Life After Death (Pt II) : Brain Death and Organ Donation Halacha| Rabbi Aschi Dick | November 26th

Good morning everyone. Good to see you all. >> For those of you who were with us last week, please bear with us that we have some new faces here. So, we're going to uh we're actually going to review. Okay. Uh again, this is part two of last week's topic, brain death. We're talking Yes. the mic colleague. Good. >> Thank you. >> Part two of brain death. Okay. Quick overview. Uh in 1981, a majority of the states accepted the Harvard criteria, the whole brain brain death, the whole brain standard, which means then if the brain is nonfunctional, the brain is not influencing the circular systems of the body, the brain is rotting. The entire brain is rotting, including the brain stem. the person is considered dead and therefore it would be legal and recommendable to take the organs from this person to donate them to transplant the kidneys to transplant the heart or whatever else could save lives. Um obviously this generated a very strong hik debate. Uh, we talked about the RCA, the Rabbitical Council of America, commissioning a group of rabbis, Rabbi Hershel Shakar, and uh, >> sorry, >> it's too loud. >> Too loud. >> No, >> I tell reminds me of a story. I was at a restaurant and somebody told the waiter, "It's too hot." So, he said, "Okay, I'll lower the uh, I'll lower the temperature." Somebody else Kevin said, "It's too cold." He says, "Okay, fine." keeps on keeping. So already the sixth or seventh time said I told the guy said how do you have patience? He said I didn't touch the thermometer. Okay, I'm going to take my jacket off. >> Okay. So anyways, so um >> from this RCA commission a number of rabbis Rabbi Gadalia Schwarz and Rab Mosha Tendler maintain that the brain stem Rab Mosha Tendler who is most v was most vocal about this he was very adamant if you ever heard his speeches he was very strong minded about he was very passionate about it he said that If the brain, if there's no more blood flow to the brain, the person is maybe not anatomically decapitated, but he's definitely virtually decapitated and therefore the person is definitely considered dead. And he considered it immoral for to consider the person alive to refrain from taking those vital organs from that person and saving six or seven other people. Okay, he was very vocal about this. Uh he already wrote to his father of Mosha Finton as a number of chuis. Um, we're going to look at it at the in the reference sheet. Uh, basically the doctors will take a radioactive harmless radioactive die, put it into the bloodstream, and on the X-ray machine they can see exactly where the blood is getting to and if they see that if there is an abrupt cut off of blood to the brain, you know that the brain is starting to degenerate and therefore the brain the muscle tissue in the brain is starting to decompose. there's no way that the brain could be impacting the body and therefore the person is dead. Uh Rav Mosha Feinson accepts the validity of this test. Part of the debate was whether or not the test is reliable enough. However, Rav Mosha Tendler who was a professor of biology in Yashim University. He also sat on the medical ethics committee there. He maintained very adamantly that this test is completely reliable. Okay, that's a quick sorry is reliable and therefore he took great issue with the postkim that opposed them on the issue. My brother-in-law of Ellie Myers who learned in Wu says that word was it in Wu that when this commission sat together to judge the case it was basically a shouting match between Hersel Shakar and of Mosha Tendler. Okay, that's what they said in Wu. Okay, I can't personally verify it wasn't there but those they were the two. Now Arin Salvichek the brother of Salvichek most of you have heard of him I'm sure he also sided with Rabers Shak he was opposed to regarding somebody who is brain dead for lack of better term he was opposed to considering that person dead okay so he maintained that you would not be allowed to take the organs of this person to save other lives if you did that that would be a tantamount to murder so we have a very important debate here Another a number of post can maintain that taking the organs from somebody who we call brain dead uh that would be tantamount to murder and Mosha Tandler and others maintain just the opposite that by not considering this person dead you are denying life to six or seven people that could be saved from those organs. So obviously this is a very important mahlo. So now let's just quickly review some of these sheets some of the sources that we saw last week. Again, as I mentioned, those of you who have heard this already, bear with me. I need to I need to do it again briefly for those of us who are not with us last week. Okay. Yes. >> Are you allowed to kill somebody so other people can live? >> That's part that's exactly that's a wonderful question. That's what we're going to address right now. That's a good question. Okay. >> Um so I just I'm going to do this fairly quickly. So please bear with me. Number one in the reference sheet we talked about a ta is somebody who has sustained an internal or an external injury that will inhibit him from living more than 12 months. Okay. So the gives us a list of injuries that render the person a traa and number one I put it in bold there's a puncture in the membrane of the brain. Okay. Uh there's a discussion how large the puncture needs to be. Um >> it's the third page. It's called part two and it's numbered number one. Okay. Sure. Okay. So okay. Um I'm going to jump to number three in the reference sheet. The rabbi based on the garra says that theim said that if the puncture is the size of a cell we're the pherise is says that that's approximately 1/3 of a tap a tak based on archaeological evidence is a little bit less than 8 cm. So we're talking about 2 cm bit less than 2 cm. Okay, if that's the size of the puncture in the membrane that person will not live for 12 months. Let's move on in the reference sheet. Okay, I'm going to jump to number six in the reference sheet. I'm quoting from there are some people that have some of their skull removed and they still live. So Tyus's conclusion is that we're talking about somebody who has a part of the skull broken also the outer me we have the outer membrane and we have the inner membrane so the outer membrane is also punctured so a person is missing part of the skull where the skull is missing there's also a puncture in the outer membrane says that this will inevitably lead to a puncture of the inner membrane and that will cause the person to sustain brain damage and and therefore the person will not live for 12 months. So my position is my humble position is that if somebody's rendered a tra because the membrane is punctured all the more so is somebody certainly a traa I mean he could be considered completely dead but it's hard to argue or impossible to argue that the person is not a traif The punctured membrane is a tra that would be impossible. It would be impossible to uh support such a position. Okay. Anybody disagree? Do we have everybody's on the same page on this? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> When you have a trade? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. How long is that? The doctor say he's going to live 30 days, 90 days. How long will he live? >> So anybody who cannot live for 12 months is considered a trao. >> So then when is the operation feasible? When the doctor says you're a tra or the last minute of the guy's possible life, >> no. As soon as the person is rendered a traa, at that point there are ramifications as we'll soon see. You don't have to wait a moment before the person dies. As soon as the person assumes the status of a traa, we will see many ramifications for this. Okay, we haven't yet delineated them yet. Yes. >> Is there an English translation of the word? >> No, there is no good English translation for the word traif. Thank you for raising that. Uh we'll see a distinction between goes and trea. A goss as we mentioned last week is somebody who is terminally ill but there's no visible internal or external injury. A tra is somebody who has sustained an internal or external energy injury that is visible. Okay. And there are distinctions between the two. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Yes. response have we heard that people can say he had three weeks three weeks I did how do you know 12 months how does anyone know >> right so that's why the mission gives you a list of injuries >> in the process of dying >> correct >> because he's just terminally ill >> correct >> especially nowadays knowledge is much better and >> correct yes good point the all these points will be addressed but but thank you for raising them all valid points and we will address them okay So number seven. Okay. Um says now just to be 100% clear, you're not allowed to kill a traa. Okay? It's completely prohibited according to kill a uh certain countries, Canada and certain European countries have permitted what they call euthanasia. Uh I don't know for those of you who last year I I shared a story from a close family member in the Kadisha. Uh does anybody want to hear the story again or should we just move on? >> Okay, we'll tell the story again. Harry, you're getting very bored. I can do >> Okay, so anyways, the story goes as follows. I know the story firsthand. This close relative of mine shows up at the Kadisha and the head of the Kadishh comes into the office and he's I don't know hyperventilating. He's panicking. They killed her. They sit down. Have a cold drink of water. What are you getting so excited about? So he said, "They killed her. They killed her. What are you talking about?" He says, "I got a call this morning. Pick up the body. I received the address. I showed up with Kadisha truck to pick up the body. I walk in. I see a woman sitting there on the couch. Obviously, I came to pick up the woman's husband and she said, "Excuse me, the doctor will be coming in about 20 minutes, a half hour. He's running late. Uh in the meantime, the man is smoozing with this uh woman. She's a Holocaust survivor while she's talking about her experiences during the Holocaust. And the doctor knocks on the door and says, "Hello." Comes with his briefcase and he the doctor says, "Excuse us for a moment. We're going to the other room." 20 minutes later, the doctor comes out. He says, "Okay, you can take the body." Um she says, "But where is where is the MS?" She says, "She's inside. Where's the what? >> Where's the misses? Where's that woman with whom I was speaking on the couch? So the doctor says she's inside. He goes inside, right? She was the body that he had to take. Okay. The doctor basically went in, gave her a lethal injection. Okay. And put an end to her life. That is a story that I know firsthand in Canada. That's was permitted under the law of euthanasia. Yeah. >> So my father was dying in the hospital. Yeah. >> A religious doctor came. He told us everybody on the floor. I was my mother >> and he told the nurses that has to be quiet on the floor. He's coming. >> So my father o opens his eyes. There were two boys from Satner. >> Yeah. >> And he asked he first he says to me did my birthday pass. I said yes. Purim. Yes. I said pur two weeks before purim. >> I said yes because he was born on purim and I knew he wanted to live until it would be cares. So then he looks at these two sack boys and he asked them did Purum pass and they said no it's two more weeks he kept himself alive after that came on Shabas was shot that he was alive he kept himself alive till he died on >> Wow you should >> so you can't >> you can never know he was dying >> he was going to die should be uh should stand for us. His school should be stand for us. Thank you for sharing. So yeah, so you have it. Now I want you to bear in mind this story uh because it's going to relate to something that we're going to address at the end of this year and that's about neonim. What is the protocol for trusting a doctor when the doctor says the guy's dead? Okay. So I'm putting that on hold. I just want you to bear in mind um that that's going to be a discussion. Okay. So So if somebody murders a tria, obviously the person has committed a very severe sin. However, he cannot be subject to the death penalty. In other words, he he hasn't committed the full-fledged murder that could warrant a death penalty. But goes, remember we talked about the distinction between a trafe and a goes. A goes is somebody who is who is terminally ill. Um the mores roas. The majority of goes of people that are goes die. a minority survive. Okay. So that addresses the point that you made. Yes, there are rare instances where somebody was a goes, somebody that's terminally ill, he could survive. It's happened. It's