Wednesday, July 10, 2019

The Cuddly Hyrax and the Two-Headed Rhino


Following taking Torah-in-Motion's 2019 African Adventure group to Zimbabwe and Botswana, where we saw astonishing elephants, hippos and monster crocodiles, we went down to Capetown in South Africa. There, we took the cable car up to the top of Table Mountain. This is one of my favorite places, because it is pretty much the only place outside of Israel where you will see an important Biblical creature: the hyrax. I posted the following photo to Facebook:



Now to my mind this looks like I bought a cuddly toy hyrax and put it on the mountain for a photo. Which is indeed exactly what I did; the real hyraxes were (unlike in other years) too far away to get a good picture of them. But, much to my surprise, a number of people on Facebook thought that it was a photo of a real hyrax!

Okay, I guess most people are not as intimately familiar with hyraxes as I am. But then yesterday, I was able to post a truly extraordinary photo:


As I wrote on Facebook, this is "Possibly the most extraordinary wildlife photo that I have ever taken. A two-headed rhino!"

This photo got an enormous amount of attention! Many people were marveling at the incredible phenomenon of a two-headed rhinoceros. But others were wondering: could such a thing really exist?

The answer is that it's certainly possible for such a creature to exist. The phenomenon of a creature possessing two heads (or perhaps it should be phrased as twins possessing a single body) has been documented with numerous species. Two-headed snakes appear to be particularly common; there was one exhibited for many years at a reptile zoo near Eilat. I've also seen two-headed turtles. And at the Biblical Museum of Natural History, we have the skull of a two-faced cow.

Most remarkable of all are Abigail and Brittany Hensel. They are adult twins who possess a single body, with Abigail controlling the arm and leg on one side, and Brittany controlling the arm and leg on the other side. The Hensel twins are fully functional, and can even drive!

What about a two-headed rhinoceros? In fact, there is a webpage, titled "Five Bizarre (Yet Real) Two-Headed Animals," which features photos not only of a two-headed snake, turtle, kitten and piglet, but also of a two-headed rhino!

Yet at the same time, one should ask oneself: What is more likely? Is it more likely that I saw a two-headed rhino, or is it more likely that there is some other trickery involved? For example, it's possible that the photo was digitally manipulated on Photoshop. Or that there were two rhinos which were standing with their legs perfectly lined up, giving the impression that there was a single four-legged body - which would still make for a fabulous photo, albeit not quite as fabulous as a two-headed rhino!

(For the record, I hereby attest that I did not alter my photo in any way! But as for the photo of the two-headed rhino on the aforementioned webpage of "Five Bizarre (Yet Real) Two-Headed Animals," shown here, I am convinced that it is digitally manipulated.)

Many people focus on what is theoretically possible, rather than on what is likely. This is something that I encounter quite often in arguing various topics surrounding Rationalist Judaism. To give but one example: Is it theoretically possible that when the Gemara said that the atalef lays eggs, that it was not referring to a bat, but rather to a duck-billed platypus from Australia, and just happened to describe it with the exact name that everyone has always understood to refer to the bat, which is a creature that is birdlike and often mistakenly thought to lay eggs? Yes, it's theoretically possible. But is it likely? Not in the slightest!

When evaluating claims, it's always important to think about what is most likely and reasonable, not what is theoretically possible. And to be aware of all the different possibilities to exist - and their probabilities. Of course, different people will have different ways of weighing up various probabilities. But the first step is to at least be aware that that is what should be done.

64 comments:

  1. There you go again with your atalef point. You are neglecting to mention the essential position of the R' Meiselman camp: The belief that Chazal cannot make an error when stating a definitive claim about the natural world. That eliminates the "more likely and reasonable" possibilities.
    For example, if I am talking to my friend and tell him that I saw someone who looks exactly like Rabbi Dr. Slifkin in the merkaz in RBS yesterday, who was followed by a group of hares and hyrazes, it is more reasonable to say that it was in fact you than to say that you have a previously unknown identical-twin brother who also takes interest in these animals. But if we were then to find out that you were in fact in Africa yesterday, the possibility that it was you is eliminated, so its likelihood is now zero.
    To be clear, that says nothing of the correctness of their belief about Chazal, but it does change the "ratings" for what is more reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

      Delete
    2. That essential position is stupid and obviously wrong.

