Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 066

Sunday, December 9 2001

• RE: Organ Transplants
• RE: Definition of Death
• RE: Definition of Death
• Pelishtim in Tanach
• Re: Slicing Challah
• Re: Avodah V8 #65
• Sfas-Emes, 5631: 'Ad sheTikaleh haRegel min haShuk
• Re: Q on Vayishlach
• Re: Q on Yayishlach
• Re: Definition of Death
• RE: bone marrow transplants
• taking off tfillin
• RE: Organ Transplants
• Re: organ Donation
• Re: Organ Transplants
• RE: bone marrow transplants
• RE: chassid shoteh
• Nusach
• t'villa (re: women and mayim achronim)
• why the current Yeshiva system is as it is
• Out of Context!
• Re: Rambam and REED
• Re: Out of context!
• Out of context!
• Out of Context! Rambam and REED
• Re: Out of context
• Re: Rambam and REED

On Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:43pm, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> RCS's citation of some rationale ruling out donations based on the halacha
> of moridin just begs the question (aside from the fact that both RAYHK
> and the CI agree that moridin does not apply bzh"z, and its application
> is obscene).
> 
> But what RSK found dubious, the application of the question of when the
> neshomo departs the body, is precisely RSZA's problem with harvestations.

Does he base his argument on a gemora?

On Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:35am, Akiva Atwood
<atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> There are -- that's the whole problem with brain-stem death: (AIUI) the
> heart and breathing can continue (at least for a while) while the brain stem
> is dead. Doctors accept brain-stem death as final -- while halacha (prior to
> this generation at least) relies on breath and pulse for determination of
> death.

Has there ever been a case of resuscitation after brain stem death?

R' Simcha Klagsbrun asks <<< Has there ever been a case of resuscitation
after brain stem death? >>>

My point is that it is totally irrelevant whether or not this has
happened, or even whether it *could* happen.

What *IS* relevant is that (according to the Igros Moshe which I quoted)
Chazal accepted decapitation as evidence of death even in situations where
life can be restored to the patient. Rav Tendler holds that brain-stem
death is equivalent to decapitation, and such a patient is dead. (I am
in no position to argue with him, nor do I wish to.)

Other poskim hold, as I understand it, that since the brain-stem-dead
patient is not actually decapitated, we must use Chazal's other criteria
of death, and since the breathing and pulse are present, life therefore
is still present in the patient. Whether or not he will ever regain
consciousness is irrelevant. The important thing is that he is still
alive, according to those poskim. (I can't argue with these poskim either,
nor do I wish to.)

Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim. Some poskim hold he is still alive,
others hold he is dead. R' Simcha mentioned something about being part of
a hospital committee where these questions are very l'maaseh. I do not
envy him in this. I'm only illustrating how I understand both sides of
this machlokes. As I see it, according to both sides it is Torah which
defines death, not medical experience.

Akiva Miller

On Thursday, December 06, 2001 12:32 PM, Kenneth Miller
<kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim. Some poskim hold he is still alive,
> others hold he is dead. R' Simcha mentioned something about being part
> of a hospital committee where these questions are very l'maaseh. I do
> not envy him in this.

Don't worry, after thirteen years of marriage I'm quite adept at avoiding
offering an opinion whenever anyone is listening.

Actually, the reason they want an Orthodox person there is mostly to
know how to serve the community better and to learn what they should or
shouldn't say to Orthodox patients. They have been very attentive and
followed through on some helpful items for the Orthodox patients.

Still can't teach them the importance of saying 'don't worry, it's all
free of charge' though.

kt
sk 

Does anyone know how frum scholars deal with the scholarly consensus that
the Pelishtim (Phillistines) did not reside in Eretz Yisrael during the
time of the Avos or the Shoftim?

Gil Student

Bottom Challah at night, top Challah during the day.
The Rama says that we do this because of Kabbala.

I'm no mekubal, but based on the symbolism of each of the meals in
Kabbala, this is my guess:

Friday night seuda: "Da Hi Seudasa d'Chakal Tapuchin Kadishin" involves
the sefira of Malchus, the "bottom" sefira, hence the bottom challah
is cut.

while the Shabbos Morning (Lunch) meal "Da hi seudasa d'Atika Kadisha"
involves the sefira of Kesser, the "top" sefira. Hence the top challah
is cut.

What does this all mean. I could tell you, but I would have to kill you.
;-)

Raffy

> How is Hashem the subject and not the object of our avodah of Him?

In the case of HaShem, what's the difference?

David Finch

I thought this was on topic. Copyright is owned by Dr Leff.

-mi

Sfas-Emes
Dr. Nathaniel Leff

Chanuka, 5631

The SE told his Chassidim many Divrei Torah on Chanuka (48 two-columned
pages in his terse notes!). Here is a brief ma'amar, part of his dvar
Torah on the fifth night of Chanuka, 5631.

Why do we light candles on Chanuka? For 'pirsu'mei nisa'. (That is:
to broadcast news of the miracle that we experienced on the first
Chanuka.) How long should the candles stay lit? The reason for the candles
to be lit is so that passers-by should see them. and remind themselves
of the miracle. Accordingly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim,672, a)
tells us that Chanuka candles should be lit 'ad she'tikaleh ha'regel
min ha'shuk'. In a non-literal translation: 'until traffic in the
market-place abates'. In a more-or-less literal translation: 'until the
feet {of passers-by} are no longer in the market-place'

So much for the plain/simple/surface meaning of the phrase: 'ad
she'tikahleh ha'regel'. The word ha'regel means 'the foot'. But working
with allusion (Remez), the SE reads the word as 'hergeil': i.e.,
habit,routine. Thus the SE tells us that the Chanuka candles should
light until they bring renewal and remove habit from our Avoda (Service).

Doing Mitzvos as a matter of routine is a constant threat to the active,
conscious way in which we should strive to live our relationship with
HaShem. And the SE tells us that the Chanuka candles can remind us to
be aware of what we are doing rather than be creatures of habit.

Eric
> At 34:5, why did Yaakov Avinu wait until his sons got back from the field.
> His daughter's been raped, and he wants to hear from his children?
> (And, childlen they were: Shimon and Levi were 13, Dina was 8).

A nominee for "biggest chiddush in parshanut of the year" goes to
Rabbi Menahem Leibtag, of Gush, whose www.tanach.org is a must for
any Avodah member. I strongly recommend this year's Vayishlach shiur.
To make a long story short, he suggests that the story of Dina's rape
took place years later, after Yaakov had returned to Yitzchak.

Why then is it there: R'Leibtag suggests that Yaakov did indeed buy
the field in Shechem on his way from Padan Aram, then continued going
south to Bet-El and further south to see his father, and then returned
to Shechem to live. That is when the Dina story happened, he suggests.
This would make Dina 12-ish and the brothers in their upper teens if
not lower 20's, approximately.

Raffy

In Avodah V8 #65, ESimon posits:
> (And, childlen they were: Shimon and Levi were 13, Dina was 8.)

Not necessarily -- see Rabbi M. Leibtag's thoughts in
http://www.tanach.org/breishit/vayish/vayishs2.htm.

> At 34:5, why did Yaakov Avinu wait until his sons got back from the
> field.
> His daughter's been raped, and he wants to hear from his children?

("V'hecherish" isn't exactly "[he] wait[ed]," but that begs the question.)
Perhaps the Torah is trying to give us behavioral guidelines when faced
with a situation the impulsive reaction to which may cause us more grief
rather than less. If Rabbi Leibtag's analysis is correct, Ya'akov may
have wished to follow his grandfather's path also in the sense of being
m'karaiv his neighbors -- the reaction of his sons, as he noted in 34:30,
eliminated any chance of doing so, even if it wasn't unjustified.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

<<
 In other words, Rav Moshe says that there can be situations where medical
 technology can cure a person, even though the halacha considers him dead.
 I'm confident that this is counter-intuitive to the vast majority of us
 (myself included). But if Rav Moshe said it, then we must allow for
 that possibility >>

Doesn't this raise it's own series of halachik issues. For example,
does the son inherit at time of halachik death?

KT
Joel Rich

RYBG wrote about RCS's question about bone marrow transplants.

RCS's citation of some rationale ruling out donations based on the halacha
of moridin just begs the question (aside from the fact that both RAYHK
and the CI agree that moridin does not apply bzh"z, and its application
is obscene).

At last something about which RYGB and I agree. The issue of bone
marrow was discussed at length on mail jewish (~vol 25). One citation
from a "frum"poster there is relevant to this and other discussions on
avoda/arevim (vol 25 n 62)

> In going through this process we stumbled upon this halachic issue.  The
> bone marrow registries are not allowed to release confidential
> information (like the religion of the bone marrow recipient) and they
> usually stick to their policy.  They are also "anti-frum" by now because
> they recognize "frum" addresses and claim that the majority of frum
> people do not respond when they are contacted for further testing.
> Besides causing a chilul hashem, it also causes a tremendous expense for
> the frum community because these people are automatically removed from
> these registeries when they don't respond and bone marrow tests are
> expensive.  Frum people tend to run and finance private drives and
> people need to be restested because they don't stay in the registry.

> As far as the halachic issues are concerned, there seems to be great
> confusion.  Most jews match other jews.  The chances that you match
> another jew vary depending on the bone marrow types.  We are pretty sure
> that jews have died waiting for non-responding frum matches.  Many
> gedolim were misquoted to us.  I.e. someone said "rav so-and-so said"
> you should not respond and when we called "rav so and so" he said "I
> can't tell anyone they are m'chuyav" to respond".

> There also are a number of rabbonim misquoting other rabonim (I hope it
> is not sacreligous to say this).  I know there are a number of people,
> including the pediatrician who worked with our family, who are working
> to try to get a "das torah" position on this publicized.  Bottom line is
> your not mchuyuv to but you should.  You will most likely save a jewish
> life and if you save a non-jewish life - cest la vi.  (this is not my
> bottom line.  this is the bottom line we heard from many rabbonim)
> poster there is relevant to this and other discussions on avoda/arevim

I (and others) were upset over the notion of if you save a non-jewish
life - cest la vie, rather than it being (for sure in America, a malchut
shel chesed) a lecatchila obligation (both the Seride Esh amd R Henkin
paskened that the Meiri position about nochrim is normative today), and
a rav I asked about people who have problems about donating to non Jews
said "any rav who said that is not a rav", but that is another discussion
(those interested can read the mail jewish archives)

Meir Shinnar

I recall learning that it is improper to take off your talit and tfillin 
during kriat hatorah but I can't find as ource. Does anyone know of a source?

KT
Joel Rich

At 11:29 AM 12/6/01 -0500, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
>> But what RSK found dubious, the application of the question of when the
>> neshomo departs the body, is precisely RSZA's problem with harvestations.

>Does he base his argument on a gemora?

I think the one in Yuma.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

For anyone interested, R. Hershel Schachter discusses brain death in
his BeIkvei HaTzon chapters 36 and 37.

In a wonderful turn of events, this brings together three simultaneous
threads on Avodah/Areivim. RHS is very unsure that brain stem death
is sufficient to consider someone dead. Because of the safek, and he
claims rov poskim are mesupak, he thinks we must be machmir and forbid
organ donations from someone who is brain stem dead.

RHS also notes that the Gemara only talks about cessation of breathing.
But what if the Gemara was based on ancient science? RHS says that
according to some, the Gemara cannot be based on wrong science.
But according to others, that it can, it still does not matter.
Because the "Chazon Ish on Nature" rules that halacha was established
in the 2000 years of Torah. RHS also quotes a Gra that says similarly.
[I'm not sure why this Chazon Ish is relevant. The way I read it, the
CI was speaking specifically about treifos beheimos and not treifos adam.]

On Areivim, Mordechai Horowitz wrote:
>we have a major issue that needs to be dealt with by the Torah community. 
>Namely, how we should deal with those who misrepresent the views of Torah 
>sages.

RHS also quotes three pesakim that he heard pronounced in the name
of RYBS about brain death. He points out that two of the three make
no sense at all (and demonstrate a lack of understanding of Torah) and
could not have been said by RYBS. The third is contradicted by a number
of close talmidim of RYBS, RHS included. See also RHS's introduction
to his Eretz HaTzvi.

Carl brought up bone marrow donations. I may be mistaken, and someone
please correct me if I am, but I believe I heard in the name of R. Moshe
Tendler that it is forbidden to donate bone marrow because the procedure
involves some remote sakanah and one is forbidden to enter a case of
safek sakanah even to save someone else's life. Yesh cholkin badavar.

Gil Student

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:30:38PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:>> But what RSK found dubious, the application of the question of when the
:>> neshomo departs the body, is precisely RSZA's problem with harvestations.
: 
:> Does he base his argument on a gemora?

: I think the one in Yuma.

I already alluded on Areivim to his maqor -- if decapitation or moach
tefuchah are misah, then apparantly the loss of brain activity is part
of the definition.

Also note that the discussion seems to revolve around which measurable
physical change defines misah. The question is not one of science, but
rather which scientifically defined event is halachically significant.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On 6 Dec 01, at 19:03, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> RCS's citation of some rationale ruling out donations based on the halacha
> of moridin just begs the question (aside from the fact that both RAYHK
> and the CI agree that moridin does not apply bzh"z, and its application
> is obscene).

> At last something about which RYGB and I agree. 

Just to clarify, so do I. 

> I (and others) were upset over the notion of if you save a non-jewish
> life - cest la vie, rather than it being (for sure in America, a malchut
> shel chesed) a lecatchila obligation...

And if we're not talking about America which is a malchus shel chessed,
but we're talking about Eretz Yisrael where the non-Jews are mostly our
sworn enemies R"L.... does the equation change?

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

> ...Similarly, in the case of a baby born in the eigth month, you do
> everything possible to save the baby and to ease its discomfort on
> shabbat. It matters not, that in the times of chazal, such a baby was
> considered as good as dead.

Just yesterday I was listening to a R' Reisman tape on the issue of
Nishtana Hateva (as a way of explaining the solution that Dovid Hamelech
employed to stay warm in the beginning of Melachim) and he said that he
heard R' Yaakov Kaminetzky comment that he himself can testify to the
fact that nature changes.

In the early part of the 20th century, R' Yaakov remembered that any
baby born in the 8th month was "considered as good as dead." 7th month
or 9th month, the baby would be OK, but the 8th month - dead. So it
seems that it just wasn't in the time of Chazal.

KT
Aryeh
aryehstein@yahoo.com

My son described having davened ma'ariv for the amud in the Meah She'arim
shtieblach. He said that after shemoneh esrei of ma'ariv, they say
kaddish shalem and then shir hama'alos mima'amakim. Then they told him
to say kaddish and then borechu and alenu. I had only heard of this for
nusach Sefard on Friday night, with chatzi kadish after mizmor ledavid.
I looked in a (real) Sefard siddur and saw the seder as he described,
but with no kaddish after alenu. Can someone (Carl?) clarify this nusach
for me?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' Seth Mandel wrote:
> Similar confusions occurred with the Ari' custom of doing t'vilo before
> shabbos or in the morning, which some have confused with the t'vilo of
> a ba'al qeri.

Meaning what? The Ari was makpid on both, although there would be
different connotations to each kind of t'vila (ba'al Qeri being more
chomur). Shlomoh

 From Yated:

>> Two of the many letters written by HaRav Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler zt'l are
>> printed in Michtav MeEliahu (III, pp. 355-358). These letters reveal an
>> interesting episode that teaches us a lesson to be remembered.
>> [these are well known letters cited frequently-my comment]

 From R' Carl:
> Anyone who has not read these letters and wants to discuss this
> topic should read them. RYGB showed them to me in an earlier
> discussion. I was floored.

I personally was especially touched by his explanation as to the reason
why Yeshivot must be the way they are.

The Gemara says that 1000 enter for Mikra, etc. and one comes out
a Posek. That happens to be a fact. R' Dessler explains that this is
the LChatchila.

"Let a thousand fools die so that one Chacham gets pleasure." Hence
today's Yeshiva system.

I was deeply distressed by R' Moshe Rudner's post, including, inter alia:
>I personally was especially touched by his explanation as to the reason why
>Yeshivot must be the way they are.
>The Gemara says that 1000 enter for Mikra, etc. and one comes out a Posek.
>That happens to be a fact. R' Dessler explains that this is the LChatchila.
>"Let a thousand fools die so that one Chacham gets pleasure." Hence today's
>Yeshiva system.

The impression left is that REED made up the last statement, and,
of course, it is shocking, and, to the uninformed reader, perhaps,
a cruel and crude statement to boot.

While i am not personally an adherent of REED's stated philosophy of
chinuch tending more to the TIDE school, I strongly protest the quote
out of context.

That sentence, Rabbosai, is that of the Rambam.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Please provide a refernce where in the Rambam-Yad, Moreh, Peirush
HaMishna .

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>>"Let a thousand fools die so that one Chacham gets pleasure." Hence today's
>>Yeshiva system.

> The impression left is that REED made up the last statement, and, of
> course, it is shocking...
> That sentence, Rabbosai, is that of the Rambam.

Yes, Rabbosai, that sentence is from the Rambam...out of context.

(Which makes it a sentence of R' Dessler's in his own context.)

Moshe

>Yes, Rabbosai, that sentence is from the Rambam...out of context.
>(Which makes it a sentence of R' Dessler's in his own context.)

OK.  I'll ask the obvious question:

Nu?, will someone put it in context for us?

-- Eric

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
>Please provide a refernce where in the Rambam-Yad, Moreh, Peirush HaMishna .

The quote is not, to the best of my knowledge, precise, rather a
colloquial synopsis of the Rambam in the Hakdomo to Zera'im.

From: "Moshe Rudner" <mosherudner@hotmail.com>
>Yes, Rabbosai, that sentence is from the Rambam...out of context.
>(Which makes it a sentence of R' Dessler's in his own context.)

Huh?!

Quite the Rambam in context - check it out, in the standard Vilna Shas
55b at the end of Berachos, first column.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
> >Yes, Rabbosai, that sentence is from the Rambam...out of context.
...
> Nu?, will someone put it in context for us?

Okay, here's the context. Two contexts in fact. First R' Dessler...

'When the Gemara says that 1000 students begin to study Chumash but only
one comes out a Posek, that refers to the type of Yeshivish Yeshiva
system. You send in 1000 students and although most will be harmed
rather than helped by the system, the focus is on the one Chacham who
will benefit from the study. As the Rambam says, "let a thousand fools
die so long as one Chacham benefits".

Now for the context of that quote in Rambam. I do not think there is any
such quote in Rambam. Rather R' Dessler was likely referring to the gist
of part of the Rambam's introduction to his Perush HaMishnayot.

The Rambam there is trying to make the point that even where Chazal say
something that sounds ridiculous, we must understand that they meant
something deeper than the plain meaning. His example is from Brachot 8A
"Ein L'HKBH B'Olamo Elah Arba Amot Shel Halacha Bilvad".

"Now think about this", he says. "If you take this sentence literally
you find it very far from the truth. As if the entire purpose is for the
four Amot of Halacha and all other wisdom and Deot are unimportant. In
the time of Shem and Ever when there was no Halacha did God have no
Chelek in the world?!"

He then goes on into a long discussion on the purpose of the world (at
least that part of the world that is in the lowermost sphere). Essentially
Rambam was of the opinion that the purpose of the world was for Wise
man. And the true wise man, in fact, only comes around once every few
generations. Why then did God create all the rest of us? Two reasons. A)
To do things on behalf of the wise man (albeit without knowing that we
are doing so) by making food and clothing, etc. B) To keep the wise man
company so that he doesn't get lonely.


Before getting back to R' Dessler, a few words on the above. Rambam wrote
the PHM between his 23rd and 30th years. Later in life, he changed his
opinion on certain matters in the Perush, particularly in Psak where
he had originally blindly followed the Rif and later regretted it. At
the end of the Perush he writes that he wrote the PHM under difficult
circumstances and he is open to making corrections if mistakes are found.

Although he makes no indication (that I am aware of) that later in life
he changed his opinion vis-a-vis the purpose of the world (i.e. the
Wise man), in Sefer Hamada, Hilchot Tshuva 5 he does seem to indicate
that anyone can achieve the greatness of Moshe Rabbeinu. This sounds a
different tune than his earlier writing about the world being created
only for the few smart, wise people.

On to R' Dessler.

Whereas the Rambam was of the opinion that factually not everyone in
this world id of the same importance and that most are here simply to
(unknowingly) serve the wise man, R' Dessler makes that a L'Chatchilaa.
Rambam felt that he was describing nature and R' Dessler was advocating
creating/perpetuating a system that was harmful to most students because
it was good for the few.


One final note. Rambam would definitely not have agreed with the
Yeshiva system as it is today and would have argued vehemently with R'
Dessler. Rambam felt that "Iyun" (which then involved no R' Chaims,
just explaining how R' Yehuda is L'Shitato) was a spectacular waste of
time for the masses. "The purpose of the writing of the Talmud and its
contemporaries [Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.] has already been cut off and
lost. And the purpose of the teachers waste their time in the give and
take of the Talmud, as if the reason for it is the energy spent in debate
and nothing else. That was not the reason for the creation of the Talmud"
(Igrot, ed. R' Shilat, Vol. I p. 257).

Shalom,
Moshe

In a message dated 12/8/01 8:49:17pm CST, owner-areivim@aishdas.org writes:
> The quote is not, to the best of my knowledge, precise, rather a colloquial 
> synopsis of the Rambam in the Hakdomo to Zera'im

I am looking thru my Sheilat edition of the Hakdama L Mishna . Where ? If
this shita ids not in the Yad or in the Moreh, why attach such chasivus
to what is a synopsis of a comment, as opposed to a verbatim statement,
especially in light of the well known and consistent shitas HaRrambam
that opposes learning Torah on the financial back of the community?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]