Sorry, terrible answer. For it to work, you would have to show that there was a common belief that centipedes had asymmetrical legs, which you didn't even try. The simple explanation of Tosafos is the centipede is walking and the legs appear asymmetrical https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivWcwgfWR7Y
The example of Aristotle is particularly bad, because it is obvious in that passage that the conclusion was based on observations. So in a hilarious twist of irony, those who use that example show that they themselves didn't even bother to do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.
In context, Ari was clearly referring to a full set of teeth.
Ari was a very early forerunner of modern science, but still mostly a logician. Observation of Nature, experimentation, and statistics had not yet been established as rules to determine the validity of a claim. A "logical" proof was THEN as good a proof as any other.
You made that up on the spot, he doesn't say that. He is probably referring to the typical man, woman, goat, sheep, etc. He writes clearly it was based on observation, and most people who quote it don't even bother to look it up.
U make up a lot of stuff. I learned it in a university class, by a tenured prof, where we did tons of readings for each lecture. U probably did not take those heavy-reading courses in night school.
When I was 1st becoming OTD, I was often referred to modern rabbis who "knew their stuff," 1 of whom was quite famous. I almost felt sorry for them when they realized their education and reading was far below my own. 1 problem is that auto-didacts, maybe like yourself, have major gaps in their education. In university, u read 3-4 hours for every lecture. Just a small example: how much Shakespeare have u read? Probably not much, cause it contains too much romantic love and some avoda zara.
"The simple explanation of Tosafos is the centipede is walking and the legs appear asymmetrical"
But that's not what Tosafos wrote.
You've added two things that aren't in Tosafot:
1) The centipede is walking.
2) The asymmetry is not real, just an optical illusion (at least experience by some blog commenter centuries later)
Both of these assumptions, are not at all implicit in the words chosen by תוספות.
Compare with the מאירי:
ואף רגלי הנדל כך הם שאין רגלי הצד האחד מכוונים כנגד רגליו שבצד האחר
Then look again at רש"י and ר"ח. They only explain that the centipede has many pairs of legs along its body, but they don't mention asymmetry. That's the innovation of תוספות and מאירי.
"The idea that people didn't check things that were easily observable is ridiculous and ahistorical."
Like the tongue map?
... and that's where RNS gets it wrong too when he writes, "centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct."
There are plenty of cases where conventional wisdom is based on unsubstantiated assumptions, or in which actual experiments/observations are ruined by various kinds of errors and fallacies.
Natan added something that isn't in history -that there was a common belief that centipedes are asymmetrical. My explanation of Tosafos is totally fine, your objection is ridiculous.
Tongue map is neither easily observably false nor was it an ancient belief, so what's your point, to show that you didn't check into that either?
Not sure what your last paragraph has to do with Natan's stupid pshat in Tosafos or his silly proof from Aristotle.
Except that תוספות doesn't say what you claim. Neither does the מאירי.
And neither does ר"ת in ספר הישר:
שרגלי הנדל ב' שורות רגלי הימין כנגד חלל שבין רגלי (שמאל) [השמאלי] וכן [רגלי] השמאלי כנגד חלל שבין רגלי (הימני) [הימיני]
That doesn't sound like he's talking exclusively about the mere appearance AND while walking. I would even allow for the possibility that תוספות was well aware of the true nature of centipedes but was explaining the analogy to a mythical centipede. But I don't really care, because the point of תוספות is to explain what a מבוי העשוי כנדל is, not to give us a biology lesson
"Tongue map is neither easily observably false nor was it an ancient belief"
It is easily shown false, and I chose it as a modern example because if there are such misconceptions in modern times, then there were certainly such misconceptions in the middle ages.
" so what's your point, to show that you didn't check into that either?"
Whether I checked or not is irrelevant and is a personal attack. And yes I did check and found it to be false, except that my conclusion at the time was that I must have been doing something wrong!