      Delete
  2. In your last 2 paragraphs, I take it you are also referring to the theory of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bad move for you and your reputation to publish ANY deceptive photo at any time for any reason.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Say it like Sherlock. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Purely hallucination to think the hyrax is a biblical creature as it doesn't chew it's cud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It engages in merycism, occasional regurgitation and remastication of already swallowed food. An even bigger problem is neither the hare or rabbit do any kind of regurgitation, not even merycism (they can't even vomit according to R. Slifkin's Camel, Hare, and Hyrax). You could say eating of the poop could be considered maaleh gerah, but once you allow that possibility, you can definitely include merycism.

      Delete
  6. In Lubavitch, being called a four headed snake, or in Yiddish א פיר קאפיגע שלאנג, is a great slur.

    FWIW, I would love to see the yardstick of 'likelihood' that you use. How do things become more or less likely? How often do these things come up?
    I posit that you are measuring Chazal with your trousers, using your own experiences to judge attitudes of people far away from you, in location, time, and mindset

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, I love the "measuring with your own trousers." Secondly, while your critique might be correct, how exactly is it supposed to deal with the actual issue Rabbi Slifkin raises? The undeniably real fact that Chazal were giants of the intellect and spirit doesn't really suffice to have magically transported them to Australia.

      As a moshol, imagine if a very great rabbi passed away. And say some teachings of his or of his predecessors gave the sense that he or his generation was destined to bring or even be the Moshiach. But then - he dies! Sure, you can say that he's not dead, or that his spirit is still alive, or that he'll come back. But isn't it more likely to just say he's dead?

      Delete
  7. So just to confirm....that first pic of the 2 headed rhino is an actual 2 headed rhino? That's seriously amazing if so!! Would you mind posting any other pictures you have of this animal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Slifkin all but stated what happened: "Or that there were two rhinos which were standing with their legs perfectly lined up, giving the impression that there was a single four-legged body - which would still make for a fabulous photo, albeit not quite as fabulous as a two-headed rhino!"

      Delete
    2. I apologise, that does seem to be the case. I thought that since he used the phrase "it's possible" right before saying that, that he was just giving examples of what else the picture might actually be. Still amazing I guess that he got such a pic without Photoshop. Can't see any additional legs, at all.

      Thanks for clarifying

      Delete
  8. But the two-headed rhino actually could be used to prove the opposite -- that just because something seems far-fetched doesn't mean it isn't true. I can easily see a medieval rationalist dismissing an ancient account of a two-headed animal. And yet, it exists!

    Sometimes I think we need to be humble and utilize the principles governing dan l'kaf zechus -- that the utterly improbable is sometimes true. I'm not arguing that one shouldn't go with the more likely explanation. I'm simply saying that, in general, people should be more humble about their conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Dan l'kaf zechus" does not apply to questions that are purely factual, such as "Is my pillowcase beige or blue?" It requires that there be a "good" and a "bad" answer to the question, such as "Am I lying when I say it is beige?"

      You seem to assume that the dispute between the rationalists and the infallibilists is like the latter question: that it is "good" to conclude that Chazal's statements about nature were prophetic and infallible, and "bad" to conclude that they were based on the state of contemporary science and knowledge of local conditions, and thus frequently incorrect.

      Your valuation would doubtless be correct if Hazal had explicitly claimed to be infallible about non-halachic matters; moreover, there would be cause for concern that proving them wrong about a non-halachic question of fact could call their general credibility into question.

      But they said no such thing, and the question didn't really become a problem until the dawn of the scientific age.

      Of course, rationalists take truth where they find it; and the veracity of a claim about nature can have no stronger confirmation or refutation than the actual state of nature.

      But even the infallibilists use cherry-picked instances of Hazal's nature statements being confirmed by modern science, and invent far-fetched explanations for some--but not all--instances where Chazal's statements about nature were wrong.

      And if nature is evidence, then pointing out the far-fetchedness of an explanation of nature casts doubt not upon the "goodness" of Hazal or anyone else, but on the credibility of the evidence used to support the claim that they are infallible.

      In short, this is an epistemological question, not a moral one.

      Delete
    2. "Your valuation would doubtless be correct if Hazal had explicitly claimed to be infallible about non-halachic matters;"

      Ah, but they did... in some specific instances. See comment thread here:
      http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2019/06/when-people-lose-their-minds_17.html

      "...moreover, there would be cause for concern that proving them wrong about a non-halachic question of fact could call their general credibility into question."

      Bingo. On the head.

      Delete
    3. David, I'll save you some time - there is nothing in that thread which shows Chazal claiming to be infallible. On the other hand, there are, of course, innumerable statements of Chazal which make it clear that they did not consider themselves infallible.

