Divine Justice

Our previous post cited the justification of Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenberg for Devorah’s singing in the presence of men, something normally forbidden:

ואל תשיבני מדכתיב ותשר דבורה וברק בן אבינועם וגו’ כמו שנשאלתי מן אשה משכלת. כי יש לומר על פי הדיבור שאני וכיוצא בזה ממש תירצו התוספות בפרק החולץ …1

The Tosafist precedent he is invoking is a justification of a different problematic course of conduct of Devorah: her judging:

אשה אינה ראויה לדון כדתנן (נדה דף מט:) כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד ובהדיא איתא בירושלמי דיומא מעתה שאין אשה מעידה אינה דנה ודבורה לא היתה דנה אלא מלמדת להן שידונו אי נמי על פי הדיבור שאני2

כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד. וא”ת והרי אשה דכשרה לדון כדכתיב בדבורה והיא שופטה את ישראל בעת ההיא … ואשה פסולה להעיד כדאמר בפרק שבועת העדות (שבועות דף ל.)
וי”ל דה”ק כל איש הכשר לדון כשר להעיד אי נמי נהי דבנידונין הוי אשה בכלל מ”מ בדיינים אין אשה בכלל ודבורה היתה דנה ע”פ הדיבור אי נמי לא היתה דנה אלא מלמדת להם הדינים ובירושלמי פוסל אשה לדון אית דילפי מועמדו שני אנשים שני מעל פי שנים עדים ואית דילפי מוישארו שני אנשים במחנה:3

R. Eilenberg obviously understands the phrase “על פי הדיבור” to mean that Devorah’s conduct did indeed contravene the normal halachah, and constituted a הוראת שעה; this is indeed the interpretation of most aharonim that I have seen, such as Rav Shmuel Strashun (Rashash), who objects that the essential conditions for הוראת שעה of temporariness and exigence did not hold:

ק”ל דלעבור על דברי תורה אין רשות לנביא אלא לפי שעה ולמיגדר מלתא כדאיתא ביבמות (צ:) ועיין ברמב”ם פרק ט’ מהלכות יסודי התורה הלכה ג’.4

Rav Yaakov Ettlinger also understands Tosafos to mean הוראת שעה, but he understands that the aforementioned requirements were indeed satisfied: only Devorah, and no other woman, judged, and only since there was no other suitable judge:

היתה דנה על פי הדבור. והר”ן תירץ עוד דישראל קבלו אותה עליהם וכן כתבו גם התוספות בבבא קמא (טו. ד”ה אשר).
ולענ”ד יש לומר ששני תירוצים האלה מרומזים בפסוק דכתיב

ודבורה אשה נביאה אשת לפידות היא שופטה את ישראל בעת ההיא והיא יושבת תחת תומר דבורה בין הרמה ובין בית אל בהר אפרים ויעלו אליה בני ישראל למשפט

ויש לומר דתיבת היא מיותר וגם בעת ההיא מיותר וגם מה חידש הפסוק במה שאמר ויעלו אליה בני ישראל למשפט כיון דכבר כתיב היא שופטה את ישראל
אכן יש לומר על פי מה דאמרינן יבמות (צ:) דנביא רשאי לבטל דברי תורה על פי נבואה אבל רק הוראת שעה ולא לדורות וזה פירוש הפסוק ודבורה וגו’ אשת לפידות היא שופטה את ישראל אף על פי שאשה פסולה לדין מן התורה מכל מקום היתה שופטה אבל דייק הפסוק היא שופטה אבל אשה אחרת לא ומה שהיא היתה שופטה הי’ מפני שהיתה אשה נביאה ועל פי הדבור הי’ אבל זה דוקא גם כן רק בעת ההיא שהי’ צורך שעה שלא הי’ שופט אחר שראוי לכך אבל בלא זה לא היתה ראויה לדון וזה כתירוץ ראשון דהתוספות
ועוד טעם אחר הי’ שהיתה שופטת כי היא יושבת בלבד ולא כפתה לבא לדין במקל ורצועה כי אם ויעלו אליה בני ישראל למשפט שהם באו מאליהם וקבלו אותה עליהם5

Rav Yaakov Levinsohn, in his work שויון הנשים מנקודת ההלכה, understands similarly:

אולי רמוז גם זה בפסוק “ודבורה אשה נביאה”, כלומר בשביל שהיתה נביאה ובא לה דבור מיוחד שמותרת לדון על כן “היא שופטה את ישראל”. היא בפרטות שופטה אף על פי ששאר נשים פסולות, ומרמז נגד הקושיא לא בשמים היא על כן אמר “בעת ההיא”, רק הוראת שעה היתה6