Sorry, as I said, your objection is ridiculous and seems to demonstrate a lack of familiarity with learning (and I am pretty sure that you are familiar with learning, so I find that troubling). Tosafos doesn't have to say it in order for it to be a perfectly good, plausible explanation of Tosafos's words. That's not how learning works. I can bring a thousand examples from Tosafos himself.
"That doesn't sound like he's talking exclusively about the mere appearance AND while walking."-it doesn't sound not like that either
" But I don't really care, because the point of תוספות is to explain what a מבוי העשוי כנדל is, not to give us a biology lesson"-clearly you do care enough to write comments. But for this very reason you give, it wasn't important for Tosafos to go into details saying exactly how a centipede looks like that.
"It is easily shown false"- no it's not. I always assumed it's something very subtle. I suppose if you were very naive and took it completely literally, then it's easily shown false. But I don't know anybody as stupid as that in my personal life.
"Whether I checked or not is irrelevant and is a personal attack."- Then saying Chazal or Tosafos didn't check into something is certainly a personal attack on them, right?
You have three ראשונים (unless of course, it's ר"ת who is the author of the תוספות) who all use the same words. They all describe the centipede, and none of them describe the appearance of a moving centipede. They are describing what it is, not what it looks like while walking.
"Then saying Chazal or Tosafos didn't check into something is certainly a personal attack on them, right?"
No. Because I don't consider it a problem that didn't check it out. You do, and that's why you're twisted in knots over this.You consider any ignorance of some minor facet of natural science as a failing that lessens the stature of the בעלי תוספות. What's more important is not to re-interpret & distort the words of ראשונים to fit a narrow agenda.
"They are describing what it is, not what it looks like while walking."-that's just your ignorant assertion that reflects a lack of familiarity with learning. Since they are not teaching a biology lesson, there is no reason for them to go into detail about how a centipede is like that. What's the alternative, that there was a common belief in the Rishonim's time that centipedes have asymmetrical legs? Do you have any evidence of that? Do you understand how ridiculous you sound? Natan, I understand. But I expect better from you.
"No. Because I don't consider it a problem that didn't check it out."- Here it's not even a question of checking it out. There is no reason why they should have had such a belief in the first place. Unless you say they just made stuff up on the spot for no reason, which is what Natan is saying.
In cases where something like that would have been important, I would have expected them to check it out also, as seen in countless places in Chazal and Rishonim where they did check stuff out.
"Narrow agenda"-saying the Rishonim didn't just make stuff up on the spot without checking it is not some narrow agenda, it's common sense.
They could have checked women and men when they were young before they lost their teeth! Sometimes the Gemarah quotes pesukim from the Tanach incorrectly!
No, fool, they were talking about the typical male and female, not babies. What does incorrect quotations of Tanach have to do with anything? Have you done any research on that topic whatsoever? Of course not.
Enough with your constant insults against those whom you disagree with. Time for you to do a serious חשבון נפש that your insults influences nobody while you are עובר on מלבין חבירו ברבים.
Uh, no. As I said, you are an uneducated am ha'aretz and your LW modox "rabbis" are likewise amei ha'aretz as well as Reform apologists, and are leading your community off a cliff. Deal with it.
Your are not a Chareidi, you're a בריון, a"gruba yoong".You don't have any idea what a Chareidi is! Your background shows! Distorted from your religious conflicts.!
Goodness, this is obvious? Have you read Tosfos'es comments on that? Do you believe the product of of a large academy of individuals would be crafted that way?
"Meanwhile, we are creating a millipede exhibit at the Biblical Museum of Natural History. But the signage will not, of course, make any reference to this Tosafos. Just like dinosaurs and evolution, certain topics are banned at the museum!"
I agree. The attitude is appalling, but he also misunderstands Tosfos. The legs of a centipede by definition are never mathematically equal, because they are always odd, never even. Moreover, the legs on either side are not one long leg separated by the body, but they are actually two separate legs, one on each side. They do not have to be, and in fact are not, mathematically aligned with one another. And just by looking online you can see plenty of centipedes (you know there are many varieties, 228 in Thailand alone) where plainly the legs do not match up on a straight plane. And in any event neither the Gemara itself nor Tosfos intended anything more than that they don't always appear aligned, as compared to a regular man or quadruped. Just look at a picture of one in a curved C or S shape and you'll get what they meant.
