Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

This is an old posting, but in honor of Halloween, I thought I would resurrect it for tonight!

A student asked an interesting question: Why don’t Hassidic Jews have cats for pets?

Black cats were also associated with the demonic realm. In one bizarre passage, the rabbis said that if a person really wanted to see what demons look like, he should perform the following instructions: Take sifted ashes and sprinkle around his bed, and in the morning he will see something like the footprints of a cock. If one wishes to see them, let him take the after-birth of a black she-cat, the offspring of a black she-cat, the first-born of a first-born, let him roast it in fire and grind it to powder, and then let him put some into his eye, and he will see them . . . R. Bibi b. Abaye did so, and experienced harm from seeing them. The scholars, however, prayed for rabbi and he recovered (BT Berachot 6a).

And you wondered: What do they teach young Talmudic students?! Well, now you know!

Such rabbinical beliefs were common in the Babylonian age; it is for this reason, the Talmud is very important text for understanding Babylonian folklore, which it absorbed from their culture.

Western folklore records that if a black cat crosses one’s path—especially it is missing a tale—symbolizes bad fortune; on other hand if the black cat walks along side of the person, it is a sign he will be blessed with good fortune. A cat’s tail was used as a medicine that is why they used to chop it and use it for any type of health problem.

KILLING CATS — ANOTHER STORY ABOUT EUROPEAN “CIVILITY”

It got so bad that in Christian Europe, the church made an effort to suppress witchcraft, and the cat came to be identified with witches. Any woman owning a cat was killed along with her cat, because she was purported to be a witch. Cats, as demons, were burned, usually in a rite on Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday.

The early 20^th century anthropologist James Frazer thus writes in The Golden Bough, “In the midsummer fires formerly kindled on the Place de Grève at Paris it was the custom to burn a basket, barrel, or sack full of live cats, which was hung from a tall mast in the midst of the bonfire . . . In the department of the Ardennes, cats were flung into the bonfires kindled on the first Sunday in Lent; sometimes, by a refinement of cruelty, they were hung over the fire from the end of a pole and roasted alive. “The cat, which represented the devil, could never suffer enough. . . While the creatures were perishing in the flames, the shepherds guarded their flocks and forced them to leap over the fire, esteeming this an infallible means of preserving them from disease and witchcraft. Squirrels were also occasionally burned in the Easter fire . . .” Cats almost disappeared from Europe, and this led to disastrous consequences when the rats brought the Bubonic Plague in the 1300s from China.

CATS BECOME SAVIORS OF HUMANITY!

Europeans back then (like now too) were not terribly astute. The mayor of London ordered the execution of all house-hold pets, but this political move did not stop the plague–it actually accelerated it. An explosion of the rat population only increased the plague’s intensity until the Europeans eventually realized that people who had kept cats, in violation of the law, fared better; for the cats, according to their nature, killed the rats that carried the fleas that really carried the plague. With this discovery, cats became the saviors of Europe and were soon became protected by law.

ARE CATS A THREAT TO BABIES?

Since cats were often seen as symbols of evil, some cultures in the 13th and 14th centuries believed that cats would “steal a baby’s soul.” Specifically, people thought cats were attracted to a baby’s breath. This belief still persists today; parents claimed in 2000 that an infant died with the family cat sitting on the baby’s face. However, upon an autopsy, it became clear that the baby died from Crib Death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). The fact that the cat’s proximity was on or near the baby’s face was coincidental. Cats will often sleep near a person’s head.

The story proves that many superstitions of history have some basis in something that occurred. Since the medievalists did not understand the nature of Crib Death, they looked to demonic reasons why an infant died. Unfortunately, the poor cat got blamed.

Getting rid of the family cat may not be an altogether bad idea; it is not uncommon for new parents to get rid of the family cat before a baby is born. Although suffocating babies is very unlikely, a cat may scratch a baby especially if the baby annoys the cat. In any event, it is a good idea for an adult to be in the room with the cat and infant.

SOME CULTURES LOVE THEIR CATS!

Not all cultures share disdain toward the cat. In Egypt, where the cat was originally domesticated, the cat was considered to be the guardian spirit of the home. In addition, cats were also mummified—anyone in the afterlife would certainly want to have one’s beloved pet! If someone killed a cat, the crime: death! Cats were so beloved because they could walk in the shadows with no fear; their heightened senses gave them a vision that could penetrate the darkness of the night.

Cats in ancient India were considered saints, while in Nordic countries it was common for brides to get married on Friday, a day that was dedicated to the cat goddess called Priya.

Still and all, despite the bad press cats get in the medieval era, the Talmud does say “Had Torah not been given to humankind, our ancestors would have had to learn modesty from the cat” (BT Eruvin 100b). Throughout much of recorded European history, Jews often kept feral cats to keep the mice population in check. Continue Reading

While rabbis across the world may wonder, “Who Is a Jew?”—on this night of Halloween, I am going to pose the question: “Who Is a Zombie?” Are zombies “human,” or are they something “Other” than human? The question has profound implications not just in the sphere of science-fiction, philosophy, religion—but also in the area of medical ethics.

The 17^th century philosopher Rene Descartes viewed animals as machine-like creatures, bereft of a soul. Every aspect of the animal could be explained in terms of its physical “mechanical” movements. Descartes even entertained the idea of a mechanical person what we could call today, a robotic being. How would one differentiate such a creature from the “real deal”? For one thing, the machine would never be able to spontaneously formulate sentences; its non-verbal behavior would also be limited. (Bear in mind that the rabbis arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the artificial being known as the “golem,” for it too was incapable of human speech.)

“So what is it that defines our humanity?” asks Descartes—it is the presence of the immaterial mind, the soul, which interacts between the brain and the other organs of the body.

But this raises an important question regarding the nature of “personhood,” (to use the more modern terminology). At what point does a human being, cease being “human”? If we apply Cartesian philosophy to our question, it might very well be when our brain ceases to function adequately.

Could this apply to zombies as well? (Not that they care very much about our deep philosophical deliberations!)

Of course this begs the question: Do zombies really exist? Or, are they merely mythical creatures created out from Hollywood?

In general, many mythic stories of primitive peoples have some sort of basis in fact. This principle would apply to zombies as well.

Ever since I watched that great movie, “The Serpent and the Rainbow,” I have been fascinated with this question. Harvard botanist, E. Wade Davis and Dr. Lamarque Douyon, Canadian-trained head of the Psychiatric Center in Port-au-Prince, have been trying to establish the basis for zombies, and according to them—they do exist![2] By the way, the book is much better than the film!

Haiti is a remarkable country; much of the contemporary folklore concerning zombies originates in Haiti—but there are legends about zombies that really go back to ancient history. Davis narrates the following story:

On a brilliant day in the spring of 1980, a stranger arrived at L’Estère marketplace in Haiti’s fertile Artibonite Valley. The man’s gait was heavy, his eyes vacant. The peasants watched fearfully as he approached a local woman named Angelina Narcisse. She listened as he introduced himself, then screamed in horror—and recognition. The man had given the boyhood nickname of her deceased brother Clairvius Narcisse, a name that was known only to family members and had not been used since his funeral in 1962. This incident was witnessed by more than 200 people!!

Well, it looks like the zombie can speak—and respond to human questions!!

You might wonder, “What could possibly turn a person into a zombie?” I have other questions as well, like—where did this man eat for the past 18 years, McDonald’s take out?

Well, in both the movie and in real life, there is a coma-inducing toxin that comes from the voodoo priest (known as “bocors”), which slows the human metabolism. The sources for this toxin “textrodotoxin,” come from: New World Toad (Bufo marinus), and the Japanese “Puffer Fish,” which is considered to be a delicacy in Japan—after the toxin has been removed. The chemicals of these ingredients can affect both the heart and the nervous system. In Japan, thousands of miles from Haiti, those people who have accidentally consumed the puffer fish toxin behave—well, a lot like zombies—Japanese zombies, I might add.

Godzilla, move over!!

Experiments on rats have proven that the drug can induce a trancelike state as well. So, what does this all mean?

For one thing, zombies do not have an appetite for eating human brains. But there is some scientific evidence that certain drugs can induce the famous zombie-like state. So, would a person be guilty if he killed a zombie, according to Jewish law? Based upon the evidence these two scientists have shown, a “zombie” still remains within the category of a human being.

BEYOND THE QUESTION ABOUT ZOMBIES . . .

However, there is one lingering question regarding the nature of a “person” that is still a difficult to ascertain. Would a person still be considered “human,” even if s/he is in a chronic vegetative state? The case of Terry Schiavo is an excellent example of someone whom the State declared as “clinically dead,” while the family who loved her claimed that she was still “alive,” and even allegedly, “responsive.”

About six months after her life-support was turned off, and while she was also starved by order of the court, Discover Magazine produced a fascinating article that made special mention about people like Terry Schiavo, who suffer from the chronic vegetative condition.

Here is one part of the Discover Magazine article that I thought was especially interesting.

• In the 1970s, when intensive care dramatically improved the survival of brain-injured patients, doctors found that if the body can be kept alive, the brain usually shakes off a coma—a totally unresponsive, eyes-closed state—within two to four weeks. At that point some people simply wake up, although they may be delirious and impaired. Others graduate to an in-between zone that New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center neurologist Fred Plum labeled the “persistent vegetative state” in 1972. At the time, among these patients, it seemed as if only “vegetative” brain functions like breathing, waking, and blinking were working. The higher functions commonly associated with consciousness seemed to be lost.

• The first vegetative patient Schiff saw, the victim of a stroke, had no sign of consciousness. But when he ran into her three years later at a rehab center, he was shocked to find her awake and capable of talking to him.

• The patients, doctors found, usually had widespread brain damage, but two injured areas were especially noteworthy: the thin outer rind, called the cortex, and the thalamus, a pair of walnut-size lumps in the brain’s central core, along with the neural fibers that connect these regions. The two areas are normally in constant cross talk, filtering and analyzing sensory data and making continual adjustments to attention and alertness. Lacking this chatter, someone in a vegetative state seems to be awake but not aware. They might moan and shift around, but they do not look toward a loud hand clap or pull away from a pinch. Given a feeding tube and basic medical care, someone might stay in this condition from days to decades, potentially until death. [3]

Well, as science progresses, it is only a matter of time before it can finally resolve this ethical question regarding the chronic vegetative state that we have heard so much about. Questions regarding the quality of life-even if such person should be revived from the chronic vegetative state-needs to be ethically weighed and considered by the family. If the patient has no quality of life, it is possible that reviving such a person may only cause indefinite suffering. Would this be something desirable? There is a season for everything under the heavens . . . sometimes we need to let go of the people we love. The dignity of the patient is something we must also take into consideration.

Obviously, the border separating consciousness from death are questions worthy of a Solomon to answer. In one of the symposiums I organized and participated in, I argued that ultimately—we may know a lot about the human body, but we still know very little about the nature of consciousness-where it begins and where it truly ends. Continue Reading