Life After Death: Brain Death and Organ Donation in Halacha- Rabbi Aschi Dick | November 12th 2025

Uh the Okay, I have a few lessons from this. First impressions are important. Uh second lesson, if you need to get anything printed from Graphos, please bear this in mind. They don't do small prints in the print shop. They send you to the uh to the shop next door and their printer is brain dead. Okay. Obviously uh >> brain dead. >> Heart dead. Brain dead. >> Okay. It's one of those slow printers that kind of you watch every paper coming out, you know. So, yeah, the print shop took 20 minutes to print 15 sheets. Thank you, Raam. Thank you for your patience. Nice to see you, Harry. How you doing? >> Harry's a regular of ours on Thursday nights in all. >> Harry, I'm usually on time, right? >> I am. I am okay. So anyways, today the topic is brain death. Now this year is a takes we when we did this year in our other program we spent between eight and 10 hours on it. We are going to try to do this topic. >> What time did this year end? >> 40 minutes. >> 40 minutes. Okay. So, we got 40 minutes to cover a topic that normally takes us between 8 and 10 hours. Thank you, Rabbi Sam. Thank you for the opportunity. >> Yeah, there's going to have to be some sharing. If I would have had to print uh pages for everyone and I would have been here in another half hour. Uh so, anyways, the topic is brain death. Uh right now, simultaneously, we're giving a share on abortion. Now abortion and uh brain death are twin topics because abortion is about the question when does life begin. Brain death is about when does life end. Okay. So this topic has become very important become very controversial in the last 30 years or so because of organ transplantation uh in or if you accept the brain death criteria which we'll have to discuss very soon that would mean that you'd be able to take the kidneys the heart the cornea other essential organs and you'd be able to transplant that into others that would be able to save lives. A number of postkin that we'll discuss, they maintain adamantly that that's the absolute obligation. You need to take these organs even from a person that's what we call clinically brain death. Brain dead. You have to take those organs. You have to transplant them so you can save other lives. You can't stand idly by when you have the ability to save someone's life. Other post can maintain adamantly that no, that's tantamount to murder. You're taking the heart out of a person that is hahically alive because his respiratory system is functioning. Other circulatory systems are functioning. Are there any doctors here in the room? Any doctors? Okay. So, don't don't hesitate to uh chime in. You can give your two senses if you have some medical expertise that could add or question anything that we're saying today. Okay. So in 1968 uh there was a group of doctors from Harvard University that were commissioned to determine the point of death. Uh at the time there was advanced machinery available that could keep the respiratory system functioning. Uh the lungs are pumping oxygen to the blood. The heart is pumping blood to all the internal organs getting that vital o oxygen to the internal organs. So they don't start to degenerate and thereby you can keep the person you can keep the internal organs alive and vital but the brain is not getting blood flow and the brain is starting to degenerate. There is the brain is not impacting the functioning of the body anymore. It's what we call brain death. Uh so 1968 Harvard came out with the whole brain standard. Meaning to say that once the entire brain is no longer functioning, there might be some residual life in the brain, cells that are still alive, but ultimately the brain is not impacting the functioning of the body. So the determination was that that person is clinically dead. In 1981, most states accepted this standard. Uh therefore making it legal to take vital organs out of a person who no longer has blood flow to the brain. In 1981, as I mentioned, most states accepted the standard. Since then, right, this standard has been changed. A lot of states no longer adhere to this standard. Um, a lot of states now consider somebody to be dead even prior to that stage. There's a stage of cerebral death, which means to say that just without getting into giving a biology class, there are three major anatomical regions in the brain. You have the cere the cerebellum that that controls muscle functioning and other things. And then you have the cerebrum which is responsible for higher mental functioning, emotions, the ability to communicate etc. And then you have the brain stem. The brain stem is very much in charge of involuntary functioning things like reflexes etc. Okay. So you can have somebody who no longer has a functioning cereum. So therefore he's not capable of higher mental functioning. But the all the in involuntary functioning the uh the respiratory system and other circulatory systems in the body that that continues to function because of the brain stem. Okay. Now there's the medulla nerve inside of the brain stem that sends a signal to the lungs to pump oxygen. Um so therefore for a person's brain stem is intact. It's healthy. It's vital. A person could still the body will still continue its respiratory system. A person will breathe. His internal vital organs will be functioning. uh because of the introduction of advanced medical machinery. So even if the brain stem dies uh the machinery could fill in and the m the machinery could have the lungs pump the oxygen. The heart is a semi autonomously functioning organ. The the heart can continue to pump blood even without a direct command from the brain. And that's why as long as the uh heart is getting the oxygen that it needs and the the organ tissue is vital the heart will continue to pump blood. Okay. So we have to discuss both cases. We have to discuss a case where the person what we call uh cerebral death no more higher mental functioning and the whole brain death which means to say the person's brain is completely no longer functioning. Okay. Is that clear? >> Yeah. >> Okay. If that's clear, that's just a a regal. It's a fiveminute biology class from somebody who's not a doctor and somebody who's not a biologist. And the doctors here can feel if they feel that there's any more vital information. Uh I'm going to look today at some of the historical aspects of this controversy, some of the hakic aspects of this controversy. Um what happened is that in uh the RCA, the Rabbitical Council of America commissioned a group of rabbis to come up with a view. This was in August 1991. Okay, this group consisted of Rabbi Shalom Rifkin. You can look at part C of your reference sheet. I'm not going to go through the entire introduction. I welcome everyone to take this sheet home or if you have the sheet on your phone to read it after the share you can fill in some information that I don't have time to provide. So just on the first bullet note in part C of this year in August 1991 the majority of the Val consisting of Rabbi Scholam Rifken Rabbi Hershel Shakar Rabbi Israel Wagner Rab Morai Willig they issued a response rejecting both a permanent sessation of spontaneous respiration and brain death is the criteria for determining death which means to say that they considered somebody dead or certainly dead only if all the systems in the body have uh completely stopped to function. Um, two members of the favored the brain of criteria and Mosha Tendler. Raos Mosha Tendler was extremely Is there any way to uh keep this from uh anybody know how this thing works? Okay. Thank you. It's very kind. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Okay. So, Rabbi Rabbi uh Rabbi Mosha Tendler, as many of you probably know, was the son-in-law of Mosha Feinstein. >> Okay. And he was very vocal about this. Yes. >> Could you say there on the page of his >> Yes. Yes. >> Part C. >> It's part C. You have the you have you have part page number two, the second page on your reference sheet. >> Part C. The first bullet note. Yes. >> Does an EEG measure only higher brain function or the entire brain's function? >> That's a subject to debate. I've looked at papers on this. I get contradictory information. And as you may know, part of the challenge of this whole thing is that you look up one paper and it says A and then you look up another paper, it says the opposite. It's very confusing. There's a lot of debate surrounding that. Uh we're going to talk about some of the debate regarding the accuracy of the test that came out in the times that Ra Mosha Feinson was asked about. Um basically in order to determine that a person is brain dead and according to Rabbi uh according to Rabbi Tendler this is the best way to determine that the brain is already degenerating the entire brain is degenerating is they put a harmless radioactive dye into the bloodstream. uh the the radioactive die is detectable on an X-ray machine. So they can actually see the blood flow throughout the body and they can see that the blood is no longer flowing to the brain. The blood the brain is not getting the the blood flow. It's not getting the oxygen that it needs. So what happens is is that the brain starts to uh degenerate. The brain no longer impacts the bodily functions and then we can know that the person is brain dead. According to Rabbi Tandler, this test has 100% accuracy or almost 100% accuracy. Definitely good enough for standards. Yeah. >> You said that the heart will keep pumping on its own. >> Yes. The heart is >> the heart will only pump as long as it's getting oxygen. >> Correct. The heart needs the oxygen. >> The lungs will not the the the the lungs need the command from the brain in order to pump oxygen. The heart will continue to pump as long as it gets the oxygen that it needs to stay vital. It doesn't need the direct command from the brain in order to pump blood. So that is why as long as you have advanced machinery keeping the lungs pumping oxygen into the into the uh into the into the heart into the blood then the heart will continue to pump the blood that it needs to pump. Okay. So uh I've read other papers that contradict that and that's one of the challenges with regards to brain death. uh can is this test accurate enough? This test of the uh the harmless radioactive dye being put into the blood and being able to see the blood blood circulation in the body. Is that test good enough? Rabbi Tandler was very adamant that it is good enough. Uh as you probably know, Rabbi Tendler was a professor of biology at Yishid University. He also sat on the medical ethics board. He was also a risha there. And if Mosha Feinstein in aua accepts his son-in-law's assertion that this test is reliable, it's almost 100% accurate, good enough for standards. Uh definitely better than the test provided in the Gumar Numa. The Gomar Numa says that you can determine a person's uh status whether he's alive or not by putting a feather on his nose. Okay. The test of putting this rate this harmless radioactive dye into the blood is better than the test provided than provided to we know that because in is the bright the tan teachings that discuss life and death you they use it's titled with a euphemism right it's not a very happy just like the topic of the shir is not very happy right that brighter is not uh doesn't cover very happy stuff but it's called and there are cases recorded where they thought the person was dead and he was already in the room of the kadisha and then all of a sudden the person you know starts to gag or whatever they see the person is alive and so has a lengthy tr about it. He says yes it could happen but it but the likelihood of that happening is not enough for to take it into consideration. In other words does rely on high probabilities. We don't need one. there is very hard to find anything in life that is 1,000% accurate. Okay. So, this became a point of of very strong contention. Rabbi um Rabbi Tandler went around the world giving lectures and he was very passionate about it. He was very angry about it. He considered it uh extremely problematic that the Halaka community didn't accept his you. He said we have the opportunity to save lives. And he made a very compelling argument. What was the crux of his argument? He made a very good argument. And it's very hard to deny the validity of his argument. Once there's no blow blood flow to the brain, the brain starts to degenerate and becomes basically a rotting mass of tissue. Excuse the expression. Okay? It becomes a rotting mass of tissue. Uh we definitely know that if somebody was anatomically decapitated, he's dead. There's even an expression in what is the quessential certainty. Anybody familiar with that expression? Which is basically an expression that conotes absolute certainty. Is there such a thing as chopping off the head of a chicken and then considering the chicken alive? Therefore, if you want to say something is certain, it's an explicit mission. The Mishna and Alas tells us that decapitation is the most final standard of death. Now, a rotting mass of tissue shouldn't impact the body. That's virtual decapitation. There's no reason why somebody who is anatomically decapitated, we definitely view him as being dead, there's no reason why somebody who has a rotting brain, why he should be considered alive. The rotting mass tissue has no impact on the person's life. So for example, if let's say they managed to decapitate someone and they managed to stop the loss of blood. They managed to freeze the obviously a person the whole body would go because it would be too much blood loss. But let's say they could manage and they have managed to let's say decapitate somebody and immediately stop the blood flow and then the person's kept alive on a respirator. Is anybody going to argue the person is alive? Nobody could argue that that person is alive. So therefore just because there's a rotting mass of brain tissue that doesn't that should not render the person alive. That is on Regal Aas, the synopsis of everything Rabbi Tendler was arguing and it's very compelling. It's very convincing. It's hard to argue with that. Am I being clear? Any questions? I'll take some time for questions if anybody has. Okay. I'll take that as a compliment. >> Okay. >> Yes. Templar doesn't describe how long the sessation of blood was detect detected is not occurring. Correct. >> You could have in one moment of time and then it was restored and then correct. >> Thank you for pointing that out. You make a very valid point. In other words, how long do we need to wait? How long does it take for the brain to start degenerate? Well, they can keep a person on a respirator alive typically definitely from 2 to 10 days. There have been recorded cases of somebody being kept alive in a respirator for 10 years even. Okay. Um but in those two after the blood has not been getting after the brain has not been getting blood for that amount of time there's no way that the brain is still vital or functioning. Okay. So in other words didn't say that you know the second you see this the the the blood isn't flowing to the brain okay let's count