      Delete
    4. "...moreover, there would be cause for concern that proving them wrong about a non-halachic question of fact could call their general credibility into question." Bingo etc.

      Old mistake, that empirical accuracy is needed for Halachah

      Delete
    5. R' Slifkin,

      "On the other hand, there are, of course, innumerable statements of Chazal which make it clear that they did not consider themselves infallible."

      The issue is not whether Chazal were infallible. The issue is whether something included in the Talmud can be wrong.

      Delete
    6. " there is nothing in that thread which shows Chazal claiming to be infallible."
      בבא בתרא עה
      כי הא דיתיב רבי יוחנן וקא דריש עתיד הקב"ה להביא אבנים טובות ומרגליות שהם שלשים על שלשים וחוקק בהן עשר על עשרים ומעמידן בשערי ירושלים לגלג עליו אותו תלמיד השתא כביעתא דציצלא לא משכחינן כולי האי משכחינן לימים הפליגה ספינתו בים חזא מלאכי השרת דיתבי וקא מינסרי אבנים טובות ומרגליות שהם ל' על ל' וחקוק בהן עשר ברום עשרים אמר להו הני למאן אמרו ליה שעתיד הקב"ה להעמידן בשערי ירושלים אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר ליה דרוש רבי לך נאה לדרוש כאשר אמרת כן ראיתי אמר לו ריקא אלמלא (לא) ראית לא האמנת מלגלג על דברי חכמים אתה נתן עיניו בו ונעשה גל של עצמות

      יבמות לד
      כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן כל ששהתה אחר בעלה עשר שנים ונשאת שוב אינה יולדת אמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא שאין דעתה להנשא אבל דעתה להנשא מתעברת אמר ליה רבא לבת רב חסדא קא מרנני רבנן אבתריך אמרה ליה אנא דעתאי עלך הואי ההיא דאתיא לקמיה דרב יוסף אמרה לו ר' אנא שהיתי אחר בעלי עשר שנים וילדתי א"ל בתי אל תוציאי לעז על דברי חכמים אמרה ליה לנכרי נבעלתי

      בכורות ח
      א"ל קיסר לרבי יהושע בן חנניה נחש לכמה מיעבר ומוליד א"ל לשב שני והא סבי דבי אתונא ארבעינהו ואוליד לתלת הנהו מיעברי הוו מעיקרא ד' [שנין] והא קמשמשי שמושי אינהו נמי משמשי כאדם והא חכימי אינהו אנן חכימינן מינייהו

      Delete
    7. None of these sources show them claiming to be infallible. See, for example, http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Slifkin.pdf

      Delete
    8. *sigh*
      ALL of these sources show them claiming to be unquestionably correct about a non-halachic matter and a question of fact.

      Delete
    9. The issue is whether something included in the Talmud can be wrong. (LY)

      That's a bit vague. Do you want to come again?

      Delete
    10. Chaim,

      I think two distinct issues get conflated sometimes. Let's use Rabban Gamliel as an example. One issue is whether or not Rabban Gamliel was ever mistaken about anything he ever said in his life. The second issue is whether statements of Rabban Gamliel that were recorded in the Talmud could be mistaken.

      The Talmud was accepted by Klal Yisroel to be the word of G-d and the absolute truth (i.e. we believe it was compiled with a certain Siyata Dishmaya or Ruach Hakodesh). Something recorded in the Talmud cannot be a mistake (unless the Talmud itself says something is a mistake). Something recorded in the Talmud in the name of Rabban Gamliel cannot be a mistake. However, Rabban Gamliel said many things in his life that were not recorded in the Talmud. Those things are not necessarily infallible.

      Delete
    11. I think he meant to say *concluded*, which makes a lot of sense and is solidly supported by the evidence.

      Delete
    12. "The Talmud was accepted by Klal Yisroel to be the word of G-d and the absolute truth."

      That's a spectacular claim, and demonstrably false.

      Delete
    13. R' Natan,

      "That's a spectacular claim, and demonstrably false."

      Actually it's basic emunas yisroel.

      Delete
    14. So there is no renowned Torah scholar who says that something in the Talmud could be incorrect?

      Have you had your head in the ground for the last fifteen years?

      Delete
    15. R' Natan,

      "So there is no renowned Torah scholar who says that something in the Talmud could be incorrect?"

