Daf Ditty Eruvin 48: Stature as Genetic Flaw

'Tis marvelous to have a giant's strength,

but tyrannous to use it like a giant.

– Measure For Measure, Shakespeare

"....he also prepared for an expedition to the Caspian Gates,

after enrolling a new legion of raw recruits of Italian birth,

each six feet tall, which he called the phalanx of Alexander the Great."1

1
"Lives of the Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius and precisely book VI paragraph XIX, about the Emperor Nero.

1
The source for a person without a ‫ תחום‬being limited to four ‫ אמות‬is from the ‫ תחתיו איש שבו –פסוק‬-
which implies that he is restricted to an area ‫ כתחתיו‬- like that which is beneath him. The average
height of a person is three ‫ אמות‬- and when accounting either for outstretched arms or moving
objects from the area at the feet to the area at the head, the total space is four ‫ אמות‬by four ‫אמות‬.

The ‫ גמרא‬adds; Typically we measure the four ‫ אמות‬based on the length of that individual’s arm,
from elbow to middle finger, with the exception of a ‫ באבריו ננס‬- a person with an average sized
torso, but unusually short limbs, whose ‫אמות‬are measured by the standard ‫אמות‬.

2
The Gemara inquiries about the basis of this law: These four cubits within which a person is
always permitted to walk on Shabbat, where are they written in the Torah?

The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The verse:

-‫ַﬠל‬--‫ ְיהָוה ָנַתן ָלֶכם ַהַשָּׁבּת‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫כט ְראוּ‬ 29 See that the LORD hath given you the sabbath;
;‫ ֶלֶחם יוָֹמ ִים‬,‫ֵכּן הוּא ֹנֵתן ָלֶכם ַבּיּוֹם ַהִשִּׁשּׁי‬ therefore, He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two
--‫ֵיֵצא ִאישׁ ִמְמֹּקמוֹ‬-‫ ַאל‬,‫ְשׁבוּ ִאישׁ ַתְּחָתּיו‬ days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out
.‫ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי‬ of his place on the seventh day.'

Ex 16:29

“Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day” means one
must restrict his movement to an area equal to his place.

And how much is the area of his place? A person’s body typically measures three cubits, and
an additional cubit is needed in order to allow him to spread out his hands and feet, this is the
statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A person’s body measures three cubits, and an additional cubit is needed
in order to allow him to pick up an object from under his feet and place it under his head,
meaning, to give him room to maneuver.

3
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There
is a practical difference between them in that Rabbi Yehuda provides him with exactly four
cubits but no more; whereas Rabbi Meir maintains that we do not restrict him in this manner, but
rather he is provided with expansive cubits, i.e., enough room to spread out his hands and feet,
which measures slightly more than four cubits.

Rav Mesharshiya said to his son: When you come before Rav Pappa, inquire of him as
follows: The four cubits [ammot] mentioned here, do we grant them to each person measured
according to his own forearm [amma], i.e., the distance from his elbow to the tip of his index
finger, or do we grant them measured according to the cubit [amma] used for consecrated
property, i.e., a standard cubit of six medium handbreadths for everyone?

RASHI

Cites the mishna in Kelim :

4
Mishna Kelim 17

The cubit of which they spoke is one of medium size. There were two standard cubits in Shushan
Habirah, one in the north-eastern corner and the other in the south-eastern corner. The one in the
north-eastern corner exceeded that of Moses by half a fingerbreadth, while the one in the south-
eastern corner exceeded the other by half a fingerbreadth, so that the latter exceeded that of Moses
by a fingerbreadth. But why were there a larger and a smaller cubit?

Only for this reason: so that craftsmen might take their orders according to the smaller cubit and
return their finished work according to the larger cubit, so that they might not be guilty of any
possible trespassing of Temple property.

Rabbi Meir says: all cubits were of the moderate length except that for the golden altar, the horns,
the surround and the base. Rabbi Judah says: the cubit used for the building was one of six
handbreadths and that for the vessels one of five handbreadths.

5
Sometimes they stated a smaller measure: Liquid and dry measures were measured with the Italian
standard which was the one that was used in the wilderness. Sometimes they stated a measure that
varied according to the individual concerned: One who takes the handful of a minhah, One who
takes both hands full of incense, One who drinks a cheek full on Yom Kippur, And the two meals
for an eruv, The quantity being the food one eats on weekdays and not on Shabbat, the words of
Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: as on Shabbat and not as on weekdays. And both intended to give the more
lenient ruling.

Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made of a kav. Rabbi Yohanan
ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pundium when the price of wheat is
four se'ah for a sela’.

When Rav Mesharshiya’s son came before Rav Pappa, the latter said to him: Were we to be so
precise, we would not be able to learn anything at all, as we would be too busy answering such
questions.

6
In fact, we grant him four cubits measured according to his own forearm. And as for that
which was difficult for you, why was this law not taught in the mishna that teaches: These are
matters with regard to which they stated measures all in accordance with the specific measure
of the person involved? It is because this law is not absolutely clear-cut. It occasionally must be
adjusted, since there may be a person whose limbs are small in relation to his body. With regard
to such a person, we do not measure four cubits according to the size of his own forearm, but rather
by the standard cubits used for consecrated property.

7
Rav Avraham Adler writes:2

1. There is an argument regarding the size of the four-cubit place of a person. The Gemora clarifies
the difference between the opinion of the Chachamim (Rabbi Meir) and Rabbi Yehudah in the
Mishna. Rabbi Yehudah holds that this is a total of four by four cubits aside from his body that he
can pick to be in any direction (four to one side, or two on each side, see Rashi). He can only pick
once, and he must stick with those four cubits. However, the Chachamim hold that he actually has
four cubits on each side, meaning that he has eight by eight cubits, four on each side.

2. The above is only regarding a person walking on Shabbos outside of his space, not carrying four
cubits on Shabbos. Rava explains that the argument above is only regarding one’s space of techum
Shabbos (should he be confined to walking within his four-cubit space). However, even Rabbi
Meir agrees that one cannot carry four cubits in this manner on Shabbos. In other words, when the
Torah prohibits one from carrying four cubits on Shabbos in the public domain, it literally means
four cubits. [However, the Rashba notes that Rava would agree that one may also carry an object
less than four cubits at a time in all of the eight by eight cubits, according to Rabbi Meir.]

3. The verse teaches us that a person’s space is four cubits. The verse Ex 16:29 states, “A person
should sit underneath himself (i.e. where he is, in his place, and not go out of the techum).” We
derive that a person’s place is like “underneath himself.”

Rabbi Meir understands this means that the average person’s body is three cubits, and he receives
one additional cubit for when he stretches out his arms and legs.

Rabbi Yehudah derives that the average person’s body is three cubits, and he receives one
additional cubit for when he takes something from his feet and places it by his head.

4. The cubit discussed is based on the person, not on the set length of a cubit. The Gemora
concludes that the cubits of a person’s space are measured by his own cubits, not by the standard
cubit. Otherwise, a giant person would not be able to function within his small techum!

Defining the Amah

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

In the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and the hakhamim (Mishna, 45a)
the hakhamim limited the movement of the person who awakened on Shabbat to the
surrounding four cubits. The Gemara now returns to the opinion of the hakhamim and
asks for the source of four cubits as being the limit for someone who is not allowed to
move at all.

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Eiruvin_48.pdf
3
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

8
The Gemara inquires about the basis of this law: These four cubits within which a
person is always permitted to walk on Shabbat, where are they written in the Torah?
The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The verse “Remain every man in
his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day” (Shemot 16:29), means one
must restrict his movement to an area equal to his place.

The passage that is presented as the source for this rule is shevu ish tahtav – “remain
every man in his place,” which refers to the time when the manna fell and the Children
of Israel were instructed to refrain from going out to collect it on Shabbat.

The word tahtav literally means “under him,” and the Gemara presents this as the source
for limiting movement to the area of a person lying down – three cubits – together with
another cubit that allows him room to stretch out his arms and legs (according to Rabbi
Meir) or to move an object from beneath his feet and place it under his head (according
to Rabbi Yehuda). In an attempt to clarify this rule, Rav Mesharshiya tells his son to ask
Rav Pappa whether the amot under discussion in the Mishna are subjective and differ
for each person (the word ama means an arms-length – the distance from his elbow to
the tip of his index finger), or if they are an objective size that is the same for everyone.

Rav Mesharshiya supplied him with follow-up questions to ask on whatever answer he
received. Were he told that amot are objective, he was to ask whether the same size
would apply to Og the king of Bashan (see Devarim 3:11); were he told that amot are
subjective, he was to ask why this rule does not appear with other such rules in the list
(Mishna Kelim 17:11) See above, of halakhot that differ from one person to another.

Rav Pappa is, apparently, taken aback by the question, and responds that were we to
try to read Mishnayot so closely in an attempt to infer such things, we would never have
time to learn.

This reaction probably stems from the fact that Rav Mesharshiya’s questions do not
stem from the Mishna itself, but are based on an attempt to read things into the Mishna
that are not clearly indicated there.

