The Ashkenazi "Bottleneck"

[Yisroel Markov]

We've heard about it before, of course, but seems like more details
are emerging.
-------------------------------------

Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds

A new study concludes that all Ashkenazi Jews can trace their ancestry
to a “bottleneck” of just 350 individuals, dating back to between 600
and 800 years ago. The study, published in the Nature Communications
journal Tuesday, was authored by Shai Carmi, a computer science
professor at Columbia University, and more than 20 medical researchers
from Yale, Columbia, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of
Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem and other institutions.

[...]

Ashkenazi Jews are known to have origins in the Levant, which Israel
is smack dab in the middle of. But exactly who “European” Ashkenazi
Jews are has long been debated. An analysis of the gene database shows
that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half
Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years
ago, according to the analysis – and numbered just 350 or so people.

“Our analysis shows that Ashkenazi Jewish medieval founders were
ethnically admixed, with origins in Europe and in the Middle East,
roughly in equal parts,” said Shai Carmi, a post-doctoral scientist
who works with Pe’er and conducted the analysis. “[The] data are more
comprehensive than what was previously available, and we believe the
data settle the dispute regarding European and Middle Eastern ancestry
in Ashkenazi Jews.”

The analysis also suggested that today’s Europeans are descended
primarily from migrants from the Middle East after the last ice age,
about 20,000 years ago, not from the first humans to arrive to the
continent about 40,000 years ago. The researchers are now looking into
where the Middle Eastern and European Jews first met and who their
closest descendants are today.

Full article at
http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/#ixzz3XNxYsdo1
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Shelly]

Hi "[30th] cuz". Anyway, I went to that article and I want to issue a

CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION!

There was an interesting looking article at the bottom of the page about
a new insurance rate law in Florida. I went there. In that article
there was a link to get a quote according to this new law. That was
when my browser was locked with a message that I was infected with
malware and to call this particular "Microsoft certified" telephone
number for help. Of course I would NEVER call such a number as it is a
well know scam. Instead, in order to get out of that page I did the
three-finger-salute and killed the entire browser. I then bought up my
copy of malwarebytes and ran a full scan before re-opening the browser.
A word to the wise.....

CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION!

--
Shelly

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:23:19 AM UTC-4, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
> On 4/15/2015 9:47 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> > We've heard about it before, of course, but seems like more details
> > are emerging.
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds
> >
> > A new study concludes that all Ashkenazi Jews can trace their ancestry
> > to a "bottleneck" of just 350 individuals, dating back to between 600
> > and 800 years ago. The study, published in the Nature Communications
> > journal Tuesday, was authored by Shai Carmi, a computer science
> > professor at Columbia University, and more than 20 medical researchers
> > from Yale, Columbia, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of
> > Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Hebrew University of
> > Jerusalem and other institutions.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Ashkenazi Jews are known to have origins in the Levant, which Israel
> > is smack dab in the middle of. But exactly who "European" Ashkenazi
> > Jews are has long been debated. An analysis of the gene database shows
> > that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half
> > Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years

> > ago, according to the analysis - and numbered just 350 or so people.

> >
> > "Our analysis shows that Ashkenazi Jewish medieval founders were
> > ethnically admixed, with origins in Europe and in the Middle East,
> > roughly in equal parts," said Shai Carmi, a post-doctoral scientist
> > who works with Pe'er and conducted the analysis. "[The] data are more
> > comprehensive than what was previously available, and we believe the
> > data settle the dispute regarding European and Middle Eastern ancestry
> > in Ashkenazi Jews."
> >
> > The analysis also suggested that today's Europeans are descended
> > primarily from migrants from the Middle East after the last ice age,
> > about 20,000 years ago, not from the first humans to arrive to the
> > continent about 40,000 years ago. The researchers are now looking into
> > where the Middle Eastern and European Jews first met and who their
> > closest descendants are today.
> >
> > Full article at
> > http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/#ixzz3XNxYsdo1
> >
>
> Hi "[30th] cuz". Anyway, I went to that article and I want to issue a
>
> CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION!

That being so, those interested in this information should carefully check the sources mentioned in the Times of Israel article, to ascertain whether the entire story might not be a scam.

GEK

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:46:43 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
> Ashkenazi Jews are known to have origins in the Levant, which Israel
> is smack dab in the middle of. But exactly who "European" Ashkenazi
> Jews are has long been debated. An analysis of the gene database shows
> that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half
> Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years

> ago, according to the analysis - and numbered just 350 or so people.
>
350 married people who had children. The total population of Jews would
never have got as low as 350, and would probably have been about a thousand
(assuming that the figures have been quoted in the usual way).

[Shelly]

No, it was a link within a linked article. S**t happens. Anyway, the
scan didn't reveal any new malware on my system. No harm, no foul.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

If it were actually that low, even 1000, they would have had to have
been in rather close geographical area to have grown so greatly after
than and to have dispersed so widely over all of Europe. Where was this
small region? The finding is a little hard to swallow, but stranger
things have happened.

--
Shelly

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 11:23:57 AM UTC-4, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>
> If it were actually that low, even 1000, they would have had to have
> been in rather close geographical area to have grown so greatly after
> than and to have dispersed so widely over all of Europe. Where was this
> small region? The finding is a little hard to swallow, but stranger
> things have happened.

