3

Why does Judaism believe in דולפנין Mermaids?

Rashi on Bekhorot 8a:1:1

The Dulfanin reproduce with people - if a person lies with one of them, they can produce offspring. ( ה"ג הדולפנין פרים ורבים מבני אדם - שאם בא אדם עליהם מתעברות הימנו )

Rashi on Bekhorot 8a:1:2

Sons of the sea - there are fish in the sea that are half in the form of a man and half in the form of a fish. Sirene in old French. ( בני ימא - דגים יש בים שחציין צורת אדם וחציין צורת דג ובלע"ז שריינ"א )

Ramban on Leviticus 11:10:1

In my view, however, “creature that creeps [sheretz]” includes the fish swimming in water, because the connotation of shritza is movement, and “any living creature” refers to the sea animals that walk on their feet like the beasts of the field. All of them have one law. The Midrash in Toras Kohanim, however, says: “‘Living’ — this refers to the beasts of the sea, ‘creature’ — this includes the mermaid.

[https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/206651?lang=bi]

  • The concept of a Mermaid seems similar to the Philistine false idol Dagon.
  • Why would a false mythological being be accepted as a real sea-creature by Rashi & Ramban?
  • Does Judaism still support Mermaids are real?
msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
חִידָה
  • 1,418
  • 5
  • 14

2 Answers2

5

Contrary to popular belief, mermaids do not exist. The Gemara describes dolphins, which Rashi mistook as mermaids or read it that way in Worms. Similarly, what Christopher Columbus and the Spanish explorers thought were mermaids were actually manatees.

The Gemara states:[1]

Everything copulates front facing back, except for three species that copulate face-to-face: fish [dolphins], humans and snakes.

Also, there is a variant in the Gemara. It reads that "dolphins mate LIKE humans [kivnei adam], not "with humans" [bivnei adam]." Rashi substituted the "like" with "with."[2]

[1] See Bechoros 8a. The "people of the sea" who breed like humans are dolphins because dolphins breed like humans, they are actually not fish but mammals.

[2] I thank @Shalom in the comment section for bringing this to my attention.