      There were renowned Torah scholars who believed that G-d had a body. There were renowned Torah scholars who believed that the Torah could be "muchlefes". Klal Yisroel didn't accept those views. With regards to the truth of the Talmud as well, the emunah accepted by Klal Yisroel is that the 8th Ikker which discusses כל התורה המצויה עתה בידינו includes the entirety of the Talmud.

      Delete
    16. LY, I'm with RDNS on this one--every תיובתא we see in the gemara means someone's opinion recorded in the Talmud is not correct.
      Don't you mean *concluded*?

      Delete
    17. "With regards to the truth of the Talmud as well, the emunah accepted by Klal Yisroel is that the 8th Ikker which discusses כל התורה המצויה עתה בידינו includes the entirety of the Talmud."

      What do you mean by "klal Yisroel"? Every respected talmid chacham?

      Delete
    18. R' Slifkin,

      By Klal Yisroel I mean simple Jewish grandmothers.


      Just sayin,

      Just because someone's opinion is not correct doesn't mean that the Gemara made a mistake by including it in the Talmud. The Gemara knew it was not a correct opinion and still brought it because there are things to learn from it. What we cannot say is that the Gemara included something by mistake.

      Delete
    19. Ah, okay. So you take your hashkafah from simple Jewish grandmothers, and I take it from Rishonim.

      Delete
    20. @LY, thanks for clarifying. There are indeed those who say what you're saying. The opposing view takes a few steps to present. To start, what are your thoughts on my previous comment, (July 15, 2019 at 7:41 PM) that it's a mistake to think that empirical accuracy is needed for Halacha? Do you think Halacha w/o empirical accuracy is impossible? A contradiction in terms?

      Please don't hurry to answer. First think it over for a while.

      Delete
    21. R' Natan

      I didn't say anything about hashkafah. I was talking about ikarei emunah, the 13 things every single Jew must believe in order to be considered a member of klal yisroel. We don't have the luxury of cherry picking opinions that weren't accepted and don't reflect the simple faith that our parents and grandparents transmitted to us.

      Delete
    22. Well then, it's a good thing that the opinion that not everything in the Gemara is true was accepted and transmitted throughout the generations!

      Delete
    23. We don't have the luxury of cherry picking opinions that weren't accepted and don't reflect the simple faith that our parents and grandparents transmitted to us.

      "Cherry picking" has a bad sound to it, as if it's for lazy people who refuse to put more effort into their Judaism. But there are people who are only frum because of what you call "cherry picking". To cherry pick for them is no sin, it's an obligation.

      I say this because you call this cherry picking. Myself, I don't call it cherry picking.

      (Please consider my earlier comment also.)

      Delete
    24. Chaim,

      By the term "cherry picking" I didn't mean to imply laziness. I meant to say that one has a predetermined answer that he wants to believe and then looks for opinions that support that.

      Delete
    25. Levi Yitzchok, is the belief that the Talmud contains mistakes (at least in the superficial sense) strange or evil or dangerous or anti-religious or whatever, that the only way to arrive at it is because one has a predetermined answer?

      Delete
    26. LY, I want to guess that if/when you encountered the Leshem's idea that each of the 6 days of creation were actually 1000 years, you weren't overly disturbed, if disturbed at all THAT our grandmothers never thought of it that way. And I'll guess that if/when you encountered the Arizal's idea that nowadays people's spouses aren't their actual Zivug/soul mate, you likewise weren't/won't be overly disturbed, if disturbed at all, THAT our grandmothers never thought of it that way. (You might have been/be disturbed for other reasons.)

      So your claim against the idea that the Talmud contains mistakes, can't be because of our grandmothers' understanding, but because you find it inherently problematic. (Yes?)

      But a devout Jew who can say נער הייתי וגם זקנתי is obligated to be humble before the Rishonim who for example say
      וצוה אליהם שיתנהגו בדבר ההוא ע"פ מה שיבררו ב"ד הגדול כאמרו כי יפלא ממך דבר וגו' על פי התורה וגו', ובא בקבלה ז"ל אפי' אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל וכו', כלו' אפי' ברור לך שאין האמת כדברי הוראת הסנהדרין אעפ"כ שמע אליהם, כי כן צוה ה' ית' שננהוג בדברי תורה ומצותיה כפי מה שיכריעו הם, יסכימו לאמת או לא יסכימו.

      You may note that the reason to obey the סנהדרין הגדול is not because הם חכמים ממך but because כן צוה ה' ית' שננהוג בדברי תורה ומצותיה כפי מה שיכריעו הם, יסכימו לאמת או לא יסכימו, or that truth is not the final say in Halachah. Rather Halacha is determined by a larger picture upon which the Rishonim elaborate.
      [continuing...]

