Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Have a Food Allergy? It’s Time to Recheck
NYTimes
Food allergies have generated a great deal of anxiety in recent years, with some schools going so far as to ban popular staples — especially peanut butter — after appeals from worried parents.
Some airlines have quit serving peanut snacks, and more and more restaurants are offering dishes for diners concerned about gluten or dairy allergies.
There is no question that some foods, especially peanuts and shellfish, can provoke severe reactions in a small fraction of the population. But a new analysis of the best available evidence finds that many children and adults who think they have food allergies are mistaken. [...]
Food allergies have generated a great deal of anxiety in recent years, with some schools going so far as to ban popular staples — especially peanut butter — after appeals from worried parents.
Some airlines have quit serving peanut snacks, and more and more restaurants are offering dishes for diners concerned about gluten or dairy allergies.
There is no question that some foods, especially peanuts and shellfish, can provoke severe reactions in a small fraction of the population. But a new analysis of the best available evidence finds that many children and adults who think they have food allergies are mistaken. [...]
Bnei Brak rabbi accused of arranging illicit conversions
JPost
The battle of anonymous mudslinging between Lithuanian haredi elements and champions of Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar in the wake of the latest conversion controversy rose a notch on Wednesday, with pashkevilim (street notices) plastered in Bnei Brak charging a local, senior rabbi of converting a woman “for the intent of marriage, which is prohibited according to the Torah’s law.”
The unnamed rabbi supposedly headed a panel in the framework of the haredi Beit Din Zedek so the convert could marry a relative of his. This, according to the unnamed Amar supporters behind Wednesday’s notices, is proof of the hypocrisy of the Ashkenazi haredi camp, which recently slammed the chief Sephardi rabbi for his rumored intention to approve IDF conversions.[...]
The battle of anonymous mudslinging between Lithuanian haredi elements and champions of Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar in the wake of the latest conversion controversy rose a notch on Wednesday, with pashkevilim (street notices) plastered in Bnei Brak charging a local, senior rabbi of converting a woman “for the intent of marriage, which is prohibited according to the Torah’s law.”
The unnamed rabbi supposedly headed a panel in the framework of the haredi Beit Din Zedek so the convert could marry a relative of his. This, according to the unnamed Amar supporters behind Wednesday’s notices, is proof of the hypocrisy of the Ashkenazi haredi camp, which recently slammed the chief Sephardi rabbi for his rumored intention to approve IDF conversions.[...]
Sarah Palin's Claim: What Is 'Blood Libel'?
Time Magazine
Sarah Palin must have hoped that her Jan. 12 video statement would silence her critics, who, in the wake of the Tuscon shootings, have accused the controversial politician of contributing to the vitriolic rhetoric that plagues U.S. politics. But then Palin decided to describe the attacks leveled against her as a "blood libel." The phrase has a long, grim legacy tied to centuries of European persecution of Jews. Bigoted superstition had it that Jews needed the blood of heathens for various ritual practices. Within hours of the statement's publication and the video's appearance on Facebook, the Anti-Defamation League criticized Palin's message, saying that, while blood libel "has become part of English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
On the other hand, a group called jewsforsarah.com declared that "the use of the term blood libel is appropriate." Meanwhile, on biggovernment.com, Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School said the term "has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning" and "There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations..." [...]
Sarah Palin must have hoped that her Jan. 12 video statement would silence her critics, who, in the wake of the Tuscon shootings, have accused the controversial politician of contributing to the vitriolic rhetoric that plagues U.S. politics. But then Palin decided to describe the attacks leveled against her as a "blood libel." The phrase has a long, grim legacy tied to centuries of European persecution of Jews. Bigoted superstition had it that Jews needed the blood of heathens for various ritual practices. Within hours of the statement's publication and the video's appearance on Facebook, the Anti-Defamation League criticized Palin's message, saying that, while blood libel "has become part of English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."
On the other hand, a group called jewsforsarah.com declared that "the use of the term blood libel is appropriate." Meanwhile, on biggovernment.com, Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School said the term "has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning" and "There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations..." [...]
Privacy, Copyright Top Challenges of the Internet
Time Magazine
Another topic that concerned IADAS members was how outdated media copyright laws were and the increasing necessity to see them changed. It used to be perfectly okay to give a mix tape to a couple friends, but putting a playlist online - which is a similar action in a way - could render negative consequences. Same goes for lending books, which has a modern day equivalent of copying and distributing digital books online. Davies believes that many users aren't trying to circumvent laws: They're simply confused on what is right and wrong because legalities are not adapted to current technology. "I think at the core, one of the big issues is that the majority of the laws and understandings about copyright were created in a world where it was difficult to copy. Actually copying something has never been more easy than it is today. You can literally right click on a file and depending on the size it can be downloaded in seconds," he explained. [...]
Another topic that concerned IADAS members was how outdated media copyright laws were and the increasing necessity to see them changed. It used to be perfectly okay to give a mix tape to a couple friends, but putting a playlist online - which is a similar action in a way - could render negative consequences. Same goes for lending books, which has a modern day equivalent of copying and distributing digital books online. Davies believes that many users aren't trying to circumvent laws: They're simply confused on what is right and wrong because legalities are not adapted to current technology. "I think at the core, one of the big issues is that the majority of the laws and understandings about copyright were created in a world where it was difficult to copy. Actually copying something has never been more easy than it is today. You can literally right click on a file and depending on the size it can be downloaded in seconds," he explained. [...]
Brain Death - Rav Shabtsai Rappaport reports his discussion with his grandfather Rav Moshe Feinstein
אסיא מז-מח, עמ' 5-13 (1989
"חמי הרב משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל היה מודע היטב להתקדמות הזאת והתיר ניתוחי השתלות לב בשנים האחרונות. אכן, שכן שלי שהושתלו אצלו לב ושתי ריאות לפני שנתיים בפיטסבורג (קבוצת ד"ר סטרזל) עשה כן לאחר יעוץ עם הרב פיינשטיין ועם, ייבדל לחיים, הרבי מלובביץ שליט"א."
לעומתו כתב הרב דוד שור:12
"וכעת דברתי עם הרב דוד פיינשטיין שליט"א, בן הרב משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל, והוא העיד לי שאביו לא התחרט בכלל לפני מותו ממה שכתב בשו"ת אגרות משה בסימני מיתה והשתלת הלב."
בירור ישיר עם הרב דוד פיינשטיין13 העלה שבניגוד למצוטט בשמו, אין בידו מידע הסותר את עדות הרב טנדלר, אף כי אין בידו מידע המאשר עדות זאת.
לסיכום, אין עדות הסותרת את עדות משפחת טנדלר על השינוי בדעתו של הגרמ"פ להתיר השתלות לב עקב ההתקדמות הרפואית אך קיים ויכוח חריף על הדרך להבנת הכתוב בתשובותיו "איגרות משה".
לאור ויכוח זה פניתי אל הרב שבתאי רפפורט שליט"א (אשר היה בקשר ישיר עם הגרמ"פ זצ"ל בעת הכנת התשובה הנדונה, לדפוס) על מנת לקבל בכתב את התיחסותו לויכוח הנדון. תשובתו היתה חד משמעית:
What follows is a clear illustration of the unquestioned fact that the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding brain death is inexplicably given to major dispute - and that his son Rav Dovid Feinstein did not discuss the issue with his father. In fact this article appeared in 1989 when I left America to settle in Jerusalem. Rav Halperin M.D. - the editor of Assia and the author of this article sent me a copy in the hopes of convincing me to allow him to publish the medical citations from my Yad Moshe index in his publication. When I left America brain death was a very hot topic and it was clear that no one had the definitive answer as to what Rav Moshe held on the subject and in fact it seemed no one had asked him for a clear and authoritative psak. The debate revolved around how to read the teshuvos printed in the Igros Moshe. When I read in this artcile that Rabbi Rappaport had in fact reported asking his grandfather - I was simply floored. Because this information that he reports in the article was apparently not known to anyone else. When I mentioned this to Rav Halperin he told me that even if my assertion was true but he said now the issue has been answered so don't be concerned about the past.
בשאלה האם חזר בו הגרמ"פ מהאיסור לבצע השתלות לב נחלקו הכותבים : הרב משה דוד טנדלר, חתנו של הגרמ"פ, כתב11 :
"חמי הרב משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל היה מודע היטב להתקדמות הזאת והתיר ניתוחי השתלות לב בשנים האחרונות. אכן, שכן שלי שהושתלו אצלו לב ושתי ריאות לפני שנתיים בפיטסבורג (קבוצת ד"ר סטרזל) עשה כן לאחר יעוץ עם הרב פיינשטיין ועם, ייבדל לחיים, הרבי מלובביץ שליט"א."
לעומתו כתב הרב דוד שור:12
"וכעת דברתי עם הרב דוד פיינשטיין שליט"א, בן הרב משה פיינשטיין זצ"ל, והוא העיד לי שאביו לא התחרט בכלל לפני מותו ממה שכתב בשו"ת אגרות משה בסימני מיתה והשתלת הלב."
בירור ישיר עם הרב דוד פיינשטיין13 העלה שבניגוד למצוטט בשמו, אין בידו מידע הסותר את עדות הרב טנדלר, אף כי אין בידו מידע המאשר עדות זאת.
לסיכום, אין עדות הסותרת את עדות משפחת טנדלר על השינוי בדעתו של הגרמ"פ להתיר השתלות לב עקב ההתקדמות הרפואית אך קיים ויכוח חריף על הדרך להבנת הכתוב בתשובותיו "איגרות משה".
לאור ויכוח זה פניתי אל הרב שבתאי רפפורט שליט"א (אשר היה בקשר ישיר עם הגרמ"פ זצ"ל בעת הכנת התשובה הנדונה, לדפוס) על מנת לקבל בכתב את התיחסותו לויכוח הנדון. תשובתו היתה חד משמעית:
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Customized Kids: Parents Abort Twin Boys in Quest for Daughter
Time Magazine
Of course, every parent-in-waiting hopes for a healthy baby, but most — whether they admit it or not — have a preference for one sex over the other. But to what extremes would you go to make it happen?
A couple in Australia — already parents of three sons —have announced they have aborted twin boys in their quest to replace their baby daughter, who died soon after birth. Although sex selection via IVF is illegal in Australia, they petitioned a patient review panel for permission, which was denied. They've now appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is slated to hear their case in March [...]
Of course, every parent-in-waiting hopes for a healthy baby, but most — whether they admit it or not — have a preference for one sex over the other. But to what extremes would you go to make it happen?
A couple in Australia — already parents of three sons —have announced they have aborted twin boys in their quest to replace their baby daughter, who died soon after birth. Although sex selection via IVF is illegal in Australia, they petitioned a patient review panel for permission, which was denied. They've now appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which is slated to hear their case in March [...]
Brain Death: View of Rav Moshe Feinstein is not clear & Rav Herschel Schacter says BD is a sofek
There are a number of issues being obscured in the current debate about Brain Death is 1) The position of Rav Moshe Feinstein is a matter of serious debate and disagreement. Furthermore Rav Herschel Schacter takes a much more conservative position than Rav Moshe Tendler Rav Dovid Feinstein did not have firsthand knowledge of his father's viewpoint.
JLaw by Rav Yitzchok Breitowitz
The position of R. Moshe Feinstein, whose psak could well have been definitive at least in the United States, is unfortunately a matter of some controversy. His son-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, a Rosh Yeshiva in RIETS and Professor of Biology, Yeshiva College, has vigorously argued the concept of decapitation in Mishnah Oholot.15 His position finds strong support in Iggrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah III no. 132 which seems to validate nuclide scanning as a valid determinant of death. This is also the understanding of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, R. David Feinstein (who admits, however, to having no inside information on the topic), and R. Shabtai Rappaport, the editor of R. Moshe responsa.16
Others, however, have interpreted his teshuvot very differently, pointing out that R. Moshe reiterated twice (indeed, in one instance two years after the "nuclide scanning" reference) that removal of an organ for a transplantation was murder of the donor.17 (R. Tendler's response: Both of those teshuvot refer to comatose patients in a persistent vegetative state who are capable of spontaneous respiration and are very much alive and not to those who are respiratordependent.) They also cite R. Moshe's express opposition to proposed "brain death" legislation in New York unless it contained a "religious exemption."18 [...]
1. As noted, Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler has been the most vigorous advocate for the halachic acceptability of brain death criteria. In his capacity as chairman of the RCA's Biomedical Ethics Committee, Rabbi Tendler spearheaded the preparation of a health-care proxy form that, among other innovations, would authorize the removal of vital organs from a respirator dependent, brain death patient for transplantation purposes. Although the form was approved by the RCA's central administration, its provisions on brain death were opposed by a majority of the RCA's own Vaad Halacha (Rabbis Rivkin, Schachter, Wagner and Willig).20 [...]
5. Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva and Rosh Kollel of RIETS, has taken a more cautious view. Conceding that the concept of "brain death" may find support in the decisions of R. Moshe, he concludes that such a patient should be in the category of safeik chai, safeik met (doubtful life). While removal of organs would be prohibited as possible murder, one would also have to be stringent in treating the patients as met, e.g., a Cohen would not be allowed to enter the patient's room.24
JLaw by Rav Yitzchok Breitowitz
The position of R. Moshe Feinstein, whose psak could well have been definitive at least in the United States, is unfortunately a matter of some controversy. His son-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler, a Rosh Yeshiva in RIETS and Professor of Biology, Yeshiva College, has vigorously argued the concept of decapitation in Mishnah Oholot.15 His position finds strong support in Iggrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah III no. 132 which seems to validate nuclide scanning as a valid determinant of death. This is also the understanding of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, R. David Feinstein (who admits, however, to having no inside information on the topic), and R. Shabtai Rappaport, the editor of R. Moshe responsa.16
Others, however, have interpreted his teshuvot very differently, pointing out that R. Moshe reiterated twice (indeed, in one instance two years after the "nuclide scanning" reference) that removal of an organ for a transplantation was murder of the donor.17 (R. Tendler's response: Both of those teshuvot refer to comatose patients in a persistent vegetative state who are capable of spontaneous respiration and are very much alive and not to those who are respiratordependent.) They also cite R. Moshe's express opposition to proposed "brain death" legislation in New York unless it contained a "religious exemption."18 [...]
1. As noted, Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler has been the most vigorous advocate for the halachic acceptability of brain death criteria. In his capacity as chairman of the RCA's Biomedical Ethics Committee, Rabbi Tendler spearheaded the preparation of a health-care proxy form that, among other innovations, would authorize the removal of vital organs from a respirator dependent, brain death patient for transplantation purposes. Although the form was approved by the RCA's central administration, its provisions on brain death were opposed by a majority of the RCA's own Vaad Halacha (Rabbis Rivkin, Schachter, Wagner and Willig).20 [...]
5. Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva and Rosh Kollel of RIETS, has taken a more cautious view. Conceding that the concept of "brain death" may find support in the decisions of R. Moshe, he concludes that such a patient should be in the category of safeik chai, safeik met (doubtful life). While removal of organs would be prohibited as possible murder, one would also have to be stringent in treating the patients as met, e.g., a Cohen would not be allowed to enter the patient's room.24
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tzitz Eliezar - Incest: Obligation to call the police to stop physical & psychological harm
Tzitz Eliezar (Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): … 2) Concerning the second case where the father is repeatedly raping his little daughter and there is no concern that he will kill her – what is the halacha regarding the previous questions? In my opinion the halacha is the same as it was in the first case where there was a concern for pikuach nefesh (life threatening). That is because the father has the status of rodef (pursuer) after prohibited sexual relations, which are, treated the same as one who is a rodef to kill someone. That is true only since the incestuous rape of his daughter entails the punishment of kares – even though she is just a child but that is the father’s punishment and therefore there is a clear obligation to stop him… All this is in addition to the halachic fact that there is an obligation to save the girl from physical and psychological damage. Thus taking this all together the answer concerning calling the police is the same as in the case of physical abuse. Concerning the cases mentioned there were an additional two questions that were mentioned concerning the law of moser. In regards to the first case concerning physical danger, the parents have the status of rodef and therefore it is permitted to inform the police about them. … just as in the first case of physical abuse if it is clear to him that there is a danger it is permitted to inform on him since the parents have the status of rodef. Similarly it is also permitted in the case of incestuous rape because the father is also a rodef – though after prohibited sexual relations rather than danger to life as I mentioned before. Secondly even if the sexual relationship with the child is not one that incurs the punishment of kares [and thus the rapist would not be considered a rodef] it is still permitted to inform the police. This is so both in order to save her from being raped and also in order to save the rapist from this wickedness. … in our case the motivation is to stop him from committing a sin by informing on him. With such a motivation it is permitted to inform on him. Furthermore it is permitted to inform on him to stop him from harming the young child. … Look at the Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:7 where the Rema says that there is a view that if a person is beaten by another person he is able to go and complain to the non-Jewish authorities – even if it causes his assailant great harm. Furthermore the Shach (C.M. 388:45) makes a similar distinction. He says that it is permitted to inform on the assailant in order to prevent the assailant from continuing his beatings. Therefore concerning the present case – it is obviously much more severe than a mere beating. Consequently it is permitted to inform on the rapist – both because it is like the case of an assailant who hits and even more important – so that he is prevented from raping her anymore. It is important to remember that the beis din is considered the protecting father of little children.
Rav Moshe Halberstam:- In case of incestual rape - mitzva to call police & send him to prison
Taken from volume II of Child & Domestic Abuse page 138
Rav Moshe Halberstam (Yeschurun 15 page 646): Let’s return to the original question concerning a wicked molester whose evil inclination forces him to sin and be wicked and it is possible to turn him over to the government in order that he be incarcerated in prison for a number of years until he calms done and returns to Gd wholeheartedly. According to the sources we discussed before it is clear that there is no sin or transgression in handing him over to the authorities. In fact the opposite is true – it is a mitzva because by doing so he is caused to stop from doing the disgusting deeds. In addition we know that the government will not execute him. Therefore the essence of his punishment is that he will be forced to dwell for a number of years in prison. This will be beneficial to him in that they will assign him a psychologist or psychiatrist who will supervise him and his activities with a watchful eye. Perhaps he will be able to find a resolution of his torment by means of this treatment. So in such a case it is obvious that it is a good thing to save him and to save his family from his incestual attacks on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)