Rav Chaim Hirschensohn rebuts R. Levinsohn, calling his comments “wise” but not “true” (?). He raises numerous objections to the approach that Devorah’s judging was a הוראת שעה, including the inconceivability of her being uniquely competent to judge civil cases (“Was there no one in all Israel then who was qualified to judge civil matters besides the prophetess?!”):

אמנם פירוש זה של התירוץ השני של התוספות לא יכול להתקיים על פי הכלל דאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה, ואם היתה אסורה לדון לא היה מועיל הדבור להתיר בקום ועשה,
[ושוב הביא את דברי רב לוינסון, והשיג עליו:] ואם שדבריו דברי חכמה הם אך לא דבר אמת, כי “הוראת שעה” מצינו לא “הוראת שעות” להתיר לה כל החיים להיות שופטת את ישראל, ואיזו תועלת היתה בהוראת שעה הזאת, הנוכל לדמות זה לאליהו בהר הכרמל, וכי לא היה מועיל נביאתה לבד לברק שיזעק את העם לקראת סיסרא אם לא היתה יושבת תחת תומר לשפוט את ישראל, והכי לא היה בכל ישראל אז מי שראוי לדון דיני ממונות בלעדי הנביאה, ואיה מצינו שהנבואה צותה לה על זה, או שהיא צותה לישראל בנבואה שיעלו אליה למשפט כמו שאליהו צוה להביא שני פרים, וכל הוראת שעה השעה צריכה לכך, ואם השעה היתה צריכה הוא להיות מולכת או מנהיגה להצבא, לא שתתן את זמנה לדין פרוטה ודין מאה שלא כדין התורה, ואם חשבו בעלי התוספות ז”ל שהי’ צורך השעה שתהיה נקראת בשם שופטה היו צריכים לכתוב שדבורה היתה שופטה או דיינה על פי הדבור, ואם שגם זה לא נכון כמ”ש, אבל לו חשבו כן בעלי התוספות ז”ל היו צריכים לכתוב על התואר שלה שהיה על פי הדבור אבל לא על הפועל שהיה צריך להיות דבור מיוחד בכל פועל ופועל והכל לצורך שעה ובהוראת שעה, זה דבר שאי אפשר להשמע. …7

[I find his apparent dismissal of the adjudication of small and large civil matters (“דין פרוטה ודין מאה”) as relatively unimportant vis-à-vis greater roles such as political and military leadership – “and if the times required, it was that that she reign or lead the military, not spend her time adjudicating the law of a פרוטה and the law of a hundred, against Torah law” – distasteful.]
R. Hirschensohn proceeds with an idiosyncratic reinterpretation of Tosafos.

All the foregoing aharonim have understood the phrase “על פי הדיבור” to mean הוראת שעה; Rav Zvi Hirsch (Maharaz) Hajes, however, may have understood Tosafos somewhat differently:

הנה בתוספות נדה .. כתבו דדנה על פי הדיבור והנה הדין מבואר דאסור לחכם לדון ולהורות על פי הנבואה. דכתיב לא בשמים היא ואלה המצות שאין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר ואין משגיחין בבת קול ואם כן היכי היתה רשאי לדון על פי הדיבור.8

His meaning is perplexing: why would a Divine waiver, as a הוראת שעה, of the normal ineligibility of women to be judges violate the principle of לא בשמים היא more than any other הוראת שעה, such as the offering by Elijah of a sacrifice on Mount Carmel? Perhaps he understands the phrase “על פי הדיבור” differently: Devorah was not violating the ban on women judging as it was not she who was judging, but G-d, speaking through her. To this we indeed have the cogent objection that Divine communication may not inform a judge’s jurisprudence, due to the principle of לא בשמים היא.

The truth is that the invocation of the principle of לא בשמים היא goes back to the באר הגולה:

אי נמי על פי השכינה שאני ואף על גב דלא בשמים הוא שאני הכא דהוראת שעה היתה9

But this is doubly unclear: why is the principle of לא בשמים היא relevant, and insofar as it is, can it really be overcome by a הוראת שעה? That would seem to eviscerate the entire point of the principle!