Rav Pappa is suggesting that such attempts to read into the Mishna are misguided, since
there may be a variety of reasons for a particular phrase to be chosen for use in the
Mishna – based on style, for example – and trying to extract a halakha from such an
inference may lead to mistaken conclusions or internal contradictions.

Rav Pappa does answer the question, though, and rules that an ama is subjective, based
on the size of the person. However, there are exceptions, such as a person whose arms
are disproportionately small for his body, where the amot will be based on the standard,
objective measurement of an ama.

This is why the rule does not appear in the list of subjective halakhot in the Mishna Kelim.

9
Alieza Salzberg writes:4

Throughout Tractate Eruvin, we have repeatedly encountered the measurement of four amot, a
common Talmudic unit of measure we generally translate as “cubits.” When you find yourself in
a public domain without an eruv, you are allowed to carry objects only four cubits. Similarly, if
you wander outside the standard 2,000-cubit radius that you are permitted to travel within
on Shabbat, you can walk only an additional four cubits.

The source (and limit) of this ubiquitous measurement is explored on our daf.

According to the Mishnah we’ve been discussing for several days now, a person who falls asleep
on the side of the road on Friday afternoon may only walk on Shabbat four cubits from where they
slept. Because they slept through sunset and did not officially declare that spot to be their place of
residence, they are not permitted to move about in the normal 2,000 cubit range allowed on
Shabbat. When they wake up, they are stuck in their four-cubit encampment.

Perhaps because of the severity of being stuck on the side of the road in a four-by-four cubit box,
the Gemara inquires after the source of this measurement: Do we have to be this strict? Is it written
somewhere in the Torah?

Our Daf teaches:

The verse “Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day”
(Exodus 16:29), means one must restrict his movement to an area equal to his place. And how
much is the area of his place? A person’s body typically measures three cubits, and an additional
cubit is needed in order to allow him to spread out his hands and feet, this is the statement of
Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A person’s body measures three cubits, and an additional cubit
is needed in order to allow him to pick up an object from under his feet and place it under his
head, meaning, to give him room to maneuver.

In looking for the source of the four-cubit rule, the Talmud turns to a verse in Exodus, in which
the Israelites are told they don’t need to go out to gather manna on Shabbat because they will
receive a double portion of it on Friday. Generally, this verse is read to mean that the Israelites
should just stay home on Shabbat. But a literal reading could be that you have to stay exactly
within the space your body occupies for all of Shabbat. From this reading, the Gemara concludes
that the area a person’s body occupies — which permits them to stretch out and get comfortable
for sleep — is four cubits.

The Gemara asks: Are all people the same height and need the same amount of personal space?
Does one size fit all?

The details of this case stirs a significant question about the standardization of the cubit itself. In
Hebrew, an ammah is literally a forearm. The standard measure of a cubit is the length of an
average man’s arm, measured from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. But just as everyone

4
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-48/

10
has a different height, everyone’s ammah is different. And if you are confined to your personal
space for all of Shabbat, how you measure four cubits matters a great deal.

The Talmud continues:

If he said to you that we provide him four cubits measured according to the standard cubit used
for consecrated property, the standardized cubit, what will be with regard to Og, king of the
Bashan, who is much larger than this?

If we go by a single objective standard of a cubit, then Og — the biblical giant who is a source of
recurring fascination for the rabbis — would be pretty cramped. An extreme example, perhaps,
but the point is clear: Bodies are very different, and a standard measure of four cubits would clearly
cause problems for some people.

In the vast majority of cases, the four-cubit measure is a theoretical concept symbolizing personal
space, not an accurate measure of the space needed to accommodate an actual body. Usually,
having one standard measure of a cubit for all people isn’t a problem.

In our case, this isn’t so — the measurement marks the actual space a person takes up when lying
on the ground. Still, the rabbis prefer the standardized measure, even if that means some have more
or less space to stretch out. Only in a few exceptional cases does the cubit revert to the subjective
and individual measure of personal space.

Harav Yaron Ben Zvi writes:5

‫ג ב ה ו ש ל א ד ם – ע יר ו ב י ן ד ף מ ח‬
‫בסגוייתנו מבררת הגמרא היכן נאמר בתורה שיעור זה של ארבע אמות שנותנים למי שאין לו תחום )רש"י להלן דף נא‬
‫)עמוד א ד"ה אלו ארבע אמות‬:
"‫ שבו איש תחתיו – כתחתיו‬:‫ כדתניא‬-?‫ והני ארבע אמות היכא כתיבא‬...‫"וחכמים אומרים אין לו אלא ארבע‬.

‫ איסור תחומין הוא מהתורה כפי שלמדנו לעיל בדף‬,‫ שהזכירו שיעור זה של ארבע אמות‬,‫לשיטת רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה‬
‫ האיסור של מעביר ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים נלמד מפי הקבלה )בבלי שבת דף צו‬,‫ לעומת זאת‬.‫)עמוד ב לה‬:

"‫ גמרא גמירי לה‬,‫ כל ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים‬:‫ אלא‬- ?‫"מעביר ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים מנלן דמחייב‬.

‫ מאחר שנודע דין‬,‫ טו( פירש שמסוגייתנו למדים גם לשיעור טלטול ברשות הרבים; לדעתו‬,‫הרמב"ם בהלכות שבת )יב‬
‫ תוקף הדין הוא מדאורייתא‬,(‫טלטול )הלכה למשה מסיני‬.
‫ נאמר שגובהו של אדם הינו שלוש אמות‬,‫תוך כדי הבירור בגמרא‬:
"[ ,‫ גופו שלש אמות‬:‫ רבי יהודה אומר‬.‫ ואמה כדי לפשוט ידיו ורגליו דברי רבי מאיר‬,‫ גופו שלש אמות‬- [‫וכמה תחתיו‬
‫ ומניח תחת מראשותיו‬,‫"ואמה כדי שיטול חפץ מתחת מרגלותיו‬.

5
https://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%92%D7%91%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D

11
‫בעלי התוספות )ד"ה גופו ג' אמות( כתבו שזה הוא שיעור גופו של אדם מבלי לחשב את גובה הראש‪ .‬באופן דומה כתבו‬
‫רש"י ובעלי התוספות במסכת שבת )דף צב עמוד א ד"ה אישתכח( ובמסכת בבא בתרא )דף ק עמוד ב ד"ה‬
‫עמוד ב( ורמב"ן סוברים שחישוב שלוש אמות כולל את האדם עם והכוכין(‪.‬ברם‪ ,‬רשב"ם )מסכת בבא בתרא דף ק‬
‫‪:‬הראש‬

‫‪".‬והכוכין ארבע אמות ארכן ‪ -‬שהמת ארכו שלש אמות ובשביל ארון שהוא מונח בו צריך אמה רביעית"‬
‫קשה אם כן‪ ,‬מדוע במספר מקומות אנו למדים שגובהו של אדם הינו ארבע אמות‪ ,‬ואילו במקומות אחרים אנו למדים‬
‫‪.‬שגובהו של אדם הינו שלוש אמות‬

‫אפשרות אחת היא כפי שנאמר לעיל‪ ,‬שהחישוב הוא ללא הראש‪ .‬הסבר אחר שניתן לומר הוא שאף על פי שגופו של‬
‫אדם הינו רק שלוש אמות‪ ,‬מכל מקום נתנו לאדם ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים; נראה להסביר את דברי רבי מאיר 'כדי‬
‫לפשוט ידיו ורגליו' על פי דבריו של רבי ישעיה דטרני )תוספות רי"ד( שכאשר אדם שוכב פרקיו אינם דחוסים כפי שהם‬
‫בזמן שהוא עומד‪ ,‬לכן‪ ,‬כאשר אדם שוכב גופו ארוך יותר‪ .‬אפשרות נוספת היא שכאשר אדם שוכב ביכולתו למתוח את‬
‫‪.‬איבריו יותר מאשר במצב של עמידה‬

‫בעלי התוספות בסוגייתנו )ד"ה גופו ג' אמות( מציעים להסביר את עניין המחיצה הנדרשת כנגד היזק ראיה בכך שדרשו‬
‫ארבע אמות על אף שגובהו של אדם הינו שלוש אמות משום שאם יעמוד אדם ליד המחיצה‪ ,‬יתכן שתהיה האדמה שם‬
‫גבוהה יותר מהמקום שבו המחיצה הונחה ולכן יעבור ראשו את המחיצה; הסבר נוסף הינו שאדם יכול למתוח איבריו –‬
‫לעמוד על קצות האצבעות ובכך יעבור ראשו את המחיצה‪ .‬באופן דומה מתרצים בעלי התופסות בסוגייתנו את הסוגיות‬
‫‪.‬השונות – כל אחת לפי עניינה‬

‫‪The Gemara records a disagreement between R’ Meir and R’ Yehudah concerning the size of the‬‬
‫‪four amos in which a person may transport something in a public domain.6‬‬

