tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5206265597250436454.post999071290745688283..comments2023-03-26T17:32:37.753-04:00Comments on On This And On That - על דא ועל הא: Defining the Moment: Anachronistic Explanations in RashiY. http://www.blogger.com/profile/00852218508652846269noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5206265597250436454.post-3675657334026014572012-03-19T11:09:16.522-04:002012-03-19T11:09:16.522-04:00Thank you R. Dr. Shabtai for your detailed respons...Thank you R. Dr. Shabtai for your detailed response. <br /><br />I didn’t realize while writing the post that you understood the word hiyut in Rashi to mean “life-force”. Thanks for clarifying this important point. While this might be your preferred interpretation of Rashi, this interpretation is debatable. One can say that hiyut simply refers to status of life, and in the heart this refers to heartbeat. Accordingly, all Rashi is saying is that as long as the heartbeat is still perceptible, the person’s living status can be determined by checking the heart. With such an interpretation we can still say that according to Rashi, both positions in the Gemara consider ICSR be a criteria for death, and the dispute is if lack of heartbeat can *also* be considered as a criteria for death.<br /><br />Therefore, when you say “it is undeniable that [Rashi] indeed makes this assertion” that the heartbeat can be checked in the nose, this is only so if you assume “hiyut” means “life-force” as I explained.<br /><br /><i>Rashi similarly makes clear, that without an actual heartbeat, there is no chance of breathing</i><br />I don’t understand where you see this in Rashi.One can take Rashi to say the exact opposite - that even when there is no perceptible heartbeat, the person might still be breathing (זימנין דאין חיות ניכר בלבו - at times one cannot perceive a heartbeat, וניכר בחוטמו - and hiyut is percievable in the nose, by checking whether he’s breathing or not). Or as Jr put it, "sometimes the heartbeat test is inconclusive and there really is a heartbeat and therefore he still might be breathing".<br /><br />Thanks for referring to pp. 83-84. But as I wrote in the post, my point is not that since we now know that checking the nose is not a good test to determine lack of heartbeat, therefore Rashi couldn’t have said that. My point was that from the premise upon which you base your interpretation in Rashi - that Rashi knew that once you determine lack of heartbeat, there’s no need to check for respiration - it should follow that Rashi also knew that checking the nose won’t help determine lack of heartbeat. Your answer that “[almost] all people found beneath a building collapse and unable to breathe, did not have a heartbeat” can be rephrased to say that “ *all* people found beneath a building collapse and with no heartbeat, were unable to breath”. There’s no indication that Rashi knew either of the two to be a verifiable reality in his times.Y. https://www.blogger.com/profile/00852218508652846269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5206265597250436454.post-39064713769399565682012-03-19T09:48:21.081-04:002012-03-19T09:48:21.081-04:00Thank you for thoughtfully reflecting on some of t...Thank you for thoughtfully reflecting on some of these issues:<br /><br />The way I understand things, Rashi is actually saying explicitly that the hotmo [nose] opinion believes that a heart exam is not sufficiently sensitive to determine death. He is also explicitly saying that the actual criterion for death is cessation of heartbeat. This is the only reason that checking the nose is required. He states quite clearly that "sometimes hiyyut is not perceptible in the chest but is perceptible in the nose." To my mind, this statement has two very important implications:<br /><br />1. Even the nose opinion is really trying to ascertain whether or not the heart is beating. This is the only reason why he advocates checking the nose. [I understand that Dr. Steinberg disagrees, but I don't believe that his interpretation is sufficiently faithful to the words of Rashi.]<br /><br />2. No heartbeat - in actuality - means no breathing. He explains that the only reason [according to the hotmo opninion] to check for breathing when a heartbeat cannot be detected is because our means of assessing the heartbeat are insufficiently sensitive. The only reason to think that a person might be breathing is because he may still have a heartbeat that we cannot detect. It is clear (at least to me) that Rashi assumed that without an actual heartbeat a person cannot breathe.<br /><br />The reasons why Hazal (as interpreted by Rashi) and Rashi may have thought so are not relevant at this moment. What is clear, is that Rashi states it to be true. <br /><br />Regarding the "obvious problem" - I do deal with that issue, as I noted in the previous comment, on pages 83-84. Perhaps I should have dealt with it earlier in the chapter to avoid possible confusion.David Shabtaihttp://www.definingthemoment.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5206265597250436454.post-49569739465622620732012-03-19T00:52:57.815-04:002012-03-19T00:52:57.815-04:00Question 1
