DAF DITTY PESACHIM 10: Springmaus/Jerboa

Half Mouse Half Earth

The spiritual world of the Jewish sages in the Mishnah and Talmud period (1th -5
th centuries), as well as the doors of the study halls, were open to news from the
external/secular world in various areas. The article below focuses on vermin or
mouse that is half flesh and half earth. This creature was mentioned in the Mishna
and Talmud literature in halakhic and ideological contexts. This miraculous hybrid
creature was also described in the writings of Greek and Roman sages, and this
phenomenon is grounded in a broader outlook mentioned by Aristotle concerning
spontaneously generating creatures.
According to the Greek and Roman sages, such as Diodorus, Ovid and Pliny, the
mice can be seen in the area of the Nile in Egypt, when the water that floods the
fields retreats to the river‟s normal channel. According to the Amoraim the mouse
is created in a valley, apparently because it is a low place where the ground is
normally moist and sometimes muddy. It seems that the origin of this belief is the
fact the mice emerge from the earth with part of their body covered in mud and those
observing from afar may receive the impression that they are half earth and half
flesh.

Abraham Ofir Shemesh1

1
http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/80/1_Shemesh.pdf

1
If we see a mouse go into a house with a piece of ‫ חמץ‬and then find crumbs, ‫בדיקה צריך‬. It must be
elsewhere - the mouse did not eat it, because mice do not typically leave crumbs. In the same
situation with a ‫ תינוק‬- a child, ‫בדיק‬

2
Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered
after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that
a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs
are from the loaf snatched by the mouse. And Rava also said: If one saw a child enter with a
loaf in his hand, and he entered after the child and found crumbs, the house does not require
additional searching, because a child typically generates crumbs, and one can therefore assume
that the crumbs are from that loaf.

Jastrow

3
And if you say that we accept the contention that if it is so, that if the marten took it from the
mouse the mouse itself would be in its mouth, in regard to a case where one saw a mouse enter
with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with both a loaf of bread and a mouse in
its mouth, what is the halakha?

Do I say that this is certainly the same mouse and loaf, or perhaps even this conclusion can be
disputed: If it is so, that this is the same mouse, the loaf would have been found in the mouse’s
mouth rather than in the marten’s mouth.

Consequently, this must be a different loaf of bread. Or perhaps the loaf of bread fell from the
mouse’s mouth due to its fear and the marten took it separately.

No satisfactory answer was found for these dilemmas and the Gemara concludes: Let them stand
unresolved.

4
5
MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of
Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the removal of leaven. And
the Rabbis say: that is not the case; however, if one did not search on the evening of the
fourteenth, he should search on the fourteenth during the day.

If he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. If he
did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival, as any leaven that
remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during
Passover, which one is obligated to remove. And the principle is: With regard to the leaven that

6
one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location where it will most likely be
left untouched, so that it will not require searching after it if it goes missing.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that one
must conduct a search three times? The Gemara answers: It is Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav
Huna who both say: The requirement to conduct three searches corresponds to the three times
that the removal of leaven is mentioned in the Torah. One verse says: “Matzot shall be eaten for
seven days, and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen
with you, in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7), and another verse states: “Seven days shall there
be no leaven found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19), while a third verse says: “Seven days shall
you eat matzot, yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” (Exodus 12:15).

TOSAFOS

‫ת וס ' ד " ה וא ם ל א ב ד ק ב ת וך ה מ ו ע ד‬

Tosfos discusses his disagreement with Rashi's explanation in 'be'Soch ha'Mo'ed'.)

.‫ בשעה ששית‬,‫פי' הקונטרס‬

Rashi explains in the sixth hour.

?‫ ולמה שינה לשונו‬,'‫ דלרבי יהודה קרי ליה 'שעת הביעור‬,‫וקשה‬

But Rebbi Yehudah calls this same period 'the time of Bi'ur', so why does the Gemara change the
expression.

‫אלא 'בתוך המועד' היינו מתחלת שבע עד סוף הפסח; ו'לאחר המועד' יבדוק כדי שלא יתערב לו חמץ של איסור‬
.‫ ויאכלנו‬,‫בשל היתר‬

7
'B'soch ha'Mo'ed' therefore means from the beginning of the seventh hour until the end of Pesach,
and the obligation to search after the Mo'ed is based on the concern that one Chametz of Isur might
get mixed up with Chametz of Heter, and one eats it.

.'‫ מפני שפירש במשנה דבודקים שלא יעבור ב'בל יראה‬,‫ורש"י לא רצה לפרש כן‬

Rashi however, did not want to explain it like this, because he explains in the Mishnah that the
reason for searching for Chametz is in order not to transgress the Isur of 'Bal Yera'eh'.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

Rabbi Yehudah maintains that we search for chametz three times and the Chachamim dispute this.
Rabbi Yehudah says that we search for chametz on the night of the fourteenth of Nissan, on the
morning of the fourteenth, and at the time when the chametz is removed, which is during the sixth
hour on the fourteenth. The Chachamim, however, maintain that if one did not search for chametz
on the night of the fourteenth, he should search for chametz on the morning of the fourteenth. If
he did not search on the morning of the fourteenth, he should search during the appointed time that
one removes chametz, which is during the sixth hour of the fourteenth. If he did not search during
that appointed time, he should search after the appointed time until dark.

Rabbi Yehudah does not allow one to search for chametz after the chametz prohibition goes into
effect because he may find chametz and eat it. Initially, the Gemora understood that the reason
why Rabbi Yehudah requires three searches of chametz is because they correspond to the three
terms that the Torah uses regarding removing chametz from one’s possession. It is said: chametz
shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you. It is also said: for a seven-day period
leaven shall not be found in your homes. It is further said: but on the first day you shall eliminate
leaven from your homes.

These three terms teach us that if one did not discover chametz during the first search, he will
discover chametz during the second or third search. This explanation is challenged, however, from
a braisa that records Rabbi Yehduah’s own statement that if one did not search for chametz in
those three times, he does not search any more, and this indicates that Rabbi Yehudah only
disagrees with the Chachamim regarding searching after the time of removing the chametz, but
Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim regarding the number of searches that are required.
The Gemora therefore explains that Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim that only one
search for chametz is required, and the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim is that
Rabbi Yehudah maintains one can only search for chametz while chametz is permitted, but once
chametz is prohibited, one cannot search for chametz, because if he were to find chametz, he may
come to eat it.

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Pesachim_10.pdf

8
The Chachamim, however, maintain that if one did not search for chametz before the chametz was
prohibited, he must still search for chametz afterwards. This ruling only applies on the fourteenth
of Nissan, when chametz is forbidden, but one is not liable the penalty of kares, excision.
Regarding Pesach itself, however, the Chachamim agree that one cannot search for chametz,
because on Pesach one is liable kares if he were to eat chametz.

After R’ Yosef rejects R’ Chisda and Rabbah bar R’ Huna’s explanation of R’ Yehudah’s ruling in
the Mishnah he explains that the dispute revolves around whether one who did not search for
chometz should search even after the prohibition began. According to R’ Yehudah, it is prohibited
because of the fear one may eat the chometz whereas according to Rabanan it is not only permitted
but obligatory. The Gemara begins to question whether R’ Yehudah is concerned with the
possibility one may inadvertently eat chometz.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin writes:3

Today’s daf continues to struggle with the challenges of trying to systematically rid one’s home
of hametz before Passover begins. The rabbis acknowledge that it is difficult to control and contain
food in a world where little rodents move things around, babies drop crumbs and grown-ups just
plain forget where they left things. Arguably, in our day the invention of Tupperware has made
this easier — but many of us are still overwhelmed by the task of ridding our house of leaven in
time for Passover. There is always a nagging uncertainty that leaven lurks somewhere. It is a real
comfort that numerous times on our page the rabbis end a short discussion with “teiko” — let Elijah
the Prophet come and answer our questions, because we certainly can’t.