"The legs of a centipede by definition are never mathematically equal, because they are always odd, never even."
I think you mean "pairs of legs". I'm not sure what you mean by "mathematically equal".
"And in any event neither the Gemara itself nor Tosfos intended anything more than that they don't always appear aligned"
Not clear. The minimal analogy only includes the concept of a pair of many legs along the long body of the creature. That's a sufficient analogy to describe the structure of the מבוי. Adding the description of mis-alignment to the analogy is where the problem lies. (Though I'm not bothered by the problem.)
" intended anything more than that they don't always appear aligned"
תוספות, the מאירי and ספר הישר don't include the word "appear".
I meant that since the number of legs is always odd, they could never all be perfectly aligned in any event. I would have to look at the ספר ידר ומאירי more closely, but I hear your point.
On a macro level, I am not from those who believe chazal (or Rishonim) were infallible. I think such an attitude is actually quite rare, though, as in all organizational life, public posture may differ from personal belief. However, I also know not to believe anything on this website, and I also know NS is an excitable person prone to grand sweeping declarations that are usually exaggerated or wrong. In this particular case, the twin claims of "the ancients didn't have the mindset to check facts" and "modern science is based on empirical observation" are both laughably naïve and wrong. It also seems unlikely to me that Rabbenu Tam (weirdly referred to as "the Tosafist", as though NS didnt actually see the Tosfos inside) never saw a centipede. That NS admits there are plenty of centipedes in Europe, and thus goes even farther to say tet "the Tosafist" made an assertion he *could* have but just didn't bother to check, is even worse.
A comment on the next post only for paid subscribers: the picture is wrong.
1- There were no 'horns' of light coming out of Moshe's 'head' in the same place where animals have their horns. Rather, 'rays' came from his 'face'.
2- Also, he didn't stand on the mountain and speak to the people. During the Aseres Hadibros he was downstairs with the people listening to Hashem's words. Whenever else he had to speak to the people he went down to talk. He never spoke from on high
הנדל השכיח ביותר בארץ והגדול מבין הנדלים המצויים בה. צבעי רגליו בולטים ואורכו עשוי להגיע ל-15 ס"מ ויותר. נשיכתו מכאיבה ביותר ומלווה לעיתים בהתנפחות, בחום ובהקאות. שוכן מתחת לאבנים בכל אזורי הארץ. נקרא גם: נדל ארסי.
The Chilopoda most common to the Land of Israel is the largest one. Its colored legs protrude and it is can be 15 centimeters and longer. Its bite is very painful and can cause swelling, fever, and vomiting. It likes to live under rocks anywhere in Israel. Also called: the poisonous, toxic, hateful, malicious Chilopoda.
For the record, I would like to point out that the Rashbam, as quoted by הגהות אשר׳׳י א:ט and the אור זרוע סי׳ קיג explain that the מבוי כנדל is literal - the crossroads connect in the middle, and you can get from one מבוי to the other without turning. This causes a lot of consternation in Halacha. However, the reason that Tosafos say that the מבויות don't connect in the middle isn't because they were unaware of how centipedes look (though I can't verify this one way or another, neither can RDNS). It is because if they were through-streets they would become a מבוי מפולש, and the way to permit them for carrying on Shabbos that is suggested in the Gemara wouldn't make any sense.
Something I would like to point out is that comparing items to the shape of an animal, and thereby trying to derive what the animal looks like is not aa path that will lead anywhere. The Mishna in Bechoros describes that an eye deformity looks like a "תבלול חלזון נחש עינב". There is no eye deformity that looks like a grape, a snake, and a snail. It was a turn of phrase that the Mishna used because the item in question looked a bit like it. The same is true in a "מבוי כנדל". This is in addition to the point that according to Rashi, the מבוי has branches only on one side. Will RDNS now say that Rashi didn't go out of his way to observe centipedes, and thought that they only had legs on one side? אתמהה.