Several lectures of mine on the halachic legitimacy of women serving as judges, holding public office and voting (passive and active female suffrage), and related topics, are available at the Internet Archive:

  1. באר שבע, ספר באר מים חיים אות ג, הובא באליה רבה סימן ע”ה סוף אות ה []
  2. תוספות יבמות מה: ד”ה מי לא טבלה לנדותה []
  3. תוספות נדה נ. ד”ה כל הכשר []
  4. הגהות וחדושי הרש”ש על התוספות נדה []
  5. ערוך לנר על התוספות נדה [ההעתק הוא ממהדורת בני ברק תשס”ד]‏ []
  6. שויון הנשים (ניו-ירק תר”ף) עמוד יא []
  7. מלכי בקודש חלק שני עמודים 184-85 []
  8. חדושי מהר”ץ חיות על התוספות בבא קמא []
  9. באר הגולה סימן ז’ אות י’‏ []
Posted in audio, Live, Night Kollel, Tanach, חושן משפט | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Song of the Warrior-Judge

From this week’s parshah:

וַתִּקַּח מִרְיָם הַנְּבִיאָה אֲחוֹת אַהֲרֹן, אֶת-הַתֹּף–בְּיָדָהּ; וַתֵּצֶאןָ כָל-הַנָּשִׁים אַחֲרֶיהָ, בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹת. וַתַּעַן לָהֶם, מִרְיָם: שִׁירוּ לַיקוָק כִּי-גָאֹה גָּאָה, סוּס וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם.1

From the haftarah:

וַתָּשַׁר דְּבוֹרָה, וּבָרָק בֶּן-אֲבִינֹעַם, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, לֵאמֹר.2

How could Devorah have sung together with Barak, in apparent contravention of the principle of קול באשה ערוה? Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenberg suggests Divine dispensation:

תוכחת מגולה יפה ומעולה אדבר עם בחורים וגם בתולות זקנים עם נערים ובפרט עם נשים נשואות שהם מזמרות ומשמיעות קול שיר בזמירות בשבת עם בחורים זקנים עם נערים יחד. ואינם משימין אל לבם שהיא מצוה הבאה לידי עבירה חמורה …
ואל תשיבני מדכתיב ותשר דבורה וברק בן אבינועם וגו’ כמו שנשאלתי מן אשה משכלת. כי יש לומר על פי הדיבור שאני וכיוצא בזה ממש תירצו התוספות בפרק החולץ …3

Rav Efraim Zalman Margolis explains that Devorah merely composed her wonderful poem, but did not actually sing it vocally before a male audience:

ושמעתי שלכך לא כתיב ששרתה יעל לפי שאמרו (מגילה טו.) יעל בקולה מביאה לידי הרהור וזנות, מה שאין כן דבורה שפיר אמרה לפי מה שכתבו הפוסקים דדוקא לקריאת שמע איתמר
אמנם נראה דבלאו הכי אין ראיה מ”ותשר דבורה”, שעיקרה לא נאמר אלא נוסח השירה והמליצה הנפלאה, אבל לא נזכר ששרתה בקול לפני אנשים.4

I mentioned these sources in the introduction to a miscellaneous lecture I recently gave on poetry, song and grammar in the Jewish tradition; it is available, along with my notes, at the Internet Archive. [It is based on a series of essays I published about five years ago on the Seforim Blog titled “Wine, Women and Song: Some Remarks On Poetry and Grammar”: part I; part II; part III.]

In a follow up post, we shall, בג”ה, discuss the problem of Miriam’s singing.

  1. שמות טו:כ-כא []
  2. שופטים ה:א []
  3. באר שבע, ספר באר מים חיים אות ג, הובא באליה רבה סימן ע”ה סוף אות ה []
  4. מטה אפרים, דיני קדיש יתום, שער ד’ סעיף ח’ באלף למטה []
Posted in audio, music and poetry, Tanach, אבן העזר | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Alicorns and Amulets

From the NetHack Wiki:

A unicorn horn (or unihorn) is an important tool for curing your adventurer. …

For medical application

Cures from uncursed and blessed application

An uncursed or blessed unicorn horn can cure:

  • blindness except from cream pies and venom
  • confusion
  • hallucination
  • stun
  • sickness
  • nausea (from eating tripe/eggs)
  • lost attribute points.

Sickness is normally fatal, and the unicorn horn is the easiest way to cure sickness (you might not have the right potion or spell, and you might not be able to safely pray). The other ailments, such as blindness and confusion, normally time out, but a unicorn horn removes them faster. Repeatedly apply the horn until you are completely cured.
Applying an uncursed unicorn horn will fix between 0 and (2d2 – 1) ailments, whilst a blessed one can heal between 0 and (2d4 -1) ailments. …

What it can not cure

A unicorn horn cannot cure:

  • stoning
  • sliming
  • lycanthropy
  • wounded legs

It also cannot:

  • restore health
  • restore magic power
  • undo amnesia
  • fix fainting.