Turk Hill
  • 1,348
  • 7
  • 16
  • 5
    The Gemara about "dolphins" has a variant text changing one character: dolphins mate LIKE humans [kivnei adam], not "with humans" [bivnei adam]. That's the straightforward way to read the Gemara, and in line with today's science. Rashi had the word "with", and most likely in his time and place most believed mermaids were real. – Shalom Feb 23 '21 at 14:58
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Isaac Moses Feb 24 '21 at 15:11
  • @Shalom I used your insights to enhance my answer. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. – Turk Hill Feb 24 '21 at 15:35
  • 2
    @TurkHill of course. I wouldn't say Rashi himself mistook the letter; it was likely in the text which he studied in Worms ... but somehow, somewhere along the lines it had gotten corrupted. – Shalom Feb 24 '21 at 16:27
  • @Shalom Yes, I agree with you. – Turk Hill Feb 24 '21 at 17:37
  • @shalom what about today's science is problematic with a species of fish existing somewhere in the ocean that has half of the physical appearance of a person? – B''H Bi'ezras -- Boruch Hashem Feb 24 '21 at 19:50
  • @bluejayke What fish? – Turk Hill Feb 24 '21 at 20:11
  • 1
    I would applaud this answer had Rashi not mentioned the Sirenes. With this, it is impossible to claim Rashi was misunderstood and spoke about dolphins. This also invalidates the other reading of the Gemmorah. – Al Berko Feb 27 '21 at 19:43
  • 1
    @AlBerko Could you elaborate? Thanks. – Turk Hill Feb 27 '21 at 21:24
  • 1
    @AlBerko where in this answer is it stated that Rashi was speaking about dolphins? – Baby Seal Mar 01 '21 at 14:21
  • @TurkHill Contrary to your opinion, mermaids to likely exist but they hide themselves from humans now. – setszu Jun 24 '23 at 23:32
  • @setszu Are you seriously arguing that mermaids are real? Take a picture of one and show it, if you can do it. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 01:26
  • @TurkHill I literally just explained it in the latter half of the sentence. Stop with the nonsensical, what some may call "empiricism". If you want to be like that, there is other forms of evidence and also explanations. I shortened my explanation but the gist is there. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 01:35
  • @TurkHill Also "take a picture of one and show it" - as if pictures mean anything, there are people who deny atrocities of the past even if there are images and videos of them, etc. Foolish people are still gonna doubt regardless of what you present to them. But if its in the authoritative Jewish texts, then that is the truth, period, end of story. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 01:42
  • 1
    @setszu So, authoritative Jewish texts mention them — what then? Should we believe everything Jewish texts say? Only the Torah is authoritative. I only need to justify the Torah. I do not feel the need to justify every sentence in the midrash or gemara. Those sources are human opinions. The sages admitted that the gentiles were correct in scientific matters. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 01:53
  • "Should we believe everything Jewish texts say?" Yes I think so, and you should follow them. Your feelings about what you need to justify are irrelevant. Some are human opinions, but possibly divinely guided and guided by secret specific knowledge of past oral tradition & they have authority. The stuff about sages admitting that is nonsense - non-Jews can ofc, if only by accident, arrive at truths, so of course on some stuff they might be right. Truth is truth, and it never contradicts the Torah. The concept of "science" itself is dubious in the first place, but whatever. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 01:53
  • @setszu Why shouldn't we have evidence? Faith in what? You ought to know that before you can have faith in anything, it must be known as a fact. Enough prattling about your "nonsensical claims"; it's time to put up or shut up. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 01:55
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 01:56
  • @setszu Now science is dubious? The same God that created Torah created science. So now God's creation is dubious? Such pious! – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 01:57
  • @TurkHill Do you seriously believe that G-d, blessed be He, was the direct causal-creation for everything? Did he force Adam and Eve to eat from the tree? Stop being ridiculous. When I say "science", I mean the intrinsically limited human understanding of what is called "science". Mermaids are a special case for they don't want to be evidenced. If its in the texts, its true & if thats the case - mermaids are true. Torah is known as the absolute truth, so its contents are true and that we know. I have answered everything here. This exchange ends here, not interested in continuing in the chat. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 02:00
  • @setszu Where in Torah does it mention mermaids? Who cares if a late Jewish text mentions mermaids. It's not worth the paper it's written on. You put tradition in place of evidence, and tradition is not proof. If it were, the reality of leprechauns and the Loch ness monster could be proved by the same kind of evidence. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 02:05
  • @setszu I do not believe that God is the God of everything. God is not the source of evil (for example). And, Rambam did not believe Genisis to be fact. The Garden of Eden story is a parable. God did not compel Adam to eat a fruit. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 02:07
  • @TurkHill The Fall was a literal event, not a parable, but an actualization. Genesis is fact, but it must be understood carefully since its heavy with symbolism & other rhetorical devices for it shows the transcedental state that humanity lived in before the fall-before switching to more literal historical work as shown in the Exodus. Also, oral tradition literally IS the (Oral) Torah so its true. The date doesn't rly matter as long as its within the same period. If tradition is true, then its evidence and Torah is true, so its evidence. Your stuff abt Leprechauns is false equivalence fallacy. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 02:12
  • @setszu The Jews did not believe the first chapters of Genisis to be fact. Neither did the early Christians. The Genesis story certainly contradicts what science teaches. It shouldn’t be taken literally. It is only a parable. But it prompts people to do what they should do: learn physics. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 02:19