‫‪According to R’ Meir, a person’s body is three amos and each person is given an additional amah‬‬
‫‪so that he could stretch out his arms and legs.‬‬

‫‪R’ Yehudah agrees that a person is three amos but asserts that the additional amah is to allow a‬‬
‫‪person to take an object that was beneath his feet and move it to above his head.‬‬

‫תוספות ד"ה גופו ג' אמות‬

‫‪Tosfos resolves that this is the height until the shoulder.‬‬

‫וא''ת אמאי בעינן גבי היזק ראייה מחיצה ד' אמות בהשותפין )ב''ב דף ב‪(:‬‬

‫?)‪Question: [To prevent] Hezek Re'iyah, why do we require [a wall] four Amos in Bava Basra (2b‬‬

‫וי''ל דפעמים שיש גבשושית סמוך לכותל ופעמים נמי שמגביה עקיבו ועומד על אצבעות רגליו‬

‫‪Answer: Sometimes there is a clump of earth near the wall, and also sometimes he lifts his heel‬‬
‫;‪and stands on his tiptoes‬‬

‫‪6‬‬
‫‪https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin/Eruvin%20048.pdf‬‬

‫‪12‬‬
 ‫ועוד הא דאמר הכא גופו ג' אמות היינו בלא ראשו‬

Also, it says here that his body is three Amos, i.e. without his head.7

‫( דאמר המוציא משוי למעלה מיו''ד חייב שכן משא בני קהת‬.‫וכן משמע בהמצניע )שבת דף צב‬

Support #1: It connotes like this in Shabbos (92a). It says that one who carries a load above 10
[Tefachim] is liable, for this is how Bnei Kehas carried;

‫דאמר מר ארון תשעה וכפרת טפח וגמירי כל טונא דמידלי במוטה תילתא מלעיל ותרתי תילתי מלתתא אישתכח‬
‫דלמעלה מי' הוה קאי‬

It was taught that the Aron was nine, and the Kapores (its cover) was a Tefach, and we have a
tradition that anything carried on poles, a third is above [the poles] and two thirds are below. It
turns out that [the entire Aron] was above 10;

‫ובכתף היו נושאים אותו ודל מי''ח טפחים ב' תילתי דארון וכפרת היינו ששה וב' שלישי טפח ונשתיירו עד‬
‫הקרקע י''א טפחים ושליש‬

They carried it on the shoulder. Deduct from 18 Tefachim (three Amos, which is the height until
the shoulder) two third of the Aron and Kapores, i.e. six and two thirds, and 11 and a third Tefachim
remain above the ground.

‫אבל אם אדם עם ראשו רק י''ח טפחים יגיע הארון עד למטה מיו''ד דראש וצואר מחזיק יותר מטפח ושליש‬

However, if a person with his head is only 18 Tefachim, the (bottom) of the Aron reaches until
below 10, for the head and neck occupy more than one and a third Tefachim!

‫( היינו עם ראשו ועובי דפי הארון‬:‫וגבי כוכין בעינן נמי ד' אמות בפרק המוכר פירות )ב''ב דף ק‬

Support #2: For burial caves we require four Amos [length] in Bava Basra (100b), i.e. with the
head and the thickness of the walls of the coffin.

‫ושיעור מקוה דהוי אמה על אמה ברום שלש אמות‬

The Shi'ur of a Mikveh (which is enough for a person to fit into) is an Amah by an Amah by three
Amos! (This connotes that one's total height is three Amos.)

‫לאו משום שלא יהא גובה האדם יותר מג' אמות אלא משנכנס במים המים עולין וגם קצת ירכין ראשו‬

Answer: This is not because one's height is not more than three Amos. Rather, when he enters the
water, the water rises, and also, he bends his head down a little.

7
Rav Kornfeld adds: “It seems that this is not an independent answer by itself, for the head is less than an Amah, and the eyes
are not at the very top. Tosfos ha'Rosh says that once more than three were needed, Chachamim obligated four, but Tosfos did
not say so.”

13
 ‫והא דכתיב בתרגום מגילת אסתר פרשנדתא איצטליב על תלת אמין וכן כולם‬

It says in the Targum of Megilas Esther (which discusses what occupied the 50 Amos from the top
of the scaffold from which Haman and his sons were hung) that Parshandasa was hung in three
Amos, and likewise for all of them!

‫התם קטועי ראש הוו‬

Answer: Their heads were cut off.

Tosafos writes that the statement that a person is three amos tall refers to a person’s height up until
his shoulders. Including one’s head a person is taller than three amos.

In contrast, Rashbam ‫ ד"ה והכוכין‬:‫ רשב"ם ב"ב ק‬contends that the length of a corpse is three amos
including the head.

Aruch HaShulchan ‫ ד‬-'‫ יו"ד סי' ר"א סע' ג‬follows Rashbam’s opinion that three amos includes a
person’s head. He then takes the government’s report that an average size person is 160cm
(approximately 63 inches).

If this represents 3 amos, one amah equals 53.3cm (approximately 21 inches). Sefer Shiurin Shel
Torah notes that according to Tosafos, if a person’s height is 160cm but the measure of three amos
is only to a person’s shoulders it would emerge that an amah would be approximately 44cm (17.3
inches).

The difficulty, however, is that people who are 160cm tall are smaller than averaged size. He
further explains that the government actually has a range of what they consider average sized and
although it begins at 160cm it extends to 174cm (68.5 inches).

The truth is that an average size person is 170cm (approximately 67 inches). Accordingly, three
amos includes the head an amah will be approximately 58cm (22.8 inches) and if it is without the
head an amah will be 48cm (18.9 inches) and these numbers parallel the numbers of Rav Avrohom
Chaim Na’eh and Chazon Ish who arrive at their respective conclusions using an egg as the
starting point of their calculation.

14
Tosafos notes a discrepancy between R’ Yehudah’s statement and a halachah in Bava Basra
(2b)8 (see above).

The Gemara there rules that a partition built in a shared courtyard must be four amos high to
prevent one neighbor from gazing at the other.

If, however, a person is only three amos tall, as R’ Yehudah states, why is it necessary to build a
partition four amos high?

Two different approaches to resolve this contradiction are suggested. In his first approach, Tosafos
accepts the Gemara’s statement that people are three amos tall and the reason the partition must
be four amos tall is the possibility that there will be a mound of dirt next to the wall or that the
neighbor may stand on his toes.

To prevent gazing even in these circumstances it is necessary to construct a partition four amos
tall. The second approach is to explain that the Gemara’s statement that people are three amos tall
refers to their height excluding their head.

This is supported by the Gemara in Shabbos (92a) which makes a calculation based upon the way
the Children of Kehas carried the Aron HaKodesh. (see Daf Ditty op cit!)

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar said: One who carries out a load from the private domain to the public
domain, even if he does so at a height above ten handbreadths, which is beyond the parameters
of the public domain, he is liable, as this was the method of carrying utilized by the sons of Kehat.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the method of carrying utilized by the sons
of Kehat was above ten handbreadths?

The Gemara answers: For it is written about the Levites’ carrying: “And the hangings of the
courtyard, and the screen for the courtyard entrance which surrounds the Tabernacle, and the
altar, and its cords for all of its service” (Numbers 3:26).

This verse juxtaposes the altar to the Tabernacle. It is derived that just as the Tabernacle was
ten cubits high, so too, the altar was ten cubits high. The verse that indicates otherwise: “And
8
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin/Eruvin%20048.pdf

15
you shall make the altar…and its height should be three cubits” (Exodus 27:1), must be understood
differently.

The calculation is accurate only if we assume that there are three amos from a person’s shoulders
to the ground. A difficulty with this second approach, Tosafos notes, is that a mikveh must be three
amos tall to correspond to a person’s height.

If a person is taller than three amos, the height of the mikveh will not be sufficient. Tosafos answers
that when a person enters the water the water level will rise enough to cover the additional height
of his head.

Additionally, when a person immerses, he bends his head forward which also decreases his overall
height.

Adam and Eve temptation by the serpent

mediaeval painted panel on wooden nave ceiling Ely Cathedral

16
The Height of Adam Harishon

The Gemara answers that this phrase teaches us something else, according to Rabbi Elazar. As
Rabbi Elazar said: The height of Adam the first man reached from the ground to the skies, as it is
stated: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of the heavens”
(Deuteronomy 4:32). When he sinned, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed His hand upon him
and diminished him, as it is stated: “You fashioned me behind and before, and laid Your hand
upon me” (Psalms 139:5).

Chagiga 12a

The Height of Moshe Rabbeinu

GEMARA: Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was ten ammot tall, as it is stated: “And he spread the
tent over the Tabernacle” (Exodus 40:19). Who spread the tent over the Tabernacle? Moses, our
teacher, spread it, and it is written with regard to the height of the Tabernacle: “Ten ammot shall
be the length of a board” (Exodus 26:16). Moses must have been at least as tall as the Tabernacle
itself for him to have spread the tent over it.

17
 Bechoros 48a

Rav said, “Moshe Rabbeinu was ten cubits tall.” (A cubit is the distance from the elbow to the end of the third
finger.)

Rav derives this from the verses which state that the Mishkan was 10 cubits high, and that Moshe erected the
beams of wood which established its height.

-‫ ַו ִיֵּתּן ֶאת‬,‫ַהִמְּשָׁכּן‬-‫שׁה ֶאת‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ֹ ‫יח ַוָיֶּקם‬ 18 And Moses reared up the tabernacle, and laid its sockets, and
-‫ ַו ִיֵּתּן ֶאת‬,‫שׁיו‬ָ ‫ְקָר‬-‫שׂם ֶאת‬ ֶ ‫ ַוָיּ‬,‫ֲאָדָניו‬ set up the boards thereof, and put in the bars thereof, and
.‫ַﬠמּוָּדיו‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ְבּ ִריָחיו; ַוָיֶּקם‬ reared up its pillars.

Ex 40:18

Rav Simi bar Chiya was amazed at Rav’s statement. “If so, that Moshe Rabbeinu was 10 cubits
tall, he would have been considered “blemished” (since a normal person’s body height is three
times his personal cubit length — and Moshe’s height was a factor of ten — Rashi).

A kohen who is blemished — a baal moom in halachic nomenclature — is unfit for service in the
Mishkan or Beit Hamikdash. A person needs to be flawless in order to perform service in the
House of G-d.

Rav answers that the cubit he mentioned was not Moshe’s personal cubit, but rather a normal cubit
size. Moshe’s height and the Mishkan’s height was ten times a normal cubit. Therefore, Moshe
was indeed proportional and not considered blemished as a baal moom.

However, Simi’s bar Chiya’s question on Rav seems to be difficult to understand. What difference
would it make if Moshe Rabbeinu was a baal moom in this manner since he was a levi and not
a kohen? The only blemish that disqualifies a levi is having a problematic voice, but not a blemish
involving his bodily proportions!

One answer offered is that since Moshe served in the role of a kohen in the Mishkan during the
seven days of its inauguration, he necessarily did not possess any blemishes which would
disqualify a kohen from service. (Brisker Rav) Another answer I’ve heard is that since Moshe
initially erected the Mishkan, the place where the service would be performed, perforce he would
have been required to be as flawless as any kohen serving in the Mishkan.9

Short stature disqualified a Kohein. How did the Rabbis deal with this as apart from the other
physical disabilities?

9
Rabbi Moshe Newman: https://ohr.edu/this_week/talmud_tips/8388

18
Priestly Aesthetics: Disability and Bodily Difference in Leviticus 21

Julia Watts Belser writes:10

10
Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2019, Vol. 73(4) 355–366

19
 ,‫ ִיְהֶיה בוֹ ֶשֶׁבר ָרֶגל‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,‫יט אוֹ ִאישׁ‬ 19 or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed,
.‫ ֶשֶׁבר ָיד‬,‫אוֹ‬

‫ אוֹ‬,‫ אוֹ ְתַּבֻלּל ְבֵּﬠינוֹ‬,‫ַדק‬-‫ִגֵבּן אוֹ‬-‫כ אוֹ‬ 20 or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath his eye
.œ‫ אוֹ ְמרוַֹח ָאֶשׁ‬,‫ָגָרב אוֹ ַיֶלֶּפת‬ overspread, or is scabbed, or scurvy, or hath his stones
crushed;

‫ ִמֶזַּרע ַאֲהֹרן‬,‫בּוֹ מוּם‬-‫ִאישׁ ֲאֶשׁר‬-‫כא ָכּל‬ 21 no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a
‫ִאֵשּׁי‬-‫ ְלַהְק ִריב ֶאת‬,‫ל ֹא ִיַגּשׁ‬--‫ַהֹכֵּהן‬ blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the
‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ֵאת ֶלֶחם ֱא ָהיו‬--‫ מוּם בּוֹ‬:‫ְיהָוה‬ LORD made by fire; he hath a blemish; he shall not come
.‫ִיַגּשׁ ְלַהְק ִריב‬ nigh to offer the bread of his God.

-‫ וִּמן‬,‫ ִמָקְּדֵשׁי ַהֳקָּדִשׁים‬,‫כב ֶלֶחם ֱא ָהיו‬ 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy,
.‫ י ֹאֵכל‬,‫ַהֳקָּדִשׁים‬ and of the holy.

-‫ ְוֶאל‬,‫ַהָפֹּרֶכת ל ֹא ָיב ֹא‬-‫ ֶאל‬œ‫כג ַא‬ 23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh
‫מוּם בּוֹ; ְול ֹא ְיַחֵלּל‬-‫ִכּי‬--‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח ל ֹא ִיַגּשׁ‬ unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profanes
.‫ ִכּי ֲא ִני ְיהָוה ְמַקְדָּשׁם‬,‫ִמְקָדַּשׁי‬-‫ֶאת‬ not My holy places; for I am the LORD who sanctify them.
Lev 16: 19-23

Leviticus 21:16–23 forbids priests with a wide range of disabilities from offering sacrifice at the
altar, a ritual act that Leviticus considers the most sacred responsibility of the priesthood. This
essay raises critical questions about the biblical writer’s assumption that God desires the service
of those with “perfect” bodies. The essay probes traditional Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 21
and argues that rabbinic texts leach the prohibition of much practical force. Despite offering a path
toward more inclusive practice, conventional readings of these texts have left in place power
dynamics that presume the inferiority of the disabled body. Yet they also contain the seeds for a
conceptual shift that could transform the way contemporary communities engage with disability.

So, begins perhaps the most notorious passage of disability exclusion in the Hebrew Bible, a
passage that forbids priests with a wide range of bodily differences from offering sacrifice at the
altar, a ritual act that Leviticus considers the most sacred responsibility of the priesthood. Leviticus
21:16–23 enumerates the specific qualities that disqualify priests from approaching the altar:
priests who are blind or lame, priests who have a limb that is too short or too long, priests with a
broken limb, priests who have a hunchback, priests of short stature, priests with a growth in their
eye, priests with a distinctive scar, priests with scurvy, and priests with a crushed testicle. Just a
few verses later, Leviticus 22 likewise lists the blemishes that render an animal unfit to be offered
as a sacrifice. Priestly ritual is built upon pristine, perfect bodies who either offer divine service or
are offered up for divine consumption.

20
While many modern writers have aimed to read priestly perfection in ways that minimize the
implications for disability exclusion, I prefer to face Leviticus 21 as a powerful, if disturbing text:
one that makes visible the dynamics by which certain bodies are marked as inferior. Through these
texts, the biblical author idealizes a certain kind of human body, articulating the contours of divine
desire for a specific human form. Grappling with the implications of Leviticus 21, Jewish tradition
has often interpreted the passage quite narrowly, ultimately leaching the prohibition of much of its
practical force. Even so, the disqualification of the blemished priest has a powerful cultural sway.
The essay traces the way these aesthetic judgments reverberate in ancient and contemporary
contexts, probing the power dynamics that undergird even the tradition’s more inclusive gestures.
How do we grapple with texts that disavow disability? Probing the aesthetics and ethics of priestly
disqualification offers us an opportunity to reconsider how and why we judge certain bodies as
superior—and to question conventional notions of value that prize normalcy above all else and
that shear away the significance of physical and mental difference.

The concern for aesthetics might help explain why our biblical writer focuses exclusively on
physical impairments. Leviticus 21 is entirely unconcerned by speech disabilities, and
intellectual disabilities are also no cause for disqualification.

Jewish biblical commentary has made much of this notion that God is dissatisfied by blemished
bodies. While Lev 21:16–23 disbars blemished priests from performing service at the altar, Lev
22:17–25 uses almost identical language to forbid the sacrifice of defective animals. Consider
Rashi, the medieval commentator whose influence upon Jewish traditions of biblical interpretation
can hardly be overstated. Glossing Lev 21:18, he explains the prohibition on blemished priests by
way of a verse from Malachi in which the prophet castigates the people for scorning the table of
the Lord. “A son should honor his father,” the prophet proclaims, “and a slave his master.”11 God
is both father and master, Malachai contends, but receives no honor from the people. They bring a
blind, lame, or sick animal as a sacrifice and say it does not matter. Likening God to a mortal
governor, Malachi asks: Would you offer such to a human official? Would not he consider such
“gifts” an insult? Malachi’s question, taken up by Rashi and echoed by a number of other
traditional commentators, assumes that God acts according to the principles of honor and dignity
that drive humans. “It is not fitting,” Rashi asserts, that a blemished priest approaches the altar. It
is an insult, a slight to the divine honor.