A question posed to Maran:

שאלה ראובן תבע משמעון שהשאיל לאשתו כוס אחד של עצם אליקירנו להשקות בו את בתו שהוכה ממגפה ואמרו שהיה מסוגל אותו הכוס לרפואת החולי והוא בשתית מים בו … יורינו רבינו מה יהיה משפט הפרעון של הכוס הזה … ועוד שהוא טוען שהיה שוה זה הכוס ממון רב שהיה מסוגל ושמעון טוען שלא היה שוה אלא מעט שכמה בני אדם שתו בו ומתו ושלחו בית דין לדעת שיווי זה הכוס והעיד אדם אחד שאומרים שהוא בקי ורופא שלא הכוס הנזכר מעצם אליקורנו כי אם עצם דג מהים ושראה כאלה רבות …1

Loose translation:

Query: Reuven sued Shimon, that he had lent his wife a cup of “alicorn bone” for his daughter, who was stricken with the plague, to drink from, for they say that that cup had the magical ability to cure disease, via the drinking of water from it. [The daughter died, the cup was lost, and the litigants were arguing over its value.] [Reuven] claims that this cup was worth a great sum, due to its magical property, and Shimon claims that it was only worth a little, for many men had drunk from it and [nevertheless] died. The court investigated the question of the cup’s value, and a certain man, who was reputed to be an expert and physician, testified that the aforementioned cup was not “alicorn bone”, but rather “the bone of a fish of the sea”, and that he had seen many such …

“Alicorn bone” is unicorn horn, to which legend ascribed marvelous curative powers (in addition to mere existence); the “bone of a fish of the sea” is narwhal tusk, a main source of counterfeit alicorn. The Alicorn page on the “Unicorns” site has a wonderful survey of the topic:

“Those who drink out of these horns, made into drinking vessels, are not subject, they say, to convulsions or to the holy disease (epilepsy). Indeed, they are immune to poisons if, either before or after swallowing such, they drink wine, water, or anything else from their beakers.”
— Ctesias. Greek physician and historian, Indica (c. 400 BC)

It has been recorded throughout history that six mysterious natural substances have been coveted by ancient rulers above all others. …
Of these six treasures, the horn of the unicorn or alicorn, was the most valuable and sought after. Sheer value and mystique made them sought after gifts among rulers, and they were used extensively to win friends, influence fellow monarchs or protect a poison-prone prince. (Considering the reputation of Catherine de’ Medici, a lady both lovely and lethal, it was most thoughtful of her uncle, Pope Clement VII, to give her fiancé, the dauphin of France, a gold-mounted alicorn as a wedding present!)

And the wonder-working horn existed. Alicorns were owned by monarchs and popes throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. The horn became an emblem of imperial power: The sceptre of Russia’s czars and the sceptre of Austria’s Hapsburg emperors were both made of unicorn horn. Two alicorns are among the treasures of Japan’s imperial palace. Charles V, Holy Roman emperor, settled what in today’s terms would be a multi-million-dollar debt by giving the Margrave of Bayreuth two alicorns. King Edward I of England owned a unicorn horn which was stolen. In 1550 Pope Clement purchased an alicorn said to be “the most beautiful unicorn’s horn ever seen.” It was elaborately mounted in silver and gold before being presented to King Francoise of France.

Mary, Queen of Scots, owned one, as did Francis I. Frederick III of Denmark had a throne made almost entirely out of alicorn. The Sultan of Turkey, the wealthiest ruler of his time, sent 12 alicorns to His Most Catholic Majesty King Philip II of Spain (1527-1598). At that time each of them was worth from 10 to 20 times its weight in gold.

A typical alicorn was up to 9 feet long, had a basal girth of 8-9 inches and weighed 18-20 lbs. Even the Swiss scientist Konrad von Gesner (the father of zoology), who had his doubts about unicorns, concluded in 1551 that “the animal must exist on earth, or else its horn would not exist.”

The Church also owned alicorns, which were put on public display at various times. The most famous of these belonged to the Church of St. Denis near Paris, where it was kept in a vault. One end was placed in a font and the water dispensed to the sick and infirm.

Allegedly it cured a wide range of illnesses after causing an initial fever. Unfortunately, this alicorn disappeared during the French Revolution. St. Mark’s in Venice possessed three famous alicorns, as did Milan Cathedral, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Westminster Abbey in London and several others. Chester Cathedral in England still boasts an alicorn among its treasures.

Probably the most famous alicorn of all — known as the ‘Horn of Windsor’ — belonged to Elizabeth I of England. The horn was listed among Elizabeth’s crown jewels and valued at 10,000 pounds (more than 10,000,000 pounds at today’s prices), a sum which at that time would have been enough to buy a large estate plus castle.

This horn was given to the queen as a gift from the man who found it — Martin Frobisher. A captain in the British Navy, he had been trying to discover a northwest passage to India for some time. During his first attempt in 1576, rough winds and cold weather forced him to turn back. But the trip was not a total failure as some of his men had found some “black earth” and the rumor quickly spread that it was gold.

