Cholera

Bava Metzia 36b ~ Marshes, Miasmas and Bad Air

בבא מציעא לו, ב

אתמר פשע בה ויצאת לאגם ומתה כדרכה אביי משמיה דרבה אמר חייב... הכא חייב מ"ט דאמרינן הבלא דאגמא קטלה

It was stated: If a custodian was negligent in watching an animal, and it escaped to a marsh and died there of natural causes...Abaye said in the name of Rabbah: he is liable to pay for the animal...because we say that the foul air of the marsh killed it...

Two buffaloes gather by the waters of the Chebayesh marsh in Nassiriya, southeast of Baghdad, February, 2015. Image from here.

Two buffaloes gather by the waters of the Chebayesh marsh in Nassiriya, southeast of Baghdad, February, 2015. Image from here.

As Rashi explains, the custodian is liable because his negligence was the cause of the animal's death. 

הכא איכא למימר בפשיעה מתה. שאם היתה בבית לא מתה, ויציאתה לאגם היא פשיעת מיתתה, דשמא הבל המצוי באגם קטלה

Here you can say that it died due to negligence. For if the animal was kept at home it would not have died, but its going out to the marsh is the negligent act that resulted in its death,  for perhaps the foul air of the marsh killed it.

Today's page of  Talmud suggests that just walking in a marsh can kill you because of the poisonous air that exists there.  We’ve encountered the notion of poisonous air before in Bava Kamma (55a) where Rav Nachman suggested that a fall into a pit of less than ten tefachim was not lethal because foul air was only found at a depth of ten tefachim. According to Rav Nachman, the one who digs a pit is only liable for damages caused by foul air, rather than the trauma of the fall itself. Rav Nachman goes on to clarify that foul air may not always kill, but instead may just cause physical injury, or in his words "אין הבל למיתה ויש הבל לנזקין."

As we shall see, this notion "of bad air" was an ancient belief that lasted all the way through modern times, and the Talmud reflected a widely held theory of noxious air that came to be called the Theory of Miasmas. A miasma was a poisonous vapor or mist that caused illness or disease. Infection was thought to affect people who inhaled these bad vapors. In this way the miasma theory was used to explain the spread of contagious diseases, or the death of wandering animals.

Origins of the Miasma theory of Disease

Dana Tulodziecki, from the Department of Philosophy at Purdue University, has a nice working definition of the miasmatic theory. Here it is. 

...diseases were brought about and passed on through decomposing organic material that would disperse into the air as noxious and disease-causing odours, the miasmas. This noxious air in turn would affect potential victims, causing a variety of diseases of differing strengths. The type of disease, as well as its severity were thought to depend on the complex interplay between a number of factors, some related to the miasmas themselves (such as climate and weather, which were thought to affect miasmatic natures), some related to the potential sufferers of diseases (such as factors relating to the sturdiness of their constitutions or their values, which were thought to affect their susceptibility to various diseases), and some related to the local circumstances in which miasmas existed (such as overcrowding or bad ventilation, which were thought to compound whatever problems were already present).

The word miasma comes from the Greek μίασμα meaning pollution.  The theory dates back to Hippocrates (~460-377 BCE) who wrote about it in his classic work, On Air, Water and Places:

Whoever wishes to investigate medicine properly, should proceed thus: in the first place to consider the seasons of the year, and what effects each of them produces for they are not at all alike, but differ much from themselves in regard to their changes. Then the winds, the hot and the cold, especially such as are common to all countries, and then such as are peculiar to each locality.

And here's a word describing a disease you've heard of that means bad air. Malaria, from the Italian mal aria.

Marshes as Dangerous Places in ROman Times

In the first century BCE, the Roman writer Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (born ~80–70 BCE) had this to say about the dangers of the swamps and marshes:

The neighborhood of a marshy place must be avoided; for in such a site the morning air, uniting with the fogs that rise in the neighborhood, will reach the city with the rising sun; and these fogs and mists, charged with the exhalation of the fenny animals, will diffuse an unwholesome effluvia over the bodies of the inhabitants, and render the place pestilent.

Vitruvius (for some reason he is known by his middle name) lived about two hundred years before Rabbah (d.~330CE) and Rabbah's nephew Abaye (d.~339 CE), and here he implicated marshes with the causes of disease - because of the dangerous vapors they contain. Fast forward about 1,500 years and the great Florence Nightingale made the air a central part of her call for better conditions for the working class.

The very first cannon of nursing, the first and the last thing upon which a nurses's attention must be fixed, the first essential to the patient, without which all the rest you can do for him is as nothing, with which I had almost said you may leave all the rest alone, is this: TO KEEP THE AIR HE BREATHES AS PURE AS THE EXTERNAL AIR, WITHOUT CHILLING HIM...Again, a thing I have often seen both in private houses and institutions. A room remains uninhabited...the air is stagnant, musty, and corrupt as it can by possibility be made. It is quite ripe to breed small-pox, scarlet fever, diphtheria, or anything else you please.

From inhaling the odour of beef the butcher’s wife
obtains her obesity
— Professor H Booth The Builder, July 1844

Do Miasmas cause cholera?

