Rabbotai,

[In Insights to Daf 60a] you referred to "Adnei ha'Sadeh," as a holech al shtayim, one who walks on two legs. What is the identity of this creature? Baboon? Gorilla? Yeti? Big foot? Cro Magnon Man? Does any one actually know?

B'kavod,

Samuel Kosofsky

With all due respect, the Pirush of the Tiferes Yisroel is the exception, as he himself brings that his Rebbes explained as many other Meforshim and Rishonim did, (including the Chofetz Chayim on the Toras Kohanim (Shemini 6), who lived after the Tiferes YIsroel), that this is an animal that is attached to the ground via a cord to his belly. Among the questions on his Pirush are:

1) How does "Bar Nash d'TUR " (which means mountain) become "Valdmentch" (which means forest)?

2) What difference is there between Kof and Adnei Hasodeh in fact and Lehalacha (Rebbi Yosi doesn't argue about Kof) and see Rashi Bechoros 8a for the difference between Kof and Kifuf, Sefer Habris about Kof who defines Kof with almost the same definition as the Tiferes Yisroel gives for Adnei Hasodeh (see Sichas Chulin on Chulin 63).

3) Why is the Limud of Al Pnei Hasodeh limited to Adnei Hasodeh, all animals are called Chayas Hasodeh (i.e. Breishis 2:19, Dvorim 7:22), obviously this is the proof that they were "connected to the ground".

As to his questions on how it lives and what it needs it's mouth for, many answers can be given.

As to what happened to them, the same question can be asked on the Dulfinin = mermaid (Rashi Bechoros 8a), or the (according to some) Keresh/Tachash = unicorn (Chulin 59b, and see Sichas Chulin ibid), or the Aryeh Dvei Ilo'i (ibid), or the Bar Yochni bird (Bechoros 57a, Yuma 80a Sukkah 5a), or the Shofon and Arneves that are Malei Gerah (see discussion in Sichas Chulin 59a).

Even with regard to places -- where is the Sambatyon (Sanhedrin 65b) or the Horei Choshech (Tomid 32b) or the Horei Slug (Sanhedrin 94a) or the place where heaven and earth kiss (Bava Basra 74a), and onto anatomy where are the 3 Konim that Rashi mentions in Chulin 45b, or the lack of hair by Jewish women (Sanhedrin 21a brought also in Tosfos Gitin 6b, and see Margoliyos Hayam) or the 2 holes that are separated by a Klipas Hashum (ibid), and see Tiferes Yisroel on the last Mishnah of the first Perek of Oholos with regard to the amount of bones.

I will finish off with the Machlokes between the Chachomim and the Chachmei Ha'Umos about what happens to the sun at night (Pesachim 94b). Even though the Gemara says that the Chachmei Ha'umos won, the Gilyon Hashas there brings from Rabeinu Tam that they only won in Sevoroh, not in fact. Furthermore this Machlokes is Noge'a L'halachah and we Pasken L'chumroh according to both Shitos with regard to Mayim Shelonu (See O"C 455). Note that according to the MaHaRShA (Bava Basra 25b) this is actually a Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua.

In any case, we see we are not to become Nispo'el, surprised, by what our naked eye does or does not see. If it says in Torah then so be it.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Dear Rav Zirkind,

Admittedly, there are other opinions on the matter than those of the Tiferes Yisrael and the Malbim. Your first and third questions on this topic are valid, but they are not reason to entirely dispose of this explanation. Your second question, about Kof, has many possible answers (e.g. one is monkey and the other is ape).

You mention that many answers can be given as to the questions on the

phsyiology of a creature that grows from the ground via a cord. I am curious to know what answers you can suggest for the following questions: What purpose did its food-processing organs in the upper part of its body (e.g. teeth, foodpipe, etc.) serve? What did it grow from? A seed? How did it reproduce?

Many of the other animals that you mention are not understood as you

describe them. Sichas Chullin describes the tachash not as a unicorn but as a giraffe. Dolfinin are understood by many to refer to manatees, which are also human-like, rather than mermaids.

With regard to the wider issue that you raise, this is the subject of dispute among Rishonim and Acharonim. For example, with regard to the Gemara in Pesachim that you quote, while Rabbainu Tam does indeed say that the Chachmei Yisrael were ultimately correct, Rabbeinu Avraham ben Ha-Rambam (Ma'amar al Derashos Chazal) understands the Gemara straightforwardly to mean that Rebbi felt that the Chachmei Yisrael had been proven to be mistaken. Rav Yitzchok Lampronti (Pachad Yitzchak) learns similarly.

Thus, different approaches exist. Rav Shimshon Raphoel Hirsch, echoing the approach of Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, writes:

"In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal's

statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of G-d's law - the receivers, transmitters and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine - except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai.... We find that Chazal themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in the natural sciences. To determine who was right in areas where the gentile sages disagreed with their own knowledge, they did not rely on their tradition but on reason. Moreover they even respected the opinion of the gentile scholars, admitting when the opinion of the latter seemed more correct than their own."

A similar idea is found in Michtav Me-Eliyahu.

With regard to the mouse that is half flesh and half earth (Chulin 126b), Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch says that Chazal were simply giving a ruling for a case that was presented to them. They did not take it upon themselves to verify whether or not such creatures existed. If we now think that such creatures never existed, it does not affect the standing of Chazal. A similar idea may apply to the Yidoni.

