I occasionally receive emails asking if I would like to review a new book. I generally decline [how many reviews have you seen on here?], for two reasons: 1) I don’t have time to read the books I already intend to read, and 2) I have no interest in publishing a negative review, and I tend to find some pickable bones I feel are significant. So I generally decline.
When I received an email regarding Rabbi Yisroel Miller's new book, "In Search of Torah Wisdom: Questions You Forgot to Ask Your Rebbi", though, I was interested. I know of Rabbi Miller's work in Pittsburgh, and I have had the chance to visit his lovely community in Calgary, and everything I have heard has been impressive. The premise of the book – providing answers for contemporary challenges – is interesting. And I would love to hear how Rabbi Miller would address the questions he asks in the book. So I agreed to review it.
The good news is that this book is exactly what it pledges to be: The Introduction addresses the reader, asking, "Perhaps, dear reader, you are a Jewish man who attended a good Yeshiva Ketana, Mesivta High School, Yeshiva Gedola and maybe even spent a year or three in kollel. Or, you are a Jewish woman who attended a Bais Yaakov elementary school and high school, and a top seminary. After all that learning, you can surely answer the following basic questions:" And it continues to list questions related to Jewish belief and Jewish life, such as, "In what way does the idea of bitachon, trust in Hashem, obligate us to act differently even if we don't feel a sense of trust?" and "Why do great rabbis issue bans on books when such bans only increase their sales?" The author invites the reader, "If you would like to know – or feel that as a Jew you should know – the answers to these questions, then read on." The author does an excellent job of selecting good questions, and formulating them in challenging ways.
For each of these questions, the book lays out "the answer" for a reader who wants to be told it rather than go back to sources and figure it out himself - and today, that applies to many, many readers. In explaining concepts like "Elu v'Elu" and fundamentals of faith, Rabbi Miller articulately expresses beliefs enshrined in Jewish tradition. In defending controversial conservatism, such as book condemnations and halachic resistance to change, Rabbi Miller provides a perspective which challenges modern cynicism regarding rabbinic leadership and authority.
If you would appreciate answers which have their sources alongside them, though, this is not the book for you. Statements like page 47's "Can Torah leaders make mistakes? Of course… However, such errors are very rare…" would benefit from sourcing.
Also, the author has made what was probably a conscious decision to omit nuance. Indeed, at various points in the book (such as pg. 41 and pg. 65), the author notes that Torah scholars tend to issue public pronouncements which lack nuance and depth and sensitivity because they are afraid that a mass audience will miss their point, and only in private do they speak with thought-provoking insight. Unfortunately, this book occasionally goes the same route.
Sometimes the author chooses not to respond to a key part of his own question, such as when asked about the virulence of rabbinic disagreement (pg. 36 and pg. 64); he justifies the existence of disagreement without addressing the troubling virulence. At other times, the author simply re-frames the question as a statement; for example, on page 103 the author asks regarding young men who "plan to remain in kollel all their lives," "Shouldn't they be productive members of society?" and replies without elaboration that they are as productive as other members of society. I would have appreciated hearing what Rabbi Miller would have answered an individual, instead of the public pronouncement.
As I said at the outset: The book's premise is strong, and the book does provide serious food for thought. It is not everything I would have wanted, but I'd recommend it nonetheless.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Is it Syria? Or is it Gaza?
Definitely not Memorex. And definitely not Gaza, either. Not that this stops anyone from accusing Israel...
Click on each photo to see the story behind it. There are many more out there; this is just a small collection from five minutes of looking around.
What are you reading for Israel news updates?
For updates on events in Israel, I'm watching Jameel's ticker of on-going updates at the Muqata. Everything else I've seen is too slow, and Twitter is untrustworthy.
Does anyone have additional sites?
Does anyone have additional sites?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Thank You card etiquette
[Track on-going developments in the Israeli response to Hamas rockets, here at the Muqata. Updated throughout the day.]
I believe in having Bar Mitzvah boys / Bat Mitzvah girls write Thank You notes for the gifts they receive, as well as for the other efforts people make to mark their entry into religious adulthood in a beautiful and meaningful way. Gratitude, humility, thinking about other people - these are indispensable elements of a mature personality and of civilized society.
And as my Rebbetzin and I grew up with written Thank You notes, that's what my Rebbetzin and I expected our son to do as well at the time of his Bar Mitzvah this past year, and so he did. Writing each note involved him thinking about his relationship with the person who had given the gift, and about the gift itself, with the goal of writing a note that would be meaningful.
I mention this because someone asked me the following question yesterday: She received a "Thank You phone call" from a Bar Mitzvah boy. Is that better than, worse than, or of the same level as, a Thank You note?