I agree. And for these (and other) reasons, I remain skeptical. Those who are interested should carefully check the sources in peer-reviewed professional journals. For myself, I could not care less; to quote the late Ogden Nash:
The interest I take in my neighbour's nursery
would have to grow to be even cursory

GEK

[Shelly]

In this case, that would be rather short sighted. If this can lead to a
better direction for research and screening of hereditary diseases, then
it is a great find. We all would then benefit from looking into our
neighbor's nursery, so to speak.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

Also, isn't gaining knowledge, even if just for its own sake, a time
honored Jewish tradition?

--
Shelly

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-4, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>
> Also, isn't gaining knowledge, even if just for its own sake, a time
> honored Jewish tradition?

No, it isn't. Unless "time honored" is limited to very modern times. It may be a general tradition, and some Jews may honor this general tradition, but knowledge of mere fact with no specific relevance to Jews per se, or to the body of specifically Jewish knowledge (i.e., Torah in its subdivisions) is not specifically a "Jewish" tradition.

Knowing exactly what proportion of the residents of Kalamazoo, MI eat hot dogs for breakfast, is knowledge. And though it may be knowledge "for its own sake", possessing this knowledge is not a Jewish tradition (unless one happens to be in the hot dog distribution business and is considering adding Kalamazoo to the targeted market; finding ways to make a living IS a time honored Jewish tradition, though in recent times a certain segment of the Jewish population has abandoned this tradition).

GEK

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:04:22 PM UTC-4, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:

> In this case, that would be rather short sighted. If this can lead to a
> better direction for research and screening of hereditary diseases, then
> it is a great find. We all would then benefit from looking into our
> neighbor's nursery, so to speak.

Does screening of hereditary diseases in individuals of the contemporary population require knowing how many ancestors we had 1000 years ago, and where they came from? I doubt it. More relevant would be screening the individual, and a pedigree going back no more than a few generations. But in any event, I did not suggest that NOBODY should be interested in this information. All I said was that I myself had no interest in this, since (when I still go after a dollar at my well-post retirement age) I am in the currency arbitrage business ("valuta", which at one time was a time honored Jewish tradition), not the gentetic counceling business.

My main point stands: those who are interested need to check carefully into the original research in peer-reviewed professional journals, and not rely on amateur reporting in the Times of Israel, who are in the business of selling newspapers and advertising therein.

GEK

[Yisroel Markov]

Total population, of course not. But we're talking here about a small
subset thereof, the one that apparently forayed out of Italy north of
the Alps once the proto-Germanic tribes were more or less subdued. The
data as presented (admittedly in a way dumbed down for a
general-interest site) is consistent with a bunch of intrepid traders
crossing the mountains, first for trading trips but eventually
settling there, converting and marrying local women.

This is not new information, precisely. R' Berel Wein, a well-known
popularizer of Jewish history, observed over twenty years ago that
"all Ashkenazim trace their lineage to about 200 families." I have
this lecture on cassette tape, which should date it pretty well :-)

[W. Baker]

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:36:53 +0000 (UTC),

If we talk about 600-800 years ago, that takes us back to 1300at the
earliest. this was well past the time of Rashi, Rashbaum adn many other
important French parshanut adn commentators. Were they considered
Ashkenazi or did that only apply to those who lived in current dy
Germany/Austria, etc? There were many Jews in France, and on what we
would think of as the French/German border areas. I could see it if there
was and earlier date than c. 1300CE.

What aout the period of the Crusades , including the early one these there
was such destruction of Jewery in the Rhinland. That figeure of 350 seems
hard to accept unless the definition of Ashkenazi is very limited.

I have not yet read the article, but pla to do so this evening and it may
answer some of my questions.

Wendy

[Fred Goldstein]

I've heard of this study before. It sounds plausible, and would explain
why we have so many health issues that could relate to having such a
small gene pool.

The bottleneck would have been around the end of the crusade era. While
the crusades were nominally an attempt of the Catholics to conquer the
holy land, they often turned into an excuse to massacre Jews. Some of
the survivors eventually moved east, into what later became the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, later mostly taken by Russia.

[Evertjan.]

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote on 15 apr 2015 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds

The Nature Article was published 9 Sep 2014

<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5835/full/ncomms5835.html>

So, like we Jews like to do, read the original.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 10:48:55 PM UTC+1, W. Baker wrote:

> Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
>
> If we talk about 600-800 years ago, that takes us back to 1300at the
> earliest. this was well past the time of Rashi, Rashbaum adn many other
> important French parshanut adn commentators. Were they considered
> Ashkenazi or did that only apply to those who lived in current dy
> Germany/Austria, etc? There were many Jews in France, and on what we
> would think of as the French/German border areas. I could see it if there
> was and earlier date than c. 1300CE.
>
> What aout the period of the Crusades , including the early one these there
> was such destruction of Jewery in the Rhinland. That figeure of 350 seems
> hard to accept unless the definition of Ashkenazi is very limited.
>
> I have not yet read the article, but pla to do so this evening and it may
> answer some of my questions.
>

I've had a look at it. The methods are involved and even if you know
something about the field it's too difficult to really understand
how they derived the figures just by reading through the papers.

