I have been a supporter of planned organ donation my whole adult life. I applaud you for movingly showing its value and advocating its widespread adoption. In my opinion, it is the highest possible form of tzedakah.
Hi, Ash, thanks for your appreciation. I'm happy to say Brandon and I did _not_ break up! (Besides being work colleagues, we have become close friends over the years, and I'm very fond of his family.) Just last summer I edited one of the Kickstarter “secret project” books for him.
I only reluctantly skipped working on one Stormlight book and one Wax & Wane book. That was because of health issues that would have made it difficult to meet the compressed deadlines we use to get Brandon's books out as quickly as possible.
I expect to continue working with Brandon as long as I'm physically and intellectually able. Since he's 24 years younger than I am, I reluctantly admit that full retirement will have to come at some point.
No, I haven’t become Orthodox again, despite the fact that both my sisters made aliyah, live in the Occupied Territories, and are thoroughly Dati Leumi. I attended yeshiva for 12 years, but just lack the innate ruach they have in spades. I usually describe myself, paradoxically I know, as “non-observant Orthodox.” I think that's accurate because one can't escape the influence of the milieu you grew up in and because I have problems with the foundational ideas of the Reform and Conservative branches. Obviously, I retain a strong interest in Judaism and Israel or I wouldn’t be here.
As a lifelong science fiction fan and believer in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, I'm sure there are multiple timelines where I became a rabbi rather than an editor!
Shimshon, that should be obvious. But I guess anyone who would link to a racist, neo-Nazi jerk like Vox Day isn’t bright enough to know that “Senior” tops “Associate.”
It’s sad and disturbing to see anyone drag a despicable schmuck like Vox within shouting distance of a Torah discussion, and I say that as someone who would be called chiloni in Israel. I can't think of anyone I’ve personally dealt with — albeit indirectly — more deserving of the phrase “yemach shmo” than VD. Thanks for signaling so distinctly that I can skip your comments in the future.
So kind. I personally arranged the interview Vox Day did of Moshe Feiglin. Is Feiglin a "neo-Nazi" too? You've never actually dealt with the man at all (this is what "indirectly" means)? I have. In any case, Vox hasn't mentioned you since 2015. You must be long irrelevant.
What about Peter Grant? He calls you a liar. Is he also a "neo-Nazi"?
Vox Day lied multiple times about unauthorizeddottv and where he lived ( he lives in Switzerland, not Italy. ) He also scammed tons of money from paypiggies like you with the Rebels Run scam, with the help of your friend Josiah Litle ( now more famous as a wife murderer). Why do you still follow this scammer loser? Is it because his SSH makes you feel like a man?
The “consulting bit” is that I'm 71 and semi-retired.
I dealt with Vox indirectly as one of his opponents when he and his minions tried to to destroy SF's Hugo Awards and did considerable damage.
By describing your connection to VD, you only further lower my opinion of you. Are you another wingnut like the rest of his crowd? (I guess your association with Feiglin confirms that.) I was under the illusion that Jews were too smart to fall under Vox's evil spell. Sorry to learn I was mistaken.
I'm pleased to hear he hasn't mentioned me in eight years. Until now, I haven’t mentioned him for just as long. (I'll wash my mouth out when I'm done here.)
I have no idea who Peter Grant is or why he would say that, nor do I care.
I never heard of you and am not interested in what non-orthodox Jews have to say about halacha, but I see you mentioned the Hugos - I own a few of the compilations from the late golden age, in the 70s. I'm reading some Robert Scheckely short stories right now, actually. (Reviewing some old favorites and reading others for the first time.) What a genius he was!
Garvin, feel free to ignore anything I say on Halacha! Unlike some people here, especially among Natan's opponents, I admit I'm an am h'aretz! That's why we call such statements _opinions_ and don't pretend they're undisputed facts. I'm a science fiction and fantasy editor, not a posek or even a common rabbi.
I had the privilege of being a friend of Bob's — did you know he was Jewish? — and while he'd modestly dispute being called a genius, he was indeed very talented and one of the masters of humorous and satirical SF. He was also a gentle and generous mensch, a true “adam matok.”
You portray a heavy halachic shailah as though it were nothing more than merely an intellectual vs emotional issue, and then blare your own "psak" in an area where even learned poskim, whose entire lives are steeped in halacha, are hesitant to tread. Come on, man. The hubris is just incredible.
Halacha is a difficult job. You seemingly don't care to do the job, and you seem to think that others also don't. So you think they pasken based on worldview instead of Halacha. You are projecting your misdeeds onto others.
You are welcome to read my book for a detailed discussion of the halachic arguments. Including observing a mistake that the great Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach committed, due to his lack of understanding of scientific advances, and later acknowledged.
No it's a matter of whether you consider the actual facts or disregard them in favor of an unsubstantiated or completely wrong observation of the facts.
I would not dismiss a teshuva from the Shevet Halevi ZTL because he was chassidish and therefore "steeped in chassidism" and I am not chassidish. I would not dismiss a teshuva from Rav Ovadia ZTL because he was "steeped in Sefardi culture". Your casual dismissal of those poskim as "steeped in a non-rationalist worldview" is not shocking to me (and is typical of academic Talmud), but should render your views totally irrelevant to anybody who cares about halacha and the Torah at all.
Being chassidish or Sefardi does not have anywhere near as significant impact on a halachic teshuva than being non-rationalist does on the topic of brain death.
Besides for the total incoherence of the"rationalist vs. non-rationalist" dichotomy (apparently rationalist means being kofer in s'char v'onesh, but also standing for Hatikvah, and also pakening a certain way about end of life. Lol.), there is no reason why anybody should trust your opinion in the slightest about the factors influencing poskim who are a million times greater than you.
It is remarkable that you're OK with leaving people without organs purely because of religious concerns and for no other reason. It's like Rabbi Slifkin is doing everything in his power to prove that religion is not harmful and can even be beneficial, and you're doing everything in your power to prove otherwise.
"Religious concerns and no other reasons"- buddy you are on (what claims to be) a religious blog. If you don't find religious concerns compelling, you're in good company with millions of others. And I don't do the blackmail of "if you don't tell me that everything in your religion is totally identical to secular humanism, I won't believe in it"
RNS merely believes that there are limits to proofs of various issues in Judaism. That doesn't mean that they can't be convincing and people won't or can't believe in Judaism. He surely is a believer.
If RNS shows the connection and how this might be a matter to consider in the particular case depending on the source and its relevance it might be considered.In this case perhaps RNS over generalized to make his point. There are times when RNS claims we stick to the Halacha even though it may not be true on that case. Spontaneous generation with killing lice on Shabbat RNS allows.Some say it is forbidden.
The dichotomy of "rationalist" vs. "non-rationalist" is absurd as we have shown many times, and particularly so with regards to psak halacha. Reject their psak halacha because they believe in magic and demons? Maybe reject the Talmud also for that reason? Completely ridiculous.
Again, should I out of hand dismiss all of the Shevet Halevi's psakim because he was chassidish (and I am not)? Does that sound remotely reasonable to you?
There is a major difference between "ignoring a psak" on Sefardi/Ashkenazi grounds, where it is about multiple authentic mesorahs in Am Yisrael decided by real yarei shamayim gedolim who follow a mesora of their forebearers in how to decide things, and simply throwing out a posek because *you* disagree with them on vague hashkafic grounds. And even then, you oversimplify it-- Sefardi and Ashkenazi poskim consider eachother's opinions in certain contexts. Additionally, there is a difference between not following a psak but still respecting that it is a legitimate psak from a giant among men (a machloket leshem shamayim, putting one under the wing of Hillel and Shamai)-- as in Sefardi/Ashkenazi disagreements in halacha--, and showing brazen disrespect and mockery towards virtually every gadol from out of your own head (joining the crowd of Korach).
So this is what I find both false and extremely disrespectful. Rav Wosner writes a whole teshuva based on his analysis of the sugya, based on his tremendous bekius in Shas and poskim, based on his tremendous learning ability and shimush talmidei chachomim, based on his yiras shamayim, and perhaps yes, maybe on some level there is some chassidishe ideology there also. And then along comes some idiot am ha'aretz and says you can discount it because he has a chassidishe ideology. This position, although common among academic Talmud departments, is totally outside of Torah Judaism.
But here is something you can do. Somebody denies s'char v'onesh, denies miracles, denies major parshiyos in the Torah, says there is no such thing as knowing how to learn, claims improving the economy is more important than Shemiras Shabbos- somebody like him, you can definitely dismiss!
Google Rav M. Feinstein and R.M. Tendler on the brain death issue.After extensive study and consultation with doctors in the field,including those with yeshiva learning, and many,many hours of seeing many,many patients in the hospital who were brain dead,and seeing tests to detere whether
whether there was independent action not just reflex as when cutting off the head of acow. Ruling was that brain death was death. R.D. Feinstein stated that his father in this ruling was still maintaining that heart activity was the criterion heart . But this was not real heart activity rather machine causing the heart to operate.
Almost all people who fought against gay marriage, on some level, were doing it based on religious grounds. That's why it is right for a secular government to ignore those people. There is nothing wrong with a specific religion banning a practice for their consenting followers, but they have no right to tell the others who do not.
When it comes to brain death and end of life, IMHO, halakha is not ethical at all. In general, in marking the brain-dead beating-heart patient as alive, halakha does not take into account either 1) the patient's pain and suffering, 2) whether they r likely to live without any hope of recovery and for how long, and 3) what the patient clearly expressed as their wish.
It is tragic to see brain-dead patients kept alive, often in pain, often against their will, "as long as their heart is beating." Call it "medical halakha," if u must, but do not brand that as "medical ethics." WADR, cause it ain't.
Braindead patients are not in pain. When the brain stops functioning, it’s like being under general anesthesia -- there’s no pain or any other kind of subjective experience.
Even after "brain death," certain operations of the brain continue to function. True, we do not fully understand what a purported brain-dead person experiences or is aware of, but pain sensation seems intact in most. In fact, if a brain-dead patient undergoes surgery, even to harvest their vital organs, appropriate anesthesia is administered.
At least in the US, the criteria for brain death r not so exactingly assessed. When a young patient has a great heart, a great liver, and 2 great kidneys to donate, the "definition" of brain death can be a moving target. Besides, we never know precisely what the patient senses. I know what I am talking about (I am a pro in the field, but 'nuff said).
As a procurement transplant coordinator, I probably am a bit more a “pro in the field.” While you may administer anesthesia to brain dead donors, that is absolutely not standard practice - paralytics are given during procurement to prevent any spinal reflexes but no sedation or analgesia is administered.
Your suggestion that brain death is a moving target is incorrect and misinformation. There are very clear criteria established by every state and every hospital that are followed. The declaring providers are not part of the procurement team in any way. A second physician must certify in the case of any potential procurement. The procurement organizations scrutinize every part of the declaration process and make sure that everything is done according to policy and protocol.
But your basic premise that pain and suffering are objectively wrong, is completely unproven and unprovable. It may be better not to suffer than to suffer, but to relieve suffering by ceasing to exist seems unethical too.
Medical halakha implicitly purports itself to be "ethical." I really object when I see orthodox rabbis on hospital and university "medical ethics" panels. Their opinions r relevant only to those patients and families who observe halakha. Non-observers r often confused by their opinions, which r based mostly on religion, not science.
Yes, pain and suffering cannot be proved to be ethically wrong. However, the accumulated wisdom of 200K years of H. sapiens' existence strongly accepts that P&S r highly undesirable. Ceasing to exist, however, comes sooner or later to ALL people. It is very fair to evaluate whether prolonging a period of tortured existence is always desirable.
Ethics is not a science. Orthodox Rabbis have a version of ethics based on Torah, and you have one based on your pupik. Why should yours be at the table and theirs not?
@Garvin, have you even read Rabbi Slifkin's chapter in his book Rationalism vs. Mysticism that you make such a nonsensical comment? If you bothered to read it, you will see that he did a thorough and exhaustive research on this topic. The hubris is all yours.
My dear friend, you'd be advised not to fall for his intellectual intimidation so easily. Dr. S. is far better at snotty self assured pretense than actual even handed dissection of complicated sugyos.
Cool for him that suckers like you not only fall for it, but then proceed to lectures others to join them in their sophisticated admiration of the monarch's wardrobe...
No, I've been here for a long time. I know what Slifkin thinks about it. What disgusted me is the way he offhandedly dismisses all those whom he disagrees with. This is a halachic question of the utmost seriousness, and poskim have written lengthy teshuvos examining rayos from Shas and Poskim. It is not merely an emotional decision because they think the person seems to still be breathing.
The way Natan dismisses them like that is entirely typical and speaks volumes about his intellectual seriousness as well as his arrogance.
It's an old topic in general, any halfway intelligent בר בי רב knows the relevant sugyas. But we don't go out there telling the world what the halacha is, we don't reduce the issues to a puerile "intelligence v emotions" dialectic, and we sure as heck don't make gross over-simplifications about the "worldviews" of the participants.
The problem is that until modern times there was no such thing as a person with a non working brainstem but a beating heart because such would require the use of a mechanical ventilator. So the classical sources simply don’t shed light on the phenomenon. This is admitted by all, given that we ignore the Talmud’s prescription to stop treating a patient on Shabbos once cessation of breathing has been established. For them that meant the person could not survive. For us this is not true.
Poskim are aware of this claim, true or not, and many others. There are heavyweight figures on both sides. The problem with this post, like so many others, is not the existence of two opinions, but NS's hubris in thinking he can play in the sandbox with the big boys. It's amusing, yes, but its also quite nauseating.
Yes, there are poskim on all sides. Which means this ends up coming down to an individual decision based on the individuals approach and who they choose as the poskim that align with their values. So if there are poskim are basing themselves on incorrect assumptions and trying to divine the answer from traditional sources that are not applicable to the current situation, then their opinions will carry less weight with someone like R Slilfkin who is not in that camp. The other question is how much weight you put on outcomes. It's pretty clear that enabling donation is not curtailing anyone's actual life and it is enabling many years of actual life on the part of the recipient as well as being a nechama to the family. So if even there is some slight halachic (not factual) doubt that perhaps those last hours of unconscious brainless purported life could be life, the poskim who take into account impacts in the issue (and all poskim talk into account impacts when deciding Halacha because Halacha tells you to do so), then these poskim will tend to brain death criteria. The chareidi poskim as a rule tend not to consider greater societal issues in their p'sak so if you are someone who are not in the chareidi camp and do think that societal impact is important in this kind of p'sak, then you will tend to favor the brain death side. Stepping back, If you are a strong charedi who feels the the charedi poskim have it right on some issue and you will follow it even when difficult, then then that also means that the non-charedim should strongly follow the p'sak of their Rabbis despite other approaches and ignore the chareidi poskim. It is a matter of choosing your camp and R Slifkin, beside analyzing the halachic issues in is book, is making a case to people as to which camp they should join baed on their values.
First off, you have this backwards. A person with irreversible cessation of brain function will stop breathing (the talmud's sign of death), but their heart will continue beating for some time and this can be supported for longer period through artificial ventilation. So if you are going in that (improper direction), the Talmud supports the brain death criteria.
But the point is that at the time of the Talmud, all these things went together. If your brainstem dies, then you won't breath and your heart will stop. If your heart stops, you brain will die. Since they had no ventilators, AED devices, or heart lung machines, all of the signs equally meant death at that time.
Lol. I don't believe you mean this question seriously, but l'kanter, so I am not responding. If you are really interested, happygoluckypersonage@gmail.com
I agree with almost all your opinions, but it is untrue that an animal's head has ever been transplanted onto another animal of the same species. It is inconceivable that in the near future, a human head transplant could ever work. The numerous biological complexities of such an operation have not at all been solved.
The operation supposedly happened years ago, but has still not been reported in any reputable medical journal in US or Europe. This report is a fraud. The Russian puppy operation supposedly occurred over 60 years ago, and it has never been reproduced. Also a fraud.
These operations have never been performed on live animals or people, at least none who survived.
How is when u "wash" relevant to this discussion? In general, u wash your hands before AND after u perform either a surgical operation or a cadaver dissection.
Of course, the issue of "quality of life" does not apply to a dead person. The crew wash their hands to prevent their getting contaminated by pathogens in the cadaver. They also wish to avoid unintentionally colonizing the cadaver with germs on THEIR skin, thereby confounding discovery of what pathogens the cadaver was harboring before its demise.
On April 11, 1959 the Associated Press circulated a message from Moscow: Russian doctors had transplanted a puppy’s head to the neck of a German shepherd and the two-headed beast was in good health. The pioneering work was done by a doctor/scientist by the name of Demikhov.
Halacha has already changed to account for current knowledge. Everyone is familiar with the Gemarah in Shabbat that describes what's to be done if a wall collapses on someone on Shabbat. As I recall, the procedure is to excavate just enough to determine if the victim is breathing. If he isn't, no further excavation is allowed. Is there ANY Hatzala organization from Kiryas Yoel to Meah Shearim that would not dig the victim ompletly out and start chest compressions?
"I have a chapter explaining in much greater detail why brain death should halachically be considered as death"
Is this in the same sense that you "discovered" that the impossibility of extinction is "the universal view of all religious authorities, Jewish and Christian, from the times of the Rishonim into the 19th Century, as discussed in [my book]".
It’s almost as if this post was written completely from personal feelings and logic. And the Torah, and even the science (“ Full head transplants have been successfully performed in monkeys and dogs, and are certainly possible with humans;”) have been stated as generalizations or completely ignored.
