While bone marrow naturally regenerates, donors do undergo general anesthesia and get hospitalized for a couple of days. While Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch does not obligate donation, even as he deems it extremely meritorious (Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:387), Rabbi Shlomo Auerbach believes that a potential donor should be cajoled into donating, especially if he does not fear the surgery (Nishmat Avraham EH 80). Yet rabbis Mordechai Willig and J. David Bleich obligate one to donate since the dangers represent common and minimal risks regularly performed for less pressing needs.He says that he will address kidney and liver transplants, as well as the question of commercializing (buying and selling) organs in his next column. We'll keep you posted.
WHEN: From Talia Friedman: I was wondering about birchot hashachar. What would a blind person say about he bracha "gives sight to the blind"? would he say she-asanee kirtzono instead? would he respond "amen" to a chazzan saying that bracha, if it does not apply to him? I was also wondering if being female is considered a handicap in these brachot. it says "thanks for making me a man" near "giving me sight" "not making me lame" and other handicaps. "Making me according to your will" is not a satisfying alternative. if say then should women respond "amen" to a chazzan saying that bracha? Why doesn't everyone say "she-asanee kirtzono", it applies to everyone? I know this probably is a classic question, but I have never heard an answer.
A blind person would say "Who gives sight to the blind" because in that berachah we are thanking Hashem for the phenomenon of sight in the world, not that we personally have sight. Most of the other berachot are similar - not personally about us but about Hashem creating the phenomena. The exceptions, which seem to be personal, are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th berachot: "You have not made me a .... {gentile/slave/woman}." The classic explanation for that group of 3 comes from R. David Abudraham (14th century Spain): gentiles, slaves and women (in ascending order) have fewer obligations in mitzvot, and a man therefore is thankful that he is not in a class of people who have fewer obligations. This is another manifestation of the outlook that the mitzvot are a gift, not a burden. Women also thank Hashem for not being in the first 2 classes of people with lesser obligations, and then thank Hashem in a positive way, for creating "me according to His will," perhaps meaning that the lesser degree of obligation is the will of Hashem, for whatever reasons He had.
Like most Yeshiva University graduates, I interact on a daily basis with gentiles for most of my day. My Orthodox Jewish identity has never become an issue or conflict. However, following last week’s New York Times article by Noah Feldman… I have frequently been getting questions like, ‘Is it true that according to your law you wouldn’t save my life on the Sabbath’ or, ‘Do you really believe that Jewish life is more important than gentile life?’ How does a young Modern Orthodox professional answer these questions in a respectful and diplomatic way so as not to demonize others and at the same time be true to his faith?My dear Noah Feldman, it is your duty to answer him, because you are the cause of his discomfiture and perhaps his possible inability to find employment."
In settling his scores with his alma mater, Feldman ascribes to his high school rebbi the claim that a doctor who treats a Gentile on Shabbat violates the day unless his explicit intention is to do so only in order to avoid animus. Though this sounds like nonsense, I am informed that a high school teacher actually said it.After all of these authorities, there is little to add, except to reiterate something that I have discussed with most of you before. Anyone who learns Torah on a serious basis will occasionally encounter texts and sources that make her uncomfortable - be it on the subject of slavery, women, non-Jews, homosexuality etc. Sometimes this is a result of the influence of Western culture, which we would not expect to be identical to the Torah world-view. More often, we misinterpret the sources, and if we're lucky, are eventually corrected. Most common though, we don't know which of these is true, and are left with a difficult, sometimes even painful clash between what we read in the Torah and what feels right to us.
The insinuation that religious Jewish doctors cannot be entrusted with the care of non-Jewish patients was, as we all know, part of the arsenal of 19th century European anti-Semitism. It was not meant in earnest: as an Orthodox deputy once remarked, during a debate on the licensing of physicians in the Austrian Parliament, several of the most outspoken leaders of the anti-Semitic party used Jewish doctors.
An honest understanding of the Halakha about saving a Gentile on Shabbat is grounded in the fact that not all mitsvot can be violated to save life. Idolatry, sexual offenses and murder may not be allowed even to save life, however this flies in the face of our utilitarian mentality. Shabbat has much in common with the so-called “big three.” [Note R. Shimon’s view in Yerushalmi that a bystander may intervene to prevent Shabbat violation even at the cost of the transgressor’s life.] For Jews Shabbat may be violated to save life, but only on the basis of a special limmud (inference)—“desecrate one Shabbat so that he may observe many Shabbatot.” Where this principle does not apply, Shabbat is inviolable.
Where people understand that religion may on occasion make life and death demands, the law that Shabbat is so important that it is overridden only for those who are members of the community that observes it is difficult but not scandalous. In our culture this understanding is lacking; thus the failure to treat Jews and Gentiles identically will be interpreted as indifference to the fate of the non-Jew, and will be perceived as tantamount to connivance in his death. It will provoke hatred, and understandably so. In this case, the theoretical gulf separating secularists from halakhists is not universalism vs. particularism but the recognition that Shabbat is, in principle, worth the sacrifice. It is common to stress that Judaism, compared, let us say, with Hinduism, affirms the value of human life and eschews such sacrifices. That the value of human life is overridden only in exceptional circumstances is a significant element in generalizing about Jewish ethics. But an almost absolute principle is not the same as an absolute one.
On the first question, I do not know, but in the Talmud, the story is not told by Rebbe Akiva himself, but by a later rabbi, Rav. If anyone had an agenda in making up the story, it was probably to explain the whole assumption and basis of the process of Torah Shebaal Pe. Rebbe Akiva was not the only one to ever introduce a new idea that may not have been known to Moshe.
I agree with Mrs. Block that this gemarah is very relevant to this issue. I would add by expanding on the significance of the end of that story, that Rebbe Akiva attributed his teaching to "halacha leMoshe miSinia". Rebbe Akiva's work represented the dynamic and evolving nature of Torah and halacha. Nevertheless, they are all rooted in the tradition from Sinai, and evolved through the application of the principles that God taught Moshe. There is a limit, and there is a reason why we cannot make a whole new book. Because God taught Moshe rules and principles that he, and later Jews, will use in order to interpret the Torah. This is a dynamic process, but we are expected to be creative and innovative within the parameters that God told Moshe. Indeed, every novelty of Rebbe Akiva is based on the information and rules that were given to Moshe at Sinai. They do not represent misinterpretation but rather further development. Apparently, even Moshe did not anticipate all the wisdom that would be built upon the information that he transmitted to God and to the Jewish people, but ultimately felt nachat when seeing it.
It is as if a great 18th century scientist would be shown a vision of the first spaceship to travel to the moon in the 1960's. This is a possibility that was probably a wild dream in the 1700's. Imagine if he would discover in that vision that the ability for this to take place was all based on his discoveries from the 18th century. That would not be called a misinterpretation, but the application, and the building upon his own ideas. That would be great nachat!
Rebbe Akiva did interpret things the way that they were supposed to be interpreted, but maybe not by Moshe, but only by God. Yes, there is a limit. Innovation is the essence of the Torah Shebaal Pe, but they must be developed within the limits of the rules that were told at Sinai and that have been developed over the generations.
Interestingly, the gemarah of "nitzchuni banai" that you have referred to opens up another issue - that perhaps God Himself has created a system where more than one interpretation can be offered, within the limits of the rules. And incredibly, God left if for use to choose the interpretation to be followed in the halacha (through the rule of majority), even if it is not what He had in mind. Apparently, it is more important to God that this would become a human process than it be most accurate. If He sought perfection in the halacha, then He probably would have written the whole thing Himself.
1. Why is it important for us to know what cloth were hanging in the palace and all the other seemingly extra information at the beginning of the megilla?
2.How is it that Haman's wife knew something Esther didn't know? Haman's wife knew that if Haman was putting himself against the Jews the Jews would prevail why didn't Esther have the same faith instead of hesitating before going to the king?
3. When Haman was coming home after he was invited to the party he told his wife that he saw Mordechai HAYEHUDI, he told her the he was Jewish why know does she say build him a gallow instead of telling him like she does later that he can't win?
4. Why after Achashverosh kills somebody does it have to say afterwards and then his anger subsided?
5. Didn't Achashverosh tell Esther, right before her request to hang Haman's sons, that Haman's sons were hung?
6.Why are sons punished and why are they highlighted specifically?
~HAPPY PURIMAll answers, or other questions, are welcome from students & faculty alike are very welcome. I have some thoughts, and hope to share them soon.