rare, but it could happen. A traa is somebody who sustained an injury which makes it impossible for him to survive. If somebody survives as a trea, then that would be a miracle. So the Gmorrah in San Hedrin, as we said that if somebody kills a ta he's pur. Now I remember at the end of last week somebody came to me and says you mean you don't consider a alive you don't consider the person alive his life has no value they said no on the contrary you're even allowed to be shabas you're allowed to do anything on chabas that would otherwise be prohibited to say betray because it's called means a person that could live according to a number of post that means even if the person can live less than 12 months but you are even for however However, if you kill the traa, you cannot be subject to the death penalty. Okay, I like the fact that Rashi there number eight in the reference sheet gave us an example of a tra and Rashi used example of okay the wind pipe was puncture or the chroma or the me the membrane of the brain rash uses an extreme language some people found that wording offensive but it's a very tech tech from a very technical standpoint as offensive as it sounds he's considered uh a walking dead man. Okay? Even though you're allowed to be shabas to save him, but when we're dealing with the technical requirements to inflict or to execute someone, he's considered a garila. Uh if that's not bad enough, look at number 10 in the reference sheet. Okay, the addressing a case in the Gomorrah guy was uh murdered by a gang. Okay. So 10 guys lined up with baseball bats and started beating the guy up and the guy was killed. So says the I'm going to leading the bold the person who gave the brought the let's say the last person that smashed him on the head right at which point the victim was a that person again he killed a dead man. nephesh called he's not even considered a nephesh altogether. There's no good English translation for the word nephesh because it's very nuanced what a nephesh is. Um a nephesh is a soul, a body, a life. But again that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Um interesting that he uses that lush and he's not even called a neu because he's a I mean you would be for him but he's still not considered. And by the way we have a precedent in for that a fetus. Okay, we talked about abortion in our ouch. Um, you could be to save a fetus even though a fetus is not a nephesh. He's not a nephesh. Um, the parishb says the describes two men in a fist fight and one man accidentally punches a pregnant woman. If he causes her to misaryry, the garra says there's no ass. There's no loss of life. There's no ass. of tragedy for lack of a better translation. If the man accidentally kills the woman and if he had intent then it's nephesh says the in his commentary of the that nephesh means that if you killed a mother he's killed a nephesh the clear inference is that if you killed a fetus you didn't kill a nephesh okay >> you did not kill a nephesh a fetus does not have the status of a nephesh that the rashi says it explicitly in San B the adman We collected about 20 different that say explicitly that a fetus is not enoughish. However, the Ramban quotes the says you can be mal shabas to save a fetus. Not only can you be shabas to save a fetus, you can even be shabas to save a fetus that has not reached the 40day mark of pregnancy. We saw the garna vamus. The Garnia says that until the 40-day mark of pregnancy, we relate to the fetus as mayo. [clears throat] Okay, it's considered like water. It's much more than water, but for certain technicalities, we regard the fetus as water. So therefore, the postim are much more permissive about performing an abortion before the 40-day mark of pregnancy. >> Yeah. And he had a lot of ramifications for for a tra like a cos you let him. >> Yeah, you can let him den he's allowed to you could be shabas to save him. There's no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to. Sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So there's no gamification. >> Oh, there is ramifications. If somebody kills him, >> the killer won't be subject to death penalty. And we'll see the most important ramification which we're going to get to very soon is that if you have if a Jewish city is under siege, okay? And they're demanding they're demanding that the that the city hand over somebody. We're going to see that the major ramification is that you can hand over the and we're going to see that we're going to also try to apply to the to the whole topic of brain dead. So um yeah so basically let's look again number 10 in the reference Spanish scholar 800 years ago he says the person who caused the victim to become a tra the first person to have inflicted that injury that rendered the person a traa he's going to be so if it's possible to determine Which gang member let down the bat that caused this person to sustain that injury that prevented this person of being able to live for 12 months. He's the murderer. He's going to be the one subject to the death penalty. The person who actually took his life will not be subject to the death penalty. Okay. So that's an important kesh. The rivash says the same thing 11 accord the rivash northern Africa bit after the okay he says again he says the same thing that the adram says the person who made him a trophy he's going to be subject to the death penalty there's another yes >> to that conclusion then basically one guy twice when he hits two shots first shot the next one counts so >> well he wouldn't be savage the death there would other penalties leveled against him, but he would but yeah, so obviously it's very hard to determine when you have a gang bashing a guy up with baseball bats. Obviously, you would it would be almost impossible to determine who inflicted the the fatal injury. But theoretically, if you can figure out who was the one to have inflicted the let's say a person was shot and he took a bullet in the lungs or whatever took a bullet in I don't know in the brain even though he was still hovering between life and death the person who took the next shot and finished him off would not be subject to the death penalty. Okay. >> Yes. >> If the person was in trade war what if he's not expected to live until his next chabas was only expected to live another day or two. You could still be mahal shabas. You can even be mahal shabas to extend a person's life by one day. And that's what I mentioned the fetus. The fetus is not a nephesh. But yet you would be mahal shabas to save the fetus. So you see that the the the the parameter of when can you be shabas to save someone is not contingent on whether the person is defined as a nephesh. Okay. >> Yeah. Pua interesting good point. is not an all is not a is not a absolute term because it's even someone who's not a nephesh. Yeah. >> Yes. All the more so because a goes is considered more of a life than a ta because a goes is somebody who has a terminal illness but there's no visible internal or external injury. A goes is more alive than a ta. If somebody kills a ghost, >> I'm thinking of a ghost at the end of the terminal illness when the breathing starts to slow down. >> Yeah. >> And we know that he's in the process of dying. It's not somebody who's been diagnosed with a terminal illness. >> Correct. But but because there is a mute, there are cases of a ghostis recovering. Um I know such cases. It's very rare but since there's a mute of go of people that have been in that stage of being a goes and have recovered you can look online they have documented cases of it obviously it's rare but since it exists so therefore a ghost is considered a full life okay even people have been in the process of dying um >> because I thought was that you can't do anything but fear >> correct you're not allowed to hold the hand of a goes um it's interesting the the Ram quotes the Ram says if Somebody touches a ghost face he could be. So about four years ago I gave a sh brain death and I asked the crowd does anybody know a hater to hold the hands of a dying man or woman? I know that it's common. I have I know with relatives when the person was dying they had relatives holding the hand. So the rah says you can't touch a ghost. They said what's the to hold the hand? So I asked the crowd. I got an email back actually um a neighbor of mine she lives in Harnov her name is okay doesn't make a difference so she she she sent me a a sak that was written in the nishma I think I think it was professor Steinberg cafer and in there he quotes orbach and says you're not allowed to touch a goes however if holding the ghost's hand will give him comfort or give her comfort So it won't hasten the death. On the contrary, the reason why the death could be hastened is because it could disturb the ghostly. But if holding the hand is going to alleviate the fears, we know that from a woman who's giving birth, you're allowed to light a candle for a woman who's giving birth to alleviate her fears. If a sick person's fears are alleviated, they have a better chance of surviving. So therefore doesn't give a he just sees it as being logical. It's just simple logic. Okay. I was afraid to say just based on logic that you know if the Ram says you touch a ghost you're killing him. I just say okay logic tells me that if you but we have it's his problem. He gave the he's good enough to rely. Okay. So now uh so there are a few other examples of that in the Talmud. I'm going to skip them. Um examples different ramifications. You can look at them uh when you get home. number 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 of the reference sheet. Okay, different ramifications of regarding a ta as a gabra catilo. Okay, so now here here we're getting closer to the major namina. Let's look at number 17 in the reference and this addresses your one of somebody's question here. I don't remember who. So says that there are three cardinal sins for which you need to give up your life in order not to violate. Okay, we all know that Dimim murder of Odisara, idol worship and Gilarayas and sexual transgressions. Uh the Gomorrah goes through each of the three to determine the source. How do we know you need to give up your life so as not to commit any of these three cardinal sins? So that when the gar discusses murder, the gar says it's just logical. Look at the bolded section in number 17 in the reference sheet is how can you determine that your blood is more red than the other person? Okay. So for example, uh the Rambam, take the Rambam, the great Rambam, the greatest figures in Judaism. Okay. So the Ram is told, look, there's this guy in front of Kazid. He sleeps on a sleeping bag. He has a can in front of him. He reeks to high heaven. He doesn't do anything productive. He just lies there in front of mentally ill, on drugs, alcoholic. Okay. The Ram kill him and then we'll save your life. So, so whose life is more important, the right life of the Ram or this homeless man? We have no right to decide. The Torah does not give us that privilege, that authority to decide whose life is more important. In we don't know whose life is more important. who says your light, your blood is redder than his and therefore whenever you don't know you opt for inaction don't do anything and therefore you cannot murder somebody even to save your own life number 18 in the reference she right I've mentioned this before a Jewish city is laid siege so the go say hand us over someone or else we'll kill you all you can't hand over anybody we had such a case like this in in Chevri revolted against David Yav David's king is sent to subdue the revolt. So they say hand over and the no not is Yeah. Yeah. say her name she was actually a she took the head of she convinced the town's people to hand over. So the garra says Chev was identified. So since they said we want Chevri. So because he was identified the Yav or in our case the enemy says we want this man then you're allowed to hand him over. But if the uh enemy doesn't tell us who they want they said pick you a guy just hand us hand us over someone and he doesn't tell us who to hand over the whole city has to die because nobody has the right to say him her or nobody can choose who to hand over. Okay. If somebody wants to volunteer and save the town, that's a royle in the second Lebanon war. Uh Kumov, he jumped on a grenade to save his comrades. Okay, he made that decision, right? It could be that the laws of war are different, right? The nitiv and the rais say that they're different when it comes to warfare. But I'm saying just to take the principle, he volunteered to die. So if somebody wants to volunteer to hand himself over to the enemy, that's something they can do. But we have no right to choose who has to be handed over to the enemy. And therefore, even if that results in the entire town being destroyed, says the miri, sorry, >> Jew or non-Jew, that >> that's another discussion. We'll hold we'll put that on the side for now. Okay. So the says that if there's a tra in the town, you can hand over the traa because if the is considered a law, so you no longer apply this. In fact, a person who's not a trader than the person who is a tra. So the enemy says, "Hand us over someone." Anybody any traers in the town? Okay. Yeah. I heard somebody who has a hole in his head. He's got a len cup. So hand them over. Okay, we said if somebody's got a hole in the head and he's a trainer. I should mention that says that obviously that's in the absence of medical treatment. That means to say if medical treatment could prolong the person's life obviously the person will not have the status of a tra um many postkim have taken this position of the miri number 21 the right the number 22 the also gives the same s a lot of them don't quote them let's look at number 22 in the reference sheet like I just want to read together even if they didn't identify who they want. However, if there was a city gave it wasn't just it was those that preceded them the he's not called You cannot invoke the reasoning of my says who says your blood is more red than his blood. Well, if he's a tra he's called a gabila, he's a dead man walking. He's not a nephesh. So therefore, you can hand over the traa. Number 23, the tear is bos has a long essay regarding the uh when Jenner came out with the inoculation um against the smallpox. So he wrote a whole truven and he got into this discussion about whether or not you can hand over a tra to save a shale. He comes to the same conclusion. Number 23 number 24 the says the same thing. Number 25 the klein he was the ra ofar he was a rabbi in Brooklyn and later he moved to he was a great man a big balet and a great po. He was famous for being the parpl of Mosha Feinstein. But Mosha Feinstein was very posed to the AV in Brooklyn and he supported the cautious of the Au in Brooklyn. That's was one of the things that made him famous. But every everything was notwithstanding he was definitely a great posic. You can argue with a lot of the things that he says not everything that he says is is necessarily correct. But he was asked a question about taking certain vital machinery away from one patient and attaching it to another patient. Triage. Okay. In the emergency room. Okay. Doctors have to make these decisions and there have to be protocols made for doctors. When do you take machinery off of one patient and give it to another patient? For example, if the first patient is not expected to live for very long, patient who is holding the machinery can live maximum a day or two, for example, and you can take the machinery off of the patient with this vital machinery and you can give it to another patient who can live for many years. Are you allowed to do that? Says the yes, you can. And he quotes this. He says that because the life of the person who could live for many years is more blood I say that in quotation marks than the person who's not going to survive for only a day or two. Okay. >> So you can take a breathing machine off your tra and give it >> correct correct according Yes. Yes. Good point. According to these postkim, you can take a breathing machine off of a traa and give it to a healthy person and you can even give it to a goes because we said a goes is considered a more of a nephesh than a traa. We said uh somebody asked me the other day and I still don't have a good answer to this question. Today with the help of the microscope even if somebody's a ghost you can see the cancerous cells for example you can actually see under the microscope the the the the illness is visible to the eye thanks to the aid of microscopes etc. However, I think the assotas that since sometimes ghosts could survive, I mean, you pointed out that there you have sometimes illnesses that maybe one in 10,000 or maybe one in a 100 thousands like you have very rare cases of the person surviving. I don't know if that would impact the or not, but yeah, you're right. You' be according to these post you'd be able to take the the the breathing machine off of the person who is a traa and give it to a person who's a ghost you can give it to a person who has the chance to survive for an extended period of time decision made >> yeah absolutely during co these were decisions that had to be made >> actually we say you could turn over a table so the guy says I'm sorry I don't want to go >> well these posts say too bad >> tough luck >> tough luck yeah because otherwise the whole city's going to get killed otherwise the whole city's going to get killed. I mean it's some people find it sometimes emotionally it doesn't feel good it doesn't sit right but if you look at it from a very technical perspective it makes sense you save the whole town I mean the problem is that there's nobody who's a traa nobody has the authority to choose who has to get handed over so when we go to you're going to hand you over no and the guy says no right who you going to choose so you can't choose anyone there at no point are you allowed to take that authority to say I'm taking you to save everybody else. So therefore, because of Alas, you have no choice but to let the town die. But with the we can say, look, we're handing you over and this way the rest of the town could survive. Um yeah, now the bud questioned this the number 26 in the referee. He didn't see the miri the a lot of the writings of the miri lived in Provence was an important region but a lot of his writings were lost and in the last century a lot of these writings were recovered. Okay. So he probably didn't see this miri. This mir happened to have been around because we said that the ivitz quoted the ni the ivitz lived in the same period as the ni was a little bit older than the nivudak of emden and the nihuda the yehuda was in prague the ivitz was ind for some time he was in Hamburg for some time so the ivit saw this mi the didn't see this miri and he said um number 26 in the reference sheet he says is a shaman. Can you kill a to save a shale? We've never heard of such a thing. Now, he didn't hear of such a thing, but we did, right? We heard from the and I quoted to you about six or seven that agreed with that yes, you can kill a ta to save a shale. Okay, so the nihuda didn't accept this notion of killing a tra to save a shalem. But we did see quite a number of postkim that did