female, and if we get one X from mom and a Y from dad -XY- we are male. But like all things, it’s a little more complicated than that. In the 1980s, British researchers discovered the sex-determining gene on a tiny bit of the male Y chromosome and named it the sry gene. That gene tells the body to develop into a male or female appearing body. Sometimes the sry gene sneaks off of the Y gene and makes its way into the DNA of an XX female. As a result, she will develop male anatomy while genetically remaining an XX female. (Please read that sentence again, just to be sure you have understood it.) And sometimes the sry gene on an XY genetic male can mutate and not work. In that case, the genetic male appears to have the organs of a female, which is what occurs in Swyer syndrome. (You can hear more about the amazing sex-changing effects of sry in this fascinating podcast.)

Ready for more? In a small community in the Dominican Republic there have been a number of cases in which little girls grow a penis and turn into little boys. (Again, please re-read that sentence.) These observations were first reported to the scientific community in 1974, and are caused by a deficiency of the steroid 5a-Reductase. Here is how the BBC explained what is going on when they reported about it in 2015.

When you are conceived you normally have a pair of X chromosomes if you are to become a girl and a set of XY chromosomes if you are destined to be male. For the first weeks of life in womb you are neither…Then, around eight weeks after conception, the sex hormones kick in. If you're genetically male the Y chromosome instructs your gonads to become testicles and sends testosterone to a structure called the tubercle, where it is converted into a more potent hormone called dihydro-testosterone. This in turn transforms the tubercle into a penis. If you're female and you don't make dihydro-testosterone then your tubercle becomes a clitoris…the reason [some genetic males] don't have male genitalia when they are born is because they are deficient in an enzyme called 5-alpha-reductase, which normally converts testosterone into dihydro-testosterone.

So the boys, despite having an XY chromosome, appear female when they are born. At puberty, like other boys, they get a second surge of testosterone. This time the body does respond and they sprout muscles, testes and a penis.

So there you have it. Little girls, brought up as little girls, turn into boys, who develop male genitalia, and live as men. You see, they were never really girls in the XX sense. They were XY boys whose lack of sex hormones caused them to look like girls. Which brings us back to that page in the Talmud and the strange case of…

That male goat that produced milk

We have seen that there is great deal of natural gender fluidity in the animal world. But what about that milk-producing male goat? Well according to the website dedicated to “Goat Milk Stuff,” as bizarre as it seems, “there have even been bucks that have been known to give milk (yes, all bucks have teats, and no, a milking buck is not normal).” This was not a case of a male-to-female transformation. It was a case of male lactation.

Writing in the 13th century in his classic commentary on the Talmud called Bet Habechirah, Menachem ben Solomon Meiri, known as the Meiri(1249–1306) wrote that he had seen examples of male milk-producing goats:

בית הבחירה. מכון התלמוד הישראלי השלם.ירושלים, תשל׳ד 432

“There are a few male [goats] in whom the works of creation are slightly changed and whose nipples become larger such that they produce a little milk. And we have seen them with our own eyes...”

— Meiri, Bet Habechirah Chullin, 432

So too, did Khalifa al Nuaimi, a shepherd in the United Arab Emirates: Here is the 2009 report from The National, a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates.

As one of his prized male goats trotted up for some feed, he noticed the animal had seemingly developed a large udder. While he could not quite believe his eyes, the luckless creature proceeded to produce milk on demand, much like his female companions in the pen.

The local farmer made the discovery four days ago at his goat pen in Masakin, a suburb of Al Ain, the government news agency, WAM, reported yesterday. The animal's male organs are said to have been pushed back by the udder, described as "big and bulky". Mr al Nuaimi got a half-litre of good-quality milk from the goat. Dr Martin Wyness, of the British Veterinary Centre in Abu Dhabi, said it was unusual but not unheard of for male mammals to produce milk. "It's absolutely possible," he said.

what may be happening

The structure of the cells involved in producing milk in the male goat has been studied using immunofluorescence and electron microscopy techniques. It turns out they are smaller but higher in number than those found in normal males, which suggests that the anterior pituitary gland, which controls their function is probably acting in a weird way.

