▪ Talmud: The Back Story
▪ Shamma Friedman and the Talmudic Assembly Line
▪ Can states prevent American courts from considering Jewish law?
▪ R. Shalom Carmy: Are Soldiers Morally Culpable?
▪ Religious gay teens find safe haven
▪ SALT Friday
▪ How Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin has been turned into a Soviet-style hero-dissident
▪ The shelf life of Jewish peoplehood
▪ Orthodox Jew argues Jews killed Jesus
▪ The Chinese discover Jews and Israel and can’t seem to get enough
▪ Simon Wiesenthal and the ethics of history
▪ Is ‘Jewish’ Parenting Lax?
▪ Alien life deemed impossible by analysis of 500 planets
▪ Bias feared in public school proposal to absorb Yiddish special ed program
▪ Facts and Figures
▪ Returning to Moscow — A place for building, not fleeing
▪ SALT Thursday
▪ R. Josh Yuter, punny Twitterer
▪ YU Beacon – I’m not quite sure what to make of it
▪ The seed of Israel
▪ Dual-loyalty of Diaspora Jews explored
▪ Pope promotes Christian netiquette
▪ Ashkenazi haredi rabbis protest conversion ‘breach’
▪ SALT Wednesday
▪ R. Haim Amsalem launches new social movement
▪ Yeshiva University Students Annual Seforim Sale
▪ Britain’s Orthodox Jews in organ donor card row
▪ An Infant Dies, and a Jewish Ritual of Birth Begins
▪ SALT Tuesday
▪ Chief Sephardi Rabbi defends IDF conversions decision
▪ Matzav: Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler slaughters RCA for “Dramatic Chillul Hashem” and “Nonsense,” claims shitah is “Close to a Blood Libel”
▪ Talmud to be translated into Italian
▪ The Brain Death Debate: A Methodological Analysis
▪ Rabbi, plan me a family
▪ SALT Monday
▪ Last week’s news & links
Rules: link
You know, Gil, you could have linked directly to the video on Youtube instead of choosing a Matzav piece. Now why on Earth would you do that, I wonder?
In any event, R’ Tendler made it clear from the outside that cessation of breathing and brain death are the same thing. Clearly Matzav hasn’t even watched the video, which isn’t surprising; that all the “experts” don’t know this is more so.
Rabbi Tendler always talks like this. I am not sure why this is news, except to vilify and delegitimize Rabbi Tendler’s view, because of his hyperbolic way of speaking. This was a shiur in Israel, not a speech to Haaretz. Do you think Rav Shecther doesn’t use inflammatory language, or Rabbi Bleich when they give shiurim? I see this as news because Matzav realizes Rabbi Tendler is convincing people, and needs to be delegitimized ASAP.
From knowing Rabbi Tendler personally, it is very disheartening to see such a well meaning individual, who admittedly may use strong language sometimes, completely smeared by the uneducated, or the extreme sects of a religion he has done so much for.
Gil,
I’ll be the first to admit that the debate over defining the time of death according to Halacha should be left to the most qualified and greatest Halachic minds.
I also see nothing wrong with the RCA releasing a 110 page research paper for their members.
However, knowing the passion of RMDT, how much of his own skin he has invested in this issue, and today’s modern media’s ability to magnify and spread every news story – I can’t help but wonder if the RCA could have handled this all better.
Did they not anticipate RMDT’s response? (They know him well after all.)
Did they not anticipate the HODS response (talk about having a lot invested in an issue)?
What if any measures could they have taken in releasing the same research paper to their members, while avoiding the very public mess that has resulted?
It’s amazing how in the space of a couple of weeks “blood libel” has become part of the normal discourse in our intra-Orthodox sparring. Vi es kristelt zich, etc
It’s amazing that Matzav managed to get their arguments totally mixed up. “Most gedolei haposkim consider the time of death to be defined by lack of independent respiratory activity, i.e., cessation of breathing”. If they had even bothered to read one single article on the topic, they would know that the position they are *supposed* to be espousing is that death is defined by the cessation of heartbeat. If you want to attack others without understanding their opinions, that’s one thing (par for the course nowadays), but if you don’t even know your OWN opinion, you might as well not bother. Clowns.
Instead on relying on the excerpt and analysis from Matzav (biased site) why not post a link to the entire lecture from Rabbi Tendler that was posted on www. yutorah.org. The link is:
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/755404/Rabbi_Moshe_D._Tendler/Organ_Donation_-_Halachic_Imperative
Nachum: The Matzav piece has so much of interest in it, as commenters have already pointed out. It’s a tragic comedy.
I also would like to say that to keep your readers informed of what is going on in the jewish world a link to the same information from the the yutorah.org is definitively preferable to the sensationalistic Matzav site. I was not very impressed with their view of the world after I saw their review of the RCA siddur! Unless you want your readers to get worked up!
R’ Gil:
Could you please rephrase link #2 slightly, which should serve the purpose I think you’re intending:
Matzav: Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler “slaughters” RCA for “Dramatic Chillul Hashem” and “Nonsense,” claims shitah is “Close to a Blood Libel”
I glanced at the Matziv page for a second. Is the intention to bash the RCA or R Tendler? Both? The whole thing makes no sense.
R’ Gil — Thanks!
Very interesting story, from Rav Eitan Eisman, the head of the Noam school network in Israel and former director of Rav Avraham Shapira’s office when he was chief rabbi of Israel
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/141877):
He personally witnessed a number of instances, he said, in which Rabbi Elyashiv and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, another Hareidi decisor who opposed the brain-death criteria, referred questions to the Chief Rabbi’s office. “They did not want to rule on the matter themselves, so they sent the question on to us, knowing what the answer would be.” In this way, he said, many lives were saved, due to the organs that were donated by families whose members had suffered brain-death.
Thank you, R’ J., for bringing R. Eisman’s testimony to our attention. While I am certain that R. Eisman is a tzaddik gammur, his testimony is totally contradicted by RSZA’s written ruling regarding organ transplant dependent on brain death:
“It is absolutely forbidden (issur gammur) to be a doubtful murderer even if one can save others’ lives with this.”
(Shulchan Shelomoh, Erkei Refu’ah II, p. 42)
Once more, this highlights the importance of a conference of Gedolei Yisra’el to establish the practical medicolegal definition of life.
R. Spira: your conclusion is not logical. See my last comments on:
https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/01/statement-re-statement-re-brain-death/comment-page-6/#comment-11469
“Second, in regard to being restrictive in Israel, he [RSZA] knew that Jews could choose to rely on the permissive psak of the Rabbanut Rashit (as RAL appears to, from the earlier discussion here). Thus, it was logical for him to be restrictive on both donation and receipt of BSD organs in Israel” [in his written responsa].
R’ IH,
Thank you for your kind response. My conclusion is very logical. The gemara in Yevamot 77a establishes that when a talmid chakham has a vested interest, his testimony on a halakhic dispute in progress is completely ignored. R. Eisman was paid a salary from the chief rabbinate office; he has a vested interest, and so his testimony must be completely ignored. This does not detract from the fact that R. Eisman is completely righteous; this is simply the way the Oral Torah adjudicates credibility of testimony.
Matzav is becoming more disappointing of late.
In addition to the sensationalistic headline against Rabbi Tendler, they are also today, on the same page, positively featuring a new book on the late Satmar Rebbe, R. Joel Teitelbaum, written by a Neturei Karta activist, by the name of Yirmiyahu Cohen (as reported at http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/news/currentarticle.cfm?id=221). That is not revealed in the release they are featuring, however, which just says that it was “produced” by Rabbi Dovid Miesels (produced is a word usually used for a movie production, not a book), omitting the actual author.
This is a deliberate obfuscation and cover-up of the Neturei Karta background and aims of the book. They should lay it out on the table and let their readers know this information.
GIL:
someone suggested last week creating an open thread on organ donation separate from the news/links post. i second that suggestion.
Abba: IYH tonight’s post.
former yu -[ from your post jan23 quoting ral]: “3) A final quote from the article. “Any ethic so independent of Halakhah as to obviate or override it clearly lies beyond our pale.” So, if halacha mandates something, any “ethic” that tries to override that is “beyond the pale”.”
you forgot to read/quote the sentence before and after this quote so that you twist ral’s intention to ‘ “any ethic” that tries to override ‘ could not be further from the truth. he is referring to ethics that are an alternative to the halahkic system. he believes that ethics are in play and a complement to halakhic system: “there are, of course situations in which ethical factors like the preservation of life,the enhancement of human dignity, the quest for communal or domestic peace, and the mitigation of anxiety or pain sanction the breaching, by preemptive priority or outright violation , of specific norms.” the very next sentence from your quote.
so when r’ willig quotes the chazon ish he is referring to only halahka – it seems from a narrow sense from the derasha it appears in – determines what is ethical. assuming he is referring to bsd controversy with the swipe that” those who study ethics, but are not EXPERTS in halacha, are more prone than others to err in this regard.” [i added the caps] – its not hard to say that ral would disagree with this statement [as well as the rav] – for they believe in that ethical component is part of the halahkic system. and only when an ethic negates a torah law is it beyond the pale otherwise its part of the halahkic process
I don’t see why a Rav such as Rav Tendler couldn’t use temperate language about his distinguished opponents in this matter, regardless of the setting or context. If his language criticized in Matzav is just “his way” or “how it is often done”, that’s no excuse.
For the record, there is an incredibly large double standard in the Jewish world when it comes to heated rhetoric.
Can you imagine what kind of cries we’d be hearing if someone in the “cardiac-death = Halacha” camp used RNDT’s terminology when publicly discussing those who differ?
Why is it OK for RMDT to talk that way without any criticism? B/c the other guys started it? Because his position appeals better to those advocating more organ donation from the Orthodox community?
Come on.
The more liberal/tolerant/progressive elements of Orthodoxy would be completely up in arms if any of their opponents spoke this way about them or their opinions.
Where are the calls for civility and to tone down the rhetoric?
What hypocricy . . .
The Matzav post has three levels. On one level, it criticizes Rav Tendler for his harsh language, which I think is deserved. On the other, it is totally the pot calling the kettle black because Matzav/Yated is the gold standard in name-calling. On a third, they totally tripped over their own feet and essentially said that gedolei haposkim *agree* with Rav Tendler.
Rabbi Spiro
It is well-known that RSZA would refer questioners to those whose psakim differed from his own on crucial issues. He felt it perfectly legitimate for those who sought his guidance to rely upon positions with which he personally disagreed.
For instance, Dr. Avraham Sofer Avraham testifies that when being asked for permission to do an abortion, when RSZA did not see a hetter, would refer questioners to the Tzitz ELiezer.
Stan – what nonsense. Open any single page of Michtavim uMa’amarim or Kerayna De’igresa. Yes, the RW always express their disagreements calmly and never resort to name calling. If anything, it’s the MO who react this way when their positions are under threat. Just from this week, look how R. Ovadia is treated when he does something that Yated Ne’eman doesn’t like.
On a totally seperate topic, I thought the Ynet article on family planning was interesting, although obviously devoid of any halachic details. Gil posted some Meorot jornals with articles on this topic a while back, and I seem to remember them sparking some discussion. IIRC, one article by R. Moshe Kahn in the most recent issue argued that the Rambam would forbid it, but that the Shulchan Aruch, and other poskim would allow it (he explicitly argues with Rav Schachter who forbids it, based on a Chazon Ish amongst other things), whilst an article in an earlier issue by R. Yitzchak Avi Roness argued that it was allowed even acccording to the Rambam (I think his article was a translation of a longer version in Hebrew that appeared in Ohr HaMizrach). It would be interesting to see this topic discussed in more halachic depth.
Dear R. Spira. My sincerest apologies for the directness of my retort. We should all endeavor to discuss these important matters with the utmost mutual respect, despite the harsh words being exchanged around us. While sometimes over the top, I do appreciate your style.
That said, your response that “he has a vested interest, and so his testimony must be completely ignored” is puzzling to me. So much of the debate about what our last generation of Gedolim meant (whether it be RMF, RSZA or RYBS) is from people who have a vested interest. Thus, using this criterion leads to an unedifying debate about which Rabbinical testimony is valid or not — which will only make this debate more divisive to Orthodoxy.
In any case, when I said “not logical” I was referencing your statement that “his testimony is totally contradicted by RSZA’s written ruling” when we have reason to believe that RAL, for example, has done exactly this (i.e. referred to the Rabanut Rashit).
And indeed, from your own comments throughout the last week, you have admitted that RSZA was moved back and forth so R. Eisman’s testimony is perfectly credible (as I hypothesized prior to having read the article posted here).
If Matzav doesn’t meet your criteria for serious journalism, why quote from it or link to it at all? You don’t need to reestablish for the 1000th time that you don’t like Matzav.
R’ Dovid Shlomo,
Thank you for your kind response. With your kind permission, I would request a documented reference as proof that this is well known about RSZA. Quite the contrary, RJDB in Contemporary Halakhic Problems V, p. xiv quotes RSZA as ruling that when there is an unresolved dispute among the poskim regarding a rabbinic prohibition, seeing as the gemara in Avodah Zarah 7a directs us to rule leniently, therefore even the stringent posek in the dispute must tell interlocutors that they may follow the permissive view in principle. It seems to me (S. Spira) that RSZA implies the converse as well. When we are dealing with an unresolved dispute among the poskim regarding a biblical prohibition, seeing as the gemara in Avodah Zarah 7a directs us to rule stringently, therefore even the lenient posek must tell interlocutors that they must follow the stringent view in principle.
Besides, the definition of death is fundamentally different than abortion. As recorded in Shulchan Shelomoh, Erkei Refu’ah III, pp. 103-110, there were certain situations where RSZA combined as a snif lihakel the view that abortion is only rabbinically prohibited. Every case of requested abortion is unique, and so perhaps there were situations where RSZA felt it wise to consult the Tzitz Eliezer. The same cannot be said regarding definition of death. “Hamotzi mechaveiro alav hare’ayah” (Bava Kamma 46b) – only absolute certainty that one’s friend is dead justifies taking away the status of Gavra from him, to allow burying him (to fulfill the mitzvah of kevurah) or dismembering his body (to fulfill the mitzvah of saving other patients’ lives). If there was ever a safek that a patient might be alive, I would assume that RSZA would never refer the patient to the chief rabbinate, as that would be geram retzichah.
>>The Matzav post has three levels. On one level, it criticizes Rav Tendler for his harsh language, which I think is deserved.
That’s fine, but if the shoe was on the other foot would you say that? While I remember RHS defending R Abaddi when he was attacked and he said that is not the way you disagree with someone, most respectable Rabbanim have been guilty of this in the past. Would you agree if Matzav or some other blog had a post about it then? I understand that you realize they are a bunch of hypocrites, but I do not even think your first point is fair, considering that is how, like it or not, pretty much all Rabbanim speak at one point or another when talking about heated issues.
It would be interesting to see this topic discussed in more halachic depth.
====================
R’HS havs spoken about this issue on YU Torah http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735664/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Halachic_Aspects_of_Family_Planning
I’m pretty sure that R’ Simon and others have as well.
KT
KT
R’ IH,
Thank you for your kind words. Vihamevarekh yitbarekh.
(1) The gemara in Yevamot 77a is establishing a halakhic principle regarding credibility of testimony. The principle must be applied, whether this results in communal unity or otherwise. Personally, I think that “milchamtah shel Torah” always results in the participants being best of friends at the end, as per the gemara in Kiddushin 30b. My perception is that all Jews are benefitting from the current important scholarly discussion over the medicolegal definition of life. But even if it would create an emotionally exciting brouhaha, the Halakhah must still be applied.
RMDT and RDF did not have a vested interest in testifying as to the opinion of RMF. RBW did not have a vested interest in testifying as to the opinion of RYBS. Therefore, their testimony must be accepted. By contrast, R. Eisman was *paid* by the government to work for the chief rabbinate; he therefore cannot serve as a witness to claim that RSZA conceded in any way to the chief rabbinate. R. Eisman is a tzaddik gammur, but he simply can’t be trusted, because the Torah says not to trust him on this issue.
(2) HaGa’on HaRav RSZA is independent of HaGa’on HaRav RAL. RSZA has been crystal clear that he forbids removing the organs of a brain dead patient as safek retzichah. It is precisely for this reason that he rapidly sent a “Letter to the Editor” of Tradition (published in Tradition 29:2), when he was accidentally misquoted in the letters to the editor of Tradition 28:3. It was very important to RSZA that people not commit (what he regarded as) doubtful murder, even to save other peoples’ lives. Obviously, RAL does not agree with RSZA. But that does not change RSZA’s pesak halakhah.
Joel Rich – as far as I am aware, Rav Scachter does not deal with the questions that are raised against his position in the lectureon yutorah (it may have been given before the objections were raised). R. Kahn argues that Rav Schachter’s inference from the Chazon Ish is not necessarily valid, and the Chazon Ish makes a statement somewhere else that would imply that he allows pushing off a mitzvas aseih for a legitimate reason. Ve’yesh leha’arich…
R. Spira. Despite the best of intentions, I think you are getting ahead of yourself. I will hold off on further comment in the hope that you reconsider some of your most recent posts, perhaps even double checking some of your statements. Many thanks.
Ruvie,
That is the second time you have accused me of not reading RAL’s article carefully. I then put together 3 ways that made clear my understanding was correct. Your latest attempt is also pretty terrible. You do realize that all those “ethical” concerns in the sentence you quoted above are “halachik” in the broad sense (meaning they are from the rabbinic literature). The article is about how these types of ethics and fuzzier moral concepts (lifnim meshuras hadin, midas sdom, shalom bayis, kavod habriyos) relate to strict din (halacha).
The upshot is that RAL is consistent with R’ Willig.
You also did not respond to the fact that you misquoted RAL and he actually quotes the Chazon Ish approvingly.
former yu – you are correct. i incorrectly quoted – i should have addressed it in my first comment earlier – ral on the chazon ish – he was speaking about the first part of the sentence and not the second. on the second point they are part of the system but not necessarily halakhic, see the following quotes from the said article – which whole point is – is there an independent ethic from halakha? the answer is yes.
concluding his article, ral says “…traditional halakhic judaism demands of the jew both adherence to halakhah and commitment to an ethical moment that, though different fro halakhah, is nevertheless of a piece with it and its own way fully imperative.” its INDEPENDENT and different but ral folds into his halahkic system – not sure if the chazon ish – the anti mussar (values outside of judaism), anti brisk learning, anti modernity – would agree since he focuses in dikduk hadin. in our case of bsd r’ willig doesn’t want to consider these ethical issues or tries to delegitimatizes those that do.
if one looks at ral yeshiva’s (har etzion) website – one can find his students writing on halakha and morality the following:
“We shall not always – or perhaps almost never – succeed entirely in resolving the moral difficulties arising in Halakha. But we are duty bound to walk in the paths of the Sages of Israel, and, at the very least, strive to minimize as much as possible the clash between Halakha and morality. ” i doubt that the chazon ish would approve of this haskafa.
When R. Spira first posted here, I thought he was parodying a haredi guy. In retrospect it’s clear he’s just a tzaddik gamur 🙂
“Why is it OK for RMDT to talk that way without any criticism?”
It’s not okay and he should be criticized for his tone and language. But that doesn’t make what he’s saying wrong as a matter of substance. I would also note that I think RMDT hurts his position (with which I agree) by talking this way. I think we would be better served by a more temperate presentation utilizing his broad and deep knowledge of both the halachic and medical issues. When he does that he often, IMO, blows the other side away. But he is what he is, and he’s been like that going back at least 45 years when I had him as a rebbe in my senior year at MTA.
Ruvie,
1) This is the last time I will try to explain. In that article, when RAL says “halacha” he means it in a very narrow sense. He means case law from the gemara. He then posits that in rabbinic literature we see “morals” outside of the strict application of “halacha”. These “morals” are concepts like darchei sholom, lifnim meshuras hadin, etc. Most other people might refer to these as halachik concepts as well. RAL recognizes this at the end of the article, and says that if you call those concepts halachik then the “ethic” is within the broad definition of halacha. Still he made his point that there are extra-legal concepts that are acceptable in Jewish law. He comments that even these cannot override Jewish law. Hence, “kavod habriyot” cannot override halachik prohibition, but it is a moral concern.
2) Please don’t claim that RAL approvingly quoted an entire sentence from the CI, but only really agrees with the first half.
3) I have no idea about the random article you pulled from the Har Etzion website, but all I was explaining was RAL’s famous article. He is referring to Jewish concepts. The application to BSD would be as follows. Preserving life is an important concept and moral. However, halacha in some cases does not allow us to preserve life. For example, in cases of yehareg v’al yaavor. So, we should try to maximize the preservation of life and be sensitive to that concern, even though we cannot violate the prohibitions on murder, avodah zara or arayos.
You asked what proof i have that in cases where RSZA could not find a hetter for abortion, he would refer the questioner to the Tzitz Eliezer. This was not because he was “consulting” with the Tzitz Eliezer, but because although his own halachic conclusion was that abortion was not permitted in a given case, he felt that the questioner was free to rely upon the Tzitz Eliezer instead. This was despite the fact that he personally did not agree with the Tzitz Eliezer on this issue.
I heard this personally from Dr Avraham, who said that he was present when this occurred. Dr Avraham said this publicly in a New York speech several years ago.
THIS IS A REORGANIZATION OF MY POST ABOVE
Rabbi Spira:
You asked what proof i have that in cases where RSZA could not find a hetter for abortion, he would refer the questioner to the Tzitz Eliezer.
I heard this personally from Dr Avraham, who said that he was present when this occurred. Dr Avraham said this publicly in a New York speech several years ago.
It was clear from Dr, Avraham that this was not because he was “consulting” with the Tzitz Eliezer, but because although his own halachic conclusion was that abortion was not permitted in a given case, he felt that the questioner was free to rely upon the Tzitz Eliezer instead. This was despite the fact that he personally did not agree with the Tzitz Eliezer on this issue.
Dr. Avraham described this as one of RSZA’s characteristic approaches when he personally did not see a hetter but was aware that some other respected posek held differently.
I might add to my post above that RSZA’s referring people to the Rabbanut as regards to Brain Death questions does not prove that he agreed with their psak, but only with their right to give it and people’s right to rely upon it.
R’ David Shlomo,
Yi’yasher kochakha and thank you for your kind response, with the requested source. I note that the source is not documented. [See Tradition 31:4, pp. 80-82, where RJDB expresses discomfort with quotations that are not documented, for fear that there is loss of information by way of “broken telephone”. I am not saying that that is necessarily what happenned here, and I know you are a tzaddik gammur who has done his best to cite the information you received second-hand from RSZA, but there is the seemingly variant citation from RSZA in Contemporary Halakhic Problems V (originating in Minchat Shelomoh I, no. 44).]
In any event, definition of death is fundamentally different than abortion. People have no right to “rely” on an opinion that a patient is dead, when you believe that the patient is alive. Human life and death is a concept that represents a theological reality. When it comes to a theological reality, Hashem Echad, and there is no room for pluralism. Mimah nafshakh – either the patient is alive with a neshamah, and everyone is obligated to refrain from killing the patient, and to desecrate Shabat to save the patient, or the patient is dead without a neshamah, and everyone is obligated to bury the patient, or – if applicable – dismember the patient in order to use his organs to save other people’s lives . There is only one doctrine of death according to Torah law. The posek who is consulted, whether his name is Rabbi J. David Bleich or Rabbi Moshe David Tendler, cannot “order” HKB”H to place the soul in the body or to remove the soul from the body. The soul is either there or it is not, and that is the sovereign Will of HKB”H. RSZA could never refer a patient to the chief rabbinate if he personally believed the patient to be doubtfully alive, for that would be geram safek retzichah.
For this reason, a functional Orthodox Jewish community can only have one policy on the definition of death in practical terms. What that policy is, the Gedolim have a responsibility to discover in a face-to-face conference, working together.
Rav Spira:
As i wrote, RSZA’s referring of people to a Rabbanut on Brain Death likely has no bearing on how he personally held.
Dr. Avraham, who testified first-hand about the abortion incident, had unparalleled contact with RSZA on medical issues. He said that not a week had passed in 40 years! that he did not have at least one contact with him on an issue of medical halacha!
He is known to have been so careful and so meticulous in the way that he represented RSZA’s opinions that he saw to it that every word he wrote would be reviewed not only by Rav Neuwirth, but by RSZA himself.
However, as I said, his referring people to the Rabbanut on Brain Death, says nothing about his own personal opinion on the matter, other than that he held their position to be a legitimate one.
Perhaos this is why his son-in-law, Rav Zalman Nechemiah, felt comfortable supporting the Kennesset’s recent end-of-life bill.
For anyone who wants to see the entire video of Rav Tendler’s lecture:
Worth watching.
Did you really have to tell us about the SOY Seforim Sale by linking to a Matzav article about it?
David Shlomoh wrote in part:
“You asked what proof i have that in cases where RSZA could not find a hetter for abortion, he would refer the questioner to the Tzitz Eliezer. This was not because he was “consulting” with the Tzitz Eliezer, but because although his own halachic conclusion was that abortion was not permitted in a given case, he felt that the questioner was free to rely upon the Tzitz Eliezer instead. This was despite the fact that he personally did not agree with the Tzitz Eliezer on this issue. ”
In fact, RHS mentions this incident in Divrei HaRav in the essay therein about Psak Halacha,
http://www.economist.com/node/17956905
The waiting game
Chastity before marriage may have its uses after all
Note however the last paragraph which warms the cockles of an old actuary’s heart
KT
Yi’yasher kochakha, R’ David Shlomo, and thank you for your response. Your source has now been vindicated by R’ Steve Brizel as being documented in RHS’s new book. I will go to the book store and purchase this at the next available opportunity.
In any event, even if in the case of abortion RSZA referred patients to the Tzitz Eliezer, that is because – as already explained – RSZA combined as a snif lihakel the opinion of those poskim that abortion is only rabbinically forbidden. The same cannot be said for the definition of death. There is no room for pluralism in the latter case.
Yes, in theory, “Elu Va-Elu”, all the opinions of the poskim on the definition of death are legitimate and were all revealed by HKB”H to Mosheh Rabbeinu. But in practical Halakhah, Klal Yisra’el can only follow a single doctrine on the definition of death. RSZA would never refer any patient to either the chief rabbinate, or to his son-in-law HaRav HaGa’on R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, for that matter.
Rav Spira –
I am puzzled by your comment.
Specifically, why is RHS’s having written of RSZA’s sending people to the Tzitz Eliezer more authoritative than Dr Avraham’s having testified — in a recorded, public lecture — that he witnessed this himself? Because RHS is a great Gaon and because he put it in writing, irrespective of how he knew of it?
I also don’t understand how the testimony of a nogeiah b’davar as to RSZA’s referring people to the Rabbanut does not at least put a safek into your absolute conviction that it cannot be true.
R’ David Shlomo,
Thank you for your kind response. You are absolutely correct – just because HaRav HaGa’on RHS writes something, it doesn’t make it automatically authoritative. I would be very interested to see exactly what RHS writes, and whether he can reconcile it with Minchat Shelomoh I, no. 44. I am simply engaging in “derishah vachakirah” (rigorous cross-examination), since this touches upon a matter of life-and-death. You (who are a tzaddik gammur) are testifying that Dr. Avraham (who is a tzaddik gammur) testified that RSZA said something. What Dr. Avraham testifies may be entirely correct; I will give him every benefit of the doubt, and that’s why I will be purchasing RHS’s book to see what he has to say.
Regarding R. Eisman’s testimony, the gemara says not to accept it. RSZA himself wrote: “Regarding brain death we do not have any tradition (masoret), and since this is not visible to the eyes, we cannot rely on medical science to establish the patient as definitely dead, and that which the physician says ‘barei li (it is certain to me) to rely on medical science’ is astonishing, because this concept of saying ‘barei li’ is only relevant to a matter that concerns the relationship between a person and his Creator, but not to spill another person’s blood”
(Shulchan Shelomoh, Erkei Refu’ah II, p. 32)
R. Spira — kindly provide the mareh makom in the Talmud for your repeated assertions regarding how a state employee in the office of the Government’s Chief Rabbi is “nogeah ba’davar” in regard to testimony, whereas others in the private sector acting as amanuenses are not?
I freely admit, this is a gap in my education.
Will the YU Seforim Sale have the new Neturei Karta book on the Satmar Rebbe, featured on Matzav yesterday?
The link got messed up yesterday, so I will post it again.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/news/currentarticle.cfm?id=221
Report in Matzav yesterday omitting the Neturei Karta connection to it –
http://matzav.com/first-english-biography-of-the-satmar-rov-released
The author can be seen on Youtube spreading Neturei Karta propaganda to non Jewish media by the way.
Od davar: is anyone who was on YU’s payroll “nogeah ba’davar” in respect to testimony regarding RYBS, by your shita? Ve’chulay…
R’IH,
amanuenses – not sure what that means?
KT
Rav Spira:
So, you would say as well that Rav Zalman Nechemiah, who is RSZA’s loyal SIL and most likely our greatest living posek, would permit that which his FIL considered murder and that which his FIL felt that no posek could disagree with him on?
R’ Dovid Shlomo,
Thank you for your kind response. You are correct, and I submit this publicly with full responsibility for my statement: HaRav HaGa’on R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg permits that which is father-in-law regards as doubtful murder. Likwise, HaRav HaGa’on R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg permits that which his father-in-law held could not be permitted unless there would be a consensus of Gedolei Yisra’el.
Regarding HaRav HaGa’on R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg being our greatest posek, that may very well be (indeed HaRav HaGa’on RMDT opines so in his recent lecture, and in any event there is no competition since each person must say “bishvili nivra ha’olam” as per the mishnah in Sanhedrin 37a), but I would add that R. Goldberg has been soundly refuted by RJDB on two occasions: Bioethical Dilemmas I, p. 106, regarding the medical treatment of a gossess; and Benetivot Hahalakhah I, pp. 25-26 regarding the validity of the RCA pre-nuptial agreement.
the nytimes article on the unfortunate brit millah reminds me of the r riskin story of the twins whose mother refused a brit, then had to call him in it to arrange it.
(side question — is this the (dr) litwin whose father fought for the mechitza in the mount clements case?)
In all fairness to HaRav HaGa’on R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, I see now from the RCA paper on pp. 82-83 that the claim is made that R. Goldberg has now defered to his father-in-law’s judgment. Thus, assuming the information in the RCA paper is accurate, I publicly apologize for mistakenly attributing a position to R. Goldberg which he no longer espouses. Out of doubt that I may have offended the honour of R. Goldberg, I will accept upon myself a fast for purposes of penitence tomorrow.
R’ Joel,
amanuenses is like a secretary or one who writes what someone is dictating. I’m pretty sure in To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout’s Aunt Alexandra became the secretary of the Amanuenses society when she returned to Maycomb.
R’Shasdaf,
TY – learn something new every day!
KT
I like the way that Neturei Karta article refers to “Zionism, Mizrachi, and Agudath Israel.” Ha!
That New York Times article was quite moving, but…“’Ani hu ha’Elohim’ (loosely translated as ‘Above all else, there is God’)”?!? I’d add “sic”, but how many to add? Don’t they have fact-checkers?
Rav Spira:
The RCA Paper indicates that Rav Zalman Nechemiah still holds that one should ask his own Rav as regards to the shaiylah of Brian Death. It also says that he takes no stand on the matter, even after being pressed by Rav Willig and Rav Wiener.
Clearly, he has not adopted the position you attribute to RSZA.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amanuenses
as i mentioned before, the chairman of the RIETS board is the personal atty to the S family, and has excersized his prerogative (?)to include / excluded several issues in that regard.
IH on January 25, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Od davar: is anyone who was on YU’s payroll “nogeah ba’davar” in respect to testimony regarding RYBS, by your shita? Ve’chulay…
R. Spira,
I am following this exchange and I can’t tell when you are being serious and when you are being sarcastic!
Can we limit the comments on this forum to serious debate and discussion and save the hyperbole? I think that would be more productive.
Robby Berman,
Perhaps you can explain something to me. You profess to be concerned that the position of the RCA and the London Beth Din will lead to a new blood libel, will cause a chillul Hashem etc.
Let us assume, for the moment, that these organizations distinguished between receiving organs from jews and receiving organs from gentiles. My question is simple: does drawing the attention of a UK daily’s gentile readership to this “fact” help Jewry’s cause or hurt it? Keep in mind, the UK is not a country brimming with affection for jews.
The truth is, furthermore, that these organizations in fact make no such distinction. They think that a jew may receive an organ from a donor regardless of whether that organ comes from a jew or a gentile. Stating otherwise is simply a fabrication.
It pains me to say this, but in your enthusiasm for your position on this issue, it seems that you are working strenuously to rather publicly promote your very own blood libel.
Dfdf:
“The truth is, furthermore, that these organizations in fact make no such distinction.”
This is debatable. And both sides have debated this in other threads on Hirurim. Most recently in: https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/01/statement-re-statement-re-brain-death/
Dfdf:
Your criticism of Robby Berman and HODS as being the progenitors of the Chillul Hashem and the Blood Lobel is well-said and important.
(I am, BTW, supportive of the HODS halachic stance. However, I, like yourself, am appalled at their tactics, which have no place in this legitimate halachic debate.)
I would go a step further and say that even if there would be a distinction, as IH suggests, that does not change the fact that this is a halachic issue that should be debated amongst Rabbanim and not in popular press.
I would go a step further and say that even if there would be a distinction, as IH suggests, that does not change the fact that this is a halachic issue that should be debated amongst Rabbanim and not in popular press.
===============================
Another interesting question – on issues of halachic non-slam dunk debate does the will of the governed make a difference?(e.g has acceptance of shaitel’s been influenced by the will of the people)
KT
Regarding the link to: “Ashkenazi haredi rabbis protest conversion ’breach’”, it is worth looking at the Hebrew quotation from Ha’aretz:
“הכל יודעים שלא היה בכוונת הגויים הללו לקבל על עצמם שום עיקר מעיקרי הדת לא שבת ולא כשרות ולא טהרת המשפחה, וכל אחד יודע (…) שגויים אלה אין כוונתם לקבל יהדות”, כותבים הרבנים, ומוסיפים: “אנו פונים לכל מי שבידו למנוע חילול ה’ הנורא הזה, ולגדור מחיצת הכרם שנפרצה”. שמו של הרב עובדיה יוסף לא מוזכר במכתב, אבל המכתב נחתם בהתבטאות ברורה כלפיו: “והשם יתברך ייתן בלב התועים בינה”.
Har Nof,
Though it may be difficult to credit, I believe that R. Spira is _always_ being serious.
Regarding the link to “The seed of Israel” as well…
For a contra view on the conversion issue, see this page from Rabbi Telushkin on books.google.com: http://tinyurl.com/4bct4wk
There’s an informative series by Israeli blogger and Rabbi Rav Tzair here:
http://ravtzair.blogspot.com/2010/12/v.html
I translated a part of his work here:
http://aiwac.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/a-sober-assessment-of-conversion-in-israel/
David Shlomoh wrote in part:
David Shlomoh wrote:
“You asked what proof i have that in cases where RSZA could not find a hetter for abortion, he would refer the questioner to the Tzitz Eliezer. This was not because he was “consulting” with the Tzitz Eliezer, but because although his own halachic conclusion was that abortion was not permitted in a given case, he felt that the questioner was free to rely upon the Tzitz Eliezer instead. This was despite the fact that he personally did not agree with the Tzitz Eliezer on this issue.”
RHS pointed out that the person who framed the halachic inquiry was a Baalas Teshuvah and by no means a Talmidah or a Talmidah of a Talmid of RSZA, and thus RSZA felt that he could refer the inquiring person who was asking about the permissibility of an abortion to the Tzitz Eliezer.
FWIW, one of Chaim Grade’s best works is devoted to the battle between a Baal Musar and a Livishe Gadol who championed the Halacha as encompassing all of Judaism’s values, who was closely patterned after none other than the CI. When one compares Emunah UBitachon and Halachic Man, one sees a strong pro Halacha as the source of all Jewish values and an equally strong anti Musar streak in both works
Steve, the Rav states that the Halakhic Man does not come from a neutral perspective when determining the Halakha, but brings his values with him. Sounds like you have cause and effect mixed up as far as the Rav is concerned. Whether or not the Rav was into musar, chassidus, kabbala, or anything else, is another story entirely.
“IH on January 25, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Od davar: is anyone who was on YU’s payroll “nogeah ba’davar” in respect to testimony regarding RYBS, by your shita?”
A lot of the issues of what the Rav stated are actually understanding the context-it is possible/likely that certainly a shiur context the Rav could discuss hypotheticals which would not necessarily be what he believed ultimkately. A chakirah is not necessarily ones psak.
“Another interesting question – on issues of halachic non-slam dunk debate does the will of the governed make a difference?(e.g has acceptance of shaitel’s been influenced by the will of the people)
KT”
Of course, to a great extent halacha follows the street see the acceptance of Simchat Torah vs classical halacha-laining at night, repeating laining etc. Both Tosafot and Briskersfor example made great efforts to accept see what is on the street.
“Alien life AS WE KNOW IT deemed impossible by analysis of 500 planets” would be a more accurate headline. The more general case is of course impossible to clarify.
Considering we are (at least as of recently) unable to find earth-like planets outside the solar system that would be hospitable to life (as we know it), this is circular. The only earth-sized planet I heard of that was found, referenced in the article, was found precisely because it was so close to its sun (making it inhospitable to our kind of life). Plus, the most this would say, is that most planets are inhospitable to life. But we could have guessed that already from our own solar system.
Alien life article reminds me of the quote attributed to T Watson in 1943 -“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers,”
KT
The Milky Way alone contains 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) stars. There are billions of galaxies. Even if only a small fraction have orbiting planets (and that’s looking increasingly unlikely), a sample of 500 is simply ludicrous.
“And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere out in space, ’cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth.” -Monty Python
I should point out that Norman Lamm penned an essay decades ago that will enable Orthodox Jews to cope with any philosophical and theological problems that may arise if and when extraterrestrial life is discovered. Aryeh Kaplan also contributed to the literature.
R’ Nachum,
Well said. The key point is that – whether or not there is alien life – there is no alien god. “Atah Hor’eta lada’at ki Hashem Hu Ha-E-lo(K)im, ein od milevado”. As R. Aryeh Kaplan beautifully phrases it “Malkhutkha malkhut kol olamim” – HKB”H is King over all the planets.
I think the concern is what happens if the aliens have a different revelation, although I don’t see how it would be any more of an issue than all the Earth religions who claim the same. (Of course, if there are actual miracles and prophecy, that’s another question- although I can certainly see people arguing that Hashem doing things differently on different worlds, there’s debate about that even down here. C.S. Lewis had similar ideas.)
I suppose some would have problems with the existence of life (or intelligent life), period, but I really don’t see the issue.
R’ Nachum,
Thank you for your illuminating response, which elaborates the matter further. I believe that the revelation at Mount Sinai covers not only planet earth but also outer space (including all lifeforms and all civilizations, to paraphrase William Shatner and Patrick Stewart). This is reflected in Rashi to Deuteronomy 4:35, who reports that at the revelation at Sinai, HKB”H opened the seven firmaments and demonstrated His Unity.
Of course, how to calculate time in outer space for halakhic purposes is another parashah, which makes the brain death question look like a cake-walk. RJDB devotes ch. 3 of Contemporary Halakhic Problems V to this question, claiming that the earliest source to discuss halakhic time in outer space is R. Jacob Emden’s Mor Uketzi’a. I pointed out to RJDB (based on the most recently published Piskei Teshuvot volume) that there is already an analysis in the book “Nechmad Vina’im” (available on Hebrew Books), written by a disciple of the Rema.
R’ Nachum,
I think we can be mitztaref your insight with Monty Python’s. In the famous words (never said to) Montgomery “Scotty” Scott -“Beam me up Scotty. There’s no intelligent life down here.”
KT
R’ Spira, I agree with you. I’m just saying that just as there are those who say that Hashem, for example, revealed himself differently to Christians than to Jews would probably argue the same thing about Vulcans. Of course, even Orthodox Judaism says that Bnei Noach *do* have different rules (and maybe revelation, from the time of Adam or Noach rather than Sinai?) than Jews, so why wouldn’t there have been an ancient Vulcan revelation as well, with perhaps slightly different laws better suited to them?
Taxation on earth is too high for us to attract aliens from other planets.
R’ Nachum,
Thank you for the important questions, which promot me to contemplate the matter further. Since our Rosh Yeshiva R. Student has dedicated our website to following Orthodox Judaism, we therefore must follow the doctrine of Orthodox Judaism on this subject. Orthodox Judaism explains the origins of the church as per the “Ninth of Tevet” lecture featured by R. Shnayer Leiman on yutorah. Orthodox Judaism says that the optical illusions performed by the protagnist in Mel Gibson’s motion picture were not at all a separate revelation, but were rather performed because the protagonist had access to secret of the Shem Hameforash, which allows a person to perform extraordinary feats. [Rashi to Eruvin 43a, s.v. “bekefitzah”, indicates that a person can fly through the air using the Shem Hameforash. Accordingly, it is not surprise that the protagonist in Gibson’s motion picture is reputed to have “walked on water”. (Besides, if the lake was frozen at the time, even I could have done that…)] Orthodox Judaism will say that the church (to a very respectable extent, though not 100% fully*) represents a flagship institution of the Noahide Code, but that there was never any actual revelation to the church. [*=More precisely, Orthodox Judaism will say that the church and Islam, balancing each other out, represent a more complete picture of the Noahide Code – the church recognizing the sanctity of the Pentateuch, and Islam recognizing the truth of absolute monotheism. Neither the church nor Islam had any separate revelation, they rather adopted elements of the Noahide Code already revealed at Sinai.]
You correctly point out that, before Mount Sinai, there were other revelations (to Adam and Noah). But these were all repeated and confirmed at Mount Sinai, after which there cannot be any further revelation to contradict the prophecy of Mosheh Rabbeinu. As Rambam rules in Hilkhot Melakhim ch. 8:
“And likewise Mosheh Rabbeinu was commanded from the Mouth of the Almighty to direct all humanity to accept all the mitzvot in which Noah was instructed…”
As for what Vulcans will have to do if they are discovered, they would presumably have the halakhah of angels, being entities that exist in the heavens. [By my saying that the planet Vulcan is in the “heavens” and that the baseline for all matters of Torah law is planet earth, I am adopting a geocentric perspective. Indeed, Orthodox Judaism adopts a geocentric perspective, because HKB”H revealed His Torah to a Jewish People standing on planet earth (though He did open the seven firmaments, to show that the Torah applies throughout the cosmos).]
I am in awe. There are no words.
Rabbi Spira and Nachum: No doubt I am revealing my gross ignorance here, but who are the Vulcans?
Rabbi Spira: Re Christianity. It seems to me that Orthodox Judaism can and does allow for a multiplicity of views regarding Jesus. Rashi’s view is not necessarily authoritative. See, for example, what R. Yaakov Emden has to say about Jesus.
Once again,IMO, you fail to distinguish between matters of technical halakhah and broader matters involving hashkafah and,in this instance, history.
The main point about angels for the Rambam is that they are incorporeal. Is that true about Vulcans?
I very much liked your idea about Christainity affirming the sanctity of the Pentateuch and Islam affirming absolute monotheism. This, as I am sure you know, is exactly the view of the Rambam.
LAWRENCE KAPLAN:
“No doubt I am revealing my gross ignorance here, but who are the Vulcans?”
Alien Litvaks
I just googled Vulcans. Speaking of gross ignorance! Well, at least I’ve heard of Star Trek. However, I am relying on Wikipedi here, the Vulcans have bodies and in most respects resemble human beings. Therefore, I cannot see how according to the Rambam they can by any stretch of the imagination be considered angels. But now I am succumbing to R. Spira’s style of writing.
>Orthodox Judaism explains the origins of the church as per the “Ninth of Tevet” lecture featured by R. Shnayer Leiman on yutorah.
Orthodox Judaism says that you have to accept Toldos Yeshu as the historical truth? Which one the Rambam or R. Yosef Albo’s ikkarim is this?
“Re Christianity. It seems to me that Orthodox Judaism can and does allow for a multiplicity of views regarding Jesus”
Prof Kaplan:
Do you believe it is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that Jesus was a failed messiah not a false one?
Do you believe that it is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that Christianity has anything theologically to offer the Jewish people?
Mycroft: These are complex issues which cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. I do not accept the view of my teacher Rabbi Yitz Greenberg re Jesus, and find his view problematic. By and large, I am in agreement with David Berger’s critique in Tradition of Greeberg’s views.
Mycroft: Re your second question.I do not believe that Christianity qua Christianity has anything to teach the Jewish people. I do believe that there were many profound Christian theologiana, writers, and mystics, whose reflections on the strictly theistic aspects of Christianity, e.g., the nature of God, revelation, creation, faith, religious experience, providence, etc., have much to teach us. Aquinas, Barth, Kierkegaard, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, John Donne, Milton, etc, come to mind. This, IMO, was also the view of the Rav, as clearly evidenced by his writings.
Professor Kaplan,
“To the extent that one is ignorant of Star Trek, one’s knowledge of Torah is impaired ten fold.”
Doesn’t the Rav cite that in Halachic Man?
I am sure that in the description of Adam I in LMF he says something about, “to boldly go where no man has gone before”
There is also a famous machlokes between MV”R R. Michael Rosensweig and R. Robert “Aryeh” Kalpper about the halachic status of the Vulcan mind meld. ayen sham v’dok.
thats, R. Klapper. Sorry.
>Orthodox Judaism explains the origins of the church as per the “Ninth of Tevet” lecture featured by R. Shnayer Leiman on yutorah.
Funny because professor Lieman himself told me that he does not regard the Toldot Yeshu literature (on which that lecture is based)as having any historical validity.
>ayen sham v’dok
tz”l ayen sham v’dork
For those who are not Yated readers, I would suggest that if you wish to see Hakaras HaTov in action, see the coverage and pictures of the participation of the Lakewood RY and community in the motorcade and parade in tribute to a Lakewood police officer who was murdered in cold blood.
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/01/interesting-psak-black-on-back-tefillin.html
Something we discussed a long, long time ago.
KT
There is also a famous machlokes between MV”R R. Michael Rosensweig and R. Robert “Aryeh” Kalpper about the halachic status of the Vulcan mind meld. ayen sham v’dok.
=============================
Please provide the mareh makom – I oftern wondered aboput that issue.
KT
>Orthodox Jew argues Jews killed Jesus
Anyone else read this? Thoughts?
Mine: self-important windbag thinks he sounds impressive by quoting the Baal Haturim to those who wouldn’t know a Turim from a Baal. It’s a shame, David Klinghoffer already wrote his obnoxious thesis in a book.