[Avodah] do gentiles have more teeth

[Chana]

> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 07:38:14PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : 2.  R Chaim Kanevesky quotes R. Y. Zilberstein that some dentist
> : actually uses this difference
> : in teeth to identify Jews. So it is not being used merely
> theoretrically

And RMB replied:

> He repeats a rumor. However, it looks like the question involved was a
> way to matir healing an unconscious patient on Shabbos, since he would
> have 32 teeth.
> 
> The bottom line is, though, that you're bringing our interest in
> halakhah lining up with scientific realia (or in my case, lining up with
the
> world as observable without mediation of tools), and criticising someone
else
> who apparently doesn't share that assumption.

Well if it was said in a shabbas context, then the whole issue changes.

In a shabbas context, most would agree we are allowed to rely on reasonably
remote sfakos in order to invoke pikuach nefesh.  Now if the Midrash
Talpiyot was in fact right, then what would have to be the explanation for
the fact that it is observable today that most non Jews have 32 teeth? -
obviously that in fact they are not non Jews!  They are really true tinokos
shenishbaru (ie descendants of women who intermarried) and/or really
destined to be gerim (assuming you hold that in such a case they would be
born with 32 teeth).  So of course, going to ask a doctor or dentist is not
going to help, because maybe such doctors/dentists have spent their lives
dealing with hidden Jews (remember the whole argument about the Palestinians
really being Jewish).  

Ie it avoids any complicated questions about aivah and other such issues.

In such a context I can well understand the decision *not* to go discussing
with doctors.  Nor, btw, would you really need to fully believe the Midrash
Talpiyot, you only need to be choshesh for such an opinion to allow shabbas
to be docheh for pikuach nefesh.

Actually, I think it could be argued to be a brilliant chiddush even if it
upsets the scientific purists.


> If RCK thought that the medical reality were important, he would go to
> medical authorities. He asks engineers about the devices used Shabbos,
> psychologists about the contents of 12 Step programs, doctors about
> piquach nefesh, etc...
> 
> This one case he is relying on what he believes to be a maamar chazal
> that we don't have recorded until the end of the 17th cent CE. It's not
> a pattern. So the question is what's missing from our analysis.
> 
> I proposed one possibility -- that he cares more about living according
> to chazal than making statements based on physical reality. That that's
> how halakhah ought to work. I'm open to others.

Not sure what you are saying here.  But as I am trying to point out, we
don't have to say that this is not in accordance with physical reality *if*
you conclude that the numbers of people who are really (or safek) Jewish is
much wider than we normally assume.  Now that is not such a ridiculous
assumption.  There have been so many many Jews who have disappeared over the
years into the non Jewish population, that it is not at all unreasonable to
say that any given non Jew, today, has Jewish blood (unless you are talking
about a full blood Australian Aborigine).  Taking it one step further and
saying that is on the matrilineal side is not such a huge step (especially
if you believe there might have been divine assistance in weeding). Ie there
is an assumption here about what RCK holds about the numbers of non Jews
really being hidden Jews out there that has not actually been articulated.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana