The Cat in Judaism Chapter 3: In the Mishnah and Talmud.

We are now entering a very long period of time. That is, from 539 BCE/521 BCE/516 BCE (the beginning of the Second Temple period) to the end of the Talmudic era, which was the end of the Excessum Patriarcharum and the signing of the Babylonian Talmud somewhere in the year 400 CE. 

In the previous chapters, I tried to trace the roots of the "biblical" cat as it may appear in the Bible, in the Old Testament, in the form of "islands" and/or "fleets," and I raised one or two conclusions on the subject, with some hesitation and compassion, but they are unfortunately completely hypothetical, due to the paucity of references and mainly their literary, interpretive context. 

In the current chapter, which is based primarily on the six orders of the Mishnah, I completely "failed" to find any trace, even a faint one, of the presence of the cat, be it wild or domesticated. This was quite disturbing to me, really, in light of the disappearance of even faint hints in relation to the Mishnah sources that cover a vast period of about 700-600 years, between the construction of the Second Temple and the beginning of the Amorite era, both in the Land of Israel and in Babylon. It should be noted, to my disappointment, that in the Tanach and Mishnah literature, hundreds of thousands of details about the life of the Jews during this period are hidden and revealed, details that are both cardinal and "microscopic," and not a single word about a cat. I was astonished, surprised, and disappointed. True, and as mentioned above, in that famous passage, where the phrase "shoner" appears and not "cat", of "Dzebin Abba Bateri Zuzi, one Gadya, one Gadya", my conclusion above can be somewhat negated/contradicted, however I took solace in that and more in the following passage. 

The Mishnah, in its course, period, leaders and practices, perhaps reflects a period of time that is ostensibly defined in time, as written above, but in literature that is slightly later than this, but which reflects a different picture of the situation due to the mention of quite a few Tannaim (the sages of the Mishnah) who appear in Talmudic literature and reflect a situation that took place many years earlier, that is, in the post-biblical, post-biblical era. We are talking about leaders such as Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Yishmael and others, the "saviors", so to speak, of details about the cats during the Mishnah period, as will become clear later in my lecture. 

Later we will discuss, among other things, the use of "shoner"/"shonra" on the one hand and "cat" on the other. And it has already been said that the use of the word/term "shoner"/"shonra" represents one period, the first, the initial one in the era of hairy production, slightly higher than today's modern one, something animalistic, wild, in the stages of civilization and acclimatization in the life of the Jew in the ancient, pre-Tananic-Talmudic period, while the cat, as an outgrowth of the "shoner", is already more domestic, more connected to man. In short, less and less animalistic/wild. 

It should be noted, and if I am not exaggerating in assuming that the "shoner" in the literature of the Sages, and especially the one that appears in the Passover Haggadah, is similar, and perhaps even has the same genetic origin, as the African wild cat, and the reference is to the "serval", almost like a small leopard, similar to a cheetah, capable of leaping into the air to a height of one and a half meters, and whose weight ranges "without the evil eye" between 13 kg and 18 kg. Its length is approximately 80 cm, its color is golden with black spots. This cat was kept in ancient Egypt by humans, but mainly operated in the African savannahs. 

In the following sources, mainly Talmudic, both from the Amorites of the Land of Israel and from the Amorites of Babylon, we will present and analyze Hebrew and Aramaic texts in relation to the cat at that time and the public's attitude towards it throughout the ancient period, both in the Land of Israel and in Babylon. 

It seems strange, on the surface of course, that I would use "specifically" biblical usage to find, in my humble opinion, the origin of the word cat, which is not found in either the Mishnah, the Talmud, or foreign literature. In my opinion, the origin of the word is "chatel," which refers to a covering, wrapping, and even a bandage. This word appears only in the book of Ezekiel, which is quite interesting, since his time, the period of the biblical Ezekiel, constitutes a kind of bridge between the times of the First Temple and the pre-Second Temple. From this, in my opinion, the word, the expression, the term - cat was created. In the hope that I do not distort the connection between the aforementioned biblical "chatel" and the "cat," I will present my position supporting the above identification with the cat. One of the classic movements/positions of the cat is its physical rounding, wrapping, and cradling. Both before jumping and while it is curling up with pleasure around itself. 

The verb "chatel" that appears in Ezekiel presents the allegorical context of Jerusalem and its destruction, which came on the basis of its "abominations" as the original language (Ezekiel 1:21): "... and did not wash in water ... and the chastisement (purple, vain and empty) did not cover" (kibbutz, kimetz, vain and empty)" meaning that it was not saved by a physical means of wrapping itself up, wrapping itself up, and so on, with the whole intention of avoiding its blow. And later, here too from the language of Ezekiel (XNUMX:XNUMX) - "Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and behold, it did not bind (kibbutz, vain, empty) to give healing, nor did any cat (chirik, shoruk) bind it, to strengthen it to seize (chirik, vain) with the sword." That is - the power of God that strikes Pharaoh, his people and his army ... and the wound, the wound, must be bound with an envelope and a covering. 

In the book of Job (9:XNUMX), God's power is symbolized in the following statement - "He covered them with clouds (shovah, kibbutz, full dreamer) and covered them with mist (hat petah, kibbutz, kimetz, full dreamer)." Here too, the verb hatal expresses complete protection. 

Is the name/verb "chatel" connected in some way or another to the name "chatul"? Apparently and seemingly the connection is loose, the connection is weak, especially against the background of the name "chatul" in the animal meaning (=cat and note, by the way, that there is a phonetic connection between the word "chatul" and the English - cat and about that immediately below) as it appears/will appear in the later Sage literature for both the first and second verses. However, the root "chatul", as it appears above, in some animal context, albeit a minimized one, in the context of course of one of the classic movements of the cat's lair. And let's not forget that "chatul" in the context of wrapping, binding, wrapping, dressing, braiding ... when all the expressions do indeed indicate classic feline postures and therefore the connection between "chatul" and "chatul" cannot be unequivocally ruled out.   

It is astonishing, by the way, that both the Tan'im and the Amoraim argued among themselves regarding the origin of the cat's name? Perhaps they argued but did not present the meaning of the name of that creature, either directly or indirectly. Later in the study, I will address this in greater detail. 

And at this point in time and place, I would like to say and emphasize that the semantic, linguistic aspect between the word/term "cat" and "cat" in English and Italian "gatto", in Portuguese and Spanish "gato", should not be ignored, and it should be noted here that there are linguistic fluctuations between the letters "g" and "k". And also in Dutch "kat"' in German "katze", in Russian "kot, kotchka", in Arabic "chatol – qita", in Greek " "ghat, gitat", and especially - gato and specifically mia gato, which means a spotted cat, with spots. And maybe this is the origin of the word "cat", and especially a spotted, spotted cat, and maybe - maybe the phonetic context of mia comes from the sound of its "pronunciation", i.e. - "meow" and in Roman/Latin - "cattus". And also from the Proto-Indo-European terms and pronunciations. In other words, it is difficult not to link the term/word "cat" to expressions of the above terms both semantically and phonologically, when the ancient Hebrew pronunciation - "cat" actually intersects with the Greek-Latin ones as well as the outcome of these with the languages ​​that developed in Europe in general. 

The "Shunra" (wild cat) in the sources of Chazal 

    I chose to open this section because of the assumption that the "shuner", the "shunra" (the letter "alef" that appears at the end of the name/word indicates, it seems, the "a" of knowledge) is the more "animal", the wilder and pre-civilized, although it must be assumed that the transition between the schooner and the cat was a process and lasted for many years. 