Another explanation of the milk-producing male goats of the Talmud (MPMGOTT) is that it is linked to estrogen-like compounds in the plants upon which they were feeding.

“It is now known that more than 50 plant species contain estrogen mimics known as phytoestrogens. Although the mechanisms are not completely understood, several plant secondary metabolites…can mimic the effects of steroidal estrogens. These non-steroidal compounds have similar overall structures or active sites as natural steroidal estrogen and can compete for binding sites on estrogen receptor proteins. Thus, plant compounds can have effects similar to endogenous estrogens”

This comes from an intriguing 2008 paper, Male lactation: why, why not and is it care? published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution. It points out that there are other mammalian species in which the male has been known to lactate, including sheep, rats, free-ranging Dayak fruit bats in Malaysia and the masked flying fox bats of Papua New Guinea. Male lactation was also recorded “in World War II prisoner of war camps when malnourished detainees were later liberated and provided with adequate nutrition. During the period of limited food supply, the prisoners suffered liver, testicular and pituitary atrophy” which messed things up. Once fully nourished, the lactation quickly ended.

But whatever the cause, Shmuel was neither drunk nor hallucinating when he claimed that male goats can produce milk. Because sometimes they do.

mordechai lactating on demand

Male lactation. It’s not just for goats and bats. Human males might do it too. Here is a story told in the Talmud (Shabbat 53b) and knowing what we now do, perhaps it not as fanciful as it might seem.

שבת נג,ב

מעשה באחד שמתה אשתו והניחה בן לינק ולא היה לו שכר מניקה ליתן ונעשה לו נס ונפתחו לו דדין כשני דדי אשה והניק את בנו

There was an incident where a man’s wife died, and she left him a son to nurse, and he did not have money to pay for a wet-nurse. And a miracle was performed on his behalf, and he developed breasts like the two breasts of a woman, and he nursed his son.

That’s a pretty impressive miracle, although it may seem a little less miraculous now that we understand so much about the role of the anterior pituitary gland. This father is not identified in the Talmud, but another lactating male is. And his name was Mordechai, the hero of the Purim story we read today. In the Book of Esther (2:7) we read וַיְהִ֨י אֹמֵ֜ן אֶת־הֲדַסָּ֗ה - that Mordechai “raised” or “sustained” Esther. Let’s pickup the story in Beresheet Rabbah (30:8), compiled between 300 and 500 CE.

מָרְדְּכַי זָן וּפִרְנֵס, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן פַּעַם אַחַת חִזֵּר עַל כָּל הַמֵּנִיקוֹת וְלֹא מָצָא לְאֶסְתֵּר לְאַלְתָּר מֵינִיקָה, וְהָיָה מֵינִיקָהּ הוּא, רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בָּא לוֹ חָלָב וְהָיָה מֵינִיקָהּ. כַּד דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּצִבּוּרָא גָּחוֹךְ צִבּוּרָא לְקָלֵיהּ,

But did Mordecai really feed and sustain Esther? R. Yudan said: On one occasion he went round to all the wet nurses but could not find one for Esther, so he himself suckled her. R. Berekiah and R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Eleazar: Milk came to him and he suckled her [and he never even tried to find a wet nurse]. When R. Abbahu taught this publicly, the congregation laughed…

They laughed. Of course they did. It sounded like Purim Torah. But it can happen. Just ask those lactating goats. Now that’s some real Purim Torah.

happy purim from Talmudology

---

Bava Metzia 24a ~ Torture

This post is for the page of Talmud to be studied tomorrow, Shabbat.

Print it up today and enjoy tomorrow.

בבא מציא כד, א

מר זוטרא חסידא אגניב ליה כסא דכספא מאושפיזא חזיא לההוא בר בי רב דמשי ידיה ונגיב בגלימא דחבריה אמר היינו האי דלא איכפת ליה אממונא דחבריה כפתיה ואודי

Mar Zutra the Pious was involved in an incident in which a silver cup was stolen from his host. Later, Mar Zutra saw a certain student wash his hands and dry them on his friend's garment. Mar Zutra said: "this is the one who stole the cup, for he has no consideration for his friend's property. Mar Zutra bound the student to a post and coerced him, and he confessed to the crime (Bava Metzia 24a).