Regardless of halachic issues surrounding organ donation, the publicising of these images crosses all bounds of taste, dignity, and decency. People will differ over whether the concept of listening to your mother's heart in someone else's body is in itself edifying or creepy, but it is certainly not the sort of thing that should be done in front of a camera and shared on social media under any circumstances ever.
This is far from the only bizarre example of mawkish voyeurism to emerge from this Reality TV Shiva and Shloshim, and some will no doubt respond that the family themselves do not object, perhaps are even encouraging it. I do not know whether this is true or not and who can judge people in such grief? But I do know that when they have had a chance to heal they will regret that their period of mourning looked like this and that so many people looking for a five minute dopamine hit facilitated it.
This is a matter and taste and most people probably disagree strongly. This serves an important function to get more people to think about donating and reducing the suffering and death of those on the waiting list. I can’t argue that it is good for you but it is likely a benefit for most watchers.
For 1, separation of church and state. Do the Rabbis clearly state that their opinion is based on religious dogma alone? For 2, very very often halakha is not ethical at all. E.g., nida is irrelevant to any1 but orthodox Jews.
Some Questions Relating to the Lack of Pulse and Respiration as the Halachic Criteria of Death.
Scenario 1: A man, R”L, goes into cardiac arrest in shul on shabbos. He is unconscious and has no detectable pulse or respiration.
1. Is he alive or dead?
2. If he is dead, are we allowed to be mechalel shabbos to resuscitate him? If we are permitted to do so, why?
3. If he is considered to be still alive, what then constitutes death?
4. If there is a minimum time requirement for lack of pulse and respiration, what is it? What is the makor in chazal?
5. Is his wife an almonah? Can she collect her kesubah? Can she remarry without a get?
6. Do his children inherit him?
7. If 5 and 6 do not apply, why not?
Scenario 2: A man enters the hospital for scheduled by-pass surgery. In the normal course of the surgery, his heart is stopped and his lungs are deflated. A device (called a heart-lung machine) now oxygenates and circulates his blood. Upon completion of the critical part of the surgery, the machine is removed and his heart and lungs are re started.
1. Was he alive or dead during the surgery?
2. If he was considered to be still alive, why?
3. His heart and lungs were stopped for over an hour. If there is a minimum time requirement for lack of pulse and respiration, is it more than that?
4. Is his wife an almonah? Can she collect her kesubah? Can she remarry without a get?
Rabbi Slifkin I enjoy many of your articles but this one is crummy,in the sense that it is only giving crumbs of your book. While you are not obligated to give everything you wrote in your book on a subject, here you only gave feelings. Honestly, I never knew, and I'm not yet certain, that this is a mystical- rational argument. Your explanation here as well,is an emotional explanation of the heart. What we need to know is what power it has regarding the brain.
Maybe the seforim and shiurim I've heard on the subject are mistaken, but you didn't answer their main point that people have come back from brain death. They don't say, as you seem to insinuate here, that a heart beating is Life.
What you can say is
1- stories are lies
2- those were miracles like people coming back after full death ( if those stories are true) and we don't worry in Halacha about isolated miracles
3- doctors mistake about brain death and that is beyond unusual.
There are other rational sounding arguments ( our instruments are not strong enough to judge brain death) which never sounded mystical to me. True you don't have to enter every argument your book says but enough of the subject should be touched that it shouldn't look like pr for the book. By the way, only in your response to a comment did you mention that this is a mystical-rational issue, in the article that's only at most hinted to by the title of book you tell us to see. Your articles in general are well worked through and your point usually very clear.
It is the brain, not the heart which directs the hand to act, the mouth to pray. A person with an artificial heart is still alive, still the same person and not a robot.
I have been a supporter of planned organ donation my whole adult life. I applaud you for movingly showing its value and advocating its widespread adoption. In my opinion, it is the highest possible form of tzedakah.
Hi Moshe
Huge fan of your work with Brandon Sanderson. Why did you break up?
I remember reading your life story in a series of interviews. Are you Orthodox again? Thanks.
Hi, Ash, thanks for your appreciation. I'm happy to say Brandon and I did _not_ break up! (Besides being work colleagues, we have become close friends over the years, and I'm very fond of his family.) Just last summer I edited one of the Kickstarter “secret project” books for him.
I only reluctantly skipped working on one Stormlight book and one Wax & Wane book. That was because of health issues that would have made it difficult to meet the compressed deadlines we use to get Brandon's books out as quickly as possible.
I expect to continue working with Brandon as long as I'm physically and intellectually able. Since he's 24 years younger than I am, I reluctantly admit that full retirement will have to come at some point.
No, I haven’t become Orthodox again, despite the fact that both my sisters made aliyah, live in the Occupied Territories, and are thoroughly Dati Leumi. I attended yeshiva for 12 years, but just lack the innate ruach they have in spades. I usually describe myself, paradoxically I know, as “non-observant Orthodox.” I think that's accurate because one can't escape the influence of the milieu you grew up in and because I have problems with the foundational ideas of the Reform and Conservative branches. Obviously, I retain a strong interest in Judaism and Israel or I wouldn’t be here.
As a lifelong science fiction fan and believer in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, I'm sure there are multiple timelines where I became a rabbi rather than an editor!
The highest possible form of tzedakah is donating to GiveWell's Top Charities Fund.
Hey Moshe Feder, is Consulting Senior Editor a demotion or promotion from Associate Editor?
https://voxday.net/2015/06/11/moshe-feder-doubles-down-twice/
You apparently have many opinions.
Hiya Shim. Do you still think the earth is flat?
Shimshon, that should be obvious. But I guess anyone who would link to a racist, neo-Nazi jerk like Vox Day isn’t bright enough to know that “Senior” tops “Associate.”
It’s sad and disturbing to see anyone drag a despicable schmuck like Vox within shouting distance of a Torah discussion, and I say that as someone who would be called chiloni in Israel. I can't think of anyone I’ve personally dealt with — albeit indirectly — more deserving of the phrase “yemach shmo” than VD. Thanks for signaling so distinctly that I can skip your comments in the future.
I don't know. What's this "consulting" bit?
So kind. I personally arranged the interview Vox Day did of Moshe Feiglin. Is Feiglin a "neo-Nazi" too? You've never actually dealt with the man at all (this is what "indirectly" means)? I have. In any case, Vox hasn't mentioned you since 2015. You must be long irrelevant.
What about Peter Grant? He calls you a liar. Is he also a "neo-Nazi"?
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2015/06/moshe-feder-doubles-down-again-on-lies.html
Hey Gamma loser Shimshon
Vox Day lied multiple times about unauthorizeddottv and where he lived ( he lives in Switzerland, not Italy. ) He also scammed tons of money from paypiggies like you with the Rebels Run scam, with the help of your friend Josiah Litle ( now more famous as a wife murderer). Why do you still follow this scammer loser? Is it because his SSH makes you feel like a man?
The “consulting bit” is that I'm 71 and semi-retired.
I dealt with Vox indirectly as one of his opponents when he and his minions tried to to destroy SF's Hugo Awards and did considerable damage.
By describing your connection to VD, you only further lower my opinion of you. Are you another wingnut like the rest of his crowd? (I guess your association with Feiglin confirms that.) I was under the illusion that Jews were too smart to fall under Vox's evil spell. Sorry to learn I was mistaken.
I'm pleased to hear he hasn't mentioned me in eight years. Until now, I haven’t mentioned him for just as long. (I'll wash my mouth out when I'm done here.)
I have no idea who Peter Grant is or why he would say that, nor do I care.
I never heard of you and am not interested in what non-orthodox Jews have to say about halacha, but I see you mentioned the Hugos - I own a few of the compilations from the late golden age, in the 70s. I'm reading some Robert Scheckely short stories right now, actually. (Reviewing some old favorites and reading others for the first time.) What a genius he was!
Garvin, feel free to ignore anything I say on Halacha! Unlike some people here, especially among Natan's opponents, I admit I'm an am h'aretz! That's why we call such statements _opinions_ and don't pretend they're undisputed facts. I'm a science fiction and fantasy editor, not a posek or even a common rabbi.
I had the privilege of being a friend of Bob's — did you know he was Jewish? — and while he'd modestly dispute being called a genius, he was indeed very talented and one of the masters of humorous and satirical SF. He was also a gentle and generous mensch, a true “adam matok.”
Shimshon is an insane individual who thinks the earth is flat. In no way is he representative of any Jews other than himself.
You portray a heavy halachic shailah as though it were nothing more than merely an intellectual vs emotional issue, and then blare your own "psak" in an area where even learned poskim, whose entire lives are steeped in halacha, are hesitant to tread. Come on, man. The hubris is just incredible.
The only learned poskim who are hesitant to acknowledge brain death as death are those who are steeped in a non-rationalist worldview.
You are measuring others with your own yardstick.
Halacha is a difficult job. You seemingly don't care to do the job, and you seem to think that others also don't. So you think they pasken based on worldview instead of Halacha. You are projecting your misdeeds onto others.
You are welcome to read my book for a detailed discussion of the halachic arguments. Including observing a mistake that the great Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach committed, due to his lack of understanding of scientific advances, and later acknowledged.
No it's a matter of whether you consider the actual facts or disregard them in favor of an unsubstantiated or completely wrong observation of the facts.
I would not dismiss a teshuva from the Shevet Halevi ZTL because he was chassidish and therefore "steeped in chassidism" and I am not chassidish. I would not dismiss a teshuva from Rav Ovadia ZTL because he was "steeped in Sefardi culture". Your casual dismissal of those poskim as "steeped in a non-rationalist worldview" is not shocking to me (and is typical of academic Talmud), but should render your views totally irrelevant to anybody who cares about halacha and the Torah at all.
Being chassidish or Sefardi does not have anywhere near as significant impact on a halachic teshuva than being non-rationalist does on the topic of brain death.
Besides for the total incoherence of the"rationalist vs. non-rationalist" dichotomy (apparently rationalist means being kofer in s'char v'onesh, but also standing for Hatikvah, and also pakening a certain way about end of life. Lol.), there is no reason why anybody should trust your opinion in the slightest about the factors influencing poskim who are a million times greater than you.
I don't expect anyone to trust my opinion. I provide arguments, which they can evaluate for themselves.
It is remarkable that you're OK with leaving people without organs purely because of religious concerns and for no other reason. It's like Rabbi Slifkin is doing everything in his power to prove that religion is not harmful and can even be beneficial, and you're doing everything in your power to prove otherwise.
"Religious concerns and no other reasons"- buddy you are on (what claims to be) a religious blog. If you don't find religious concerns compelling, you're in good company with millions of others. And I don't do the blackmail of "if you don't tell me that everything in your religion is totally identical to secular humanism, I won't believe in it"
Standing for the Hatikvah is a rejection of the Rambam's Principles!?
Huh? No, I was just showing how incoherent his "rationalist" mess is
RNS merely believes that there are limits to proofs of various issues in Judaism. That doesn't mean that they can't be convincing and people won't or can't believe in Judaism. He surely is a believer.
If RNS shows the connection and how this might be a matter to consider in the particular case depending on the source and its relevance it might be considered.In this case perhaps RNS over generalized to make his point. There are times when RNS claims we stick to the Halacha even though it may not be true on that case. Spontaneous generation with killing lice on Shabbat RNS allows.Some say it is forbidden.
I personally would not kill lice on Shabbat because I fear chilull shabby. Would you?!
Shabbat
The dichotomy of "rationalist" vs. "non-rationalist" is absurd as we have shown many times, and particularly so with regards to psak halacha. Reject their psak halacha because they believe in magic and demons? Maybe reject the Talmud also for that reason? Completely ridiculous.