Imagine, those fools in the past never thought to check if men have more teeth than women. We're so much smarter today, when we know that men and women are actually the same thing.
"The director of the Biblical Museum of Natural History said that he is willing to forgo any mention of dinosaurs or evolution in his museum in order to make the museum acceptable for Chareidim- the same Chareidim who he has criticized for fundamentally distorting Judaism and contradicting Chazal and Rishonim. Whoever will visit the museum and pay admission prices and buy his encyclopedia will be fully accommodated.
How can he disregard his long-standing, bitter dispute regarding the proper education of our generation in exchange for money?!"
Sorry, terrible answer. For it to work, you would have to show that there was a common belief that centipedes had asymmetrical legs, which you didn't even try. The simple explanation of Tosafos is the centipede is walking and the legs appear asymmetrical https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivWcwgfWR7Y
The idea that people didn't check things that were easily observable is ridiculous and ahistorical. The proof from Aristotle is silly, most people were missing teeth in ancient times, it's entirely possible that women on average had less teeth, especially because of pregnancy. https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/fast-facts/pregnancy/index.html#:~:text=During%20pregnancy%2C%20women%20may%20be,to%20gum%20disease%20and%20cavities.&text=Pregnant%20women%20are%20more%20likely,by%20changing%20hormones%20during%20pregnancy.
The example of Aristotle is particularly bad, because it is obvious in that passage that the conclusion was based on observations. So in a hilarious twist of irony, those who use that example show that they themselves didn't even bother to do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.
In context, Ari was clearly referring to a full set of teeth.
Ari was a very early forerunner of modern science, but still mostly a logician. Observation of Nature, experimentation, and statistics had not yet been established as rules to determine the validity of a claim. A "logical" proof was THEN as good a proof as any other.
You made that up on the spot, he doesn't say that. He is probably referring to the typical man, woman, goat, sheep, etc. He writes clearly it was based on observation, and most people who quote it don't even bother to look it up.
I did NOT make that up now or ever. I learned it in History of Philo 101 at YU in 1970.
I guess u went to 1 of those yeshivas that do not teach goyishe daas, and u do not read widely enough to pick up common knowledge.
Yeah, as I said, somebody told you in YU in 1970 but you never looked up the passage yourself. How ironic.
U make up a lot of stuff. I learned it in a university class, by a tenured prof, where we did tons of readings for each lecture. U probably did not take those heavy-reading courses in night school.
When I was 1st becoming OTD, I was often referred to modern rabbis who "knew their stuff," 1 of whom was quite famous. I almost felt sorry for them when they realized their education and reading was far below my own. 1 problem is that auto-didacts, maybe like yourself, have major gaps in their education. In university, u read 3-4 hours for every lecture. Just a small example: how much Shakespeare have u read? Probably not much, cause it contains too much romantic love and some avoda zara.
"The simple explanation of Tosafos is the centipede is walking and the legs appear asymmetrical"
But that's not what Tosafos wrote.
You've added two things that aren't in Tosafot:
1) The centipede is walking.
2) The asymmetry is not real, just an optical illusion (at least experience by some blog commenter centuries later)
Both of these assumptions, are not at all implicit in the words chosen by תוספות.
Compare with the מאירי:
ואף רגלי הנדל כך הם שאין רגלי הצד האחד מכוונים כנגד רגליו שבצד האחר
Then look again at רש"י and ר"ח. They only explain that the centipede has many pairs of legs along its body, but they don't mention asymmetry. That's the innovation of תוספות and מאירי.
"The idea that people didn't check things that were easily observable is ridiculous and ahistorical."
Like the tongue map?
... and that's where RNS gets it wrong too when he writes, "centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct."
There are plenty of cases where conventional wisdom is based on unsubstantiated assumptions, or in which actual experiments/observations are ruined by various kinds of errors and fallacies.
Natan added something that isn't in history -that there was a common belief that centipedes are asymmetrical. My explanation of Tosafos is totally fine, your objection is ridiculous.