On the one hand, a Thank You phone call is easier to do, mechanically, and it may reflect a casualness and lack of effort. My initial reaction, certainly, was to view it as less 'serious' than a Thank You note, and to group it with Thank You email, unworthy as a response to a gift.
On the other hand, a call can be more meaningful than a note, since there can be a "How are you," a conversation, and a spelling-out of ideas which thirteen-year old arms tend not to write out in full, legible sentences.
Further, many teens have a hard time holding conversations with anyone other than their friends; the Thank You phone call may actually represent more of an emotional investment, for them, than the Thank You note with its distance.
So I'm not sure. What do you think?
I believe in having Bar Mitzvah boys / Bat Mitzvah girls write Thank You notes for the gifts they receive, as well as for the other efforts people make to mark their entry into religious adulthood in a beautiful and meaningful way. Gratitude, humility, thinking about other people - these are indispensable elements of a mature personality and of civilized society.
And as my Rebbetzin and I grew up with written Thank You notes, that's what my Rebbetzin and I expected our son to do as well at the time of his Bar Mitzvah this past year, and so he did. Writing each note involved him thinking about his relationship with the person who had given the gift, and about the gift itself, with the goal of writing a note that would be meaningful.
I mention this because someone asked me the following question yesterday: She received a "Thank You phone call" from a Bar Mitzvah boy. Is that better than, worse than, or of the same level as, a Thank You note?
On the one hand, a Thank You phone call is easier to do, mechanically, and it may reflect a casualness and lack of effort. My initial reaction, certainly, was to view it as less 'serious' than a Thank You note, and to group it with Thank You email, unworthy as a response to a gift.
On the other hand, a call can be more meaningful than a note, since there can be a "How are you," a conversation, and a spelling-out of ideas which thirteen-year old arms tend not to write out in full, legible sentences.
Further, many teens have a hard time holding conversations with anyone other than their friends; the Thank You phone call may actually represent more of an emotional investment, for them, than the Thank You note with its distance.
So I'm not sure. What do you think?
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Scott Routley could change everything
One of the most difficult situations a Rabbi enters is the "end of life"/"quality of life" debate.
* Families can be torn apart as they debate the patient's best interests and preferences;
* Doctors are conflicted between their mission of preserving life, their responsibility to the overall healthcare system, and their personal feelings about the patient's state and prospects;
* Rabbis don't know which way to turn.
One of the hardest such cases is the persistent vegetative state. In many cases the doctors aver that the patient has no consciousness and will never have any consciousness. Family members might interpret certan physical movements as signs of consciousness, while medical staff will explain those movements in other ways. Everyone will debate what the patient wanted, or would have wanted. And various players will point to the cost of maintaining healthcare, insisting that there is no point in persisting - while traditional halachah insists that we are obligated to provide certain basic elements so long as we are not prolonging a painful death.
One of the critical questions involved, and perhaps the most critical, is this: Is the patient conscious?
As of this moment, CNN.com and NYtimes.com have not picked this up - but they will, it was only published 24 minutes ago:
Vegetative Ontario man Scott Routley ‘talks’ to researchers through brain scans
Severely brain-injured Scott Routley hasn’t spoken in 12 years. But scientists using an MRI to peer into his brain, can “see” what he’s thinking as various parts of his brain light up.
Essentially, his brain is doing the talking for him, say leading scientists at the University of Western Ontario’s Brain and Mind Institute.
As a result of breakthrough work on brain activity, the 39-year-old motor vehicle accident victim from London, Ont. has responded to a series of questions, including letting researchers know that he is not in pain.
“It became very clear that Scott had some awareness and he could respond in the scanner to the task we asked him to do while he was in there,” British neuroscientist professor Adrian Owen, who leads the research team, told the Toronto Star Tuesday.
“What we have done here for the very first time is ask a patient a question that is actually relevant to their clinical care.
“Asking somebody whether they are in pain in tremendously important, because of course if the answer had been yes, we could do something,” he said.
Owen said there is no doubt that being able to communicate in this way with a person thought to be a vegetative state is a first and it is hoped will lead to routine communications with at least one in five people in this uncommunicative state.
“That’s where we are trying to get to. We are trying to create what’s called a brain computer interface … some form of a machine that could allow somebody like Scott to routinely communicate with the outside word . . . We would like to give these patients a voice to enable them to actually communicate their wishes and needs,” he told the Star.
By using a functional magnetic imaging procedure he said they can tell by how different parts of Routley’s brain light up that he is responding to suggestions and questions.
“We put him in an MRI scanner and while he is in the scanner we ask him to imagine doing certain things in his mind . . . for example, we ask him to imagine using his arms. Scott is unable to use his arms in reality but it turns out he is perfectly able to imagine moving his arms. And we can pick that up on the scanner and we can tell he’s doing what we ask him to do,” Owen said.
The professor noted in an earlier interview with the Star that while functional magnetic resonance imaging machines, or fMRI images are the gold standard, they are expensive — machines can cost up to $2 million — and it is both costly and disruptive to move patients to the scanners in hospitals.
Owens says it’s quite possible that a portable high-end EEG machine, costing about $75,000, can be used at a patient’s bedside. An EEG uses scalp electrodes to measure the electrical signals coming from neurons in the brain.
Owen said command-following is a routine method of telling if a person is conscious and aware, “and with Scott we can tell he is activating his brain when we ask him to do so.”
“And when we say ‘now stop doing that imagining’ and then we see the little blob in the brain disappear. But when we say start it again now the blob lights up again,” he said.
Owen said Routley on two occasions through a series of question and commands “responded that he wasn’t in any pain.”
This research also raises ethical questions about whether these patients, once they are able to communicate, should be able to direct their care — and the end of their lives.
* Families can be torn apart as they debate the patient's best interests and preferences;
* Doctors are conflicted between their mission of preserving life, their responsibility to the overall healthcare system, and their personal feelings about the patient's state and prospects;
* Rabbis don't know which way to turn.
One of the hardest such cases is the persistent vegetative state. In many cases the doctors aver that the patient has no consciousness and will never have any consciousness. Family members might interpret certan physical movements as signs of consciousness, while medical staff will explain those movements in other ways. Everyone will debate what the patient wanted, or would have wanted. And various players will point to the cost of maintaining healthcare, insisting that there is no point in persisting - while traditional halachah insists that we are obligated to provide certain basic elements so long as we are not prolonging a painful death.
One of the critical questions involved, and perhaps the most critical, is this: Is the patient conscious?
As of this moment, CNN.com and NYtimes.com have not picked this up - but they will, it was only published 24 minutes ago:
Vegetative Ontario man Scott Routley ‘talks’ to researchers through brain scans
Severely brain-injured Scott Routley hasn’t spoken in 12 years. But scientists using an MRI to peer into his brain, can “see” what he’s thinking as various parts of his brain light up.
Essentially, his brain is doing the talking for him, say leading scientists at the University of Western Ontario’s Brain and Mind Institute.
As a result of breakthrough work on brain activity, the 39-year-old motor vehicle accident victim from London, Ont. has responded to a series of questions, including letting researchers know that he is not in pain.
“It became very clear that Scott had some awareness and he could respond in the scanner to the task we asked him to do while he was in there,” British neuroscientist professor Adrian Owen, who leads the research team, told the Toronto Star Tuesday.
“What we have done here for the very first time is ask a patient a question that is actually relevant to their clinical care.
“Asking somebody whether they are in pain in tremendously important, because of course if the answer had been yes, we could do something,” he said.
Owen said there is no doubt that being able to communicate in this way with a person thought to be a vegetative state is a first and it is hoped will lead to routine communications with at least one in five people in this uncommunicative state.
“That’s where we are trying to get to. We are trying to create what’s called a brain computer interface … some form of a machine that could allow somebody like Scott to routinely communicate with the outside word . . . We would like to give these patients a voice to enable them to actually communicate their wishes and needs,” he told the Star.
By using a functional magnetic imaging procedure he said they can tell by how different parts of Routley’s brain light up that he is responding to suggestions and questions.
“We put him in an MRI scanner and while he is in the scanner we ask him to imagine doing certain things in his mind . . . for example, we ask him to imagine using his arms. Scott is unable to use his arms in reality but it turns out he is perfectly able to imagine moving his arms. And we can pick that up on the scanner and we can tell he’s doing what we ask him to do,” Owen said.
The professor noted in an earlier interview with the Star that while functional magnetic resonance imaging machines, or fMRI images are the gold standard, they are expensive — machines can cost up to $2 million — and it is both costly and disruptive to move patients to the scanners in hospitals.
Owens says it’s quite possible that a portable high-end EEG machine, costing about $75,000, can be used at a patient’s bedside. An EEG uses scalp electrodes to measure the electrical signals coming from neurons in the brain.
Owen said command-following is a routine method of telling if a person is conscious and aware, “and with Scott we can tell he is activating his brain when we ask him to do so.”
“And when we say ‘now stop doing that imagining’ and then we see the little blob in the brain disappear. But when we say start it again now the blob lights up again,” he said.
Owen said Routley on two occasions through a series of question and commands “responded that he wasn’t in any pain.”
This research also raises ethical questions about whether these patients, once they are able to communicate, should be able to direct their care — and the end of their lives.
Competition is not a dirty word, even in fundraising
[I first published the following post more than five years ago; I still believe it.]
I disagree with pretty much every other shul rabbi I have ever met. I don't think that competition is a dirty word.
I don’t believe that properly-run Chabad centers, Kollelim or Batei Medrash will ever take a dime away from other properly-run Torah institutions. (I say "properly-run" as opposed to those which thrive on lashon hara, dishonesty or other unacceptable approaches.)
I have been a rabbi in a community with far more synagogues than we needed, and I have been a rabbi in a community in which Chabad entered a vacuum of institutions. I know what serious budget deficits are. To me, those deficits, and the consequent damage to a Jewish community, are not a result of competition.
I say this for three reasons:
1. The Free Market is good for a community
In the absence of competition, synagogues and schools and communities and, yes, rabbis, become comfortable. We become lazy. The same pattern of events year after year, the same classes, and innovation dies a silent death.
Introduce new institutions, and suddenly there is incentive - whether pride or finance or otherwise - for thinking up new ways to serve the community.
2. Ask more, and you’ll get more
Many boards are afraid to ask people for money. They think that repeated requests will seem like “nickel and diming” people. They think that people will give less, not more, if solicited more frequently.
But many people would give more, if they were on the right giving schedule.
If people are used to an annual fundraiser and a Kol Nidrei appeal, then that’s when they will give. If I am asked only twice per year, and each time the “norm” is $250-$500, then I’ll give the norm and get away with $500-$1000 per year, an absurdly small amount of tzedakah.
But if I am asked for meaningful tzedakah on a monthly basis, each time for a well-explained, well-founded cause, then I will become used to giving on that monthly basis. And I’ll end up giving much more.
So if a Chabad comes to town and hits people up for Gan Israel, a Sefer Torah, a new building, a pre-school, whatever, that will accustom people to reaching into their pockets more often. And that’s something I can use to my institution’s advantage, too, by getting into that schedule of giving.
3. The true “good of the community”Finally, I don’t think that the good of my institution is necessarily the same as the good of the community.
Let’s say we have an existing school, and it serves the community moderately well. Then a new school opens and it siphons off students, endangering the existing school.
My gut instinct is to be critical, but - might the new school be better for the community? Perhaps children might receive a better education there?
Let’s say my shul is the only bastion of Orthodoxy in my town. And let’s say a kollel opens up and draws my serious congregants into their sphere, and ultimately into their minyan. And let’s say that weakens my shul, to the point that my shul becomes a shadow of its former self. Who am I to say that this isn’t better for those who join that kollel?
Of course, you could easily argue the reverse.
You could easily argue that we need to stick together, and not build institutions to meet everyone's personal preference. I have certainly argued this point of view, in many different contexts.
You could easily argue that the associated strife in a case of school or synagogue competition will outweigh any spiritual gain. We may have better-educated children, but what will they be learning about Jewish communal life?
You could easily argue that drawing more observant families away from a school or synagogue will weaken the chance of exposure to observant Judaism for the remaining families. What happens to a minyan when all the people who like to discuss divrei torah leave for a different shul?
I won’t argue against any of those important points. But still, I wonder - how much of our fear of competition is fear for ourselves - our comfortable rabbinate, our supply of tzedakah, our own institution's good - instead of fear for the good of our communities?
I disagree with pretty much every other shul rabbi I have ever met. I don't think that competition is a dirty word.
I don’t believe that properly-run Chabad centers, Kollelim or Batei Medrash will ever take a dime away from other properly-run Torah institutions. (I say "properly-run" as opposed to those which thrive on lashon hara, dishonesty or other unacceptable approaches.)
I have been a rabbi in a community with far more synagogues than we needed, and I have been a rabbi in a community in which Chabad entered a vacuum of institutions. I know what serious budget deficits are. To me, those deficits, and the consequent damage to a Jewish community, are not a result of competition.
I say this for three reasons:
1. The Free Market is good for a community
In the absence of competition, synagogues and schools and communities and, yes, rabbis, become comfortable. We become lazy. The same pattern of events year after year, the same classes, and innovation dies a silent death.
Introduce new institutions, and suddenly there is incentive - whether pride or finance or otherwise - for thinking up new ways to serve the community.
2. Ask more, and you’ll get more
Many boards are afraid to ask people for money. They think that repeated requests will seem like “nickel and diming” people. They think that people will give less, not more, if solicited more frequently.
But many people would give more, if they were on the right giving schedule.
If people are used to an annual fundraiser and a Kol Nidrei appeal, then that’s when they will give. If I am asked only twice per year, and each time the “norm” is $250-$500, then I’ll give the norm and get away with $500-$1000 per year, an absurdly small amount of tzedakah.
But if I am asked for meaningful tzedakah on a monthly basis, each time for a well-explained, well-founded cause, then I will become used to giving on that monthly basis. And I’ll end up giving much more.
So if a Chabad comes to town and hits people up for Gan Israel, a Sefer Torah, a new building, a pre-school, whatever, that will accustom people to reaching into their pockets more often. And that’s something I can use to my institution’s advantage, too, by getting into that schedule of giving.
3. The true “good of the community”Finally, I don’t think that the good of my institution is necessarily the same as the good of the community.
Let’s say we have an existing school, and it serves the community moderately well. Then a new school opens and it siphons off students, endangering the existing school.
My gut instinct is to be critical, but - might the new school be better for the community? Perhaps children might receive a better education there?
Let’s say my shul is the only bastion of Orthodoxy in my town. And let’s say a kollel opens up and draws my serious congregants into their sphere, and ultimately into their minyan. And let’s say that weakens my shul, to the point that my shul becomes a shadow of its former self. Who am I to say that this isn’t better for those who join that kollel?
Of course, you could easily argue the reverse.
You could easily argue that we need to stick together, and not build institutions to meet everyone's personal preference. I have certainly argued this point of view, in many different contexts.
You could easily argue that the associated strife in a case of school or synagogue competition will outweigh any spiritual gain. We may have better-educated children, but what will they be learning about Jewish communal life?
You could easily argue that drawing more observant families away from a school or synagogue will weaken the chance of exposure to observant Judaism for the remaining families. What happens to a minyan when all the people who like to discuss divrei torah leave for a different shul?
I won’t argue against any of those important points. But still, I wonder - how much of our fear of competition is fear for ourselves - our comfortable rabbinate, our supply of tzedakah, our own institution's good - instead of fear for the good of our communities?
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Class: Human Dignity as a Factor in Medical Halachah
[This post on Life in Israel was interesting: Owning the Alphabet]
On Sunday morning I am to present a shiur on "Human Dignity as a Factor in Medical Halachah". The topic is certainly of interest beyond medical halachah, so I thought I would post the source sheet here:
On Sunday morning I am to present a shiur on "Human Dignity as a Factor in Medical Halachah". The topic is certainly of interest beyond medical halachah, so I thought I would post the source sheet here:
College and Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Respect for the autonomy and
personal dignity of the patient is central to the provision of ethically sound
patient care. Through the translation of these ethical principles to law, the
Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed the fundamental right of the individual
to decide which medical interventions will be accepted and which will not.
Research and experience show that patient goals for
quality end-of-life care generally include the following… Treatment with
respect and compassion; Preservation of dignity…
The power of human dignity in Judaism
3.
Pirkei Avot 2:10
יהי כבוד חבירך חביב עליך כשלך
The dignity of your friend should be as beloved you as
your own.
4.
Talmud, Sanhedrin 52b
מה להלן בקופיץ וממול עורף
אף כאן בקופיץ וממול עורף אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואהבת לרעך כמוך
ברור לו מיתה יפה
There it is with a cleaver and from the back of the
neck; should this not be the same? Rav Nachman cited Rabbah bar Avuha: The
Torah says, "Love your neighbour as yourself," choose a good death
for him.
5.
Talmud, Berachot 19b
גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה [את]
לא תעשה שבתורה. ואמאי? לימא אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ד' (משלי כא)!
תרגמה רב בר שבא קמיה דרב כהנא בלאו דלא תסור. אחיכו עליה, לאו דלא תסור דאורייתא
היא! אמר רב כהנא גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחיכו עליה, כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו על
לאו דלא תסור ומשום כבודו שרו רבנן...
"Dignity is so great that it
overrides a biblical prohibition." But why not apply Proverbs 21:30,
"There is neither wisdom nor understanding nor counsel opposite Gd!"
Rav bar Sheva explained before Rav Kahana: The prohibition here is that of,
"Do not stray [from the words of the sages]."
They laughed at Rav bar Sheva; the prohibition of
"Do not stray" is itself biblical!
Rav Kahana said: When a great man says something, do
not laugh at him. The sages linked all of their words to the prohibition of "Do
not stray", and for a person's dignity they permitted violation.
What does human dignity override?
6.
Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 322:4
קיסם שאינו אוכל בהמה, אפילו
ליטלו כדי לחצוץ בו שיניו, אסור.
One may not pick up a splinter which is not fit for
animals to eat, even in order to pick his teeth.
7.
R' Yisrael Meir Kagan, Mishneh Berurah 322:14
ואף דיש בזה משום כבוד
הבריות שפעמים שנראה הבשר שבין השינים לחוץ וגנאי הוא לו אעפ"כ אסור דהיה לו
להכין קיסם מאתמול במקום הסעודה [גמרא] ולפ"ז אם הזמינו חבירו לסעודה בשבת
ולא היה אפשר לו להכין שום דבר מאתמול לחצות בו שיניו מותר לו לטלטל קיסם לחצות בו
שניו אם אין לו ד"א אך במקום שאין נחשב לו זה לגנאי אסור
There is a matter of dignity involved, for sometimes
meat is visible between one's teeth and this is disgraceful for him, but it is
still prohibited because he ought to have prepared a splinter yesterday, where
he eats. Based on this logic, one who is invited for a meal on Shabbat, so that
he did not have time to prepare an item for tooth-picking yesterday, may pick
up a splinter to pick his teeth if he possesses nothing else – but only where
lacking it would be disgraceful.
8.
R' Yisrael Meir Kagan, Shaar haTziyyun 322:12
עיין בפרי מגדים שמצדד דהוא
הדין דמותר לקטום הקיסם ביד כדי לחצות בו שיניו אם אי אפשר לו לחצות בו בלא זה,
וכפי מה שכתבנו מקודם דקטימת הקיסם ביד הוא רק משום שבות
See the Pri Megadim, who contends that the law permits
cutting the splinter by hand to pick one's teeth where he has no other way to
pick his teeth. It is as we have written, that cutting the splinter by hand is
only rabbinically prohibited.
9.
Talmud, Berachot 19b
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב המוצא
כלאים בבגדו פושטן אפילו בשוק מאי טעמא +משלי כ"א+ אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין
עצה לנגד ד' כל מקום שיש חלול ד' אין חולקין כבוד לרב
Rav Yehudah said, citing Rav: One who finds
shaatnez in his own garment should remove it, even in the market. "There is neither wisdom nor understanding nor counsel
opposite Gd" – where there is desecration of Gd, we do not give honour to the
great.
10. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Kilayim 10:29
הרואה כלאים של
תורה על חבירו אפילו היה מהלך בשוק קופץ לו וקורעו עליו מיד, ואפילו היה רבו שלמדו
חכמה, שאין כבוד הבריות דוחה איסור לא תעשה המפורש בתורה
One who sees biblical shaatnez in another's garment
jumps up and tears it from him immediately, even in the market. This is true
even for his mentor; dignity does not override explicit biblical prohibitions.
11. Rabbeinu Asher, Niddah,
Hilchot Kilei Begadim 6
גרסינן בברכות (דף
יט ב) אמר רב יהודה אמר רב המוצא כלאים בבגדו פושטו אפי' בשוק שנאמר אין
חכמה ואין תבונה וגו'
ירושלמי הרי שהלך
בשוק ונמצא לבוש כלאים. תרין אמוראין חד אמר אסור [ללבוש] וחד אמר מותר מאן דאסר
דבר תורה, ומאן דמתיר כדאמר רבי זירא גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את המצוה בלא תעשה
שעה אחת
The Talmud states, "Rav Yehudah said, citing Rav: One who finds
shaatnez in his own garment should remove it, even in the market. "There is neither wisdom nor understanding"…
The Jerusalem Talmud
states, "If one was walking in the market and he found that he was wearing
shaatnez, there are two amoraic views: One says he may not wear it, one
says he may wear it. The one who prohibits says it is biblical. The one
who permits says as R' Zeira said, "Dignity is so great that it overrides
a prohibition for an hour."
12. Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah
303:1
הרואה כלאים של
תורה על חבירו, אפילו היה מהלך בשוק, היה קופץ לו וקורעו מעליו מיד, ואפילו היה
רבו.
רמ"א - וי"א
דאם היה הלובש שוגג, אין צריך לעשות בשוק, דמשום כבוד הבריות ישתוק, ואל יפרישנו
משוגג (טור בשם הרא"ש).
Mechaber: One who sees biblical shaatnez in another's
garment jumps up and tears it from him immediately, even in the market. This is
true even for his mentor.
Rama: Some say that where the person is wearing it
accidentally he need not do this in the market; he should be silent for the sake
of dignity and not keep the wearer from accidental violation.
What qualifies as "human dignity"?
13. R' Yehoshua Neuwirth,
Shemirat Shabbat k'Hilchatah 34: note 52
ושמעתי מהגרש"ז אויערבך שליט"א דכל שיש בו משום כבוד הבריות כגון
שהליחה נוזלת לו מן האף יש להקל טפי
I have heard from R' Shlomo Zalman that where dignity
is involved, such as the liquid is running from his nose, there is room for
greater leniency.
14. R' Dr. Avraham Sofer
Avraham, Nishmat Avraham Yoreh Deah 180:א:2
נשאל הג״ר עזרא בצרי
שליט״א שרוצים הרופאים לעשות לאשה שאין לה גבות עינים חקיקה בצורה של שערות של
הגבות ע״י חקיקה וצבע, אם יש בזה איסור משום כתובת קעקע. וכותב
בסיכום:
דכיון דהוי דרבנן (אין כאן אותיות, מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה), לדעת כל הפוסקים
יש לסמוך להתיר לכתחילה משום כבוד הבריות.
Regarding a woman who lacks eyebrows, such that the
doctors wish to engrave the form of eyebrow hair via engraving and dyeing. R'
Ezra Batzi was asked: Is this prohibited as a tattoo? He summarized: Since it
is rabbinic, all authorities agree that one may permit it even lechatchilah,
for the sake of dignity.
15. R' Dr. Avraham Sofer
Avraham, Nishmat Avraham Orach Chaim 311:2
ואפשר
להוסיף, דלפי מה שכתב המ״ב דכמו שהתירו
בישראל ע״י ככר ותינוק התירו ע״י א״י אף בלי ככר ותינוק וכו׳ דוקא בכרמלית וכו' ובא״ר
מצדד בשם כמה פוסקים שסוברים להקל גם ברה״ר, ע״כ מותר לכ״ע לאחות בבית החולים לבקש מעכו״ם להוציא את הנפטר בשבת
מהמחלקה ולהוליכו לחדר המתים ולית לן בה אם העכו״ם ישתמש במעלית או יעשה כל מלאכה
דאורייתא אחרת כדי להקל על עצמו.
וראיתי מעשה רב אצל מו״ר הגרי״י נויבירט שליט״א שירד יחד עם העכו״ם במעלית רגילה
בשבת בזמן שהעכו״ם הוביל הנפטרת מהמחלקה, כי זה הוא כבוד המת.
The Mishneh Berurah wrote that just as they permit a
Jew to move a body via bread or a baby, so they permit having a non-Jew move it
without bread or a baby, in a karmelit. Eliyahu Rabbah cites several
authorities who are lenient even in a public domain. According to this, all
would permit a nurse in a hospital to ask a non-Jew to remove a body from the
unit on Shabbat and bring it to the morgue, without any concern as to whether
the non-Jew will use an elevator or perform any other biblically prohibited
form of labour to make his task easier. I witnessed maaseh rav with my
mentor R' Yehoshua Neuwirth: He descended with a non-Jew in a normal elevator
on Shabbat when the non-Jew brought a body from the unit, to honour the
deceased.
16. R' Moshe Shternbuch,
Teshuvot v'Hanhagot 2:172
ובנידון שלפנינו אין כאן רק שאלה
של בזיון המת, אלא בלי השתדלות אינו בטוח
שיופיע אצלינו בשלימות לקבורה, שעלולים להשאיר ברשותם
חלקים קטנים מגופו לבירור נוסף כדרכם, ולכן יש בזה גדר מת מצוה
שדוחה כל מ"ע שבתורה... ולכן
בכדי למנוע ניתוח לע"ד פשוט שיכול לנסוע על ידי נכרי בשבת באוטו להצילו,
ומצוה
רבה קעביד, אבל היינו רק באופן שאי
אפשר שייעשה הדבר ע"י שישכור עו"ד נכרי
Our case involves not only a question of disgrace for
the deceased, but without special efforts it is not certain that the body will
be available in entirety for burial; they might keep small pieces for
additional tests, as they normally do. Therefore, there is an issue of meit
mitzvah which overrides any biblical commandment… Therefore, to avert
autopsy, in my humble opinion it is obvious that one could travel with a
non-Jew in a car on Shabbat, and he would be performing a great mitzvah. This
is only where one cannot hire a non-Jewish lawyer to do it.
17. R' Dr. Avraham Sofer
Avraham, Nishmat Avraham Orach Chaim 340:6
אם
זה בלתי אפשרי, והרופא אינו יכול לחזור מיד במוצאי
שבת כדי לכתוב את תעודת הפטירה,
יכול הוא, כשהדבר כרוך בכבוד המת, לומר לנכרי בשבת לכתוב את תעודת הפטירה (ויש גם לצרף
לזה את שיטת הא״ז והרמ״א סי׳ שו סע׳ יא שהכתיבה היא בכתב שלהם)
Where this is not possible and the doctor cannot
return immediately after Shabbat to write the death certificate, then he may –
when this involves the dignity of the deceased – tell a non-Jew on Shabbat to
write the death certificate.
18. R' Dr. Avraham Sofer
Avraham, Nishmat Avraham Orach Chaim 301:11:2
ואמר לי מו"ר הגרי"י נויבירט שליט"א... מסתבר שיהיה מותר לחולה כזה לצאת עם המכשיר בשבת, גם במקום שאין עירוב (אך אינו רה״ר גמורה), אם הוא לובש אותו
בשינוי־כגון אם הוא כורך וקושר את חגורת הבד מסביב לרגלו או לידו ותוחב שם את המחט, כי התירו איסור מדבריהם משום כבוד הבריות (וכאן מדובר על שבות דשבות דהיינו הוצאה מרה״י לכרמלית
בשינוי ־ א.ס.א.)... ואמר לי מו״ר שליט״א שיש משום כבוד הבריות בחולה סוכרת כזה כי ללא
היתר כנ״ל לא יוכל אף פעם,
כל ימי חייו, לצאת מביתו בשבת. אך הוסיף
שההיתר הוא דוקא לשם מצוה... עוד א״ל מו״ר
שליט״א שאדם שלא בא אף פעם לביהכ״נ או לשיעור תורה ידברו עליו וזה גם נקרא משום
כבוד הבריות.
R' Yehoshua Neuwirth told me… It is logical to contend
that such a patient could go out with the [insulin] device on Shabbat even without an eruv
(in an area which was not a full-fledged public domain), if he would wear it in
an unusual way, such as by wrapping and tying the band around his leg or hand
and poking the needle into it. They permitted rabbinic prohibitions for dignity
(and here it is a double rabbinic prohibition, transporting to a karmelit in
an unusual way – ASA)…
And my mentor told me that this is a matter of dignity
for such a diabetic, for without this permission he could never, in his entire
life, leave his house on Shabbat. He added, though, that this permission is
only for a mitzvah… He noted that people would talk about someone who never
attended synagogue or Torah classes, and this is also an element of
"dignity".
What doesn't qualify as "human dignity"?
19. R' Moshe Shternbuch,
Teshuvot v'Hanhagot 4:262
כל ההיתר בנוי על ההנחה
דנחשב כבוד הבריות, והלא התוס' בשבועות (ל: "אבל") שכבוד הבריות שהתירו בשבילו
איסורים היינו דוקא בזיון גדול דוקא וכמו לצאת ערום בחוץ כשנמצאה טומאה בבית שישן , אבל
כאן שניכר שזהו מתאונה אולי אין זה בזיון כ "כ ואולי אין ההיתר.
אבל מאידך כיון שאם לא נתיר לנתחו יישאר פגום לעולם כל ימי חייו,
נראה
להקל, והתורה לא חייבה כ"כ עבור מ"ע או עבירה שעובר בשוא"ת לבד
The entire leniency is constructed on the assumption
that this is a matter of dignity, but Tosafot ruled that the level of dignity
which overrides prohibitions is where there is great shame, like travelling
unclothed when impurity is found in the house where one is sleeping. Here,
though, it is obvious that this [disfigurement] came from an accident, and so
perhaps this is not such great shame, and it would not be permitted. On the
other hand, he would remain flawed forever were we not to permit the surgery,
so it appears one may be lenient. The Torah did not require this much for a
commandment or for transgression without action.
20. R' Eliyahu
Bakshi-Doron, Binyan Av 2:55:3
אדם פרטי שמחליט לכבד את
עצמו ונוהג בגאוה שאינו נושא שק או קופה, כבודו משום שיקולים פרטיים אינו יכול לפטור אותו, או לדחות איסור דרבנן... אדרבא שיכבוש מידותיו ולא יבטל המצוה
The honour of an individual who decides to honour
himself and be arrogant, refusing to carry a sack or box [to return it], is
based on personal calculations and he cannot thereby exempt himself or override
a rabbinic prohibition… Just the opposite, he should conquer his character and
not cancel the mitzvah.
21. R' Moshe Feinstein,
Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:77
ומטעם שהוא כבזיון
לה ויש בזה משום כבוד הבריות לא חששו, משום שאין בזה בזיון כ"כ דידוע לכל
שהנשים הן נדות י"ב יום בכל חדש כשאינן זקנות ולא מעוברות... ומה שמתביישות
כשהיא נמצאת עם אלו שאינן שומרות דיני התורה אין להחשיב בושת כזה לכבוד הבריות
להתיר איסורים ואף לא מנהג ישראל בשביל זה, כיון דאדרבה טוב שלא תתבייש אף לפניהן
בקיום מצות התורה
As disgrace for her and as a matter of dignity they
were not concerned, for it would not be that disgraceful. Everyone knows that
women are niddot for twelve days each month when they neither elderly
nor pregnant… The embarrassment she feels because she is among those who do not
observe Torah is not considered a matter of dignity sufficient to override
prohibitions or even customs; just the opposite, better to not be embarrassed
about fulfilling a mitzvah!
22. R' Dr. Avraham Sofer
Avraham, Nishmat Avraham Orach Chaim 321:א:2
בסתם
אדם שזקוק לאיסוף שתן לשם בדיקה ועושה את זה לנוחיותו במשך השבת... אמר לנו הגרש״ז
אויערבאך זצ״ל שמותר לעשות את זאת גם בשבת ואפילו שזה רק משום נוחיות... אך אין
להתיר מטעם כבוד הבריות כי יכול לקחת יום חופשה על חשבונו באמצע השבוע
When a healthy person needs
to have urine collected for testing, and for his ease he does it during
Shabbat… R' Shlomo Zalman told us one may do this even on Shabbat, even though
it is only for convenience… But one should not permit this under the dignity
exception, for he could take one of his vacation days during the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