a minute right the magur is laid already 10 minutes let's go let's move on let's take the person's hearts and no obviously you have to wait a reasonable amount of time where it could be determined beyond any doubt that the person's brain is no longer impacting the functioning of the body okay so I like to uh in these in this short amount of time I want to address something that I think has been overlooked When the Harvard criteria came out in 1968, the medical field assumed that if there is a functioning brain stem, the person is very much alive. And the post can never question that. They said if the medical community considers somebody with a vital brain stem alive, then certainly the considers that person alive. And the only sh is the only doubt is is more stringent. Maybe says that if there's still circulatory functioning and uh and respiratory functioning, maybe the person is alive. But I'd like to rewind and take a step back and I want to question that as well. Maybe the is more mal. Maybe the considered somebody who cerebral who has already a dead cerebrum. Even the cerebrum is no longer function. Maybe also considers the person dead. I I want to question everything and uh I want to get into the topic of trif. So now I jump to part two, the Hebrew section of your reference sheet. That means I'd like you to turn to number three in the reference sheet. The page number three in the reference sheet with the header part two. Can you see that? >> Now the Hebrew header says get again I want to reemphasize what I said at the beginning of the year. We're taking about 8 to 10 hours of sheer material and I'm condensing it into about 20 minutes, 25 minutes. So, we're just basically going to see some of the key points. I just want you to also bear in mind that there's a lot more material out there that has to be discussed. Uh there's a lot out there. I'm just giving you some of the basic points. Okay. So uh the mission describes a traa. Now traa is somebody or an animal who has an endured an internal or an external injury. Okay, he has the status of a traa. We're talking about somebody who has an injury that will inhibit him from living more than 12 months is the status of a traa. Uh how does view a traa and what is the definition of a traa? Those are the two questions that we want to handle. Yeah. >> If the is more lenient in terms of the person being dead, then >> yeah, it's not going to help you. Nobody's going to do a train. >> Correct. >> Exactly. >> Correct. There would be no you would be anyways barred because of government. Although today there are countries like Canada and some European countries that permit youth in Asia. Okay, let me share a story about youth in Asia. This was a close relative of mine. She's in the kadisha. Nothing like a good story but not for the weak-hearted. Okay, I don't want anybody coming back to me afterward and saying you gave you made me feel depressed or whatever. I can't help it. Okay, I have a tendency of talking about depressing things. Okay, but you are forewarned. Okay, don't I want you to be warned. I have a very close relative of mine in the kadisha. She comes into the office and the head of theisha is uh is panicking. He's he's hysterical. They killed her. They killed her. They killed her. He says, "Sit down. have a glass of water. Okay. Thank you. And uh tell us what happened. He says, "Well, I got a call this morning. I was invited to a certain address to pick up the body. I walk in and there's a lovely older woman there. She says, "Have a seat. Uh a lovely booby, and she's talking about her experiences during the Holocaust. She was in a bal and she was chatting for about 20 minutes. She says, "I'm sorry about the delay. The doctor has to arrive. He's coming. He's late today." Okay? I'm not the only one. And what happened is that the doctor finally walks in with his briefcase and uh the doctor says, "We'll be out in 20 minutes. Please excuse us." And then the doctor walks out and he says, "You can take the body." She says, "Where's Booby? She's inside." Woman, I didn't come to pick up Booby. I came to pick up her husband. Her husband died 10 years ago. He walks into the room. The doctor just gave a lethal injection to this woman. Okay, that is a true story. I know the person with whom it happened. Uh it's totally true. The children convinced the the mother to >> accept government services and uh save them their inheritance and that's a story. So that's euthanasia. Okay, that's one aspect of euthanasian Canada >> to push the whatever it is. The I think the doctor put the put the le I don't I I would imagine the doctor I don't think the doctor gives the person here take this le >> put in a plunger somebody just hit a button >> whatever that's a true story I have I I know I can tell you exactly the the witness of this person I know that this story is 100% true so therefore it does have kamina there are many countries that will allow you to take the internal organs even if somebody's even in a persistent vegetative state okay so it's not unheard of there are countries that no longer wait for the whole the whole brain standard. They no longer adhere to the Harvard criteria that requires that you wait until the entire brain has died. They'll take the they'll take the vital organs even prior to that stage of let's say the person has reached cerebral death. Okay. So the Mishna is describing different types of tra. Again to repeat myself, tra is somebody who sustained an internal or an external injury that will inhibit him or her from living 12 months. One of them as I point out here on the reverend tree number one is that the membrane of the brain has become punctured. Uh we have the skull and underneath the skull there are two membranes. There's the outer membrane and the inner membrane. um how large does the puncture need to be? So there's two different opinions. Basil says as Gmorin that we're talking about the size of a cella okay we're talking about a few centimeters 2 and a half centimeters approximately explains that once there's a hole in the skull to points out the people have survived and lived for extended periods of time with a hole in the skull. I heard stories that's how you used to relieve migraines. Did you ever hear that? headaches, please make a locking cup. I don't know. I don't know if it's true, but anyways. So, once there's a hole in the skull and the outer membrane has been punctured, Ty says inevitably that will lead to the inner membrane getting punctured and that will cause brain damage that will inevitably lead to the person's death within 12 months. So, that's one of the categories of trauma. Now I'm arguing in case I don't see how a person whose brain is dead could could not be regarded as a traa. If the puncturing of the membrane already renders the person a traa, is there any more room to argue that the person without a brain is not a traa? That would be impossible to argue. I can't see how anybody could argue such a position that with a a punctured membrane is a is a tra, but a person with no brain at all is is not a tra. It just doesn't make any sense. So I think that it's I can think we can reasonably assume that if somebody is brain dead, he definitely has the status of tra. Does anybody disagree? Anybody want to >> play devil's advocate? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> My great nephew was in a terrorist incident. He lost a quarter of his brain and he's alive today. >> But I'm sure there was a lot of his brain that was still vital and and functioning. And we're talking about somebody who's >> But they did get another skull from Europe. >> Wow. >> Should be well and he should have >> not he used to be but he's alive. >> I know that the I know I know that um there was one soldier I I I do I forgot his name. I regret the fact that I forgot his name. He was very much injured when we had this war in Aza. I think it was about long time ago. He works for the OU. He was the most seriously injured. I think it was maybe Tokan or I can't remember which were and also you look at him there's a large part of his head is missing but he he's he lives a very fruitful life >> 17 >> 17 okay um so anyways so so I think that we can say the student that somebody that I would go further than that I would say even somebody who cerebrally who who has who has experienced cerebral death which means Even if he has a functioning um brain stem, I think he's still also considered a traa because the brain damage that would be caused because of a punctured membrane is not greater than the death of the entire cerebrum. Okay. So stage number one that I'd like to do is determine that somebody's brain death is a trauma. Okay. Stage number one, that's the first floor of our edifice. Now let's advance. Let's move to the next section. Number seven on the reference sheet. Everybody please look for number seven on the reference sheet. Okay. Statement from the everybody agrees. Now before anybody gets any mistaken impressions, you are not allowed to kill a tra. Okay? Nobody should go home and say the rabbi said you can kill traers. Okay? Uh the garra said that you're not going to be subject to the death penalty if you kill a tra which means they say it's completely forbidden but it doesn't fit the bill to invoke the death penalty. Okay. So somebody who sustain sustained an injury that renders him a traif the perpetrator has committed an act of murder but won't be subject to the death penalty. Okay. Now Rashi uses a very extreme language number eight in the reference sheet. First of all, I find it interesting that the example that Rashi uses for the tra is either the windpipe has been punctured or the membrane of the brain has been punctured. I find that interesting. Rashi could have picked many examples. Rashi has done us a great service. Thank you Rashi for picking the example of a punctured brain membrane. Okay. Rashi says he's considered a dead man. I know some people might find that expression offensive. He's a dead man. He can hug his grandchildren. He's still alive. He can communicate. But in very technical criminology ter criminology term, he's called a godila. He's called a dead man. Meaning to say that he's not going to be able to live long enough so that if somebody kills him, the perpetrator will be subject to the death penalty. the yama havi abuafi of 12th century Spain he takes it even further an even more extreme expression I want to read the bold section number 10 in the reference sheet please look at number 10 in the reference sheet which means to say is something that's detectable and it should be pointed out that a ghostace anybody know what a ghostace is a ghost is somebody who's terminally ill a person who's on his deathbed very hard to know exactly when a ghost is. I was once at the bedside of a goes and I was putting up a shar trying to look through postkim to find somebody who defines the exact moments that a per the exact point in time when a person is called a goes because you're not allowed to touch a ghostace. Uh I know I know of a family relative who was a goes and her family members were holding her hand. So the last time I gave a shir on this was three and a half years ago. I asked the crowd does anybody know a hater to hold the hand of a dying person. Nobody gave an answer. There was one woman who sent me an email from Orbach says that if holding the hand of the goes comforts that person gives and then you're allowed to hold the hand because it won't shorten his life, it'll prolong his life. You're not allowed to do anything that will shorten the life. But doesn't approve just >> intuitively made that. So here I was I was recently at the bedside of a ghost face and I wasn't sure am I allowed to hold the hands of the person? Am I allowed to massage the person? I didn't know what to do and here I am standing sitting next to dead a dying person trying to figure out if he's a ghost or not. A goes is somebody a goce is considered fully alive not like a traa. What's the difference between a ta and a goce? The adram says a traa is somebody who's been injured externally or internally but he's been injured and the injury is detectable. A goes has an internal disease that's not detectable. So somebody asked very validly well today if somebody god forbid has cancer you can look under a microscope and you can see the cancerous cells does that mean that even a ghostis today has the status of a traa? I don't have an answer to the question. Okay I don't know. I'm leaving this question unanswered. Um so if a person kills a goes misa he could be executed in a in a human tribunal. If somebody kills a ta he lacks the technical requirements to be subject to the death penalty. The let's continue reading in the number 10 in the reference sheet bear with me. Uh uses the same expression as he's not even considered auesh is a soul. He's not even considered a soul at all. I don't know what that means. That's a very extreme terminology. The seems to be saying that somebody who's a considered whoever rendered him a he could be subject to the death penalty in a court of law. So the Gmorans and describes where a person was uh bashed up by a whole bunch of people by a gang. That's what the Gumar in in Sanhedrin describes somebody a gang came with baseball bats and started smashing this guy to pieces. So says the Rama based on the Gumarra whoever made him a traa he's the he's the murderer. He's the one that's going to be executed and based in the person who brought to his final death won't be subject to the death penalty. He'll be punished. He's a criminal but he can't get the death penalty. So whoever makes the person whoever uh caused the fatal injury, he's the murderer. Whoever caused the victim to become a traa, he's the murderer because once he's a Rashi says he's a dead man or the says he's not even considered a nephesh. Okay, any questions? Go ahead. Okay, you guys got to work it out. What if the victim doesn't die within that year? >> So then he didn't make him a traa. A traa is somebody who won't be able to live for 12 months. >> Yes. >> When he's considered tra is is he awake that that time? >> Yes, he's fully conscious. >> I'm saying but he's not considered living. >> I know it's like a it's a in some sense he's considered living because he's not mama. He's not mama. The says that if somebody's dead, he he spreads tuma. A cohen is allowed to be in the room. So he's not really dead, but he's somewhere in between. He's some he's in some stage that that's hard to define. He's not to he's not really dead because he's not mama. A cohen is allowed to be in the same room as he is. But on the other hand, when we look at it from a criminology point of view, from a point of view as to whether or not you can subject the crim the perpetrator of the crime to the death penalty, we look at him as though he's not a nephesh. So he's something in between, >> but he can sign a get. >> He can sign a get. Exactly. He can sign a get. Okay. So you see that the standard for death when it comes to to tuma and writing a get has a different standard than when it comes to taking a life and being subject to the death penalty. >> Yes. >> A one year period. >> Yeah. >> He could have contacted admission because he was diet. >> Correct. So Rashi and the post can point out that that that we have to consult with the doctors in order to determine what exactly caused his death. Okay. phrase determines the the the status of a person based on the medical opinion of doctors. Okay. So when they came up with the uh co 19 vaccine some people said should we take the vaccine should we not take this that was not a question for rabbis. It was a question for rabbis and the rabbi tells you that tells you that that's something that has to be determined by the doctors. Okay? And we'll talk about that more if we have time at the end of this year because it's a very critical point. So now let's move on to stage number three. Now let me repeat myself. Stage number one was to determine that a person whose day brain death has the status of a traa. Stage number two was to determine that if somebody kills a traa, he's not subject to the death penalty because he hasn't committed full murder. There are few other examples of that in shas the garra in adorim it's a very bizarre story so I like stories so let me tell you this gummor made his pilgrimage up to Israel he was on the other side of the Jordan River and he sees two guys get angry at each other and one guy kills his friend he takes out a knife and she's his friend so this mafionire turns to and said did I do the right thing now knows that if he would tell the guy you did the wrong thing, right? He would kill Tony would kill as well. Okay, so what did Ula said? No, no, no. You did. You're all good. You're all good, Tony. You know, right? And then does something even more bizarre. He says, "Yeah, finish the cut." So he comes back to right or the people that were present complained, "Why did encourage him?" So said he had to save his life. If he didn't suck up to this mafian, then would have also been killed. He would have been next on the hit list. So a number of posts can point out fine it's okay but how could you encourage the guy to murder somebody how could tell him to finish the cut and you know the answer because he was already a traa because the guy was already a traa so if he didn't say finish the cut he might make the mafian upset and he might be the next v victim on the hit list so the gar says it was okay for him to say to finish the cut because he was only telling somebody to cut off the head if somebody was already a A very bizarre stuff other examples of this uh I'll skip them because the point I think is clear. If you have time you can look at number 15 and 16 in the reference sheet the garin. But I want to move on to part number three which is the next stage the next floor in this edifice. Uh are you allowed to give up the life? Are you allowed to kill a tra to save somebody who's healthy? That's the question. Um famous please look at number 17 in the reference sheet famous you can't kill somebody to save your life and the expression the garumar uses I put it in bold number 17 the refugees the expression goes that's Aramaic who says your blood is more red than his blood okay you can't kill somebody imagine that uh imagine that you have the greatest people of Israel. I don't know everybody pick their hero. For some people it might be a great rabbi, Raf Salvetic, Raf. I don't know. Pick your pick pick the person who you think was the greatest man in history. Lamba, I don't know. And then you see they bring over some schleer from Takazid. He lies on a sleeping bag. He reeks to high heaven. He sits there with a can, right? Pestering people for for change. Okay. So, a lot of people would say, "Look, Mr. Tell the Ram either you kill this homeless man or we're going to otherwise we're going to take your life." No, the Ram says I have to die. Doesn't sanction me to determine that my life is more important than this guy's life. Halak unequivocally states that nobody has the right to say whose life is more important. Okay? And the expression is who says your blood is more red than mine etc. Thei number 18 in the reference sheet describes a Mishna a Jewish city has its enemies lay siege. Okay. So the enemies are surrounding the city and they say hand over someone or else we're going to kill you all. Uh during the Holocaust there have been cases of Nazis playing these psychological games to kamas terrorists. On October 7th, I've heard stories about playing psychological games to torture people. Give us this person or we'll kill that person. Give us this child or we'll kill the other child. Okay? These are things you can't whitewash. Okay? I'm sorry for making everybody depressed. Um but uh the the enemy soldiers say, "Hand us over someone or else we're killing the whole city." You can't hand anybody over. Nobody has the right to take to choose who's if somebody wants to volunteer, he can say, "I'll volunteer. I'll hand myself over to the enemy and then we'll I'll I'll do that as an act of heroism to save." Like Roy Klene, he jumped on a grenade to save his fellow soldier. He volunteered. He made that decision. But nobody has the right to choose somebody in the city to hand over to save the city. Asks the mi, "Can you take a tria? There's a ta in the city. There's somebody in the city who's injured says to me something shocking. You can take the tra and you can hand them over to the enemy because the my means how can you determine whose life is worth more whose life is worth less that doesn't apply to a tra a catila is a dead man. So the miri uh 12th century provence heins that you can actually hand over the traa. Shocking, huh? But there's a lot of logic to it. It's not very comfortable. It's not such a it's not such a pleasant s. But if you're thinking if you're if you're thinking of it from a very from a very logical perspective and by the way the is not a lone opinion. Number 21dist like this the also pus like the number 22 the famous Pins like the number 23 in the reference sheet the Pharisees bish Lipshits from Germany he was writing a chuva on the vaccination okay in his time Jenner came out with a vaccination he wrote a chuva about it and he discussed this issue issue in relation to the vaccine and he also passed him like this he didn't quote the he said it from his own interesting in his commentary on the Pharisees that all of mankind is dear to God he lists the and one of them is Jenner he says he came up with the vaccination so he's one of the okay number 24 the okay number 25 okay I'm giving all the post that I found the number 25 the he was asked a question about taking a taking machinery off of a traa and giving it to somebody who could survive the doctor triage I think it was kats that send him the question Dr. give a task if I'm not mistaken he in triage can I take the vital machinery off of somebody who's basically going to die very soon and put it on somebody who could live based on this miri he says you can take the machinery off of somebody who's any is going to die very soon and you can attach another person to that machinery okay uh >> can I take a kidney made from a trade food without his permission >> according to the and these posting you can >> okay so what I've done is that I know there's a lot of talk about brain death but what I've done basically here is I found a school of rishonim that could b at least according to them we can basically bypass this whole issue by saying that the person who's brain dead even if he's alive but he's a traa and there are no there are a school of pkin there is a school of pkin that maintain that you can kill a ta to save somebody who's alive okay unbelievable able chuva. So therefore, would allow you to take the organs of somebody who's brain dead. Um I'm just we didn't we didn't manage to finish the entire chuva. There are basically two main sources that were brought against the brain criteria. One was from a chuva of the Ashkenazi. He was a R in Hamburg and a girl came along and said, "I found a chicken without a heart." See, the chicken is kosher. What do you mean the the chicken is kosher? The chicken didn't have a heart. He says, "You're either hallucinating or you dropped the heart on the floor and a cat ate it because there is no such thing as a chicken without a heart." Rabbi David Oenheimer disagreed with this and this this controversy totally blew up. The actually had to leave Hamburg. He went for Amsterdam because of this controversy. They said do Oenheimer basically said there was a heart there that was very small and very compromised and that means that the chicken is a tr that means the chicken is not kosher. The yitz the son of sided withdenheimer he already quoted that already says in anyways the he writes that it should be obvious to anybody who has a minimal amount of intelligence that that there's no such thing as a chicken without a heart but for tips he writes for foolish people he quotes a zoar that he considered the zor foolish but he said for those people that are foolish I'm going to quote you the zor says that the heart is the epicenter of the world just as the heart is the epicenter of the body. It's the epicenter of life. So they called this they say you see if there's a pumping heart the epicenter of life is functioning and the person should be regarded as being alive. However, the zor in the next line says and the heart is connected to the brain that is the epicenter of the neesh oppenr in his chuv wrote that the the life is defined by a person's intelligence by a person's self-awareness by a person's interaction with haz so therefore for those tips just as the said that a man without a heart a woman without a heart is not a life I think that a human without a brain is not either your brain. Okay. Now, as I mentioned, we'll finish the show. There's a lot more to be said on this, but between 8 and 10 hours of of sheer material. I'm going to finish the share. We've just given you a little bit of a sampling. Um, I did get a lot of flack the last time I gave this year, but I've presented my arguments and, uh, if anybody wants to be in touch with me, uh, we can continue this topic private. Thank you very much.