Again, should I out of hand dismiss all of the Shevet Halevi's psakim because he was chassidish (and I am not)? Does that sound remotely reasonable to you?
RNS is a believer in the Rambam's Principles. He doesn't always express them in traditional "Yeshiva " Nusach.
Lol, read this https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/is-there-anything-at-all-rational
HaRav HaGaon Mecharker will have another post coming out soon, that will provide more details and more examples
There is a major difference between "ignoring a psak" on Sefardi/Ashkenazi grounds, where it is about multiple authentic mesorahs in Am Yisrael decided by real yarei shamayim gedolim who follow a mesora of their forebearers in how to decide things, and simply throwing out a posek because *you* disagree with them on vague hashkafic grounds. And even then, you oversimplify it-- Sefardi and Ashkenazi poskim consider eachother's opinions in certain contexts. Additionally, there is a difference between not following a psak but still respecting that it is a legitimate psak from a giant among men (a machloket leshem shamayim, putting one under the wing of Hillel and Shamai)-- as in Sefardi/Ashkenazi disagreements in halacha--, and showing brazen disrespect and mockery towards virtually every gadol from out of your own head (joining the crowd of Korach).
So this is what I find both false and extremely disrespectful. Rav Wosner writes a whole teshuva based on his analysis of the sugya, based on his tremendous bekius in Shas and poskim, based on his tremendous learning ability and shimush talmidei chachomim, based on his yiras shamayim, and perhaps yes, maybe on some level there is some chassidishe ideology there also. And then along comes some idiot am ha'aretz and says you can discount it because he has a chassidishe ideology. This position, although common among academic Talmud departments, is totally outside of Torah Judaism.
But here is something you can do. Somebody denies s'char v'onesh, denies miracles, denies major parshiyos in the Torah, says there is no such thing as knowing how to learn, claims improving the economy is more important than Shemiras Shabbos- somebody like him, you can definitely dismiss!
Barf. Do you have even the slightest bit of self-awareness??
Google Rav M. Feinstein and R.M. Tendler on the brain death issue.After extensive study and consultation with doctors in the field,including those with yeshiva learning, and many,many hours of seeing many,many patients in the hospital who were brain dead,and seeing tests to detere whether
whether there was independent action not just reflex as when cutting off the head of acow. Ruling was that brain death was death. R.D. Feinstein stated that his father in this ruling was still maintaining that heart activity was the criterion heart . But this was not real heart activity rather machine causing the heart to operate.
You've lost your mind.
halacha should never be a factor when making important decisions https://dovber.substack.com/p/the-ridiculousness-of-the-organ-donation?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Almost all people who fought against gay marriage, on some level, were doing it based on religious grounds. That's why it is right for a secular government to ignore those people. There is nothing wrong with a specific religion banning a practice for their consenting followers, but they have no right to tell the others who do not.
When it comes to brain death and end of life, IMHO, halakha is not ethical at all. In general, in marking the brain-dead beating-heart patient as alive, halakha does not take into account either 1) the patient's pain and suffering, 2) whether they r likely to live without any hope of recovery and for how long, and 3) what the patient clearly expressed as their wish.
It is tragic to see brain-dead patients kept alive, often in pain, often against their will, "as long as their heart is beating." Call it "medical halakha," if u must, but do not brand that as "medical ethics." WADR, cause it ain't.
Braindead patients are not in pain. When the brain stops functioning, it’s like being under general anesthesia -- there’s no pain or any other kind of subjective experience.
Even after "brain death," certain operations of the brain continue to function. True, we do not fully understand what a purported brain-dead person experiences or is aware of, but pain sensation seems intact in most. In fact, if a brain-dead patient undergoes surgery, even to harvest their vital organs, appropriate anesthesia is administered.
“Brain death” is the is the irreversible cessation of all brain function. Anesthesia is used on the transplant donor to help preserve organs, not reduce pain. For example, you still have reflexes without your brain so anesthesia is needed to prevent movement. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071731/#:~:text=The%20aim%20of%20medical%20management,the%20quality%20of%20transplantable%20organs.&text=The%20donor%20is%20dead%20and,not%20to%20provide%20'anaesthesia'.
At least in the US, the criteria for brain death r not so exactingly assessed. When a young patient has a great heart, a great liver, and 2 great kidneys to donate, the "definition" of brain death can be a moving target. Besides, we never know precisely what the patient senses. I know what I am talking about (I am a pro in the field, but 'nuff said).
As a procurement transplant coordinator, I probably am a bit more a “pro in the field.” While you may administer anesthesia to brain dead donors, that is absolutely not standard practice - paralytics are given during procurement to prevent any spinal reflexes but no sedation or analgesia is administered.
Your suggestion that brain death is a moving target is incorrect and misinformation. There are very clear criteria established by every state and every hospital that are followed. The declaring providers are not part of the procurement team in any way. A second physician must certify in the case of any potential procurement. The procurement organizations scrutinize every part of the declaration process and make sure that everything is done according to policy and protocol.
Can you provide some material on what you are referring to?
Where did Garvin write the word 'ethics'?
He wrote Halacha.
But your basic premise that pain and suffering are objectively wrong, is completely unproven and unprovable. It may be better not to suffer than to suffer, but to relieve suffering by ceasing to exist seems unethical too.
Medical halakha implicitly purports itself to be "ethical." I really object when I see orthodox rabbis on hospital and university "medical ethics" panels. Their opinions r relevant only to those patients and families who observe halakha. Non-observers r often confused by their opinions, which r based mostly on religion, not science.
Yes, pain and suffering cannot be proved to be ethically wrong. However, the accumulated wisdom of 200K years of H. sapiens' existence strongly accepts that P&S r highly undesirable. Ceasing to exist, however, comes sooner or later to ALL people. It is very fair to evaluate whether prolonging a period of tortured existence is always desirable.
Ethics is not a science. Orthodox Rabbis have a version of ethics based on Torah, and you have one based on your pupik. Why should yours be at the table and theirs not?
Because separation of church and state discredits dogma. Besides, halakha is frequently not ethical at all.
Church? State?
You are living in some kind of bubble here. Ethics aren't laws, they have nothing to do with the state.
@Garvin, have you even read Rabbi Slifkin's chapter in his book Rationalism vs. Mysticism that you make such a nonsensical comment? If you bothered to read it, you will see that he did a thorough and exhaustive research on this topic. The hubris is all yours.
My dear friend, you'd be advised not to fall for his intellectual intimidation so easily. Dr. S. is far better at snotty self assured pretense than actual even handed dissection of complicated sugyos.
Cool for him that suckers like you not only fall for it, but then proceed to lectures others to join them in their sophisticated admiration of the monarch's wardrobe...
If you're really serious on getting to know his style, rather than just drink his Kool aide, here's something to look at.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/evolved-extinction
(Garvin, MD, Inquire, etc.)
You're new here. Brain death an old topic on this blog; you're being exposed to another opinion for the fist time, I see . . .
No, I've been here for a long time. I know what Slifkin thinks about it. What disgusted me is the way he offhandedly dismisses all those whom he disagrees with. This is a halachic question of the utmost seriousness, and poskim have written lengthy teshuvos examining rayos from Shas and Poskim. It is not merely an emotional decision because they think the person seems to still be breathing.
The way Natan dismisses them like that is entirely typical and speaks volumes about his intellectual seriousness as well as his arrogance.
It's an old topic in general, any halfway intelligent בר בי רב knows the relevant sugyas. But we don't go out there telling the world what the halacha is, we don't reduce the issues to a puerile "intelligence v emotions" dialectic, and we sure as heck don't make gross over-simplifications about the "worldviews" of the participants.
The problem is that until modern times there was no such thing as a person with a non working brainstem but a beating heart because such would require the use of a mechanical ventilator. So the classical sources simply don’t shed light on the phenomenon. This is admitted by all, given that we ignore the Talmud’s prescription to stop treating a patient on Shabbos once cessation of breathing has been established. For them that meant the person could not survive. For us this is not true.
Poskim are aware of this claim, true or not, and many others. There are heavyweight figures on both sides. The problem with this post, like so many others, is not the existence of two opinions, but NS's hubris in thinking he can play in the sandbox with the big boys. It's amusing, yes, but its also quite nauseating.
Yes, there are poskim on all sides. Which means this ends up coming down to an individual decision based on the individuals approach and who they choose as the poskim that align with their values. So if there are poskim are basing themselves on incorrect assumptions and trying to divine the answer from traditional sources that are not applicable to the current situation, then their opinions will carry less weight with someone like R Slilfkin who is not in that camp. The other question is how much weight you put on outcomes. It's pretty clear that enabling donation is not curtailing anyone's actual life and it is enabling many years of actual life on the part of the recipient as well as being a nechama to the family. So if even there is some slight halachic (not factual) doubt that perhaps those last hours of unconscious brainless purported life could be life, the poskim who take into account impacts in the issue (and all poskim talk into account impacts when deciding Halacha because Halacha tells you to do so), then these poskim will tend to brain death criteria. The chareidi poskim as a rule tend not to consider greater societal issues in their p'sak so if you are someone who are not in the chareidi camp and do think that societal impact is important in this kind of p'sak, then you will tend to favor the brain death side. Stepping back, If you are a strong charedi who feels the the charedi poskim have it right on some issue and you will follow it even when difficult, then then that also means that the non-charedim should strongly follow the p'sak of their Rabbis despite other approaches and ignore the chareidi poskim. It is a matter of choosing your camp and R Slifkin, beside analyzing the halachic issues in is book, is making a case to people as to which camp they should join baed on their values.
"His position to ignore these poskim is also based on his willingness to ignore the Talmud if the Talmud is wrong scientifically (in his estimation)."
Of course - that's why we try save someone on Shabbos even though they have stopped breathing!
First off, you have this backwards. A person with irreversible cessation of brain function will stop breathing (the talmud's sign of death), but their heart will continue beating for some time and this can be supported for longer period through artificial ventilation. So if you are going in that (improper direction), the Talmud supports the brain death criteria.
But the point is that at the time of the Talmud, all these things went together. If your brainstem dies, then you won't breath and your heart will stop. If your heart stops, you brain will die. Since they had no ventilators, AED devices, or heart lung machines, all of the signs equally meant death at that time.
And this ridiculous position is totally outside of Torah Judaism.
So are you of the opinion that one shouldn't try to rescue someone on Shabbos who is not breathing like the Gemara says?
Lol. I don't believe you mean this question seriously, but l'kanter, so I am not responding. If you are really interested, happygoluckypersonage@gmail.com
I agree with almost all your opinions, but it is untrue that an animal's head has ever been transplanted onto another animal of the same species. It is inconceivable that in the near future, a human head transplant could ever work. The numerous biological complexities of such an operation have not at all been solved.
Hear is a paper listing out head transplants. All each of them did is hook up a blood supply to the head to keep it alive for a time as a separate entity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5116034/
*Here
Please see: https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/professor-claims-doctors-successfully-performed-human-head-transplant/
The operation supposedly happened years ago, but has still not been reported in any reputable medical journal in US or Europe. This report is a fraud. The Russian puppy operation supposedly occurred over 60 years ago, and it has never been reproduced. Also a fraud.
These operations have never been performed on live animals or people, at least none who survived.
Who bloody cares? Read the article where the esteemed professor makes him claim, "The first human transplant on human cadavers has been done."
The only accomplishment here was to discover a surgical procedure in which it makes more sense to wash afterwards, than before.
How is when u "wash" relevant to this discussion? In general, u wash your hands before AND after u perform either a surgical operation or a cadaver dissection.
Indeed it's not relevant.
But I'm curious to know what sort of pathogens could infect the said cadaver that would harm it's quality of life.
Of course, the issue of "quality of life" does not apply to a dead person. The crew wash their hands to prevent their getting contaminated by pathogens in the cadaver. They also wish to avoid unintentionally colonizing the cadaver with germs on THEIR skin, thereby confounding discovery of what pathogens the cadaver was harboring before its demise.
On April 11, 1959 the Associated Press circulated a message from Moscow: Russian doctors had transplanted a puppy’s head to the neck of a German shepherd and the two-headed beast was in good health. The pioneering work was done by a doctor/scientist by the name of Demikhov.
Halacha has already changed to account for current knowledge. Everyone is familiar with the Gemarah in Shabbat that describes what's to be done if a wall collapses on someone on Shabbat. As I recall, the procedure is to excavate just enough to determine if the victim is breathing. If he isn't, no further excavation is allowed. Is there ANY Hatzala organization from Kiryas Yoel to Meah Shearim that would not dig the victim ompletly out and start chest compressions?
"I have a chapter explaining in much greater detail why brain death should halachically be considered as death"
Is this in the same sense that you "discovered" that the impossibility of extinction is "the universal view of all religious authorities, Jewish and Christian, from the times of the Rishonim into the 19th Century, as discussed in [my book]".
Just asking.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/evolved-extinction
It’s almost as if this post was written completely from personal feelings and logic. And the Torah, and even the science (“ Full head transplants have been successfully performed in monkeys and dogs, and are certainly possible with humans;”) have been stated as generalizations or completely ignored.
Regardless of halachic issues surrounding organ donation, the publicising of these images crosses all bounds of taste, dignity, and decency. People will differ over whether the concept of listening to your mother's heart in someone else's body is in itself edifying or creepy, but it is certainly not the sort of thing that should be done in front of a camera and shared on social media under any circumstances ever.
This is far from the only bizarre example of mawkish voyeurism to emerge from this Reality TV Shiva and Shloshim, and some will no doubt respond that the family themselves do not object, perhaps are even encouraging it. I do not know whether this is true or not and who can judge people in such grief? But I do know that when they have had a chance to heal they will regret that their period of mourning looked like this and that so many people looking for a five minute dopamine hit facilitated it.
This is a matter and taste and most people probably disagree strongly. This serves an important function to get more people to think about donating and reducing the suffering and death of those on the waiting list. I can’t argue that it is good for you but it is likely a benefit for most watchers.
For 1, separation of church and state. Do the Rabbis clearly state that their opinion is based on religious dogma alone? For 2, very very often halakha is not ethical at all. E.g., nida is irrelevant to any1 but orthodox Jews.
Some Questions Relating to the Lack of Pulse and Respiration as the Halachic Criteria of Death.
Scenario 1: A man, R”L, goes into cardiac arrest in shul on shabbos. He is unconscious and has no detectable pulse or respiration.
1. Is he alive or dead?
2. If he is dead, are we allowed to be mechalel shabbos to resuscitate him? If we are permitted to do so, why?
3. If he is considered to be still alive, what then constitutes death?
4. If there is a minimum time requirement for lack of pulse and respiration, what is it? What is the makor in chazal?
5. Is his wife an almonah? Can she collect her kesubah? Can she remarry without a get?
6. Do his children inherit him?
7. If 5 and 6 do not apply, why not?
Scenario 2: A man enters the hospital for scheduled by-pass surgery. In the normal course of the surgery, his heart is stopped and his lungs are deflated. A device (called a heart-lung machine) now oxygenates and circulates his blood. Upon completion of the critical part of the surgery, the machine is removed and his heart and lungs are re started.
1. Was he alive or dead during the surgery?
2. If he was considered to be still alive, why?
3. His heart and lungs were stopped for over an hour. If there is a minimum time requirement for lack of pulse and respiration, is it more than that?
4. Is his wife an almonah? Can she collect her kesubah? Can she remarry without a get?
5. Do his children inherit him?
6. If 4 and 5 do not apply, why not?
Rabbi Slifkin I enjoy many of your articles but this one is crummy,in the sense that it is only giving crumbs of your book. While you are not obligated to give everything you wrote in your book on a subject, here you only gave feelings. Honestly, I never knew, and I'm not yet certain, that this is a mystical- rational argument. Your explanation here as well,is an emotional explanation of the heart. What we need to know is what power it has regarding the brain.
Maybe the seforim and shiurim I've heard on the subject are mistaken, but you didn't answer their main point that people have come back from brain death. They don't say, as you seem to insinuate here, that a heart beating is Life.
What you can say is
1- stories are lies
2- those were miracles like people coming back after full death ( if those stories are true) and we don't worry in Halacha about isolated miracles
3- doctors mistake about brain death and that is beyond unusual.
There are other rational sounding arguments ( our instruments are not strong enough to judge brain death) which never sounded mystical to me. True you don't have to enter every argument your book says but enough of the subject should be touched that it shouldn't look like pr for the book. By the way, only in your response to a comment did you mention that this is a mystical-rational issue, in the article that's only at most hinted to by the title of book you tell us to see. Your articles in general are well worked through and your point usually very clear.
"Rabbi Slifkin I enjoy many of your articles but this one is crummy..."
There seems to be more and more of this. The Slifkin Awakening commences.
"doctors mistake about brain death and that is beyond unusual."
Did you mean that or was that a typo? Search for "brain death misdiagnosis", it appears to be a significant problem.
If doctors can't reliably diagnose brain death, then it would seem that the halachic debate is moot. (But I'll leave that question for the poskim.)
https://www.sgklawyers.com/blog/2018/02/not-brain-dead/#:~:text=Studies%20from%20England%20showed%20even,had%20varying%20levels%20of%20consciousness.
I meant was the phrase "beyond unusual" a typo, and he meant to write "not beyond unusual"?
"Not beyond unusual," u propose. Now, THAT would be a textbook example of why to avoid double negatives.
It is the brain, not the heart which directs the hand to act, the mouth to pray. A person with an artificial heart is still alive, still the same person and not a robot.