However the figure of 320 is effective population size, as I suspected.
So that's the number of adults (presumably married) with children who
survived, and at a guess that would make the total population about 1000.

The problem is that they claim that the previous effective population was
23,800. Then there was a sudden reduction to 320. It seems to me
something must be wrong here - yes you'd expect the population to be
drastically cut down by the crusades, but not to the point that only
1% survived.

[SolomonW]

It seems a high rate of growth beside. they must have intermarried with the
nearby non-Jewish population. There must have been girls raped by Polish
nobles, Cossacks, etc.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Evertjan.]

Fred Goldstein <fg...@ionaryQRM.com> wrote on 16 apr 2015 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> I've heard of this study before. It sounds plausible, and would explain
> why we have so many health issues that could relate to having such a
> small gene pool.

Not "so many", because the effect equally enhances and lessens the chance of
rare hereditary diseases, perhaps "more of the same and less of others" than
in a general population.

The hereditary diseases that are less common in the Ashkanaz gene-pool are
perhaps not researched or so interesting for lay publication.

I wrote elsewhere in this tread:

> The Nature Article was published 9 Sep 2014
> <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140909/ncomms5835/full/ncomms5835.html>

[Fred Goldstein]

On 4/16/2015 8:25 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:47:30 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:

...

>> Full article at
>> http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/#ixzz3XNxYsdo1
>
> It seems a high rate of growth beside. they must have intermarried with the
> nearby non-Jewish population. There must have been girls raped by Polish
> nobles, Cossacks, etc.
>

That makes no sense at all. The fertility rate of the population is not
dependent upon rape! Jewish men could well have fathered all of the
children. At that period, post-crusades, the surviving Ashkenazim had
largely moved to sparsely-populated areas in northeastern Europe, and
established communities where high birth rates were, for generations,
desirable and sustainable.

And since I did go back and look at the original article in Nature (lots
of genetics jargon), it estimates that today's AJ population has about
half Middle Eastern origins, with the other half similar to the rest of
Europeans. They, in turn, appear to have mostly Middle Eastern origins
themselves, but moved into Europe after the glacial maximum, around 20k
years ago.

Here's an example of the article's actual text, in case you enjoy jargon
(FL=Flemish, btw, a comparison group):

A comparison of the functional mutation load showed slightly increased
load in AJ compared with FL (Supplementary Note 7; Supplementary Table
8), consistently with the bottleneck hypothesis. Specifically, the
observed number of non-reference, non-synonymous variants in AJ was
0.50% higher than expected based on population differences in neutral
variation (P=0.006; Supplementary Note 7; see also Supplementary Fig.
15). We note, however, that the effect is weak and the significance is
sensitive to the precise definition of deleterious variation
(Supplementary Note 7). A genome-wide GERP analysis similarly showed
that AJ variants overlap with slightly more conserved sites (P=0.01;
Supplementary Note 7). In conclusion, we observed increased deleterious
mutation load in AJ, but the effect is very limited, compared, for
example, with French Canadians[43].

DNA tells all sorts of interesting stories once you learn to read it.

[mm]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:47:30 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov

<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>We've heard about it before, of course, but seems like more details
>are emerging.
>-------------------------------------
>
>Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds

The use of "finds" is editorializing. It implies there was something to
find and the "study" found it, rather than misinterpreting things and
reaching a false conclusion, which is what really happened.

Unless it is trying to give an opinion, the only proper verb for a
newspaper, online or in print, or any other "news" media to use is
"says". "Claims" might have been even better here, but I'd be happy
if every source claiming to give the news would use the verb "says".

>
--

Meir

[Fred Goldstein]

On 4/15/2015 12:50 PM, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:05:43 PM UTC-4,
> shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>>
>> Also, isn't gaining knowledge, even if just for its own sake, a
>> time honored Jewish tradition?
>
> No, it isn't. Unless "time honored" is limited to very modern times.
> It may be a general tradition, and some Jews may honor this general
> tradition, but knowledge of mere fact with no specific relevance to
> Jews per se, or to the body of specifically Jewish knowledge (i.e.,
> Torah in its subdivisions) is not specifically a "Jewish" tradition.
>

I'll dispute that. Maybe "time-honored" doesn't go back 2500 years, but
certainly for generations, among non-haredi Jews at least. Hence Jews
have been over-represented (in terms of population) in academe, in
science, in research, in journalism, and in other areas where knowledge
is valued. It is only among the most fervently Orthodox, especially the
ones in the Polish traditions, where knowledge of the outside world was
not valued.

> Knowing exactly what proportion of the residents of Kalamazoo, MI eat
> hot dogs for breakfast, is knowledge. And though it may be knowledge
> "for its own sake", possessing this knowledge is not a Jewish
> tradition (unless one happens to be in the hot dog distribution
> business and is considering adding Kalamazoo to the targeted market;
> finding ways to make a living IS a time honored Jewish tradition,
> though in recent times a certain segment of the Jewish population has
> abandoned this tradition).
>

Again, in the community I came from, all such knowledge would probably
be considered to have some value, even if it was not immediately
obvious. Progress often comes from synthesizing a plurality of ideas
from unrelated sources.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:08:20 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein wrote:

> On 4/16/2015 8:25 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:47:30 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:
> ...
>>> Full article at
>>> http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/#ixzz3XNxYsdo1
>>
>> It seems a high rate of growth beside. they must have intermarried with the
>> nearby non-Jewish population. There must have been girls raped by Polish
>> nobles, Cossacks, etc.
>>
> That makes no sense at all.