Here is an example of one such quandary the rabbis tackle on today’s page:

In a case where there is one pile of leavened bread in front of two houses that were already
searched, and a mouse came and took a morsel from the pile, and we do not know if it entered
this house or if it entered that house, this is akin to the case of two paths, as we learned in a
mishnah: There were two paths, one of which was ritually impure due to a corpse buried
there, and one of which was ritually pure, and he walked on one of them but does not know
which…

In this scenario, two households have already cleaned for Passover, but there is a pile of leaven
outside in front of them. Someone sees a mouse grab some leaven from that pile, and then it is
thought to have entered one of the houses, but we do not know which. What do we do? Do we
assume the houses are clean? Do we search one? Both?

To answer this question, the Gemara brings an analogous case — of a person who may have walked
on a path that imparts impurity, but is uncertain whether they in fact took a different route. On the
one hand, it’s helpful to have a parallel case which helps us resolve our problem of a mouse, a pile
of hametz and two already-searched homes. On the other hand, it is somewhat jarring to mix up

3
Myjewishlearning.com

9
the joyous holiday of Passover with concerns about a path that might happen to have a corpse lying
on it. But that’s the rabbis — eager to resolve our dilemma with whatever it takes.

The challenging scenarios keep coming. What if we see a mouse snatch some leaven but we don’t
know if it has entered a clean house? What if we saw a mouse carrying leaven enter a house, but
then we subsequently can’t find any leaven in that house? What if we see the mouse carry leaven
into the house, and then we find some leaven in the house, but we’re not sure if it is the same
leaven that the mouse was carrying? What if a mouse enters with a full loaf of bread in its mouth
(a strong mouse!) but later only crumbs are found? What if a child enters with a loaf, and later we
see crumbs? What if we see a mouse bring a loaf of bread into the house, and then we see a marten
leaving the same house with a loaf of bread in its mouth? On it goes…

Despite careful discussion and clever halakhic parallels for each scenario, our confidence in
solving each cases diminishes as the daf continues, until finally things feel completely out of
control as we contemplate a white mouse entering the house with a chunk of hametz and a black
mouse leaving the house, or worse, a mouse entering the house with hametz and a marten leaving
the house with a mouse in its mouth and the hametz is either still in the mouse’s mouth or in the
marten's mouth as well. And if a snake is holding hametz in its mouth, do you have to hire a snake
charmer to get it out? Teiko! Don’t worry about it — and wait for Elijah who will answer all these
questions!

Passover is in many ways a holiday which asks us to control a great deal: our eating, our cooking,
even what is in our homes. But the real world is also chaotic and difficult. Our rabbis understood
this and accepted it.

Rav David Silverberg writes:4

The Mishna in Masekhet Pesachim (10b) records a debate among the Tanna’im concerning the
case of a person who neglected to perform bedikat chametz before the time on Erev Pesach
when chametz becomes forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda rules that one should no longer perform
the bedika, whereas the majority view among the Sages held that one should search for chametz at
that point and then destroy any chametz he finds. Even if one neglected to search
for chametz before the onset of Pesach, according to the majority view, he should search during
Pesach. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda stated his position out of concern that the person
might discover chametz and then eat it, in violation of the Torah’s prohibition. The other Sages
disagree, and maintain that there is no reason for such concern, for since the person specifically
searches for chametz in order to destroy it, he would not mistakenly eat it.

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Musar Ha-mishna, draws an intriguing connection between
this debate and a debate between these same Tanna’im in Masekhet Sota (7a). The question
surrounds the procedure followed in the case of a married woman suspected of infidelity, who
would be brought to the Beit Ha-mikdash and given special waters to drink. If she survived, this
would prove her innocence, and she and her husband could then resume their marital relationship.

4
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/salt-erev-pesach-monday-14-nisan-5777-april-10-2017

10
The Mishnayot in Masekhet Sota describe several measures that were taken to exhaust and
intimidate the woman in the hope that, if she was guilty, she would confess and thereby be spared
the deadly effects of the water. According to the majority view, these measures included exposing
her hair and parts of her body, which would cause her embarrassment. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed,
arguing that this could arouse inappropriate thoughts and desires among the kohen who performs
this procedure.

The likely reason why the majority view discounts this consideration, Rav Ginsburg suggests, is
the fact that this entire process is being done for the sake of eliminating sexual impropriety. There
is no reason to be concerned about the kohen experiencing illicit thoughts or desires while he is
intensely focused upon the effort to confront the problem of illicit relationships among the
nation. Just as the majority view feels no need to be concerned about a person eating during
Pesach chametz which he finds while in the process of seeking to destroy chametz, it similarly
allows the kohen to expose the sota’s hair and parts of her body while he is in the process of trying
to eliminate the scourge of sexual impropriety. Rabbi Yehuda is similarly consistent,
forbidding bedikat chametz once the chametz prohibition has set in, and forbidding exposing
a kohen to potentially arousing sights even as he conducts the sota ritual.

Reflecting upon the broader concepts at play in this debate, there is certainly a degree of truth to
both perspectives. Rabbi Yehuda is undoubtedly correct that we human beings are frail and
inconsistent enough to stumble and succumb even while working to combat that precise form of
wrongdoing.

Even as we involve ourselves in the effort to oppose a certain negative phenomenon, exposure to
that temptation could cause us to succumb. The other Sages, presumably, do not deny this
possibility, only in their view, the small risk of failure does not justify withdrawing and abandoning
the effort to eliminate “chametz” from our society. Although this effort will, invariably, expose
us to the ills we seek to cure, the majority view maintains that this work is too important to neglect
for the sake of avoiding all exposure to any forms of “chametz.”

Previously, we noted the question surrounding the relationship between two Mishnayot in the
beginning of Masekhet Pesachim (2a, 9a) that discuss the laws of bedikat chametz. The first
Mishna establishes that one is not required to search areas in the home where chametz is not
brought, and the second Mishna (as understood by Rashi and Tosefot) establishes that after one
searched an area in his home, it is considered chametz-free, despite the possibility that a rodent
subsequently brought chametz there.

Chazal do not expect a person to concern himself with this possibility, the second Mishna explains,
because there would then be “no end,” as one would never be able to declare any part of his home
free of chametz. Tosefot, as we saw, raised the question of why the second Mishna’s ruling needed
explication, as it is seemingly implied by the first Mishna’s ruling.

After all, once the first Mishna teaches that a place where one does not bring chametz does not
require checking, we can logically deduce that Halakha does not require us to concern ourselves
with the possibility of animals bringing chametz to different parts of the home. Why, then, does

11
the second Mishna need to instruct that an area that had been searched is presumed chametz-free
even if it is possible that an animal brought chametz there subsequently?

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Mussar Ha-mishna, answers by suggesting a distinction
between an area where chametz is never brought, and searching is therefore not required in the
first place, and an area where chametz is brought and that was checked for chametz. In the latter
case, the bedikat chametz obligation applies, requiring one to thoroughly search to ensure the
absence of chametz, whereas in the former case, no bedika obligation applies at all. One might
have thought that in areas where bedika is required, a higher level of certainty in required to assure
the absence of chametz. And thus, even though we do not have to be concerned that an animal
may have brought chametz to an area where chametz is not normally brought, one might have
considered the possibility that such concern is warranted in areas that require bedika,
after bedika has been performed. Since the bedika obligation had taken effect in these areas, it
may have been reasonable to assume that one must be extremely thorough in his efforts to ensure
the absence of chametz, to the point where he must repeat his search again later to ensure that an
animal did not subsequently bring chametz there. The second Mishna therefore instructs that even
though an area is subject to the bedikat chametz requirement, there is a limit to the extent of his
responsibility to ensure the absence of chametz, and he does not have to concern himself with the
risk of rodents bringing chametz there after the search.