This made it much easier for him to find backers for future journeys and he was able to set out again the very next year. Once more inclement weather interfered with his explorations. And, after several ships were wrecked by a storm, Captain Frobisher had to end his journey. He had sailed as far as the inlet now known as Frobisher’s Bay in Baffin Island, Canada. His men, who spent most of their time there collecting ore, found “a great dead fish” with a hollow spiralling tusk almost two yards long.

During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, many people believed that for each animal of the land there was an equivalent animal of the ocean. Captain Frobisher and his men probably believed this animal was a sea unicorn. The sailors even tested the horn by placing poisonous spiders in the inner cavity.

As men, to try the precious unicorn’s horn,
Make of the powder a preservative circle,
And in it put a spider.
~ John Webster, The White Devil

When the spiders died it was considered adequate proof that the horn must belong to the unicorn of the sea. Frobisher returned to England and delivered the horn to Queen Elizabeth. He was later knighted for his valor against the Spanish Armada. …

The belief in the alicorn’s ability to cure a wide range of maladies and protect against poison was nearly universal. Unfortunately, it was only available to the wealthy as its price was prohibitively high. Poor people had to make do with small quantities of horn such as a single band worked into a metal cup, or shavings ground up and used as powders.

Its effectiveness was such that the smallest amount was greatly treasured. It was used to protect people against plague, fever, rabies, colic and cramps. Boiled in wine, it whitened teeth. Mixed with amber, ivory, gold, coral, raisins and cinnamon, it helped cure epilepsy. It’s no wonder that the Apothecaries Society of London, founded in 1617, chose a pair of unicorns to support its coat of arms—the symbol was easily understood.

This horn is useful and beneficial against epilepsy, pestilential fever, rabies, proliferation and infection of other animals and vermin, and against worms within the body from which children faint. Ancient physicians used their Alicorn remedies against such ailments by making drinking mugs from the horn and letting their patients drink from them. Nowadays such drinking vessels are unobtainable and the horn itself must be administered [as a powder] either alone or mixed with some other drug…Genuine Alicorn is good against all poison; especially, so some say, the quality coming from the Ocean Isles. Experience proves that anyone having taken poison and becoming distended thereby, recovered good health on immediately taking a little Unicorn horn.

The page proceeds with a discussion of the problem raised by our responsum: how to distinguish the genuine article from counterfeit:

Trade in alicorns was fairly widespread during the Middle Ages and numerous noble houses listed one of the horns among its treasures. The fact that alicorns were both so valuable and so rare (some legends say there is never more than one unicorn on earth at any one time) provided great temptation and opportunities for fraud. Merchants anxious to make a profit often sold the horns of other animals as alicorn.

With so much fraudulent alicorn being sold, it became necessary to devise some way of testing alicorns to determine which were real. Some of these tests included:

  • Drawing a ring on the floor with the alicorn. A spider placed inside the ring would not be able to cross the line and would starve to death trapped inside the circle.
  • Placing the horn in water, causing the water to bubble as if it were boiling, even though it remained cold.
  • Placing a piece of silk on a burning coal, then laying the horn on top of the fabric. If it was a true alicorn, the silk would not burn.
  • Bringing the horn near a poisonous plant or animal, which would burst and die in reaction.
  • Inverting a beaker carved of alicorn over two scorpions. If it was truly unicorn horn, the scorpions would die.

Not even kings were exempt from being defrauded. King James I of England purchased an alicorn at great expense (reportedly for about 10,000 pounds). He felt it was important to test its authenticity, even though he had no doubt it was genuine. He summoned a favorite servant and told him to drink a draught of poison to which powdered horn was added. The servant drank the mixture and promptly died. James could not have been more unpleasantly surprised—he had been deceived.

Times and values certainly do change! James I immediately believed his fake alicorn to be almost worthless. Yet in 1994 a fake alicorn was auctioned at Christie’s in London—and sold for nearly half a million pounds! This in spite of the fact that it was known to be a 12th Century fake. It’s been speculated that this alicorn may have once belonged to Hereford Cathedral. It was purchased in the 1950’s for next to nothing as part of a bundle of walking sticks cleared from a property in the cathedral close. …

The unicorn horns still in palaces and royal treasuries (e.g., the Schatzkammer in Vienna or the Kremlin Armory in Moscow) and in museums and private collections have one thing in common: They are in fact all narwhal tusks, the enormously elongated and spiraled single tooth of a 13-to-15-foot High Arctic whale.

The narwhal swims in small groups in the remote Artic and is a mammal, not a fish. Its chief value to humans is the male narwhal’s tooth, which juts out through its lips and grows in a spiral motion as long as eight feet. The tooth is ivory and exactly what most people picture when they think of an alicorn. In some ways, it is the alicorn.

