Re the exchange betwen Rabbi Flatto and Dr. Shoshan: As Prof. Jacob Katz often remarked, many people are superficially familiar with Marxism without ever having read a work of Marx and with Freudianism without ever having read a word of Freud. Some things are just “in the air.”

Regarding Moshe’s comment, I am not making any claim of direct knowledge here. Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine that some members of Hazal did not at least have some vague familiarity with the classical ideas/notions that learning is recalling and the concept of a blank slate. These were undoubtedly widespread in the classical world, and must have continued to be prevalent throughout Late Antiquity. Obviously, Hazal’s knowledge likely derived from their limited, but inevitable, encounter with the wider culture, and not from any first hand reading of Greek philosophical texts.

In any event, an idealized notion of pre-natal life existed in many ancient cultures, and my post is reflecting upon the striking parallel that exists between the Greek and Rabbinic versions. The main point I am emphasizing in my analysis is that the Platonic notion is primarily dealing with an epistemological question, which differs from the rabbinic aggada which deals more with the purpose of life (living in a world of challenging moral choices, rather than a utopian spiritual atmosphere). I believe that the fact that Hazal are not interested in the epistemological question is highlighted by the Talmud’s version of the fetus legend where the newborn is deliberately slapped and made to forget everything that he learned. Which of course raises the question: what is the purpose of learning in the womb? This is where the Rav excerpt comes in, and in a sense, the reading I am advancing departs from the Rav’s approach (more than I emphasized in my post above). According to the Rav, the purpose of the fetus learning Torah does relates to epistemology (at least to the experience of learning), while I am positing that it relates more to the purpose and meaning of human life (which, according to this aggada, is primarily about living a life of righteous actions). This brings me to Dr. Kaplan’s comments, which rightly summarizes the thrust of my comments.

Regarding Dr. Kaplan’s comments, I only intimated what the link between learning in the womb and acting following birth is about, but was not more explicit, since the precise nature of the link remains somewhat vague. Still, I think that the link I was hinting it (that the learning in the fetus helps orient, or perhaps purify, the newborn) is the right direction. I thank Dr. Kaplan for the additional literary insights and interesting speculations, although I am not sure what do to do with the second verse from Mishlei (4:5) (which is not cited by the Talmud). In any event, I am not sure there is an irony here, because that verse talks about acquiring wisdom (which should then not be forgotten), not retaining it. Still, I agree that on some level there is likely some dim recollection of the learning in the womb according to this aggada, otherwise the purpose of the initial learning is harder to decipher. I also agree with the other critical comments, although I reiterate that there are several parallel versions of this rabbinic legend in other rabbinic sources.

In this connection, I fail to see why you claim that it is the angel that teaches the fetus Torah. The Talmud does not say this, and the clear implication of the verses cited is that it is God Himself who does the teaching.