Tongue map is neither easily observably false nor was it an ancient belief, so what's your point, to show that you didn't check into that either?
Not sure what your last paragraph has to do with Natan's stupid pshat in Tosafos or his silly proof from Aristotle.
"My explanation of Tosafos is totally fine..."
Except that תוספות doesn't say what you claim. Neither does the מאירי.
And neither does ר"ת in ספר הישר:
שרגלי הנדל ב' שורות רגלי הימין כנגד חלל שבין רגלי (שמאל) [השמאלי] וכן [רגלי] השמאלי כנגד חלל שבין רגלי (הימני) [הימיני]
That doesn't sound like he's talking exclusively about the mere appearance AND while walking. I would even allow for the possibility that תוספות was well aware of the true nature of centipedes but was explaining the analogy to a mythical centipede. But I don't really care, because the point of תוספות is to explain what a מבוי העשוי כנדל is, not to give us a biology lesson
"Tongue map is neither easily observably false nor was it an ancient belief"
It is easily shown false, and I chose it as a modern example because if there are such misconceptions in modern times, then there were certainly such misconceptions in the middle ages.
" so what's your point, to show that you didn't check into that either?"
Whether I checked or not is irrelevant and is a personal attack. And yes I did check and found it to be false, except that my conclusion at the time was that I must have been doing something wrong!
Sorry, as I said, your objection is ridiculous and seems to demonstrate a lack of familiarity with learning (and I am pretty sure that you are familiar with learning, so I find that troubling). Tosafos doesn't have to say it in order for it to be a perfectly good, plausible explanation of Tosafos's words. That's not how learning works. I can bring a thousand examples from Tosafos himself.
"That doesn't sound like he's talking exclusively about the mere appearance AND while walking."-it doesn't sound not like that either
" But I don't really care, because the point of תוספות is to explain what a מבוי העשוי כנדל is, not to give us a biology lesson"-clearly you do care enough to write comments. But for this very reason you give, it wasn't important for Tosafos to go into details saying exactly how a centipede looks like that.
"It is easily shown false"- no it's not. I always assumed it's something very subtle. I suppose if you were very naive and took it completely literally, then it's easily shown false. But I don't know anybody as stupid as that in my personal life.
"Whether I checked or not is irrelevant and is a personal attack."- Then saying Chazal or Tosafos didn't check into something is certainly a personal attack on them, right?
"it doesn't sound not like that either"
You have three ראשונים (unless of course, it's ר"ת who is the author of the תוספות) who all use the same words. They all describe the centipede, and none of them describe the appearance of a moving centipede. They are describing what it is, not what it looks like while walking.
"Then saying Chazal or Tosafos didn't check into something is certainly a personal attack on them, right?"
No. Because I don't consider it a problem that didn't check it out. You do, and that's why you're twisted in knots over this.You consider any ignorance of some minor facet of natural science as a failing that lessens the stature of the בעלי תוספות. What's more important is not to re-interpret & distort the words of ראשונים to fit a narrow agenda.
"They are describing what it is, not what it looks like while walking."-that's just your ignorant assertion that reflects a lack of familiarity with learning. Since they are not teaching a biology lesson, there is no reason for them to go into detail about how a centipede is like that. What's the alternative, that there was a common belief in the Rishonim's time that centipedes have asymmetrical legs? Do you have any evidence of that? Do you understand how ridiculous you sound? Natan, I understand. But I expect better from you.
"No. Because I don't consider it a problem that didn't check it out."- Here it's not even a question of checking it out. There is no reason why they should have had such a belief in the first place. Unless you say they just made stuff up on the spot for no reason, which is what Natan is saying.
In cases where something like that would have been important, I would have expected them to check it out also, as seen in countless places in Chazal and Rishonim where they did check stuff out.
"Narrow agenda"-saying the Rishonim didn't just make stuff up on the spot without checking it is not some narrow agenda, it's common sense.
Sorry, the last line of my first paragraph was uncalled for. I apologize, and have removed it.
They could have checked women and men when they were young before they lost their teeth! Sometimes the Gemarah quotes pesukim from the Tanach incorrectly!
No, fool, they were talking about the typical male and female, not babies. What does incorrect quotations of Tanach have to do with anything? Have you done any research on that topic whatsoever? Of course not.
Enough with your constant insults against those whom you disagree with. Time for you to do a serious חשבון נפש that your insults influences nobody while you are עובר on מלבין חבירו ברבים.
They didn't check the text or they had a different text which you would not want to be say. Or they were paraphrasing?Your a nasty piece
..... You need psychological help.
Uh, no. As I said, you are an uneducated am ha'aretz and your LW modox "rabbis" are likewise amei ha'aretz as well as Reform apologists, and are leading your community off a cliff. Deal with it.
It has to do with reality check by chazal.Reality check of natural phenomena.
Your are not a Chareidi, you're a בריון, a"gruba yoong".You don't have any idea what a Chareidi is! Your background shows! Distorted from your religious conflicts.!
I can also type lots of random exclamation points mixed with other random punctuation.
!!!."!""..!!!!
See?
Sometimes the Gemara quotes pesukim incorrectly. Obviously they didn't check.
So what, how does that justify Natan's extremely silly pshat in Tosafos? In 99% of those cases the misquote doesn't make a difference.
Goodness, this is obvious? Have you read Tosfos'es comments on that? Do you believe the product of of a large academy of individuals would be crafted that way?
Your capacity for furious rationalization is impressive
"Meanwhile, we are creating a millipede exhibit at the Biblical Museum of Natural History. But the signage will not, of course, make any reference to this Tosafos. Just like dinosaurs and evolution, certain topics are banned at the museum!"
How are you not ashamed to write that?
SQ, I don't understand what you are saying. (And perhaps you don't understand what I was saying.)
I'll guess he misunderstood you to be banning Tosafos, huh SQ?
I agree. The attitude is appalling, but he also misunderstands Tosfos. The legs of a centipede by definition are never mathematically equal, because they are always odd, never even. Moreover, the legs on either side are not one long leg separated by the body, but they are actually two separate legs, one on each side. They do not have to be, and in fact are not, mathematically aligned with one another. And just by looking online you can see plenty of centipedes (you know there are many varieties, 228 in Thailand alone) where plainly the legs do not match up on a straight plane. And in any event neither the Gemara itself nor Tosfos intended anything more than that they don't always appear aligned, as compared to a regular man or quadruped. Just look at a picture of one in a curved C or S shape and you'll get what they meant.
"The legs of a centipede by definition are never mathematically equal, because they are always odd, never even."
I think you mean "pairs of legs". I'm not sure what you mean by "mathematically equal".
"And in any event neither the Gemara itself nor Tosfos intended anything more than that they don't always appear aligned"
Not clear. The minimal analogy only includes the concept of a pair of many legs along the long body of the creature. That's a sufficient analogy to describe the structure of the מבוי. Adding the description of mis-alignment to the analogy is where the problem lies. (Though I'm not bothered by the problem.)
" intended anything more than that they don't always appear aligned"
תוספות, the מאירי and ספר הישר don't include the word "appear".
I meant that since the number of legs is always odd, they could never all be perfectly aligned in any event. I would have to look at the ספר ידר ומאירי more closely, but I hear your point.
On a macro level, I am not from those who believe chazal (or Rishonim) were infallible. I think such an attitude is actually quite rare, though, as in all organizational life, public posture may differ from personal belief. However, I also know not to believe anything on this website, and I also know NS is an excitable person prone to grand sweeping declarations that are usually exaggerated or wrong. In this particular case, the twin claims of "the ancients didn't have the mindset to check facts" and "modern science is based on empirical observation" are both laughably naïve and wrong. It also seems unlikely to me that Rabbenu Tam (weirdly referred to as "the Tosafist", as though NS didnt actually see the Tosfos inside) never saw a centipede. That NS admits there are plenty of centipedes in Europe, and thus goes even farther to say tet "the Tosafist" made an assertion he *could* have but just didn't bother to check, is even worse.