There are two separate comments in here.

> The fertility rate of the population is not
> dependent upon rape! Jewish men could well have fathered all of the
> children.

All very unlikely if only for the reasons I said above, most yes.

> At that period, post-crusades, the surviving Ashkenazim had
> largely moved to sparsely-populated areas in northeastern Europe, and
> established communities where high birth rates were, for generations,
> desirable and sustainable.

The rate is much higher than the rest of the population,

350 people in say 700CE becomes 12 million by 1939 is a yearly growth rate
of .85% a year


England has around 1 million in 1086, in 1939 its 38 million a growth rate
of. 43%

France 7 million in 850CE, in 1938 its 41 million a growth rate of .16%

Poland 1 million in 1000CE, in 1939 has 24 million, now putting aside many
of these are Jews. We have a growth rate of .34%. Note that Jews are
growing at this great rate in a region that does not have a high growth
rate.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 3:57:12 PM UTC+1, googy wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:47:30 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
> <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
> >We've heard about it before, of course, but seems like more details
> >are emerging.
> >-------------------------------------
> >
> >Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds
>
> The use of "finds" is editorializing. It implies there was something to
> find and the "study" found it, rather than misinterpreting things and
> reaching a false conclusion, which is what really happened.
>

You collect blood samples from hundreds of people. You extract the DNA
and analyse it. Then you create metaphorical shoeboxes to put similar
stretches in. The number of shoeboxes you need tells you how many
similar stretches, or haplotypes in the jargon, you have found. So, yes,
you are finding something. You're not just arguing on the basis of common
knowledge and a bit of metaphysical reasoning.

[Fred Goldstein]

On 4/16/2015 12:48 PM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:08:20 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2015 8:25 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:47:30 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Full article at
>>>> http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/#ixzz3XNxYsdo1
>>>
>>> It seems a high rate of growth beside. they must have intermarried with the
>>> nearby non-Jewish population. There must have been girls raped by Polish
>>> nobles, Cossacks, etc.
>>>
>> That makes no sense at all.
>
> There are two separate comments in here.
>
>
>
>> The fertility rate of the population is not
>> dependent upon rape! Jewish men could well have fathered all of the
>> children.
>
> All very unlikely if only for the reasons I said above, most yes.

Huh? I still don't see how rape was required; in such a case, it would
have further diluted the original haplotype. That did of course occur
in extremis among the enslaved African-American population, but Jews
were not widely kept as sex slaves.

>> At that period, post-crusades, the surviving Ashkenazim had
>> largely moved to sparsely-populated areas in northeastern Europe, and
>> established communities where high birth rates were, for generations,
>> desirable and sustainable.
>
> The rate is much higher than the rest of the population,
>
> 350 people in say 700CE becomes 12 million by 1939 is a yearly growth rate
> of .85% a year

That number is higher than today's norms, but by no means inconceivable
(pun noted). Very high population growth rates still exist in some
populations (haredim, Amish, Palestinians, some parts of Africa,
Duggars, etc.). Modern Europe is notable for its low (negative)
population growth, ignoring immigration. But before the content was
crowded, when it was an agrarian society, six-child families may have
been quite common. Such growth rates fall when a society a) becomes
affluent and urbanized, or b) there is not enough food/land to support
more, so they would die if more were born.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 02:46:53 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
<fg...@ionaryQRM.com> said:

>On 4/15/2015 11:24 AM, Shelly wrote:
>> On 4/15/2015 10:36 AM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:46:43 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ashkenazi Jews are known to have origins in the Levant, which Israel
>>>> is smack dab in the middle of. But exactly who "European" Ashkenazi
>>>> Jews are has long been debated. An analysis of the gene database shows
>>>> that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half
>>>> Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years
>>>> ago, according to the analysis - and numbered just 350 or so people.
>>>>
>>> 350 married people who had children. The total population of Jews would
>>> never have got as low as 350, and would probably have been about a
>>> thousand
>>> (assuming that the figures have been quoted in the usual way).
>>
>> If it were actually that low, even 1000, they would have had to have
>> been in rather close geographical area to have grown so greatly after
>> than and to have dispersed so widely over all of Europe. Where was this
>> small region? The finding is a little hard to swallow, but stranger
>> things have happened.
>>
>I've heard of this study before. It sounds plausible, and would explain
>why we have so many health issues that could relate to having such a
>small gene pool.
>
>The bottleneck would have been around the end of the crusade era.

Would that be mid-13th century or some other time?

>While
>the crusades were nominally an attempt of the Catholics to conquer the
>holy land, they often turned into an excuse to massacre Jews.