Rav Ginsburg proceeds to note the broader implications of this distinction. When it comes to our
efforts to rid ourselves of the “chametz” within our beings – our flaws and shortcomings – a higher
standard of vigilance is required in regard to those areas “she-makhnisin bo chametz,” where we
know we have a particular weakness. Once we have failed in regard to a certain matter, we must
be especially careful and attentive to that area of religious life. When it comes to our areas of
weakness, we require an extra level of care and concern, and must work especially hard to ensure
the absence of any “chametz” – of any likelihood of repeating the mistake.

By the same token, we must also remember the Mishna’s conclusion – “im kein ein la-davar
sof.” As in the case of bedikat chametz, we must acknowledge the inherent limits on our ability to
guarantee the absence of “chametz.” Human beings are, by nature, imperfect, and thus no matter
how vigilantly we work to rid ourselves of “chametz,” we will never reach a point where perfection
is guaranteed. We must therefore follow Rabbi Tarfon’s timeless dictum in Avot (2:16), “Lo
alekha ha-melakha li-gmor, ve-lo ata ben chorin le-hibatel mimena” – “You are not responsible
to complete the work, but neither are you free to ignore it.”

We are to work hard to eliminate the “chametz” from our beings, paying especially close attention
to our areas of weakness, while acknowledging our limits and accepting the inalterable reality of
human imperfection.

When a Mouse Enters Your House with Bread in his Mouth

12
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes5

While the Mishna (9a) introduced us to a hulda – a marten – that we suspect may hoard hametz in
houses already cleaned for Pesah, on our daf Rava presents us with another small animal,
an akhbar. The akhbar discussed is, apparently, a conventional house mouse (Mus musculus), a
small rodent that grows up to eight centimeters. This small creature sustains itself by eating food
that is left around the house, usually breadcrumbs and other such things.

Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered
after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that a
mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are
from the loaf snatched by the mouse.

The Maharam Halavah quotes the Rif as explaining that mice do not make crumbs when they
eat, so the crumbs that are found cannot possibly be from the loaf of bread brought in by the mouse,
forcing us to check the house a second time.

The Ramban understands Rava’s ruling to mean that a mouse usually finishes the crumbs that he
makes. According to this reasoning, if the amount of crumbs that is found is the size of the piece
that the mouse was carrying, it could not possibly be from the piece that was recently brought in,
since the mouse would have finished the crumbs.

If, however, only a small amount of crumbs were found, we can rely on the fact that the mouse ate
the bread, leaving behind a small amount of crumbs, but the house does not need to be rechecked.

This discussion leads Rava to ask a series of hypothetical questions about this case:
• What if the mouse was seen bringing in a loaf of bread and carrying out a loaf of bread? Do we
assume that it is the same loaf, or not?

• If we assume that it is the same loaf, what if we see a mouse carrying in a loaf, and a mouse of a
different color carrying out a loaf?

Do we still say that it is the same one?

• If we assume it could not be the same loaf because mice do not take from one another, what if a
mouse carried in a loaf of bread and a rat is seen carrying out bread? Can we assume that the rat
took the loaf from the mouse?

• And what if we see the rat carrying out a mouse and a loaf? Would that prove that it was the
same hametz that was carried in?

5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim10/

13
To all of these questions the Gemara answers Teiku – the question stands.

The Shulhan Arukh declines to bring these cases, with the explanation that they are so unlikely to
occur that they do not require a pesak halakha.

And the Sages say; if one did not search on the night of the 14th he should search on the morning
of the 14th. If one did not search on the morning of the 14th he should search during the moed
(appointed time). If one did not search during the moed he should search after the moed.

The Rishonim differ over the understanding of the word ‘moed’ (appointed time).

Rashi explains that it refers to the sixth hour which is the appointed time for the elimination of all
chometz from the person’s domain. Tosafos (1) and Ritva comment that Rashi explains this way
because he maintains (2) that the requirement for the bedikah is in order that one will not transgress
the Torah prohibitions of ‫ יראה בל‬and ‫ )בל בל ימצה‬no chometz should be seen or found in his
possession). Therefore ‘moed’ cannot be referring to the festival of Pesach. This is because the
latter requirement of the Mishna (to search after the moed) would be unnecessary since there are
no prohibitions of ‫ יראה בל‬and ‫ ימצא בל‬after Pesach has finished. (3)

Others (4) deduce another halachic implication from Rashi’s explanation. Since the reason for the
search is in order to find chometz and to eliminate it in order not to transgress the Torah
prohibitions of ‫ יראה בל‬and ‫ימצא בל‬, Rashi understands that the cases discussed in the Mishnayos
are when a person has not performed ‫ )חמץ ביטול‬annulment of chometz). Had he made the
declaration of ‫ חמץ ביטול‬he would no longer be liable for any chometz in his possession. Based on
this, on Yom Tov itself, Rashi would maintain that there would be no reason to do a bedikah. Even
if he found chometz he could not eliminate it on Yom Tov and he would transgress the prohibitions
of ‫ יראה בל‬and ‫ימצא בל‬.

According to Tosafos, however, (who maintains that the reason for the bedikah is to prevent a
person from coming to eat chometz on Pesach) even on Yom Tov a person would be required to
search for chometz in order to locate potential chometz and cover it with a vessel in order to prevent
him from eating it (5).

14
Orach Chayim 435

The Shulchan Aruch above, (6) follows the view of Tosafos that one is obligated to perform the
bedikah even after the festival of Pesach.

The Mishna Berura above, (7) cites a dispute regarding whether a person should search for chometz
on Yom Tov.

There are those (8) that write that nowadays since people clean their houses thoroughly prior to
Pesach one should not search for chometz on Yom Tov but only on Chol HaMoed.

The above stated halachos are relevant for one someone who did a bedikah but forgot to check a
particular area e.g., a car, basement etc. (9)

15
 BEDIKAS CHAMETZ ON PESACH AND AFTER PESACH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:6

The Mishnah says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the time to perform Bedikas Chametz is until
the sixth hour of the day on the fourteenth of Nisan, when Chametz must be destroyed. According
to the Chachamim, if one did not search for Chametz at the proper time on the fourteenth of Nisan,
one may search during the "Mo'ed" or even after the "Mo'ed." What does "Mo'ed" refer to in the
Mishnah?

TOSFOS (see above) and other Rishonim explain that "Mo'ed" means literally during Pesach
itself. If one did not check before Pesach arrived, then one must check even on Yom Tov. If one
failed to check during Pesach, then one must check after the festival because of the rabbinical
prohibition against using Chametz after Pesach that was in the possession of a Jew during Pesach.

RASHI explains that "Mo'ed" refers to the sixth hour on Erev Pesach. If one did not check for
Chametz before the sixth hour, he may check after the sixth hour, until nightfall. However, if he
failed to check after the sixth hour and did not remember until nightfall, on Pesach itself he may
not perform Bedikah.

6
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-010.htm

16
Rashi argues with Tosfos on two points. First, Rashi understands that the Mishnah teaches that
there is no obligation to check after Pesach for Chametz that was in one's possession during
Pesach. Second, according to Rashi, one does not have to check for Chametz on Pesach itself, even
when he did not check for Chametz before Pesach. What is Rashi's source for these two Halachos?