The Mishnah takes up the subject of priestly imperfections when it discusses which priests are
allowed to perform the priestly blessing in the synagogue. Even before we consider the Mishnah’s
treatment of the priests themselves, it’s worth lingering for a moment with the striking degree of
change and transformation already present in this discussion. In its original biblical context,
Leviticus 21 was a passage written to describe proper ritual conduct within the tabernacle, the
portable sanctuary that the Israelites used to approach God during their forty years of wandering
in the wilderness.

Once the Jerusalem Temple became the primary site for ritual practice, the earlier biblical
traditions were understood to apply there. But after the destruction of the second Temple, with no
new site available for the performance of sacrifice, the rabbis were faced with a more substantial

11
Rashi on Leviticus 21:18; Malachi 1:8.

21
interpretive challenge. They cast the synagogue as a key site for honoring the obligations that had
once been fulfilled through Temple ritual, establishing communal prayer services as a substitution
for the sacrifices. Where priests had once officiated at the altar, offering the fruits of sacrifice to
God, their most significant ritual contribution was now the practice of benediction: reciting the
ancient biblical words of Num 6:2–7, while lifting up their hands to bless the congregation.12

The Mishnah chooses this moment to apply Leviticus 21, interpreting the biblical prohibitions on
service before the altar as relevant to the recitation of the priestly blessing. Mishnah Megillah 4:7
reads:

A priest who has blemishes on his hands may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly
Benediction. Because of his blemish, people will look at his hands, and it is prohibited to look at
the hands of the priests during the Priestly Benediction. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one whose
hands were colored with satis, a blue dye, may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly
Benediction because the congregation will look at him.

This text uses the same term, “blemish (mûm),” that recurs throughout Leviticus 21. But where
the biblical text offers an expansive list of prohibited blemishes, this Mishnah asserts that the only
significant disqualification for a priest is a blemish on the hands.13

For the rabbis, the priests’ hands seem to have been regarded as a locus of great sanctity, the part
of the priest’s body that conveyed or channeled divine blessing. The priests’ hands were also
widely regarded as dangerous to look upon. According to traditional custom, the priests draw their
prayer shawls over their heads and hands while blessing, in order to turn away the congregation’s
gaze. In Ḥagigah 16a, the Talmud states that gazing at the hands of the priest will cause a person’s
eyes to become dim; Rashi asserts that this is because the divine presence itself rests upon the
priests’ hands.

Beyond this significant limitation on the disqualifying characteristics, the Mishnah makes two
significant interventions: it does not associate “blemishes” with biomedical notions of difference,
and it introduces the problem of the communal gaze. Consider the statement attributed to Rabbi
Yehudah: While the Mishnah begins with a straightforward assertion that echoes, albeit in a narrow
way, Leviticus 21’s prohibition on the service of a priest with a blemish, Rabbi Yehudah’s
statement extends the exclusion to priests whose hands are stained, presumably because of their

12
My teacher Reuven Kimelman, “Rabbinic Prayer in Late Antiquity,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. Steven T. Katz,
8 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13
Elsewhere, the Mishnah expands the relevant disqualifications for priests serving at the altar—a discussion that had limited
practical application in a post-Temple world, but which reveals a strong interest in probing the contours of body and text. See Ishay
Rosen-Zvi, “The Body and the Book: The List of Blemishes in Mishnah Tractate Bekhorot and the Place of the Temple and Its
Worship in the Tannaitic Beit Ha-Midrash [Hebrew],” Mada’ei Hayahadut 43 (2005–2006).

22
work as dyers. This is a startling move. By including stained hands in its prohibition, the Mishnah
drives a wedge in the conventional ableist assumption that the “problem” posed by disability is the
obvious undesirability of a misshapen or malformed body. Here, there is no body problem, per se.
In the Mishnah’s second case, the excluded priestly body is manifestly not marked a physical
disability, but a mark of difference based on profession or circumstance. The stained hands are
working hands, gainfully employed and fully able. Yet they are still prohibited, because they are
marked and read as different.

The height of a person in Antiquity

Early Humans14

Archaeologists have used fossil evidence to piece together information about the earliest humans.
Homo Heidelbergensis lived in Europe and Africa between 700,000 and 200,000 years ago; males
stood at an average of 5 feet 9 inches, while females were shorter, with an average height of 5 feet
2 inches. Homo floresiensis, nicknamed "the hobbit," lived in Asia between 95,000 and 17,000

14
https://www.livestrong.com/article/542877-the-average-height-of-humans-over-time/

23
years ago and was much shorter; evidence from a female skeleton suggests an average height of a
little more than 3 feet. Neanderthals, man's closest relative, lived in Europe and Asia between
200,000 and 28,000 years ago. Evidence suggests an average height of 5 feet 5 inches for males
and 5 feet 1 inch for females. Scientists believe the short, stocky bodies of Neanderthals helped
them stay warm, allowing them to survive the harsh Ice Ages.15

Middle Ages

Perhaps surprisingly, research by a team from Ohio State University suggests that people living in
the Middle Ages — between the ninth and 11th centuries — were taller than those living in the
early 19th century. Using skeleton evidence from Europe, the team found that average height
decreased from 68.27 inches in the Middles Ages to a low of 65.75 inches in the 1600s and 1700s.
According to team leader Richard Steckel, increased height in the Middle Ages is due to warmer
than average temperatures in Europe during this period, extending the growing period by up to
four weeks each year and ensuring improved supplies of food. People also lived what we would
consider very stationary lives, so outbreaks of communicable disease did not have the opportunity
to spread over large areas.

Racial and Geographic Differences

People living in different parts of the world exhibited different heights. In the early 1800s, the
Cheyenne people of North America were among the tallest in the world, with an average male
height of about 5 feet 10 inches. Steckel puts this down to the availability of protein in the form of
buffalo. The Cheyenne stood taller than the genetically similar Assiniboine of Manitoba in present-
day Canada, but this can be explained by the milder climates enjoyed by the Cheyenne, which
enabled them to hunt for longer periods of the year, according to Steckel. Meanwhile, the average
height of Japanese men between 1602 and 1867 is estimated at only 5 feet 1 inch.

15
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis

24
The average height was between 5' and 5.5 ft tall based on skeletal remains and written history.
Eastern Rome (Constantine's Post Italian Rome) was 5'4"-5'7" The original Roman had a wheat
bread-based diet, lack of protein kept heights low. Reasons: Land was over-hunted. The
Mediterranean was not a good source of fish and most would say it never was. It's not known for
larger fish and the reasons are due to shallow waters and overfishing in the early times so proteins
from fish was almost nonexistent. In fact, fish was actually a rare delight, a delicacy. It was
expensive and only the rich could eat it with any regularity. Meats from other sources were
generally eaten only at festivals and religious holidays. Lack of quality nutrition in diets led to the
low height but did not take away from the individual's strength and endurance as proven by the
Roman soldiers. The height may have been 5'4" tall but the weight was 170 to 190 lbs with very
little fat. In other words small muscular men. I'm not sure how the women fared since I study
mostly military history.

It was probably approximately 155cm for women, and about 168cm for men. We have direct
evidence for this from analyzing the skeletal remains of the Romans. For example, in a study [1] of
927 adult male Roman skeletons between 500 B.C. and A.D. 500, Professor Geoffrey Kron of the
University of Victoria found an average of 168cm.

This is corroborated by remains found at the ancient towns of Herculaneum and Pompeii. Both
cities were infamously destroyed by the A.D. 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius. A study of the
remains left by their unfortunate Roman residents tell us that:

The major samples from Herculaneum and Pompeii reveal the stature of the ancient adult body.
The average height for females was calculated from the data to have been 155 cm in Herculaneum
and 154 cm in Pompeii: that for males was 169 cm in Herculaneum and 166 cm in Pompeii. This
is somewhat higher than the average height of modern Neapolitans in the 1960s and about 10 cm
shorter than the WHO recommendations for modern world populations.16

Notice how two neighboring Roman communities nonetheless produced slightly different average
heights. There will naturally be variations like this at different Roman settlements and at different
time periods in Rome's lengthy history. Moreover, height can also be affected by diet, and thus
there would probably have been some differences between different classes or groups of Romans,
too.

We do also have some historical evidence, particularly from the height measurements of Roman
soldiers. Soldiers probably would have been higher than civilians in general, though the results do
seems generally in line with the skeletal remains:

16
- Laurence, Ray. "Health and the Life Course at Herculaneum and Pompeii." Health in Antiquity. Ed. Helen King. London: Routledge, 2005.

25
Imperial regulations, though not entirely unambiguous, suggest that the minimum height for new
recruits was five Roman feet, seven inches (165 cm., 5'5") ... for the army as a whole a reasonable
estimate of a soldier's average height is around 170 cm (5'7").17

18th and 19th Centuries

Height did not begin to increase again until the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Steckel. The
reasons for this remain unclear, but it is likely that lower temperatures in Europe between the 1300s
and the 1800s, combined with higher levels of trade and movement between places, held height

17
- Roth, Jonathan, and Jonathan P. Roth. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War: 264 BC-AD 235. Columbia studies in the classical tradition, Vol. 23. Brill,
1999.
and Kron, Geoffrey. "Anthropometry, physical anthropology, and the reconstruction of ancient health, nutrition, and living standards." Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte (2005): 68-83.

