Bikkurei Ramaz - Torah Insights from Ramaz Upper School Students & Faculty

‫ביכורי רמז‬

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

Torah Insights from Ramaz Upper School Students & Faculty

Shavuot 2021

‫ שבועות תשפ״א‬‎

In honor of the graduating class of 2021 and in appreciation to the Ramaz administration, faculty and staff who have educated and enriched our children.

Harvey Arfa Caroline ('90) and Morris Massel

Table of Contents Rabbi Kenny Schiowitz

4

Introduction

SHAVUOT: Ms. Tamar Benus

5

Megillat Rut: The Value of a Community

TANAKH: William Schwartz '22

6

The Lights of Creation

Caroline Schwartz '22

9

The Fate of Moshe

Rebecca Szlechter '22

11

Religious Zealotry

Ms. Miriam Gedwiser

15

Approaching God (and living to tell the tale)

HALACHA & MEDICAL ETHICS: Isabel Ottensoser '22

17

Halachic Death and Organ Donation

Rebecca Massel '21

19

Halacha Vs. Science: Organ Donation

PHILOSOPHY: Anna S. Braun '22

24

The Beauty of Mortality

Cover Art: Tissot, James Jacques Joseph. Ruth Gleaning. c.1896-1902, The Jewish Museum. Gift of the heirs of Jacob Schiff. https://thejewishmuseum.org/collection/26473-ruth-gleaning

Words of Introduction

‫אקדמות מלין‬ We are very proud to present this compilation of essays by Ramaz Upper School students and teachers on various topics related to the Tanakh, the Halakha and Jewish Philosophy. This publication offers a glimpse into the learning experience of our students. The essays represent the culmination of a research and thought into subjects that we are passionate about. None address issues that are simple; all of the topics are multifaceted.

The rabbis speculated (cited in Ritva to Eruvin 13b) that when Moshe Rabenu ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, God revealed an enormous amount of ambiguity in the Law. For each issue in question, God showed Moshe 49 arguments to justify a lenient halachik position. Then God illustrated 49 counter arguments to justify the need for a strict position. Moshe then “asked God about it”.

What exactly did he ask? Perhaps Moshe wondered why He chose to make things so complicated.

Alternatively, Moshe wondered what the bottom line should be. God responded that the questions should be explored by the Jewish People who should ultimately decide the Law though analysis and consensus.

We cannot understand God’s ways but we know that He made a complex physical universe and the Torah, which is our spiritual guide to the world, is similarly complex. Both are filled with much grey than needs to be sorted through. It is exhilerating to witness the maturation of our students through high school as they learn to see the grey of the world and to appreciate its complexity, in multiple realms. They are empowered with the tools to study and analyze, and then to articulate their thoughts in ways that effectively communicate them. This compilation is an example of this effort and we are certain that its readers will find it enriching.

A number of our students have suffered tragic losses during their time in high school. We painfully struggle to understand why these things happened and know that it is utterly incomprehensible.

At the same time, we are fortunate to be part of the Ramaz community that is always present to embrace one another with support through all of life’s difficulties. We hope that this publication will spark learning and discussions that will serve as a merit to their neshamot and will effectively represent our love for each other.

Sincerely, Rabbi Kenny Schiowitz

4

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

Megillat Rut: The Value of a Community Ms. Tamar Benus, Faculty In Parshat BaMidbar we gain insight into how the camp of Bnei Yisrael was set up. The settlement was formed with the Mishkan being in the center.

When the Torah instructs Bnei Yisrael about this specific arrangement the pasuk states:

‫ב‬:‫ל־ּדגְ לֹו ְב ֹאתֹת לְבֵ ית אֲ בֹתָ ם יַחֲ נּו ְּבנֵי י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל ִמ ֶּנגֶד סָ ִביב לְ ֹֽאהֶ ל־מֹועֵ ד יַחֲ נֽ ּו׃ במדבר ב‬ ִ ַ‫ִאיׁש ע‬

“ The Israelites shall encamp, each man by his tribal flag, by their ancestral insignia, they shall encamp; opposite, around (mi’neged saviv) the Mishkan” The relationship between the encampment and the Mikshkan is described with two contrasting words.

Minged, opposite or against and Saviv, gathering or surrounding. What does this intentional language serve to teach us about ourselves and our community?

There are times that as individuals we find ourselves attracted and dedicated to our religious lives. We strive for a more spiritual shabbat, to involve ourselves in learning and chesed opportunities, we long for moments filled with meaning. The Saviv relationship. On the other hand, it is natural for one to experience our relationship with religion as restrictive or archaic. A neged relationship.

This ingrained attitude naturally develops for individuals throughout life. The challenge is finding the positive in the negative, finding the moments to surround ourselves with guidance and comfort when we feel things are against us. It is easier said than done but the arrangement of community, family, neighbors and friends allow the moments of neged & saviv to both be times of strength. That is the beauty and wisdom of centering the Mishkan for Bnei Yisrael in the desert.

Megilat Rut shares this same message. How fitting to read a text that highlights the way in which a community should, on the holiday on which we commemorate the receiving of the Torah.

We are introduced to Rut as a daughter-in-law, a widow, a Moabite. She suffers her own tragedy (the death of her husband) and in a patriarchal world, is left alone to deal with the trauma. Her experience is paralleled by that of her sister-in-law, Orpah. Naomi, her mother-in-law and a widow herself, urges both Rut & Orpah to ‫לֵכְ נָה ּׁש ְֹבנָה ִא ָּׁשה לְבֵ ית ִאּמָ ּה‬, “Return to your mother’s [parents] household” insisting that this is the appropriate and most sustainable solution. Most interesting, however, is their reactions to this advice: Orpah looks inward, ָ‫ׁשבָ ה י ְִב ְמּתֵ ְך אֶ ל־עַ ּמָ ּה וְאֶ ל־אֱֹלהֶ יה‬..…‫ּה‬ ָ ָ‫ ”ו ִַּת ַּׁשק עָ ְרּפָ ה לַחֲ מֹות‬Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell…. She has returned to her people to her gods”.

Rut, on the other hand, searches outward. She seeks to find how she can be a source of support for Naomi.

Rut insists upon staying with Naomi “ ‫”וְרּות ּדָ ְבקָ ה ָ ּֽבּה‬ “But Ruth clung to her.” Rut displays a sense of deep understanding and even though Naomi initially is hesitant, she learns to cooperate with Rut. BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

5

ָ‫י־מ ְתאַ ֶ ּ֥מצֶ ת ִ ֖היא לָלֶ ֣כֶת ִא ָ ּ֑תּה וַּתֶ ְח ַ ּ֖דל לְ דַ ֵ ּ֥בר אֵ ֶ ֽליה‬ ִ ‫ ו ֕ ֵַּת ֶרא ִ ּֽכ‬When [Naomi] saw how determined Rut was to go with her, she ceased to argue with her. We finally see the two women as equals, journeying together and strengthening one another throughout their shared experience.

A traditionalist view of the Megillah states that the reason we read Megillat Rut on Shavuot is since Rut accepted the ways of Judaism, we too accept the Torah and celebrate that acceptance. On a deeper level these same pesukim illustrate Rut thinking critically about her situation and choosing to embrace a life with Naomi.

Rut admires the world that Naomi comes from, and takes the opportunity to become a part of it. The story picks up from a newly formed collective identity that the two women share.

Rut is the embodiment of what it means to lean on a community in difficult times as well as embrace a community in celebratory times.

Sources: 1 Megillat Rut 1:8 2 Megillat Rut 1:14-15 3 Megillat Rut 1:14 4 Megillat Rut 1:18 **All English Translations of texts are courtesy of Sefaria.org**

The Lights

William Schwartz '22 We are all taught the story of creation in the Torah at a very young age. God created the world in six days, and on the seventh day, Shabbat, God rested. But as we grow up we realize that this version of creation cannot be taken literally. Science tells us the world developed over the course of billions of years, not a few days. Man, in his present form, has only been part of the world for a relatively short part of that time. Simple answers, like saying each day represents a much larger period of time, don’t work. Early commentators, such as the Ramban, realized that the story cannot be taken at face value. He writes on the first pasuk in the Torah “the work of creation - it is a deep secret - is not intelligible from the verses.” (Sefaria) So if the creation story is not meant to teach us how creation unfolded, what are we supposed to learn from the way it is told? The answer to this question has been the focus of many commentators and scholars, going back to the time of Chazal and the Gemara. This paper will focus on one small part of creation, the sun, moon and lights in the sky, and look at three different approaches to explaining why the Torah tells the story the way it does, and the lessons we can learn from it.

The difficulty in understanding the creation of the lights stems from the fact that light is mentioned on two separate days. On the first day, God created light, which led to a division between the daytime, when there was light, and night when there was not. However, it is not until the fourth day, after the division of the land

6

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

from the water, and after the creation of vegetation, that God creates the sun and the moon. This raises many questions, among them: How was there light without the sun? How is there an earth before the sun is created, when scientifically the earth came after the sun? How was there vegetation without the sun – we know plants can’t live without sun? Rashi is aware of these and other issues, and states on the first pasuk “Therefore you must admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of Creation.” (Sefaria) But it is not only the sequence that is a problem here. What does light mean in the context of no sun, and what is the point of separating the creation of the sun and light?

The first approach to understanding the lights is that the lights should be understood as a metaphor for something else. This midrash based approach is taken by Rabbi Levi ben Gershon, otherwise known as Ralbag.

The Ralbag was a 14th century French commentator on Torah and Talmud. He describes the light being referred to in the first pasuk as not light in the physical sense, but rather the light of “sechel”, or wisdom.

The Ralbag further explains that this light of “sechel” is the subject of an argument between Rav Yehuda bar Simon and the Rabanan. Rav Yehuda bar Simon says that God used this light to create the world, and kept it for himself as people cannot understand “sechel”, while the Rabanan say He set part of the light aside for the tzadikim that reach a certain level, who will be able to use it to understand “sechel.” While this approach does not answer some of the specific questions, such as how can there be an earth before the sun, it shows us that the account of creation is not meant to be taken at face value. Rather the Torah is imparting important lessons to us via this story. Specifically in this instance, we are being taught that there are various levels that man can reach in understanding God and the world, and that if one aspires to it, God will be there to help them reach higher levels.

A second approach that is taken is the use of our current understanding of science to prove that the creation story does not actually contradict the laws of nature. This is the methodology of Professor Moshe Kaveh of Bar Ilan University. However, Prof. Kaveh realizes that “green plants cannot exist without photosynthesis, which depends on sunlight.” He therefore relies on Rashi, who quotes the Gemara Chagiga which says, “The Sun was created on the First Day, but not commanded to hang in the heavens until the Fourth Day.” Therefore the sun existed before the earth, which agrees with the laws of nature. But that still leaves the question of what “Let there be light” means, if the sun was not actually shining in the sky. To this Prof. Kaveh says that this verse is “referring to the Creator arranging the laws of nuclear physics such that the temperature of the sun has just the right value to cause its light to be in the visible region of the spectrum. This enables human beings to benefit from and enjoy the sunlight.” At first it seems a little strange to try and fit the words of the Torah, which do not seem as they are meant to be understood as being scientifically accurate, and bend them to our current view of physics. But that would be missing the bigger picture. Prof. Kaveh, like the Ralbag, is showing that the Torah is imparting a valuable lesson here. In this understanding, the Torah is teaching that Hashem put much thought into preparing the world under exactly the right set of circumstances so that humans could benefit the most. We are what God cares about above all else, and the details of creation prove that.

A completely different approach is taken by Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Grossman of Yeshivat Har Etzion and Bar Ilan University. According to Dr. Grossman the Torah tells the story of the lights in the manner it does as “an alternative paradigm to the prevalent perception of the lights as gods.”(76) Paganism, the worship of natural BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

7

forces such as the sun, was widespread in the area of Canaan at the time of the Torah, and Dr. Grossman shows this through the names of cities such as “Bet Shemesh” and “Yericho” (from yareach). It is also clear that the Torah was worried about this from the pasuk in Devarim, “And when you look up into the sky and behold the sun and the moon…you must not be lured into bowing down to them.”(4:19) But if this is the case, why does the Torah make the lights seem so important? As Dr. Grossman points out, the Torah spends five pesukim on the lights, more than on anything else, but only three on humanity! Furthermore the Torah uses the term “limshol,” often translated as to rule, when explaining the roles of the sun and the moon. Why do this if it may lead to people mistakenly believing that the lights were supposed to be served?

Rather, Dr. Grossman says, the Torah realizes the important place of the sun and moon in ancient culture.

“The sun’s light is brilliant and life giving, and the moon’s glow illuminates the darkness.”(77) Yet the Torah is emphasizing that as important and life giving as they are, they are secondary to God. Grossman shows how “limshol” refers to “secondary authority,”(73) such as in the cases of Eliezer and Yoseph, both of who were important people, but whose power was completely subject to that of their rulers, Avraham and Pharaoh. So too the lights are important tools of Hashem, “yet remain subject to God along with the rest of His creations.”

The Torah recognizes the realities of the world. Minimizing the importance of the lights is not a reasonable answer. Rather, the Torah shows that with all their power the lights are still subservient to God, who created them. That is the most effective way to prevent the Jewish people from falling into the trap of the pagan culture that surrounded them.

There are many different ways to understand the creation story. Most early commentators, such as Rashi and the Ramban, do not read the story literally. Rather they try to interpret the lessons we can take away from the way the story is presented. Similarly, Ralbag brings a midrashic explanation that shows how in creation, Hashem took into account man’s need to try and reach higher levels of “sechel.” More modern commentators, such as Prof. Kaveh and Dr. Grossman, continue this tradition. Prof. Kaveh brings the lens of modern science to show how the Torah’s account allows us to see all the deliberate planning that went into making sure the world was perfectly suited for human beings. Finally, Dr. Grossman examines the structure and wording of the creation story to show how the Torah is responding to the reality of religious practice during the time in which the Torah was given. Together these explanations show the many layers there are to the Torah, and how our understanding can continue to develop from generation to generation.

Sources: Grossman Jonathan, Creation The Story of Beginnings, Chapter 1 Pages 70-77 Kaveh, M. (n.d.). Parashat Bereshit. Retrieved November 24, 2020, from

https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/bereshit/kav.html Ralbag on the Torah Beresheit, 1:3

8

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

The Fate of Moshe

Why was Moshe denied entrance to the Land of Israel?

Caroline Schwartz '22 Moshe Rabeinu, our greatest leader, is known for his humanity, his strength, and above all for his great character. It is explicitly stated in the Torah that Moshe is an ‫איש ענו‬, meaning that he is very humble. Despite being the only leader in the Torah to speak to God “face to face,” he still conducts himself with great modesty.

If Moshe was truly such an admirable and special leader, why was he denied the gift of entry into Eretz Yisrael?

What’s even more puzzling is why God, whom we believe to be forgiving and merciful, not only deprives Moshe of this great promise, but forces him to to see it from a distance, almost rubbing it in further that he can see this great land but never experience it himself.

Moshe spent forty years of his life directing Bnei Yisrael through Midbar Sinai. This was not a simple task.

Literally moments after the great Exodus from Egypt and redemption from slavery, Bnei Yisrael fall into a state of constant complaint--for food, for water. They even go so far as to say their lives were better as slaves in Egypt. It is Moshe, who with Hashem’s help, of course, was the one who led Bnei Yisrael back onto the right path. It is Moshe who is constantly trying to calm this nation of complainers and nonbelievers, almost like a teacher forced to endure forty years with a rebellious, unappreciative and difficult class of students. This makes Moshe’s punishment seem even more harsh. We are never given a satisfying answer why Moshe’s actions resulted in such a strong punishment.

The simple story in the Torah is that Hashem told Moshe to extract water from a certain rock by speaking to it. Instead, Moshe becomes frustrated after many failed attempts to extract water, and decides to hit the rock. As we all know, the first time Moshe is instructed to extract water from a rock he is told to strike it. This motion was a familiar one and yet in this case Hashem had asked that he speak to the rock to release water for the people. Some commentators say that this is why Moshe lost his right to enter the Promised Land.

Other commentators believe that the reason for his denial to enter the land of Israel was due to the fact that Moshe’s stature was too great. These commentators think that if Moshe was allowed into Eretz Yisrael the Temple would have been built, but due to his high stature, it never would’ve been destroyed. Neither of these positions is fully satisfying, and so we are left wondering what is the real underlying reason as to why Moshe Rabeinu was not given the privilege to enter the land of Israel? And more than that, every year we pray to God, who is merciful and slow to anger, to forgive us for our many sins. How can it be that the greatest teacher and leader of the Torah and our nation’s history was so unforgivable? If he was unforgivable, what does this mean for the rest of us?

In Sefer Bamidbar perek 20 pasuk 12, Hashem says to Moshe and Aharon,

“‫יׁשנִ י לְ עֵ ינֵי ְּבנֵי י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל לָכֵ ן ל ֹא תָ ִביאּו אֶ ת־הַ ּקָ הָ ל הַ ּזֶה אֶ ל־הָ אָ ֶרץ אֲ ֶׁשר־נָתַ ִּתי לָהֶ ם‬ ֵ ‫ֹא־האֱ מַ נְ ּתֶ ם ִּבי לְ הַ ְק ִּד‬ ֽ ֶ ‫”יַעַ ן ל‬ meaning, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.” Rashi comments on the words

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

9

‫ יען לא האמנתם בי‬and explains that the overall cause for Moshe’s death was the pure sin of hitting the rock, rather than speaking to it. We see here that Rashi is taking the most literal and straightforward approach.

Rashi’s commentary is different from others in that he draws a key contrast between this sin at Mei Hameriva, and Moshe’s past sins, involving the meat and cattle, which seem even more severe and serious. Rashi points out that Moshe’s punishment was so harsh and extreme due to the very fact of how Moshe exhibited his complaint. In past sins, like the mann and the meat, Moshe would complain to Hashem in private. He would never question Hashem in public, before all the nation, so he would never receive an extreme punishment.

At Mei Hameriva, Moshe became so frustrated by the rock not seeming to extract any water and in response broke down in front of the nation and hit it. He demonstrated a lapse in faith in Hashem publicly, right in front of Bnei Yisrael, and this is what made his sin different from any others and worthy of an ultimate punishment.

On the other hand, in Rabbi Menachem Leibtag’s article, "Chukat: Did Moshe Really Sin?," he seems to disagree with Rashi. Rashi says that Moshe’s overall sin was hitting the rock, rather than speaking to it. Here, we see that this is not the case. The article explains through the eyes of Ibn Ezra that God commanded Moshe to “Take out water.” God also commanded Moshe to “Take his staff.” God never went into further detail on how to do this, and so Moshe’s use of his staff was purely what he thought God intended for him to do.

Furthermore, if Moshe was not supposed to hit the rock, then why would Hashem command him to take his staff? Moshe was simply trying to follow God's instructions and in doing so, he hit the rock, out of complete abidance to Hashem. Rabbi Menachem Leibtag continues and says that the real problem lies in how Moshe physically carried out hitting the rock. Rabbi Menachem Leibtag argues that Moshe was in fact supposed to hit the rock, but Moshe was only supposed to hit the rock once. Once hitting the rock one time did not extract any water, Moshe made the mistake of hitting it again. In this way, Moshe sinned and was denied the right to enter the Land of Israel. One does wonder, however, if Rabbi Leibtag’s explanation is connected to Rashi’s and that though the physical act of the sin might be the second strike, rather than the first, the fact is that in both cases the act was once again public, committed before the eyes of all the nation.

Rambam, unlike the other commentators, takes a different approach to Moshe’s wrongdoing. He says that Moshe is given a harsh punishment as a result of his disrespectful tone towards Bnei Yisrael. According to the Rambam, Moshe followed all of Hashem’s orders. Hashem told Moshe to speak to the people about the rock, which he does, and then Hashem proceeds to tell Moshe to take out water from the rock, which he also does. In this sense, Moshe did everything correctly and completely obeyed Hashem’s requests. So where does his severe punishment come from? Rambam explains that Moshe’s sin is present in the manner in which he speaks to Bnei Yisrael. In Sefer Bamidbar, perek 20, pasuk 10, Moshe says to Bnei Yisrael, “‫ִׁש ְמעּו־נ ָ֙א הַ ּמ ִ ֹ֔רים הֲ ִמן־‬ ‫נֹוציא ל ֶָכ֖ם ָ ֽמיִם‬ ֥ ִ ‫הַ ֶ ּ֣סלַע הַ ֔ ֶּזה‬.” This translates to say, “Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?” Moshe’s tone during this question is very strange. He immediately refers to Bnei Yisrael as “rebels.”

Moshe’s statement reflects a useless anger that leads to a Chilul Hashem and because of this, Moshe is punished extremely harshly and is not granted the right to enter the promised land.

Rambam’s perspective offers great insight to this sin, and into the larger question of God’s mercy and forgiveness. Rashi and Rabbi Leibtag focus on what they believe was a sin bein adam l’makom. Rambam sees Moshe’s sin as being a failure to respect the relationship between himself and the nation, bein adam l’chaveiro.

10

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

Moshe began as the leader who could not stand to see a Hebrew struck by an Eyptian, could not stand to see God show anger against a nation of Israelites, and begged God to forgive them. Moshe was all about bein adam l’chaveiro. He cared more for the people than he did for himself. By the end of a forty year journey with this nation, he began to lose sight of that respect for other human beings. He dismissed them as “morim,” as rebels. He did care at that point what really happened to them. He had reached the end of his leadership term, the final moments of putting the people first. Perhaps the lesson of Moshe’s very harsh punishment is that God is quick to forgive the sins we commit against Him, but when it comes to our behavior towards others, our respect for each other, there is no mercy.

Religious Zealotry Rebecca Szlechter '22 Though only spanning 15 pesukim in perek ‫כה‬, the narrative of Pinchas is one of the most interesting stories in Sefer Bamidbar. Bnei Yisrael stop on their travels at a place called Shittim. While there, the Israeli men are seduced by Moabite women, specifically the Baal Peor. Deeply angered by this, Hashem sends a plague and warns Moshe to punish the sinners. Before Moshe can take action, Pinchas sees a particular Jew, Zimri the son of Salu, head of Shevet Shimon, in action and kills him on the spot. Hashem praises him, and ceases to kill the Jews. Pinchas is granted with Brit Shalom and a "heritage of priesthood". This raises many questions, as we don’t really see a thought process behind Pinchas and it seems like an instantaneous act. What were his intentions, was it truly out of zealousness, or rather in the moment anger? There surely could’ve been better ways to handle the situation, does this even occur to Pinchas? Should his Brit Shalom be seen as a reward or really a critique? Did he really deserve praise from Hashem in front of the nation and if so, why? Can we, today, learn from the way he handled things in a positive light or should we avoid actions like his, more specifically is it better to act quickly or carefully plan out what we want to achieve?

To begin answering these questions we must look at the basic pshat itself. Just from reading these pesukim, it seems as though Pinchas is the hero of our story. He saved the day, and ended the plague. He stopped Bnei Yisrael from having relations with the Moabites, and was given great reward. Pinchas’s story begins in pasuk 6;

‫מֹועד‬ ֽ ֵ ‫ֹׁשה ּולְ עֵ ינֵי ּכָל־עֲדַ ת ְּבנֵי־י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל וְהֵ ּמָ ה בֹכִ ים ּפֶ תַ ח אֹהֶ ל‬ ֶ ‫ו ְִהּנֵה ִאיׁש ִמ ְּבנֵי י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל ּבָ א ַוּי ְַק ֵרב אֶ ל־אֶ חָ יו אֶ ת־הַ ִּמ ְדיָנִית לְ עֵ ינֵי מ‬

And then, a man from Bnei Yisrael brought a Midianite woman over in front of Moshe and all of Bnei Yisrael who were crying at the entrance to Ohel Moed." Bnei Yisrael is in complete shock, and can’t figure out what their next move should be or how they should react. Pinchas however, steps in at the right moment.

‫ַו ַּ֗י ְרא ִ ּֽפינְ חָ ס ּבֶ ן־אֶ לְ עָ זָר ּבֶ ן־אַ הֲ רֹן הַ ּכֹהֵ ן ַוּיָקָ ם ִמּתֹוְך ָ ֽהעֵ דָ ה וַּיִ ּקַ ח רֹמַ ח ְּבי ָֽדֹו׃" ַו ָּיב ֹא אַ חַ ר ִ ֽאיׁש־י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל אֶ ל־הַ ּקֻ ּבָ ה וַּיִ ְדקֹ ר אֶ ת־‬ ‫ח)ץ‬-‫ְׁשנֵיהֶ ם אֵ ת ִאיׁש י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל וְאֶ ת־הָ ִא ָּׁשה אֶ ל־קֳ בָ תָ ּה ו ֵ ַּֽתעָ צַ ר הַ ּמַ ּגֵפָ ה מֵ עַ ל ְּבנֵי י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל׃ (ז‬

Pinchas the son of Elazar, grandson of Aharon the Cohen saw this and rose from the crowd with a spear in his hand. He followed the Israeli man into the chamber, impaled both him and the woman, and removed the plague from Bnei Yisrael.” Pinchas fulfilled exactly what Hashem wanted. He stopped the Israelite man from sleeping with a Midianite woman. He lifted Hashem’s wrath from upon the nation. As a result of Pinchas’ quick action, Hashem said to Moshe,

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

11

‫ת־ּב ֵנֽי־י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל‬ ְ ֶ‫יתי א‬ ִ ִ‫ת־קנְ אָ ִתי ְּבתֹוכָ ם ְול ֹא־כִ ּל‬ ִ ֶ‫ִ ּֽפינְ חָ ס ּבֶ ן־אֶ לְ עָ זָר ּבֶ ן־אַ הֲ רֹן הַ ּכֹהֵ ן הֵ ִׁשיב אֶ ת־חֲ מָ ִתי מֵ עַ ל ְּב ֵנֽי־י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל ְּבקַ נְ אֹו א‬ ‫וְהָ יְתָ ה ּלֹו ּולְ ז ְַרעֹו אַ חֲ ָריו ְּב ִרית ּכְ הֻ ּנַת עֹולָם ּתַ חַ ת אֲ ֶׁשר ִקּנֵא ֵ ֽלאֹלהָ יו ַויְכַּפֵ ר‬.‫יתי ָׁשלֽ ֹום׃‬ ִ ‫ת־ּב ִר‬ ְ ֶ‫ְּב ִקנְ אָ ִ ֽתי׃לָכֵ ן אֱ מֹר ִהנְ נִ י נֹתֵ ן לֹו א‬ ‫יג)ץ‬-‫ (יא‬,‫ל־ּבנֵי י ְִׂש ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬ ְ ַ‫ע‬ "Pinchas, the son of Elazar, grandson of Aharon the Cohen has turned away my wrath from Bnei Yisrael by instilling his zeal among for me among them so I didn’t destroy them with my zealousness. Therefore, I am giving him my covenant of peace. It will be for him and his descendants a covenant of ‫ כהונה‬since he was passionate for his G-d and atoned for Bnei Yisrael."

Pinchas did exactly what Hashem wanted. He acted on G-d’s behalf, relieving him of his anger, and Pinchas was granted a ‫ ברית שלום‬and the ‫כהונה‬. He is rewarded for acting quickly at the right moment.

However, there is something problematic about this story. Hashem never commanded Pinchas to do anything.

He was acting all on impulse and was potentially violating one of the 10 commandments, ‫לא תרצח‬, don’t murder. Although Pinchas ended up doing the “right thing,” he had no idea at the time. Nechama Leibowitz notes that Pinchas’ zealous act “constituted a dangerous precedent, from the social, moral, and educational angle.” Nechama Leibowitz highlights here that Pinchas’ act was dangerous and potentially wrong. He had no way of knowing if he was doing the right thing, and didn’t think about the consequences of his actions thoroughly. Rabbi Yehuda Rock expands on this and says that “Pinchas's motive is viewed not as the fulfillment of God's command to Moshe, but rather as a spontaneous decision, based on what he sees. It is doubtful whether Pinchas is even aware of what God has told Moshe.” Rabbi Rock points out that Pinchas did not act based on the commandment of God, but based on his intuition; he had no legitimate reason for killing two people.

Pinchas acted rashly, yet Hashem ironically granted him with a ‫ברית שלום‬. Something about this doesn’t add up-- do the results of Pinchas’ actions really justify his intentions or lack thereof? Or, more broadly, do his ends justify his means? A possibility for why Pinchas’ act is justified, though perhaps not praised, is that his circumstances allowed him to kill Zimri and Cozbi. A Gemara in Masechet Sanhedrin 82a seems to defend Pinchas on technical grounds but falls short of praising him. While discussing Pinchas’ case Rabba bar bar Chana in the name of Rabbi Yochanan says that

‫הבא לימלך אין מורין לו ולא עוד אלא שאם פירש זמרי והרגו פנחס נהרג עליו נהפך זמרי והרגו לפנחס אין נהרג עליו‬ ‫שהרי רודף הוא‬

If someone comes to court and asks whether or not to kill someone who is having relations with a non-Jew, he is advised not to kill them. Furthermore, if Zimri had removed himself from Cozbi and Pinchas killed him, Pinchas would be killed for manslaughter. If Zimri had turned around and killed Pinchas, he would not have been guilty of manslaughter since Pinchas was a pursuer and Zimri would have been acting in self defense.

The Gemara is saying that acting out of zeal is not preferred and is usually avoided. In the case of Pinchas, the only reason he wasn’t punished was because he had caught Zimri in the act. Pinchas was the right place and time, and acted in just the right moment. Had he been even a second later, he would have been liable for killing both Zimri and Cozbi.

12

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

Another way to justify Pinchas is to understand the halachot of zealousness and vigilantism. A more positive justification of Pinchas is in Masechet Bava Kama 28a, where a Gemara discusses whether one can take the law into one's own hands. While proving that one can be vigilant, the Gemara brings in a proof saying that if one forces their Israelite slave to go free once their term is over, and injures them in the process, they are exempt from damages. In order to disprove this, the Gemara claims that the slave stole from the owner, making it a case of loss, where everyone agrees that vigilance is allowed. Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak perceives the case in a different light. ‫ר"נ בר יצחק אמר בעבד שמסר לו רבו שפחה כנענית עד האידנא היתירא והשתא איסורא‬ Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak said that the reason that the slavemaster is exempt is because he gave his slave a Canaanite maid servant to be with. Before the slave was free, he was allowed to be with the maid servant, but now she is prohibited to him. From this Gemara, we learn that one is allowed to be vigilant in order to stop someone from having prohibited relations. Therefore, Pinchas was justified for killing Zimri because he stopped him from sinning and having prohibited relations with a Midianite woman.

A mishna in Masechet Sanhedrin 9:6, explains a similar halacha more precisely. The mishnah says ,‫הַ ּבֹועֵ ל אֲ ַר ִּמית‬ ‫קַ ּנ ִָאין ּפֹוגְ ִעין ּבֹו‬-If one has relations with an Aramean (or non-Jewish) woman, zealots may stone him. This is almost exactly what Pinchas did. He saw Zimri having relations with a Midianite, and he killed him out of zeal.

The Malbim expands on this, and says that when it says ‫ וחז"ל אמרו ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה‬,‫ וירא פינחס שהוא לא הוצרך לשאול כי ידע הדין‬,‫ וירא פינחס‬- Pinchas saw that he didn’t need to ask anyone for permission to kill Zimri because he knew the halacha. Chazal says that he saw the act of Zimri and he remembered the halacha. All four of these sources clearly justify Pinchas, though to varying degrees. They say that since his circumstances allowed it, he was able to kill Zimri in order to stop him from going any further in his sin with Casbi. However, Hashem didn’t just allow Pinchas to kill Zimri, he also gave him a ‫ברית שלום‬. Was Pinchas commanded to kill Zimri, or was he just permitted? Did he deserve a ‫ברית‬ ‫ שלום‬and the ‫ כהונה‬as a reward?

In order to understand why Pinchas was not only exempt from punishment, but was rewarded for his actions, we can compare and contrast the sin of Ba’al Pe’or to the sin of the Golden Calf and ‫ מתן תורה‬in Sefer Shemot, Perek 32. The first similarity is that Bnei Yisrael turned away from Hashem and worshiped another god. In Bamidbar they worship Ba’al Pe’or while in Shemot they worship the Golden Calf that they made. In both stories, Hashem gets mad at the nation and uses the language of ‫ויחר אף ה׳‬. Finally, in both the story of ‫מתן‬ ‫תורה‬, and Ba’al Pe’or, there is a theme of zealousness, or ‫קנאה‬. When Moshe is writing the second ‫לוחות‬, Hashem commands Bnei Yisrael to destroy the altars of other gods once they get to Israel because Bnei Yisrael

(‫ פרק לד פסוק יד‬:‫ל ֹא ִ ֽת ְׁשּתַ חֲ וֶה לְ אֵ ל אַ חֵ ר ּכִ י יְהוָה קַ ּנָא ְׁשמֹו אֵ ל קַ ּנָא ֽהּוא׃(שמות‬

-should not bow down to other gods because Hashem, who’s name is impassioned, is a zealous, or passionate god. In Pinchas, we see that Hashem is happy with what Pinchas did, and he grants him a ‫ ברית שלום‬because

‫ת־ּב ֵנֽי־י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל ְּב ִקנְ אָ ִ ֽתי׃ (במדבר פרק‬ ְ ֶ‫יתי א‬ ִ ִ‫ת־קנְ אָ ִתי ְּבתֹוכָ ם ְול ֹא־כִ ּל‬ ִ ֶ‫ הֵ ִׁשיב אֶ ת־חֲ מָ ִתי מֵ עַ ל ְּב ֵנֽי־י ְִׂש ָראֵ ל ְּבקַ נְ אֹו א‬... ‫ִ ּֽפינְ חָ ס‬ ‫ פסוק יא)א‬,‫כ״ה‬

- Pinchas turned away Hashem’s anger from Bnei Yisrael by displaying among them his zealously for Hashem and therefore Hashem didn’t destroy Bnei Yisrael in his zeal. In both these stories, Hashem is described as a zealous God, but only in the sin of Ba’al Pe’or, is the conflict resolved through someone else’s zeal. The reason for this can be found when comparing the differences between these two stories. Rabbi Nathaniel BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

13

Helfgot notes that “the Torah points out a glaring difference. Here the initiative does not come from Moshe, from outside the people, but rather from someone organically springing up from the people, i.e. Pinchas, who instinctively reacts and saves the day.” Rabbi Helfgot highlights that here, Moshe was not the one to take action, rather someone else had to step up and take initiative. Moshe was not acting as an adequate leader for the people, so someone else had had to control the nation in his place. Rashi on Bamidbar perek 25 pasuk ‫ו‬ makes a similar argument;

'‫ ֶׁשּנֶאֱ מַ ר "וַּיִ ְטחַ ן עַ ד אֲ ֶׁשר ּדָ ק" וְגֹו‬,‫ֹׁשה ּכְ ֶנגֶד ִׁש ִּׁשים ִרּבֹוא‬ ֶ ‫ ּגָעּו ֻכּלָם ִּב ְבכִ ּיָה; ּבָ עֵ גֶל עָ מַ ד מ‬,‫ נִ ְתעַ ּלְ מָ ה ִמּמֶ ּנּו הֲ לָכָה‬.‫והמה בכים‬ ‫ וְכָ אן ָרפּו יָדָ יו? אֶ ּלָא ּכְ דֵ י ֶׁש ָּיב ֹא ִפינְ חָ ס ְו ִיּטֹל אֶ ת הָ ָראּוי לֹו (תנחומא)א‬,)‫(שמות ל"ב‬

-They were crying because everyone forgot the halacha. Why was it that in ‫ חטא העגל‬Moshe was able to stop six million people, but here, his hands were tied? Rather, Hashem did this so that Pinchas would come and receive what was meant for him. Rashi justifies Pinchas, saying that Hashem planned for him to be the one to take action. Regardless of whether Hashem caused Moshe to forget the halacha or not, Moshe didn’t step up as a leader when the people needed him. Both Rabbi Helfgot and Rashi highlight that here, Moshe and the leaders of Bnei Yisrael did not take adequate action in order to stop Zimri. Therefore, Pinchas had to be the one to show the leadership of Bnei Yisrael how to act in this situation. Pinchas was awarded since he was able to see when Bnei Yisrael needed someone to sufficiently lead the people and show them the right thing to do. Not only do these approaches explain Pinchas’ reward, but they also add to a much larger theme of Sefer Bamidbar; The erosion of Moshe’s leadership.

In this story, Pinchas was justified and rewarded. He did the right thing at the right moment, and was able to show Bnei Yisrael the correct course of action. However, should he serve as a role model, or someone we should aspire to act like? From the various discussions amongst ‫חז”ל‬, Pinchas took a big risk. His circumstances are what allowed him to act the way he did. Through Hashem’s reward, we can see that Pinchas is the exception, not the rule. The ‫ ברית שלום‬seems to suggest that enduring the legacy of Pinchas is not one of zealousness, but one of peace. Only Pinchas could act zealously on Hashem’s behalf. The rest of us should not strive to emulate his zealous actions, but act in a way consistent with Hashem’s bracha. So, in conclusion, no, we should not be jealous of the zealous.

Sources: Sefer Bamidbar, Perek 25 Sefer Shemot, Perek 32 Sefer Shemot, Perek 34:14 Mishna, Masechet Sanhedrin, Perek 9 Mishna 6 Gemara, Masechet Sanhedrin, Perek 9, 82a Gemara, Masechet Bava Kama, Perek 3, 28a Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser (Malbim), Sefer Bamidbar, 25:7 Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi), Sefer Bamidbar, 25:6 Nechama Leibowitz, Pinchas 1, Coping with Zeal (page 239) Rabbi Yehuda Rock, The Story or Ba’al Pe’or and Pinchas’ Act https://www.etzion.org.il/en/story-baal-peor-and-pinchass-act Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, Matot-Masei https://www.etzion.org.il/en/matot-masei-bemidbar-31

14

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

Approaching God (and living to tell the tale) Ms. Miriam Gedwiser, Faculty This essay was originally published as the Ohr Torah Stone weekly alumni devar Torah for Shemini, 5781 Parashat Shemini is famous for the dramatic story of Aharon’s sons Nadav and Avihu, their “strange fire” which God had not commanded, and their precipitous demise. The haftarah selection for the week, the story of “peretz Uzah” (II Sam. 6:1-19), contains what seems to be a companion story of the precipitous death of Uzzah, who reached out to steady the aron, the ark of the covenant, while David was having it repatriated. At first glance, both stories are object lessons in what happens if you get too close to God’s holy objects without following proper protocol: the people who do so (Nadav and Avihu; Uzzah) get zapped. But I believe that a closer look at the details of the haftarah, including the end of Chapter 6 (verses 20-24) that are not included in the haftarah according to all customs, complicates this picture and provides not just an object lesson of what not to do, but perhaps a model of the right way for a layperson to approach God. After the death of Uzzah, “David was afraid of the Lord that day; he said, “How can I let the Ark of the Lord come to me?”” (II Sam 6:9). David diverted the aron elsewhere, but after seeing the blessings that came to its new guardians David decided to try again. The first, abortive processional involved festivities, but the second attempt is described with some new details: “David whirled with all his might (mekharker be-khol oz) before the Lord; David was girt with a linen ephod (hagur ephod bad)” (6:14). These two details may help us answer David’s initial worry of “how can the ark of the Lord come to me?”

First, David whirled with all his might. The word for might, oz, appears exactly twice in the book of Shmuel.

The first is I Sam 2:10, where, after Hannah has delivered her long-prayed-for son, Shemuel, to the mishkan, she concludes her exultant prayer, “He will give strength unto His king (ve-yiten oz le-malko), And exalt the horn of His anointed.” After Hannah’s prayer, one can see the rest of the book of Shmuel as a winding and often difficult path to establish the kingship of which she prayed. The second and last appearance of oz in the book is in our story, as David whirls with all his might. Whatever David is doing, we have a hint that it is especially kingly.

Second, David is wearing a linen ephod. Two other people in Tanakh before David have worn an ephod using the same verb, h.g.r. In the book of Shemuel alef, Shmuel himself is described using the same three word phrase, hagur ephod bad (I Sam 2:18), as he serves the high priest Eili in the mishkan. (Indeed, that phrase appears only twice, regarding Shmuel and David, in all of Tanakh.) This connection raises some concerns, as we might be wary that David is trying to usurp the priesthood in addition to his kingship. This concern is only amplified if we know that the other person to wear, h.g.r., an ephod, is Aharon in parashat Tzav (8:7), in the days of consecration immediately preceding the dramatic Eighth day that occupies our parashah. (This is the only mention of an ephod in sefer Vayikra.)

Is David in danger of over-stepping his prescribed roles, much as Nadav and Avihu did? Here the episode at the end of the chapter, which is omitted from the haftarah, may prove instructive. While David was dancing BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

15

vigorously, his wife “Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the Lord; and she despised him for it (6:10).” When David returned home, they fought about it. Michal asked David sarcastically, “‘Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today (mah nikhbad ha-yom)— exposing himself today in the sight of the slavegirls of his subjects, as one of the riffraff might expose himself!’”

(6:20). David answered, “‘It was before the Lord who chose me instead of your father and all his family and appointed me ruler over the Lord's people Israel! I will dance before the Lord, and dishonor myself even more, and be low in my own esteem’” (6:21-22). David does not approach God with arrogance or presumption, but with self-effacement. David accepts personal dishonor as a price for honoring God, even as he recognizes (with his characteristic shrewdness) that this very act of self-effacement may bring him honor among his subjects, “‘but among the slavegirls that you speak of I will be honored (imam ikavedah).’”

David’s phrasing, imam ikavedah, recalls Moshe’s statement to Aharon in our parashah: “‘This is what the Lord meant when He said: Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people (ve-al penei kol ha-am ekaved)’” (10:3).

Moshe’s precise intentions are somewhat obscure, but the simple meaning of his last phrase seems to be that the terror of Nadav and Avihu’s deaths will generate a sense of awe for God among the people (see Ibn Ezra ad loc). There is another interpretation, however. Rashbam and Chizkuni understand the glory, kavod, that comes to God out of the incident to flow not directly from the deaths, but from Aharon’s reaction. In Rashbam’s words: “This is the glory of God’s presence (shechinah) – that he (Aharon) sees his sons dead and he desists from his mourning in the service of his creator.” Aharon demonstrates God’s glory by putting the Tabernacle service above his family concerns. This is perhaps similar to how David demonstrates God’s glory by displaying intense joy to the point of self-effacement.

On the surface level, the haftarah and the parashah are companion stories because of the parallel fates of Nadav and Avihu and of Uzzah. But perhaps there is another set of parallel characters: Aharon and David.

Aharon, by following the precise script and choreography Moshe laid out, may approach God and welcome God’s glory (kavod, see, e.g., 9:24). So too David shows “how can the ark of the Lord come to me?” by putting God’s honor before his own.

But whereas Aharon’s approach was carefully choreographed, David’s is spontaneous, almost spastic if we listen to the words used to describe it – mefazes umekharker (6:16). Perhaps this is the difference between priests and kings. Although both Aharon and David wear an ephod, Aharon the priest must follow precise instructions and may not innovate – and his sons, who followed their passions for God’s service, ended up dead. For David the king, innovation and intuition in the service of God are essential.

In our contemporary life we have ritual areas where the Aharon mode of extreme caution may be appropriate, and we have others that require David-like intuition and self-expression. May we be blessed with the wisdom to know which is which.

16

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

Halachic Death and Organ Donation Isabel Ottensoser '22 Judaism puts a huge emphasis on death and the afterlife - ‫עולם הבא‬. Separately, ‫פיקוח נפש‬, saving a life, is a mitzvah that often overrides other prohibitions, such as breaking Shabbat. Organ donation, which clearly can save a life, may violate one's body and impact the ability to earn a place in ‫עולם הבא‬. What is the halachic definition of death and can (even should) Jews donate organs? If in fact, organ donation is permitted, are there any restrictions or even obligations?

Before one even delves into a discussion of organ donation it is important to recognize that most organ donation happens after brain death, but before cardiac arrest. Therefore, as background, one must answerwhat is the halachic definition of death? Most halachic sources look to the following Gemara as a starting point. In Masechet Yoma 85a the Mishnah says, ‫מצאוהו חי מפקחין מצאוהו חי פשיטא לא צריכא דאפי' לחיי שעה‬. The Mishna teaches us that if someone is trapped in a collapsed building on Shabbat, one can desecrate Shabbat and save the person. The Gemara asks: isn't it obvious? Of course one can desecrate Shabbat to save a life.

The Gemara explains that even if the person is likely to die after removal, one still is obligated to save them, even if it means desecrating Shabbat. The Gemara goes on to explain how one determines if someone is alive.

If we don't know the status of the person, and we see that the person is breathing, we remove the person so he can be helped. If, however, we see that the person is not breathing, then we can assume the person is dead and we don't remove the body until after Shabbat. This Gemara implies that breathing (or not breathing) is the definition of life/death.

Similarly, Rambam in Hilchot Shabbat Chapter 2 (19) says, ‫ּיחין אֹותֹו ָשׁם ֶשׁכְ ּבָ ר מֵ ת‬ ִ ִ‫נְשׁמָ ה מַ נ‬ ָ ‫בָ ְּדקּו עַ ד חָ ְטמֹו ְול ֹא מָ צְ אּו ּבֹו‬.

One should check the person’s nostrils to see if they are alive - if they don’t find a breath, they can assume the person is dead (and leave them in a collapsed building until after Shabbat). Translated into modern times, the Gemara in Masechet Yoma and Rambam are focused on death being cessation of breath, which would imply that death does not occur until cardiac arrest.

As science has progressed in modern times, technology and advances in science have informed halacha and the definition of death. In his article in the Jewish Review, Halachic Death Means Brain Death, Rav Moshe Tendler, a Rabbi and PhD in biology writes that brain death is the finest criterion of death - far more important than breathing or heartbeat. He also writes that this was the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, his fatherin-law and one of the most respected poskim in America in the 20th century. In his article, Rav Tendler goes through the history that led up to this Halachic conclusion. Until 1988, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the halachic definition of death. In 1988, Yeshiva University brought together two of their divisions, their Rabbinical School and Medical School, to have a two-day symposium on brain death. During these sessions, the group addressed medical, biological and halachic aspects of death so that there would be a consensus to inform the ramifications of concluding that brain death is halachic death. After this symposium, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Rabbinical Council of America accepted the brain death criteria. Rav Tendler goes on to dismiss others that focus on breathing and respiration or heartbeat as the determinant

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

17

of life. That being said, there are some Israeli Halachic authorities who still consider the heartbeat as the determinant of life/death. As organ donation has become more widely accepted and popular in Israel, some Haredim have gone as far as to carry a “life card” which explicitly states "I do not give my permission to take from me, not in life or in death, any organ or part of my body for any purpose."

Rav Tendler points out that there is a distinction between cerebral death (i.e. being in a vegetative state) and brain death - when the organs cannot function on their own, without mechanical help, ie breathing can’t happen without a respirator. When Rav Tendler talks about “brain death” he is talking about the latter.

Additionally, how does Rav Tendler reconcile going against the Rambam? The Rambam, in Hilkhot Retzicha, 2:8 says that ultimately all factors regarding death are determined "by what the doctors will tell you" - leaving room open for advances in technology.

The determination of the moment of death is critical for halacha in order to allow or prohibit certain organ donation. In general, most halachic authorities allow organ donation that does not involve the death of the donor, such as kidney donation. These types of donations are called “live donor donations.” They also allow organ donations from a donor who is clearly dead – such as cornea donation. It is important to note that the Rabbis who object to organ donation, do not do so because a body must be buried whole. While there is a concept of preserving a body, and respecting the dead - ‫ כבוד המת‬- saving a life supersedes these obligations. ‫ פיקוח נפש‬is of utmost importance and overrides most prohibitions and commandments in Judaism. It is stated in the Mishna in Sanhedrin 4:5, ‫ מַ ֲעלֶה עָ לָיו הַ ּכָתּוב ּכְ ִאּלּו ִקּיֵם עֹולָם מָ לֵא‬,‫וְכָל הַ ְמקַ ּיֵם נֶפֶ ׁש אַ חַ ת ִמּיִ ְׂש ָראֵ ל‬. Saving one life is like saving the whole world. Rabbis object to the organ donation because for some critical organs to be viable for donation, they are usually taken from a donor after they are brain dead but before cardiac arrest.

Where Poskim disagree is in organ donation from brain dead patients. As discussed earlier, the critical time for organ harvesting is the time that occurs between brain death and cardiac death. Donation of lungs and hearts, that can be life-saving, can really only occur after brain death but before cardiac arrest. The rabbis who object to organ donation do so because they believe that harvesting those organs would be tantamount to killing the patient – as they believe that death occurs with cardiac arrest.

Finally, for people who follow the Poskim who allow organ donation after brain death, is there an obligation to do so? In Vayikra 19:16 it states ‫ ל ֹא־תֵ לְֵך ָרכִ יל ְּבעַ ּמֶ יָך ל ֹא תַ ֲעמֹד עַ ל־ּדַ ם ֵרעֶ ָך‬- Do not stand aside while your fellow’s blood is shed. Halacha and the rabbis interpretation of Halacha must always adapt if current science and technology reveals a new understanding. The determination of life and death is therefore critical to determine if organs can be donated after brain death, but before cardiac arrest. As there are so many poskim who believe that brain death is death, I feel that this is a situation in which one should be leaning towards finding ways to save lives and allow organ donations. Only after people become educated (and consult with the personal rabbis) will it become more commonplace for Orthodox Jews to participate in organ donation. Organizations such as Halachic Organ Donor Society (www.HODS.org) are incredibly important. One organ donor can save up to 8 people’s lives (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/). I actually would go one step further and suggest that there is actually an obligation to participate in organ donation. Our concept of Olam HaBah is a spiritual one, and not a physical one. I do not believe that donating organs would impair my ability to participate in Olam HaBah. Afterall, no one thinks that someone who dies in a gruesome car accident or during brain or heart 18

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

surgery wouldn’t be “allowed” into Olam HaBah. To the contrary, there can probably be no greater and selfless gift than donating one's organs. The gift of life.

Sources: Masachet Yoma 85a Rambam Hilchot Shabbat - Chapter 2 (19) Leviticus 19:16 Halachic Death Means Brain Death (by: Moshe Tendler) Halachic Organ Donor Society website (https://hods.org) US Department of Health (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov) Article - Haredim Issue Anti-organ-donor Cards (https://www.haaretz.com/1.5012144)

Halacha Vs. Science: Organ Donation Rebecca Massel '21 Seventy years ago, doctors discovered a new way to save lives: organ donations. Almost miraculously, doctors discovered a way to repurpose the organs of a deceased to replace the dying ones in a living man, saving that man’s life. Today, the death of one man can save the lives of up to eight people. By filling out a form, the words “Organ Donor” will be printed on a participant’s drivers licence. In the case of death, the participant’s organs can save many lives.

This raises the question: How does Halacha view organ donation?

‫ו)ו‬:‫ֹתם הָ אָ ָד֖ם ו ַ ָ֣חי ּבָ ֶ ֑הם אֲ ִנ֖י ה' (ויקרא יח‬ ֛ ָ ‫ֲׂשה א‬ ֥ ֶ ‫ת־מ ְׁשּפָ טַ֔ י אֲ ֶׁ֨שר ַיע‬ ִ ֶ‫ּוׁשמַ ְר ֶ ּ֤תם אֶ ת־חֻ ּקֹ תַ י֙ וְא‬ ְ

According to the Torah, nothing is more precious than one’s life. In fact, almost every ‫ איסור‬can be broken in order to save a life, ‫פיקוח נפש‬. Therefore, it may seem obvious: if G-d values life above all, then, of course, organs should be donated. However, this seemingly simple solution is in fact very problematic.

There are two types of organ donations: donations by the dead (heart, lungs, etc.) and donations by the living (a kidney or a piece of a liver). Once dead, a person who agreed to be a donor after death or whose family decided to donate his organs, can give a new life to someone else through almost any of his organs. There are three main issues with donating the organs of a deceased person. First, there is the issue of the death of the donor. Death is a complicated concept, and the definition has changed throughout the course of history.

Second, according to halacha, respecting the dead is a major mitzvah. Included in that, is the obligation to bury a body in all its parts, ‫חיוב קבורה‬. Last, is the issue of receiving a donated organ from the dead. There is an issue with benefitting from the dead body, ‫איסור הנאה‬, as well as an issue of facilitating murder.

First, the most important issue with organ donation, is the definition of death. According to the pasuk in Vayikra, any mitzvah can be overridden to save a life, except three. One of these exceptions (‫ )יהרג ואל יעבור‬is

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

19

the case of murder. Given the choice, one must die before murdering another person. (This does not include the case of one person threatening to kill another. In that situation, the threatened can kill the threatener to save his own life.) Because of the value Judaism puts on life and death, there is a great debate surrounding the issue of organ donation. The meaning of death must be taken very seriously. There is a drastic difference between the American and halachic definitions of “dead.” According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the main organizer of organ donations in America, one is considered a candidate to donate organs when he is brain dead, when his brain is declared to have “an irreversible loss of blood flow to the whole brain.” Once brain dead, a body can only continue to breathe or pump blood with the assistance of a ventilator, so he can have a heartbeat, but still be a candidate to donate organs.

While the definition of death is clear according to UNOS, the Gemara debates the issue on Yoma 85a, where the tannaim in a braita discuss the search and rescue process from a collapsed building on Shabbos. It is agreed that one must clear the debris to search for living bodies, however, once a body is deemed dead, they are to be left until after Shabbos to be retrieved. The tannaim debate how to check whether a person is dead or alive: ‫תנו רבנן עד היכן הוא בודק עד חוטמו ויש אומרים עד לבו בדק ומצא עליונים מתים לא יאמר כבר מתו התחתונים מעשה היה‬ ‫ומצאו עליונים מתים ותחתונים חיים‬ ‫ כט) גזי‬,‫ ו) ממעי אמי אתה גוזי ואומר (ירמיהו ז‬,‫נימא הני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא מהיכן הולד נוצר מראשו שנאמר (תהלים עא‬ ‫נזרך והשליכי אבא שאול אומר מטיבורו ומשלח שרשיו אילך ואילך‬ ‫אפילו תימא אבא שאול עד כאן לא קא אמר אבא שאול התם אלא לענין יצירה דכל מידי ממציעתיה מיתצר אבל לענין פקוח נפש‬ ‫ כב) כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו‬,‫אפי' אבא שאול מודי דעיקר חיותא באפיה הוא דכתיב (בראשית ז‬ One tanna claims that the sign of life is if a person is breathing (check his nose). Another tanna replies that the sign of life is the heartbeat (check his heart). The Gemara then compares this braita to another braita, which discusses the formation of a fetus. The first tanna says that a fetus is first created from its head.

However, according to Abba Shaul, life comes from one’s navel. The Gemara concludes that regardless of where life begins, when determining death, his nose, meaning his breathing, must be checked for signs of life.

The halacha is derived that, according to Judaism, one is dead when his heart stops beating (which stops his breathing).

Given the difference between UNOS’s and Judaism's definitions of death, how can one consent to remove organs from a brain-dead person, whose heart is still pumping? By doing so, the doctor who stops the ventilators and extracts the organs is halachically killing the patient.

Although this seems to be a roadblock in the organ donation debate, both the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the Rabbinical Council of America have accepted brain death as a full death and do allow the organs of brain dead patients to be donated. Any posek who does agree that brain dead patients can donate their organs halachically only agree if every piece of the brain is dead, specifically the brain stem, which contains the center for breathing. Brain death must be confirmed with multiple tests. On the other hand, many other poskim do not agree. Because they do not believe brain dead means halachic death, many rabbis will not allow organ transplants.

20

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

In addition, many people, both Jews and nonJews alike, will refuse to sign organ donor cards out of fear that if they are in a critical condition, their doctors will not work as hard to save their lives, hoping their organs can save other lives. This idea is simply a myth. According to the American Transplant Foundation, doctors’ first priority is their current patient. Organ donation is not even discussed until after a patient is declared brain dead. Usually, the brain dead patient's doctors and nurses are not even involved in the recovery or transplantations of the patient’s organs.

The second issue that arises is respecting the dead, ‫כבוד המת‬, which is one of the most important mitzvot in Judaism. One may not tamper with the body of a dead person and must bury the dead in all its parts (‫)חיוב קבורה‬. These mitzvot must be followed, unless it is guaranteed to save a life, according to Yitzchok A. Breitowitz. Although many organs donated successfully save lives, there are some which are used for medical research or the recipient's body may reject the organ. According to most poskim, donating one’s body to science research is not allowed, as it can only be donated to save a life immediately. The question has been raised about the probability of a body rejecting an organ but with anti-rejection pills, the chances of a body rejecting an organ are ever reducing.

Furthermore, it is commonly believed in Judaism that one must be buried with all of his organs for ‫תחית המתים‬ when Mashiach comes. This belief is not stable for three reasons. First, the belief is not based on halacha.

Second, it can be disproved with science. Bodies decompose, so within ten years, the body is fully returned to dirt. (Body decomposition is also supported with sources in the Talmud.) Three, nobody knows what miracles may occur in the Messianic Era. Some believe that just as G-d will resurrect the dead, he will also heal them.

While it is important to eagerly wait for Mishiach, not donating a deceased’s organs for that reason has no halachic backing.

Last, there are multiple issues with receiving donated organs from the dead. One, a person may not benefit from a dead body, ‫איסור הנאה‬. This is overridden when considering a situation of saving a life, ‫פיקוח נפש‬.

Additionally, according to former Chief Rabbi of Israel Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman, one only derives benefit from the dead’s organ once it is attached to the living’s body and is actually functioning, there is no benefit from the dead. Rather, the recipient is benefitting from the tissue that is alive (once reattached). Two, if one hold’s that removing life support from a brain-dead patient is killing them, can a recipient recieve an organ from the act of murder? Without a potential recipient, the doctor would have no reason to remove the lifesupport from a brain-dead patient. It can thus be concluded that the potential recipient is causing the doctor to murder. However, because 113,000 people are currently on the waiting list and one person is added approximately every 10 minutes, adding one’s name to the transplant list will not facilitate a death that would otherwise not occur.

Poskim have found resolutions to the problems of organ donation in Judaism. Organ donation has obvious positives --saving lives-- yet it is in conflict with halacha with both problems for the donor and recipient. One solution is to only donate the skin and corneas, which can be donated even after the donor is dead according to the strictest halachic sources (i.e., his heart stopped beating and he stopped breathing). Another solution is to sign up to donate organs in a specific way. In order to continue saving lives in accordance with halacha, BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

21

many rabbis around the world support organ donation with certain stipulations. The Halachic Organ Donor Society (HODS) set up a worldwide system for Jews to donate organs. Those who have registered receive a card with specific instructions for how organs can be donated according to halacha. When signing up, participants can choose whether to donate after brain death is declared or to wait until cardiac death. Many Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbis have accepted HODS as an acceptable form of donating organs. Additionally, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel created the ADI Card in Israel. The ADI sets down the law for the process of determining a patient dead according to halacha. By signing this card, donors are agreeing to donate their organs. When a donor is determined brain dead, he will be checked by both a physician and a supervision committee of rabbis to ensure the decision to donate organs is carried out according to the law.

The second type of donation is a healthy person who agrees to donate his kidney or a piece of his liver, either to save the life of a family member, a friend, or a stranger. While this is an incredible chesed, there are still halachic problems with it. The main problem is the issue of self-endangerment. Removing a kidney or a piece of a liver poses potential serious risks and places the donor in a safek sakkanah (potential danger to life). This sakkanah is both from the surgery and general anesthesia and from the strain that results from removal of an organ. Rabbi Isser Unterman believed that live kidney donation is habbala (self-injury) and is, therefore, not permissible. However, at the same time, the mitzvah to save another human being is tremendous. It is written in the Torah:

‫טז)ז‬:‫ל־ּד֣ם ֵר ֶ ֑עָך אֲ ִנ֖י ה (ויקרא יט‬ ַ ַ‫ל ֹא־תֵ לֵ ְ֤ך ָרכִ י ֙ל ְּבעַ ּמֶ֔ יָך ֥ל ֹא תַ ֲע ֹ֖מד ע‬

According to the Talmud Yerushalmi, one must place themselves in potential sakkanah in order to save someone who is in definite sakkanah. Poskim have debated and decided that the Talmud Bavli, the more authoritative gemara set, would not agree. However, the poskim believed that it is meritorious to put oneself in slight sakkanah in order to save the life of someone whose life is in jeopardy, like someone whose kidneys are dying. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein believed that live kidney donations are permissible, but because of the risks involved, they cannot be halachically required, as the Talmud Yerushalmi suggested.

In America, the sale of organs is illegal under the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA). According to halacha, in countries where the selling of organs is illegal, Jews can neither buy nor sell said organs. But, in the few countries where organ sales are legal, how does halacha view this activity? Perhaps, selling an organ is similar to selling one’s hair. The Talmud Bavli discusses this issue on Nidarim 65b:

‫ אפי' אתה מוכר שער ראשך אתה נותן לה כתובתה!ה‬:‫א"ל ר"ע‬

Rabbi Akiva makes it clear that even if a man must sell his own hair, he must pay his wife for the wedding contract. Despite this, Shlomo M. Brody in his book, A Guide to the Complex: Contemporary Halakhic Debates, writes that hair sales and organ sales cannot be compared because the loss of hair causes no injury to the seller. Rabbi Feinstein did allow the selling of blood donations. Even though donating blood is physically straining, it does not cause an injury to the seller. According to Rabbi Shabtai Rappaport and Rabbi Dr. Moshe D. Tendler, serious self-injury cannot be performed for the primary purpose of financial gain. They believe that if organ sales were allowed, then it would lead to extortion, manipulation, and illegitimate sales. Also, allowing the sale of organs would discourage organ donations, making it nearly impossible for the poor to access organs they need to survive.

22

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

In halacha, organ donations by living children is not acceptable, even if the parents agree to the child donating his kidney. While parents do have the right to make medical decisions for their children under Bar/Bat Mitzvah age, this is only for decisions which benefit the child. Because donating a kidney or part of a liver does pose a sakkanah, it is necessary for the donor to fully consent. It is for this same reason that a mentally ill person may not donate organs.

Halacha and science are in constant tension. While our Torah is immutable, medicine is always changing. For example, while the Torah’s definition of “death” is the same for us as it was for Avraham Avienu (no heartbeat or breathing), in the 1950s, doctors began to redefine “death” to mean no brain activity. It may be simpler to choose a side: Torah or science, but I do not believe that is the best option. There can be truth in both Torah and science. As Modern Orthodox Jews, it is critical to find that middle ground.

It may be intimidating to think about one’s mortality after passing a driving test or registering to vote, but choosing to become an organ donor is a choice that can save over eight human beings. However, it is crucial to also consider the halachic perspective on the matter. I believe that donations by the living (a kidney or part of a liver) is one of the greatest mitzvot. The donor is sacrificing his time and health in order to literally save the life of someone else. He is exactly fulfilling the mitzvah of ‫ל־ּד֣ם ֵר ֶ ֑עָך‬ ַ ַ‫ ֥ל ֹא תַ ֲע ֹ֖מד ע‬.

I believe that the issue of donating organs after brain-death is more complicated. The obligation to bury a body in all its parts, ‫חיוב קבורה‬, and to respect the corpse, are both trumped by the mitzvah to save a life. The idea that a body must stay together for the days of Meshiach has no halachic backing. In addition, although there is an ‫ איסור הנאה‬from a ‫מת‬, an organ recipient is only benefitting from the organ once it is functioning in his body, therefore it is alive once again. This leaves the final issue of what constitutes death. The halachic definition of death is a person without a heartbeat. Therefore, by unplugging a brain-dead patient from a ventilator, the doctor is essentially killing that person. At the same time, many prominent rabbis, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, and the Rabbinical Council of America have encouraged organ donation after brain-death. The issue of organ donation in the case of brain death is a grave one. That being said, while living, there is no issue with donating a piece of one’s liver or a kidney. Organ donation is a personal decision and each Jew must decide for oneself what one is comfortable with and how one chooses to balance Torah and science.

Sources: A Guide to the Complex: Contemporary Halakhic Debates by Shlomo M. Brody (p. 30-32) https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Complex-Contemporary-Halakhic-Debates/dp/1592643515 “Deceased donation” https://unos.org/transplant/deceased-donation/ “Frequently Asked Questions about Halachic Aspects of Organ Donation” https://hods.org/halachic-issues/faq-halachic/ “Issues: Resurrection of the Dead” https://hods.org/halachic-issues/issues/#Resurrection “Nostrils, Navel or Heart? Significant Textual Talmudic Variations Concerning Signs of Life” by Rabbi Alexander J. Tal, Ph.D https://hods.org/pdf/Nostrils,%20Navel%20or%20Heart%281%29.pdf

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

23

“Organ Donation in Judaism” by Aron Moss https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/635401/jewish/Organ-Donation-in-Judaism.htm “Organ Trafficking: More Than Just a Myth” by Lindsey Wagner https://law.utah.edu/organ-trafficking-more-than-just-a-myth/ “What does Halachah say about organ donation?” By Yitzchok A. Breitowitz https://jewishaction.com/health/halachah-say-organ-donation/ “Modern Orthodox Rabbis Endorse Organ Donation as a Mitzva: New ADI donor card issued to encourage religious to take part” by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENCE/Modern-Orthodox-rabbis-endorse-organ-donation-as-a-mitzva-543585

The Beauty of Mortality Anna S. Braun '22 Children begin to grasp the concept of the termination of life at around the age of 4. From my recollection of a time not so long ago, this is the understanding that someone once was, and suddenly isn’t, possibly having disappeared somewhere below the ground. Death is something that can’t be undone, and maybe as a result of its finality, brings about a common mood of sadness and grief. I remember holding a simple curiosity about the basis for it, asking the why’s and how’s, only brushing on the surface of the deep questions it holds.

As we grow, both in age and experience and as we slowly inch closer to our ends, our interest in death continues; it is a natural human tendency to question our own mortality. Our basic factual understanding of mortality salience (the psychological awareness that death is inevitable), sparked by curiosity, creates deep and unanswerable philosophical queries about what death really means and how we should approach it.

Per usual, Jewish literature provides no simple answers to these questions. In fact, it merely complicates the matter of understanding death. We believe in Olam Haba, which takes away the cold conclusiveness of passing away, since we know death is not the end of our existence, whatever that may mean. Therefore, the notion of Olam Haba, in many ways, rids us of the fear of death.

Jewish eschatology is clear that in Olam Haba we will be close to Hashem if we dutifully follow our commanded Mitzvot. Various sources suggest promises of Gan Eden and learning Torah with Moshe among other wonders. Yet, despite all the fulfilling beauties we are promised of the world to come, we still have strict obligations to mourn death. The irony here is truly peculiar. It may sound crude but, shouldn’t we be celebrating the advancement into a more divine place rather than mourning the loss? Do not misinterpret my question – in no way would I ever encourage or entertain the notion of premature death; I am simply curious about the peculiar foundation of our practices, which are a series of very extensive but specific rituals like those of keriya, sitting shiva and shloshim, avelut, and yahrzeits.

When researching my question, I used websites like Aish, Chabad, and Sefaria; Aish helped provide the sources for particular ideas while Chabad and Sefaria had the actual text. The first source I will examine is Dvarim 30:19.

24

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

‫ּובחַ ְרּתָ ַ ּֽבחַ ּיִ ים‬ ֽ ָ ‫י״ט) הַ ִעיד ִֹתי בָ כֶם הַ ּיֹום אֶ ת־הַ ָּׁשמַ יִם וְאֶ ת־הָ אָ ֶרץ הַ חַ ּיִ ים וְהַ ּמָ וֶת נָתַ ִּתי לְ פָ נֶיָך הַ ְּב ָרכָ ה וְהַ ְּק ָללָה‬:‫ד(דברים ל׳‬ ‫לְ מַ עַ ן ִּת ְחיֶה אַ ּתָ ה ְוז ְַר ֶ ֽעָך׃‬ (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life—if you and your offspring would live— The pshat generally states that people are given the choice between life and death, and blessings and curses.

Although it speaks in reference to the punishment Bnei Yisrael would receive from ‫ ה׳‬for idol worshipping, the essence of the text is applicable to my topic. I would like to note a few interesting ideas here. For starters, between the choice of life and death, ‫ ה׳‬commands us here to choose life, not only for ourselves but specifically for our children and coming generations. That is to say, the significance of life is not only an individual and personal matter, but a familial matter as well. Secondly, I would like to note the sequence of words within the pasuk; it implies that life is a blessing and death is a curse, and if for none other, this is the reason we should choose life. The Ibn Ezra clarifies this with the notion that it is not only life itself that is a blessing, but the fact that we can choose between life and death is a blessing as well. However, in my searches, I found no clear resolution to what the implication of the curse of death within this pasuk. To assert my own opinion; it is about how we approach death – to specifically want death is a curse, as a person is clearly not appreciative of the blessings that life gives him, nevertheless, death in-and-of-itself is not a curse. In the framework of my original question, this source does not directly answer how we should approach death itself, but it does, at least somewhat, help clarify how death is not just about ourselves; to an individual person, it means their soul can reap the rich benefits of Olam Haba, however, for those that surround the individual it is viewed, in some ways, as a curse. To say that celebrating death would frankly be somewhat selfish and ignorant as it no way accounts for the beautiful life that ‫ ה׳‬had given us.

The next source I would like to analyze is Tehillim 23:4, which provides a relatively straightforward explanation as to how we should approach death.

‫ּומ ְׁשעַ נְ ֗ ֶּתָך הֵ ּמָ ה י ְַנֽחֲ ֻ ֽמנִ י׃‬ ִ ‫ירא ָ ֗רע ּכִ י־אַ ּתָ ה ִעּמָ ִדי ִׁש ְב ְטָך‬ ֤ ָ ‫ֹא־א‬ ִ ‫ד׳ ּגַם ִ ּֽכי־אֵ לְֵך ְּבגֵיא צַ לְ מָ וֶת ל‬:‫תהילים כ״ג‬

Psalms 23:4 Though I walk through the depth of death's shadow, I fear no harm, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff—they comfort me.

The pasuk’s gentle words state that although death will always eminent, we should not be afraid. Instead, we should be comforted knowing we have the protection of ‫ה׳‬. The main idea here is almost the reverse of that given by the previous source; in recognition of the fact that our lives are blessings, one might have thought that we should be afraid of passing away and missing out on all that we had been given. However, this pasuk comes to teach us that we should know to trust ‫ה׳‬s judgement and to not fear death. The Malbim provides a beautiful explanation, which perfectly encapsulates this idea:

‫ הקדמה ע״ז) די לו שהשגות היקרות האלה מיושר משפטי ה׳ ומשכר ועונש ונצחיות הנפש נמצאות‬,‫מ(מלבי"ם על איוב‬ ‫בנפשו וטבועות בו מתולדתו‬

He should be satisfied that these priceless perceptions of the integrity of God's judgments, of reward and punishment and of the immortality of the soul, are to be found in his soul, impressed upon it from its incipience.

The Malbim’s commentary reflects the recurring idea of the honor of ‫ה׳‬s judgement when it comes to our mortality. It goes to show, that no matter where we are in life, we should be satisfied the way we are, knowing BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

25

we have ‫ ה׳‬alongside us; we should not cower at the thought of death, as it will come in its time. We should always keep in mind that the most valuable aspect in our everyday lives is ‫ה׳‬s judgement.

The last source I would like to assess is the one found in Ketubot 103b. It is taught in the Gemara how Rabbi Chiya came upon Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who was crying on his deathbed. Rabbi Chiya questions Rabbi Yehuda’s sadness, stating it is considered a bad omen before death. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi replies he is saddened by the fact that he will not be able to fulfill any mitzvot after death. This anecdote comes to teach us that even the greatest of scholars recognize how there must be something special in life, that is not found after its termination.

Truth-be-told, I think there is no particular straight-cut answer of what death should mean to us, or at least none that we as humans could attain. Nevertheless, whether or not we know the answer will not make much of an impact on how we live our lives, aside from teaching to live in the moment and appreciate what it is that we are living. I realize how cliché this sounds, nonetheless, the fact that each and every one of these sources prove how death is clearly missing something that life has, proves how much of a blessing it is for us to be on this Earth. Maybe, it is the case that with our passing, we grow higher on a metaphysical level. But our mortal lives contain a unique spark to them. Whether this is the ability to perform mitzvot, or more generally, to fully experience the world that had been created for us, it is evident that our next lives will be void of these wonderful aspects. The knowledge that our deaths are inevitable comes to teach us, we must not take our transience for granted. Our awareness of death’s shadow can certainly be a curse, as we often unrightfully come to fear it, perturbed by the ticking clock. It may humble us, but in reality, the natural termination of life comes as a blessing in disguise. It teaches us to see ‫ ה׳‬for all the miracles He performs and to recognize the necessity of using the world to its full potential while we can.

To answer my original question, given all I had stated, I feel it would be inappropriate to celebrate death. It may be true and reassuring that death is not just an inevitable capitulary phase of one’s life, but also bridge into something new. However, as I had explained, although we may be moving into a spiritually-higher place, there is a lot that we are leaving behind – our loved ones, ‫ה׳‬s judgement and the security that He is always alongside us, mitzvot, and simply the beauty of mortality.

Sources: https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=a-childs-concept-of-death-90-P03044 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_salience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_to_come https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Judaism-and-Death-Five-Surprising-Ideas.html

26

BIKKUREI RAMAZ

‫ביכורי רמז‬

A number of our students lost parents during the past year and a half.

The entire Ramaz community is deeply affected by these losses and we strive to be a source of support and comfort for each other.

We hope that the Torah learning through this publication will serve as a zechus for their neshamos and will symbolize their lasting legacies.

In memory of Elliot Freilich '92, z”l, father of Alexander Freilich '22 In memory of Shimon Aiash, z”l, father of Natanel Aiash '22 In memory of Izak Cohen, z”l, father of Ori Cohen '23 In memory of Loren Norman, z”l, mother of Daniella Norman '21 and Benjamin Norman ‘24

The Ramaz School 60 East 78th Street New York, NY 10075 212-774-8055 www.ramaz.org