Sounds like a geshmak trip! So happy for you.
That's grub from the Lion King!
Slimy yet satisfying.
A comment on the next post only for paid subscribers: the picture is wrong.
1- There were no 'horns' of light coming out of Moshe's 'head' in the same place where animals have their horns. Rather, 'rays' came from his 'face'.
2- Also, he didn't stand on the mountain and speak to the people. During the Aseres Hadibros he was downstairs with the people listening to Hashem's words. Whenever else he had to speak to the people he went down to talk. He never spoke from on high
הנדל השכיח ביותר בארץ והגדול מבין הנדלים המצויים בה. צבעי רגליו בולטים ואורכו עשוי להגיע ל-15 ס"מ ויותר. נשיכתו מכאיבה ביותר ומלווה לעיתים בהתנפחות, בחום ובהקאות. שוכן מתחת לאבנים בכל אזורי הארץ. נקרא גם: נדל ארסי.
The Chilopoda most common to the Land of Israel is the largest one. Its colored legs protrude and it is can be 15 centimeters and longer. Its bite is very painful and can cause swelling, fever, and vomiting. It likes to live under rocks anywhere in Israel. Also called: the poisonous, toxic, hateful, malicious Chilopoda.
How was the bat killed?
For the record, I would like to point out that the Rashbam, as quoted by הגהות אשר׳׳י א:ט and the אור זרוע סי׳ קיג explain that the מבוי כנדל is literal - the crossroads connect in the middle, and you can get from one מבוי to the other without turning. This causes a lot of consternation in Halacha. However, the reason that Tosafos say that the מבויות don't connect in the middle isn't because they were unaware of how centipedes look (though I can't verify this one way or another, neither can RDNS). It is because if they were through-streets they would become a מבוי מפולש, and the way to permit them for carrying on Shabbos that is suggested in the Gemara wouldn't make any sense.
Something I would like to point out is that comparing items to the shape of an animal, and thereby trying to derive what the animal looks like is not aa path that will lead anywhere. The Mishna in Bechoros describes that an eye deformity looks like a "תבלול חלזון נחש עינב". There is no eye deformity that looks like a grape, a snake, and a snail. It was a turn of phrase that the Mishna used because the item in question looked a bit like it. The same is true in a "מבוי כנדל". This is in addition to the point that according to Rashi, the מבוי has branches only on one side. Will RDNS now say that Rashi didn't go out of his way to observe centipedes, and thought that they only had legs on one side? אתמהה.
Imagine, those fools in the past never thought to check if men have more teeth than women. We're so much smarter today, when we know that men and women are actually the same thing.
When we know that a man can put on a dress and become a women and compete in women's sports!
Or that we have such an enlightened concept as "women's sports".
What's wrong with women's sports?
With some sports, nothing. With others, everything.
Like what?
Like swimming. Nothing wrong with the women's swim sport.
"But the signage will not, of course, make any reference to this Tosafos. Just like dinosaurs and evolution, certain topics are banned at the museum!"
http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/selling-out.html#:~:text=The%20director%20of,exchange%20for%20money%3F!
"The director of the Biblical Museum of Natural History said that he is willing to forgo any mention of dinosaurs or evolution in his museum in order to make the museum acceptable for Chareidim- the same Chareidim who he has criticized for fundamentally distorting Judaism and contradicting Chazal and Rishonim. Whoever will visit the museum and pay admission prices and buy his encyclopedia will be fully accommodated.
How can he disregard his long-standing, bitter dispute regarding the proper education of our generation in exchange for money?!"
https://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/stop-lies-part-i.html#:~:text=And%20to%20me%2C%20most%20significant%20is%20that%20Natan%20Slifkin%20considered%20the%20mayor%27s%C2%A0kowtowing%C2%A0to%20the%20most%20extreme%20factions%20amongst%20the%20charedim%C2%A0to%20be%20something%20worthy%20of%20contempt!
Huh? Money has nothing to do with it.
He had a good imagination then.