It’s believed narwhal horns first made their appearance around the 12th Century. The tusks of the male whales were traded to the wealthy courts of Asia and Europe by Scandinavian fishermen who had discovered the narwhal off the coast of Greenland.

The narwhal-unicorn connection was probably the best and longest kept secret of all time and, perhaps, one of history’s most cunning marketing strategies. It was a trade carried on in utter secrecy; the middlemen, most often Vikings and Arabs, made millions and kept quiet. They were able to preserve their lucrative secret for more than 400 years because the narwhal seldom swam south.

The bubble burst in the 17th Century and the truth emerged as a result of growing trade between Greenland and North America. While alicorn continued to be listed as a scientifically approved medicine until well into the 18th Century, the price plummeted dramatically. One complete horn belonging to King Charles I dropped in value from 8,000 pounds in 1630 to only 600 pounds by 1649.

An article by William Jackson, in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Pharmaceutical Journal:

The unicorn is a mythical beast that has been associated with medicine and pharmacy for hundreds of years. …

The price of the horn

The sums quoted for the price of unicorn horn vary considerably, and the problem of estimating its value is compounded by the differing dates and by the varying currencies that are quoted. However, there can be no doubt that, although the price varied from time to time, it was never cheap. In 1609, Thomas Decker speaks of the horn of a unicorn as being worth “half a city” and a Florentine physician observed that it was sold by the apothecaries for £24 per ounce. In 1553, one belonging to the King of France was valued at £20,000 and the value of one specimen in Dresden in the same century was estimated at 75,000 thalers.

Obviously, unicorn horn was not something that was normally owned or used by poor people. It was its alexipharmic properties that were thought to be of particular use, and the fact that rich and powerful people were in the greatest danger of being poisoned ensured that there were always sufficient customers with enough money to maintain its high price. Considerable amounts would also be paid by collectors of curiosities for particularly fine specimens.

Medicinal virtues

The first mention of the therapeutic properties of unicorn’s horn is thought to have been by Ctesias, a Greek physician from Cnidus, who flourished in the fifth century BC. He believed the unicorn was an Indian wild ass that had a horn growing from its forehead. Drinking cups made from this horn could neutralise poison and afford protection against convulsions and epilepsy. In the middle ages it was used to cure plague, fevers and bites from serpents and mad dogs. It was even said that poisoned wounds could be cured merely by holding a piece of the horn close to them. Surely we cannot fail to be impressed when we read in ‘Doctors and Doctors’ by Graham Everitt that the unicorn was: “ … perfectly conscious of the sanitary virtues which resided in its nasal protruberance, and would dip its horn in the water to purify and sweeten it ere it would drink.”

Mary Stuart (1542–87), Queen of Scots was the widow of Francis II of France. Later she married Lord Darnley and, in 1565, gave birth to a son who became James VI of Scotland. She had brought a piece of unicorn’s horn from France and used it to test her food for poison. Unfortunately it did not prevent her developing rheumatic gout and dropsy later in life, nor did it protect her from the executioner’s axe when she was beheaded at Fotheringhay Castle in 1587.

In a letter written to Monsieur Belin in October 1631 Guy Patin, the Parisian physician, observed that he did not believe that unicorn’s horn was of any use as protection against the pestilential disease that was prevalent in the city at that time, nor did it possess any of the occult properties attributed to it.

Unicorn horn was also an ingredient in a remedy for the bite of a mad dog that was published in 1656: “Take a handful of Box, and stamp it, and strain it with a draught of milk, put into it a pretty quantity of Lobsters shell beaten to a powder, and some Unicorns horn, if you can get it, and drink thereof and wash the wound therewith.” The scarcity of unicorn’s horn is indicated by the phrase “if you can get it”. …

William Salmon’s ‘Pharmacopoeia Londinensis or the New London Dispensatory’ of 1678 said that although many were dubious about the existence of the unicorn, their doubts could have no foundation because it was mentioned in the “holy writings”. However, the country of its origin was dubious and Salmon mentioned a number of authorities that quoted widely differing places, including the West Indies, Ethiopia, Asia and the East Indies, though he reached no conclusion about the validity of any of these claims. Ludovicus Vartoman had described two beasts that had been presented to the “Great Turk” by the King of Aethiopia. Both had yellowish horns in the middle of their foreheads, a deer’s head and cloven hooves. Finally, he observed that the horn was the only part that was used medicinally being “alexipharmick” (counteracting poisons) “sudorifick” (causing sweating) “cardiack” (a cordial restorative) “antifebritick” (reducing fevers) and “cephalick” (counteracting disorders of the head). He added: “It potently resists Plague, Pestilence, and Poyson, expels the Measles and Small-Pox, and cures the Falling-Sickness in Children.” The dose to be used was 10 grains to a drachm (60 grains) or more.