The miasmatic theory became a big deal in the discussion of the causes of the terrible cholera epidemics that ravaged London in the 1850s and beyond. William Farr was a statistician of repute; he held the important sounding position of Statistical Superintendent of the General Register Office. Farr believed that the theory completely explained both the transmission of cholera and where it struck, and his model is a reminder of how scientists can get it terribly wrong. Farr the statistician thought, along with others, that rotting organic matter would give rise to miasmas. In addition, he thought that the conditions “which are so constantly found in alluvial [muddy] soils, lying on a level with or below the tidal waters” were particularly good sources for producing miasmas.  He obtained the death rates from cholera, which he believed demonstrated that “cholera was three times more fatal on the coast than in the interior of the country”.  As Tulodziecki notes, Farr found just what the miasma theory predicted: that wherever high concentrations of miasma were predicted, the mortality rate from cholera was high, and wherever the miasma theory predicted that the concentrations of miasma were lower, so was the mortality rate.  But Farr took this to the next level. Being a good scientist he developed a law that made predictions about the death rates from cholera, that related these to the elevation of the soil. Here is what he found:

[T]he mortality from cholera in London bore a certain constant relation to the elevation of the soil, as is evident when the districts are arranged by groups in the order of their altitude. We place the districts together which are not on an average 20 feet above the Thames, and find that on this bottom of the London basin the mortality was the at the average rate of 102 in 10,000: in the second group, at 20 and under 40 feet of elevation, or on the second terrace, the mortality from cholera was the rate of 65 in 10,000; in the third group, or on the third terrace 40-60 feet high, the mortality from cholera was at the rate of 34 in 10,000; in the fourth group, 60-80 feet high, the mortality from cholera was at the rate of 27 in 10,000; in the fifth group, 80-100 feet high, the mortality was at the rate of 22 in 10,000; in a district 100 feet high, the mortality was 17 in 10,000; in Hampstead, about 350 high, the mortality was 8, or deducting a stranger infected at Wandsworth, but who died there, 7 in 10,000... [b]y ascending from the bottom to the third terrace, the mortality is reduced from 102 to 34; by ascending to the sixth terrace it is reduced to 17 … It will be observed, that the number representing the mortality on the third terrace is one-third of the number 102, representing the mortality on the first, and that the mortality on the sixth terrace is one-sixth part of the mortality on the first….

Here are Farr’s original tables:

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49. London, W. Clowes 1852. lxii

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49. London, W. Clowes 1852. lxii

From which he developed Farr’s Law of Elevations and produced this lovely diagram to show the relationship between the death rates from cholera and the elevation.

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49.  London, W. Clowes 1852. lxv.

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49.  London, W. Clowes 1852. lxv.

As you might have expected, those who represented religion chimed about the causes of the terrible cholera epidemic. One of those was Henry Whitehead, who served as an assistant priest at the Church of St Luke's in Soho, located in the heart of the 1854 London cholera outbreak. It was all God's will, only this time God was acting through the medium of miasmas:

Henry Whitehead. The Cholera in Berwick Street. London, Hope & Co. 1854. p.13

Henry Whitehead. The Cholera in Berwick Street. London, Hope & Co. 1854. p.13

The Real Cause of Cholera

Scanning electron microscope image of V. Cholerae

Scanning electron microscope image of V. Cholerae

As we have noted before, the true cause of cholera is an infectious agent, called Vibrio Cholerae. If it finds its way into your intestine, its toxin will cause the cells of your gut to excrete water at a remarkable rate. The result is overwhelming dehydration, and death may follow in a matter of hours. (By the way, water-borne cholera epidemics are still common. After the 2012 Haitian earthquake over 9,000 people died from cholera. That's 9,000 people who survived the earthquake itself, only to die from drinking water that was infected with cholera. Later, the UN announced it would pay compensation to the victims and their families, since it was United Nations peacekeepers who introduced the cholera epidemic to Haiti in 2010. Now back to the London epidemic of 1854.)  Farr had great data and a compelling theory, on par with the talmudic belief that at the bottom of a shallow pit, bad air would kill you. But Farr’s Law of Elevations is wrong. The transmission of cholera has nothing to do with the elevation of those it infects.  It is a water-borne disease, and if the water is cleaned of cholera, the disease vanishes. End of story.  

It's Hard to Be Right....

It was John Snow who investigated the cholera epidemic of 1854 and discovered its source was a contaminated water pump.  Snow, whose day job was anesthesiologist to Queen Victoria, had to convince a skeptical group of physicians, including those who believed in the miasmatic theory and the compelling data of miasmatist-in-chief William Farr. Although we know Snow was absolutely correct, here is the kind of opposition he encountered, from an editorial on the pages of Britain's leading medical journal The Lancet:

Why is it, then, that Dr. Snow is so singular in his opinion? Has he any facts to show in proof? No!... But Dr. Snow claims to have discovered that the law of propagation of cholera is the drinking of sewage-water. His theory, of course, displaces all other theories. Other theories attribute great efficacy in the spread of cholera to bad drainage and atmospheric impurities. Therefore,says Dr. Snow, gases from animal and vegetable decomposition are innocuous ! If this logic does not satisfy reason, it satisfies a theory; and we all know that theory is often more despotic than reason. The fact is, that the well whence Dr. Snow draws all sanitary truth is the main sewer. His specus, or den, is a drain. In riding his hobby very hard, he has fallen down through a gully-hole and has never since been able to get out again.

Wow. And you thought politics was a tough profession.  Anyway time went on and more evidence was found to support Snow and the water-borne model of cholera against Farr and the air-borne explanation.  In 1866 the snarky Lancet had a volte-face (that's a U-turn in Britain, or a flip-flop here in the US) and admitted Snow had been right all along, though it came a little late for poor Dr Snow. He had died eight years earlier.

We understand that the sisters of the late Dr. Snow are now in a position of considerable pecuniary difficulty; they are, in fact, almost if not entirely without means. The researches of Dr. Snow are among the most fruitful in modern medicine. He traced the history of cholera. We owe to him chiefly the severe induction by which the influence of the poisoning of water-supplies was proved. No greater service could have been rendered to humanity than this; it has enabled us to meet and combat the disease, where alone it is to be vanquished, in its sources or channels of propagation...Dr. Snow was a great public benefactor, and the benefits which he conferred must be fresh in the minds of all.

Why We Believed in the Miasma Theory of Disease

What explains the persistence of the theory of miasmas from at least 400 BCE, through the times of our own Talmud Bavli and on to London in the middle of the nineteenth century?  In his excellent book The Ghost Map(subtitled The story of London's most terrifying epidemic and how it changed science, cities, and the modern world) Steven Johnson has an explanation that is as compelling as any I have read. 

The perseverance of miasma theory into the nineteenth century was as much a matter of instinct as it was intellectual tradition. Again and again in the literature of miasma, the argument is inextricably linked to the author’s  visceral disgust at the smells of the city. The sense of smell is often described as the most primitive the senses, provoking powerful feelings of lust or repulsion…Modern brain-imaging technology has revealed the intimate physiological connection between the olfactory system and the brain's emotional centers. In fact, the seat of many of those emotional centers -the limbic system- was once called the rhinencephalon, literally "nose-brain" or "smell-brain." A 2003 study found that strong smells triggered activity in both the amygdala and the ventral insula…Both regions can be thought of as alarm centers of the brain; in humans, they possess the capacity to override the neocortical systems where language-based reasoning occurs…

The human brain appears to have evolved an alert system whereby a certain class of extreme smells triggers an involuntary disgust response that effectively short-circuits one’s ability to think clearly, and produces a powerful desire to avoid objects associated with that smell. It is easy to imagine the evolutionary pressures that would bring this trait into being. Once again microbes are at the center of the story. Eating meat or vegetation that has already begun the decomposition process poses a significant health risk, as does eating foods that have been contaminated with fecal matter-precisely because of the microbial life-forms that are doing the decomposing...

The trouble is that survival strategies optimized for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle play out differently in a modern city of two million people. Civilization had produced many transformations in the experience of human life: farms, wheels, books, railroads. But civilized life had another distinguishing feature: it was a lot smellier. Densely packed populations of people without modern waste-management systems produced powerfully repellent odors...

The miasmatists had plenty of science and statistics and anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that the smells of London weren't killing people.But their gut instincts - or, more like it, their amygdalas- kept telling them otherwise. All of John Snow's detailed, rigorous analysis of the water companies and the transmission routes...couldn't compete with a single whiff of the air...The miasmatist wsere unable to override the alarm system that had evolved so many aeons before.They mistook the smoke for the fire.

Abaye and Rava on Miasmas

We opened this post pointing out that it was Abaye who explained why the watchman of an animal that escaped to a marsh and died there was responsible for damages:  the miasmas of the marshes killed it and the watchman should have been, well, more watchful. However Rava, who often sparred with Abaye over points of law, disagreed, and exempted the watchman from liability. When your time is up, it's up, and the animal would have died anyway, or as Rava put it: "With respect to the Angel of Death, what does it matter to me if the animal is here or there." Jewish law, the halakha, ruled like Rava, but it is worth noting that Rava too believed in the marsh miasmas, at least according to the medieval talmudist Avraham ben David (Ra'avad, d. 1198), as quoted in the sixteenth century work Shitta Mekubetzet:

שיטה מקובצת בבא מציעא דף לו, ב 

ראב"ד

סבירא ליה לרבא שאין האויר מזיק אלא לענין חליי הגוף אבל לענין מיתה לא מעלה ולא מוריד

Rava believed that the atmosphere causes only morbidity but not mortality...

Today we know that the air we breathe does indeed have a great impact on your health. One study from MIT estimated that there are 200,000 premature deaths in the US each year from combustion emissions. But do rotten smells, marshes and ground floor apartments cause disease? Nope. But it's taken over two thousand years to realize that.  

Print Friendly and PDF

Ketuvot 8b ~ When Some Plagues End, and Others Begin

This post is for the page of Talmud to be studied tomorrow, Thursday July 14th.

 כתובות דף ח עמוד ב 

 רבון העולמים, פדה והצל, מלט, הושע עמך ישראל מן הדבר ומן החרב ומן הביזה, ומן השדפון ומן הירקון, ומכל מיני פורעניות המתרגשות ובאות לעולם, טרם נקרא ואתה תענה, ברוך אתה עוצר המגפה

Master of the worlds, redeem and save, deliver and help your nation Israel from pestilence, and from the sword, and from plundering, from the plagues of wind blast and mildew [that destroy the crops], and from all types of misfortunes that may break out and come into the world. Before we call, you answer. Blessed are You, who ends the plague.

In tomorrow’s page of Daf Yomi, the secretary of Resh Lakish, a man by called Yehuda bar Nachmani, offers four blessings that may be said as part of the meal eaten at a house of mourning. Although the fourth blessing, "Who ends the plague" (עוצר המגפה) is not said usually today, we do have a tradition of giving thanks when a plague comes to an end.

The Prayer of Thanks After the Cholera Epidemic in London, 1850 

In the nineteenth century, London was ravaged by a series of brief but intense cholera epidemics that killed hundreds at a time in a matter of days. The infectious agent, we know today, was Vibrio Cholerae. If it finds its way into your intestine, its toxin will cause the cells of your gut to excrete water at a remarkable rate. The result is overwhelming dehydration, and death may follow in a matter of hours. (Water-borne cholera epidemics are still common. After the 2012 Haitian earthquake over 4,000 people died from it. That's 4,000 people who survived the earthquake itself, only to die from drinking water that was infected with cholera.)

Like all epidemics, cholera flares up and then disappears, even when no effective medical interventions are available.  It was when one of these devastating outbreaks of cholera had ended, that the Jews of London came together to do what Resh Lakish described. On Nov 1, 1850, they offered a prayer of thanks at the cessation of the plague of cholera.

 

 ידך היתה בבני ארצנו בחלי–רע לאין מרפא רבים חללים הפיל עד שאיש נבוב חת לקול אמות דפק על פתחו וחיל אחז אמין לב בגבורים. אך חנון ירחום אתה, לא לעולם תזנח ולא לנצח תטור אם הבאבת תחבוש, ואם תמחץ ידיך תרפינה. שלחת רוחך ותחלימנו צוית והמגפה נעצרה  

 

 

Your hand lay heavily on the inhabitants of this land. Cholera struck many down. The strongest heart trembled at the voice of death sounding at the threshold, and the boldest among the mighty were seized with terror and anguish. But gracious and and merciful are You; Your wrath does not last long, nor does Your anger last for ever. You strike some and heal. You wound but it is Your hand which prepares the calm. In the depths of our terror and affliction You sent Your spirit and there was a pause. You commanded, and the Plague ceased...
— Service of Thanksgiving on the Cessation of the Cholera, London, Nov 1850.

Why did the cholera epidemic end so quickly? There is, of course a scientific explanation:

[I]t's possible that the V. Cholerae's dramatic reproductive success...had been the agent of its own demise...it quickly burned through its primary fuel supply. There weren't enough small intestines to colonize....It's also possible that the Vibrio cholerae had not been able to survive more than a few days in the well water... With no sunlight penetrating the well, the water would have been free of plankton, and so the bacteria that didn't escape might have slowly starved to death in the the dark, twenty feet below street level...But the most likely scenario is that the bacterium was itself in a life-or-death struggle with another organism: a viral phage that exploits V. cholerae for its own reproductive ends the way V. cholerae exploits the human small intestine. One phage injected into a bacterial cell yields about a hundred new viral particles, and kills the bacterium in the process. After several days of that replication, the population of V. cholerae might have been replaced by phages that were harmless to humans. (Steven Johnson, The Ghost Map, 152).

But this explanation lessens not one bit the religious impulse to give thanks.  

THE END OF ONE PLAGUE, THE BEGINNING OF ANOTHER

In 2015 in West Africa, a terrible Ebola epidemic slowly came to an end. Although there was neither an effective vaccine to prevent Ebola, nor an effective anti-viral to treat it, public health interventions there paid off, and life is slowly returned to normal.

Back in the US, at around the same time. another plague began. That one, while far less lethal that Ebola, was all the more tragic; all the more tragic because it is entirely preventable.  There were more than 100 cases of measles in January 2015 alone (compared to about 600 for all of 2014), most of them linked to exposure in December at Disneyland in California.  I had the measles as a kid. If you were born before the 1970s, it's likely you've had it too. My aunt caught it when she was carrying my cousin, who was born deaf, the result of congenital measles infection.  Back then, there was no vaccine.  There is now.  And don't start with the autism-vaccination thing.  There is no link between autism and vaccination. None.  Yet in significant numbers, Jewish parents - and some of them educated, are refusing to vaccinate their children.  Vaccine denial is not limited to some haredi communities, (though in many cases their vaccination rates are remarkably  low).  It was seen in affluent neighborhoods with highly educated parents, where the vaccine denial movement has become a cult in which any and all scientific evidence is ignored.

In this daf, the secretary of Resh Lakish offered a Prayer of Thanks when a plague ended. But precisely when did he say these words?  At a funeral. The funeral of a young child (ינוקא). The secretary of Resh Lakish offered these words of thanks at a child's funeral, and directed them towards "all Israel" (כנגד כל ישראל), that is, towards the survivors.  How ironic it is, that it is the children who were at most at risk in this measles epidemic. And how tragic that they faced the complications of this illness (including pneumonia, diarrhea, encephalitis, subacute sclerosing pan-encephalitis, and death,) because of the reckless behavior of their parents.

Risk factors of underutilization of childhood immunizations in ultra-orthodox populations. From Muhsen K. el at. Risk factors of underutilization of childhood immunizations in ultraorthodox Jewish communities in Israel despite high access to health care services. Vaccine 2012. 30; 2109–2115

Characteristics of parents who reported vaccine doubts. From Gust D. et al. Parents With Doubts About Vaccines: Which Vaccines and Reasons Why. Gust D. et al. Pediatrics 2008;122: 718–725

Want to read more on vaccine denial and Jewish leadership? Click here for our 2019 article in The Lehrhaus.

Print Friendly and PDF

Berachot 50a ~ "The Three Who Ate" - on Yom Kippur

On this page of Talmud read a Mishnah that begins with the words “Three people who ate.”

שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְּאַחַת — אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לֵיחָלֵק

Three people who ate together must recite Grace after Meals together…

There is another Mishnah in Avot that echoes this phrase:

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ עַל שֻׁלְחָן אֶחָד וְלֹא אָמְרוּ עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ אָכְלוּ מִזִּבְחֵי מֵתִים

Rabbi Shimon said: if three people ate at one table and have not spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead

The Three Who Ate - By David Frischmann

The great Hebrew and Yiddish writer David Frischmann (1859-1922) wrote a famous short story with the same title: שלשה שאכלו - Three People Who Ate. It describes an event that took place in Vilna during one of the terrible cholera epidemics that broke out in the city. Here is an excerpt.

מעשה בשלשה שאכלו…...לא באחד הימים הפשוטים מימי שבתות ה ’אכלו את אשר אכלו, כי-אם ביום הכפורים, ביום הכפורים שחל להיות בשבת; לא במקום סתר באין רואה ובאין יודע, כי-אם לעיני כל ישראל, אשר בבית-הכנסת הגדול; ולא אנשים ריקים ופוחזים, לא קלי-דעת היו שלשת האנשים ההם, כי-אם מנשיאי העדה ואציליה הכי-נכבדים, הלא הם רב העיר ושני הדינים אשר עמו. –ובכל זה עיני כל ישראל היו תלויות אליהם ביראה ובכבוד, ויהיו קדושים בעיני כל העם ועל פני כל העדה נכבדו ויקָּדשו

Three people who ate….they did not eat on any regular day of the week, but on Yom Kippur. And not just on any Yom Kippur, but on Yom Kippur that fell on Shabbat. They didn’t eat in secret, but in front of everyone gathered in the Great Synagogue. They weren’t simple people or boors. These three were not frivolous. Rather they were the princes of the community and their most important leaders, none other than the rabbi of the city and the two Dayanim [rabbinic judges] who stood with him…

It was the afternoon of Yom Kippur.  The rabbi stood bent over on the Bima…Even now my eyes can picture that incredible sight, as I stood there in the congregation of the synagogue.   The rabbi stood on the Bima, his dark eyes shining out from his pale face and white beard. The Mussaf service was almost over and the congregation stood silently waiting to hear something from this man of God...

Suddenly my ears heard a sound but I could not understand exactly what it was. I heard the sounds but my heart could not comprehend. “With the permission of God and with the permission of the community, we hereby permit people to eat and to drink today.”

The beadle came forward and the Rabbi whispered a few things into his ear. Then he spoke with the two Dayanim who were next to him. They nodded as if to approve of what he had said. As this was happening the beadle brought a cup of wine and some cake from the rabbi’s home.  

If I am lucky to live for many more years I will never forget that incredible day and that awesome sight. If I close my eyes for a moment I can still see them: the three who ate! The three shepherds of Israel standing on the Bima in the synagogue, eating in front of everyone, on Yom Kippur. 

Watercolor of the Great Vilna Synagogue by Juozas Kamarauskas (1899

Watercolor of the Great Vilna Synagogue by Juozas Kamarauskas (1899

Frischmann does not give a date for the episode, nor the name of the rabbi with dark eyes and a pale face who made Kiddush and ate on that Yom Kippur. Those details are provided by the Russian historian Hillel Noah Steinshneider in his book Ir Vilna (The City of Vilna). He wrote that it happened in 1848 which was the Jewish year 5609. (In fact that year Yom Kippur fell on Saturday October 7th, so this correlates historically.)  Steinshneider also identified the Rabbi of Frischmann’s story as none other than the great Yisrael ben Ze'ev Wolf Lipkin, better known as Rabbi Yisroel Salanter.

Other Accounts of the Yom Kippur When the Rabbi Ate

Here is an account of the episode from the Yiddish book Gdoylim Fun Unzer Tsayt by Jacob Mark, published in New York in 1927. It also identifies the rabbi as Rabbi Yisroel Salatner.

Gdoylim Fun Unzer Tsayt. Yankev Mark. New York 1927.

Gdoylim Fun Unzer Tsayt. Yankev Mark. New York 1927.

I would like to tell you about an event that is told about R Yisroel Salanter, that during a cholera epidemic he made kiddish on Yom Kippur in the Great Synagogue of Vilna. He did this to show the community that they should not fast, and he did this over the protests of the Dayanim [rabbinic judges] of Vilna. This famous story has entered Jewish literature, and is presented as a fact. But it is really only a legend. I once had a conversation with Rabbi Shimon Shtarshun of Vilna, who was an eyewitness in the Vilna Shul. He told me the story was as follows. One the eve of Yom Kippur, with the permission of the leading rabbis, Rabbi Salanter posted announcements in all the shuls that because of the cholera epidemic they would not say the additional parts of the prayers [piyutim], and that instead people should spend time outdoor breathing fresh air. In the courtyard of all the shuls they set up tables with pieces of cake that contained less than the prohibited amount of food that may be eaten. The food was there for those who needed to eat. Reb Yisroel [Salanter] got up on at Shacharit [the morning service] on Yom Kippur and announced that if a person felt weak there was no need to consult with a doctor, but instead they may go into the courtyard and eat. But it is preferable only to eat a small amount at a time and to pause between mouthfuls, so as not to violate the Biblical prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. Reb Yisroel made the announcement and came down from the Bimah, but immediately Rabbi Bezael [HaCohen, a leading rabbi of the city] protested about what had been said that there was no need to consult a doctor. In reality Reb Yisroel tasted nothing.

So according to the Yiddish account of the eyewitness Rabbi Shimon Shtarshun, Rabbi Salanter never made Kiddush, but rather announced that it was permissible to eat. Remember this fact. Another account of this episode comes from the great scholar of Jewish history Louis Ginzberg, in his book Students, Scholars and Saints (p.184-185).

In the year of the frightful cholera epidemic Salanter, after having taken counsel with a number of physicians, became convinced that in the interest of the health of the community it would be necessary to dispense with fasting on the Day of Atonement. Many a Rabbi in this large community was inclined to agree with his view, but none of them could gather courage enough to announce the dispensation publicly….When he saw, however, that none of them would act in this case, he thought self-assertion to the his highest duty. He affixed announcements in all Synagogues, advising the people not to fast on the day of atonement. Knowing, however, how reluctant they would be to follow his written advice he, on the morning of the Day of Atonement at one of the most solemn moments of the service, ascended the reader’s desk. After addressing a few sentences to etc Congregation in which he commanded them to follow his example, he produced some cake and wine, pronounced the blessing over them, ate and drank. One can hardly imagine what moral courage and religious enthusiasm this action of his required from a man like Salanter to whom obedience to the Torah was the highest duty. Many years later he used to dwell on this episode and thank with great joy his Creator for having found him worth to the the instrument of saving so many lives.

So what really happened?

So who is to be believed? Rabbi Shtarshun’s version, in which Rabbi Salanter never made Kiddush, or the story as told by Frischmann, and echoed by Ginzberg, in which the rabbi made Kiddush? Remember that Frischmann was born in 1859 and so would not have witnessed the event he describes in the first person.

Another witness was Rabbi Yitzhak Lipkin, the son of Rabbi Yisrael Salanter. He was born in 1840 and so would have been eight years old on the Yom Kippur in question. R. Lipkin wrote that “during the cholera epidemic when Yom Kippur came, he permitted a person to eat portions that were smaller than the prohibited amount.” R. Lipkin made no mention of his father making Kiddush in public.

Historians debate whether Rabbi Yisrael Salanter stood up on that Shabbat Yom Kippur and made Kiddush, or whether he “only” allowed the people to eat without consulting a doctor. Either way, Frischmann’s account, and those of others who either saw the event or recalled hearing about it from others, remind us that life in Eastern Europe was often far from happy. When there weren’t pogroms, there was always cholera. The story, even if it was fiction, also emphasizes that sometimes when three Jews sit down to eat, they do so not only to praise God or to share words of Torah. Sometimes they sit to remind everyone of the supreme value of human life.

Print Friendly and PDF

Bava Metzia 36b ~ Marshes, Miasmas and Bad Air

בבא מציעא לו, ב

אתמר פשע בה ויצאת לאגם ומתה כדרכה אביי משמיה דרבה אמר חייב... הכא חייב מ"ט דאמרינן הבלא דאגמא קטלה

It was stated: If a custodian was negligent in watching an animal, and it escaped to a marsh and died there of natural causes...Abaye said in the name of Rabbah: he is liable to pay for the animal...because we say that the foul air of the marsh killed it...

Two buffaloes gather by the waters of the Chebayesh marsh in Nassiriya, southeast of Baghdad, February, 2015. Image from here.

Two buffaloes gather by the waters of the Chebayesh marsh in Nassiriya, southeast of Baghdad, February, 2015. Image from here.

As Rashi explains, the custodian is liable because his negligence was the cause of the animal's death. 

הכא איכא למימר בפשיעה מתה. שאם היתה בבית לא מתה, ויציאתה לאגם היא פשיעת מיתתה, דשמא הבל המצוי באגם קטלה

Here you can say that it died due to negligence. For if the animal was kept at home it would not have died, but its going out to the marsh is the negligent act that resulted in its death,  for perhaps the foul air of the marsh killed it.

Today's page of  Talmud suggests that just walking in a marsh can kill you because of the poisonous air that exists there.  We’ve encountered the notion of poisonous air before in Bava Kamma (55a) where Rav Nachman suggested that a fall into a pit of less than ten tefachim was not lethal because foul air was only found at a depth of ten tefachim. According to Rav Nachman, the one who digs a pit is only liable for damages caused by foul air, rather than the trauma of the fall itself. Rav Nachman goes on to clarify that foul air may not always kill, but instead may just cause physical injury, or in his words "אין הבל למיתה ויש הבל לנזקין."

As we shall see, this notion "of bad air" was an ancient belief that lasted all the way through modern times, and the Talmud reflected a widely held theory of noxious air that came to be called the Theory of Miasmas. A miasma was a poisonous vapor or mist that caused illness or disease. Infection was thought to affect people who inhaled these bad vapors. In this way the miasma theory was used to explain the spread of contagious diseases, or the death of wandering animals.

Origins of the Miasma theory of Disease

Dana Tulodziecki, from the Department of Philosophy at Purdue University, has a nice working definition of the miasmatic theory. Here it is. 

...diseases were brought about and passed on through decomposing organic material that would disperse into the air as noxious and disease-causing odours, the miasmas. This noxious air in turn would affect potential victims, causing a variety of diseases of differing strengths. The type of disease, as well as its severity were thought to depend on the complex interplay between a number of factors, some related to the miasmas themselves (such as climate and weather, which were thought to affect miasmatic natures), some related to the potential sufferers of diseases (such as factors relating to the sturdiness of their constitutions or their values, which were thought to affect their susceptibility to various diseases), and some related to the local circumstances in which miasmas existed (such as overcrowding or bad ventilation, which were thought to compound whatever problems were already present).

The word miasma comes from the Greek μίασμα meaning pollution.  The theory dates back to Hippocrates (~460-377 BCE) who wrote about it in his classic work, On Air, Water and Places:

Whoever wishes to investigate medicine properly, should proceed thus: in the first place to consider the seasons of the year, and what effects each of them produces for they are not at all alike, but differ much from themselves in regard to their changes. Then the winds, the hot and the cold, especially such as are common to all countries, and then such as are peculiar to each locality.

And here's a word describing a disease you've heard of that means bad air. Malaria, from the Italian mal aria.

Marshes as Dangerous Places in ROman Times

In the first century BCE, the Roman writer Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (born ~80–70 BCE) had this to say about the dangers of the swamps and marshes:

The neighborhood of a marshy place must be avoided; for in such a site the morning air, uniting with the fogs that rise in the neighborhood, will reach the city with the rising sun; and these fogs and mists, charged with the exhalation of the fenny animals, will diffuse an unwholesome effluvia over the bodies of the inhabitants, and render the place pestilent.

Vitruvius (for some reason he is known by his middle name) lived about two hundred years before Rabbah (d.~330CE) and Rabbah's nephew Abaye (d.~339 CE), and here he implicated marshes with the causes of disease - because of the dangerous vapors they contain. Fast forward about 1,500 years and the great Florence Nightingale made the air a central part of her call for better conditions for the working class.

The very first cannon of nursing, the first and the last thing upon which a nurses's attention must be fixed, the first essential to the patient, without which all the rest you can do for him is as nothing, with which I had almost said you may leave all the rest alone, is this: TO KEEP THE AIR HE BREATHES AS PURE AS THE EXTERNAL AIR, WITHOUT CHILLING HIM...Again, a thing I have often seen both in private houses and institutions. A room remains uninhabited...the air is stagnant, musty, and corrupt as it can by possibility be made. It is quite ripe to breed small-pox, scarlet fever, diphtheria, or anything else you please.

From inhaling the odour of beef the butcher’s wife
obtains her obesity
— Professor H Booth The Builder, July 1844

Do Miasmas cause cholera?

The miasmatic theory became a big deal in the discussion of the causes of the terrible cholera epidemics that ravaged London in the 1850s and beyond. William Farr was a statistician of repute; he held the important sounding position of Statistical Superintendent of the General Register Office. Farr believed that the theory completely explained both the transmission of cholera and where it struck, and his model is a reminder of how scientists can get it terribly wrong. Farr the statistician thought, along with others, that rotting organic matter would give rise to miasmas. In addition, he thought that the conditions “which are so constantly found in alluvial [muddy] soils, lying on a level with or below the tidal waters” were particularly good sources for producing miasmas.  He obtained the death rates from cholera, which he believed demonstrated that “cholera was three times more fatal on the coast than in the interior of the country”.  As Tulodziecki notes, Farr found just what the miasma theory predicted: that wherever high concentrations of miasma were predicted, the mortality rate from cholera was high, and wherever the miasma theory predicted that the concentrations of miasma were lower, so was the mortality rate.  But Farr took this to the next level. Being a good scientist he developed a law that made predictions about the death rates from cholera, that related these to the elevation of the soil. Here is what he found:

[T]he mortality from cholera in London bore a certain constant relation to the elevation of the soil, as is evident when the districts are arranged by groups in the order of their altitude. We place the districts together which are not on an average 20 feet above the Thames, and find that on this bottom of the London basin the mortality was the at the average rate of 102 in 10,000: in the second group, at 20 and under 40 feet of elevation, or on the second terrace, the mortality from cholera was the rate of 65 in 10,000; in the third group, or on the third terrace 40-60 feet high, the mortality from cholera was at the rate of 34 in 10,000; in the fourth group, 60-80 feet high, the mortality from cholera was at the rate of 27 in 10,000; in the fifth group, 80-100 feet high, the mortality was at the rate of 22 in 10,000; in a district 100 feet high, the mortality was 17 in 10,000; in Hampstead, about 350 high, the mortality was 8, or deducting a stranger infected at Wandsworth, but who died there, 7 in 10,000... [b]y ascending from the bottom to the third terrace, the mortality is reduced from 102 to 34; by ascending to the sixth terrace it is reduced to 17 … It will be observed, that the number representing the mortality on the third terrace is one-third of the number 102, representing the mortality on the first, and that the mortality on the sixth terrace is one-sixth part of the mortality on the first….

Here are Farr’s original tables:

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49. London, W. Clowes 1852. lxii

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49. London, W. Clowes 1852. lxii

From which he developed Farr’s Law of Elevations and produced this lovely diagram to show the relationship between the death rates from cholera and the elevation.

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49.  London, W. Clowes 1852. lxv.

Farr, W. Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49.  London, W. Clowes 1852. lxv.

As you might have expected, those who represented religion chimed about the causes of the terrible cholera epidemic. One of those was Henry Whitehead, who served as an assistant priest at the Church of St Luke's in Soho, located in the heart of the 1854 London cholera outbreak. It was all God's will, only this time God was acting through the medium of miasmas:

Henry Whitehead. The Cholera in Berwick Street. London, Hope & Co. 1854. p.13

Henry Whitehead. The Cholera in Berwick Street. London, Hope & Co. 1854. p.13

The Real Cause of Cholera

Scanning electron microscope image of V. Cholerae

Scanning electron microscope image of V. Cholerae

As we have noted before, the true cause of cholera is an infectious agent, called Vibrio Cholerae. If it finds its way into your intestine, its toxin will cause the cells of your gut to excrete water at a remarkable rate. The result is overwhelming dehydration, and death may follow in a matter of hours. (By the way, water-borne cholera epidemics are still common. After the 2012 Haitian earthquake over 9,000 people died from cholera. That's 9,000 people who survived the earthquake itself, only to die from drinking water that was infected with cholera. And just last week the UN announced it would pay compensation to the victims and their families, since it was United Nations peacekeepers who introduced the cholera epidemic to Haiti in 2010. Now back to the London epidemic of 1854.)  Farr had great data and a compelling theory, on par with the talmudic belief that at the bottom of a shallow pit, bad air would kill you. But Farr’s Law of Elevations is wrong. The transmission of cholera has nothing to do with the elevation of those it infects.  It is a water-borne disease, and if the water is cleaned of cholera, the disease vanishes. End of story.  

It's Hard to Be Right....