And first, before we delve into the subject, I allow myself, perhaps in an imaginary "pintoz", although I should not explicitly contradict him, to find, as I do in all my research in ancient historical fields, linguistic semantic connections, although I would have difficulty reinforcing the clear connection between them and the "cattle" in question. In other words, is it not too far-fetched to find any connection between the expression "shunra" / "shuner" and "siner", since around the neck of the "shuner" there is a kind of small apron that hangs between the throat area and down about a few centimeters. And perhaps the origin of the name, in connection with the above, is "soner" - as someone who cleans himself and keeps some dirt away from himself. And after all, anyone who raises cats or generally observes them will understand what the "poet" means - a cat that cleans itself all the time. Of course, for various reasons, some of which the origin is ancient and involves the various hunting qualities. And perhaps the context involves the Latin expression su, which concerns raising a voice, a sound to drive away birds or freeze their movement for hunting reasons. And sono in Latin means a loud sound, something threatening in connection with the hunting nature of the cat. And perhaps the origin of the name is Latin, with the Latin Sonor meaning noise, humming, a sound like a guttural growl, and Sonorus meaning noisy, rattling. And the same in Greek. Indeed, this idea can be attacked in connection with "shonra" as purely imaginary. And in contrast, we find it difficult to understand the root, the origin of the name "Shunra" on any rational basis, other than merely apparent, and perhaps - perhaps in light of the above loud conclusions/hypotheses, we can tie, bind his name - that is, "Shuner", "Shunra" - with the subject of our discussion and its title.  

Here we will present the famous text of "Chad Gadya", the one goat that connects to the joy, songs, and psalms of Passover. I will present here the text, which is a piyyut/prayer/hymn sung at the end of the Seder night and is a public song, as written and spoken, in part, abbreviated with respect to the entire text and translated into Hebrew in parentheses: "Chad Gadya (one goat), Chad Gadya Dzban (old goat) Abba Bateri (in the second) Zuzi (moves). Chad Gadya / And (and) came, and appeared) Shunar (the cat/cat) and ate (and preyed on) Gadya. Dzban Abba Bateri Zuzi. Lad Gadya, Chad Gadya / And (and) came, and appeared) Kalba (the dog), and bit Shunar, and ate Gadya, Dzban Abba Bateri Zuzi, Chad Gadya, Chad Gadya / And (and) came, and appeared) Kalba (the dog), and bit Shunar, and ate Gadya …/ And (and) came, and appeared fire, flame, and chef for the Kalba, and ate Gadya … / And Water appeared and quenched the fire, which was kindled for the fire… / And a bull appeared and drank the water (drinking the aforementioned water), quenched the fire, which was kindled for the fire… And the slaughterer came and slaughtered for the fire, which was kindled for the fire…/ And the angel of death and slaughtered for the slaughterer, which was kindled for the fire, which was kindled for the fire… And the Holy One, blessed be He, slaughtered for the angel of death, which was kindled for the slaughterer… One lamb, one lamb” 

The poem, the above-mentioned piyyut, is written in Aramaic, and therefore we can assume that its origin is ancient, perhaps not in the Mishnah period but in the Talmudic era, when the language was Aramaic at the time, said to be between the second and third centuries CE. The content of the poem was adapted to Jewish ideas that there is justice and there is a judge. In parallel between the Talmudic era and the periods that followed, such as the Age of Genius. The poem presents a kind of order of action and punishment, action and punishment, and for our purposes: the shunra/shuner that appears in the above text presents, so it seems, the shuner as a predatory animal (the young goat) and is on the other hand preyed upon by the dog, which itself, so it seems, is still in a sort of intermediate stage between a predatory animal and a domestic animal, and here too we can perhaps date the "event" to the Talmudic era, as we see and will see in the remainder of this study. The "shoner" is small in size, it seems, compared to the dog, but is still characterized as a predator, which can be presented as reflecting the course of the Talmudic era and perhaps the end of the conditional period, the days of Rabbi Yehuda the President are said to be the era bridging the second and third centuries CE. It also shows the presence of the cat and dog in the areas of Jewish settlement at that time. 

Likewise, the use of animals – the cat and the dog – indicates, beyond strength and size, their prevalence among Jewish communities both in the Land of Israel and in Babylon.  