TOSFOS explains why Rashi maintains that there is no obligation to check for Chametz after
Pesach. Rashi follows his own opinion as expressed elsewhere (2a), where he says that the purpose
of Bedikah is to prevent one from transgressing the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei.

After Pesach, the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei do not apply. The Rabanan
prohibited only eating Chametz after Pesach, and thus there is no reason to require Bedikah.
(Tosfos there (2a, DH Or) argues and maintains that the purpose of Bedikah is to prevent one
from eating Chametz, and therefore it applies after Pesach as well.)

What is the source for Rashi's opinion that one does not need to check for Chametz on Pesach
itself? The Gemara implies the contrary. The Gemara clearly states that the Rabanan
were not concerned that one might eat Chametz that he finds during the Bedikah. Accordingly,
even on Pesach itself, and not just on Erev Pesach, one should be required to perform a Bedikah
to avoid transgressing Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei!

RASHASH answers that Rashi derives this Halachah from the text of the Mishnah. Rashi explains
that "after the Mo'ed" means after the sixth hour, but only until Pesach arrives, because if the
Mishnah means after the sixth hour until after Pesach departs, then why does the Mishnah say only
that one should check for Chametz "the evening of the fourteenth, [and if he forgets, then] on the
morning of the fourteenth, [and if he forgets, then] during the sixth hour, and [and if he forgets,
then] after the sixth hour"?

If it is true that one checks for Chametz even during Pesach itself, then the Mishnah should have
added that if he can, he must check for Chametz before Pesach arrives rather than wait until after
Pesach has arrived.

It certainly is better to check before Pesach arrives, when there is no Isur Kares for one who eats
Chametz, than to check after Pesach arrives when there is an Isur Kares for one who eats Chametz.
Why does the Mishnah leave out this extra stage? It must be that this extra stage does not exist,
because one may not check for Chametz on Pesach itself.

Although the Gemara says that the Rabanan are not concerned that one might eat Chametz while
he searches for it, the RAN explains that this is true only before Pesach, when there is only an Isur
Lav not to eat Chametz.

However, when there is an Isur Kares (on Pesach itself), the Rabanan did not rely on the reasoning
that when one searches for Chametz in order to destroy it, he will not eat it.

Telling Time

17
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:7

The halachic legal system is much more than a set of abstract principles or technical details. It
incorporates factors such as human psychology (something that is so impactful during the
mourning process), human error, and probability analysis.

These extra-legal aspects of the law can be seen in three Talmudic debates, which appear back-to-
back-to-back, that discuss the prohibition of chametz.

The first step in ridding our home of chametz is bedikat chametz, the search for chametz. For
obvious reasons, this bedikah must be done before the prohibition to eat or own chametz begins.
The Mishnah (Pesachim 10b) records a debate in a case where one neglects to do bedikah before
the prohibition of chametz sets in. Rav Yehuda claims that one should do nothing; searching for
chametz at a time when it is prohibited to eat or even own it would be counterproductive. Why
look for something you don't want to find? Doing so might just cause one to eat
the chametz accidentally--a real fear, considering that one is used to eating chametz during the
rest of the year. Best to rely an oral declaration nullifying the chametz, and hope none turns up
during Pesach.

The Sages disagree, arguing that one must search for chametz even on Pesach itself: "He, himself,
is searching after it to destroy it; need we be concerned that he eat it?" (ibid 11a). Chametz must
be destroyed, and ignoring it is not an option. This holds true even after Pesach is over; and if no
search was done prior to Pesach, it must be conducted post-Pesach, lest one violate the prohibition
of eating chametz that was owned by a Jew during Pesach.

In the course of analyzing the above-noted view of Rabbi Yehuda, the Talmud discusses the case
of a firstborn animal that must be relieved of some blood (this was a very common occurrence in
Talmudic times, even for humans). One of the basic notions of Judaism is that the first of
everything belongs to G-d. That is why we must redeem our firstborn, give the first of our crops
to the kohen, bring the first of our fruit to the Temple. Even a firstborn animal has a degree of
sanctity and may only be eaten by a Kohen, unless the animal develops a permanent blemish.

Rav Yehuda forbids one to perform the needed bloodletting, fearing that one will "accidentally"
make a permanent blemish on the animal, which would conveniently allow the owner to eat it
himself. "Adam bahul al mammono, a person gets very excited about his property"; one might, in
violation of Jewish law, purposely inflict a permanent blemish. Apparently, a few crumbs
of chametz are not temptation enough to cause one to violate the severe prohibition against eating
chametz, and hence, there is no need to search for chametz once Pesach enters; but an entire animal
brings one to a whole new level of monetary loss.

7
https://www.torahinmotion.org/users/rabbi-jay-kelman

18
Using the same premise, the Sages come to the exact opposite conclusion. Because people get
excited (and irrational) when it comes to their money, we must allow the bloodletting. If we do
not, the animal may become so sick as to become a treifah, an animal that has a life expectancy of
less than a year which may not be eaten even if properly slaughtered. The Sages feared if we did
not allow bloodletting, a person would be even more likely to inflict a blemish. Better to let him
do the bloodletting, and not worry that he will "accidentally" cause a blemish.

This debate, while technical in nature, may reflect a much deeper divide, one we are most familiar
with. Should we prevent any contact that may lead to sin, or is it better to allow for such contact
in order to prevent that same sin?

A third debate (ibid 11b)--this time between Rav Yehuda and Rav Meir--regarding the time until
which we may eat chametz on erev Pesach hinges on the extent of human error. According to
biblical law, chametz may be eaten until noon. The Sages, fearful of a mistake in knowing the
proper time--something quite reasonable when the best way to tell time was the sundial--extended
the prohibition to either one (Rav Meir) or two hours (Rav Yehuda) prior, leading to a long debate
as to what is a reasonable amount of human error. This goes well beyond the time to eat chametz,
and impacts on cases--such as those involving capital punishment--where verification of time is
crucial.

Halachic authorities must master not only Jewish law, but also human behavior--the latter being a
much harder task than the former.

19
Spontaneous Generation

Jeremy Brown writes: 8

‫א‬,‫חולין קכז‬

‫עכבר שחציו בשר וחציו אדמה שאין פרה ורבה‬

There is a mouse that is hard made from flesh and half from dirt, and does not procreate

The spontaneous generation of the half-mouse

Deep into several pages about ritual impurity, the Talmud mentions in passing this strange
creature, which has come to be called the mud-mouse. And what exactly is this strange creature?
Here is the explanation of Rashi:

‫אין פרה ורבה‬- ‫כלומר שלא היה מפריה ורביה של עכבר לפי שנוצר מאליו‬

It does not procreate: This means it does not sexually reproduce, but instead it spontaneously
appears.

And here is Rashi from 127b:

‫יש מין עכבר שאינו פרה ורבה אלא מעצמו נוצר מאדמה כאשפה המשרצת תולעים‬

There is a species of mouse that does not reproduce sexually but is spontaneously generated from
the earth, just as maggots appear at a garbage site.

The mud-mouse is also mentioned in Sanhedrin (91):

‫ א‬,‫סנהדרין צא‬

‫צא לבקעה וראה עכבר שהיום חציו בשר וחציו אדמה למחר השריץ ונעשה כלו בשר‬

Consider the mouse which today is half flesh and half earth, and tomorrow it has become a
creeping thing made entirely of flesh.

Clearly, Rashi and the rabbis of the Talmud believed in spontaneous generation. Here is the
opening of the Wiki article on the subject:

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary

formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that

8
talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2017/10/14/sanhedrin-91-spontaneous-generation-rbaf8

20
certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could
arise from dead flesh.

Everyone Believed it

How could the esteemed rabbis of the Talmud believed in this crazy idea of spontaneous
generation? The answer is simple. Everyone believed it. Everyone, from the time of Aristotle until
Louis Pasteur.

Here is Aristotle (d. 322 BCE):

So, with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow
spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some
come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter. [History of Animals 539a, 18-26.]

Aristotle’s theory of spontaneous generation was as influential as his other teachings in

philosophy and natural history; it was accepted with reverence, not only among his
contemporaries but well into modern times

Jan Bondeson9

The great Roman poet Ovid (43 BCE-17/18 CE) is best known for his work Metamorphosis. It’s
a bit of a long read (almost 12,000 lines contained in 15 books), and in it he mentions spontaneous
generation three times. Actually, given its length, he probably mentions everything at least three
times. Here is an example, from Metamorphosis I, 416-437.

So, when the seven-mouthed Nile retreats from the drowned fields and returns to its former bed,
and the fresh mud boils in the sun, farmers find many creatures as they turn the lumps of earth.
Amongst them they see some just spawned, on the edge of life, some with incomplete bodies and
number of limbs, and often in the same matter one part is alive and the other is raw earth. In fact,
when heat and moisture are mixed, they conceive, and from these two things the whole of life
originates. And though fire and water fight each other, heat and moisture create everything, and
this discordant union is suitable for growth. So, when the earth muddied from the recent flood
glowed again heated by the deep heaven-sent light of the sun, she produced innumerable species,
partly remaking previous forms, partly creating new monsters.

Spontaneous generation was an accepted theory throughout the middle ages and was found in the
writings of Arab naturalists, such as Averroes.

9
The Feejee Mermaid and other Essays in Natural and Unnatural History. Cornell University Press 1999. p194

21
Sir Francis Bacon, (d.1626) the English "philosopher, statesman, scientist, jurist, orator, and
author" accepted the theory. And so, did Willam Harvey, who discovered the circulation of the
blood, - at least under certain circumstances. And why not believe is spontaneous generation?
Before the invention of the microscope, it certainly explained how worms, fleas, bees and other
insects could appear out of nowhere.

Well, not quite everyone

In his commentary to the Mishnah on today’s page of Talmud, Maimonides has this to say:

‫והויות העכבר בלבד מן האדמה עד שימצא קצתו בשר וקצתו עפר וטיט והוא ענין מפורסם מאד אין מספר לרוב‬
‫המגידין לי שראו זה אע"פ שמציאות בעל חיים כזה דבר מתמיה ולא נודעת בו טענה בשום פנים‬

The case of the mouse which uniquely grows from the earth so that it is half-flesh, and half dust
and mud is very well known. There is no end to the countless numbers of those who have told me
that they have seen it, even though the existence of this creature is astonishing, and there is no
known explanation for it.

Maimonides did not reject the idea that the mouse grows directly from the earth, but he seems very
skeptical of the idea. Still, it was a widely accepted explanation for centuries before, and centuries
after Maimonides. For example, let’s consider…

22
Jan Baptista van Helmont and the recipe to grow a mud-mouse
Jan Baptista van Helmont (1580-1644) knew a thing or two about science. Although still deeply
embedded in alchemy, his many observations led the way to the scientific revolution. He was the
first to suggest that the stomach contained somethings to aid in digestion (what we call today
enzymes and acids).

And according to the Science History Institute, “he discovered that chemical reactions could
produce substances that were neither solids nor liquids and coined the term gas to describe them.”
“I call this spirit,” he wrote, “hitherto unknown, by the new name of gas…"(Hunc spiritum,
incognitum hactenus, nero heroine Gas voco). This laid the groundwork for Robert Boyle’s later
research on gases.

Spontaneous generation also occupied Van Helmont’s scientific worldview. Like everyone else,
he believed in it, because it explained observations like fleas appearing around rotting meat or
mice appearing in a farmer’s barn of grain. He was so certain of the reality of spontaneous
generation that he provided a recipe to grow mice de novo.

23
If a dirty shirt is stuffed into the mouth of a vessel containing wheat, within a few days, say 21, the
ferment produced by the shirt, modified by the smell of the grain, transforms the wheat itself,
encased its husk into mice.

Pasteur's Experiments

Then came the microscope. Using one, in October 1676, Leeuwenhoek reported finding tiny
micro-organisms in lake water. Now perhaps there was another explanation for how things were
created, although not much progress was made for a couple of hundred more years. It was Louis
Pasteur (d.1895) who finally disproved the theory of spontaneous generation with some elegant
experiments. He boiled a meat broth in a flask like this, with its neck pointed downwards.

Boiling sterilized the mixture, and with the neck pointing down, no organisms could contaminate
the broth. As a result, there was no growth of bacteria or could inside the flask. He did the same
using a flask with a neck that was upturned. This allowed the broth to become contaminated with
organisms in the outside air, and the mixture soon became cloudy. Spontaneous generation had
been disproven.

24
The Rabbi who tried to get it right, but got it wrong

Israel Lipschutz of Danzig (1782-1860) wrote a very important two-part commentary on the
Mishnah called Tiferet Yisrael. In it, R. Lipschutz got very excited about this whole mouse thing:

‫ ומכחישים ואומרים שאינה במציאות‬.['‫ואני שמעתי אפיקורסים מלגלגין על בריה זו שנזכרת כאן ובסנהדרין ]דצ"א א‬
‫ בספרו‬.‫ לינק‬.‫ ושמו‬.‫כלל לכן ראיתי להזכיר כאן מה שמ"כ בספר אשכנזי שחיבר חכם אחד מפורסם בחכמי האומות‬
‫ ונקראת העכבר ההיא בלשון‬.‫ שנמצא בריה כזאת בארץ מצרים במחוז טחעבאיס‬.327 ‫הנקרא אורוועלט חלק א' עמוד‬
‫ ואחוריה עדיין‬.‫ אשר החלק שלפניה ראש וחזה וידיה מתוארים יפה‬.‫ ובל"א שפרינגמויז‬. ‫מצרים דיפוס יאקולוס‬
‫ ואומר מה רבו מעשיך ה‬.‫ עד אחר איזה ימים תתהפך כולה לבשר‬.‫מגולמים ברגבי ארץ‬

I have heard heretics mocking the existence of this creature, mentioned here and in the Talmud
Sanhedrin. They deny its existence and claim it is not in any way real. So, I have found it
appropriate to mention here what is published in a German book written by one of the wisest and
most well-known of any nationality, named Link.

In his book Urwelt (Part I p327) he states that such a creature was indeed found in the district of
Thebais in Egypt. In Egyptian this mouse is called Dipus Jaculus, and in German it is called
the spring-mouse. Its head, chest and front paws are well-formed, but its rear is still unformed and
is just bits of earth.

But after a few days, the mouse becomes made entirely of flesh. And I said “Lord, how great are
your works!” (Ps.104:24)

25
So according to R. Lipschutz all the scoffers were wrong, and as proof he cites his contemporary,
the well-respected naturalist Johan Heinrich Link (1738–1783), whose Die Urwelt und das
Altertum, erläutert durch die Naturkunde (Prehistoric times and antiquity, explained by natural
history) was first published in Berlin between 1820 and 1822. Great. A mid-19th century rabbi and
scholar quoting a German naturalist in support of a statement made by the rabbis of the Talmud.

Science and Judaism at their best! Well no. Not so fast.

In a paper devoted to this topic, Dr. Sid Leiman noted that the passage cited by R. Lipschutz only
appeared in the first edition of Link’s book, and was removed from later ones. But more
importantly, R. Lipschutz misread the context of the passage he was citing. Rather than attesting
to the reality of the mud-mouse, Link was quoting from a passage in the book Bibliotheca
historica by Diodorus Siculas, a Greek historian of the first century.

