Discussing idolatry - parameters

We recently discussed the view of the Gra that a common name is not prohibited to mention - even if it describes a person by that name who becomes viewed as a deity. What about talking or teaching about the idolatry of the Romans or Greeks? The following is a teshuva of Rav Moshe Feinsetein concerning someone whose much teach these matters - what are the guidelines

Rav Moshe Feinstein[1](Yoreh Deah 2:53): It seems obvious that the prohibition of paying attention to idolatry is only in regards to the books that the idolaters themselves composed to praise the nonsensical practices of idolatry. They thought that the practices were glorious. And such books are prohibited forever – even in a time when idolatry is not taken seriously and is not attractive to people. However those books which were composed by those who reject idolatry and view idolatry as nonsense and stupid and just illustrate the ridiculous practices of idolatry – they would not be prohibited even in a time when idolatry was rampant. We even find in the Bible that there are descriptions of idolatry but that is only to denigrate idolatry and thus it is not prohibited. Therefore it is obvious that one would not prohibit these type of books now when there is no attraction to idolatry when they were not prohibited even when idolatry was rampant. Therefore when teaching a course about these historical practice of idolatry and its nonsense, it is necessary to speak in such a way that the students understand that these practices are ridiculous. It should be taught with the attitude of how this ridiculous practice was done even though some one with only half a brain is disgusted by them. This approach is found in Megila (25b): “All ridicule is prohibited except for the ridicule of idolatry which is permitted.” Thus if idolatry is denigrated it is permitted to teach about it.

---

[1] אגרות משה (יורה דעה ב:נג): אבל נראה פשוט שהאיסור הוא רק בספרים שחברו העכו"ם שעובדים להע"ז שהם כתבו זה לשבחה בדברי הבל ושטות שנדמה להם שהוא שבח שספרים כאלו נאסרו בשביל הטעם בלאו דאל תפנו ונאסר לעולם אף כשיתבטל הטעם שלא ימשכו בנ"א בדבריהם הטפשיים, אבל ספרים שנתחברו מכופרים בע"ז ההיא שהוא רק להתלוצץ בהם ולבזותם במה שמספרים הבלותם ושטותם לא נאסר גם אז, ומצינו גם בקראי שמספרים מעבודתם אבל כיון שהוא באופן שהוא לבזות ולהתלוצץ אינו כלום. וכ"ש שאין לאסור עתה מה שלא היה אסור אז. וא"כ כשצריך ללמד בהקורס שלו עניני דתיהם והבליהם, צריך לדבר בלשון שיבינו שהם עניני שטות והבל איך שדבר הבל זה עשו ודבר הבל זה אשר אפילו קצת בן דעת ימאס בזה וכהא שאמר ר"נ במגילה (כה:) כל ליצנותא אסירא בר מליצנותא דעכו"ם דשריא. ובאופן זה מותר...

Death by Timer III - Passive Euthanasia/R'Feinstein/R' Auerbach

This is an excerpt from Prof Reznicoff's article at JLaw dealing with Euthanasia

a.Treatment that will only temporarily prolong a patient's painful condition

Some authorities think that the degree of pain someone experiences will only in truly exceptional cases excuse someone from the duty to prolong her life.¹⁰⁸ Others seem less reluctant in ruling that terminally ill patients in great pain can refuse treatment that will only prolong their agonizing existence. Of course, as a practical matter, this debate is only relevant in those instances in which the pain is medically uncontrollable. Where it is controllable, it should be controlled.

Those who appear less reluctant often rely on the Talmudic discussion of the final illness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, known as Rebbe, the compiler of the Mishnah. Rebbe was suffering greatly.¹⁰⁹ Both the rabbis and Rebbe's devoted female servant, well-known for her devotion and intelligence, prayed around the clock for Rebbe's complete recovery.¹¹⁰ As time passed, however, Rebbe's servant saw that the prayers were not to be fulfilled. Although Rebbe remained alive, he suffered excruciating pain. Finally, she concluded that it would be better forRebbe if he were to die, and she prayed for that.¹¹¹ But she soon saw that her prayer would not be accepted so long as the rabbis continued their unabated prayers for Rebbe's recovery. She therefore threw an urn from the roof of the academy to the ground, smashing it and startling the rabbis, causing a brief halt in their prayers. At that moment, Rebbe died.¹¹²

Many commentators cite the conduct of Rebbe's servant as evidence that someone who sees another who is greatly afflicted and there is no meaningful prospect for alleviating or curing the person's pain should pray for that person's death.¹¹³ Not all commentators, however, agree that one should pray for another's death even under these circumstances.¹¹⁴ In addition, at least one authority, Rabbi Haim Palaggi, states that persons who might have an improper bias, such as those responsible to care for the patient, should certainly not pray for the patient's death.¹¹⁵

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, however, states that this Talmudic episode not only justifies praying for a person's death but also calls for the rejection of life-sustaining medical treatment for terminally ill patients who can live no longer than few weeks or so and who are experiencing excruciating pain. If the treatment can only temporarily prolong their life of agony, Rabbi Feinstein argues that non-treatment is appropriate,¹¹⁶ while repeating that, of course, no affirmative act to terminate the patient's life is permissible. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach similarly considers a patient's pain and suffering in ruling that it is permissible for a person to refuse surgery that, even if successful at saving her life, would cause her to remain paralyzed for life.¹¹⁷

Among the authorities that agree with the Feinstein-Auerbach approach, some take it a step further as a practical matter. While Feinstein and Auerbach would generally call for the use of medical technology to provide hydration, nutrition and oxygen to terminally-ill patients even though they experience unrelenting pain,¹¹⁸ some contemporary authorities are said to permit rejection of these services as well.¹¹⁹

There seem to be two principal ways of perceiving the conceptual framework for the Feinstein-Auerbach approach. One possibility is that it generalizes the Rema's rule for removing obstacles preventing a goses from dying.¹²⁰ Feinstein, for instance, believes that there is metaphysical pain associated with the process of gesisah. Consequently, a terminally ill person who has little time to live and who is experiencing unmanageable pain may seem quite similar to a goses.¹²¹ With respect to a goses, for instance, a few authorities have suggested that the removal of a respirator would be permissible, because the respirator is perceived as merely preventing the patient's death rather than as providing physiologically enhancing treatment.¹²² Similarly, Feinstein forbids initial use of such machines to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient who suffers from severe, intractable pain.¹²³ Once the machine is attached, however, Feinstein believes that disconnection would be an improper affirmative act. If it became disconnected, however, he would not necessarily require reconnection.¹²⁴ To avoid a debate as to whether disconnection is an impermissible affirmative act, some authorities have suggested that the machines be controlled by automatic timers which, when time ran out, would be the equivalent of a disconnection. A patient's status could then be re-evaluated to determine if the timer should be reset.¹²⁵

There are a number of problems with the analogy to a goses. First, of course, the Feinstein-Auerbach approach is squarely at odds with the many authorities who believe that medical intervention is required even to save the life of a goses. Second, how much pain would the terminal patient have to be experiencing in order to be compared to a goses? Third, how short a period of time must the terminally ill patient have to live before she is compared to a goses? Fourth, how confidently can a person quantify her pain or predict when she will expire?

Moreover, is it really persuasive to argue that the fact one can pray for death means that one can refuse treatment? Those who disagree with the Feinstein-Auerbach position, for instance, argue that while one is alive, one has the duty to perform commandments, including the commandment to prolong one's life. Praying for death is not inconsistent with fulfillment of this duty. A person can always ask the Master of the Universe to release her from her duty. Meanwhile, however, the duty has got to be done.¹²⁶

Bleich suggests a different way to understand the Feinstein-Auerbach approach, based on inherent limits as to what a person is required to do to fulfill a biblical commandment. Jewish law characterizes biblical commandments as either negative or affirmative. Jewish law requires that one forfeit all of one's wealth to passively avoid violation of a negative commandment,¹²⁷ and requires use of no more than 20% of one's wealth to fulfill an affirmative commandment.¹²⁸

In a different context, when asked whether it was permitted to take an organ from a cadaver to make a life-saving transplant against the wishes of the deceased's surviving relatives, Feinstein replied in the negative. He stated that such treatment of the corpse would presumably cause the surviving relatives to suffer more emotional distress than would the loss of their entire fortunes.¹²⁹ There is considerable debate as to whether the duty to prolong one's life and/or to save another's life is a negative or affirmative commandment.¹³⁰ Nonetheless, Feinstein may be justifying a person's right to refuse medical treatment in cases involving excruciating pain on the assumption that the patients would be willing to give up their entire fortunes rather than suffer for a more prolonged period.¹³¹ If so, however, Bleich questions how often this assumption would be correct, particularly in light of improved palliation procedures.¹³²

Death by Timer II - Euthanasia/ Passive vs. Active

Arutz Sheva wrote:

(IsraelNN.com) After suffering a stroke last year, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remains in a coma. Where once the world followed Sharon?s every political move, medical details now dominate the news. Few believe that Sharon will recover, but no effort has been spared to try and keep him alive.

Yet some would argue that prolonging life in such a manner is cruel. That in fact, ending life in such circumstances would be the more compassionate alternative. Such is the argument put forth by proponents of euthanasia and ironically, it is in Israel that they have had their most recent success.

Late last year, the Knesset signed a new bill into law that somehow manages to approve euthanasia according to Jewish law. While it is forbidden for a person to take another?s life under Jewish law, having a machine do it for you has apparently been deemed kosher. As a parliamentary spokesman put it, ?The point was that it is wrong, under Jewish law, for a person?s life to be taken by a person but, for a
machine, it is acceptable.?

The machine in question is a special timer attached to patients respirators. After 12 hours it sounds an alarm and then at the end of a 24-hour cycle, it turns off the respirator. The alarm would normally be overridden unless certain conditions are met, such as the consent of the (over 17) patient or legal guardian. The patient or guardian can request an extension at any time and living wills are to be kept on file at all hospitals.

The device is similar to the special clocks used by orthodox Jews to turn off electrical devices during the Sabbath. But where one application allows a bypassing of Jewish law that doesn?t harm another human being, the other delves into more troubling territory. One might call it a death timer.

According to Jewish law, suicide is forbidden and while one cannot hasten the death of another person, lessening their pain is encouraged. Both active and passive euthanasia fall under the category of ending life, but there is some leeway in the stipulation that prolonging life through artificial means is discouraged. However, the act of actually turning off respirators or unplugging feeding tubes would entail causing another?s death. But now a machine can do the dirty work for you.

Israeli society has been heading towards legalized euthanasia for some time now. Last year, a Tel Aviv court ruled that a 59-year-old terminally ill patient should be allowed to disconnect from life support machines. The disconnection was supervised by two doctors but the rest of the procedure had to be undertaken privately, in the presence of family members only. The euthanasia device will allow doctors to circumvent such messy complications.

What's astounding about the Israeli example is the emphasis placed on morality in pursuit of an amoral policy. Israel?s health minister Danny Naveh provided a glimpse into this bizarre mindset when he described the law as a great moral achievement for the dying and their families.?

The fact that a committee composed of physicians, scientists, medical ethicists, social workers, philosophers, nurses, lawyers, judges and religious leaders somehow saw fit to recommend the bill is similarly disturbing. The committee was headed by Prof. Avraham Steinberg, an Orthodox rabbi, pediatric neurologist, medical ethicist and, according
to the Jerusalem Post, ?winner of the Israel Prize for his work on Jewish medical ethics.? That someone with this background would consent to such a law certainly does not bode well for the future of medical ethics in Israel.

If there's any country that should heed the lessons of history when it comes to euthanasia, it?s Israel. After all, Nazi Germany was a sinister example of what can happen to a seemingly civilized society that treads the path of euthanasia. For the Nazis, euthanasia became an obsession, eventually resulting in the belief in eugenics or the achievement of a genetically superior race. Jews, gypsies, gays, communists, German dissenters, and others were experimented on and finally targeted for extermination under the rationale that they were inferior.

Of course, Israel is nothing like Nazi Germany, despite the oft-repeated claims of its enemies. But as a modern society and a leader in the field of medicine, it is as susceptible as any to the ethical pitfalls of euthanasia. If we look to other countries such as the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal and extends to infants and children, the implications become clearer. Belgium has followed suit, while France and Great Britain are not far behind. In the United States, Oregon?s physician-assisted suicide law continues to be a test case for the rest of the country.

As far as religious leadership, one must turn mostly to Catholics and other Christians for the defense of ?life issues? such as euthanasia. Meanwhile, mainstream Jewish leaders in America act as if euthanasia and abortion are the pillars of Judaism. Groups such as Jews for Life are one of the few exceptions to the rule, not to mention the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which has consistently lobbied against euthanasia and in favor of increased palliative care for the dying.

In legalizing machine-induced euthanasia, Israel is setting a worldwide precedent for the medical establishment. Indeed, doctors in other countries are already expressing an interest in the euthanasia device because it alleviates them of the guilt they might feel in turning off dying patients' respirators themselves. Now that a machine can do it for them, doctors need no longer be encumbered by the 'uncomfortable' feelings surrounding ending patients' lives.

Israelis have made many contributions to the fields of science, medicine and technology. Do they really want death by machine to be part of this legacy?

Conversion - Chinese descendants of Jews

YNET reports:

Descendants of centuries-old Jewish community in China's Kaifeng rediscover Jewish heritage after near complete assimilation in local community.

In Chinese terms, the city of Kaifeng, about 500 miles southwest of Beijing, is reminiscent of the Israeli city of Hadera: The number of its residents is 700,000 – as opposed to Beijing's 15 million or Shanghai's 20 million – and it doesn't even have its own airport.

However, a thousand years ago, Kaifeng was the capital of the Chinese empire, the largest, richest and most advanced in the world at the time, with 600,000 residents that made it the most populated city on earth.

Ancient Kaifeng had a Jewish community – a small but thriving one, whose story is unique in the history of the Jewish people. For the 800 years of its existence, Kaifeng's Jews never suffered from persecution or discrimination. The Chinese authorities, as well as the general population, welcomed their Jewish neighbors, viewed them as citizens in every respect and allowed them to observe their religion with complete freedo

In spite, or perhaps because of these freedoms, the community dwindled until about one hundred and fifty years ago, when the assimilation and integration proved complete. It is only in the past 20 years that the descendents of Kaifeng Jewry, who now number about 1,000 people, have rediscovered their Jewish tradition. Some of them have considered undergoing proper conversion and making aliyah, and a few of them have done so already

Thirty-year-old Shi Lei does not try to hide his excitement when he takes his guest, an Israeli journalist, to the central room in his parents' home. His family, which is of Jewish descent, has lived in this home for more than 100 years. After the death of his grandmother and grandfather, Shi, together with his father, turned this room into a mini-museum and a small Jewish center, where he gives classes on Jewish tradition to children and adults of Jewish descent.

Shi Lei, who graduated with a degree in English from the University of Kaifeng, spent close to three years in Israel studying at Jerusalem's Machon Meir and at Bar-Ilan University: "I was the first person from Kaifeng that studied in Israel. I was privileged to receive a wonderful welcome at the Machon Meir yeshiva, and I was treated as a Jew in every respect, although I am not technically a Jew according to Jewish law, and had not yet undergone conversion.

"I decided to return to Kaifeng and to develop my mini-museum, because if I would leave here then there would be no one to teach the younger generation. We feel connected to the Jewish people and to the State of Israel – it's in our blood"

Chareidim vs. Secular III - Chareidim are now 48 % of all students in Jerusalem

YNET reported:

The trend of growing numbers of ultra-Orthodox students in Jerusalem continues, with 48% of all students in the capital this year set to attend the haredi school system, according to a Jerusalem city hall press release.

The press release, which was sent to the media by the municipality's spokesperson's office, made headlines at haredi newspaper. Overall, 87,020 students will begin their studies at Orthodox institutions this year, in addition to roughly 13,000 who also attend haredi schools, albeit ones unrecognized by the state.

Meanwhile, 56,550 students will be studying at Jewish non-Orthodox schools, and another 41,140 students will attend Arab schools. Some thousands of other Arab students study at unofficial schools.
"These figures join the impressive rise in the number of students in the ultra-Orthodox education system in the past five years – roughly 11%," the press release said.

Notably, both secular and religious (non-Orthodox) Jerusalem residents have been fighting in recent years against the intention to close down non-haredi schools because of low registration numbers. In other cases, secular residents fought against city hall's attempt to hand over land designated for non-Orthodox schools for the purpose of building haredi schools.

Anonymous comments II - rejecting them is big mistake!

GUEST POST: Recipients and Publicity'S comment to "Anonymous comments - automatically rejected":

garnel, I must say that you have done more harm than good here with this suggestion that Dr. Eidensohn has incredibly taken you up on, and I wish he hadn't.

Just how many people do you think read this blog? And surely of those, it is a VERY small fraction that wish to post ANY comments and even fewer who wish to post anonymous comments. And of all those, ALMOST all are highly intelligent and experienced BLOGGERS who can follow the comments of MANY anonymous posters simultaneously, especially since Dr. Eidensohn keeps his own main posts essentially brief, and most posts have historically not drawn more than a handful of comments (usually less than ten) on this daas torah blog and the one time that a post recently drew a little over twenty comments with a perhaps less than half being anonymous, you press Dr. Eidensohn's panic buttons and he responds to YOU alone for some odd reasons, and he then willingly sets up a new self-defeating policy based on YOUR narrow and tendentious input alone because ONLY you seem to have had trouble with following posts by anonymous posters. If you are that cognitively challenged it may indicate something else not related to blogging (how much do you know about blogging and posting on the web by the way?) but this phony "cure" of literally forcing people to take on ID's (like cyber yellow stars, lehavdil) is coercive and silly in the extreme and with all the bold announcements it makes this Blog seem somewhat stilted and comical and intellectually challenged, unable to hold up to rigorous debate with comments coming in at a steady rate, not quite at lightning speed ever, you must admit (as Dr. Eidensohn does not allow automatic postings and insists on reading each new post himself) and claiming to be artificially worried that comments can be "sneaked on" here when Dr. Eidensohn as this blog's owner has all the power to edit out and remove any and all posts at will and not just anonymous ones. Even me having to argue this with you is such a waste, but it sems you don't get what you are doing to harm this blog's heretofore dynamism and fluidity.

Who knows, soon we may even be told that no comments will be allowed unless we first click on the "PayPal" button and make a donation to Dr. Eidensohn for the "privilge" to post a comment, like some kind of cyber-toll, since you have already come up with your own cyber-censoring and digital excision of anonymous comments, because who can tell where things will lead once people start making up their own crazy infantile excuses-for-rules in the name of "helpfulness"?

So that this silly ban of anonymous postings is a scare tactic that works AGAINST the interests of the blog and its owner who should desire and relish MORE traffic and interest in his posts and not create fake barriers that put people off.

To repeat, posting anonymously is assumed to be a UNIVERSAL virtual right (good pun!) in the Blogosphere by EVERYONE, which works far different to USENET or Email lists.

Bloggers EXPECT and indeed deserve more lattitude in how to name and frame their posts, and if they wish to be anonymous, provided they are polite and reasonable, their is no reason to ban them outright as if they were some sort of "new kind od treif" which they are most certainly not!

Admit it, you made a mistaken and clearly INEXPERIENCED feeble suggestion and in turn Dr. Eidensohn as this blog's owner who is anxious to please and streamiline made a poor decision to his own detriment. Maybe when his posts attract hundreds of anonymous posters each he would get nervous, but quite honestly the UOJ blog has allowed hundreds of anonymous psost when he deems them appropriate and noone has ever complained of confusion.

When in doubt ask questions and seek clarifications but do not stifle people'e rights to answer any way they please, including anonymously.

So why do you have to assume that people posting and reading this blog are more thin skinned and by implication more dim-witted than UOJ's anonymous posters when they are clearly quite the opposite.

So have the guts to withdraw your suggestion because as you can already see, rather than encouraging more comments, it actually reduces and stifles them, and we all lose because many fascinating and important statements and arguments are often made by anymous posts and posters.