In 1695, Nicholas Culpeper observed: “Uni-corns horn resists Poyson and the Pestilence, provokes Urine, restores lost strength, brings forth both Birth and Afterbirth.” Obviously Culpeper had no doubts about the medicinal value of unicorn’s horn although suspicions about its efficacy as well as its origin had been growing for some time. The phrase “restores lost strength” is a reference to its supposed value as an aphrodisiac.

At the end of the 18th century the French physician, Pierre Pomet, dealt with the subject at some length. He observed that the truth about unicorns was still unknown, but described and illustrated several beasts from which the tales about it could have been derived. The camphur was a wild ass found in Arabia that had a horn used to cure several diseases, especially venomous or contagious ones. The Arabs who lived near the Red Sea knew of the pirassoupi, a hairy animal about the size of a mule that had two long, straight, spiral horns. These were infused in water for six to eight hours and the resulting liquid was drunk to cure wounds or venomous bites. This beast was probably included despite its possessing two horns because of the recorded use of them as an alexipharmic.

Pomet illustrated three unicorns described by Johnston in his ‘Historia naturalis’.1 He observed, inaccurately, that there were five beasts with a single horn and that one must be the true unicorn. These were the “Orix, or one-horn’d wild goat”, the “one-horn’d Ox”, the “Hart with one Horn”, the “one horned Hog” and the “one horned Ass”. He mentioned that the people of India made drinking vessels from the horn of the latter, and that they freed anyone drinking from them from any sort of deadly poison or infection. It would seem that Pomet believed that unicorns did exist, though he stated categorically: “I shall only say, that what we sell under the Name of Unicorn’s Horn is the Horn of a certain Fish, by the Islanders called Narwal, or the Sea Unicorn.” He said that authors had ascribed almost incredible things to it, chiefly as a remedy for poisons, plague and fevers, and the bites of serpents or mad dogs. It was used as a cordial or restorative, shavings of it being boiled up in a broth and coloured with a little cochineal and saffron to make a jelly.

Pomet also noted that the narwhal, also known as the rhoar or sea unicorn, a large fish that some reckoned to be a sort of whale, was found in the northern seas especially along the coast of Greenland. It carried a spiral horn at the end of its nose that could be seen in some cabinets of curiosities. Pieces of this horn were sold in Paris as true Unicorn’s horn that was said to have many virtues, but he could neither authorise nor contradict these reports because he had not sufficient experience of its use. He also wrote of another “fish” called the sea unicorn that had been stranded on a beach on an island near Santo Domingo. It was about 18 feet long and had a spirally twisted horn (or tusk) that became smoother as it diminished in circumference. This measured nine and a half feet in length. A feature of this creature that is shown in an illustration is that on its head there was “a Kind of Crown rais’d above the rest of the Skin, two inches or thereabout, made in an oval Form, and ending in a Point”. It seems highly probable that the drawing was made from a description rather than being taken from life.

Pomet also quoted Nicolas Lemery, a doctor of medicine, as saying that the narwhal carried a spiral horn, five or six feet in length, with which it would attack the largest whales. This horn yielded a great deal of volatile salt and oil that was cordial, sudorific and useful to resist infections and cure epilepsy. The dose was from 10 to 40 grains. In addition, people wore it in amulets hung round the neck to resist infection. …

See also Odell Shepard’s Lore of the Unicorn.

Returning to Maran, he argues that although it is uncertain whether the cup in question was genuine alicorn or narwhal counterfeit, the preponderance of evidence (including the expert testimony) points to the latter: “[I]n our case, if it is made of alicorn, it is worth a great sum, but if it is of the bone of a fish, it is worth very little, and the physician witness supports this, so the straight path is to broker a compromise between them …” [It is unclear whether Maran is uncertain about the very existence of magical unicorn horns, or merely whether the cup in question was genuine or counterfeit.]:

ולענין שיווי פרעון דמי הכוס לכאורה נראה דהיינו ההיא דירושלמי בפרק הכונס חד אמר זיגין הוא מלא וחד אמר מטקסין הוא מלא … ואמר ר’ אמי הרי זה נשבע ונוטל אבל כי דייקת ביה לא דמי דשאני הכא דאומדן דעתא הוא שאין אדם עשוי להשאיל כוס שוה ממון רב בלא עדים ובלא משכון ולהניחו ביד השואל זמן רב ועוד שהעיד עד אחד בקי ורופא שלא היה אלא מעצם דג וזה מסייע לאומדן דעתא …
עוד שבנדון זה אם הוא של אליקורנו שוה ממון רב ואם הוא של עצם דג שוה דבר מועט מאד ואומדן דעתא שאינו שוה אלא דבר מועט והעד הרופא מסייע ליה לכן הדרך הישרה לפשר ביניהם …