  • @TurkHill Actually most likely they understood that it was factual, but it used special language to convey it. What most believe is not necessarily true, truth is truth and there is no one unified Jewish belief. It does not contradict "science" either, there is hardly a unified universal field of study like "physics" (bad naming). "Science" is hardly a real concept and it doesn't teach anything - but even then, it doesn't contradict it, go read some writings on this. There are a myriad issues there, etc. Its not a parable, but a revelation of creation itself, an incredible event. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 02:22
  • @setszu “We ought not (says Maimonides) to understand, nor take according to the letter, that which is written in the book of the creation, nor to have the same ideas of it which common men have; otherwise our ancient sages would not have recommended with so much care to conceal the sense of it, and not to raise the allegorical veil which envelopes the truths it contains. The book of Genesis, taken according to the letter, (especially with respect to the work of four days,) gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity.” – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 02:23
  • @setszu Maimonides is saying here that the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis is not a fact, and that to believe it to be a fact gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of God. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 02:23
  • @TurkHill That's not exactly what Rambam is saying here, and (almost) everyone understood that it contains metaphorical language, etc. but things like the names in there show that it was at least a real event in some sense if understood properly. I meant revelation as in something being revealed, an account that wasn't know before being revealed - and that is true history. Genesis is fact, which gets more literal as you go. And stop quoting Rambam, I already said he's a bad source. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 02:26
  • @setszu We agree that what is revealing is a revelation. However, the Genesis story is not a fact. It is a parable. What man of good sense can believe that there was a first, a second, and a third day, and that each of those days had a night, when there was yet neither sun, moon, nor stars! What man can be stupid enough to believe that God, acting the part of gardener, had planted a garden in the east; that the tree of life was a real tree, and that the fruit of it had the virtue of making those who eat it live forever! – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 02:32
  • @TurkHill Bc those were times of purity, in the sacred space of the garden. Genesis is fact, but you're interpreting it improperly. It was an event, but its textual description was symbolized and uses literary devices to illustrate imo that this was a time of pure bliss. I already explained all this. Tree of life was imo a real tree that had spiritual properties imbued in it, though I believe in something akin to an atemporal fall with the physical garden was actualization of this, which resulted in evil due to Adam and Eve. Stop with Rambam pseudo nonsense. Ppl didnt interpret it like that. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 02:38
  • @setszu If you don't like Rambam try the remark of the Emperor Julien, on the story of the Tree of Knowledge is worth observing. “If,” said he, “there ever had been, or could be, a Tree of Knowledge, instead of God forbidding man to eat thereof, it would be that of which he would order him to eat the most.” – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 02:46
  • @TurkHill Neither he, nor you, know what G-d, blessed be He, wants. More hubris, projection and narcissism coming from self-proclaimed "rationalist". I don't understand how one can live under such a spell and not see the truth. The tree of knowledge would give you greater ability to conduct evil, and it wouldnt control your actions, so it wouldnt necessarily be encouraged, etc. What he's saying is just pure nonsense. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 02:50
  • @setszu I disagree. The Jews did not believe the first chapters of Genisis to be fact. Our sages always understood the trees to be an allegorical tree of life and the tree of knowledge but it was the church that turned these trees into real trees. All at once the allegorical tree of knowledge became, according to the Christian church, a real tree, the fruit of it real fruit, and the eating of it sinful. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 23:03
  • @setszu As the church was always the enemy of knowledge, because the church supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin! And so, even Jews, like yourself, are influenced by Christians. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 23:03
  • @setszu Maimonides said that if you want to treat God as God wants to be treated, you should try to understand this world (meaning, the sciences and, the laws of nature that God had ordained) and use your understanding of them to improve others and society generally. This is what God wants. And it is hubris or something worse to rely only on human opinion found in a book, which any imposter could make, such as the Zohar. You should first prove facts and deduce doctrines from them afterwards. But instead of this you assume every thing and prove nothing. – Turk Hill Jun 25 '23 at 23:07
  • @TurkHill Nonsense, the ancestors who received the Torah believed it in a specific way which recognized mystic language, but also the fact that it did occur and wasn't a mere parable. The eating of the fruit was sinful also. The early church was not the enemy of knowledge, but it sponsored knowledge and brought about some of the greatest revolutions in human knowledge for better or for worse. In fact, they encouraged people to acquire knowledge and didn't ban actual research, etc. Acknowledge that Christians can occassionaly be right. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 23:10
  • @TurkHill Rambam is right in that one should try to understand and improve the world to remove the impurities and sin from it as much as possible. Again, I don't recognize the concept of "science" as a study, and I don't recognize that there are absolute physical-materialist laws in the sense that G-d, blessed be He, can always in theory act against them. They're only general patterns. Rambam/you don't know what G-d wants. Torah, Talmud, etc. are not human opinions, but absolute truth and divinely guided wisdom and is thus superior to physical-material stuff bc this knowledge is not subject. – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 23:12
  • @TurkHill Torah is the truth, so we deduce everything from there first and foremost. I don't merely assume things, I know they're true. And "rationalists" are the ones who are grandiose, thinking that they can figure out reality through mere human "rationality" lol – setszu Jun 25 '23 at 23:13