26
down during this period. European emigrants to North America enjoyed a low population density,
few disease outbreaks and an increased income and by the 1830s their descendants had reached a
peak in terms of height. However, the average height of Americans dropped about 2 inches in the
following 50 years, as increased transportation and migration facilitated the spread of disease like
whopping cough, scarlet fever and cholera. Heights would not increase again until the end of the
19th century, when government implemented water purification and introduced measures to deal
with waste and sewage.

Genetics of Short Stature18

18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5424617/

27
Short stature is a common and heterogeneous condition which is often genetic in etiology. For
most children with genetic short stature, the specific molecular causes remain unknown, but with
advances in exome/genome sequencing and bioinformatics approaches, new genetic causes of
growth disorders have been identified, contributing to the understanding of the underlying
molecular mechanisms of longitudinal bone growth and growth failure. These genetic causes can
involve not only hormonal deficiencies, including the growth hormone-IGF-1 axis, thyroid
hormone or glucocorticoid and defects in hormonal receptors or subsequent signaling, but also
defects in fundamental cellular processes (intracellular signaling pathways, transcriptional
regulation, and DNA repair), extracellular matrix, or paracrine signaling. Especially, heterozygous
and/or mild mutations in SHOX, NPR2, ACAN, IGF1, IGF1R, or FGFR3 have been associated
with isolated short stature without other prominent or noticeable phenotype while homozygous
and/or severe mutations in these genes cause severe short stature with bone malformation, that is,
a chondrodysplasia. Identifying new genetic causes of growth disorders has the potential to
improve diagnosis, prognostic accuracy, individualized management, and help avoid unnecessary
testing for endocrine and other disorders.

• Over the last decades, advances in clinical genetics, including exome sequencing, have
accelerated the identification of new genetic growth disorders and thereby greatly
contributed to the understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of longitudinal
bone growth and growth failure.
• This new knowledge will help the individual patient seeking medical attention due to
severe short stature, as it will improve the chances of an exact mechanistic diagnosis,
which in turn enables individualized management, improved prognosis, and better genetic
counseling and may also help avoid unnecessary testing for endocrine and other
disorders.
• As more genetic causes become identified, better classifications of growth disorders
become possible.

The Genetics of Priesthood

Rabbi Yaakov Klieman writes:19

Dr. Karl Skorecki, a Cohen of Eastern European parents, was attending synagogue one morning.
The Cohen called up for the Torah reading that morning was a Jew of Sephardic background,
whose parents were born in North Africa. Dr. Skorecki looked at the Sephardi Cohen's physical
features and considered his own physical features. They were significantly different in stature, skin

19
https://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48936742.html

28
coloration and hair and eye color. Yet both had a tradition of being Cohanim, direct descendants
of one man -- Aaron, the brother of Moses.

Cohanim (plural of Cohen) are the priestly family of the Jewish people, members of the Tribe of
Levi. The books of Exodus and Leviticus describe the responsibilities of the Cohanim, which
include the Temple service and blessing of the people. The Torah (the first five books of the Bible)
describes the anointing of Aaron, the brother of Moses, as the first High Priest (Cohen Gadol).

Jewish tradition, based on the Torah, is that all Cohanim are direct descendants of Aaron, the
brother of Moses. The Cohen line is patrilineal -- passed from father to son without interruption
for 3,300 years, or more than 100 generations.

The Cohen line is patrilineal -- passed from father to son without interruption
for 3,300 years.

Dr. Skorecki considered, "According to tradition, this Sephardi Cohen and I have a common
ancestor. Could this line have been maintained since Sinai, and throughout the long exile of the
Jewish people?" As a scientist, he wondered, could such a claim be tested?

Being a nephrologist and a top-level researcher at the University of Toronto and the Rambam-
Technion Medical Center in Haifa, he was involved in the breakthroughs in molecular genetics
which are revolutionizing medicine and the study of the life-sciences. He was also aware of the
newly developing application of DNA analysis to the study of history and population diversity.

Dr. Skorecki considered a hypothesis: if the Cohanim are descendants of one man, they should
have a common set of genetic markers -- a common haplotype -- that of their common ancestor.
In our case, Aaron HaCohen.

HOW IT WORKS

A genetic marker is a variation in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA, known as a mutation.
Mutations which occur within genes -- a part of the DNA which codes for a protein -- usually
cause a malfunction or disease and is lost due to selection in succeeding generations. However,
mutations found in so-called "non-coding regions" of the DNA tend to persist.

Since the Y chromosome consists almost entirely of non-coding DNA (except for the genes
determining maleness), it would tend to accumulate mutations. Since it is passed from father to
son without recombination, the genetic information on a Y chromosome of a man living today is
basically the same as that of his ancient male ancestors, except for the rare mutations that occur
along the hereditary line.

A combination of these neutral mutations, known as a haplotype, can serve as a genetic signature
of a man's male ancestry. Maternal genealogies are also being studied by means of the m-DNA
(mitrocondrial DNA), which is inherited only from the mother.

THE SEARCH BEGINS

29
Dr. Skorecki made contact with Professor Michael Hammer, of the University of Arizona, a
leading researcher in molecular genetics and a pioneer in Y chromosome research. Professor
Hammer uses DNA analysis to study the history of populations, their origins and migrations. His
previous research included work on the origins of the Native American Indians and the
development of the Japanese people.

A study was undertaken to test the hypothesis. If there were a common ancestor, the Cohanim
should have common genetic markers at a higher frequency than the general Jewish population.

In the first study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal, Nature (January 2, 1997),
188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek cells from which their DNA was extracted
for study. Participants from Israel, England and North America were asked to identify whether
they were a Cohen, Levi or Israelite, and to identify their family background.

The results of the analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Cohanim and non-Cohanim were
indeed significant. A particular marker, (YAP-) was detected in 98.5 percent of the Cohanim, and
in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohanim.

FURTHER CONFIRMATION

In a second study, Dr. Skorecki and associates gathered more DNA samples and expanded their
selection of Y chromosome markers. Solidifying their hypothesis of the Cohens' common ancestor,
they found that a particular array of six chromosomal markers was found in 97 of the 106 Cohens
tested. This collection of markers has come to be known as the Cohen Modal Hapoltype (CMH) -
- the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family. The chances of these findings
happening at random is greater than one in 10,000.

The finding of a common set of genetic markers in both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohanim
worldwide clearly indicates an origin pre-dating the separate development of the two communities
around 1000 CE. Date calculation based on the variation of the mutations among Cohanim today
yields a time frame of 106 generations from the ancestral founder of the line, some 3,300 years --
the approximate time of the Exodus from Egypt, the lifetime of Aaron HaCohen.

Date calculations based on the mutations yield a time frame for the Cohen line
of some 3,300 years!

Professor Hammer was recently in Israel for the Jewish Genome Conference. He confirmed that
his findings are consistent -- over 80 percent of self-identified Cohanim have a common set of
markers.

The finding that less than one-third of the non-Cohen Jews who were tested possess these markers
is not surprising to the geneticists. Jewishness is not defined genetically. Other Y-chromosomes
can enter the Jewish gene pool through conversion or through a non-Jewish father. Jewish status
is determined by the mother. Tribe membership follows the father's line.

30
“AMAZING” STATISTICS (sic)

Calculations based on the high rate of genetic similarity of today's Cohanim resulted in the highest
"paternity-certainty" rate ever recorded in population genetics studies -- a scientific testimony to
family faithfulness.

Stated Dr. David Goldstein of Oxford University:20

"For more than 90 percent of the Cohens to share the same genetic markers after such a period of
time is a testament to the devotion of the wives of the Cohens over the years. Even a low rate of
infidelity would have dramatically lowered the percentage."

Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic
cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster
together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical
original can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied.

This genetic research has clearly refuted the libel that the Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the
ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar tribe -- a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire
which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the
Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence.

OTHER SURPRISING FINDINGS

In their second published paper in Nature (July 9, 1998) the researchers included an unexpected
finding. Those Jews in the study who identified themselves as Levites did not show a common set
of markers as did the Cohanim. The Levites clustered in three groupings, one of them the CMH.
According to tradition, the Levites should also show a genetic signature from a common paternal
patrilineal ancestor. The researchers are now focusing effort on the study of Levites' genetic make-
up to learn more about their history in the Diaspora.

Using the CMH as a DNA signature of the ancient Hebrews, researchers are pursuing a hunt for
Jewish genes around the world.

This research could have ramifications in the search for the Biblical Ten Lost
Tribes

This could have ramifications in the search for the Biblical Ten Lost Tribes.

Using the genetic markers of the Cohanim as a yardstick, these genetic archaeologists are using
DNA research to discover historical links to the Jewish people.

20
Science News, October 3, 1998

31
The researchers' policy is that the research is not a test of individuals, but an examination of the
extended family. Having the CMH is not a proof of one's being a Cohen, for the mother's side is
also significant in determining one's Cohen status. At present, there are no ramifications in Jewish
law due to this discovery. No one is certified nor disqualified because of their Y chromosome
markers.

The research has shown a clear genetic relationship amongst Cohanim and their direct lineage from
a common ancestor.

In contrast to this biased article Raphael Falk brings us back to science based critical thinking.21

Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent

The insistence on the biological identity of the Jews, and the search for the phylogenetic relation
of present-day Jewish communities to each other and to the ancient people of the Land of Israel,
always applying the most updated scientific techniques, became a common obsession among
Israeli and non-Israeli researchers.

The Jewish-British physician-virologist and eugenicist Redcliffe Nathan Salaman (1874–1955)22

was one of the first to examine the implications of the young science of genetics to Jews. Already
in 1911, in the first volume of the Journal of Genetics, he published a paper entitled “Heredity and
the Jews” (Salaman, 1911). In this paper Salaman tried to examine the distinct biology of the Jews
with the new tools of Mendelian inheritance, which provided the basis for modern hereditary
theory:

21
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2014.00462/full
22
Redcliffe Nathan Salaman was born on 12 September 1874; he was ninth of a family of fifteen, of whom fourteen,
seven boys and seven girls, survived as adults. The family home at that time was Redcliffe Gardens, London, S.W.,
and this was the origin of Salaman’s first name. His father was Myer Salaman who was born in 1835 and died in 1896;
his mother Sarah Salaman was born in 1845 and she died in 1931. Salaman’s great grandfather was Aaron Solomon,
a well-to-do merchant who lived in a country house in Edmonton and who manufactured and dealt in Leghorn hats. His
grandfather, Isaac, was the youngest son of Aaron, born in 1790; he left home for some reason unknown and joined
the Navy as a common sailor. He was bought out by distant relatives and returning home changed his name to Salaman.
Redcliffe Salaman was twice married, his first wife, Nina, whom he married in 1901, was the daughter of Arthur and
Louisa Davis. Her father, an engineer, was also a distinguished scholar who specialized on the Massoretic Text of the
Bible. Nina herself was an outstanding scholar of the Spanish Hebrew period; she died in 1925. By his first wife Salaman
had six children, the eldest, Myer, is Pathologist at the London Hospital, Cancer Research. The second son, Arthur, is
a doctor in general practice and a twin brother, Edward, died at the age of 9. The fourth son, Raphael, is an engineer,
and of the two daughters one, Ruth, is an artist and the other, Esther, a singer.

32
 The object of this paper is to lay before anthropologists some results in the domain of
Ethnology which, though arrived at by methods as yet foreign to anthropological research,
promise a rich harvest in every direction. Mendelian methods […] have for the last decade
been the all-powerful weapons of the modern student of heredity (Salaman, 1911, p. 273).

Salaman put special emphasis on the claim that Jews comprised a coherent biological entity. He
pointed out that “Ethnologists may be said to agree that the Jew is not racially pure, but on the

33
other hand […] the Jews constitute a definable people in something more than a political sense,
and that they possess though not a uniform, still a distinguishable type” (Salaman, 1911, p. 278).

Since Jews vary with respect to color, cephalic index and stature as any other population, “Jews
cannot be defined according to any of these standards. There is, however, one characteristic which
rarely escapes attention, and that is the Jewish facial expression” (Salaman, 1911–1912, p. 190).
A Jew, according to Salaman, may be recognized by his facial features. With the help of “unbiased
judges,” Salaman classified the progeny of 136 families of intermarriage between Jews and
Gentiles. The progeny of these families were classified into 328 “Gentiles,” 26 “Jews,” and 8
“intermediates.” Among the progeny of 13 families of intermarriage of a “hybrid” and a Jew/ess
(“backcrosses” in the genetic terminology) there were 15 “Jews” and 17 “Gentiles,” i.e., a good
approximation to a 1:1 ratio (Figure 2). Thus, Salaman suggested that Jewishness is inherited and
may be reduced to a single Mendelian factor, where the Jewish allele is recessive to the Gentile
one (Salaman, 1911, pp. 281–285). In other words, the Jewish type has a solid biological basis,
resting on the most advanced scientific achievements of the time. For Salaman Jewishness was a
biological property.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. A Jew (1) married to the daughter of Jew and Gentile (2) who gave birth to “Non-
Jewish looking daughters,” (3, 4) and “Jewish looking children” (5, 6) (Salaman, 1911).

How deep-rooted were the prejudices concerning Jews may be appreciated by juxtaposing
Salaman's claim with Blumenbach's so-called liberal view, half a century earlier, in 1865, who
held that whereas differences in human appearance were conditioned by climate and diet, Jews

34
were an exception to the rules of nature: “the nation of the Jews who under every climate remain
the same as far as the fundamental configuration of [the] face goes, [are] remarkable for racial
character almost universal, which can be distinguished at the first glance even by those little skilled
in physiognomy” (Blumenbach, cited by Efron, 2013, p. 903).

Becoming Molecular
The science of genetics became increasingly determinist toward a climax at mid-twentieth century,
on the one hand it turned to probabilistic population genetics and on the other it adopted the
physical model of the double helix of the chemically defined deoxyribonucleic acid molecules,
and reduced heredity to sequences of nucleotides.

Developments of research methods, especially those of blood typing, soon indicated to the
extensive genetic polymorphism of human populations. Many efforts were made to find “typical”
Jewish blood-type combination, and phylogenetic kinships between geographically and culturally
close and distinct Jewish communities. These studies were summarized in 1978 by Mourant and
colleagues in The Genetics of the Jews (Mourant et al., 1978). Efforts to deduce from such studies
converging blood group frequencies of the hypothetical ancient Jews were not successful, yet as a
rule, they did not discourage the authors from claiming for the reality of communities of progeny
of common ancestry (see, e.g., Muhsam, 1964, and Figure 3).

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Muhsam's attempt to identify the frequencies of the ABO blood type of the Jewish
forefathers: vectors from “gentile environments” (open circles) to the corresponding
“genuine” Jewish eidoth (closed circles). Right-lower, expected model; left-upper, observed.

35
Attempts to mobilize markers such as finger-print patterns to differentially characterize members
of Jewish communities (e.g., Sachs and Bat-Miriam, 1957) failed likewise. More success,
however, was gained with the genetic distribution of specific disease in Jewish communities. Tay-
Sachs disease and Cystic-Fibrosis were conceived as Ashkenazi diseases, whereas Glucose-6-
Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency and other diseases were common in Sephardi Jews, and so
on a notable list of inborn errors of metabolism (see Goldschmidt, 1963).

Developments in research methods, and primarily in the possibility of examining polymorphisms

at the level of proteins (Lewontin and Hubby, 1966), and starting at the mid-1970s also of RNA-
and DNA-sequences, enabled the comparison of genetic relationships even where no discernible
morphological, physiological or behavioral variation existed. Not less significant, during the 1980s
it became possible to examine simultaneously polymorphism in a very large number of sites along
the DNA sequences. Once again the presumed relationships among Jewish communities, as well
as their relation to non-Jewish communities were examined.

The advances in analyses of DNA sequences provided the detailed specific nucleotide sequences
of many individuals, and using algorithms of the most probable common forefathers on the
assumption of branching phylogenies indicated to common progenitors of diverse Jewish
communities and also to considerable overlap with those of Mediterranean populations (see, for
example, Figure 4).

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Multivariant analysis of genetic variants of various populations, based on Y-

chromosome hapolotype data (Hammer et al., 2000). Solid triangles represent Jewish
populations, solid squares represent Middle Eastern populations.

36
All these studies sampled Jewish and non-Jewish individuals. But how did they sample them?
What were the criteria for Jewishness of the sampled individuals? This in itself is a moot issue that
may crucially affect the conclusions.

These models of Darwinian evolution interpreted into vertical phylogenies are, of course, in
agreement with the traditional Jewish historical lore of the contemporary Jews being the direct
progeny of the historic residents of the Land of Israel. However, it is important to realize that the
same genetic relationships may also result when considerable secondary horizontal associations,
of intermarriages between communities of common culture, religion, or mere common domicile
took place.

Although it makes sense that horizontal, intercommunity matings were, as a rule, less frequent
than intra-community matings that maintained the vertical branching pattern, there is considerable
historical evidence for inter-community mating, at the individual levels (Rabbis invited to serve in
far communities, travelers, and emissaries sent to collect money in foreign communities, etc.), as
well as at the level of whole communities: Historian Shlomo Sand (2009) and many others brings
evidence of extensive community-wide proselytizing events, from North-Africa all the way to
Southern Russia.

The Sons of Aaron

One of the most exciting variables that were brought up and that became pivotal in the
interpretation of phylogenetic data was that of the genetics of the Jewish priests. According to the
biblical story, the tribe of Levi was destined for priesthood, and male descendants of Aaron, the
brother of Moses, were anointed as priests or Cohanim (pl. of Cohen). Thus, in the Jewish
traditional patroclinous society, all persons with this name and its derivatives are vertical linear
male-progeny of Aaron. If indeed, the tradition of the Cohanim was maintained, it makes sense to
look for a common denominator among all these male progeny of Aaron, and if they furnish a
model of marriage patterns for their communities their cohesion may provide an important
indication for the common vertical roots of all Jews.

Already early on, in 1911 Salaman tried to get support from the Cohanim in his attempt to identity
the “unmistakably Jewish expression”:

37
 At this point one might with advantage consider the relation which the existence of
the Kohanim as to the question of Jewish type. […] no Kohen, according to Jewish law, can
marry a stranger, a proselyte or the daughter of the proselyte, or a divorcée: so that we have
a sect whose descent may be regarded as strictly Jewish (Salaman, 1911, p. 279).

Obviously, Salaman did not succeed to identify any Jewish priests' phenotypic marker, not to
mention genotypic ones. With the means at his disposal it was impossible to establish the Jewish-
priest relations of the persons examined. He had to admit that “If now we review the
physiognomies of the various Kohanim, it will be found that they exhibit no type in any way
distinct from the other Jews.” Also the East-European physician and anthropologist Samuel
Weissenberg (1867–1928) tried to rely on the tradition of the male-dynasty of “Aaronides
(Kohanim) and Levites.” Some of these families keep centuries-old albums and seek to marry only
with irreproachable families. Disappointedly, Weissenberg too found that the Aaronides and
Levites represent, on the whole, the same type as the common Jews. “From these results it would
be fundamentally incorrect to draw the conclusion that today's East European Jews are direct
descendants of the ancient Israelites” (Efron, 1994, endnote 61, pp. 201–202).

Now, with the development of methods to follow specific DNA sequences of the human genome,
interest in the Cohanim (and Levites) has gained new momentum as an instrument for proof of the
common origins of the current Jewish ethnic-groups in the population of the Land of Israel two
thousand years ago, as narrated in the biblical story (Skorecki et al., 1997).

The methodological breakthrough was obtained by Skorecki and coworkers, taking advantage of
the differential chromosomal segregation pattern at cell-division in males and females. Of the 23
chromosome pairs of humans, one pair is different in females and males: whereas females have
two copies of the X-chromosome, males carry one X-chromosome, like that of females, and its
smaller partner, the Y-chromosome. Females contribute one X-chromosome (like any of the other
chromosomes, called autosomes) to each progeny; males contribute an X-chromosome to half of
their progeny and a Y-chromosome to the other half of their progeny. Progeny who obtained two

38
X-chromosomes are females; those who inherited one X-chromosome and a Y-chromosome are
males. Thus, following a marker linked to the Y-chromosome may point to a biological lineage
leading back to an ancient common male-progenitor. If indeed priesthood has been maintained by
strictly following the patrilineal tradition, then all Cohanim should carry the derivatives of the
priest Aaron's Y-chromosome. Derivatives, rather than the original sequence, because obviously,
rare mutations have occurred in its nucleotide-sequence over the millennia. Since mutations are
rare events, each mutation would probably be specific and unique, and the frequency it is
encountered would be proportional to the number of generations passed since its occurrence.
Furthermore, when the role of the Y-chromosome is largely reduced to that of a “mechanical”
counterpart of the X-chromosome in providing orderly chromosome segregation, most sequences
on the Y-chromosome are considered to be of rather little relevance to natural selection, and the
abundance of a mutation on the Y-chromosomes may accordingly be used as a reliable indicator
of its age.

Of course, these Y-chromosomes need not be restricted to Cohanim, but being faithfully
transferred from one Cohen male to another, it may suggest the construction of a pedigree tree all
the way back converging on Aaron the Priest.

Although the Y-chromosome is the smallest human chromosome, its DNA molecule is 57 million
base-pairs (Mb) long and its non-recombinant region, which is the region that satisfies the
biological criteria for ancestry analysis, is 24 Mb in length (of which only less than half remain
after filtering procedures). Thus, as a rule only choice-segments along the chromosome are
selected for study. Such segments, some thousands of base-pairs long, may be looked at in
concert, haplotypes, 4 which provide a unique combination of polymorphisms along a Y-
chromosome, and represent the whole chromosome.

[…] we sought and found clear differences in the frequency of Y-chromosome haplotypes
between Jewish priests and their lay counterparts. Remarkably, the difference is observable
in both the Ashkenazic and Sephardic populations, despite the geographical separation of the
two communities. […]

39
 We identified six haplotypes […]. Applying the χ2 test to the frequencies of the Y-
chromosome haplotypes distinguishes priests from the lay population. […]
We further identified subjects as being of Ashkenazic or Sephardic origin. […] the same
haplotype distinction can be made between priests and lay members within each population.
This result is consistent with an origin for the Jewish priesthood antedating the division of
world Jewry into Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities (Skorecki et al., 1997).

With due respect to the always important reductive simplifying assumptions made, this time it
appeared that the efforts bore fruit: Molecular markers were found that indicated common
denominators which were significantly more common among the Y-chromosomes of the Cohanim
than Israelites.

No less important, these denominators were common in Sephardi as well as Ashkenazi Cohanim.
The social and political, also the religious meaning of a biological continuity, of “we are all Jews,”
often mentioned or implied, now attained overt corroboration, at least as far as the Cohanim
represented a fair sample of Jews.

The Guardian of January 2, 1997 reported:

Researchers in genetics confirmed today something that was a holy scripture in Israel for
3300 years.
They examined the Y-chromosome of Jewish Kohanim and found that, indeed, they vary
from those of the Jewish people. […]
Although, according to tradition, all 14 million Jews in the world are the children of
Abraham, the molecular biologists find difficulties in reconstructing the biblical links. Two
distinct Jewish populations, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, of different even though somewhat
blurred genetic composition, exist […]
[Researchers] found that in certain respects Kohanim in the different communities vary
from the rest of their respective ethnic-groups and are more similar to each other. The studies
confirm that their chromosomes may be calibrated as a genetic “clock” of father-to-son […]

40
 and also supports an ancient religious tradition. The Jewish priesthood appears indeed to
have been founded by a single ancestor […]

Mainly two types of polymorphisms were followed: that of microsatellites, a type of repetitive
DNA, the number of repeats varying due to (intra-chromosomal) recombination between
sequences, which may occur in up to 1/1000 cell divisions, and single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs), due to mutations that are orders of magnitude rarer. Already some years
earlier, a rather high correlation was found between Y-chromosome haplotypes of Ashkenazi and
Sephardi Jews that exceeded even that between (non-Jewish) Mediterranean groups (Santachiara
et al., 1992).

The authors suggested that if people of common origin diversified and became Sephardi or
Ashkenazi respectively, this diversification probably affected mainly morphological markers
(structural discernible characteristics) that were of value in the respective specific circumstances
that the different communities were exposed to, rather than molecular differences, such as Y-
chromosome polymorphisms, that were neutral in processes of selection.

However, not all data accorded with these findings. Uzi Ritte, of the Department of Genetics at
the Hebrew University, examined the number of specific Y-chromosome haplotypes among
Jewish persons of Sephardi origins carrying the name Cohen (9) and among lay Jewish persons of
the same communities (90). The corresponding number for Levites of Iraqi origins were 7 and 110,
respectively. He concluded that there was no unusual clustering of Y-haplotypes among Cohanim,
compared to that among lay Israelites (Ritte, personal letter).

Still, the tradition of following discrete genetic markers on the one hand, and the development of
methods for following a large number of variables at the level of DNA sequences, together with
the development of sophisticated computational methods for the detection of the interconnections
between them on the other, provided researchers a renewed opportunity to examine historical
claims, or to perform “genetic archeology,” in spite of inherent difficulties. Goldstein summarizes:

Our studies of the Cohanim established that present day Ashkenazi and Sephardi Cohanim
are more genetically similar to one another than they are to either Israelites or non-Jews.

41
 Among the Cohanim we see greatly reduced diversity, and the Cohanim Y-chromosome is
a subset of what is seen among Israelites (Goldstein, 2008, p. 65).

The apparent achievement of the children of the priest Aaron in maintaining their distinct status
over a very long time and across very diverse socio-geographic distances is even more remarkable,
when juxtaposed with that of the remaining children of the tribe of Levi, the Levites.

However, is it sensible to draw similar conclusions with respect to the Ashkenazi ethnic-group
from, say, the clusters of haplotypes of the Ashkenazi Levite? Behar and associates point out that
the Levite cluster of R-M17 haplotype is very common in non-Jewish populations of north-east
Europe. Thus, isn't it reasonable to assume that the origin of these haplotypes among Levites (and
other non-Levite Jews) is in horizontal transmission, namely that male progeny of some non-
Jewish Europeans who intermarried with a Jewess (inadvertently) acquired the status of Levites?

42