The First Crusade was the one that massacred the Rhine communities in
1096. That's the event bewailed in selichot and the one that produced
most of the martyrdom accounts. The highest estimate I know of claims
destruction of a third of the Jews of Europe then. The Second Crusade
included several more massacres in German Rhineland, on a smaller
scale. The Third included massacres in London and York in 1190. The
last, tenth crusade included pogroms but no wholesale massacres that I
know of. So why would this "bottleneck" occur "around the end of the
crusade era"?

>Some of
>the survivors eventually moved east, into what later became the
>Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, later mostly taken by Russia.

AFAIK that was after the expulsions on the 13th century, rather than
the pogroms.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 5:13:18 PM UTC+1, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> On 4/15/2015 12:50 PM, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>
> I'll dispute that. Maybe "time-honored" doesn't go back 2500 years, but
> certainly for generations, among non-haredi Jews at least. Hence Jews
> have been over-represented (in terms of population) in academe, in
> science, in research, in journalism, and in other areas where knowledge
> is valued. It is only among the most fervently Orthodox, especially the
> ones in the Polish traditions, where knowledge of the outside world was
> not valued.
>

Traditionally it is forbidden to derive one's living from Torah.

What seems to have happened was that in Russia and Poland, Jews were forbidden
from any occupation other than the utterly menial, or running taverns. Those
were thought inappropriate for the rabbi, so the rabbis became professional
clergy. But the Ramban was a medical doctor and Rashi was a vintner, and
most medievals were bankers or jewellers.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:28:07 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein wrote:

> On 4/16/2015 12:48 PM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:08:20 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/16/2015 8:25 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:47:30 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Full article at
>>>>> http://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/#ixzz3XNxYsdo1
>>>>
>>>> It seems a high rate of growth beside. they must have intermarried with the
>>>> nearby non-Jewish population. There must have been girls raped by Polish
>>>> nobles, Cossacks, etc.
>>>>
>>> That makes no sense at all.
>>
>> There are two separate comments in here.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The fertility rate of the population is not
>>> dependent upon rape! Jewish men could well have fathered all of the
>>> children.
>>
>> All very unlikely if only for the reasons I said above, most yes.
>
> Huh? I still don't see how rape was required; in such a case, it would
> have further diluted the original haplotype. That did of course occur
> in extremis among the enslaved African-American population, but Jews
> were not widely kept as sex slaves.

I was talking of an extreme case of where it would have happened.

>
>>> At that period, post-crusades, the surviving Ashkenazim had
>>> largely moved to sparsely-populated areas in northeastern Europe, and
>>> established communities where high birth rates were, for generations,
>>> desirable and sustainable.
>>
>> The rate is much higher than the rest of the population,
>>
>> 350 people in say 700CE becomes 12 million by 1939 is a yearly growth rate
>> of .85% a year
>
> That number is higher than today's norms, but by no means inconceivable
> (pun noted). Very high population growth rates still exist in some
> populations (haredim, Amish, Palestinians, some parts of Africa,
> Duggars, etc.). Modern Europe is notable for its low (negative)
> population growth, ignoring immigration. But before the content was
> crowded, when it was an agrarian society, six-child families may have
> been quite common. Such growth rates fall when a society a) becomes
> affluent and urbanized, or b) there is not enough food/land to support
> more, so they would die if more were born.

We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
than others in this period?

Part of the problem can be solved if one allows slaves. Say Jewish guys
kept slaves and had sex with them, then under Judaic law these children
would be Jewish.

>
>>
>> England has around 1 million in 1086, in 1939 its 38 million a growth rate
>> of. 43%
>>
>> France 7 million in 850CE, in 1938 its 41 million a growth rate of .16%
>>
>> Poland 1 million in 1000CE, in 1939 has 24 million, now putting aside many
>> of these are Jews. We have a growth rate of .34%. Note that Jews are
>> growing at this great rate in a region that does not have a high growth
>> rate.

[Harry Weiss]

Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.

> Part of the problem can be solved if one allows slaves. Say Jewish guys
> kept slaves and had sex with them, then under Judaic law these children
> would be Jewish.








> >
> >>
> >> England has around 1 million in 1086, in 1939 its 38 million a growth rate
> >> of. 43%
> >>
> >> France 7 million in 850CE, in 1938 its 41 million a growth rate of .16%
> >>
> >> Poland 1 million in 1000CE, in 1939 has 24 million, now putting aside many
> >> of these are Jews. We have a growth rate of .34%. Note that Jews are
> >> growing at this great rate in a region that does not have a high growth
> >> rate.

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com

[mm]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
<hjw...@panix.com> wrote:

>
>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>> than others in this period?
>
>Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.

Good point. Where do we find the requirement for netillat yadayim?
--

Meir

[SolomonW]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:

>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>> than others in this period?
>
> Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.

There may be something in that, Nostradamus by his contact with Jew's
learnt about cleanliness.

Having said that I have seen some filthy hands after ritual washing.
Splashing the hand with a few drops of water is hardly cleaning.

[Harry Weiss]

Do you want the chapter of the Shulchan Aruch? Rambam?

> --

> Meir

[Harry Weiss]

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:

> >> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
> >> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
> >> than others in this period?
> >
> > Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.

> There may be something in that, Nostradamus by his contact with Jew's
> learnt about cleanliness.