This is an incredible passage. When I first encountered it I wasn't certain I had understood it correctly. But there it was, in black and white. The Pious Mar Zutra had, in essence, tortured a confession out of a student.

Courtesy of Wikimedia.

The phrase that describes this is כפתיה ואודי "they bound him and he confessed." The root of the word to bind is כפת, which is used in rabbinic literature to mean to tie or to bind. Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel (Germany ~1250-1327), known as the Rosh, is certain that the suspect was tortured. In his commentary on this passage he wrote וכפתיה בשוטי עד דאודי "he flogged him with rods until he confessed." (As in חושך שבטו שונא בנו ואהבו שחרו מוסר "spare the rod and spoil the child," from Proverbs 13:24.) Rabbi Betzalel ben Avraham Ashkenazi (Israel ~1520-1594) in his commentary called Shitah Mekubetzet agrees that coercion was used, although he is unsure if it was physical or psychological:

כפתוהו ואודי. יש מפרשים כפתוהו על העמוד והלקוהו בשוטים. ויש מפרשים כפתיה בדברים שנדוהו אם לא יודה האמת

Some explain that he was tied to post and flogged. Others explain that he was verbally coerced (and threatened with excommunication) until he confessed.

False Confessions

In a 2010 paper published in the Stanford Law Review, Brandon Garett notes that DNA testing has now exonerated over forty people who falsely confessed to rapes and murders. He wonders how an innocent person could convincingly confess to a crime he never committed. For example, in 1990  Jeffrey Deskovic a seventeen-year-old, was convicted of rape and murder. Deskovic was a classmate of the fifteen-year-old victim, had attended her wake, and was eager to help solve the crime. During one of several police interrogations he “supposedly drew an accurate diagram,” which depicted details concerning “three discrete crime scenes” which were not ever made public. "In his last statement, which ended with him in a fetal position and crying uncontrollably," wrote Garrett, "he reportedly told police that he had “hit her in the back of the head with a Gatoraid [sic] bottle that was lying on the path.” Police testified that, after hearing this, the next day they conducted a careful search and found a Gatorade bottle cap at the crime scene."

“Scholars increasingly study the psychological techniques that can cause people to falsely confess and have documented how such techniques were used in instances of known false confessions.”

— Garrett, B.L. The Substance of False Confessions. Stanford Law Review 2010. 62 (4): 1051-1119.

Deskovic was convicted of rape and murder and served more than fifteen years of a sentence of fifteen years to life. Then in 2006, new DNA testing not only excluded him, but also matched the profile of a murder convict who subsequently confessed and pleaded guilty. So how did Deskovic know all the details of the crime to which he confessed? Here is what the District Attorney noted in the post-exoneration inquiry:

...Given Deskovic’s innocence, two scenarios are possible: either the police (deliberately or inadvertently) communicated this information directly to Deskovic or their questioning at the high school and elsewhere caused this supposedly secret information to be widely known throughout the community.

Another paper, this time in the North Carolina Law Review, analyzed 125 cases of "proved interrogation-induced false confessions, which, the authors note with some pride, is "the largest cohort of interrogation-induces false confession cases ever identified and studied in the literature." It makes terrifying reading.  

It is of course really hard to study in the laboratory the psychological effects of torture and coercion and how they produce false confessions.  But scientists try anyway. For example, a very recent paper from a team from the New School for Sociological Research in New York and the University of California studied the effect of sleep deprivation on false confessions.  When compared to those who had rested, participants were over four times more likely to sign a false statement if they were deprived of one night's sleep.  In another recent peer-reviewed paper, (Constructing Rich False Memories of Committing Crime) psychologists used suggestive retrieval techniques on some rather nice Canadian undergraduates. They found that up to 70% of those interviewed 

were classified as having false memories of committing a crime (theft, assault, or assault with a weapon) that led to police contact in early adolescence and volunteered a detailed false account. These reported false memories of crime were similar to false memories of noncriminal events and to true memory accounts, having the same kinds of complex descriptive and multisensory components.

They continue: 

Our finding that young adults generated rich false memories of committing criminal acts during adolescence supports the notion that false confessions and gross confabulations can take place within interview settings. The Innocence Project has shown that about 25% of false convictions are attributable to faulty confession evidence...The kind of research presented here is essential in the quest to help prevent memory-related miscarriages of justice.

Back to Mar Zutra the Pious

We know little about Mar Zutra, but for those studying the one-page-a-day Daf Yomi cycle, the last place we learned his teachings was in Bava Kamma. On Shabbat, when using a stone from a wall to wipe himself after using the bathroom, Mar Zutra the Pious would then return the stone to its place in the wall. He would later instruct his servant to cement the stone back into place, so as not to damage the wall.  He was, then, a man who acted to preserve the property rights of others, even in the most intimate of circumstances, when he knew no one would be watching.  And there's another story about Mar Zutra's piety - this one with more bearing on today's teaching in the Talmud. In the tractate Nedarim, we are taught the following:  

דמר זוטרא חסידא כי מחייב בר בי רב שמתא משמית נפשיה ברישא והדר משמת בר בי רב וכי עייל לביתיה שרי לנפשיה והדר שרי ליה ואמר רב גידל

When Mar Zutra the Pious placed excommunicated a student, Mar Zutra first excommunicated himself, and only then the student.  On arriving home, he lifted the ban from himself and then from the disciple.

Tosafot offers two explanations for this rather unusual behavior. First, he excommunicated himself so as not to forget that he had done so to a student. This would force him to recall his student, and when the time came, he would lift the ban. The second proposal offered by Tosafot is that Mar Zutra acted in this way as a sort of penitence: excommunicating another person was an extreme measure, and Mar Zutra reminded himself of this by imposing the same punishment on himself.

תוספות נדרים דף ז, ב 

פר"ת שזה היה עושה כדי שלא ישכח להתיר הנידוי של בר בי רב אבל עכשיו שמשמת נפשיה מתוך כך שהיה זכור להתיר שלו זכור יהיה נמי להתיר של בר בי רב ור"י פירש דלכפרה היה עושה כך שלא יענש במה שמנדה צורבא מדרבנן כי בקושי יש לנדותו

Do you recall the explanation of today's passage from Rabbi Betzalel ben Avraham Ashkenazi in his commentary called Shitah Mekubetzet with which we opened?  He wrote that in order to coerce the student to confess, Mar Zutra threatened the suspect with...excommunication.  And so perhaps we can now better understand the severity of this coercion, for Mar Zutra himself went to extraordinary lengths to avoid imposing it.

Mar Zutra was a complex man, who would use methods we call torture to extract a confession.  The Talmud also points to his sensitivities.  But do the latter ever forgive the former?

Talmudology on the Parsha, Vayikrah: Unicorns

ויקרא 1:1-2

וַיִּקְרָ֖א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃

דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם אָדָ֗ם כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֥יב מִכֶּ֛ם קרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֗ה מִן־הַבָּקָר֙ וּמִן־הַצֹּ֔אן תַּקְרִ֖יבוּ אֶת־קרְבַּנְכֶֽם׃

And the Lord called to Moshe, and spoke to him out of the Tent of Meeting, saying,Speak to the children of Yisra᾽el, and say to them, If any man of you bring an offering to the Lord, of the cattle shall you bring your offering, of the herd, and of the flock.

In context, the word adam - אדם – in this verse means person. But the Midrash expounds and takes the word to mean Adam, as in primordial man. Here is that midrash:

ויקרא רבה 2:7

אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאָדָם זֶה, אָדָם, יְהֵא קָרְבָּנְךָ דּוֹמֶה לְקָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַכֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ וְלֹא הִקְרִיב מִן הַגְּזֵלוֹת וּמִן הַחֲמָסִים, אַף אַתָּה לֹא תַקְרִיב מִן הַגְּזֵלוֹת וְלֹא מִן הַחֲמָסִים, וְאִם עָשִׂיתָ כֵן (תהלים סט, לב): וְתִיטַב לַה' מִשּׁוֹר פָּר.