If Rabbi Dr Shabtai is willing to expl...Question 1 <br />If Rabbi Dr Shabtai is willing to explain Rashi that the "nose" opinion thinks that the tests for a heartbeat are inconclusive and insufficient, then why does he have to posit new criteria for death in the first place? Why couldn't he explain Rashi like R. Steinberg (criteria of death being respiratory) and answer his question (how could there be a "nose" opinion if the cessation of a heartbeat means no more breathing) by saying the same thing i.e that sometimes the heartbeat test is inconclusive and there really is a heartbeat and therefore he still might be breathing?<br /><br />Question 2<br />I don't see how he addressed your problem in his comment. Once you entertain the possibility that chazal weren't aware of the fact that cessation of heartbeat means no breathing, then understanding Rashi the original way works fine.<br />He also didn't seem to respond to what you called the "obvious problem", that cessation of breathing doesnt mean no more heartbeat. So if the criteria is heartbeat cessation, why do you only check until the nose?Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5206265597250436454.post-55034002298146312312012-03-18T14:33:19.093-04:002012-03-18T14:33:19.093-04:00(continued from previous comment - I hit the chara...(continued from previous comment - I hit the character limit)<br /><br />Please see p. 83-84 where I note that today we know that this is not a valid test and that we have far more sensitive and specific tests to make this determination, which should be followed. Perhaps I should have devoted a longer discussion to this point or placed it earlier in the chapter. I will certainly take this into consideration if and when I publish a second edition. This addresses the test alone, but not the criteria, which I argued (p. 41-42) do not change with advances in science since they reflect value judgments and not scientific realities. This postulate has been accepted by virtually all who have written on this topic, from Dr. Steinberg and R. Tendler, to R. Bleich and R. Elyashiv (the entire spectrum).David Shabtaihttp://www.definingthemoment.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5206265597250436454.post-46754906692003089392012-03-18T14:32:34.419-04:002012-03-18T14:32:34.419-04:00First off, I’d like to thank you for carefully rea...First off, I’d like to thank you for carefully reading my book. My purpose in writing it was to increase Talmud Torah and further debate and discussion on this important issue. Yeshar koah to you for furthering that goal.<br /><br />I would like to address the point you raised regarding understanding Rashi – which I believe, is indeed a very fair and important question, both regarding a careful reading of the words of Rashi as well as understanding whether this reading requires any scientific assumptions.<br /><br />Regarding the particular reading of Rashi, Yeedle succinctly summarizes my explanation of Rashi:<br /><br />“according to Rashi, both positions in the Gemara agree that the criteria for death is the irreversible cessation of heartbeat. The dispute is only on the tests required to determine that the criteria has been met. According to the "heart" position, checking the heart for a pulse is enough to determine whether the heartbeat has ceased or not. According to the "nose" position, that is not sufficient, and the nose has to be checked for respiration.”<br /> <br />I believe that this is an appropriate and correct presentation of Rashi’s position. Rashi explains that when finding the victim feet-first, the hotmo [nose] position requires checking until the nose and is not satisfied with a negative cardiac exam because “sometimes, life-force [hiyyut] is not perceptible in the heart and is perceptible in the hotem [nose].” The assumption is that hiyyut is normally found in the heart and that when it is no longer present, the person is dead. This is what I referred to as _criteria_ for death – which is accepted by both the hotmo [nose] and libbo [heart] positions. The two opinions in the Talmud, according to Rashi, only argue as to the most accurate / precise test to make this determination – what is the optimal assessment to determine that the heart has stopped.<br /><br />This is the explanation that Rashi gives for the hotmo [nose] position – that sometimes hiyyut is not perceptible in the heart but is perceptible in the nose. This is a question of actual reality – is the heart still functioning, and Rashi explains that sometimes, the best way to find out, is to check the nose. Rashi does not explain why this should be so, but it is undeniable that he indeed makes this assertion. It is clear (at least to me) that Rashi believed it to be true, and that he similarly believed that without a heartbeat (when hiyyut is objectively not found in the heart) that the person is dead. This is not predicated upon any scientific assertions or historical recreations, but is a simple reading of the actual text.<br /><br />In Rashi’s and Hazal’s time, this was demonstrably true (irrespective of any scientific theory). Almost all people found beneath a building collapse and unable to breathe, did not have a heartbeat. Rashi similarly makes clear, that without an actual heartbeat, there is no chance of breathing. The only reason the hotmo [nose] position requires checking past the heart, is because sometimes, the heartbeat is imperceptible. Were the heart objectively found to be stopped, even the hotmo position, would not require checking any further. Putting these two factors together likely led Rashi to explain the hotmo [nose] position as explaining that sometimes a cardiac exam is not sufficiently sensitive to detect a heartbeat in all circumstances and therefore a more accurate test would be to check for signs of respiration – to determine whether or not the heart was beating.<br /><br />This is how I understand the words of Rashi and this reading is consistent with the demonstrable reality existing at his time. We can speculate as to why he believed this to be true (and indeed Hakham Tzvi gave a historical / scientific explanation), but the fact that he believed the criterion for death to be the cessation of heartbeat appears to be the logical outcome of what he wrote.David Shabtaihttp://www.definingthemoment.comnoreply@blogger.com