      Delete
    27. [continuing]

      Rambam has powerful words to say about Sanhedrin Hagadol-
      הלכות ממרים א,א בית דין הגדול שבירושלים--הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה, והם עמוד ההוראה, ומהם חוק ומשפט יוצא לכל ישראל, ועליהם הבטיחה תורה: שנאמר "על פי התורה אשר יורוך, ועל המשפט אשר יאמרו לך--תעשה" (דברים יז,יא), זו מצות עשה. וכל המאמין במשה רבנו ובתורתו--חייב לסמוך מעשה הדת אליהם, ולהישען עליהן.
      א,ב כל מי שאינו עושה בהוראתן--עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר "לא תסור, מכל הדבר אשר יגידו לך" (ראה דברים יז,יא).
      וכו'.

      Nonetheless, rulings issued by this pillar of the Torah need not be יסכימו לאמת, as in the previous quote. The Talmud likewise need not be מסכים להאמת.

      Younger people are perhaps exempt from being taught this, as it will confuse them. This isn't for children, grandmothers, or even many grandfathers. Since you aren't as young as you used to be, and are apparently learned to whatever degree, you must be humble to work on and accept the words of the Rishonim.

      There are other similar citations in the Rishonim, and I mean, for lack of a better word, the "main" Rishonim whose words shape our Hashkafah.

      Work on it & KT.

      Delete
    28. The Talmud likewise need not be מסכים להאמת.

      Yet we are absolutely obligated to obey its rulings.

      Delete
    29. Chaim,

      Our grandmothers weren't Torah scholars and it doesn't bother me at all if they had a mistaken understanding about something in the Torah. However, they were Jewish, and the יג עיקרים are what defines and determines that one is a full fledged Jew, so I would be very bothered if they have a mistake about those.

      With regards to what you wrote about the Sanhedrin being mistaken, I believe there is a difference between the Sanhedrin and the Talmud.

      Delete
    30. I would be very bothered if [our grandmothers] have a mistake about [the יג עיקרים].

      Even if in truth the 8th עיקר is nuanced and limited, and their simplistic notion of that עיקר is beyond what is necessary? What's wrong with them being too frum, especially if their mistake prevents them from being confused in their Emunah?

      ---

      I believe there is a difference between the Sanhedrin and the Talmud.

      It's interesting that one of the most famous and revered Lithuanian Roshei Yeshiva says that the authority of the Talmud is (only, according to your formula) that it is considered like Sanhedrin Hagadol. Thus, they are the same.

      Delete
    31. Oops! The revered Rosh Yeshivah says that the Talmud's authority derives from it being like a ruling of Sanhedrin Hagadol….

      Delete
    32. Simpler yet, the Talmud incorporated rulings of Sanhedrin Hagadol which themselves יסכימו לאמת או לא יסכימו.

      Delete
    33. רמב"ם בהקדמה:

      בכל דור ודור ... כל אחד ואחד כותב לעצמו כפי כוחו, מביאור התורה ומהלכותיה כמו ששמע, ומדברים שנתחדשו בכל דור ודור, בדינים שלא למדום מפי השמועה אלא במידה משלוש עשרה מידות והסכימו עליהן בית דין הגדול. וכן היה הדבר תמיד, עד רבנו הקדוש.
      והוא קיבץ כל השמועות וכל הדינין וכל הביאורין והפירושין ששמעו ממשה רבנו, ושלמדו בית דין של כל דור ודור, בכל התורה כולה; וחיבר מהכול ספר המשנה ....
      רב אשי הוא שחיבר התלמוד הבבלי בארץ שנער, אחר שחיבר רבי יוחנן התלמוד הירושלמי בכמו מאה שנה. ועניין שני התלמודין--הוא פירוש דברי המשנה וביאור עמוקותיה, ודברים שנתחדשו בכל בית דין ובית דין מימות רבנו הקדוש ועד חיבור התלמוד."

      Delete
    34. Chaim,

      How do you reconcile what you are saying with the 8th עיקר that כל התורה המצויה עתה בידינו היא הנתונה למשה רבינו?

      Delete
    35. Levi Yitzchok, there are 2 general groups of approaches, those which manage to limit the extent of the 8th עיקר, notwithstanding the way it is worded, and those which basically allow it to remain with its plain, broad meaning.

      To take a step back, I do not typically enjoy discussing this with people who might become confused. Normally even if I discuss this in the first place with someone, at the first hint of confusion I direct the conversation back to the interlocutor's comfort zone. But only if he's staying on his own turf. If however someone invades the rationalistsphere and contributes to the already overdone animosity among Orthodox Jews, I feel obligated to do my part at reducing that and correcting his errors, if there's no other way. If that leaves him confused I'm sorry that's too bad.

      [continuing …]

      Delete
    36. [… continuing]

      Now back to the 2 general approaches about the 8th עיקר, I only will share from the approach that allows it to remain with its plain, broad meaning, and doesn't create confusion (hopefully). If that's not good enough for you, I don't know how I will proceed. Against my better judgment, we might have to take the second route.

      Anyway, יגיעת התורה is more important than ידיעת התורה. Every mistaken understanding of Torah when it is studied properly מתוך יגיעה ויראת שמים ובקשת האמת is beloved to Hashem. When כל מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד להורות לפני רבו כבר נאמר למשה מסיני, Hashem (happily, as it were) also showed Moshe the mistakes. (In a different context, תוספות יו"ט clarifies that certain thing Hashem taught Moshe at Sinai weren't transmitted to Klal Yisrael. This includes the mistakes.)

      You might have the impression that mistakes are an embarrassment. That's wrong. In the correct context Hashem loves them and is proud of them.

      When we say כל התורה המצויה עתה בידינו היא הנתונה למרע"ה it includes the mistakes. Because they too are first-rate.

      [continuing …]

      Delete
    37. [… continuing]

      Bear in mind also that we're dealing with a difficulty within the Rishonim. The 2 apparently conflicting ideas aren't ours but theirs. We can rely that they are correct even if the resolution doesn't seem particularly elegant or inspiring in *our* eyes.

      These things can take time to absorb. If we're finished, KT. Otherwise, feel free to continue.

      Delete
  9. I guess some people are not too familiar with Occam's razor.

    Also, and perhaps more perplexingly, it seems people are not familiar with the phenomenon of conjoined (or "Siamese") twins. If it happens in humans (who bear only one offspring at a time, and bear relatively few over a lifetime), kal vachomer the phenomenon will be observed in the animal kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the other hand, there are six billion humans and only 5000 rhinos.

      Delete
    2. How many humans alive today are Siamese twins, one (or two) in six billion?

      Delete
    3. Fighting "gotcha!" with "gotcha!"July 15, 2019 at 9:26 PM

      @RNS: "six billion humans". Off by over 1.5 billion! even Chazal have never been so wrong!

      Delete
    4. Reading this post more closely (after just skimming over it the first time), it seems that--with all my discussion of conjoined twinning--I may have missed the thrust of the post entirely. My point about Occam's razor still stands though!

      Delete
    5. @Fighting: RNS used the count that came as a result of including a citizenship question. There was a slight undercount.

      Delete
  10. And at the Biblical Museum of Natural History, we have [a replica of] the skull of a two-faced cow.

    --
    Any video of the rhino(s)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chasurei mechsera? Your query has nothing to do with your italicised quote.

      Delete
    2. BHB, thanks for asking. Look more closely at the italicized quote. The non-italicized words in brackets are a correction.

      --
      The question beneath the 2 hyphens is independent of the previous paragraph.

      Delete
  11. R' Slifkin,

    I suppose I wasn't thinking of rhinos in particular (which, as large mammals, also only bear 1 offspring at a time and have a notably long period of gestation limiting their ability to reproduce quickly), but rather of animals like reptiles and amphibians that bear many offspring at once. I think most farmers can attest to the existence (if not prevalence) of 2-headed livestock as well.

    Incidentally, the more I thought about, the more I realized that perhaps people simply don't realize that what we perceive as a single animal with 2 heads is not some kind of magical occurrence wherein one organism happens to be born with 2 heads growing from its body, but rather is just an incidence of conjoined twinning where both twins happen to share all body structures from the neck down.

    (Funnily enough, this may be the reason that, as you noted, "Two-headed snakes appear particularly common": whereas other vertebrates might be conjoined anywhere along their morphogenetic axis resulting in duplication of any number of structures/limbs, just about the only thing to duplicate in snake--externally, at least--is the head!)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Has anyone tried the Midrash'es test, of pouring hot water on one head to see if the other head cries out?

    ReplyDelete
  13. In your photo the coloration of the two horns is markedly different. in the one you bring, the inner ears look like mirror images..

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Which Threat Is Scarier?

My two youngest children, ages 10 and 6, had a scary day at school in which everyone was talking about the missiles falling in various par...