> Having said that I have seen some filthy hands after ritual washing.
> Splashing the hand with a few drops of water is hardly cleaning.

The hands should be clean first and there are minmal amounts (not a few
drops) used,

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:26:32 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:

> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>
>>>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>>>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>>>> than others in this period?
>>>
>>> Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.
>
>> There may be something in that, Nostradamus by his contact with Jew's
>> learnt about cleanliness.
>
>> Having said that I have seen some filthy hands after ritual washing.
>> Splashing the hand with a few drops of water is hardly cleaning.
>
> The hands should be clean first and there are minmal amounts (not a few
> drops) used,
>

Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
pretty dirty hands after its done.

Having said that whatever it is is better then nothing.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:27 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
said:

>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:26:32 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>
>> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>>
>>>>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>>>>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>>>>> than others in this period?
>>>>
>>>> Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.
>>
>>> There may be something in that, Nostradamus by his contact with Jew's
>>> learnt about cleanliness.
>>
>>> Having said that I have seen some filthy hands after ritual washing.
>>> Splashing the hand with a few drops of water is hardly cleaning.
>>
>> The hands should be clean first and there are minmal amounts (not a few
>> drops) used,
>>
>
>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>pretty dirty hands after its done.

How often? It's not at all common among my circles. Where have you
seen this "often" - what kind of crowd?

>Having said that whatever it is is better then nothing.

Are you perhaps talking about mayim ahronim? That *is* finger washing,
but it's *after* the meal.

[mm]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:27 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:26:32 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>
>> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>>
>>>>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>>>>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>>>>> than others in this period?
>>>>
>>>> Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.
>>
>>> There may be something in that, Nostradamus by his contact with Jew's
>>> learnt about cleanliness.
>>
>>> Having said that I have seen some filthy hands after ritual washing.
>>> Splashing the hand with a few drops of water is hardly cleaning.
>>
>> The hands should be clean first and there are minmal amounts (not a few
>> drops) used,
>>
>
>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>pretty dirty hands after its done.

What point are you making? That sometimes Jews do things wrong? Of
course they do. That doesn't change the fact that they should have
cleaned their hands before netilas yodaim.

Have you heard about the intensified campaign to get doctors and nurses
to wash their hands before and after touching each patient? That
doctors and nurses have been lax in following standard medical rules
does not mean that the rules are different from what they were. But
because of MRSA, etc. there is now an increased effort to get doctors
and nurses to obey the rules. Just last month I was in the waiting room
at a hospital and there was a big sign touting what their current
washing rate was. 100% it said!! (It didn't say how clean their
hands looked, but since those who see patients wash them 10 times a day
or more, they probably look okay!)

>
>Having said that whatever it is is better then nothing.

Which is why the sickness and death rates were lower. And then we got
accused of spreading plague, I think it was, because we didn't suffer
from it as much.
--

Meir

[Harry Weiss]

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:15:29 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:27 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
> said:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:26:32 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>>>>>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>>>>>> than others in this period?
>>>>>
>>>>> Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.
>>>
>>>> There may be something in that, Nostradamus by his contact with Jew's
>>>> learnt about cleanliness.
>>>
>>>> Having said that I have seen some filthy hands after ritual washing.
>>>> Splashing the hand with a few drops of water is hardly cleaning.
>>>
>>> The hands should be clean first and there are minmal amounts (not a few
>>> drops) used,
>>>
>>
>>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>>pretty dirty hands after its done.
>
> How often? It's not at all common among my circles. Where have you
> seen this "often" - what kind of crowd?
>

As a kid looking at very religious people. I think it's important to
realise that hygiene is now universal and people have adopted to this.

Before a meal, they used to take a cup, pour water in three lots of water
over the tips of their fingers. The palm of the hand was not touched by
water.

>>Having said that whatever it is is better then nothing.
>
> Are you perhaps talking about mayim ahronim? That *is* finger washing,
> but it's *after* the meal.

No.

[Harry Weiss]

Why don't you check Shulcan Aruch Orach Chaim 160:13

> >>Having said that whatever it is is better then nothing.
> >
> > Are you perhaps talking about mayim ahronim? That *is* finger washing,
> > but it's *after* the meal.

> No.


> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:11:25 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>

said:

>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:15:29 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:27 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
>> said:

[snip]

>>>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>>>pretty dirty hands after its done.
>>
>> How often? It's not at all common among my circles. Where have you
>> seen this "often" - what kind of crowd?
>>
>
>As a kid

As a kid? Your experience is out of date, then, and not applicable
today.

>looking at very religious people.

Things have changed. Today, the definition of "very religious"
includes "knowledgeable about the basics of Jewish law."

[snip]

[Evertjan.]

Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote on 23 apr 2015 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> Why don't you check Shulcan Aruch Orach Chaim 160:13

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Shulchan_Aruch/Orach_Chaim#Washing_
the_Hands

Seems my hands are to dirty to read that part.

<http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/927674/jewish/Berachot-
Chapter-Six.htm>
start here "How much water should be used?" for a comparative discussion.

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 9:03:10 AM UTC-4, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
> Things have changed. Today, the definition of "very religious"
> includes "knowledgeable about the basics of Jewish law."

Back in those days, the definition of "very religious" meant that when eating in a treife restaurant they ordered fish.

GEK

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:04:07 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:11:25 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
> said:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:15:29 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:27 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
>>> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>>>>pretty dirty hands after its done.
>>>
>>> How often? It's not at all common among my circles. Where have you
>>> seen this "often" - what kind of crowd?
>>>
>>
>>As a kid
>
> As a kid? Your experience is out of date, then, and not applicable
> today.
>

Oh but we are talking mediaeval Poland.

>>looking at very religious people.
>
> Things have changed. Today, the definition of "very religious"
> includes "knowledgeable about the basics of Jewish law."
>
> [snip]

These people were very knowledgeable on Jewish law.

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:29 +0000 (UTC), mm wrote:

>>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>>pretty dirty hands after its done.
>
> What point are you making? That sometimes Jews do things wrong? Of
> course they do. That doesn't change the fact that they should have
> cleaned their hands before netilas yodaim.

When did anyone say they did anything wrong?

[mm]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 05:17:03 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:29 +0000 (UTC), mm wrote:
>
>>>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>>>pretty dirty hands after its done.
>>
>> What point are you making? That sometimes Jews do things wrong? Of
>> course they do. That doesn't change the fact that they should have
>> cleaned their hands before netilas yodaim.
>
>When did anyone say they did anything wrong?

You did. Then you snipped enough so that was no longer apparent.


--

Meir

[SolomonW]

I do not believe that I did and if I did I withdraw it as I certainly do
not think anyone did anything wrong.

[mm]

Since we had a mistunderstanding, I think this this an excellent place
to try to understand how the misunderstanding arose. When people argue
verbally, I think the same kinds of misunderstandings occur, but no one
remembers exactly what everyone said, so it's rare they can go back and
find where the problem began. So my goal is not to belabor this --
please believe me -- but to take advantage of a written record** to find
out if one or both of us misunderstood,

**One that's not spread out over a dozen posts, where there are a dozen
small changes in words or meaning, and where the basis for the
disagreement has been snipped before the end, as more than one poster is
wont to do. .

It's hard enough for people to agree on even little things when they
have different goals, but when they share the same goals, it's really
fustrating to see misunderstandings that cause disagreement.

Below is why I thought you said someone did something wrong.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:29 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:27 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:26:32 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>>>>>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>>>>>> than others in this period?
>>>>>
>>>>> Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.
>>>
>>>> There may be something in that, Nostradamus by his contact with Jew's
>>>> learnt about cleanliness.

Just below, you seem to be criticizing either the people for not washing
well before or during netillas yodaim, or criticizing the implementation
of the process, or criticizing the process for having flaws that enable
some to end up with dirty hands. Maybe you're not criticizng, just
pointing it out, and that's why Harry explains.

Compare with noting that a rocket doesn't launch but falls back to the
launch pad in a plume of fire and steam. If one didn't get the right
result, something went wrong somewhere, either with the process of
design, construction, and launch, its implementation, or some of the
people who did those things.

>>>> Having said that I have seen some filthy hands after ritual washing.
>>>> Splashing the hand with a few drops of water is hardly cleaning.

So, next, Harry explains that a) they should have cleaned their hands
first, and b) they should have used more than a few drops of water.

>>> The hands should be clean first and there are minmal amounts (not a few
>>> drops) used,
>>>
>>
>>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>>pretty dirty hands after its done.

Instead of just saying Okay to Harry's explanation, you pretty much
repeat yourself, so it looked to me like you were pointing out that
Harry gave two rules and some of the people you saw broke both of them.

It's saying the same thing a second time that cause me to reply below.

And it would be true, that if they hadn't washed their hands enough that
even an onlooker noticed that they were dirty, they had indeed violated
the rule Harry explained. And the same thing about using too little
water. So that's why I thought you were saying that sometimes Jews do
things wrong. That is, some Jews sometimes wash wrong.

>What point are you making? That sometimes Jews do things wrong? Of
>course they do. That doesn't change the fact that they should have
>cleaned their hands before netilas yodaim.

Meir

[Yisroel Markov]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 05:16:52 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>

said:

>On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:04:07 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:11:25 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
>> said:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:15:29 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:54:27 +0000 (UTC), SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
>>>> said:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>Often it is simply washing one's fingers like I said I have seen some
>>>>>pretty dirty hands after its done.
>>>>
>>>> How often? It's not at all common among my circles. Where have you
>>>> seen this "often" - what kind of crowd?
>>>>
>>>
>>>As a kid
>>
>> As a kid? Your experience is out of date, then, and not applicable
>> today.
>>
>
>Oh but we are talking mediaeval Poland.

You were a kid in medieval Poland? I don't understand your comment?

>>>looking at very religious people.
>>
>> Things have changed. Today, the definition of "very religious"
>> includes "knowledgeable about the basics of Jewish law."
>>
>> [snip]
>
>These people were very knowledgeable on Jewish law.

How do you know that?

[Jonathan J. Baker]

In <> malcolm...@btinternet.com writes:
>On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:46:43 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:

>> Ashkenazi Jews are known to have origins in the Levant, which Israel
>> is smack dab in the middle of. But exactly who "European" Ashkenazi
>> Jews are has long been debated. An analysis of the gene database shows
>> that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half
>> Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years
>> ago, according to the analysis - and numbered just 350 or so people.

>350 married people who had children. The total population of Jews would
>never have got as low as 350, and would probably have been about a thousand
>(assuming that the figures have been quoted in the usual way).

Only a thousand people 600 to 800 years ago, eh? Seems a bit narrow.
Thats 1200 to 1400. In 1200, Jews were pretty widespread, with substantial
communities in many parts of France, parts of England, Germany, Italy,
I don't know where else. Spain, of course, but those weren't Ashkenazim
for the most part, they were Sephardim who had come up from North Africa.
I suppose, anyhow. There were a good many Jews in Spain before the
Muslims arrived, they grew to half a million c. 1300, and then disappeard
due to forced conversion and expulsion 200 years later.

Taking that as an example, isn't it likely that there actually were a good
deal more than 350 families in Ashkenazi Europe, but that the descendent
populations of many of them were killed out in subsequent persecutions and
expulsions? So if there were 10,000 Jewish families, but most of their
descendents went to Spain or Poland or Russia or other places where their
identity and physical selves were killed out, we're just descended from
the lucky thousand whose descendents weren't wiped out? After all, why
should we be the only population that doesn't grow over time, other than
the fact that persecutors kill us repeatedly, vastly reducing our growth
rate?

--
--
name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
address: jjb...@panix.com blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

[Jonathan J. Baker]

In Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:

>malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>>On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:46:43 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:

>>> Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years
>>> ago, according to the analysis - and numbered just 350 or so people.

>>350 married people who had children. The total population of Jews would
>>never have got as low as 350, and would probably have been about a thousand

>Total population, of course not. But we're talking here about a small
>subset thereof, the one that apparently forayed out of Italy north of
>the Alps once the proto-Germanic tribes were more or less subdued. The

But the dates are wrong for that. The people who migrated over the Alps
were coming into the Rhineland in the early middle ages, well before 1000.
We already have an established Torah community in Paris, which is outside
the Rhineland, in the middle 1000s - the generation of Rashi's teachers,
the early generations which were engaging in what we call kabbalah, etc.
People like Moshe haDarshan, or Yechiel of Paris.

This article speaks of that group of 350 families being c. 1200-1400. Which
is what suggests to me that these 350 are the ancestors of the survivors,
that there were more Jews whose descendents didn't survive the plagues and
killings of that period (which includes the expulsions from England and France,
and the peak of Spain, and the Black Death, but the opening of Poland, almost
all of whose Jews were killed out in the 1940s, and Russia, most of whose
Jews were killed or lost their identity in the 20th century.

[Jonathan J. Baker]

In <> mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss

>>> We are talking of societies before modern medicine where large death rates
>>> in early years were common. Why would Jewish growth rates be so much more
>>> than others in this period?

>>Netillat Yadayim help the Jews in that area.

>Good point. Where do we find the requirement for netillat yadayim?

In the Talmud? I know Mayim Acharonim is in Chullin, somewhere in the
early 100s (perek Kol haBasar).

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 4:34:49 PM UTC-4, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> In <> mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> > Good point. Where do we find the requirement for netillat yadayim?
>
> In the Talmud? I know Mayim Acharonim is in Chullin, somewhere in the
> early 100s (perek Kol haBasar).

B'rochos 49b, regarding both mayyim rishonim and acharonim.

GEK

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

It could be what we call a "selective sweep". The 350 Jewish couples had some
characteristic which allowed them to survive persecutions and assimilation,
whilst the descendants of the rest perished. But that's unlikely. It's not like
malaria, where if you have the sickling gene you're immune and at a huge
advantage. As far as we know, there's no gene for "Torah observance" such
that those with the mutation will remain observant whilst those without will
fall away.

I think there's something wrong with the figures. But exactly what, I don't know.

[Evertjan.]

malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 15 mei 2015 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> It could be what we call a "selective sweep". The 350 Jewish couples had
> some characteristic which allowed them to survive persecutions and
> assimilation, whilst the descendants of the rest perished. But that's
> unlikely. It's not like malaria, where if you have the sickling gene
> you're immune and at a huge advantage.

Only that the sickle-cell trait does not make you immune, it just gets you
trough tha dangerous early childhood period without death,
before immunity [unrelated to sickle-cell!] kicks in:

"Sickle cell trait provides 60% protection against overall mortality. Most
of this protection occurs between 2-16 months of life, before the onset of
clinical immunity in areas with intense transmission of malaria."

<http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/sickle_cell.html>

> As far as we know, there's no
> gene for "Torah observance" such that those with the mutation will
> remain observant whilst those without will fall away.

;-)

Methinks Torah is the goal of observance, not just the source.
What would there be to observe if Torah was just the source?

Should supposed monozygotic observancism really be stronger than
heterozygotic, the fairly recent rule that only the mother is necessary to
be a Jew has to be recalibrated. Unless of course, such observancism is not
a measure of relative Jewishnessiness.

===============

The Ashkenazi "Bottleneck" is a clearly measurable phenomenon in DNA,
and as such a very interesting one, just like any other archological find.