Based on these sources, while not ruling out other approaches, I prefered to cite the approach in this case of the Tiferes Yisrael and Malbim. Other people may prefer different approaches, but this is certainly an approach which has backing in Rishonim and Acharonim.

Best wishes,

Nosson Slifkin

Dear Rabbi Slifkin,

My point was not to be a Machria rather to highlight that there are other opinions on this issue (and from Rishonoim), Vehabocheir Yivchar, none the less a few comments:

>>Your second question, about Kof, has many possible answers (e.g. one is monkey and the other is ape).<<

So we have 3 categories Adnei Hasodeh = ape, Kof = monkey, Kifuf = tailed monkey?, also as I pointed out from the Sichas Chulin on 63 that (according to Sefer Habris) Kof = Valdmentch.

>>You mention that many answers can be given as to the questions on the phsyiology of a creature that grows from the ground via a cord. I am curious to know what answers you can suggest for the following questions: What purpose did its food-processing organs in the upper part of its body (e.g. teeth, foodpipe, etc.) serve?<<

As many point out that this question is answered clearly in the R"Sh on the Mishne that it eats vegetation. (in addition how do we know it has food-processing organs, if we never saw it).

(as an aside there is the famous Machlokes between the Rambam and the Ramban with respect to OLom Habo if it in a body or not the Rambams argument is why would we need a body if Ain Boi Loi Achila...).

>>What did it grow from? A seed? How did it reproduce?<<

I don't know, but why can't it be reproduced from male and female Adnei Hasodeh, (the cord can be quite long).

>>Many of the other animals that you mention are not understood as you describe them. Sichas Chullin describes the tachash not as a unicorn but as a giraffe.<<

While he disagrees he quotes there those that say (that according to Rashi) it is a unicorn.

>>Dolfinin are understood by many to refer to manatees, which are also human-like, rather than mermaids.<<

1) do matanees reproduce i>from" humans?

2) Rashi says that they look half human and half fish (in my humble opinion, not what a manatee looks like), and compare with Sirni (Toras Kohanim Shmini 3, brought also in the Aderes Eliyohu from the GRA).

>>With regard to the wider issue that you raise, this is the subject of dispute among Rishonim and Acharonim. For example, with regard to the Gemara in Pesachim that you quote, while Rabbainu Tam does indeed say that the Chachmei Yisrael were ultimately correct, Rabbeinu Avraham ben Ha-Rambam (Ma'amar al Derashos Chazal) understands the Gemara straightforwardly to mean that Rebbi felt that the Chachmei Yisrael had been proven to be mistaken. Rav Yitzchok Lampronti (Pachad Yitzchak) learns similarly.<<

The Shitas HoRambam in the Moreh is well known. On the other hand, as I pointed out Lhalacha we are Machmir like both opinions. (and just to note about the issue of the Kinah that is Nishaveh Min H'ipush)

>>Thus, different approaches exist. Rav Shimshon Raphoel Hirsch, echoing the approach of Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, writes-

"In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal's statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of G-d's law the receivers, transmitters and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai....<<

On the other hand, see the Tiferes Yisroel (previously mentioned) regarding the 248 Eivorim,

>>A similar idea is found in Michtav Me-Eliyahu. With regard to the mouse that is half flesh and half earth (Chulin 126b), Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch says that Chazal were simply giving a ruling for a case that was presented to them. They did not take it upon themselves to verify whether or not such creatures existed.<<

Rashi states it as fact, as does the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayois, and see

the Tiferes Yisroel on the Mishne.

>>If we now think that such creatures never existed, it does not affect the standing of Chazal. A similar dea may apply to the Yidoni.<<

With respect to this approach see the Gemara in Sanhedrin 71a regarding Ben Soreir, Ir

Hanidachas, and Nigei Battim that they never were and never will be rather

Droish Vkabeil Sichar, (and see Margoliyas Hayam there that something has to

be learned from it) or the Gemara in B"B 15a that Iyov Lo Haya Vlo Nivra,

(on the other hand, see Rambam Hil. Mlochim 11:2 "Vloi Tziva HKB"H Ltohu). This is however

different then the approach of rejecting the explanation of Rishonim because

of questions on it, (and see Hagohas HaGRA on Y"D 179 Ois 13),

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

You wrote:

>>why can't it be reproduced from male and female Adnei Hasodeh, (the cord can be quite long).<<

And how were the young then born, such that they were attached to the ground??!!! And this gives them a very limited range, if they couldn't scatter their pollen by the wind!

I have a (non-Jewish) book which has a long essay on the myth of animals growing from the ground (it even mentions the adnei-hasadeh). One of the sources of the myth is a type of plant which, when carved properly, looks very much like a lamb, and was the basis of the myth that some lambs grow from the ground.

Also, your correspondent quotes Rambam in Perush HaMishnayos as support, but if you look at Rambam carefully, you see that he is skeptical about the viability of such a creature, and only accepts it because he has heard a lot of people claim to have seen it. Well, like Rambam, I too am skeptical about such a creature, and because I haven't heard a lot of people claim to have seen it, I don't accept it! (I do have a difficulty with why Rambam wasn't more skeptical of the supposed eyewitness testimony.)

As Rambam writes at the beginning of Sanhedrin, the goyim are supposed to look at us and say "this is a wise and understanding nation"...

kol tuv,

Natan