  • @setszu I'll grant you that the church was not always against knowledge and sponsored scientific research. I acknowledge that Christians can be right sometimes. Maimonides said to accept the truth from whoever says it. Regarding natural laws, God does not suspend physical laws. Regarding "rationalists." It is amusing that you refer to reason as mere human "rationality." The choicest gift of God to man is the gift of reason; which you ungratefully call “human reason,” as if man could give reason to himself. – Turk Hill Jun 26 '23 at 17:50
  • @TurkHill I think that our existence and the fact that we have souls, and the Torah etc. are as important if not even more than "rationality". Human reason can never figure out everything, while with the help of the divinely given Torah, we can. How do you know that G-d, blessed be He, doesn't suspend or can't come around laws? He is all powerful so He can do whatever He wants. "Rationality" is a great gift if its subservient to the Torah and used to improve ourselves and our fallen nature that we introduced to this world. – setszu Jun 26 '23 at 18:58
  • @setszu Maimonides said the Torah was given for the purpose of improving humans and society. Yet, the same God who created Torah created science. Spinoza: "Scripture makes the general assertion in several passages that nature’s course is fixed and unchangeable." There is a fixed and immutable order of nature. If the laws can be broken, if they weren't immutable and if he can change them Jews would all be living in fear of excreting feces via the mouth or another opening. – Turk Hill Jun 26 '23 at 19:14
  • @TurkHill The Torah was given because it was good, likely bc by then people began to forget the Torah after the fall & had almost ruined themselves to no end with impurity & sin, and the Torah was likely also prolly given to rid impurity & sin from the world & return it back to being a sacred space. They wouldnt live in fear bc G-d wouldnt allow that I think. He is more powerful than His laws so He can change them. I dont acknowledege "science" as a concept, thats laughable tho empricism while shaky and limited, has miniscule legitimacy. The scripture speaks more specifically in its context. – setszu Jun 26 '23 at 19:51
  • @setszu How would God not "allow" that? Wouldn't the answer be through the establishment of natural laws? There is no evidence that the patriarchs had the Torah. Just the opposite. Rambam said that Abraham did not have the Torah and discovered God by reason. – Turk Hill Jun 26 '23 at 20:00
  • @setszu Neither did Adam nor Noah have the Torah. If they did, the Torah would have mentioned it. – Turk Hill Jun 26 '23 at 20:01
  • @TurkHill They had direct contact with G-d, blessed be He, so they're different. Every word that G-d, blessed be He, utters is a part of the 'living' Torah imo. He can work outside natural laws. – setszu Jun 26 '23 at 20:05
  • @setszu The power of nature is the power of God. God cannot and does not suspend the laws of physics for anything. Any attempt to get God to change his mind is futile. A waste of time. I would like to know how God communicated with the patriarchs, especially given that God has no vocal cords. This would be very interesting to know. – Turk Hill Jun 26 '23 at 20:23
  • @TurkHill "God cannot and does not suspend the laws of physics" - so now your denying G-d's all-powerfulness?? "Any attempt to get God to change his mind is futile" - you can still show Him your devotion and He can hear you out & who knows what might happen. " I would like to know how God communicated with the patriarchs, especially given that God has no vocal cords. " - lol this is your mind on allaged "rationalism" - He can communicate in numerous ways, through consciousness, through sounds, etc. for He is all powerful and infinite we are all within Him & derive from Him. – setszu Jun 26 '23 at 20:26
  • @setszu We agree that God is all-powerful. It is why I deduced that his laws are perfect and there is no need to alter them. Maimonides said that there was no need for miracles. All that is needed has been placed in the laws of nature. Rambam did not think God interferes with nature. He is unlike the plumber who must repeatedly return to fix the washing machine. It shows to the greatness and perfection of God. – Turk Hill Jun 26 '23 at 20:29
  • @setszu Regarding God communicating with patriarchs. It would be interesting to know how the early patriarchs heard the voice of God in their heads, for we cannot see or hear God think or reason any more than man. – Turk Hill Jun 26 '23 at 20:31
  • @TurkHill I already explained the stuff about perfect laws. Rambam is wrong, there are naturalistic miracles and transcedental miracles and both are needed, since in some cases something bad in nature might happen, but G-d, blessed be He, can interfere in special ways to prevent something from happening for example. G-d, blessed be He, does interfere with nature to drive it to purity I think. Your analogy is not good, false equivalence. The patriarchs, peace be upon them, had much higher spiritual capacities so they could connect more easily to the transcedental. – setszu Jun 27 '23 at 03:40
  • @setszu Maimonides said that there was no need for miracles. All that is needed has been placed in the laws of nature. God not interfering in nature is the real purity. – Turk Hill Jun 28 '23 at 17:58
  • @TurkHill Maimonedes said this, Maimonedes said that, etc. who do you think he was? He was a random Rabbi with some opinions, stop referring to him all the time. I explained that he was wrong, and that miracles are a part of perfection which enchances the human-tainted perception of reality, etc. He can interfere to guide it against human sin, etc. None of this contradicts with His perfection. – setszu Jun 28 '23 at 18:08
  • @setszu I disagree. Not only Maimonides, but all serious thinkers, ancient or modern, felt that a perfect God does not tamper with his creation. If the creation is perfect there is no need for alteration. No philosopher believes that an all-perfect God suspends his laws or preforms miracles that run counter to the laws of physics. – Turk Hill Jun 28 '23 at 18:35
0

I dont think its forbidden to believe in something which youve never seen. Even if you were to show me Jewish sources which ascribe supernatural powers to mermaids, it likely wouldnt be an issue of avodah zarah as long as it isnt being worshipped (actively seeking its favor). Furthermore, the fact that it may have been a philistine deity does not mean it wasnt a real thing - see the cow in hinduism. Also, perhaps rashi and ramban dispute the claim that dagon was a mermaid.

Derdeer
  • 788
  • 4
  • 10