I recently encountered this responsum of Maran cited by Rav Meir Arik as contradicting the remarkable, strongly held position of Rav Shlomo Kluger (Maharshak) that an amulet whose value derives from its magical powers is considered אין גופו ממון, and a borrower who loses it is therefore not liable for the loss:

רב שלמה קלוגר

ראובן שהשאיל לחברו קמעות לרפואה ונאבדו וטוען המשאיל שהיו שוין הרבה שהוציא עליהן עשרים ר”כ …
ואף אם היה יודע שהוציא עליהן הרבה אין בזה חיוב ממון דאין גופו ממון. וזה דומה לשטרות דאין בו דין שמירה דאין גופו ממון ואף שיכול לפעול הרבה בהם מכל מקום אין גופן ממון כן ה”נ בזה
עיין ביו”ד סימן של”ו דאפילו פסקו לו הרבה בעד סממנין לרפואה מכל מקום אין לו אלא דמיהן ומכל שכן בלא פסקה לו ומה גם ברפואה שאינו בדרך הטבע ודאי דאין גופו ממון.
ועיין כעין חילוק זה בין רפואה בטבע או דרך סגולה בפירוש המשניות להרמב”ם בפרק א’ דיומא ובתוספות יום טוב שם גבי מי שנשכו כלב שוטה דאין מאכילין אותו מחצר הכבד שלו. עיי”ש והוא הדין בזה וזה פשוט וברור לדינא:2

רב מאיר אריק

ראיתי בהגהות חכמת שלמה … ולענ”ד מדברי רבינו הבית יוסף זצ”ל בתשובות אבקת רוכל … נראה להדיא דיש בזה דין שומרים לשלם מה ששוה הכוס הנ”ל לפי ערך סגולתו יעו”ש3

The remainder of Rav Meir Arik’s discussion concerns an amulet that has been custom made for the victim and cannot be used by anyone else; he analyzes the question of whether a bailee or tortfeasor is liable for damage to property whose value is specific to its owner, but worthless to anyone else, a topic we have previously discussed here and here:

מיהו בקמיע שעשוי רק לאדם זה והפקידו ביד אחר יש לומר קצת דל”מ דחיוב שומרים לא שייך בזה רק גם בשורפו בידים פטור כיון דאינו שוה רק לו ולא יוכל למוכרו לאחר הוי דבר הגורם לממון דלאו כממון דמי כתוספות כתובות ל”ד.
מיהו בש”ך לקמן סימן שפ”ו ס”ק א’ השיג על תוספות הנ”ל וכתב דגם בכה”ג שייך דינא דגרמי רק דאפילו הכי בשורף חמץ שעבר עליו הפסח פטור אף דשוה לדידיה לפטור עצמו מהנגזל משום דלא שכיח וגם אין ראוי לקנוס השורף דהא בשריפתו עשה טובה לנגזל יעו”ש אם כן בשורף קמיע אף שאינו שוה רק לבעלים חייב על כל פנים מדר”ג [אולי צ”ל מדד”ג] דלא שייך הנהו טעמי דש”ך הנ”ל
ואפשר דגם דין שומרים שייך בזה ואף להתוספות בבא קמא וכתובות ל”ד הנ”ל יש לומר דה”ד בחמץ שעבר עליו הפסח דלדידיה גם כן אינו שוה כלום רק לפטור את עצמו מן הנגזל מה שאין כן קמיע דהוי גופו ממון לדידיה אין נפקא מינא במה שאין שוה לאחריני.
ושוב ראיתי סברא זו בתשובת השיב משה סוף סימן ק”ח יעו”ש
ועיין בתשובת בית יצחק … ולהנ”ל יש לומר כיון דעל כל פנים אצלו הוא שוה וצריך לו לגופו אף שאינו שוה לאחר הוי ממון גמור ולא דמי לחמץ שעבר עליו הפסח דגם אצלו אינו שוה כלום רק לפטור עצמו מן הנגזל וצ”ע עוד בזה:

I recently gave two presentations, both discussing these two themes of value deriving from an item’s magical powers (as well as related analysis of the category of אין גופו ממון and its extension to other types of property such as (not yet executed) bills of divorce, antiques and collectibles) and value specific to the particular owner of the property; they are available, with accompanying notes and sources, from the Internet Archive here and here.

  1. שו”ת אבקת רוכל סימן ק”ס, ועיין עוד שו”ת מביט א:קפב []
  2. חכמת שלמה חו”מ ריש סימן ש”מ []
  3. מנחת פתים שם, ועיין עוד אבני החושן שם []
Posted in audio, bailees, folklore, theology and philosophy, torts, חושן משפט | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment