The world of Rabbinic cures and punishments, according to Artscroll

Talmudic medicine does not guide Orthodox Jewish doctors today. Doctors glean neither remedies nor bioethics from the Talmudic cures in recent daf yomi (ch 14 Shabbat). So, how does Artscroll annotator R. Yosef Davis explain Talmudic folk medicine? In a note on “The efficacy of Talmudic remedies” (109b2:10), R. Davis begins: “Over the next few pages (109a-111a), a number of remedies for various physical disorders are recorded. Many of these cures, however, are not consistent with the known laws of nature.”  Here’s how R. Davis smooths over the Talmud’s conflict with science:

Beyond human reason. “… during the Creation, God invested various herbs, minerals and procedures with the power to effect remedies, some in ways that are comprehended by human reason and some in ways that are beyond our understanding” (Rashba I:413)

Known only to the wisest. Some remedies “are comprehensible only to those who are able to plumb the depths of the Sages’ words [Maharasha]. In particular , many of the various herbs recommended by the Gemara cannot be accurately identified.”

Do not try this at home. “Consequently, one should not attempt these remedies nowadays, since it is unlikely that anyone today will fathom the Talmud’s intentions, and one who finds his application of a remedy ineffective may come to belittle the words of the Sages” (Maharil, R. Akiba Eiger)

Ban on trying. “… one who does rely on Talmudic remedies in our era is punishable by excommunication” (Yam Shel Shlomo) More punishment below.

Changes in nature voids remedies. R. Davis says, “In addition, changes have occurred in the state of nature (nishtanu teva'im) since Talmudic times, and therapies which were efficacious in those times are not necessarily so nowadays.” [1]

Artscroll’s R. Davis is caught in the bind of the less-modern Orthodox. On the one hand, he admits that scientific knowledge rejects Talmudic medicine. He knows that even pious readers will find the remedies implausible. On the other hand, like much rabbinic discourse, he presupposes that one ought not deny outright the literal truth of a Talmudic statement. This may be due to etiquette, respect for elders, faith, epistemological humility, or the mythos of a legal hermeneutics. By stipulating the literal truth of Rabbinic utterances, the collision with science can lead Orthodoxy into controversial doctrines like da’as Torah, mystical pre-modern wisdom, and changes in nature (Hebrew data). Such Orthodox doctrines have been a Jewish blogging topic (see Hirhurim, Jewish Worker), esp. since the ban on R. Slifkin’s books about science and Torah.

Rabbinic clout. Why would a government official die of a snakebite if the (magical) remedy was apparently available? Abaye says that “perhaps he was bit by a Rabbinic (d’rabbanan) snake, for which there is no cure.” (bShab 110a) Artscroll’s R. Yosef Davis uses Abaye’s obscure explanation as a teaching moment. “Abaye surmised that the officer had violated some Rabbinic law…. Although some Biblical transgressions carry the death penalty and some do not, all Rabbinic offenses are punishable by death [at the hand of God] (Eruvin 21b and Rashi).  Etc.” [2] In Jewish lore, God’s death penalty is often executed by animals, here via snake bite.
 
In sum, Talmudic remedies do not conform with modern science. To have faith in the infallibility of Talmudic texts, you can rely on several controversial doctrines. However, Jewish law requires that we use modern doctors. We are forbidden to use Talmudic folk cures. If the cures don’t kill you, a snake bite might do the trick.

Shavua tov,

Kaspit  כספית

[1] Tosafot (Moed Qatan 11a), Hagahot R. Emden (Shab 129b), Magen Avraham (OH 173) and Kesef Mishneh (Hil. Deot 4:18) 

[2] All rules in Halakhah may be fundamentally divided into the categories of Biblical i.e. revealed rules (d’oraita) and supporting Rabbinic rules (d’rabbanan). Transgressions of revealed law are punished by fines, flogging, offerings, exile, etc. and the death penalty. Rabbinic rule transgressions carry various earthly penalties, too, but here we learn that all d’rabbanan violations incur divinely-administered capital punishment.

Comments

[ADDeRabbi]

does anyone suggest that perhaps Abaye was joking? it sure sounds like a joke.

[kaspit]

Ah, but humor is so elusive, so personal. And it requires an interpretive community, a reader who knows what is expected and, hence, the unexpected. Only a few hours ago I was talking to a friend (YU s'micha) about the irony defect in the Orthodox world. Folks today tend to take everything in gemara at face value, quite earnest and straightfaced, and Artscroll is the humorless exemplar par excellence. If anyone knows of a Talmud commentary that points out and appreciates the humor, please let me know!

(Personally, I feel that Abaye is giving the punchline to an anecdote, but not exactly a joke. A gotcha, thanks to divine justice, without the laugh track.)

[Am Haaretz]

Personally, I have to go with the theory that the rabbis are having fun. The same section contains the odd story of Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who in fact is reported to have swallowed a snake. This is a literal enactment of what is referred to as "a snake of the Rabbis." The snake of the Rabbis is the Rabbi who can bite a snake. (Ha, ha.) And Rabbis can cure snake bite, but not snake-of-the-Rabbi bites.

For a good Talmud commentary that does appreciate the humor and the poetry, see A.J. Heschel's "Heavenly Torah."