support the notion. Okay. Now according to the school of ronim let me just quickly list who they are. Right. The miri if I got a penny every time I said his name I'd be rich. the shiusd the ivitz the toes and the that's seven there may be more but these are the seven that I found they maintain that you can kill a tra to save a shale I think that this is very impactful for the suga of brain deadad because we have a major debate between the pskim whether somebody who's brain dead if he's considered dead or alive but he I do think he's definitely considered a trai even if you do maintain that a person who has circulatory functioning he has he's his his his respiratory system is functioning thanks to machinery okay so even if you do take the position that he's alive but he is a that I don't think is up for debate according to this school of postkim you can kill him anyways because he's definitely a tra you can save him take his organs and save >> a sham >> you mentioned that this case that went to the Supreme Court. >> Yeah. >> America. >> Yeah. >> They had to take the woman off of uh the uh off of of the machine. >> Machine. Yeah. Yeah. >> They say they take Now, how arguable was it? They take her off, she'll die, >> right? >> They took her off 10 years of working, >> right? Very good point. So now this is why it's very very important to distinguish. There's a person could be in a persistent vegetative state. A person could be in a very prolonged coma. Ariel Shaun was in a coma for how long? >> Years. >> Huh? >> 10 years. >> 10 years. Some people were very happy about that because they were angry that he uprooted Gushkatif. I'm not going to pass any judgment. That's already a political issue. I didn't come here to talk politics. But anyways, Errol Shan was on a in a coma for a very long time, but he still had brain functioning. Okay. Uh Rabbi Tundler was talking about again as I mentioned before putting a harmless radioactive diet into the bloodstream. You see that there's no more blood flowing to the brain. Now if the brain tissue doesn't get blood it starts to degenerate just basic biology. Uh so therefore the brain is not impacting the body. The brain is not regulating anything in the body. The the more difficult question is what if somebody is is is has suffered cerebral death. Cerebral death means there's a functioning brain stem. Now the brain stem regulates involuntary functioning things like breathing reflexes gag reflex etc. The higher mental functioning is in the cerebrum thinking, self-awareness, interaction etc. So the person is cerebly dead. So he still has according to the whole brain standard of Harvard. He's still alive according to the Harvard standard. A lot of states no longer adhere to the Harvard standard. In 1981 they were adhering to the Harvard standard which is called the whole brain standard which means even the brain stem needs to be dead. But if somebody's cerebrally dead, I think he's also considered a traum because the brain damage that was sustain that has been sustained in a cere is somebody who has had cerebral death is definitely more than a punctured man a membrane. Okay. So according to the school of fosk I we would even be allowed to take organs from somebody who's cerebrally who who has had cerebral death. Am I [snorts] being clear? Okay. So yeah, I can see that this is not the happiest topic. >> Okay. >> So what that means is say the the the brain has three major regions. The cereum, the cerebellum and the brain stem. And in the brain stem you have the the brain stem basically regulates involuntary functioning in the body like breathing and gag reflexes etc. The vagus nerve in the brain stem basically initiates the functioning of the lungs and and regulates the functioning of the lungs. The lungs get uh oxygen to the into the bloodstream. It gives the heart the oxygen that it needs. So there could be a a healthy brain stem that's functioning but he has no higher mental functioning. No no self-awareness, no ability to communicate, etc. Yeah. Yeah. >> But the idea of that live 12 months, >> yeah, >> according to it's not valid because you can keep him alive. >> Yes. Yes. I accept your point. It's an it's an acceptable point. She's pointing out that if you can keep the brain stem alive for 12 months, then he wouldn't be a tra because you can keep the brain stem alive for 12 months. So therefore we know that he could actually be better off in somebody with a punctured brain punctured me brain membrane in the absence of modern medicine. I accept your point accepted that we still that that the that if there was a living brain stem right the person may not be regarded as a completely possible that would consider him 100% alive. Correct. Point accepted stem is staying alive because of machines. Well, the machinery doesn't keep the brain stem alive. We have Well, it could help. I guess it could help to keep the person healthy. No. Well, indirectly it could because what the what what the breathing machinery does is it it it helps it it it it causes the lungs to to pump oxygen. Okay? Oxygen gets into the to the bloodstream. The blood the heart needs to pump the blood. As long as the heart gets the blood that it needs, the heart is a is a somewhat autonomously functioning um internal organ, meaning to say the pump the heart will pump blood even if there's no brain as long as the heart gets the oxygen that needs the heart will pump blood. So that you're right, the heart is pumping blood to the brain stem. So it's thanks to machinery that the brain stem is still alive. So yes, you are right. and Gredenski points out that somebody's not a traify available to or the medical treatment available to keep him alive for more than 12 months. So I accept your point. Uh if somebody has a living brain stem then you would not be allowed to take his organs. Um but we don't have yet any proof that you can take the organs of somebody who has a living brain stem. What if somebody's completely brain dead? The whole brain is not getting any any uh blood. How do we review him? So we did have a school of postkim the miri and those other postkim we mentioned that he's he is aa and therefore he can take his or however what about according to the we haven't yet gotten the whole way what time does this finish >> 20 >> 11:20 okay 11:20 sharp we'll finish this year it's always good to know how long people have to suffer for okay number 30 number 30 in the uh reference sheet what is the most quintessential potential death, decapitation, >> right? >> I think they have the new leader in in Syria. Giuliani is his name. I always get mixed up between him and the mayor of New York. Former mayor of New York. >> I heard that he was holding up two decapitated heads. They they they were circulating things when he was >> when he was in ISIS. Now he's getting in the White House. They're treating him. He's get Trump is spritzing perfume on him. And you know this guy a few years later was holding up heads. Anyways, welcome to the new world that we live in. Okay. Section number two. So decapitation is the quintessential death. Number 30, the decapitated. Even if there's reflexes, he's still dead. Okay. It takes a few seconds right for you know the nervous system is still sending commands to the different or limbs in the body. So even the person's moving decapitation is the final finality of death. Okay. >> A chicken. Yeah. You sh the chicken and the chicken runs. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now number 31. They quote the Garan pi that if somebody's been recovered from rubble was a building collapse and earthquakes or somebody's been pulled out of the rubble. So you check for breathing. Okay. Um number 33 anybody who had breathing in his nose died in the marble. So they often call this as saying okay if somebody is breathing thanks to machinery he's alive because he no that's not a proof yet because the gmor was saying what is a indicator of life right in the absence of modern machinery if a person is not breathing that's a irrefutable indicator or proof that the person is dead but that doesn't necessarily say that if somebody is artificially breathing thanks to Mishna that he's considered alive so we have to put that gumar on the side number 35 in the reverend sheet This was a very interesting story. We talked about it briefly last week. There was a girl who uh you know the chef did a chicken and she didn't find a heart in the chicken. She opened up the chicken. There was no heart. >> Heartless chicken. >> A heartless chicken. Reminds me of the story. There was a town's people didn't like the rov. So they sat down. They said, "Right, we we're tired of this rabbi." So he said, "Well, we have a very small budget in the town. How are we going to get another rabbi?" He says, "What do we need a rabbi for?" He says, "Who's going to pascan the chickens?" So the head of the community pulls out a little paper and a pen. He says, "How many chickens go to the r every year for a sh?" This is about I would say every week about five chickens. Amazing. Okay. So if we just threw out every chicken that had a shila, it would cost us X. That's the salary of the rabbi. Worthwhile. Get rid of him. Okay. So they the they basically the the girl she found a chick a chicken without a heart. So she took it to the rav and whatever the said that there's no such thing as a chicken without a heart. There's no heart. There's no life. So what happened to the chicken? What happened to the heart? Either she's hallucinating or maybe the heart fell on the floor and the cat came and ate it up. But there was a heart there and therefore the chicken is presumed to be a kosher chicken. Uh there was another that we used to have at the time in Hamburg. They used to have two rabbis. One rabbi sat on the kis raonas for six months and then another rabbi sat on the rabanas for another six months and then they alternated. So the other rabbi forgot his name he disagreed and it blew up. It became a big fight. And the first chuva in he writes a very short chuva. He says this sh is a no-brainer. No chicken without a heart doesn't exist. The was it knows a heart that's it the animal's kosher. Then all of a sudden when the other postkim started disagreeing with him and a lot of the nish of David Oenheimer he was the main plut against the on this he said that the chicken is a ta. So then he writes a long cha he says for he says this should be obvious to anybody that you can't have a chicken without a heart but for the tips for those foolish people I'm going to have to prove to you that you can't live without a heart. and he quotes the Zohar. Okay, the Zohar tells us that the epicenter of life is the heart. The heart is where all life comes from. Okay, so therefore, there's no such thing as life without a heart. On the contrary, the heart is the epicenter of life. Um the those who argued on the on the raisit was one of them Oenheimer they said that sometimes there's no heart but there's a very small heart basically some a very compromised heart that's very very small and could keep the chicken alive and that's what probably happened with this chicken it was probably a very small heart and it was so small that she didn't notice it it got easily lost but it's entirely possible possible that this is a chicken with a very compromised heart that went unnoticed and actually the chicken is a tra and you can't eat the chicken. Um to that he responded and said if that was the case the chicken would have not been so vital. The chicken was jumping around the chicken showed a lot of life. He says if that was the case then you would have noticed. Now it's interesting that the yitz who was the son of the and he absolutely adored his father. He revered his father in his eyes. His father was the greatest man to have ever seen the he was like he wrote about his father you know and he actually took the side of the other those who were on the and he said he found the sagda they already talked about such a situation where you have a a chicken with a very compromised heart and that's probably what happened it's interesting that when the ivitz attacked and I became the rav of Hamburg and um the yitz found certain kas amulets that were being written by and he found certain illusions to shapes. So he had come to the conclusion that was a sabotian. So he tried to get Ravus and I removed from the rabbitic post and the supporters of Rionus and Ishitz said that he has an axe to grind with Rionus and I because I took the side of those that argued on the with regard to this big chicken controversy. You know it's interesting that they were fighting about chickens right we fight about you know who about grafting to the army you know life that then they were fighting about chickens okay >> amongst other things yeah >> why would anybody think you can't eat it >> because the because of David do Oenheimer and said this was a chicken with a compromised heart and therefore it's a trul kosher >> so a poor person would lose their chicken >> unfortunately yeah >> maybe not maybe rabbit would say >> maybe the rabbit would pull out five bucks and say here you go >> the rabbit would say >> yeah yeah so so anyways so they all called this talks about the heart is the epicenter of life now the truth is I look at it's interesting that if you look at number 38 in the reference sheet the zohar okay look at the zohar in the paragraph the first paragraph then basically says that the heart is the epicenter of life. And then look at the second paragraph in the Zahar. I um I put it in bold and that heart is tied to gets unified but with the brain that resides above. So now I'm going to tell you something that's a total no-brainer. If there's no life without a heart, call there's no life without a brain. Okay. Now what if the girl found a chicken without a brain? What would the say? He would say the same thing. You're hallucinating. The that the cat ate the brain. So therefore, if there's no brain, right? Then obviously the person is no longer alive. That's it's a no-brainer. Exactly. >> Yeah. It's interesting that when Dr. Ghart, what's his name? Nhard, no, the South African doctor that started the heart transplantation. >> Burnhard. Thank you. >> Dr. Christian Bernhard. Thank you. So when Kasha Berno was doing a lot of work for the uh to develop heart transplantations, the issue came up in the Mosha number 40 in the reference sheet, right? And Mosha was Mosha was very concerned that the the um during the experimentation necessary to learn how to su successfully transplant a heart, they were killing people that were alive. So Misha Feinson says the rabbis have to come out and say stop with his business. He can't kill people in order to figure out how to how to transplant a heart. So it's interesting that look at just the last line. He says he wants it to be very dogmatic. He doesn't want to get into the logic. He's afraid that if he gets too much into the logic then people are going to question it. He says I want it to be very dogmatic. I want it to just beardin the say you can't do this. No heart transplantations. It's too dangerous. You're killing people. But in this chuva, Raisha seems to accept the position. He says a heart is life and therefore if the heart is functioning and you take the person's heart out of his body, you're killing him because he may be brain dead, but he has a functioning heart. So Moses seems to have initially taken the position that if somebody has a functioning heart, he's considered alive even if he's brain dead. Raisha seems to have retracted from this opinion because look at number 42 in the reference sheet. This was the later chaos Mosha wrote to his son-in-law Mosha Tendler. And look at the bold section number 42 of the reference sheet the [clears throat] you tell me that there's this experiment where the doctors can put a harmless radioactive dye into the bloodstream and then they could see that there's no blood going to the brain. The brain is degenerating. The the brain is decomposing. So therefore you can rely on this test. Ra Mosha accepted the testimony of his son-in-law that this is a very good test and it's reliable and Mosha seems to say therefore he's virtually decapitated. He's no different than somebody who is anatomically decapitated. Number 43, the Ezra says the what's the intelligence of a person the essence of the nishama is the person's intelligence his self-awareness his ability to think his ability to process information that's in the nama and the nama resides in the in the brain I mentioned yesterday about um documented cases of what they call after deathath experiences uh I've seen some interesting studies on it go online you can research yourself I found the evidence pretty interesting. There seems to be quite a few of these cases documented and a certain common thread. But apparently if you accept the testimonies of these after- deathath experiences, the person even after the nama leaves the body, he can still see, he can still think, he can still process information. Um, so apparently the ability to think and use your mind and your intelligence could be done even if your nam is not inside the body. But he says it's in the brain. That's what I say. So the brain is the if the heart is the epicenter of life and all the more so is the brain the epicenter of life. Scientifically that's definitely the case. I like the way the David Oenheimer inv where he poses the he put it very nicely. I'm just going to read the bold. He says for a person that's intelligence and understanding. Um he says that's life. Life is intelligence. life is uh I just want to mention something finish off in a very interesting note. Um in Tshin Nun the Nishma professor Aren Steinberg was asked by Schlam Alman to conduct a study where they took a a sheep first in the first experiment they they actually took the brain out of the sheep's skull. They connected the sheep to a machinery and they they performed a C-section on the sheep cesarian to remove the fetus from the sheep. the sheep didn't survive in the second experiment uh actually quite a while later 20 minutes I don't remember exactly how long after they actually anatomically decapitated the sheep they managed to take out a living fetus and this was important because the the school that maintained that if somebody is brain dead uh that the person is still alive is because the garra says that a woman who's dead cannot give birth and there are documented cases of brain dead patients giving birth. So this experiment pro disproved that notion because you cannot argue that a decapitated human being is alive and obviously when the gar said that rule it was before the introduction of it was in the absence of modern machinery. So that's there's a lot more to be said about this um we got a little bit of what we call a a basic overview of some of the topics of brain death. conclusion um I think it's of the the I I this was my theory and later Rabbi Carmel from the Institute told me heard this from that the who opposed the brain breath criteria were concerned that if you give the doctors the green light to kill patients that are brain dead they might start killing patients that are in a coma and that's why I mentioned the story previously about euthanasia that uh that was the concern