Intermountain Jewish news., 1925-11-05
THE JEWISH REALM OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

% Bekorot I5z) Here we read that
the disciples OF X. Ishmacl who had
learned from their teachers that the
human body contains 2IS joints had the
opportunity TO test this anatomical
theory of their teachers. They obtain.
ed the body OF woman who had been
sentenced to dcnth and executed by the
Roman authorities.
They boiled the body and dissected
II and counted the number Of the joints
and to their great surprise they found
that 1t contains 252 joints instead OF
only o4S. This fact seemed to refute
the theory which they had learned
from their teachers. They came to
their master and told him that they
have found by their own observation
about the 2IS joints was not correct.
The master, however, answers them
by saying Perhaps you have eNamln-
ed the body OF n womnn?" And he in
formed them that the theory about the
24S joints applied only to the body OF
a male but that the female OF the
species had four more joints.
Autopsy Taken For Granted
1t is evident from this report that
the practice of autopsy was not CON
sidercd by the rabbis as forbidden or
Objectionable. The master does not ey-
press any surprise when he hears that
his disciples dissected n human body.
He does not rcproach them for having
done such thing. He does not even
ask where they obtained the body or
whether II was Jewish or non
Jewish corpse. 1t evidently made no
difference to him who the body was.
This consideration would also answer
the possible argument that 1t was only
because the woman had been sentenced
to death ana executed as II criminal
that they did not mind performing the
1t is doubtful If the Rabbis considered
the woman a criminal even though the
Roman government treated her as such.
The Rabbis may have disagreed with
the Roman law on the question whether
the woman In the case deserved death
or not Secondly. even If the woman
cuted by Jewish court and according
to the Jewish law the Rabbis could
not have treated her differently from
any other dead person. After she had
paid the penalty for her crime. her
death brought her atonement and her
body was not to be mistreated. Had
there been n law against dissecting n
body they could not have ignored such
n law In this case on the ground that
that the body was executed to death
and did not die n natural death But
above ALL it is evident from our report
that when the disciples first reported
the case to their master they did not
give any details. they did not tell him
whether IL was the body of II Jew or II
non-Jew, man or woman, saint or Grim
innl and the master did not care to
ask for any details. Only when it
was necessary for him to maintain the
theory about the 2IS joints. did it oc-
cur to him to ask: Was II perhaps
the body of n woman that you dissect-
ed and cxamincd?" 1t is also signtic-
amt that no discussion or remarks by
later teachers follow this report in the
Talmud This nrgumentum t slencio
has some weight considering that us
ually when some action or practice Of
| older teachers is reported in the Talmud
the later teachers il they know of
some law forbidding such n practice
take up the discussion of the whole
question. Evidently in this case, the
later teachers did not know Of any
law forbidding the practice.
ITO be concluded nert Week, Nth an
analysis of the legitimate grounds Of
objection.)