[“When a man [adam] among you sacrifices.”] Rabbi Berekhya said: The Holy One blessed be He said to this man: ‘Man, let your offering be similar to the offering of Adam the first man; everything was in his domain and he did not sacrifice from that which was stolen or extorted. You, too, do not sacrifice from that which was stolen or extorted. If you do so: “It will please the Lord more than a bull”’ (Psalms 69:32).

Rashi liked this midrash, so he cited it in his commentary on the Torah:

רשי, שׁם

אדם. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? מָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לֹא הִקְרִיב מִן הַגָּזֵל — שֶׁהַכֹּל הָיָה שֶׁלּוֹ — אַף אַתֶּם לֹא תַּקְרִיבוּ מִן הַגָּזֵל (ויקרא רבה)

אדם — Why is this term for “man” employed here? Since אדם also means Adam, its use suggests the following comparison: what was the characteristic of the first man (אדם הראשון)? He did not offer sacrifice of anything acquired by way of robbery, since everything was his! So you, too, shall not offer anything acquired by way of robbery (Leviticus Rabbah 2:7).

The Keli Yakar, a commentary written by Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550-1619) liked another midrash, found in the Talmud (Shabbat 28b). So he connected the two:

כלי יקר שם

וזה"ש (שבת כח:) שור שהקריב אדה"ר קרן אחת היה לו במצחו לכך נזדמן לו שור בעל קרן אחת כי היה דומה אל האדם שהיה קרן א' ר"ל שהיה יחידי בעולם ולא גזל משום אדם, ולא נתעורר משום אדם, כ"א מעצמו דהיינו מכם ע"כ עלה קרבנו לרצון נמצא שקרבן לה' הפסיק הענין. ואח"כ אמר מן הבהמה וגו' להוציא זרע פשתן אלא יעשה כהבל שהביא מבכורות צאנו. ומה שאמר תקריבו קרבנכם היינו מחלביהן החלק המובחר שאדם בוחר לעצמו הנקרא קרבנכם אותו תקריב לגבוה ונקט קרבנכם לשון רבים כפירש"י לומר שב' מקריבין בהמה

This is what is referred to [in the Talmud Shabbat 28b] “the ox that Adam sacrificed had but a single horn on its forehead,” mirroring Adam who was a single person in the world…

And here is the talmudic discussion as found in Shabbat:

תלמוד בבלי שבת כח, ב

מִדְּקָאָמַר קֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּמִצְחוֹ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ טָהוֹר הָיָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שׁוֹר שֶׁהִקְרִיב אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן קֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּמִצְחוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתִיטַב לַה׳ מִשּׁוֹר פָּר מַקְרִין מַפְרִיס״. ״מַקְרִין״ תַּרְתֵּי מַשְׁמַע! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק — ״מַקְרָן״ כְּתִיב

… as Rav Yehuda said in a similar vein: The ox that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a horned [makrin] and hooved ox” (Psalms 69:32). The word makrin means one with a horn. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, makrin indicates that it has two horns. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, it is written mikeren without the letter yod to indicate that it had only a single horn….

Rabbi Yehudah does not suggest just what animal this might have been, but that doesn’t stop us from trying to do so.

How about a unicorn? To understand this suggestion we need a little more background.

THE RE'EM IN THE BIBLE

The word ראם, re'em appears several times in the Hebrew Bible. Here, for example, is a verse from Deuteronomy (33:17) which describes the offspring of Joseph.

דברים לג: יז

בְּכ֨וֹר שׁוֹר֜וֹ הָדָ֣ר ל֗וֹ וְקַרְנֵ֤י רְאֵם֙ קַרְנָ֔יו בָּהֶ֗ם עַמִּ֛ים יְנַגַּ֥ח יַחְדָּ֖ו אַפְסֵי־אָ֑רֶץ וְהֵם֙ רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְהֵ֖ם אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃

Like a firstling bull in his majesty, He has horns like the horns of the re'em; With them he gores the peoples, The ends of the earth one and all. These are the myriads of Ephraim, Those are the thousands of Manasseh. 

The re'em is specifically identified by the great translator of the Bible Oneklos (~35-120 CE) as one of the species singled out in the Torah as being kosher:

דברים יד: ד–ה

 זֹ֥את הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֹּאכֵ֑לוּ שׁ֕וֹר שֵׂ֥ה כְשָׂבִ֖ים וְשֵׂ֥ה עִזִּֽים׃ אַיָּ֥ל וּצְבִ֖י וְיַחְמ֑וּר וְאַקּ֥וֹ וְדִישֹׁ֖ן וּתְא֥וֹ וָזָֽמֶר׃

These are the animals that you may eat; the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the dishon, the antelope, the mountain sheep.

Onkelos translates that word דִישֹׁ֖ן into Aramaic as רֵימָא - the re'em. And then there is this passage from the Book of Job (39:9-12):

איוב לט:ט–יב

הֲיֹ֣אבֶה רֵּ֣ים עָבְדֶ֑ךָ אִם־יָ֝לִ֗ין עַל־אֲבוּסֶֽךָ׃ הֲ‍ֽתִקְשָׁר־רֵ֭ים בְּתֶ֣לֶם עֲבֹת֑וֹ אִם־יְשַׂדֵּ֖ד עֲמָקִ֣ים אַחֲרֶֽיךָ׃

Most English versions of this passage translate the word re'em as "wild ox"and so read: 

Would the wild ox agree to serve you? Would he spend the night at your crib?  Can you hold the wild ox by ropes to the furrow? Would he plow up the valleys behind you?

But not the King James Bible. It goes in an entirely different direction: 

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

So according to the King James Bible, the re'em is a unicorn. Why on earth would the translators have chosen, of all creatures, the mythical unicorn as the re'em?

““The men who [produced the King James Bible], who pored over the Greek and Hebrew texts, comparing the accuracy and felicity of previous translations, arguing with each other over the finest details of chapter and verse, were many of them obscure at the time and are generally forgotten now, a gaggle of fifty or so black-gowned divines whose names are almost unknown but whose words continue to resonate with us.”

— Adam Nicoloson. God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. Harper Collins 2005. xi

THE RE'EM IS A UNICORN. OR MAYBE NOT.

Well, they didn't. They merely followed the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the third century BCE. And the Septuagint translated the Hebrew re'em as μονόκερως - monokeros, or "one horned". Which is why the King James Bible translated it as a unicorn, from the Latin uni meaning "single" and cornu meaning "horn". And since, according to the Talmud, the Septuagint was created at the command of Ptolemy II by seventy-two Jewish sages, you could claim that the King James translation was following a long Jewish tradition.

““King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one’s room and said: “Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher”. God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.”

— TB Megillah 9a-b

This translation made its way into later rabbinic commentary. For example, R. Dovid Kimche (1160-1235), in his dictionary of the Hebrew language called Sefer Hashorashim, wrote that the re'em has only one horn. And Abraham Yagel, (1553 – 1623), the Italian rabbi and exegete, mentioned a one-horned re'em that had been captured and brought to Portugal:

Book IV, ch. 45: 108a בית יער הלבנון 

ובימנו הובא בארץ פורטוגאלי מן האי האינדי׳ ראם אחד במצודה צדו אותו ומראה צורתו הביאו אח׳כ עוברי אורחות ימים והוא גדול מהפיל ומזרין בקסקשיו בכל עורו וקרן חזות עב על חוטמו אשר בו לחם מלחמות עם הפיל ועם שאר החיות

And in our days a re'em was brought to Portugal from India having been ambushed and trapped, and afterwards sea travellers reported how it looked. It is larger than an elephant and its scales cover all its skin. It has a thick horn on its nose which it uses in fights with the elephant and with other creatures...

As Natan Slifkin points out, what Yagel what was actually describing was a rhinoceros: "It was given to King Manuel of Portugal by Alfonso de Albuquerque, governor of Portuguese India. This was the first rhinoceros to be brought to Europe since Roman times, and it caused quite a sensation." Quite so.

But before we conclude that the re'em was a rhinoceros, there are a couple of problems. First, although it was once found in the Land of Israel, the rhinoceros remains so far discovered only go back to the Mousterian era, which ended about 35,000 years ago. That's quite a few years before the biblical period. Thus it is very unlikely that there were rhinoceri in Israel in the biblical period. And second, the re'em in the Bible is described as having two horns.  Two. "וְקַרְנֵ֤י רְאֵם֙ קַרְנָ֔יו" His horns are like the horns of the re'em" (Deut.33:17). So there are challenges identifying the rhinoceros as a unicorn.

Other One-horned creatures “witnessed” by the rabbis

One of the earliest rabbinic texts to discuss rhinoceri (or unicorns) is Shiltei Hagiborim, (#52), written by the physician-polymath Abraham Portaleone and first published in 1612, the year of his death. He enthusiastically cited Aristotle and Pliny who had testified to having seen one-horned animals:

You should know that I have not simply imagined these descriptions [of one-horned animals] without supporting testimony. For Aristotle wrote that the wild donkey has a single horn and non-cloven hooves. In addition, Pliny in chapter twenty-one of his eighth book wrote that in India there are ox like creatures with a single horn on their heads, and with hooves that are not cloven….

In his work on the Shulhan Arukh known as the Pri Hadash, Rabbi Hezekiah da Silva (1659–1698) cited Portalene’s remarks, and expanded upon them.

פרי חדש יורה דעה סימן פ

ועוד ראיתי בספר שלטי הגיבורים בפרק נ"ב [נה, ד] שחברו חכם רופא אחד מהדור שלפנינו שהאריך בענין זה, והביא בשם חכמי האומות מכמה בעלי חיים שהם בעלי קרן אחד והם טמאים, והעידו שחמור הבר יש לו במצחו קרן אחד והוא קלוט ברגליו ובהודו נמצאים שוורים שיש להם קרן אחד במצחם ופרסותיהם קלוטות, וכן יולדו שם בעלי חיים אכזריים דומין בגופן לסוסים ובראשם לאיל ורגליהם דומין לרגלי הפיל, והוסיפו עוד כי זנב הבעלי חיים האלה הוא דומה לזנב החזיר יערי ורוב הפעמים הולכים הלוך וגעו וממצחם יוצא קרן אחד שחור ארוך שתי אמות, וכיוצא בזה רבים אתם. וכל אילו העניינים אינם מבודים מן הלב שכולם אין ספק בדבר שהם עדי ראייה ולא שייך בזה למימר אשר פיהם דיבר שוא

…They testified that the wild donkey has one horn in its forehead and does not have cloven hooves. In India there are oxen that have one horn on their foreheads and their hooves are not cloven, and there are dangerous animals whose bodies are similar to horses and whose heads are similar to rams and whose feet are similar to those of elephants…. And all these things are not impossible, for there is no doubt that they are eyewitnesses accounts and it is not appropriate to think of them as the testimony of those “whose mouths speak lies” (Psalms 144:8)

RABBI YEHUDAH AND THE GREEKS

Perhaps then, the single horned animal that according to Rabbi Yehudah was sacrificed by Adam was the mythical unicorn. Rabbi Yehudah, also known as Yehudah bar Ilai, lived in the Galilee in the second century, some five hundred years after the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible which introduced the re'em as μονόκερως - monokeros, or one horned. And he knew his Greek. In fact he held the Greek language in such a special esteem that he even allowed a Torah to be written in it:

מגילה ט,א

א"ר יהודה אף כשהתירו רבותינו יונית לא התירו אלא בספר תורה 

And it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when our Rabbis permitted Greek, they permitted it only in a Torah scroll, and not for other books of the Bible, which must be written only in Hebrew.

And so the rabbis linked the opening of this week’s parsha to a mythical animal sacrificed by the mythical first human. It is a wonderful flight of rabbinic fancy, on which the famous Rabbi Shmuel Eidels (d.1631) had this to say in his famous Chidushei Maharsha (Chullin 60a):

ולכך כשחזר בתשובה הקריב שור שהיה לו קרן א' מורה על עיקר האחדות

…when Adam repented of sin he sacrificed an animal with one horn to signify God’s unity

Perhaps what we need today is not a sign of God’s unity, but the unity of his people Israel.