To perhaps shed light on the slow process that went from "shuner", the wild cat to the domestic cat, and on the situation in which different places defined the cat differently, we will examine an interesting passage in the Babylonian Talmud under the interesting title of dream interpreters, in the form of 'He who sees any animal in a dream and what is his ruling?' Well, the text is: "He who sees a cat in a dream in a place (somewhere) is called (by those who call) him (him) shunra, a beautiful poem is made for him. (And if it is) "shinra - a bad change (a difficult result) is made for him (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 56, p. 2). So before us is a very positive approach to the cat and its presence in the community, in the public.  

This text is of great importance in the context of identifying the chronological line that runs between the "shunra"/shoner and the cat. It is of course difficult to draw the chronological line exactly in the historical context. That is, when approximately in the ancient historical timeline. Either way, the transition, or a kind of transition between the schooner and the cat appeared somewhere in the third century AD. 

In the Sanhedrin tractate of the Talmud, it is told of "a rat and a wild cat (who) worked together (=performed, performed) the feast of the Harba Devish Gada" (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 15:1). That is, they did one act of violence and robbery, to teach us about the ferocity of the shunninger and his association, which is of course imagined with a dangerous, ravenous predator. 

And elsewhere it is stated that the shunra devoured a chicken (Bava Kama 15, p. 2). In any case, in the law of torts, financial damages in the Talmud, it is stated that the cat is not prone to devouring a large chicken and eating it. Therefore, if it did act in this way, and devoured a chicken, its owner pays only half of the damages for the act of killing. It is true that even with regard to carrion, the owner pays only half of the damages for the act of killing. The very fact that the owners of the shunra are not sued and pay the full damage, but half of it, may teach us, firstly, about the positive approach of Chazal on the matter; secondly, about the presence of a cat in the house, in the apartment, and thirdly, about taking into account the culinary needs of the cat and perhaps also indirectly instructing cat owners to maintain the safety of the household and the animal they own. 

In the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 127, p. 1) we read that a man hired/borrowed a shunner from a friend to hunt mice that had entered his house, and in the end the mice hunted him and killed him. This is probably a phenomenon of dealing with the problem of rodents with the help of the cat, the "shunner". We do not know whether this is a wild animal or not, but in any case we see here, by implication, the slow way in which the wild cat became a house cat, a fighter against rodents (although it is known that a cat is not moved from place to place, unlike a dog, but we will not argue here, in my humble opinion, with the Talmudic source and its accompanying commentary). It also seems that cats are the ones who took advantage of the conditions created by humans by searching for rodents that were infesting residential areas and certainly in food silos and leftovers. It should also be noted that the cat's great efficiency in destroying pests stemmed not only from the fact that they served as food for it (assuming it was a wild cat), But also because the cat is engaged in hunting for its own sake, that is, as a form of entertainment that has an educational effect, as is customary with lionesses, for example, with their cubs. 

Further proof of the cat's bestiality is learned from the Babylonian Talmud about a cat who cut off/cut off the hand of a baby, and when the rabbi (Bar Helutah of Shmuel) learned of this, he ordered the cat to be killed due to the danger involved and further strictly ordered that it should not be raised, thus teaching a similar lesson about the ferocity of the cat in those days. However, we learn to a certain extent about similar attempts that were made among the Jewish public to raise cats for various reasons, which will be detailed later. 

The following case in connection with the schooner may surprise us, when in Tractate Baba Kama 19, p. 2) it is said regarding the law of torts that "the island of Schooner was seen eating dates...". The schooner's vegetarianism is truly strange, unless it is a single case of hunger that struck the schooner and caused him to devour dates, and as a small number that does not describe the many, in a similar way. And I am reminded of "Tomi" in the famous parable about a fox that penetrated a vineyard and devoured large quantities of the fruit, and this is in view of what we know about the natural carnivory of the fox in general. But let us not be too petty on this subject and seek to draw the necessary conclusions from this, ignoring the fox's "basket of food." 

So much for the period when we had difficulty distinguishing between the wild cat and the domestic cat. It should be noted again that this was a fairly long period. In the next chapter, we will "finally" deal with the cat as a cat, thematically and phonetically, and indeed "leave" the "shoner" behind us, and become acquainted with the "cat", both substantively and semantically.  

More of the topic in Hayadan: