YU Medical Ethics Society- Organ Donation: A Matter of Life and Death

YU Medical Ethics Society- Organ Donation: A Matter of Life and Death

THESE NOTES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND UNEDITED. IF THERE ARE ANY MISTAKES, MISQUOTATIONS, OR IDEAS THAT MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL, PLEASE ASSUME THEY ARE MY ERRORS. VIDEO CLIPS AND MP3S OF THE LECTURES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ON YU TORAH SOMETIME THIS WEEK, I BELIEVE.

IF YOU WANT ME TO EMAIL YOU THE MICROSOFT WORD DOCUMENT INSTEAD, PLEASE ASK.

ANYTHING IN RED IS EDITED BY AND THANKS TO LABRAB.

Schedule of the Day
(my notes are divided up by the speeches, so do CTRL+F searches for the ones you are interested in by the person's name)

Opening remarks by Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman for the topic of ‘Living Organ Donation: At what Risk?’

First, he mentioned that organ donors and recipients are gathered here today. The Yeshiva University Medical Ethics Society is sponsoring this university-wide lecture series. Other topics to come over the year include abortion, etc. (He and the heads of the YU Medical Ethics Society thank all the sponsors.)

This is a topic of tremendous import, an extraordinary program, as evidenced by the fact that registration for today’s conference is over 400 people. There have been tremendous advances in many fields- cloning, treatments for infertility. There’s a story of a scientist who has the audacity to approach God, and says he can do anything, even create man. Oh? How do you go about that? inquires God. Get some dirt, mix in some enzymes, it’ll be great. God says, show me. So the scientist bends down to reach for some dirt, and God says- wait- get your own dirt!

The Torah can approach the most important cutting-edge issues of Torah and science. Yeshiva University today is proud/ privileged to host such wonderful speakers. In fact, the majority of the speakers today are members of the faculty, products of YU, or are affiliated with YU. There is a tradition of Torah umada (science.)

Last night I checked the organ sharing network website to see how many people are awaiting organs. There are 92, 905 people waiting for organs. This morning at 7:00 AM I checked, and there were 92, 903 people waiting for organs. 2 less than before. Why two less? Well, either two people received transplants, or there is the much sadder reality that these two people died while tragically awaiting organs.

To demonstrate how relevant this conference is to us as a whole, I direct you to the Jewish Press. We put an add in the Jewish Press on September 1, and right next to it there are two ads for kidney transplants- and we will be discussing these very important halakhos right now, for the next 4-6 hours.

The time between the harvesting of a heart and its viability is 4-6 hours. Think about that as we sit here for the next 4-6 hours.

(He introduces the various speeches that will be given. They should all be up on the YU website, as scheduled.)

Here’s something to think about- a fascinating Halakhic case. So fascinating that an entire book called Kliyos Ya’azot is published about it and the answer to the question. It speaks of a member of Knesset who needed a kidney transplant- a living-donor transplant. He has 5 sons. One son finds out the father needs the transplant, goes to the hospital to see if he’s a match and finds out that he is. When he returns there stand the four other sons, barring his way to the door. They say that THEY want the right to donate the kidney to their father. Then the b’chor (firstborn) comes and calls his rights into question..they’re all fighting to determine which would be the organ donor. At the end of the day, I’ll give the answer to this statement. [Did he ever answer this?]


Let me introduce the first speaker- Adinah Raskas from St. Louis, a kidney recipient. She will be telling us about her personal experiences as a kidney recipient. Then Dr. Stuart Greenstein will speak, and R’ Willig will round out the session with a discussion of halakhic issues.

Adina Raskas’ speech

Hi.

I’m Adinah Raskas and I’m from St. Louis, Missouri. I’m sure you think I’m an out of towner, but really I’m the in-towner; it’s all of you who are the out-of-towners. Anyway, people always want to know a little bit about the background of the speaker, so here’s my story.

My parents were born in Vienna- a very Yekki home. I began my education in dayschool (the only one there) and by the time I graduated I decided I wanted to go to Israel for college to Hebrew University. I went to my father and said it would only cost one hundred dollars, and that just for transportation! But he wasn’t sending any dollars to Israel when I was at the age of seventeen. Instead I went to college in St. Louis, got married to a boy from Boston, went to Boston University- I was the only pregnant person in the entire university- and then we decided we wanted to move back to St. Louis. We felt it was important to grow up with grandparents and grandchildren. So we decided to live there, had five children; the first two were born in Boston, the rest in St. Louis.

My husband was the director of cancer- research center/ professor at Washington University, until my father went to him and said he would have to sell the family business, the Raskas Dairy, so my husband became the head of the business.

I have an APD- I never got to finish my thesis. It was titled “In Loco Parentis in the Day School Movement.” I feel it is as relevant today as it was then.

I was very involved in the community- president of the day school, lots of history there, very entrenched in St Louis, Missouri.

So now, I know you’re wondering, why am I introducing this program?

I am going to talk about what it’s like to NEED a transplant, how it feels, the quality of life before getting one and afterwards. When my doctor tried to convince me I needed dialysis I couldn’t accept the verdict, said no, did everything so nobody knew I was sick and tried to deny it.

I was teaching, active in the community, but had very low kidney function. You are here to learn from Rabbis, professionals, about halakha, but I am here to tell you my story about the emotions in play here.

The consequences of renal failure are terrible- my legs blow up, my face blows up, my stamina is next to nothing, walking is difficult and walking against the wind is impossible, your color is bad and especially your diet- everything changes. I didn’t want ANYONE to know about my issues- which was virtually impossible; I always felt exposed in the doctor’s office when they called my name. So I complained for virtually two years and now there are privacy measures in place- you’re called by a number to come in.

Anyway, before you even get on a list for any kind of transplants, you have to take a whole lot of medical tests, which take at least 6 months. You have to do them yearly, and there’s very little time left for anything else. It was June 7, 2003 when I got worse- the only people who knew then were my husband and children. I want to tell you that I wouldn’t have made it without him (husband.) I swore my five kids to secrecy; if people approached them and asked them about me, they tried to make up reasons.

Now, I think it’s hard for doctors to understand what life is truly like for the patient- more emotional care would be better. I waited till the last second, for better or for worse, to go on dialysis. I had some small residual kidney function when I started- but it’s hard to convey the experience of dialysis. You’re there 3 times a week, the whole process takes 5 hours each time. For me and most people the trauma of needles going into you- it’s just unbelievable. It’s not the most pleasant experience.

I had to have it in my right hand because they couldn’t find the veins in my left hand…There’s uncertainty about each treatment- will your blood pressure drop? Is the machine not working? If it’s not, then you’ll be delayed 4 hours, and that pushes everyone else off- it’s traumatic.

After treatment ends, you still feel lousy- I tried to think that I was okay, that I was normal, and I managed pretty good, but you’re toxic- and by Sunday you’re really toxic. You know those dinners on Sunday night that people go to for various events? So you don’t want to be sitting there and eating that while you feel so sick.

There’s a very restrictive diet; when it comes to fluids, you can only have 4 cups of a liquid per day, and than includes all the medication you take, liquids, jellos- none of which is easy when you see someone coming down the street carrying a Starbucks coffee and you say, “Oh, that’s what I really want.”

What you’re basically doing is using 3 treatments a week and liquid/ diet control to replace kidneys.

People don’t think about their kidneys, about how they can walk, about anything because it is natural, normal to them. But you need to think about it and realize how it is a gift.

The bracha (blessing) of Asher Yatzar becomes much more meaningful after this.

It was Shabbos Shuva of 2003 when all my problems began. Friday night 2003 and I was in very severe pain, and after Yom Kippur I developed a very high fever; that didn’t deter me from fasting on Yom Kippur or walking to shul, though. Anyway, I had an infection in my kidney, which spread to my bloodstream. That led to the removal of my kidneys and an unplanned removal of parts of my colin- then there were some more immediate surgeries to try to repair the colin, so I was in serious condition with many great complications at the age of sixty.

I was septic, bedridden, too weak even to pick up a Kleenex.

I was completely incapacitated. What saved me were the prayers; my Rabbi (Rabbi Berman) changed my name, there were tefillot being said in the USA and in Israel for me. And I still meet people who recognize me based on my name and say Tehillim for me- just so realize how important it is.

The other thing is about visitors- I had visitors from all over the place, different states; this too is important. I really thought about those people, especially when you’re lying in a bed 24 hours a day, you really have time to think. I used to look at people walking down the street and say to my kids and husband, “Do you think I’ll ever walk like that?” I went from bed to being strong enough to be carried to a chair, then to a wheelchair, then to walk, and I am here today.

On dialysis, trying to recover, you realize that the problems you think you have don’t exist- shul politics, school politics simply don’t matter anymore. LIFE is what matters.

Getting a transplant is unbelievable- I received mine in February about 7 months ago. Someone in the community named Cathy called me and offered me her kidney- I didn’t even know her, but her son and my son (or grandson? Probably grandson) were best friends in dayschool. She saved another person’s life, my life- you can’t even imagine what it feels like to be offered a kidney- it’s the highest form of chesed, kindness, a second chance at life, liberated from diet restrictions….min ha’shamayim (from God.) I’ll have to take medicine forever but it’s SO much better- I hope that others will be encouraged from this story to do the same, to donate.

I call Cathy every week or so to update her on the status of how her kidney is doing- I am so grateful to the global Jewish community who embraced me. I aggressively try to help others who are sick, and there are many who have told me I have helped them or view me as an inspiration, and I treasure that. I hope my story encourages others to be donors.

Dr. Stuart Greenstein’s Speech

(He was introduced; his bio is up at the YU Medical Ethics website, so skipping that part…)

…problems of kidney failure, moral aspect of it. There are two days a year when I get semicha; I’m suddenly a Rabbi- that’s by Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur when all my patients call me to ask whether they should fast.

Simple things in terms of Halakha- let’s start with kidneys versus livers, because risks are greater by the liver.

Today 25% of all patients who wait for transplants have diabetes. 8% of those patients (maybe? I’m not sure I got this down right) will die waiting for transplants.

There are two options for people suffering from kidney disease.

1. Someone who has kidney failure should stay on dialysis
2. Get a transplant
a. Get a deceased-donor (formerly called a “cadaver” donor)
b. Get a live-donor transplant

Transplantation as a field is not that old. December 25, 1954 is when it first started, on Christmas Day. There were twins, and the doctors actually had to make sure they were identical; they fingerprinted them so down to the fingerprints they were identical.

Now, 50% of all transplants done in the USA are live-donor transplants (the donor is a living person, as opposed to being deceased.)

QUALIFICATIONS FOR BEING A DONOR

• Over 18, because otherwise you have to go through the court system, and a smart court system is not going to give its consent to you
• Should not have diabetes. (This is not absolute, but it is much better to follow.)
• Should not have kidney disease (because the main principle behind live-donor is DNH= DO NO HARM. If the donor has kidney disease, they might need this other kidney themselves at some point.)
• No lung disease- COPD.
• No cardiovascular disease.
• Not markedly overweight because this is, after all, a major operation, again the idea of DO NO HARM
• HIV/ Hepatitis negative
• In the past, the idea was for the person to be a relative/ spouse and have emotional ties. Nowadays, we find that even a solicited donor who is no relation to the recipient is capable of doing this!
• Blood type and cross-match compatible (An A kidney can only go to another A. By the way, I’ve noticed there are more AB bloodtypes in the Chassidic world. A cross-match is where you take blood from the donor and from the recipient, mix it together in a test-tube and see how it reacts. Obviously, if they don’t work together, that’d be bad.)

THINGS TO NOTE

• Federal law bans the sale of organs, but does allow solicited transplants. If I know you’re buying an organ, I will NOT do the transplant, because I don’t want to go to federal prison. You can go to a third-world country to buy organs, but if you do that, remember that you get what you pay for.
• All conversations between the donor and the transplant team and the results of medical testing are kept confidential, even though the donor is not really a patient. Hippa laws which (he laughs) I love to violate, but don’t tell anyone…
• The costs of live-donor evaluation, testing, surgery, are generally paid for by the recipient’s insurance.

EVALUATION

• Complete history and physical examination and psychosocial examination (because this is a major operation. We don’t want you to be a little off, take your kidney and watch you fall apart.)
• Routine lab tests
• Tests to determine compatability
• Tests to confirm two good kidney
• X-rays to determine blood vessels (basically, which kidney to take for the recipient. This has to do with railroad-tracks, whatever I find to be better…)

WHY A LIVING DONOR?

• Better matching/ better results, and the kidney begins working immediately
• The date can be planned, which means there’s better preparation for the recipient- he/she can be in optimal condition (as opposed to a deceased person’s organ, which has to be taken soon thereafter)
• Shorter hospital stay
• Lower dosage of medicine
• Tremendous psychological lift to donor- a “love match/ story” between the donor and recipients. Some say they shouldn’t get to know each other, but I personally believe they (donor and recipient) SHOULD get to know each other. It’s really like a love story.

DISADVANTAGES

• No free lunch (as opposed to YU, which gave us free lunch today)
• Healthy person has a major operation
• There are no guarantees the transplant will work. It may fail (in the recipient) and there are no “backsies,” i.e. you can’t put that organ back into the body of the donor.

TYPES OF SURGERY

• Open vs. inside (Open nephrectomy vs laporoscopic)
• The doctor and the transplant team makes the decision as to what method will be better, and it is based on anatomical reasons
• Differences in donor pain and length of stay post operative (based on type of surgery)

WHAT TO EXPECT- SHORT TERM

• 2-3 hospital day stay
• 2-6 weeks before work (less if it’s laporoscopic surgery)
• All medical bills to go to recipient’s insurance
• Major surgical complications are less than 2%
• Minor complications are less than 10%
• Mortality is 0.03%

WHAT TO EXPECT- LONG TERM

• No physical risks to donor
• Life insurance premium is not increased (and that, if anything, should prove this is really not a risky operation. Otherwise insurance people would definitely raise it.)
• Adults with one kidney live normally but should avoid sports that involve high risks of heavy contact= NO BULL FIGHTING
• No harm to remaining kidney
• No increased risks for childbearing purposes

Actually, a lot of us- of you- are walking around with just one kidney and don’t even know it. You’ll find out if you go into the military…

WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG FOR THE DONOR LATER (GETS KIDNEY DISEASE)?

• Donors who need a transplant- of more than 75,000 live-donor transplants since 1987 only 119 patients have been listed on UNOS for deceased-donor transplant
• These patients go to the top of the list

RESULTS OF LIVING RELATED TRANSPLANTS

• 1 year graft survival is 95% (that just refers to whether the kidney is still working one year after the surgery)
• Cadaver kidneys are 10-15% less in terms of still working
• There is no significant difference between living UNRELATED donors and living RELATED donors (like a daughter to a father)

Live transplantation was unheard of in the orthodox world for a long time, till about the last 5 years. There are now ads in the Jewish Press, however, all the time.

People who donate to others- it’s really a love match, a love story- we, the Orthodox community can only grow through and from this.

While a live-donor is better than a cadaver, the differences are really only in the first year (points to graph on slide-show) after that the lines are parallel.

Rabbi Willig’s Speech

I’ve brought a prop (holds out cutout from the Hamodia newspaper) it says “Newly-wed woman, 23 years old, very desperate for kidneys A or O.”

I’m going to try to cover the basics of a very complex topic in as brief a way as possible.

The most important statistic is the very low mortality rate associated with kidney transplants.

Now, the question I want to address is- is donating a kidney fulfilling a positive commandment, or is it a chiyuv, an obligation?

We have the mitzvah of “vahasheivoso lo,” the restorative commandment. There’s a Gemara in Sanhedrin addressing this. Now, if one is required to restore a lost object, how much more so to restore an almost-lost life, one might say!

Lo ta’amod al dam re’eicha/ Do not stand over your brother’s blood- This is a verse meaning that you can’t stand idly by and watch as someone is drowned, or attacked by bandits, bears, whatever it may be, because it’s like you killed him (unless, a Chana insert here, you yourself can’t swim, etc.)

Now, R’ Ovadiah Yosef (Yechaveh Daat 3:84) seems to say that such an obligation exists. He quotes the Radbaz saying that one goes back to the paradigm- someone is in danger, drowning in a river/ attacked by bandits, whatever it may be. I am taking a risk in rescuing that person. Therefore, by definition in the process of saving someone’s life, the assumption the Gemara makes is that one must take a small risk. (Since there is more than 99% survival in kidney-donation, might be similar!)

The Me’iri, in contrast, says there has to be no risk at all.

How to resolve the two? To say that there may be an element of some small risk, and that is acceptable.

Nonetheless, a careful look at the Yechaveh Da’as shows he changed the expression. When it comes to the drowning example of ‘Lo Ta’amod,’ he says “Chiyuv,” meaning obligation. However, here he refers to the word “mitzvah”- as R’ Ovadiah Yosef does as well. [Note: R. Ovadiah Yosef and the Yechaveh Da’as are the same.]

There is a difference between a chiyuv and a mitzvah. No one I know of says it’s an absolute obligation to donate a kidney. If it were a chiyuv, after all, an obligation, the question becomes- why don’t we all just run off and go do it immediately?

A potential argument might bet hat there’s pain involved, and one is not obligated to suffer pain in order to rescue another. The Magen Avraham, however, states that one is obligated to undergo pain. The Netziv says so as well, and both of them cite a Talmudic reference to explain.

The Magen Avraham cites an idea that you can’t betray a Jew who is hiding in the Beis Midrash when the Romans are looking for him, or otherwise his blood is on your head. However, that is an ACTIVE example- if you tell the Romans where he is hiding, you are actively killing him by speaking. But not to give someone a kidney seems to be passive! So this is not a perfect comparison.

The Netziv says (here I get confused. I think I heard something about having to hire workers?) and have to spend a lot of money, undergo tircha (work) which is Rashi’s expression as well.

The Taz in Yoreh De’ah, alternatively, agrees with the position that you don’t have to undergo pain to save someone’s life. Then again, a side-point is that not all pain is created equal.

Even if one assumes that one IS required to undergo pain to save a life- bone marrow transplants in my opinion one is obligated to undergo, for example…is this the same?

This issue is very relevant to my community (tells some Riverdale stories about his shul, and how just recently a husband sponsored a Kiddush in honor of his wife who donated her kidney to him.)

Now, let us look to the Gedolei Ha’Torah- the classical answer is from R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah Chelek Beis Siman 174 Anaf 4) , referencing Yoreh De’ah, KN’Z (kuf nun zayin.)

A person is NOT required/ has no chiyuv, absolutely NO obligation to donate an organ to save somebody’s life. Laudatory, encouraged definitely, but not an absolute obligation to do so. A person has to give all his money not to violate a lo ta’aseh, and there R’ Moshe says “Money yes, organ, no.” He draws a distinctive between ACTIVE and PASSIVE as well- perhaps actively we may not violate things for the sake of an organ. Organs might be equivalent of money by Shabbos, but for saving a life an organ might not be the equivalent of money.

The Tzitz Eliezer 9:45 adds a phrase to this idea- “Darcheha Derachei Noam,” meaning “Her ways are pleasant ones” and agrees with R’ Feinstein. If there’s really an obligation to donate your organs to people, it means that Beis Din, if there were a Beis Din, would be able to force people to donate their organs and punish them for not doing so- but that’s NOT “Deracheha darchei noam,” her ways are pleasant ones. To those who say that the individual has to put himself in small danger to save others from large danger- still, if you save him when he’s drowning, you get yourself, whole, back again, whereas by an organ transplant part of you is missing, you are not whole anymore.

Live organ donations- kidneys, not getting into issues of lungs and livers; there’s some talk that those can grow back so my former idea (of not being yourself at the end of the rescuing/ restoration process) would not apply…I want to mention as final words some people want to do something where as soon as they die their organs are removed…THIS can lead to DCD- potentially a halakhic problem, because someone might want to hasten the death to get the organs!

Cardiac Death in Jewish Law

Introduction by Rabbi Kenneth Brander

I want to begin by thanking (list a lot of people)- distinguished doctors, students, CJF, premier educators, Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance who is helping us with the teleconferencing hookup with R’ Schachter today. R’ Schachter really needs no introduction, but on a personal level, relationship between Rav and community, interacting with many of them, there is one Rosh Yeshiva who stands out from the crowd- in many ways due to his energies and efforts, and that is R’ Herschel Schacter.

R’ Herschel Schacter’s speech ( he had sources for everything he said, and said them, but too quickly for me to write them down- but LabRab got them! )

Thank you very much.

The Gemara in the last perek of Yuma discusses a situation where we’re not sure if someone is alive or dead, and quotes a pasuk : kol asher nishmas ruach chayim be’apav, “whoever has the breath of life in his nostrils (Parshas Noach).

It seems that when a person is breathing he is alive, otherwise if a person is no longer breathing, he is considered dead. (This is based on the idea that on Shabbos, if God forbid a wall collapsed on someone, how much can we be m’challel Shabbos for him.) Based on this Gemara (moving rubble, etc) many have developed a theory of brain death [since the brain stem controls breathing].

There’s a Teshuva of the Chasam Sofer- one of the more popular teshuvot- there are a few of the teshuvot of the Chasam Sofer where the name of the Sho’el (questioner) does not appear. Does not say to whom it was sent, but we know it was sent to the Maharatz Chajes (מהר"ץ חיות, a great posek and intellectual in 19th century Italy) The name doesn’t appear because at one point in the teshuva the Chasam Sofer says “Are you an apikores or something? You don’t believe in emunas chachamim?” But we know it’s the Ma’aratz Chajes because he compiles a book called “My conversations with the Chasam Sofer” and this is in it.

One paragraph of the teshuva quotes a statement from the Rambam from Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to the Perplexed) stating that the medical records of Greek doctors state that they saw a case where a man stopped breathing for three days and was not dead/ woke up again. The Chasam Sofer says in response to that statement in Moreh Nevuchim that this is a possibility but he doesn’t think the Gemara is saying that is the definition of life and death (in Yuma) but rather a siman, a sign that one is alive= breathing.

(He mentioned something here about an ill person who is so sick that you’ll be m’challel Shabbos to drive him to the hospital, and by that time he’ll be dead, but if there’s even the slightest, 1% chance that he might be saved at the hospital/ might survive for that, you drive him anyway.)

The Chevra Kadisha sees someone who is not breathing for 15-20 minutes, and it’s so far-fetched that he is still alive that we have the right to ignore this. The definition of death has to be one that would have made sense in those time periods. Moshe Rabbeinu is given this din as a guideline- if he’s not breathing for 15-20 minutes that’s a sign that he is dead, but it is not the definition of life/ death. [The point is that cessation of breathing for a long period of time is 99.99999% certainly an indication of death, even if it isn’t the definition of death, so after that point we don’t mechalel shabbos and we are allowed to prepare the body for burial.]

R’ Moshe Feinstein has a fascinating teshuvah about tefillin where someone asked him whether one was fulfilling a mitzvah to put tefillin on a paralyzed arm, seemingly a dead arm. R’ Moshe Feinstein answers by saying “Absolutely yes,” and he knows because his own father had a paralyzed arm after suffering a stroke and put on tefillin every day. The Gemara discusses mumim and what constitutes a ba’al mum (someone who has a blemish/ flaw on his body) and he quotes from the Gemara “If the flow of blood has stopped in an irreversible fashion, then it (the limb) will develop…grangrene, it will be dead.” If there is no flow of blood to the arm then it is dead- you cannot fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin with such an arm. But here the nervous system is not working, and blood is still flowing, which means that it (the arm) is still alive! So as long as the blood is still flowing, the limb is alive.

Tosfos explains that the blood circulation is what keeps animals and human beings alive. One of the prohibited activities on Shabbos is חובל, causing a wound to bleed. Tosfos is of the opinion that chovel is part of the melacha of killing …so we cannot cause even a little bit of bleeding; it’s considered “A small amount is equivalent to the larger amount” (He might have said Talmud Yerushalmi here…)

When the flow of blood has terminated in an irreversible fashion, then one is considered dead.

Now, by a brain-dead patient, if the brain is considered dead because there’s not enough blood flow to the brain, there are several possibilites-

1. Difference between vital organs and non-vital organs to begin with. If one loses a vital organ one is on the way to dying. How many vital organs are there? The Rambam and/ on Mishnayos says (in the context of several mishnayos which introduce the term אבר שהנשמה תלויה בו, for example if a person says: “My heart will be a Nazir” then he becomes entirely a Nazir, since it is impossible for him to exist without his heart; but if he says “My fingernail will become a Nazir,” he does not become a Nazir):
a. Brain
b. Liver
c. Heart

So the Rambam says Mishnayos is only speaking about the three vital organs.

Halakha says we recognize these three as a mashal (example to us) and the rest count as well. [I think he meant here that it is possible that there are more than three vital organs, but the three listed by Mishna/Rambam are just examples.]

So with respect to considering death- when all of the vital organs are dead/ no longer blood circulating to the vital organs, you are dead.

So what if only [some of] the vital organs are dead?

1. My opinion- I can imagine that you can say that if only one vital organ is not functioning, the whole organism is dead
2. No- if one of the vital organs is dead, but not the others, one is not considered dead
3. You may need two out of the three to be dead before the person is considered dead.

Now, there’s the idea of the goses (someone who is not yet dead but is approaching death.) In some Halakhos he is considered like one who is dead, and in others not. How to define a goses?

The Rambam says a goses is one in whom the process of death has already begun. So if we assume that if one vital organ is dead, then the whole person is dead, then what’s a goses? When one vital organ BEGINS to deteriorate?

If one’s not considered dead, however, till all three vital organs are dead/ have no blood flow, then goses is when one of the vital organs is dead, it would seem.

Now, a clean, neat definition of goses is to say it applies when “rov/ kol” of vital organs are dead (the majority or all.)

R’ Soloveitchik is quoted as saying that even if the Vilna Gaon were alive in our generation, he would not have big enough shoulders on which to rest the weight of this decision (of what constitutes alive or dead)- it is simply unclear from the Gemara.

Because the definition of death cannot be changed nowadays to fit what we know nowadays; the definition of death had to have been set in the times of the Tannaim and known to the Tannaim. You can’t give a definition of death that wasn’t known to the Tannaim.

(He quotes something here, which I can’t quite catch.)
The Gemara in Avodah Zarah divides history into three eras: Shnei Alafim Tohu, Shnei Alafim Torah, Shnei Alafim Yemot Hamashiach (2000 years of emptiness, 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years of the Messianic Era. The Chazon Ish in Hilchos Treifos wonders: Don’t we still learn Torah nowadays? He explains that “Shnei Alafim Torah” means that all legal concepts in the Torah are defined based on the physical and social realities present during the 2000 years between Matan Torah and the closing of the Talmud. [Avi adds: The Chazon Ish uses this principle to explain the problem of treifot, viz. why we retain our categories of treifot even if they no longer correspond to life-threatening illnesses – since they were that dangerous during the period of shnei alafim Torah. The Chazon Ish’s approach is one of the classic solutions to the halachic problem that is solved in other contexts through the device of nishtaneh hateva. VeAKMa”L.]

and so the parts of Torah have already passed, so we cannot contradict/ disagree with the Tannaim. The categories and concepts of Halakha need to be defined in the period of Shnei Chalakim Torah- known to the Tannaim. All these fancy definitions of brain death now were unknown to the Tannaim.

Now, a friend of mine showed me a secular medical journal where there were 50 different opinions on brain death by each group (he named Harvard, Princeton, etc) and each one of the 50 has 3 different divisions of opinions, so 150 opinions.

There are no sources in the Talmud to recognize brain death- only blood circulation. If one is willing to accept brain death based on the idea of one vital organ dying means the entire organism is dead, then one should be equally willing to accept liver death! I can see such an opinion.

I wrote a teshuva on this idea, so all my sources are there (names book Be’ikvei Hatzon (one of R. Schachter’s two seforim of חידושי תורה.) It was suggested to me to send it to R’ Elyashiv, so I gave it to my acquaintance to give to R’ Elyashiv. But R’ Elyashiv doesn’t have time to read my 15-page teshuva so he asked my acquaintance, “Btoom line is what?” The acquaintance explains that R’ Shachter says that a brain-dead patient is “Safek-chai, safek-mais” (It is in doubt whether he is alive, in doubt whether he is dead.)

R’ Elyashiv answers and says that he is at least a goses, and is considered a “safek-mais, safek-chai.”

[I don’t remember a name here, but R. Avraham Steinberg in his response to this point said that it was R. Avraham Shapira, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel.]____ came to visit Yeshiva for a year, came late, went to Dr. Lamm’s) office, apologizing to Dr. Lamm why he showed up two weeks late- said he had to stay for a vote on brain death/ can you take out organs from a brain-dead patient?

He responded that the rabbanut allowed organ donation based on a combination of three factors:
1. Shtayim she’hargu is patur from misah- two that kill are exempt from murder, while one who kills is a killer- so if two doctors remove the organs from the brain-dead patient, then it should be fine. I (R’ Schacter) couldn’t contain myself and started screaming at R’ Levi Shapiro, “What is this shtayim she’hargu patur; it’s still assur, retzicha is assur!”
2. Also, they mentioned that the majority of brain-dead people come from automobile accidents- I didn’t agree with this either, what, just because someone crashes a car he is suddenly a goses? [The gemara in Sanhedrin 78a says that there is no חיוב מיתה for killing someone who is a גוסס בידי אדם, someone who was mortally wounded by another man. The Rabbanut felt that car accidents fit that category. R. Schachter didn’t agree; and even if he did agree, still all that means is that there is no חיוב for killing; but there still is an issur.
3. The Rabbanut considered brain death a safek, and with the other factors permitted. R. Schachter couldn’t believe that they are permitting safeik retzicha.

This I feel should be the definition of death- if any vital organ is dead the person should be considered a safek-mais, safek chai.

(Question time)

PHYSICIAN FROM COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN: IF we cannot halakhically accept the notion of brain death, we cannot accept heart donations- because murder is involved, to remove the heart. What would you say if a religious Jew needs a heart transplant; can he benefit from the murder of somebody else? Also, Jews are viewed as wishing to benefit from organ donation but not willing to be donors as well, which leads to discomfort?

(clapping. I don’t really get why there was clapping for the question…)

R’ SHACHTER: Regarding your first question, if the Halakha is not prepared to accept this, can you benefit from murder? You can argue this both ways. One can present an argument saying I’m not allowed to save my life at the expense of another’s life. Many Rabbanim feel it is permissible, however, because the man will die anyway. For the second question, I agree that this is a serious issue, but Halakha does not pasken according to societal views. Exact quote: “We don’t permit רציחה because of social pressure.”

Back to Rabbi Kenneth Brander

Look, everyone- we had two choices in this, to run this conference or not to run this conference. Not to run the conference would have been the easiest but also the wrong thing to do. People are already upset with us over who we did/ didn’t invite. Point for the record is that I recognize that there will be different rabbinic approaches but I think intellectual honesty requires that they are presented by people who recognize and live these positions. Respect for leaders- hamayvin yavin- all approaches are being communicated.

Now what happened was that there were 4 different options for speeches, all going on simultaneously in different rooms. I went to R’ Avraham Steinberg’s speech on Organ Trafficking.

Organ Trafficking by R’ Avraham Steinberg

There are various ways nowadays to obtain organs if you need one- you can go to China, pay a certain amount of money, and someone will be executed for you, and his organs will be given to you. Same thing in Colombia. You can go to a third-world country like India, Romania or Turkey, get a match, pay a sum (usually not very large, because it’s a lot for them, but only a little bit of money here.) There are even groups that go from the developed country to the undeveloped country so that the operation will be successful because the transplant team is from the developed country.

There is a way in the USA to bring someone who is being paid under the table and get his organs “legally,” simply by terming him your relative- your “cousin” or “brother;” it’s interesting, you know, to see this Chassid with his payos and religious garb next to this blonde non-Jew, and suddenly they are brothers! (laughter) And this brother altruistically wants to donate his kidney and so on. Now, it’s only natural that people would want to do this- people want to save their lives. But the fact is that it’s hard to blame someone who wants to save his life. I know personally very respectable people (army officers, government officials) at least in Israel, who do this because there is no legitimate way to do this.

The fact is that there are not enough organs- halakhically OR otherwise, because honestly the small 2% of Jews who may not be donating their organs for religious reasons don’t make that much of a worldwide different. Live-donors or deceased, people on a whole don’t want to give.

So talking about live-donors, the stated philosophy of Western society is that a live organ-donor must be ALTRUISTIC. Any compensation is regarded as illegal or immoral in a sense of organ-trading, which looks like slavery. I would like to open an informal discussion with you. I think we all agree that the examples I gave you (like with going to a peasant, giving him a TV and taking his kidney, or the Chassid and his non-Jewish “brother”) should not be.

So how can we get someone to be a live donor?

Woman 1: Education (goes into a long explanation of how she feels educating people to know that kidney donation is really not so risky, is helpful, etc is important.)

R’ Steinberg: You’re suggesting to educate people to become live donors. Now, does the live donor have to be altruistic or not necessarily so?

Man 1 w/ question: Why is it inherently immoral to go in for compensation?

Man 2: It’s obvious. Rich people will always buy the organs, there will be a maldistribution of organs, and that is unfair to everyone else.

(someone) So what if you set up a government agency to pay the money vs. the individual paying money for the kidney? (someone else brings up health insurance now, and how we should have health insurance for organs)

Another person: But it’s still the rich countries that will be able to afford the most organs.

Yet another: Better some people do get them than none!

Man with a hat: IF we can pay people for giving blood, give sperm, give ova…why not this?

Man with glasses: Actually, we do NOT pay people to give blood, ova, sperm.

R’ Steinberg: But surrogacy here is also for free?

Chorus of voices: No.

R’ Steinberg: A surrogate mother is paid to harbor and incubate the baby. This surrogate woman does not need to be pregnant at the time and yet she endangers herself, maybe more than she would if she donated the kidney, in order to do this!

Another person: What are the halakhic ramifications of obtaining an organ that might be stolen?

R’ Steinberg: You may expand your question- halakhically speaking, can we pay for organs at all? Leaving aside stealing…

The way that the world now approaches this dilemma is divided. Most of the legal systems at the moment outlaw any type of compensation for live organ donation as opposed to surrogacy, blood, sperm donations, ova, etc. It’s not illegal to receive money for surrogacy, etc. However, if someone donates a kidney and is paid for it, it will be illegal.

This is based on 2 principle assumptions. One is a basic philosophical assumption, the other a _____ assumption.

To pay for a part of the body incites/ causes people to do something they might not otherwise do, which hence must be made illegal. I confess I don’t understand it. If someone makes an autonomous decision to be a coal miner or engage in a dangerous profession for his parnassah, that’s fine. Or boxing? We pay professional boxers to entertain us, and look at Mouhammed Ali, who is completely demented from so many hits. Why can we pay people to do things which are so much more harmful to the body, but not for organs?

And what about soldiers- we don’t expect them to altruistically go to war and risk their lives; we pay them for it! We don’t expect altruism for any other service, so why now?

What I do understand is that the end result can be potentially problematic- that rich people might get more organs. The world is not, however, ideal.

Story:

There was a Pakistani man, a relatively poor person who had a daughter with leukemia. He took her to England after scraping together the little money he could to get a bone marrow transplant. They laughed at him because it wasn’t enough money. So he said he’s willing to sell his kidney- use the money from that to save his daughter, and save the other person with my kidney. But compensation is not allowed in England, so in the end the daughter died and the recipient died.

There’s a way to compensate so it will not be a kind of trade. This donor might receive education for free instead, rather than money. Because studies show that if you sold kidneys on a trade market, it would be bad for people. Because you give poor people money and they don’t know what to do with it/ waste it, and they’re no better off. So instead give them housing, clothing- a person’s life would be saved.

Honestly, to cross the street in Jerusalem is more risky than donating a kidney.

The risks are exaggerated. There is an exaggerated paternalistic approach to protect everyone.

So to avoid exploitation, it should be done by the government, insurance society, at a fixed price, to minimize unwanted societal consequences.

Another interesting point- everyone involved in organ donation is being compensated:

a) The Doctor gets money
b) The Nurse gets money
c) The Recipient gets the kidney

And yet the nicest person, the Donor, receives nothing!
Why does the donor not receive any money?

There’s no altruism in capitalistic society. In the old days, kibbutz, etc, then everyone would work altruistically. But today nobody is altruistic. R’ Shlomo Zalman zt’ll said compensation is okay from a halakhic point of view. However the basic idea is that mitzvoth should be done for free- Moshe Rabbeinu was not compensated, one might claim, so too us! There’s a verse that states Ma ani b’chinam, af atem b’chinam!

But show me one Rabbi who isn’t compensated and does this for free! Show me one Rosh Yeshiva who is not compensated. Show me Jews who are giving away lulavs and esrog for free!

So the idea is that to maintain the Halakhos one has to deviate slightly from the ideal in Halakha. If we required everything to be done for free, then nothing would ever be done. The ideology is to do it for nothing, but the practicality is to do it for something. If a meshulach goes to get money for a Yeshiva, he gets 30-40% of it. This is how the world is made up today. And therefore, said R’ Shalom Zalman, there’s no difference between TAlmid Torah being compensated and organs being compensated. No poskim as far as I (R’ Steinberg) know disagree with this approach.

So let me tell you what is happening in Israel right now. Altruistic only- there’s a committee in Israel that checks every donor to make sure it’s altruistic. I happen to be the National Chairman- but I am almost sure everyone gets money under the table. Because how can I do it? The Shin-Bet didn’t come to me to volunteer; the Mossad was unavailable. So I ask him “Were you paid for it?” “No,” answers the person, “of course not.” And then what else can I do?

With regards to exploitation, there are sometimes stories with that. For example, an Arab woman is regarded as much less than a man. So this Arab woman who is divorced and has two little children comes and says she wants to be a donor to this completely unrelated person, and offers as reasons the fact that she loves him, he helped her…so we dug around a bit and we saw that she was forced to do this by her brothers because they received money from the man (the theoretical recipient) for this. So we told her that she should continue to insist she wants to donate and we will be the bad guys and say no, and by law we don’t have to explain why. I saw the smile on her face when we said this. And later I received a very secret letter from her saying thank you.

Another example is this new Russian immigrant to Israel who knows no one. She was hijacking (correction from everyone- hitchhiking) yes, hitchhiking, and this man picks her up. While he’s driving her he tells her he hates his wife, he loves her, and he’ll marry her and they’ll start a life together if she gives him her kidney. And she said yes. So of course we investigate that and the man, and finally the man breaks and says that he loves his wife but he wants the kidney!

By the way, even within a family, where a family member is giving another family member a kidney it is not so simple- there is societal pressure, where the child or brother probably doesn’t really want to do it but feels forced into it.

At the moment, the law that is being proposed in Israel is like this- compensation is forbidden but you can compensate for expenses. Now expenses don’t have to be real expenses- they’re evaluated expenses. Still, this is too low a price, so people won’t come and want to donate. To do it halfway is what they’re suggesting. The price is not high enough/ compensation is not good enough. So we’re trying to work out forms of compensation which will be a fixed price/ education/ insurance. But fixed price idea won’t go to a specific person but rather first-come, first-served.

I think the world is understanding this and is doing much worse things now. No country yet that I know of has punished people for going to China, etc, because there’s no other solution. So we need to find solutions. It’s not enough to say something in principle but then not do anything when people go through these wrong immoral things. I find it hypocritical.

Another story about this girl who works delivering pizzas. She earns 5000 shekels a month, which is barely enough to live on. So she decided she wanted to donate her kidney, to do a chesed. And I asked her- why not go to Magen David Adom, do something else, and she said she can’t afford to become involved in an ongoing chesed. She wants to do something once, one good deed so she feels about herself that she is a good person. But she wants someone to give her the 5000 shekels she would have made were she not recuperating from the surgery. So the government said no because this would be compensation. So we had to pay out of pocket for this…

(In answer to someone going on about education being the means to persuade people to give kidneys) Well, there is a psychological burden to undergo surgery, to lose part of the body, and I doubt education will solve that problem.

(The HODS (Halakhic Organ Donor Society) head now spoke up and said thank you, suggests that money might minimize altruistic pools- R’ Steinberg said he didn’t think that would/ should be the case)

Brain Death in Jewish Law

Edward Burns to introduce Dr. Fred Rosner

…spoke to YU students in pre-med programs and some said they’d be applying to Harvard and Yale- I would suggest they don’t settle and trade down (laughter from everyone because he’s saying Einstein is better than Harvard) (did you catch the reference about Stern students having other incentives? i.e. free tuition. ;))

All of our discussions here have been on the cutting edge- in 1959 the first Jewish text on bioethics was published by Dr. Jakobovits. Not the same as today, though…different issues discussed…

One of the most distinguished alumni from Albert Einstein is…Dr. Fred Rosner.

Dr. Fred Rosner

…very lavish introduction. Sorry my parents couldn’t hear that- my father would have been proud, and my mother would have believed it all.

Definitions of death became inadequate when heart transplants started…”irreversible cessation of all brain stem function” is the terminology used. For students of the Daf Yomi, just a few days ago we finished Yuma, daf P”G (pay-gimmel) which is the key source for all the controversy is around a key Rashi there.

There’s a story about a building that collapsed where you don’t know if the person buried underneath it is dead or alive- so you bring shovels and pickaxes to get him. If he’s alive, you take him out. If he’s dead, you have to leave him for later (because you’re being m’challel Shabbos for him.) So how far do you dig to figure out if he’s alive? Up to the nose= respiration. Considered that the heart controlled respiration.

V’yeish omrim- another opinion says up to the heart. The Yerushalmi says up to his bellybutton/ navel (if you found him feet-first.) Bavli says up to the nose OR including the heart. Now, the Rashi there says “if you found him and he appears like a stone- an inanimate stone” then he’s dead.

Now there are lots of other sources for brain death, but this is the main one. What does it mean- none of his limbs are moving- now, Rabbi Tendler is many things but also the author of the “physiological decapitation” idea. When Marie Antoinette was beheaded she was dead- limbs jumping around, but she was dead. So if there’s no circulation to the blood (and you can do this with radiation and Geiger counter, CLICK CLICK CLICK over the head) then person is brain-dead. This concept of “physiological decapitation.” It’s all based namely on this Rashi.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was brain-dead for six weeks and they cleared out a whole floor and made an ICU just for him. Now, who is going to pay for the care of a brain-dead patient? Insurance won’t pay for it, so that’s an issue. Another question you might ask is if the Rebbe is occupying an ICU bed, is that depriving another patient of a bed? Is that medically/ ethically wrong?

Let me now introduce my teacher, mentor, colleague, friend, posek, R’ Moshe Tendler who is known worldwide for his psak, is a pulpit Rabbi, a Rosh Yeshiva at YU, Chairman of the Bio department at YU, and who discovered the chemical compound Refual which was quite big at the time…a multifaceted individual.

Rav Moshe Tendler: Brain Death in Jewish Law

(There’s a slideshow up. He looks at the top of the slideshow, where the YU logo is tilted to the right on the scan.)

If you notice, up here, the logo is tilted to the right. That’s the way Yeshiva’s going. [HUGE LAUGH.]

To tilt to the right means you’re prepared to accept stringencies in Halakha. There’s a copy of the Shla Ha’Kadosh…the Shla says when someone has a shailaand he sees it in two ways, the lenient and the stringent approach- there’s a pasuk

“Yegia kapecha ki tochal, ashrecha v’tov lach”

You work hard, then you’ll be rewarded. When you work at a shailah and you are convinced it’s kosher, then you eat it yourself. A cop-out, this unsure, let’s be “machmir” idea. I have a cap saying, “I have a chumrah that you’ve never heard of.”

I’m sorry that R’ Schachter is not here. As you might know I had the zechus to have him as a talmid…and my joy to see him as the major pillar supporting Torah education. I believe that on this topic, which is the interface of Halakha and the cutting edge of medicine- not everyone should be involved in this. I think you have to answer how many brain-dead people you’ve seen. How many mothers asking why is my child dead today, when it seems no different from yesterday?

“When can you take a man OFF the ventilator?” R’ Moshe Feinstein took two years on this. The idea is that if he’s dead we have a mitzvah to bury him/ a kohen shouldn’t enter the room/ his wife is an almanah, a widow.

“I do not know how to answer that question, nor can I answer…”

For a dead donor, not a live donor, it is a chiyuv not a mitzvah to give organs!

THE ETHICAL BASIS OF MEDICAL CARE- Biblical Sources

1. A negation of faith healing (Exodus 21: 19) The doctor has the obligation to heal people, but people need to know they can’t be healed alone. So people say God will heal me, well, they can’t go to the “real doctor” (God) unless they go to the “fake” doctor first!
2. A personal obligation (Deuteronomy 22:2) There is an obligation on the community to give money so that others can be made well
3. A modicum of person risk: healthcare for all (Leviticus 19:16)

Here I present to you an intriguing personality insight of R’ Feinstein. ______ posed a question about organ donation, kidney donation from a dead patient and gave many reasons as to why he feels it is forbidden. Some have intimated that I don’t understand R’ Feinstein and I feel offended/ insulted by that. R’ Feinstein said no such thing. The other person stated that the family feels great pain by the mutilation of the body- the psychological suffering, well THEN you are exempt from giving the organs, but (and this is classic R’ Feinstein) R’ Moshe concludes the letter by saying “don’t you realize that you are saving a human life and should not be suffering!” A chiyuv…

Now, some take issue with the description of the person breathing/ not breathing. If brain-death is defined as not breathing, then if a person is injured, or has asthma, or for some reason can’t breathe, he’s immediately dead?

No. So let us begin. This is the universal definition of death- accepted by everyone: “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

Now, the question is, why the entire brain? Why not just the cerebrum? The answer is that if it were only part of the brain, we’d lose half the student body here at Yeshiva. (laughter)

The only definition of death is the death of the brain stem.

We think that when the heart stops you are dead, but really it is when the brain stops so that you cannot be resuscitated anymore.

It bothers me terribly when people speak halakhically about brain death and don’t know how it’s diagnosed.

Harrison’s “Principles of Internal Medicine,” pages 130-131, the heaviest book in any man’s library- line there says there is a test performed to see whether one is truly dead that is a “simple test which allows no chance of diagnostic error.” To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a case of brain-death accepted by a court and following all correct protocol where the person has recovered.

This is the protocol (on the slideshow there’s a sheet with responses, tests, etc.) When someone shows no responses, there’s certain texts- I took my father-in-law with me to visit brain-dead patients, and the test that impressed him the most was the gag-reflex, because anyone who is living would not calmly have something stuck down his throat and not gag- this shows that he really has something dangerously wrong with him- and is not breathing.

Through the IV you inject a radioactive substance (he showed us normal pictures of the brain, and then a brain-dead picture which is pretty much like a hole in the brain= no activity at all going on there) You repeat tests 12 hours later- see that the brain has been deprived of oxygen for 24 hours, and the brain dies in 4 minutes. Apnea testing is really the most conclusive test, however- you give the patient 100% oxygen for 10-20 minutes, remove pumping actions and leave tube in- see no autonomic breathing, and this is as the Gemara teaches us (he’s referencing the rubble story where you check to see if the man is breathing.)

Autopsy on a patient who is brain-dead for 4 day, and we see the brain has softened/ liquefied (he might have said something about finding pieces of the brain in the spinal column? That might be completely crazy. He said something with brain and spinal, though….) We are talking about physiological decapitation and morphological decapitation.

Death occurs in 3 stages:
1. Organismal death
2. Organ death
3. Cellular death

When someone dies, the organism no longer exists but you can still take the organs, transplant them, then the organs die but the cells are still alive…

Here’s a case of a brain-dead woman who was pregnant, and they wanted to keep the organs alive and the fetus as well. Now R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was very disturbed by this because it says in the Gemara that the fetus dies first if the mother dies, because it is smaller and weaker.

To resolve this issue, in Israel they got a pregnant sheep and decapitated the sheep. Had head on one side and the sheep on the other side, waited 45 minutes, etc, and then by Caesarian section they delivered a healthy baby lamb which I believe is still alive to this day. No one would doubt that the sheep was dead- its head was cut off- but organs still working, heart beating for a little while, and baby survived.

The Chevra Kadisha sometimes reports that an hour after a person is declared dead a dead person sits up. Why? Because you move the head, stimulate the spinal cord, and it sits up- it’s a major cause of heart attacks. (laughter)

The decapitated sheep experiment shows even when something is dead- there is no one who will say a sheep with its head cut off is alive- the organs still move, the fetus is still alive. However the Gemara spoke of a woman dying in those times, not of a woman on the ventilator! Hence the seeming discrepancy.

In Oholoth 1: Mishna Vav (6) we see this described, the limbs are still moving but one is dead.

You’ll find everything in the Torah is a commonly described idea- well, you won’t find my microbiology course in the Torah- what this means is that AFTER you become a lawyer or a doctor you go BACK to the Torah and you will learn how to act.

There is a famous Gemara that is often quoted about the rubble, being mechallel shabbos, and looking to see if the man is breathing. But you have to look at the wording here! First, the man is “domeh k’mais”- he looks like a dead person! He LOOKS DEAD TO THE LAYMAN- and then you check to see whether he is still breathing. It’s exactly like the apnea test! So all these problems- if someone has an asthma attack- he doesn’t look like he’s dead, so it wouldn’t even apply.

There’s a Gemara in Chullin, unfortunately not cited by R’ Schachter, that says that Eli HaKohen fell off the chair when he heard the Pelishtim (Philistines) had captured the ark. Why did he die? Because he broke his neck. The moment he broke his neck he was dead.

Here’s the Shulchan Aruch- look at the subtitle! “Who is considered dead even though he is alive?” Incredible subtitle! So asks by Eli HaKohen- he doesn’t have physical signs of ____, even though his heart is beating, but he is dead.

Now, many people cite the Chacham Tzvi (heard wrong?) that the heart moving is what’s important. But you have to realize that he had a messed-up view of the circulatory system here (he explains how the Chacham Tzvi thought the body worked with contractions of heart, etc)- this is the teshuvah being cited to counter brain death!?

Here’s a teshuvah from my father-in-law saying that if there’s no autonomous breathing and one is only breathing on a ventilator- “domeh k’meis.” When he is motionless and cannot breathe without the ventilator, you should remove him.

Now here’s another famous quoted teshuva from R’Moshe (I think he said R’ Moshe) where he rejected cerebral death…but you have to read the shailah here! It says that cerebral death occurs while one is still breathing, so R’ Moshe rejected it because how could one be dead if one is still breathing? It had nothing to do with the issue of brain-death at all!

The Hamodiah last month, July 5, attacked Sha’arei Tzedek hospital for various reasons, something to do with an organ transplant that went wrong and then the team removed the organs…in the article they claimed that R’ Feinstein was against brain death. This is a lie! Where did that come from? And this is last month!

Question posed by Rabbi Bleich says if breathing is the key, then a person who has polio who is not “breathing” should be dead. But you see, he didn’t see the Rashi- “domeh k’mais,” first he has to look dead! A person with polio, even in an iron lung, does not look dead!

Another R’ Bleich text- they don’t know what brain death is. (He’s reading and I can’t catch this, something with a cow being shechted, and if the brain is liquefied it’s treif vs. nevailah, but how could you go and schecht a cow that had come off a ventilator?)

Here’s where a number of signators including R’ Schachter and R’ Willig are against the stance taken by the RCA to support brain death- saying a careful reading of the materials/ never saw the proof (I think he’s suggesting that both of them didn’t see some important part of the argument and confirm this…)

(more sources) Every single death is covered by teshuvas- not just deaths by ambulances…

Here’s a dramatic exit- many people go for Pesach to the _____ Hotel, which Barry Haftoff owns. He’s a tough fellow and doesn’t stand for nonsense. So he went to R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and said, “I’m a dentist but I’m involved in medical decisions- is R’ Tendler’s brain stem death correct and can we take out organs based on that?”

“In American you can,” says R’ Auerbach. I have this note printed here… (I don’t know if the note is in reference to this or something else of R’ Auerbach’s)

Why in America? I’m sorry to say because he had little confidence in Israeli doctors- slippery slope theory or ideas.

QUESTION FROM YU GUY: We’ve heard R’ Schachter, we’ve heard you- how do we decided?

R’ Tendler: “Very simple. Wait a week till R’ Schachter hears what I said, and he’ll change his mind!”

(laughter)

R’ Brander gets up and moderates again, after he finishes R’ Tendler gets up again and says “It’s Ellul, I want to do Teshuva for not noticing the praiseworthy, etc, etc, etc, Norman Lamm is here.” He smiles and sits down.


Keynote Address

R’ Avraham Steinberg: Keynote Address

I want to start with a big chiddush to you- that the issues we are talking about are in dispute. (laughter)

Disagree on everything but we learn to live together- two chachamim are fighting a milchama for Hashem, the end is love when they clarify their points to each other, even if they still disagree.

Keynote address- I don’t know what this word, “keynote” means; do you know? (laughter) I assume I got the key and have to close the issue/ conference, but I suggest instead that I turn the key and open the issue/ So misunderstandings can be clarified here.

For the past 25 years I have been actively involved in organ-donation in Israel. And have had personal experiences with the Gedolim on this issue.

In Israel, around 25 years ago, heart transplant became a reality and the Ministry turned to the Chief Rabbinate and asked whether this was permissible. It’s unusual because Israel is a secular state, the fifty-first state of the United States, and usually does not ask the Chief Rabbinate’s opinion.

We were asked by the Chief Rabbinate to assist them on the issue. Before decision of the Chief Rabbinate was reached, there were lecture from experts before they discuss the halakhic matter, because good ethics start with good facts. Really went into the understanding of the process- accepted the concept of brain death although not as brain death per se but rather that the function of breathing is controlled by the brain stem.

In the old days, when they didn’t know this…done through the heart, so obviously no further breathing- reaching same conclusion. Change in process due to new technologies not a change in halakha. Since most victims of brain death situations are car-accidents, the issue of treifah became a sniff to the whole matter- position of Chief Rabbinate of Israel, I told the Chief Rabbis that it would be preferable if Gedolim outside of the Chief Rabbinate would understand and also agree.

1. R’ Elyashiv
2. R’ Yitzchak Weiss (did he call him Minchas Yitzchak (author of the teshuvos of that name, and Av Beis Din of Yerushalayim.? )
3. R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach

Heart-transplant is a double retzicha according to Minchas Yitzchak. I went to explain 2 facts.

A) That the recipient’s side has changed, and that now the recipient does not die after 18 days, but instead survives, so it is definitely not the same idea of rechitza involved.
B) Donor side- one can define this man as dead (from car-crash, whatever it may be) so it is not a rechitza either.

Now, R’ Weiss was hesitant to establish his opinion; he wanted a Beis Din where all three of them- R’ Elyashiv, R’ Auerbach and he could sit together.

R’ Elyashiv said he would meet but R’ Auerbach said that he refused to meet because this is something totally new to him/ he never paskened something without completely understanding it, this is too much, completely new thing he would have to learn. Because R’ Auerbach wouldn’t come, R’ Elyashiv wouldn’t come, and so nothing happened.

The Chief Rabbinate for “irreversible cessation” idead added to the brain death definition that-

1) Physicians should com from a specific list that the Rabbinate would approve (when it came to organ transplants/ pronouncing brain death.
2) Every case of brain death has to be diagnosed by clinical criteria AND an additional objective test
3) Review committee by physicians and Rabbis.

Well, the doctors came back and said, thank you very much for enabling us to do transplants, but we cannot accept these conditions. So these conditions have not been accepted by the Ministry of Health.

Depends on family in Israel- if the family is content with the physician’s diagnosis, that’s fine, otherwise the family has the right to ask if this brain-death is in accordance with the rules laid down by the chief rabbinate as well. So the hospitals agree to it but it is not the standard. We’ve been trying to amend the Ministry’s guidelines- only a few days ago we decided to rewrite the protocol and see if the Ministry accepts it - 20 years to make such a small change.

Now here’s a story:

R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach refused even to enter into the shailah when I spoke to him at first, but then he and R’ Elyashiv got together and said that taking out a heart from a brain-dead patient is an issur gemurah or retzicha.

So I went to R’ Shlomo Zalman and said, “What is this/ When I went to talk to you, you said you couldn’t, and now you have a verdict, and how is this retzicha?”

So R’ Shlomo Zalman answers that there’s a story from the Gemara about a pregnant woman dying and her fetus must die first! So he heard about a brain-dead woman giving birth to a baby; this means that she cannot really be dead, she must be alive! (This isdea is in Erichin daf zayin)

So I looked up the idea. But the Gemara goes on to say in the very next example that if the woman is dying/ killed, one can be mechallel Shabbos to bring a knife to open her up to sae the baby- so if it was ALWAYS the case that the baby dies before the mother does, then how could we do this? So Rashi says that sometimes the baby/ fetus is still alive!

So I went back to R’ Zalman and he told me I don’t know how to learn- saying that in that situation, where you can bring the knife to deliver the baby, she is already on the birthing stool – at the delivery stage, and so it is different!

So I looked at the Shulchan Aruch and in Siman Shin-Lamed I see that the Mogen Avraham says that even BEFORE the delivery time/ period one can bring the knife to save her! So I went back to R’ Zalman, and he said before I finished that he paskens against the Magen Avraham. And it’s true, there’s a machlokes there, and the Magen Avraham is a viable opinion!

So then R’ Shlomo Auerbach suggests the sheep experiment-if you’re saying that someone who is dead, really dead, can still deliver a healthy child, prove it! Take a pregnant sheep, decapitate her, and then deliver the lamb- that will prove the point.

BUT- said R’ Auerbach- the Gemara makes a distinction between “misah” or death and “neherigah” or killing. If the sheep is killed/ has its head cut off, that won’t help to prove the point here! But misah is a gradual death. So R’ Auerbach said that with harigah, since it’s instantaneous, sometimes the fetus doesn’t die right away! So what we should do is decapitate the sheep, then WAIT and then see if the fetus can still be delivered alive.

So it was a very difficult operation- we had an intensive care in the veterinary school, decapitate the sheep in a gradual fashion, and then we waited more than half an hour- the lamb came out alive! And of course we videotaped the whole thing.

So I come back to R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and I say I proved it, give him the video- he says “What do I need the video for? I believe you!”

“So what’s the halakha?” I say.

“NOW,” he says, “I have to think about it.”

“What do you mean?” I say, after going to all this trouble to prove it he has to THINK about it?

And he answered, “To understand a daf of Gemara, you’v done, but the halakha…”

So after much thinking and writing, R’ Zalman went very, very carefully over a document and this is what he decided-

“The heart by principle has nothing to do with death, breathing or non-breathing isinsufficient, the whole brain has to be destroyed.” This is his definition of death. BUT there is a Catch-22 to the situation, because he defines a brain-dead person as a “safek mais, safek goses,” which means he is “maybe dead, maybe near death.” Now, you can’t move a goses! But if you can’t move a goses/ can’t move a patient, then you can’t do the tests to prove that he is dead!

So I thought maybe we won’t move him, we’ll just inject him but R’ Auerbach holds that no moving, no injections, can’t even close lids of eyes…not rules that necessarily have to do with hastening death, simply rules.

So we came up with a test, the Doppler test- this he was willing to do. At that time, though, the reliability of the test was still below 90%. So he said no. But TODAY now that it has been improved, and it is much higher reliability, I believe that he would agree to the test and to its results.

Now, what is R’ Elyashiv’s position? This, too, I can illustrate with a story-

I got a call from R’ Elyashiv saying there was someone considered brain-dead, which he doesn’t accept, he wants me to go there and see if this person is transportable.

Now, I was still thinking on R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach logic, and I said, “What do you mean! She’s a goses; I can’t move her!”

And he said, “What are you talking about, to me, she’s alive! Of course you can move her!”

So R’ Elyashiv does not accept brain death at all it seems.

To conclude, everyone should have his own posek who is well-versed in this issue, understands it, more than legitimate to follow this.

R’ Zalman says about becoming a recipient in Israel- that you cannot be a recipient because he’s etting from a “safek-goses” according to his laws, but in the USA it’s okay. The definition of life/ death in Israel and USA is not the same. See, it’s one of the Noachide laws not to kill, but if a non-Jew declares a different definition of death and works by those rules, that is fine. He is not allowed to kill but he IS allowed to come up with his own legal definition of death, so in the USA it doesn’t matter.

--

Quick closing remarks which I didn’t catch, announcement of Mincha- and it was over.

--

The whole thing was completely amazing and brilliant.

The New Blog of the Bat-Taz

Hello everybody.

I want to direct you to my friend's blog. He lives in a relatively insular community and is bothered by issues or situation where people judge others based on their clothing or other exterior factors as opposed to their internal moral compasses. His views should be interesting due to the fact that a) he lives within this community and b) he is, obviously, male. Hence different from me! :)

He's a very nice person, has been kind to me, and has even made me laugh. He's not frightening or scary and deals very well with all kinds of intriguing situations. He writes for The Commentator; you might even have seen his work.

As he's new at this, please give him some time to acclimate to the blogging community. I'm sure with a warm welcome from all of you, he shall.

Oh- and anyone who read DovBear's Monsey post ought to read his follow-up!

Here it is, folks: Deep Thoughts of the Bat-Taz

Please stop by. Thanks so much.

Moses and Jeremiah: They whom I love

There is a certain kind of fairytale that enthralls me and holds me spellbound, a certain kind of idea that inflames me with desire. This is the idea of the individualist alone, a man who is both doomed but blessed, condemned by his mission but motivated by a greater power or desire. This is the kind of character I envy and admire, the kind of character I wish to be. My favorite books are the ones that describe him, all my ideas are bound up in him. This is the hero character, for he is honored by his mission but damned by all others, and it is he alone to whom I owe allegiance.

This is the character I see described in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest; this is McMurphy, this is Frodo. In those scenarios McMurphy and Frodo volunteer for their missions, which makes them all the more tragic. "I will take the ring," says Frodo, after a period of silence that is profound and vastly disturbing. No one compels him to take it, no one forces him to make that choice. It is his willing decision, his statement- he accepts it upon himself and it becomes his task.

It is the same with McMurphy, initially antagonizing Big Nurse out of blindness and fear but eventually doing it for the people, because of them and for them, so that they might be free. His actions can lead to only one end; it is obvious that he cannot survive them. He knows this and he bursts forth in the end with a high, keening cry, perhaps similar to Samson's cry as the buildings fall upon him. It is McMurphy's choice to do as he does, as much as Chief Bromden says otherwise, he is mistaken. Directions beamed at him by light-mages or not, McMurphy is the one who attacks Big Nurse, who shatters the combine, who breaks her hold upon all the others.

These are the men who chose their fate, even as Howard Roark chooses his, and eventually Dominique chooses hers. But what of the men who do not choose this fate, to whom this is not a doom that is accepted voluntarily but rather thrust upon them, the men who must suffer and live while thus apart, separated from all others because of their purpose, because of their mission, lonely men chafing because of their existence while simulatenously sorrowing for all those to whom they are sent?

Such men are Moses and Jeremiah, and it is they, therefore, who capture my imagination, absorb my interest, provoke my thoughts. Moses and Jeremiah are the most central characters of their generations, pivotal in their strength but also in their missions. They are alone, men who are misunderstood and hated, tormented, forced by God in what seems a cruel duty to serve the people while the people repel them, push them away, and weary them. These men did not choose to accept their burdens; instead they were thrust upon them by God. We see by Moses that he delays, claiming that he is unworthy, that the Children of Israel will not heed him, and finally:

י וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, בִּי אֲדֹנָי, לֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי גַּם מִתְּמוֹל גַּם מִשִּׁלְשֹׁם, גַּם מֵאָז דַּבֶּרְךָ אֶל-עַבְדֶּךָ: כִּי כְבַד-פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן, אָנֹכִי.
10 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'Oh Lord, I am not a man of words, neither heretofore, nor since Thou hast spoken unto Thy servant; for I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.'

יא וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלָיו, מִי שָׂם פֶּה לָאָדָם, אוֹ מִי-יָשׂוּם אִלֵּם, אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ פִקֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר--הֲלֹא אָנֹכִי, יְהוָה.
11 And the LORD said unto him: 'Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh a man dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? is it not I the LORD?

יב וְעַתָּה, לֵךְ; וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִם-פִּיךָ, וְהוֹרֵיתִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר.
12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt speak.'
יג וַיֹּאמֶר, בִּי אֲדֹנָי; שְׁלַח-נָא, בְּיַד-תִּשְׁלָח.

13 And he said: 'Oh Lord, send, I pray Thee, by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send.'
יד וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה בְּמֹשֶׁה, וַיֹּאמֶר הֲלֹא אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ הַלֵּוִי--יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-דַבֵּר יְדַבֵּר הוּא; וְגַם הִנֵּה-הוּא יֹצֵא לִקְרָאתֶךָ, וְרָאֲךָ וְשָׂמַח בְּלִבּוֹ.

14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and He said: 'Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.

Exodus 4:10

We see, of course, the same interaction between God and Jeremiah:

ד וַיְהִי דְבַר-יְהוָה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.
4 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:

ה בְּטֶרֶם אצורך (אֶצָּרְךָ) בַבֶּטֶן יְדַעְתִּיךָ, וּבְטֶרֶם תֵּצֵא מֵרֶחֶם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּיךָ: נָבִיא לַגּוֹיִם, נְתַתִּיךָ.
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.

ו וָאֹמַר, אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, הִנֵּה לֹא-יָדַעְתִּי, דַּבֵּר: כִּי-נַעַר, אָנֹכִי. {ס}
6 Then said I: 'Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak; for I am a child.' {S}

ז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי, אַל-תֹּאמַר נַעַר אָנֹכִי: כִּי עַל-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֶשְׁלָחֲךָ, תֵּלֵךְ, וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוְּךָ, תְּדַבֵּר.
7 But the LORD said unto me: say not: I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak.

Jeremiah 1:4

The duty of prophecy, the burden of carrying the nation, of dealing with their complaints, their cruelties, their angry words...this was thrust upon both Moses and Jeremiah, though they tried to protest. It is yet another example (or perhaps, in Moses' case, the precedent) that one cannot run from God. Jonah physically ran whereas both Moses and Jeremiah verbally sparred, but in the end the will of God cannot be overriden, and in the end both of them are doomed.

Jeremiah and Moses are both persecuted at every corner. Moses must abandon the only family he has ever known, at least according to the literal Torah, that of Bityah and Pharoah, because of his desire to be one with his people. He must lose their love and pit himself against them. He must suffer because of Dasan and Aviram, traitors in Egypt and later in the desert. He must bear the complaints of an unwieldy nation, so fickle that, even after seeing the most wonderous miracles of God they state, "Why did you bring us here to die? Were there not graves in Egypt?" He must suffer on account of the rebelliousness of the nation, their Golden Calf, even what seems to be his brother's betrayal at that moment in time. He is exhausted because he must judge this people, and even with Yisro's plan he is still overburdened. He must travel in frustrating circles, moving forward only to be told to turn round once more. He must suffer the political rebellion of another leader, Korach, who desires to set himself up as head of the people. He prays over and over again for a people who do not seem to deserve his prayers, for they are only a source of trouble to him. He is not to enter the land on their account.

What was Moses if not the lone sufferer? He could not remain close even to his wife, for he was told to remain separate from her so that if God would call, he could respond. He did not merit to see the sons of his body become leaders or men of great stature. Moses was a stricken man, a man who was hurt by God, forced by Him to assume a command that could only frustrate and exasperate him.

And we see it. We hear Moses' cries:

יא וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ, וְלָמָּה לֹא-מָצָתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ: לָשׂוּם, אֶת-מַשָּׂא כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--עָלָי.
11 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'Wherefore hast Thou dealt ill with Thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in Thy sight, that Thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?

יב הֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי, אֵת כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--אִם-אָנֹכִי, יְלִדְתִּיהוּ: כִּי-תֹאמַר אֵלַי שָׂאֵהוּ בְחֵיקֶךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת-הַיֹּנֵק, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָיו.
12 Have I conceived all this people? have I brought them forth, that Thou shouldest say unto me: Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their fathers?

יג מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר, לָתֵת לְכָל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי-יִבְכּוּ עָלַי לֵאמֹר, תְּנָה-לָּנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכֵלָה.
13 Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they trouble me with their weeping, saying: Give us flesh, that we may eat.

יד לֹא-אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי כָבֵד, מִמֶּנִּי.
14 I am not able to bear all this people myself alone, because it is too heavy for me.

טו וְאִם-כָּכָה אַתְּ-עֹשֶׂה לִּי, הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וְאַל-אֶרְאֶה, בְּרָעָתִי. {פ}
15 And if Thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in Thy sight; and let me not look upon my wretchedness.' {P}

Numbers 11:11

In light of all this, in light of the demands, the complaints, the inconsiderate remarks- there is a Rashi on the words "Ma'asechim" literally "your deeds" in Devarim 1:12 that states that the people would talk- if Moshe was late, they would claim it was because of x, but if he was early they would claim it was because of y- they could never be satisfied- in light of all this, it seems utterly impossible to fault Moshe for exclaiming

"
י וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶת-הַקָּהָל--אֶל-פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא הַמֹּרִים--הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה, נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם.

10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: 'Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?'"

According to some, the fact that Moses used the word "rebels" in this sentence is considered his tone, either because the wording was not appropriate or because the tone was inappropriate.

In Devarim 1: 37, Moses explains that:

"
לז גַּם-בִּי הִתְאַנַּף יְהוָה, בִּגְלַלְכֶם לֵאמֹר: גַּם-אַתָּה, לֹא-תָבֹא שָׁם.
37 Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying: Thou also shalt not go in thither;"

"For your sakes," Moses states there. It is because of the people that Moses shall not enter the land.

Now, I read a very interesting account of Moses' sin (or lack of it) here. The end result of this analysis seems to suggest that Moses as an individual did not sin at all, but that he failed as a leader, failed to inspire the people. Therefore, says this interpretation, making much of the word "lead," Moshe cannot lead the people into the land but he still requests to see the land and does, atop the mountain.

The problem with this approach, I think, is that if it is true it seems completely unfair. God appoints Moses against Moses' express wishes, God is the one who claims that Moses is capable of being a leader and must be a leader. If Moses' leadership capabilities are in question, doesn't that reflect on God? More importantly, what does this approach make of the word "tavo" in the earlier statement, that Moses cannot "come" to the land because of the Jews? There the idea isn't the word "lead" at all!

For the moment, then, let us consider that Moses is punished for his use of the word "mordim," rebels. In light of everything that has been done to him, it seems completely justified and more. Moses has suffered. His entire mission, his entire career as a leader has been stressful, problematic. There have been attempted usurpers, battles, the ever-present guerilla attacker Amalek, and what is more, the divisiveness inside the camp of Dasan, Aviram and Korach.

Now let us considere Jeremiah, also appointed leader by God, also dealing with a task that has been thrust upon him, that is not of his choosing.

Jeremiah laments his status and his life consistently throughout the Book of Jeremiah. He begs God for vengeance, where in an act of extreme self-control he refrains from taking it himself. In all his prayers he turns to God and reminds him, even, dare I say it, accuses Him- showing God all that it has cost him to be this leader:

"
טו אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ יְהוָה, זָכְרֵנִי וּפָקְדֵנִי וְהִנָּקֶם לִי מֵרֹדְפַי--אַל-לְאֶרֶךְ אַפְּךָ, תִּקָּחֵנִי; דַּע, שְׂאֵתִי עָלֶיךָ חֶרְפָּה.
15 Thou, O LORD, knowest; remember me, and think of me, and avenge me of my persecutors; take me not away because of Thy long-suffering; know that for Thy sake I have suffered taunts.

טז נִמְצְאוּ דְבָרֶיךָ, וָאֹכְלֵם, וַיְהִי דבריך (דְבָרְךָ) לִי, לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחַת לְבָבִי: כִּי-נִקְרָא שִׁמְךָ עָלַי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאוֹת. {ס}
16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy words were unto me a joy and the rejoicing of my heart; because Thy name was called on me, O LORD God of hosts. {S}

יז לֹא-יָשַׁבְתִּי בְסוֹד-מְשַׂחֲקִים, וָאֶעְלֹז: מִפְּנֵי יָדְךָ בָּדָד יָשַׁבְתִּי, כִּי-זַעַם מִלֵּאתָנִי.
17 I sat not in the assembly of them that make merry, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of Thy hand; for Thou hast filled me with indignation.

יח לָמָּה הָיָה כְאֵבִי נֶצַח, וּמַכָּתִי אֲנוּשָׁה; מֵאֲנָה, הֵרָפֵא--הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לִי כְּמוֹ אַכְזָב, מַיִם לֹא נֶאֱמָנוּ. {ס}
18 Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, so that it refuseth to be healed? Wilt Thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful brook, as waters that fail? {S}"

Jeremiah 15: 15

Jeremiah has suffered, he has been persecuted, for God's sake. He has been an outcast, both because of his words but also because of his incomprehension of how people can want to destroy themselves. God's anger has become his anger. But in the face of that he desires revenge, he wants those who tried to kill him to suffer as well. Even then, he knows, he will not be released from his task. His pain is perpetual, his wound incurable, there is now release for him...there is nothing for him, except pain and in the future, death.

But it is more than just physical suffering, more than the mocking people and their taunts. Jeremiah suffers over what he has become, over who he is. He states:

"
י אוֹי-לִי אִמִּי--כִּי יְלִדְתִּנִי אִישׁ רִיב וְאִישׁ מָדוֹן, לְכָל-הָאָרֶץ; לֹא-נָשִׁיתִי וְלֹא-נָשׁוּ-בִי, כֻּלֹּה מְקַלְלַוְנִי. {ס}
10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have not lent, neither have men lent to me; yet every one of them doth curse me. {S} "

Jeremiah mourns his creation, this creation of the "man of strife and a man of contention." He does not want to be this man, this lonely creature set apart against his people, this man who must condemn them, accuse them, this man who brings strife and misfortune in his wake. He does not want to see them suffer. He is a man of compassion but simultaneously of righteousness and indignation; he upholds God's law but weeps at the price he must pay for it.

How can we remain silent when we see how he speaks?

ז פִּתִּיתַנִי יְהוָה וָאֶפָּת, חֲזַקְתַּנִי וַתּוּכָל; הָיִיתִי לִשְׂחוֹק כָּל-הַיּוֹם, כֻּלֹּה לֹעֵג לִי.
7 O LORD, Thou hast enticed me, and I was enticed, Thou hast overcome me, and hast prevailed; I am become a laughing-stock all the day, every one mocketh me.

ח כִּי-מִדֵּי אֲדַבֵּר אֶזְעָק, חָמָס וָשֹׁד אֶקְרָא: כִּי-הָיָה דְבַר-יְהוָה לִי לְחֶרְפָּה וּלְקֶלֶס, כָּל-הַיּוֹם.
8 For as often as I speak, I cry out, I cry: 'Violence and spoil'; because the word of the LORD is made a reproach unto me, and a derision, all the day.

ט וְאָמַרְתִּי לֹא-אֶזְכְּרֶנּוּ, וְלֹא-אֲדַבֵּר עוֹד בִּשְׁמוֹ, וְהָיָה בְלִבִּי כְּאֵשׁ בֹּעֶרֶת, עָצֻר בְּעַצְמֹתָי; וְנִלְאֵיתִי כַּלְכֵל, וְלֹא אוּכָל.
9 And if I say: 'I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name', then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I weary myself to hold it in, but cannot.

י כִּי שָׁמַעְתִּי דִּבַּת רַבִּים, מָגוֹר מִסָּבִיב, הַגִּידוּ וְנַגִּידֶנּוּ, כֹּל אֱנוֹשׁ שְׁלֹמִי שֹׁמְרֵי צַלְעִי; אוּלַי יְפֻתֶּה וְנוּכְלָה לוֹ, וְנִקְחָה נִקְמָתֵנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ.
10 For I have heard the whispering of many, terror on every side: 'Denounce, and we will denounce him'; even of all my familiar friends, them that watch for my halting: 'Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him.'

יא וַיהוָה אוֹתִי כְּגִבּוֹר עָרִיץ, עַל-כֵּן רֹדְפַי יִכָּשְׁלוּ וְלֹא יֻכָלוּ; בֹּשׁוּ מְאֹד כִּי-לֹא הִשְׂכִּילוּ, כְּלִמַּת עוֹלָם לֹא תִשָּׁכֵחַ.
11 But the LORD is with me as a mighty warrior; therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail; they shall be greatly ashamed, because they have not prospered, even with an everlasting confusion which shall never be forgotten.

יב וַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת בֹּחֵן צַדִּיק, רֹאֶה כְלָיוֹת וָלֵב; אֶרְאֶה נִקְמָתְךָ מֵהֶם, כִּי אֵלֶיךָ גִּלִּיתִי אֶת-רִיבִי. {ס}
12 But, O LORD of hosts, that triest the righteous, that seest the reins and the heart, let me see Thy vengeance on them; for unto Thee have I revealed my cause. {S}

יג שִׁירוּ, לַיהוָה--הַלְלוּ, אֶת-יְהוָה: כִּי הִצִּיל אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ אֶבְיוֹן, מִיַּד מְרֵעִים. {ס}
13 Sing unto the LORD, praise ye the LORD; for He hath delivered the soul of the needy from the hand of evil-doers. {S}

יד אָרוּר הַיּוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יֻלַּדְתִּי בּוֹ: יוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יְלָדַתְנִי אִמִּי, אַל-יְהִי בָרוּךְ.
14 Cursed be the day wherein I was born; the day wherein my mother bore me, let it not be blessed.

טו אָרוּר הָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר בִּשַּׂר אֶת-אָבִי לֵאמֹר, יֻלַּד-לְךָ, בֵּן זָכָר--שַׂמֵּחַ, שִׂמְּחָהוּ.
15 Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying: 'A man-child is born unto thee'; making him very glad.

טז וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא, כֶּעָרִים אֲשֶׁר-הָפַךְ יְהוָה וְלֹא נִחָם; וְשָׁמַע זְעָקָה בַּבֹּקֶר, וּתְרוּעָה בְּעֵת צָהֳרָיִם.
16 And let that man be as the cities which the LORD overthrew, and repented not; and let him hear a cry in the morning, and an alarm at noontide;

יז אֲשֶׁר לֹא-מוֹתְתַנִי, מֵרָחֶם; וַתְּהִי-לִי אִמִּי קִבְרִי, וְרַחְמָה הֲרַת עוֹלָם.
17 Because He slew me not from the womb; and so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb always great.

יח לָמָּה זֶּה מֵרֶחֶם יָצָאתִי, לִרְאוֹת עָמָל וְיָגוֹן; וַיִּכְלוּ בְּבֹשֶׁת, יָמָי. {פ}
18 Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed in shame? {P}

Jeremiah 20

God has prevailed, Jeremiah says. God has chosen and Jeremiah cannot escape. Jeremiah is a laughing-stock, he is set apart from his people, hated, hurt, victim of all kinds of offenses, but he cannot choose to refrain from prophecy, he cannot set down his burden. Jeremiah bears it and must continue to bear it; his only refuge is God. The same God who appointed him this leader! This same God, who has chosen him to bear all this; this is the God to whom he pours out his anguish, his pain, the only one whom he can trust. This is God transcendent, God who is both Judge and Father, God whom Jeremiah loves and must, then, simultaneously try to disobey. Because, remarkably, against all odds, Jeremiah loves his people, too.

In Jeremiah 20: 9 we see what this is like, as Jeremiah demonstrates his exhaustion and weariness:

"And if I say: 'I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name', then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I weary myself to hold it in, but cannot. "

There is no choice in what Jeremiah does, in what Moses did. They are born to their fates, born to their duties, born to be the greatest leaders who lived and simultaneously to suffer the most. But what is chilling, what is fascinating, what is the greatest characterization of either of them is that despite all this, despite this cruelty and awful behavior, despite the torture, being thrown into pits and jail cells, despite being denied and hurt over and over again by their people, they continue-

because they love their people.

What is this love? How can we understand it? This love for people who do not deserve it, who are absolutely undeserving, people who have done all in their power to kill or hurt these two men. How many times do we see Moshe praying to God, praying for the forgiveness of the Jews? And how many times does Jeremiah implore the people to listen, does God tell Jeremiah that he should try to save them no longer? We see Moshe stand up to God, stand up to Him and tell him that his name should be erased from the Torah if the Jewish people die. We see the same in Jeremiah's laments, in Eicha; we see his mourning over the people and the city, the grandeur that is lost.

We see this...and we stand astonished.

For how can these men, these men who must be weary, exhausted, unhappy, leading solitary, lonely lives, detached from their families...how can they convey such a depth of feeling, so much emotion...and on behalf of whom? On behalf of the very people that disowns them, that is cruel to them! It is something that is incredible, something astounding, something strange and frightening...something terribly, terribly beautiful.

Jeremiah confides in God his deepest, darkest, most terrible moments whereas Moses speaks to him as a friend and almost-equal, his voice sharp and strong. But even he, Moses the advocate of the people has times where he must despair, where he must feel the awfulness of the task that has been set before him.

Admire them, o' Israel, and face them with a terrible awe, these men who tried to save you even though you did everything to push them away. Admire them and weep! Pity their pain, Israel, and your share in causing it. For they loved you though you did not deserve their love, and it was this love that made them continue despite their misfortune. God commanded, this is true, and it was forced upon them, but even then they could have, had they truly desired, chosen death, and they did not.

So tell me, how many of these men must we have? Were not Jeremiah and Moses enough? Must God appoint more, must there be more of us forced to serve, feeling a great love for the Jews, a simultaneous hatred of their wickedness, and feeling torn between the two? Wanting revenge upon those who wronged us but simultaenously, blindly hoping that we can fix it, forestall it, fix the problem, change those who judge us wrongly, who make us sit alone, who are cruel, cruel...and yet our people?

It is a terrible thing, a blessing and a curse, to feel such empathy and compassion for the people, to be chosen by God. When we are children we are taught of Moses the leader, Moses the savior. People dream of being Moses. Dream! And for what? To understand Moses, we must understand suffering, for Moses and Jeremiah are alike in that as in many other ways. This Moses, whom we now speak of happily at our Sabbath tables for our divrei Torah, this Moses whom we blithely talk about as merrily leading the Jews out of Egypt, this exciting, action-figure Moses...did not exist.

And to truly understand the one who did exist, the one whose joys and sorrows must necessarily have been bound up with the fate of the people, the one who could not ignore his people but must try to change them and persuade them to serve God as they ought; the kind of prophet who, like Jeremiah had a "fire burning in his bones- the word of God" and who could not hold it back even though he did not desire to accuse, the kind of man who grieved over his being the cause of strife, over what he had become- this man, this man, this man, I tell you, is our ideal. This man deserves our kindness, our respect, our thanks, our most devout thanks.

I cannot think about Moses and Jeremiah without awe, without feeling close to them. They have held my hands, as it were, when I have been alone, because they know what it is to be alone. Jeremiah confided in God, and from there I learned that it was proper to confide in God, that God could know my every thought, my every word, all that was written in my heart, be it good or bad. And from them I also learned that we cannot ignore what is happening, but it must press upon us, it must hurt us, it is the fire in our bones, and that our love for our people is what motivates us, even when they push us away, or mock us, or claim that we are the false prophets, the liars, the evildoers.

From Moses and Jeremiah I have learned about leadership, I have learned the toll it takes upon a person and the kind of man who can be a leader. From Moses and Jeremiah I have learned also about love and hatred, about all emotions, and most of all about God...who does not always make our mission voluntary, but may thrust it upon us so that we have no choice. And though we may rebel, God will prevail. Such, then, is our doom.

But such is also our greatest triumph.

on why I am now in posession of a broken umbrella

Well, I had heard things. Probably you have all heard things. We all hear things about Shabbat at Stern.

What do we hear? Well, about the stigma that is associated with it, how it is boring/ unhappy/ frightening, and so on and so forth. In other words, there are many variations on the theme that if you are an out-of-towner, you are doomed to failure and complete misery.

It is understandable, then, that I entered said Shabbos with a healthy bit of confused apprehension.

Now, here's the fun part-after the meal (which wasn't such a sketchy meal; it actually appeared edible and even appetizing) we all (this means the girls and also the guys from YU who come up to make a minyan) went back to the girl's dorms. The guys sleep at a hotel, but there's a lounge, Oneg Shabbos as it is called, games and conversation.

I wanted to play Apples to Apples. It's possibly my favorite game ever. One girl claimed she would play with me, but as she disappeared into oblivion, and I saw a few other people in possession of a box, I invited myself over and inquired as to whether I could join. These being nice people, I was indeed allowed to join, and even began a winning streak (until my magical mind connection with another girl in the group led me to pick her every single time I was the judge.)

In case you don't know how Apples to Apples works, it's a game where one person puts down a card upon which is written an adjective, and you (each member of the group) hold seven cards with nouns. These nouns can be anything and everything from "Adolf Hitler" to "Hangnails." You each submit a card with a noun on it facedown to the judge, who will then decide. Based on this person's sense of humor, you shall win or lose. Officially, the first person with seven (or twenty-one, or any number, as you like) cards, wins.

During this game we engaged in good-natured rivalry and amused conversation, after which I somehow ended up relating the extremely complicated and, for some reason amusing (maybe it only works if you're telling this over at one AM) anecdotes and stories that occurred within the four walls of my Jewish highschool (before I switched.) This was intercepted by statements from the other people about their own highschools, or yeshivot, or what it had been like in Israel, and so on and so forth...

Fast forward to Shabbos morning. I went to shul, while most other people appeared to have gone to the YU minyan in the cafeteria. As I came back early from shul, I decided to help the waitresses (and discovered the extremely unsanitary chopping-boards we have...they are only rinsed with water, no soap or anything else.) The amusing part was when these girls came up to me with expressions of awe (and dare I say fear?) in their eyes, inquiring as to "why" I was helping them. "I've never seen anyone do this," one said, "you're not even getting paid!"

I suppose one cannot put ice-buckets on tables unless one is paid to do it...

The meal was good fun, especially as I was able to continue my conversation with the three people who had so amused me the night before...

After the meal we returned to the lounge once again. Here I must describe the weather in New York. Some would call it miserable. Others might call it wet. I'll say it was raining, and there was a breeze as well, so the combination wasn't the most suitable for outdoor excursions. However I wanted to take a walk. It seemed cruel to insist upon another human being coming alongside me due to the weather, so I decided to take said walk alone. Not a good plan, as I soon found out.

Important note to self- never take walks alone in New York when you are dressed in Shabbos clothing.

I hugged my green Gap belted jacket closer to myself as I strode determinedly down Fifth Avenue. I was dazzled by the shops, the stores, the colors, the lights...everything appeared fabulous and exciting. I was humming refrains and snatches of popular songs to myself. I goodnaturedly said hello to people, and was pleasantly surprised when a few of them even said "hello" back.

Now to my attire. This is the important part of the story. As it was Shabbos, I was dressed in a red and black turtleneck and a short black skirt. This black skirt has silk fringes and a small silk bow. As it's cold, black tights and lace-up calf-length boots complete the look. A green Gap jacket, as previously mentioned, is worn over the turtleneck.

I walk with a sense of purpose, curiously glancing at stores, but more often, at people. There are so many different types of people, homeless or otherwise. After wandering for a while, the rain misting my hair and the breeze dancing around me, I decide to make my way back to the dorm.

I walk back down Fifth Avenue, though in the opposite direction. I am waiting for the walk sign at an intersection, and I have a stone in my boot. I look down at my boot as I move my foot, trying to move the pebble so it does not chafe against my foot.

"Nice boots," says a voice beside me.

I look up. There's a man, significantly taller than me in his late twenties or early thirties. He's wearing a leather jacket, black jeans, and some type of polo shirt. He has black or simply dark hair. He's a sturdy-looking person. He's also waiting for the Walk sign.

"Thanks," I say.

"I like the skirt, too," he says, and gives me a meaningful smile. "So...do you know some place around here we could go?" He accompanies this with a hand gesture, expansively taking it the whole of Fifth Avenue.

(I'm thinking to myself- how old does he think I am? He wants to take me to a bar!)

"No place I know," I say airily, and smile.

"Oh," he answers. "I'm from LA. That's why I'm asking."

"I'm from Chicago," I volunteer. "I'm walking."

That's when the Walk sign came on, and I walked swiftly (though not too swiftly, lest I attract more attention) away. That's also when I began to smile, and finally to laugh softly to myself. Nobody has ever attempted to pick me up before. It's just not done in Chicago. And people are certainly more subtle about it...

I return to the dorm and sleep.

Shalashudos goes well, after which is Havdala and then a movie ('Proof,' filmed on the University of Chicago campus so I recognized everything!) at another dorm. There was an ice cream cake from Baskin Robbins as well, and that was possibly the best part. I don't like how open-ended the movie is. 'A Beautiful Mind' is much, much better.)

When the movie was concluded, I was invited out by the three (well, actually two, as the third had disappeared but would soon return) people who had amused me throughout Shabbos. As this is a long weekend (which meant I had nothing else to worry about, homework-wise) I accepted. This meant walking in the rain, wandering around Broadway, and pizza and drinks at J2!

Huzzah J2. It was good pizza ;) Plus I learned some interesting things about various Yeshivot.

Now, to the broken umbrella. Enter our aforementioned third party to the restaraunt, complete with iPod, cap and backpack. He is carrying this odd-looking black and red umbrella. It's the kind of thing you might expect to see old ladies carry, or perhaps women who are very garishly made-up. He closes it and explains that he "found it on the street." This doesn't make sense to me, as I do not comprehend the strange ways of New York.

Does anyone else find it amusing that the guys opted for Diet Coke when I went with regular? I was once again amused.

At some point we have to return, of course, as the guys need to take the shuttle back to Uptown. The last shuttle is at 1:15 in the morning, so we're walking back from J2, dancing along the streets (at one point three of us were listening to iPods, and arranged it so we even had the same songs going on at the same time...the logic in that I don't know, but it was fabulous) as the rain fell upon us.

Soon I understood what our third party had meant when he stated he had found the umbrella "on the street," as it were. We passed two more abandoned umbrellas, each of which one member of the group alternatively picked up. I had a blue broken Six-Flags one for a few moments.

There's really something about passing by lots of shuttered stores in the middle of the night (or in the early morning) while it is raining, there are bright lights everywhere, you're in good company and marooned umbrellas invade the sidewalks.

Then back to the dorm, goodbyes and farewells, and twas the end of the night...except that the original broken umbrella (red and black) was bequeathed unto me until another time when it shall be needed and/or our people come back to pick it up.

The best part is that all of these people are in-towners. So ha. See? Sometimes in-towners do stay for Shabbat.

Huzzah everybody! It was a wonderful Shabbos.

Blog Warning Meme- I'm asking the readers

I stole this Meme from At the Back of the Hill.

And I want YOU to tell me your suggestions for my blog! They can be humorous or serious, as you like.

1. What warning would you have on your blog for the unsuspecting?

2. Why do you think they need to be warned?

3. What does that say about them?

4. And who else should put up a warning?

The Heresy of Intelligent Design by Rabbi Natan Slifkin

THESE NOTES ARE UNAPPROVED AND UNOFFICIAL SO IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE OR I'VE MISATTRIBUTED, PLEASE ASSUME I MADE THE MISTAKE

Rabbi Slifkin arrived at Stern College for Women after the supposed session of "Meet and Greet" the students, but still before 7:00 PM, the official time for the start of the speech. He therefore had nine minutes in which to speak, and he commenced with a prelude to evolution, as evolution is (was) the main topic of the speech.

The prelude to evolution concerns the age of the universe. We have about 14 billions years to account for in the next nine minutes.

There are several mainstream approaches to the idea of the age of the universe. First, we have the Tiferet Yisrael, who talks about the previous worlds that God created and then destroyed. That's why we have fossils- because these are the creatures that were destroyed along with the previous worlds. However, this does not resolve contradictions, because these previous worlds take place BEFORE the six days of creation.

Therefore, the widespread approach is that the six days of creation may not be days as we know them. R' David Zvi Hoffman says it could have been billions of years- aeons- and this is a well-accepted approach, or at least it was until 2 years ago. R' Hoffman was willing to reconcile the Torah to that fact.

However, we still have the sequence of events that is described during the 6 days of creation which does NOT correlate to the sequence of events described by science.

For example, fossils show us that first there were fish, then land animals and then birds, but the Torah doesn't work in the same way. (He then asked us questions as to what, according to the Torah, was created when, and of course it's a different order- for example, birds before land animals.) So people try to reinterpret the Torah and psukim and suggest, for example that "rudimentary genetic matter was created in outer space" rather than grass/ plants when it says grass/plants in the Torah. The problem of course is we see no evidence for "rudimentary genetic matter" in the Torah. Some others will state, "No, of course the Torah doesn't mean birds- they mean flying INSECTS!" The problem is that the Torah has a specific word for flying insects (he might have said sheretz here) and these are not the same as the word for birds.

For those of us who accept science, the real issue to be dealt with is....the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim says that "ma'aseh Beraishis" is not all to be taken literally. There are 2 important points to be made here- 1. Ma'aseh Beraishis is not literal 2. The Rambam had a hard time selling that to people

The 6 days of Beraishis are not really time periods- they are a conceptual hierarchy of how God makes the world. Beraishis is teaching theology NOT science; teaching theological truths. The Torah has to be understood on many different levels, by the simplest audience and by the most sophisticated audience. If you're writing a book about Barney, it's meant for four-year-olds. If you're writing Harry Potter, you aim for a twenty-five year old audience. (*laughs*) The books you are writing depend upon your target audience. The Torah has a tremendously broad audience- so there are different layers of meaning, from simplest one to apply to the least sophisitcated audience to more difficult ones (remez, sod, etc)

R' Dessler states that the 6 days of creation refer to the Sefiros.

The Torah contains theological truths, spiritual truths. From a spiritual standpoint, the existence of dinosaurs is irrelevant. R' Kook goes even further to state that the point of the Torah is that it is addressed to man, and hence man must be made to feel significant. If the Torah HAD spoken about billions of years, man would have seen himself as a being who was completely insignificant in the scheme of things. Therefore the Torah actually had to DOWNPLAY this so man would feel himself to be significant.

This thing about "everything being in the Torah"- the commentary of the Seforno on Pirkei Avos on a verse which states that we are to "Turn it over and over again because everything is in it,"- the Seforno says that all theology/ philosophy is in the Torah as OPPOSED to things like medicine which is NOT in the Torah. People tend to have a very simplistic approach when understanding this kind of statement (referencing the verse from Pirkei Avos), however.

True, there are others- I think it's the Ramban who says everything is there but it's not of much practical use if we cannot extract it; even Shlomo HaMelech couldn't extract it.

Question was if this (what Rabbi Slifkin is saying) is Rambam, how can people fight against it so strongly?

1. It's in Moreh Nevuchim- not a yeshiva curriculum piece; most people, even the greatest Rabbanim, have not read it

2. Even if you HAVE read Moreh Nevuchim, you have to read the COMMENTARIES on Moreh Nevuchim. The Akeidas Yitzchak and the Abarbanel and others concur that this is what the Rambam is saying-they disagree/ don't understand, but they all concur that this is what he is saying.

3. They burnt the Rambam's books, after all

It's not an EASY approach to Torah; it's hard to grasp- many people personally object to this being taught/ or they oppose it strongly on behalf of others and how they think it will affect other people.

Now, on to the main topic of this speech- EVOLUTION.

I have called this speech "The Heresty of Intelligent Design." Now, the title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Certainly I am not the one to accuse people of spouting heresy. However, to explain...people are defensive when they are trying to reconcile evolution to the Torah. Defending evolution, you have science on your side but are seen as being in a theologically shaky position. In truth, however, it's the other way around- to argue AGAINST evolution is theologically shaky.

The first point I want to make is we need to clarify what is meant by evolution. The word "evolution" has several different meanings.

1. Are different creatures related in one big family tree? In other words, is everything somehow related? This is not HOW did the species change into one another, but IS there a common ancestor for all life forms?

To this, I would say that there is a lot of evidence for that. (He now compares different animals) For example, the skeleton of a bat- it has wings like a bird but 5 fingers with grossly enlarged digits. General anatomical structure of animals suggests that they are descended from a common ancestor. We can tell this from residual parts that don't seem to make sense. An emu, for example, has short stumpy little wings that are of no use to it. However, that makes sense if it evolved from a bird that DOES have a use for wings. Or blind animals with tiny useless eyes- that makes sense if they evolved from animals WITH eyes.

The fossil record is also important. So some will say there are missing links. True, but the fact that it even exists, that there even ARE links should be recognized!

Whales evolved from land animals- this is suggestive by the fossil sequence. We DO have a sequence. We say that whales DID evovle from land animals, otherwise you are saying that God was constantly zapping more whalelike creatures that differed slightly from one another in the same general geographic area into existence. If common ancestry isn't true, God is certainly trying to fool us into thinking it's true!

2. So HOW did it happen?

The popular explanation is natural selection. (he gives an example here with a deer-like animal, natural selection, and evolving into a giraffe- grossly oversimplified, he says)

Does this suffice to explain how complex organs arise- eyes, for example? There is lots of scientific debate.

Now, when 2 people are arguing over evolution they are often using different meanings of the fact/ term "evolution." One of them is saying that it absolutely isn't true and is quoting scientific articles- he's talking about the MECHANISMS of evolution, the HOW it happened. The one who is saying it absolutely IS true is generally talking about the idea of common ancestry.

People will quote scientists completely out of context to try to prove evolution isn't true; when people are really arguing about the mechanisms involved.

Now, for the theological aspects of evolution:

Common Ancestry- The evidence is strongly in favor of that. It does seem to conflict with the literal meaning of Beraishis, but the Rambam deals with that, so that doesn't need to bother us. In fact, R' Kook says that the literal meaning of Beraishis is the LEAST we have to worry about- Beraishis is an esoteric book and should be understood as souch.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: So, ideally this means that one sees a creator in nature. In practice, it means that there are certain aspects of biological organisms that cannot be accounted for by scientific explanation- therefore, some supernatural being, whether a weird green alien or God, must be involved. In a book called Darwin's Black Box it states that two things can absolutely not be explained by science and hence prove God is involved in the universe.

1. Bacterium Flagellum
2. Human Blood Clotting System

These systems exhibit irreduceable complexity- and there is not scientific explanation for how they could have evolved; that is what the Intelligent Designers claim. Therefore it must be, they hold, that they were designed.

Now, the MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC ANSWER to this:

1. Yes, we do have explanations
2. We will find good explanations- that is what science is all about; looking for answers

Now, this debate is often portrayed as being the religious intelligent design community versus the atheist evolutionists. So for nice frum Jews, intelligent design seems to be the way to go!

Now, there was a book published a few years ago about Torah and science that was supposed to give convincing evidence for a creator- for example, the author talked about bird migration, and he pokes fun at all kind of scientific explanations for it. For example, one scientific explanation suggested that birds use stars to find their way. So the author of this book made fun, saying, "How could this bird-brain" know how to use sophisticated techniquest to get there- the Little Dipper, the Big Dipper, etc...

First of all, the scientific explanations are pretty good (maybe this author didn't understand them, but...) but second of all, what you are saying here is that God can get a bird to hatch from an egg, but He's somehow incapable of giving a bird the ability to be guided by the stars!?

Do we see God in nature or only, merely in the things that science is unable to explain? The Intelligent Design camp is usually for all the things that "science is unable to explain." In Judaism, there's a train of thought, especially utilized by the Rishonim, that we can see God WITHIN nature. We try to minimize the miraculous- to ascribe greater intelligence to God.

What's wrong with a miracle? This is like comparing Microsoft to Apple. Microsoft is always coming up with new patches and updates, while Apple doesn't do that so much. The reason Microsoft has to do this is because it didn't design as good an operating system to begin with!

A miracle means the laws of nature are not accomplishing God's objectives, so He has to interfere in order to make them accomplish his objectives.

A miracle detracts from God- even the most famous miracles in the Torah are therefore presented in a naturalistic way. For example, the splitting of the Red Sea- we see that it says, "A wind blew all night." God can perform miracles THROUGH the laws of nature, still.

Now, paganism saw miracles everywhere. It is actually RELIGION that brings science into play! When Avraham uses monotheism/ science began WITH Judaism and monotheism. If there is a process to the world, to the laws of nature, then we must ask- where do they come from? Who makes the laws of science- who decrees them?

They are very fortutious laws. In order to have matter formed out of energy, they have to be very complex. The laws of nature themselves are incredible testimony to God- R' Hirsch has some beautiful quotes about this.

In order to understand the concept of spiritual laws, you need to start with/ understand physical laws. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction- this is Midah K'Neged Midah- that's not God's idea of a sense of humor! The laws of nature are testimony to God.

I used to be as anti-evolution as everyone else. In some of my earliest books, ten years ago, I was very against evolution. How did that change?

1. The Sefer Da'as Chachma U'Mussar saw this applied to animals/ natural law/ and based on what the sefarim teach, I realized that if evolution is NOT true then God was simply spending his time zapping creatures who were very similar to one another and deviated slightly into existence every few moments! And who is the better engineer- the engineer who makes 10 different robots, or the engineer who creates a PROGRAM (i.e. the laws of nature) to make the robots?

R' Hirsch actually says that if evolution is ever proven to be true it will attest to the creative wisdom of God.

Intelligent design says scientific explanations are not good enough. The implicit message of intelligent design is that you CANNOT see God in things that science CAN explain. Therefore, the Neviim (prophets) who spoke of seeing God in the majesty of the cosmos- they got it all wrong because science can explain that! Nope, instead, you need to look for God in the bacterium flagellum- this is theologically absurd! It is theologically absurd to be painting God into such a small corner.

They're so sure there's no scientific explanation for this- you think that God's incapable of creating laws to monitor the bacterium flagellum? That for some reason this is beyond God's power, so for this specific creatures He has to oversee and monitor and do it because the laws of nature- which He created- can't do it???!

Really, it's trivializing God- this movement that many people think is a friend of Jewish/ religious people. I find it theologically offensive.

We understand the science of metereology, astronomy- and yet we still see God's work in the cosmos, in the stars. We say 'Barchi Nafshi" every day- we have scientific explanations for thse things. Where is the source that differentiates biology from every other science? Why can't we see God in biology, too?

Some dislike evolution for its "randomness." We don't believed the world is random, they say. Well, hello, what about Purim- it seems like random fortuitous events, but in the end we see it's God behind the scenes! Or what about the idea of lottery in the Torah? The land of Israel is divided by a lottery, but God is in charge at the end- God works through SEEMINGLY random processes.

Evolution is not a contradiction to Judaism, but intelligent design and the claims of its members is.

Secular evolutionists also deserve blame, however. Stephen J. Gould tries to draw anti-religious statements/ conclusions from evolution. This doesn't make sense; everything depends on one's perspective. It's like history. To those who are religious, history demonstrates the will of God; to those who are not it may seem completely against religion.

Anti-theological conclusions drawn from evolution are wrong as well. It's no wonder that people feel strongly against evolution with secular evolutionists drawing these wrong conclusion sout there!

People have a tremendous desire to see everything in the Torah...it's comforting but what about dinosaurs? you don't see dinosaurs in the Torah.

---

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

(I'm providing answers, not always the questions)

1. What about men coming from monkeys?

Okay, so say we disregard the literal problems with the literal account of creation. What do we dislike about men coming from monkeys? The idea that there is not much difference between us and them. We find it demeaning, degrading. What about evolving from toads, dogs? Also degrading? What about evolving from dirt? (Laughter) Why is it degrading to come from toads but not from dirt?

In truth, the problem is with saying we came from monkeys, is the idea that there isn't much difference between us and them. So what makes us different from monkeys?

1. Communication- our language skills
2. Freedom of choice, not instinctual responses

Rambam and Seforno say we were first created as humanoids WITHOUT a neshama (soul) and were no different from animals! In fact, why was man created on the same day as animals? Abarbanel says that it's to show that if you DON'T make free choices/ overcome your natural instincts, you are no different from an animal.

Rabbi Soloveitchik's "The Emergence of Ethical Man" is fundamentallyl based on evolution.

The popular conception is that Ramban says that everything is mystical miracles all the time. This is not true. Dr. David Berger writes about this. I'm trying to get this put up on my website- trying to get permission.

EVOLUTION- INTERESTING THEOLOGICAL QUESTION

The idea of wastefulness seems to be a problem. However, we already have the idea of wastefulness in the idea that God created worlds and then destroyed them!

In fact, when evolution was first proposed, theologians of non-Jewish world saw it as solving problems, for example, of wisdom teeth or lower back pain. If jaws evolved into smaller teeth, that's why there are wisdom teeth- this makes the negative features of the world explainable. The negative features are the world are inevitable in this context- it's because of the system God used (Rambam.)

(Trying to illustrate his ideas) But it's the point that matters- say you go to Legoland and you see the Statue of Liberty made out of legos. So you might say it's not as smooth or as pretty- but the point is, it was made out of LEGOS and that's the genius of it! Similar with God- the genius of God is making and running the world out of natural laws.

ASKED ABOUT HIS TEXTUAL SUPPORT- RAMBAM/ RISHONIM

It's nice to try to find as much support as possible, but I do try not to force meforshim to my approach.

ASKED ABOUT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE YEAR 5766

So what I used to say is that's when Hashem put a neshama into man. But that's problematic...so I'll tell you what Rav Gedalia Nadel the foremost disciple of the Chazon Ish, says. When God says, "Let us make man," does he mean man the individual or mankind? Mankind. Tehrefore, the year 5766 refers to the original evolution of homosapiens, the making of mankind. From then onward, Adam refers to that particular individual.

The Rambam also says that many sequences of events- for exmaple, the creation- is allegorical.

ASKED ABOUT MIRACLES BY EXODUS- IF THEY ARE REALLY TRIVIALIZING GOD, WHY THERE?

There are 2 approaches.

1. Just at this specific point in time in history, there had to be miracles and God had to break the laws to establish His mastery over them (from R' Yerucham Levovitz)
2. R' Soloveitchik says that even the miracles of the Exodus were performed in a naturalistic fashion- nature itself is a function of God, works to see God within nature

-

CONCLUDES

Not everything is "bashert." Rishonim say that. Quantum physics seems to open a way for God to interact with nature without having to break the laws of nature, or perhaps it is beyond our comprehension how God interacts with nature.

The Looks

It's interesting, being at Stern. There's a mixture of people, and everybody here is here for different reasons. Some people are party girls; others are studious and academic. Some are here (and admit this candidly) to "catch a husband." Whatever the reason, we have a whole mix of people here.

The entertaining part is what I shall call "the looks." You see, due to a complicated set of circumstances, I attended a non-denominational, non-sectarian (in other words, non-Jewish) private school for the last two years of high school. I also opted not to go to seminary. Hence, when people ask which high school you went to, and you tell them, the eyebrows raise, the eyes widen, there is a meaningful look....and an extra look for people who didn't go to seminary...and you immediately feel demoted, or as though someone is looking down upon you.

Well, I take rare pleasure in allowing some of these people to think what they will, but I do explain to other people because I know they are confused more than they are meaning to be insulting. But it has been highly entertaining to be asked, "So how do you know Hebrew?" and the like.

Isn't it sad that even in our supposedly more 'Modern' school there are still labels, categories, sections, divisions? That there is a proper "path" to follow, and those who deviate are problematic? It's ridiculous that I should be looked at for not going to seminary, for example. The non-Jewish school I can maybe understand but the seminary/ non-seminary...what the hell? There are so many reasons I might not have gone. How do you know my parents wouldn't let me? Or maybe I don't have enough money to go?

Now, those are NOT the reasons I opted for Stern over seminary. But what if they were? Who the hell gives YOU the hoity-toity sophomore back-from-Israel student the ability to judge these people? I've already met a couple people who couldn't go for those reasons. And they shouldn't have to feel as though they must immediately explain why they couldn't go to Israel. Who cares? You're here now and that's what matters. Isn't it?

God, but it's exasperating.

So...off to receive more looks! Don't worry, though, I can handle it.

Laughing and laughing again

laughing and laughing again...




I have a schedule!

It should be fabulous.

We have a trial period; I get to try out classes and see how it goes.

Huzzah!

And tonight I go see the Blue Man Group! That's going to be fabulous as well!

I love, I love, I love New York!

And did I mention that my best friend came to see me? And someone else made me feel loved by leaving a note on my door?

Hurrah!

Move-In Day

Meet a very stressed, extremely harassed Chana.

Tomorrow's move-in day to Stern, and I hear conflicting information from everybody. Some people tell me to be there at 6:00 in the morning; the book says 8:30 AM. I don't know.

New York, moving large boxes up many flights of stairs, clamoring for the elevator, trying to unpack far too many things in the narrow confines of something that resembles my closet...yes, these are the joys I look forward to tomorrow.

Let's hope it all turns out to be delightful...and that my roommates don't meet a sweaty, dirty me with my hair sticking up in several directions as I bellow across the room, "NO, THAT DOESN'T GO THERE!"

Because that would be slightly frightening for them, and a rather unhappy introduction for me.

Then again...there's no way to make this entirely un-awkward, due to my school's quaintly archaic idea of introducing us to the people we are going to spend an entire year with when school starts as opposed to anytime before. My friends have already corresponded with their people, email, Facebook, the works...I'll be doing it the old-fashioned way. Which is okay, I suppose. As long as she doesn't hate me and I don't hate her. Because that would be bad.

I should go to sleep now, but it's far more interesting to worry about all the things that can possibly go wrong tomorrow.

Huh.

I need a puzzled Calvin and Hobbes comic now. I shall go off in search of one.

Passion

Passion- that's what we want. That's what we're all looking for. Not health, happiness, love, life; none of those alone. What encompasses all of those or makes up for the lack of them is passion.

Passion is about living. Life is fierce, passion for life is a blessing. Every true feeling is inspired by some kind of passion; fierce and furious, the foundation for everything else that is to come.

This doesn't necessarily mean that one is hot-headed and outspoken. There are people who spends their lives quietly passionate, expending their energies in ways that don't attract as much attention. But they care and this is what separates them from the millions of others in the world. It's their love, their devotion, their care, their desire. I love desire. To desire is a gift, as is to be passionate.

When we are young, we are all passionate. Inflamed with passion, believing in our ideas and opinions, our views, our love, whatever it may be. We live simply to express through our being, our lives, all that is us- all our love, all our beauty, whatever flames within us and cuts through to the core. When you meet us, you may leave frustrated or angry, but we will have made an impression. And it's because of our passion.

I think, then, that possibly the worst handicap- the cruelty of all cruelties- is to be robbed of that passion, to sit silent, indifferent, not, in other words, to care. Depression, as it is described, is just this silent apathy; the depressed person is the one who lacks the ability to force himself to desire, to desire to awaken in the morning, to do the things that once made him happy, even to argue, to engage in meaningful and desperate conversation. Depression is a kind of passiveness, or at least that is how it is portrayed, but what is worse is that it is uncontrolled. I cannot "turn off" the passiveness as it were, I can only watch it as though I am disconnected, detached.

A lot of people speak about this- disconnect, detachment, and what it means. They will reference "our generation" above other generations, or suggest all kinds of reasons. I think that any disconnect on our part stems in part from fear. For example, to address Israel. To be passionate and to care about everyone is to be hurt time and time again. And for every one who dies there is a blow, cruel and harsh and heartrending, and there is doubt, and you cry out to God because you don't understand how He could allow the deaths. And for every death there is a person, an actual person who was living and breathing only moment ago, who has now passed away, shattering the lives of others as he did so. To be passionate is to care about these people, and so it is to suffer, empathically, for each one of them and all that he has been robbed of.

Therefore, to be passionate is above all things to feel. To feel every slight, every hurt, every joy and every moment as though it in itself were integral, important above all else. Even the most mundane things- the meal around the table, the spaghetti on the plate- these, too, must be felt, accepted, seen as important and necessary. Life includes everything, not just the exciting or the romantic. We are like children, curious and fascinated and frustrated by our inability to do the things we wish to do, but we haven't given up hope on anything- on the world- on anyone, because we still believe in ourselves.

Children don't doubt themselves. It's adults who instill the doubt. A child will keep on trying to walk even though he's fallen down hundreds of times; he will continue to try to lift something that is too heavy for him because he believes in himself. It's a kind of passion, the passion of belief. And so I think passion is part of religion as well. This can be stretched or pushed in any direction- for example, what is fundamentalism if not a passion for oneself at the expense of others? Many have admired, in a twisted way, the way in which many Palestinians care for the land of Israel- care so much that they will kill themselves and their children in terrorist attacks if they believe they will get it back.

Of course, however, this passion is destructive, as passion can be, terrible and awful, a whirlwind and a storm. Destructive passion can serve a purpose, if it serves to destroy AND to rebuild, but to merely destroy, to take the lives of others- for this one is cursed, for this one is damned.

In the eyes of someone caught within a frail and twisted body you may still see a heady light, something fervent and beautiful- and that is passion. What is the passion for? Passion for learning, or for singing, for dance, for God, for anything and anyone. Constructive passion transforms the person because you have been placed in the role of Creator. One can only create out of passion, out of desire to form new things, to begin anew.

We want to share passion, to transfer it to others, to make it contagious like a strong, heady, wine, glowing in our veins, hard and wiry and ropy in our muscles. This is what makes us live. Take away our cause, our ideals, our ideas, our passion, and we are no longer anything- we are shells, dead, dying. Even victims can be passionate, when they fight against their captors or symbolically rebel. We feel pity for those who lose their passion, but we feel admiration for those who persist.

Do you notice that Holocaust movies play to two types of audiences? There's the kind of Holocaust movie that shows you the victims, dejected, bald, unhappy, tortured, and you feel for them a vast and great sorrow and pity, even fear because you could have been them. But then there's the kind of Holocaust movie that is all about passion- the idea of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, for example, the few fighting against the many, or Schindler saving men while at the same time seemingly destroying himself. Oh, you may not see fire, as it were, in Schindler, but it is a cold fire, a cold resolve to do what he would- because it gave him amusement, or workers, whatever the reason, there is still passion embedded there.

The Passion of the Christ is successful as a movie not because of the mere victimization of Jesus- which is brutal and violent and ugly, as are his oppressors and the cruel, terrible Pharisees portrayed there- but because of the enemy whom Jesus is pitted against, Satan. Satan is terrible and cruel, he taunts Jesus and states that Jesus will never be able to save his people, one man cannot possibly atone for an entire people's sins. Satan walks amongst the Pharisees and spits at Jesus; he torments Judas. It is the fact that Jesus is struggling for his people...that he persists in the face of Satan and all the cruelty that is shown him...that is earth-shattering. This kind of sacrifice is for a cause, an idea, and thus passion is evoked.

All the most dynamic characters in the Bible have been men of passion. Moses, arguing with God, fighting for his people, issuing ultimatums, pleading for his sister. Abraham, destroying his father's idols, leaving his people's way of life, setting out for a new country, lying to Pharoah to save his life. Job, issuing challenges to God, wishing He could hear him speak, facing down those who attempt to console and instead lambaste him. Jeremiah, tormented by his people and by God, seemingly adrift, trying to contain his prophecy but feeling it as fire in his bones, forced to speak and still having the compassion to wail over his city and the very people who hurt him so.

Men of passion, these are the men of our Bible; the men who fascinate us. Some characters are more dynamic than others, some seem more alive, more interesting. "Ka'nai" is applied to Pinchas, a man of passion, a zealot, also to Elijah but Elijah is reprimanded because he, unlike Jeremiah, has difficulty reconciling himself to his people when they do not heed him.

Passion, passion, all is passion....until we die and crumble into dust, we are spurred on, egged on, driven, only through passion.