It was Diodorus who was describing what his contemporaries believed. But what about that
reference to the Latin and German names for the mouse? Diodorus wrote in Greek and could not
have thought that Dipus Jaculus (Latin) is an Egyptian phrase. Let’s have Prof. Leiman explain:

What happened is that Link added a footnote to the Diodorus passage, in an attempt to account
for the belief in the existence of this strange creature in antiquity.

Link’s note reads (in translation):

“The Springmaus (Dipus Jaculus), which dwells in Upper Egypt and is characterized by very short
forelegs, doubtless could lead one to conclude that it is a not yet fully developed creature.” Link
was suggesting that the very existence of the Springmaus, or jerboa, a small, leaping kangaroo-
like rodent found to this day in the arid parts of North Africa, and characterized by long hindfeet
and short forelegs, may have misled the ancients into thinking that the different parts of the body
of some mice fully matured at different times…The upshot of this was that Lipschutz was
persuaded, quite mistakenly, that the mouse described by the rabbis as being half flesh and half
earth was alive and well in nineteenth-century Egypt, as attested by no less a scholar than Professor
Link!

Wrong, but for the right reasons

The rabbis of the Talmud were not fools for believing in spontaneous generation. They would have
been fools had they not. If was an explanation for many natural phenomena and was believed by
heroes of the scientific revolution, along with everyone else, until Pasteur proved them all wrong.

And what about our Rabbi Lipschutz? Let’s give the last word on him to Prof. Sid Leiman.

26
One would like to think that Rabbi Israel Lipschutz, whose seminal work is everywhere
characterized by intellectual honesty, would have retracted his garbled reading of Link if only the
error had been brought to his attention.

If only indeed.

27
Half Mouse Half Earth10
The Gemara in Sanhedrin 91 relates that a certain heretic challenged Rebbi Ami regarding
Techiyas ha'Mesim, saying that it is not possible for a decomposed body, which turns into earth,
to rise again as a living body. One of Rebbi Ami's proofs for Techiyas ha'Mesim was the fact
that "there is a rodent that lives in the valley that today is half-flesh and half-earth, and tomorrow
it becomes completely flesh."

We find this creature mentioned elsewhere in the Gemara in a different context.

The Mishnah in Chulin (126b) mentions a mouse "which is half-flesh and half-earth; one
who touches the flesh part is Tamei, and one who touches the earth part is Tahor."

Is there any evidence today to support the existence of rodents that are formed from the
earth? (The following discussion is culled primarily from the research of Rabbi Nosson
Slifkin 11

• RAMBAM seems to confirm the existence of such a creature. In Perush ha'Mishnayos

(Chulin, ibid.) he writes, "This is a well-known matter; there is no end to the number of
people who have told me that they have seen it. Such a thing is indeed astonishing, and I
have no explanation for it."

TIFERES YISRAEL (Bo'az, Chulin 9:6) also defends the existence of such a
creature. He writes, "I have heard heretics mocking with regard to the creature that is
discussed here and in Sanhedrin 91a, and denying it, saying that there is no such thing
at all. Therefore, I have seen fit to mention here that which I found written in a Western
European work compiled by a scholar renowned among the scholars of the world. His
name is Link, and the book is titled 'Auervelt.' In volume I, page 327, he writes that
such a creature was found in Egypt in the district of Thebes, and in the Egyptian
language that rodent is called 'dipus jaculus;' and in German it is called 'springmaus.'
Its forequarters -- head, chest, and hands -- are perfectly formed, but its hindquarters
are still embedded in the earth, until after several days when it fully changes to flesh.
And I say, 'How great are Your works, Hashem!'"

• However, Professor S. Z. Leiman has raised doubts about the accuracy of the Tiferes
Yisrael's understanding of Link's words (in his article entitled, "Rav Yisrael Lipshutz and
the Mouse that is Half Flesh and Half Earth,"12 Link cites Diodorus Siculus, a Greek
historian, who reports that the Egyptians maintain that life first began in Egypt, and as
proof of this they note that mice are generated in vast numbers from the soil of their land.
Diodorus himself testifies, "Indeed, even in our day during the inundations of Egypt, the
generation of forms of animal life can clearly be seen taking place in the pools which
remain the longest, for, whenever the river begun to recede and the sun has thoroughly
dried the surface of the slime, living animals, they say, take shape, some of them fully
formed, but some only half so and still actually united with the very earth."

10
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/sn-gr-01.htm

28
11
(www.zootorah.com), see also his book, "Mysterious Creatures," Targum Press, summer 2003.
12
printed in Chazon Nachum, New York, Yeshiva University 1998

29
Link then adds a footnote to Diodorus' account. He writes, "The springmaus (dipus
jaculus), which dwells in Upper Egypt and is characterized by very short forelegs, looks
as though it is a creature that is not yet fully developed."

This "springmaus" is the jerboa. The jerboa belongs to a family of tiny to large
rodents that have very small forelegs (which they hold against their bodies) and long
back legs for jumping and dig burrows in which they sleep. One of the three small
subfamilies is known as Dipodinae and it includes the genus Jaculus. This is the dipus
jaculus mentioned by Link.

Jerboas (from Arabic: ‫ ﺟﺮﺑﻮع‬jarbūʻ ) are hopping desert rodents found

throughout Arabia, Northern Africa and Asia. Jerboas form the bulk of the membership
of the family Dipodidae. They tend to live in hot deserts.

When chased, jerboas can run at up to 24 kilometres per hour (15 mph). Some species are
preyed on by little owls (Athene noctua) in central Asia. Most species of jerboa have
excellent hearing that they use to avoid becoming the prey of nocturnal predators. The
typical lifespan of a jerboa is around six years.

It is clear that Link himself, who lived in the nineteenth century and was very
familiar with the jerboa, did not believe that it or any other animal grows from the
ground. Rather, he is saying that this creature may be the source of the Egyptian
myth. Because the jerboa's forelegs are not visible while it is jumping, it appears to
be a two-legged mouse (which is why it is called "dipus," or "two legs"). One who
observes it sitting on the ground or jumping in the air, it appears that the two hind-
legs are actually the forelegs, and the rear part of the mouse has not yet been formed.

30
HALF FLESH AND HALF EARTH CREATURE IN CLASSICAL
RABBINIC LITERATURE

Abraham Ofir Shemesh writes:13

The ancient classical literature, both non-Jewish and Jewish, contains considerable documentation
of creatures with irregular or unusual features. Some examples are people and animals with
irregular dimensions, such as Cyclical Snake (οὐροβóρος, Ouroboros) [1], dragons [2, 3], a fire-
resistant salamander created in furnaces [3, Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 27a, Sanhedrin 63b; 4-6],
a hyena (Hyaena hyaena syriaca) that can change its sex and may change into a bat [3, Baba
Kamma 16b; 7; 8], and the shamir, a fabled creature (worm) capable of cutting through rock, which
helped King Solomon and his people to cut rocks for building the First Temple [2, avot 5:6, Sota
9:12; 3, Sota 48b, Gittin 68a; 9]. Other sources attest to hybrid creatures originating from the
mating of humans with angels, i.e. the giants (nefilim) who lived in Noah‟s period that are
described in the biblical text as those born to the sons of God and the daughters of humans (Genesis
6.4) [10-12]; mating of humans with animals, such as centaur, a mythological creature which is
half human, half horse creature [13]; as well as the hybrid products of different types of animals,
such as the ostrich perceived as a cross between a bird and a camel [14], the arvad or habarbar,
formed by crossbreeding a snake and a lizard [7, Berakhot 8:6, 12b; 3, Hullin 127a; 15; 16], and
others [17-19]. Discussions of mythological animals that do not exist in reality indicate the
ancients‟ world of beliefs and views and raise the question of how such views were formed and
developed. It seems that in the ancient Jewish sources mythological creatures express the greatness
of God and the complexity of his creation.