It was John Snow (not this Jon Snow) who investigated the cholera epidemic of 1854 and discovered its source was a contaminated water pump.  Snow, whose day job was anesthesiologist to Queen Victoria, had to convince a skeptical group of physicians, including those who believed in the miasmatic theory and the compelling data of miasmatist-in-chief William Farr. Although we know Snow was absolutely correct, here is the kind of opposition he encountered, from an editorial on the pages of Britain's leading medical journal The Lancet:

Why is it, then, that Dr. Snow is so singular in his opinion? Has he any facts to show in proof? No!... But Dr. Snow claims to have discovered that the law of propagation of cholera is the drinking of sewage-water. His theory, of course, displaces all other theories. Other theories attribute great efficacy in the spread of cholera to bad drainage and atmospheric impurities. Therefore,says Dr. Snow, gases from animal and vegetable decomposition are innocuous ! If this logic does not satisfy reason, it satisfies a theory; and we all know that theory is often more despotic than reason. The fact is, that the well whence Dr. Snow draws all sanitary truth is the main sewer. His specus, or den, is a drain. In riding his hobby very hard, he has fallen down through a gully-hole and has never since been able to get out again.

Wow. And you thought politics was a tough profession.  Anyway time went on and more evidence was found to support Snow and the water-borne model of cholera against Farr and the air-borne explanation.  In 1866 the snarky Lancet had a volte-face (that's a U-turn in Britain, or a flip-flop here in the US) and admitted Snow had been right all along, though it came a little late for poor Dr Snow. He had died eight years earlier.

We understand that the sisters of the late Dr. Snow are now in a position of considerable pecuniary difficulty; they are, in fact, almost if not entirely without means. The researches of Dr. Snow are among the most fruitful in modern medicine. He traced the history of cholera. We owe to him chiefly the severe induction by which the influence of the poisoning of water-supplies was proved. No greater service could have been rendered to humanity than this; it has enabled us to meet and combat the disease, where alone it is to be vanquished, in its sources or channels of propagation...Dr. Snow was a great public benefactor, and the benefits which he conferred must be fresh in the minds of all.

Why We Believed in the Miasma Theory of Disease

What explains the persistence of the theory of miasmas from at least 400 BCE, through the times of our own Talmud Bavli and on to London in the middle of the nineteenth century?  In his excellent book The Ghost Map(subtitled The story of London's most terrifying epidemic and how it changed science, cities, and the modern world) Steven Johnson has an explanation that is as compelling as any I have read. 

The perseverance of miasma theory into the nineteenth century was as much a matter of instinct as it was intellectual tradition. Again and again in the literature of miasma, the argument is inextricably linked to the author’s  visceral disgust at the smells of the city. The sense of smell is often described as the most primitive the senses, provoking powerful feelings of lust or repulsion…Modern brain-imaging technology has revealed the intimate physiological connection between the olfactory system and the brain's emotional centers. In fact, the seat of many of those emotional centers -the limbic system- was once called the rhinencephalon, literally "nose-brain" or "smell-brain." A 2003 study found that strong smells triggered activity in both the amygdala and the ventral insula…Both regions can be thought of as alarm centers of the brain; in humans, they possess the capacity to override the neocortical systems where language-based reasoning occurs…

The human brain appears to have evolved an alert system whereby a certain class of extreme smells triggers an involuntary disgust response that effectively short-circuits one’s ability to think clearly, and produces a powerful desire to avoid objects associated with that smell. It is easy to imagine the evolutionary pressures that would bring this trait into being. Once again microbes are at the center of the story. Eating meat or vegetation that has already begun the decomposition process poses a significant health risk, as does eating foods that have been contaminated with fecal matter-precisely because of the microbial life-forms that are doing the decomposing...

The trouble is that survival strategies optimized for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle play out differently in a modern city of two million people. Civilization had produced many transformations in the experience of human life: farms, wheels, books, railroads. But civilized life had another distinguishing feature: it was a lot smellier. Densely packed populations of people without modern waste-management systems produced powerfully repellent odors...

The miasmatists had plenty of science and statistics and anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that the smells of London weren't killing people.But their gut instincts - or, more like it, their amygdalas- kept telling them otherwise. All of John Snow's detailed, rigorous analysis of the water companies and the transmission routes...couldn't compete with a single whiff of the air...The miasmatist wsere unable to override the alarm system that had evolved so many aeons before.They mistook the smoke for the fire.

Abaye and Rava on Miasmas

We opened this post pointing out that it was Abaye who explained why the watchman of an animal that escaped to a marsh and died there was responsible for damages:  the miasmas of the marshes killed it and the watchman should have been, well, more watchful. However Rava, who often sparred with Abaye over points of law, disagreed, and exempted the watchman from liability. When your time is up, it's up, and the animal would have died anyway, or as Rava put it: "With respect to the Angel of Death, what does it matter to me if the animal is here or there." Jewish law, the halakha, ruled like Rava, but it is worth noting that Rava too believed in the marsh miasmas, at least according to the medieval talmudist Avraham ben David (Ra'avad, d. 1198), as quoted in the sixteenth century work Shitta Mekubetzet:

שיטה מקובצת בבא מציעא דף לו, ב 

ראב"ד

סבירא ליה לרבא שאין האויר מזיק אלא לענין חליי הגוף אבל לענין מיתה לא מעלה ולא מוריד

Rava believed that the atmosphere causes only morbidity but not mortality...

Today we know that the air we breathe does indeed have a great impact on your health. One study from MIT estimated that there are 200,000 premature deaths in the US each year from combustion emissions. But do rotten smells, marshes and ground floor apartments cause disease? Nope. But it's taken over two thousand years to realize that.  

Print Friendly and PDF