The current article discusses vermin (sheretz) or mouse “that is half flesh and half earth”
(henceforth also “half-mouse”), mentioned in the Mishna and Talmud literature in halakhic and
ideological contexts. (The Mishna was redacted by R. Judah the Prince at the end of the second
century CE. The Mishna is the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions and laws.
Tannaim („repeaters‟ or „teachers‟) were the rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the
Mishnah. The Talmud is a collection of commentaries on and elaborations of the Mishnah and
certain auxiliary materials. The term „Talmud‟ refers to the Jerusalem Talmud which was
compiled in the Land of Israel (c. 400 CE), and the collection known as the Babylonian Talmud
compiled by the scholars of Babylonia (c. 500 CE). Amoraim were the rabbinic sages whose views
are recorded in the Talmud.) I shall discuss rabbinical sources dealing with the phenomenon and
show how Jewish sages were influenced by the world of beliefs common in their non-Jewish
environment. The questions explored in the discussion of this issue are:

1. What underlies the view concerning the existence of this creature?

2. Where and how was this mouse created?

13
http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/80/1_Shemesh.pdf

31
A mouse that is half earth and half flesh in classical literature

Much of the sages‟ knowledge derived from the scientific and natural world of the classical era,
such as from the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC), Pliny (23- 79 CE) and Dioscorides (c. 40-90
CE). A miraculous hybrid mouse was described in the writings of Greek and Roman sages [17, p.
183-184; 22, p. 345-347; 25; 26], and this phenomenon is grounded in a broader outlook mentioned
by Aristotle concerning spontaneously generating creatures (Aristotle, Historia Animailum, V, 1)
[6, 27, 28]. One of those who testified to the existence of half-mice was the Roman naturalist and
natural philosopher Pliny the Elder in his book „Naturalis Historia‟. Pliny mentions these mice
when describing the flooding in areas near the Nile in Egypt. He writes: “But credibility is given
to all these statements by the flooding of the Nile, with a marvel that surpasses them all: this is
that, when the river withdraws its covering, water-mice are found with the work of generative
water and earth uncompleted – they are already alive in a part of their body, but the most recently
formed part of their structure is still of earth” [Pliny, Naturalis Historia, IX, 84].

The Egyptian culture, religion and nature very interested the Greek and Roman authors, so they
reported on many phenomena related to the Nile and its plants and animals. Pliny relates that the
mice can be seen when the water that floods the fields retreats to the river‟s normal channel. It is
evident that these mice are alive, but one part of their body is incomplete and is made of earth.
According to Pliny, half-mice are real creatures. He does not try to explain its feasibility, maybe
because as others in the classical world he believed in spontaneously generating. It is clear that
Pliny was not witness to the existence of the exceptional mouse, but he relies on testimonies of
others. We shall explain the possible reasons for this misconception further on. The Jewish sages
who heard of this unusual creature from their surroundings appear to have clarified its halakhic
status in their learned discussions. The attitude to spontaneously generating creatures was voiced
in Talmudic sources with regard to other creatures. The Talmud discusses whether it is allowed to
kill lice formed from sweat and dirt in Sabbath, because it is created spontaneously and not by
matting of male and female (Babylonian Talmud Sabbath 107b). In another case the early rabbis
discussed whether it is not forbidden to eat worms that develop spontaneously in fruit and not by
matting (Hullin 67a-b) [29].

Conclusions

The spiritual world of the Tannaim and Amoraim, as well as the doors of the study halls (batei
midrash), were open to news from the external-secular world, and in the current article we dealt
with a topic related to the natural world – a vermin/mouse that is half flesh and half earth. In
general, the sages‟ knowledge of natural matters came from two major sources: observation by the
sages and information that entered their world from the surroundings, i.e., the classical world. The
sages‟ occupation with the issue of the half-mouse shows that they were attentive to news that
reached them through rumors or from educated and knowledgeable people in their times [6]. The
belief in spontaneous generation was common in the Roman world, and as stated it was also
reflected in Jewish sources dealing with the formation of lice, worms, and mice (Babylonian
Talmud Sabbath 107b).

The belief in the existence of this irregular mouse is evident in the classical literature, such as in
the works of Diodorus, Ovid and Pliny. These sources associate the half-mouse with the Nile‟s

32
high and low tide, and it is interesting that later sources also limit its geographical range to Egypt.
This phenomenon raises the question, of course, of whether it was a myth that developed in this
area and spread to the Greco-Roman world, or a phenomenon observed in other regions as well.
We saw that the Babylonian source associates the creature with a „valley‟ in general and even
recommends observing it in real time. Namely, some saw the mouse as a more extensive
phenomenon and not only one that develops in a certain geographical region.

It may be assumed that it was attributed to areas with moist ground that has „loose matter‟ (mud),
enabling new formation of the mice. The source of the perception whereby the mouse was formed
from earth appears to be the biblical source that speaks of the formation of animals from the earth
on the sixth day of the Creation (Genesis 2.19). On one hand, it seems that the mud in wet regions
created a misconception among the ancients that mice mired in mud, particularly during the high
and low tide, were formed from the earth. In Jewish literature, the Mishna is the initial source that
documents “vermin that is half earth and half flesh” (this is the wording in most of the versions),
however over the generations some sources replaced this with “mouse”, following the Sifra and
the Babylonian Talmud.

Interestingly, this mouse is not mentioned in the discussions of the Jerusalem Talmud and no
explanation for it has been found to date. The Jewish sources deal with a half-vermin or mouse in
two contexts: matters of halakha (laws of purity and impurity) and philosophy (proof of the
resurrection of dead from the earth). Notably, the Jewish sources do not mention the phenomenon
in order to enrich existing zoological knowledge, rather it is discussed in the study halls only in a
religious context.

The experiments conducted by the famous French biologist, chemist and microbiologist Louis
Pasteur (1822-1895) in the latter half of the 19th century proved that the spontaneous generation
outlook is baseless.

The new scientific discoveries that disproved the spontaneous development of creatures from rot
or earth are one of many manifestations of the contradiction between science and religion. In the
rabbinical literature of the 20th -21st centuries there are still rabbis who advocate the approach
of the ancient sages. (R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) claimed that, in general, the
Torah should be seen as a source of absolute Divine truth versus science that is based on
conjectures [35- 38].) Others, in contrast, claim that the sages issued their halakic rulings taking
into account the knowledge of their times, however once it has been proven otherwise the new
knowledge cannot be disregarded and contemporary halakha must be determined based on the
conclusions of modern knowledge.

33
References
[1] E. Nissan, Korot, 22 (2013/2014) 3–63.
[2] ***, Mishnah, Ḥ. Albeck edition, Mossad Biyalik and Dvir, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1952, 332.
[3] ***, Babylonian Talmud, The Widow and Brothers Romm, Vilna, 1882, Gittin 56b57a.
[4] ***, Midrash Tanhuma, Levine–Epstin, Vilna, 1883, parashat vayeshev, 46b.
[5] J.C. Cooper, Symbolic and Magical Animals, The Aquarian Press, England, 1992, 196.
[6] A.O. Shemesh, Biology in Rabbinic Literature: Fact and Folklore, in Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
(CRINT): The Literature of the Sages, S. Safrai (ed.), Part 2, Royal Van Gorcum, Fortress Press, Amsterdam, 2006, 509–519.
[7] ***, Jerusalem Talmud, Venice edition, Daniel Bomberg, Venice, 1523, Shabbat 1:3, 8a.
[8] A.O. Shemesh, Arquivo Maaravi: Revista Digital de Estudos Judaicos Da Ufmg, 11(20) (2017) 2-13.
[9] L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. 4: Bible Times and Characters from Joshua to Esther, Cosimo, New York, 2005,
165-169.
[10] J. Theodor and Ḥ Albeck, Genesis Rababh, Itzkowski, Berlin, 1903, 285-286.
[11] ***, Genesis Rabbah, The Widow and Brothers Romm, Vilna, 1885–1887, 116.
[12] A. Kosman, HUCA, 73(1) (2002) 157-190.
[13] ***, Genesis Rabbah, Theodor-Albeck edition, Itzkowski, Berlin, 1903, 227.
[14] A.O. Shemesh, HTS Teologiese Studies-Theological Studies, 74(1) (2018) 1-14, online at
https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/4938/11316.
[15] Y. Feliks, Nature and Land in the Bible: Chapters in Biblical Ecology, Reuven Mass, Jerusalem, 1992, 21-22.
[16] E. Nissan, Korot, 23 (2015/2016) 257-294.
[17] S. Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, Mossad Bialik, Jerusalem, 1963, 286-287.
[18] M. Bar-Ilan, Mahanaim, 7(1) (1994) 104-113.
[19] N. Slifkin, Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical; Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash, Zoo Torah, Jerusalem,
2007.
[20] M.S. Zuckermandel, Tosefta-Ta'arot, Bamberger and Wahrmann, Jerusalem, 1937, 3:6, 4:5-6, 11:1.
[21] Oppian, Halieutica, Book I, LCL, Cambridge (MA), 1928, 173–178, 223.
[22] L. Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmud, Joseph Baer, Frankfurt am Main, 1858, 269.
[23] M. Dor, Animals in Biblical, Mishnah and Talmudic periods, Grafor-Deftel, Tel Aviv, 1997, 76.
[24] J.L. Bannister, Baleen Whales (Mysticetes), in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig & J.G.M.
Thewissen (eds.), 2 nd edn., Academic Press, London, 2008, 80–89. [25] Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book I, LCL, Cambridge (MA),
1916, 423-438.
[26] Pomponius Mela, Chorographia, Book I, Teubner, Lipsiae, 1880, 12.
[27] C.R. Osten Sacken, On the Oxen-Born Bees of the Ancients (Bugonia) and Their Relation to Eristalis Tenax, J. Hoerning,
Heidelberg, 1894
[28] E. Reichman, The Riddle of Samson and the Spontaneous Generation of Bees: The Bugonia Myth, the Crosspollination that
Wasn’t, and the Heter for Honey That Might Have Been, in Essays for a Jewish Lifetime: Burton D. Morris Jubilee Volume, M.
Butler & M.E. Frankston (eds.), Hakirah Press, New York, 1-12, online at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54694fa6e4b0eaec4530f99d/t/5ca3859f652
dea67a5954661/1554220448148/Spontaneous+generation+of+bees+-+Eddie+Reich man.pdf. [29] M. Kislev, Shanah be-Shanah,
42(1) (2002) 155-166.
[30] R.N.N. Rabinovitch, Dikdukei Sofrim: Hullin, Oel Ya'akov, Permishla, 1897, 170b.
[31] R.N.N. Rabinovitch, Dikdukei Sofrim: Sanhedrin, Brill, Magentza, 1878, 126a.
[32] ***, Mishnah with the commentary of Maimonides, First Press, Napoli, 1492, A.M. Haberman edition, Sifriyat Makor,
Jerusalem, 1970, Hullin, 87B.
[33] Y.Y. Teppler, Birkat ha-Minim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world, translated by Susan Weingarten, Mohr
Siebeck, Tübingen, 2007, 39-40.
[34] J. Heller, Mollusca, in Plants and Animals of the Land of Israel: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, II: Terrestrial invertebrates, G.
Levy (ed.), Ministry of Defense, Tel Aviv, 124-125.
[35] M.M. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 18, Otzar Hasidim, New York, 1959, 493.
[36] J. Ginsburg and J. Baranover, “O LORD, how manifold are thy works": Science and Technology in the doctrine of
Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Shamir, Jerusalem, 2000, 275.
[37] R. Ovadia Yosef, Hazon Ovadia, vol. 5, Maor Israel, Jerusalem, 2012, 128.
[38] N. Gutel, Hishtanut ha-Teva'iim ba-Halakha (Change in Natural Realm in Halakha), Machon Yachdav, Jerusalem, 1995,
184.

34
Chametz and Matzah in a Deeper Sense

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:

The Gemora discusses situations where one is required to search his house for chametz a second
time. The sefarim write that the word matzah is in numerical value 135, and this is equivalent to
the word kalah which means light.

This alludes to the idea that one should not take “lightly” the mitzvah of eating matzah. According
to the Arizal, one who is careful to not own even a crumb of chametz on Pesach is guaranteed that
he will not sin the whole year. Great Torah scholars and pious ones would be meticulous to eat
matzah until after Chanukah, as they wished to avoid the prohibition of eating chametz that had
been owned by a Jew on Pesach.

The Arizal said that the difference between matzah and chametz is only a small line that
distinguishes the letter ches in the word chametz and the letter hey in the word matzah. This alludes
to the halachah that even a minute amount of chametz is prohibited on Pesach. The Radvaz said
that of all prohibitions in the Torah, only chametz (and idolatry) is forbidden even in a minute
amount, and this is because chametz alludes to the Evil Inclination, which one is forbidden to be
tempted by even in the minutest amount.

Rabbi Shemelke of Nikolsburg said that there is an Evil Inclination for food and drink, and this is
called chametz. There is also an Evil Inclination for anger and slander, which one cannot consume,
and this is called seor, leaven, which causes the dough to rise.

Then there is the Evil Inclination of humility, which is the real Evil Inclination, chametz that is
visible, and one must dispose of all the inclinations so he does not see them or find them. The
difference between the simple meaning of chametz and the exegesis provided throughout the
generations is that as long as Pharaoh was just Pharaoh and Egypt was just Egypt, they were
drowned in the sea and they were destroyed forever. Once the Zohar revealed that Pharaoh alludes
to the Evil Inclination and Egypt is the Evil Inclination's helpers, then we can no longer absolve
ourselves from them.

When chametz is chametz, it can be burned easily, but the Evil Inclination is not so easy to be rid
of.

This seemingly simple piece of advice that the mishnah gives also has a much deeper meaning to
it. Bedikas Chometz by the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l was one of the biggest nights of the year.

35
The Rebbe would personally inspect all areas, getting down on his hands and knees where
necessary. After finally collecting the Chometz, he would spend an inordinate amount of time
tying it up and hanging it in a place where no mice should reach it. He even appointed a shomer to
guard it when he was not present.

When questioned about the necessity of all these precautions, he related the following: In the times
of R’ Mendel of Rimanov zt”l, a mouse once chewed off a part of the sack holding his shmurah
wheat. Angry at the audacity of the mouse, R’ Mendel wished to banish all mice from Rimanov
and its surroundings, only being appeased by the entreaties of the Malach appointed over all mice
that the culprit would be punished.

From this we see that mice represent a ‫ כח‬of tum’ah which don’t want to let Jews fulfill the mitzvah
of Pesach. That’s why the ‫ ירושלמי‬refers to them as ‫ רשעים‬and why the Gemara constantly uses
mice as the example of the animal that we worry will take the chometz.14

14
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20010.pdf

36