Religion versus Medicine

[mick_hale]

This is a bit of a burning issue for me. I tend to take this very personally, especially within Judaism, since within Judaism, it should be crystal clear that the health, well-being, quality of life, and life of the patient takes precedence over any kind of halachic consideration whatsoever, with the exception of Murder, Adultery, and Idolatry (

Comments

[ehwhy]

There are many, many cases where a Halacha is brought down with a given explanation. Over time the reason is proven to be based on bad information or is no long applicable. There are generally two possibilities in such cases. One is to say "Lo ploog", once the halacha has been established it cannot be changed. The other is to adjusting the halacha to incorporate the new information. Each situation must be handled on a case by case basis.

One of the classic examples of this case involves killing lice on Shabbat. Hazal used to think they were self replicating and did not reproduce. This meant they were not really alive so there was no problem with killing them. Now we know this is not true and they are animals, there is a mochloket if killing lice on Shabbat is permissible.

There are all kinds or rules of when the prohibition of bishul on Shabbat applies. One concept is with a Kos Sheni & Shlishi, where unless you are dealing with a dvar gush, each level further away from the fire reduces it's cooking ability and you cannot cook in a Kos Shlishi. What if you find yourself in a situation where your Kos shlishi is still hot enough to cook? Again there are two approaches. One is that if it is hot enough to cook then it is considered Bishul. The other is that even though it is hot enough to cook, the fact it is in a kos shlishi knocks out the issur of cooking weather the food is being cooked or not. While many poskim hold it is good to be machmir, most poskim seem to say it is permitted.

[vcfilks]

Even in these cases, halacha does not establish a reality. Those poskim that believe the halacha should change because we've learned something knew about our world we didn't know before are basically saying that halacha is a series of causes and effects. For instance, if [animal] is alive, then [animal] cannot be killed; the law doesn't change, but the application in one place comes out different than it used to because of new information.

On the other side, those who believe the halacha does not change are either being idiots or are recognizing the value of maintaining a tradition while still keeping in mind that the underlying reason for the law no longer applies. Which one it is depends on the situation. (There's an occasional third option in which a different reason can be found to maintain the same law and sidestep the issue.) But in no case does halacha actively state that the world is other than we find it to be.

[ehwhy]

I like your answer for the first case, but I am not sure about it's application of the 2nd case.

On Shabbat, you have two glasses of water at 140 degrees. You add uncooked tea to each. One you are over an issur derseisa, which depending on the circumstances may have an additional issur that you are banned for drinking it forever. The other is perfectly enjoyable cup of tea. What happens to the tea inside the cup is exactly the same. The only difference is one was prepared in a kli rishon and one was a kli shlishi.

You are arguing that Halacha recognizes the cooking in the kli shlishi but determined that there are other circumstances that allow it to be drinkable.

What I am saying is once that Halacha estabalishes cooking cannot take place in a kos shlishi, it doesn't care what actually happens inside the cup. While you may not like the semantics this is what I mean by halchic reality.

For the most part there is not much practically different from the two approaches. However if you are a Rabbi trying to Posken a shilo it would make a difference in how much investigation would be required to determine a Psak. For example if someone asks if they can drink the tea that was made in the Kos Shlishi in our example. Your approach would require determining if physical cooking occured than what halachot would apply and my would not.

[vcfilks]

What is the definition of "cooking" in a normal context?

Consider this: The word "melacha" means "work" - yet you're allowed to rearrange the furniture in your house on Shabbos but not flick a light switch. The way the word is used in a halachic context is very different from the straight meaning of the word.

Halacha doesn't pretend to provide a definition of the word "cooking" in a scientific context. If you need to cook something to ensure you kill off bacteria (in raw meat, for instance), halacha doesn't offer any pretensions, it doesn't try to tell you "use the halachic definition of cooking!" - you cook like a normal person would define it. Halacha doesn't change reality; it just creates legal definitions of certain words for use in a specific context. It recognizes that these do not necessarily have the same effects on the real world, and doesn't try to pretend that they do.

[ehwhy]

Thank you for clarifying what I have been trying to say. When discussing a halachic framework the definitions will not always be the same as the scientific definition. In such a case it is important to understand the differences in order to apply them properly.

[vcfilks]

Even so, halacha never seeks to redefine or contradict reality.

[ehwhy]

However, it can define the parameters in such a way to ignore variables that would appear to be relevant. You can call it whatever you want but I think if you look at our definitions we are pretty much describing the same thing.

[vcfilks]

I don't really understand what you're saying. I objected to your first comment because of the statement "if the medical advise is from the Torah, then it would hold heavy weight", and I've never seen the Torah offer medical advice. And any medical advice offered by the Talmud or anything else isn't something I'd give any weight to until/unless not contradicted by modern medical science.

[ehwhy]

Earlier this year was the first time I have ever gone to a Posek on a medical shilo. My Rabbi didn't feel knowledgeable enough to answer the question with someone more knowledgeable available. The person I spoke to is an expert in the field of medicine and even had a doctor present to double check my questions.

The shilo involved a situation that required being machal shabbat but the standard definition of Pekuach Nefesh applied. As we have discussed the Posek had to consider issues of Derisah and DeRabannan to come up with the appropriate answer. The Torah may not have discussed the particular case the principles are all laid out.

There is currently a case in Ontario being considered by the Government. A young man needs medicine that costs $500,000 a year for the rest of his life or he will die. The Government is trying to decide to pay for the medication or let him die. While not practical halchacily in this case there are plenty of ethical questions to be considered. While not necessarily structured as medical advice the Torah would deal directly with these serious issues.

On the flip side when I was in Ulpan our teacher would never let us order mushrooms on our theoretical pizza because the Rambam said it was unhealthy. Such medical advice would be taken on a much lighter basis.

[vcfilks]

Situations like that have nothing to do with halacha deciding a reality, however. It's deciding when you're allowed or not allowed to violate a law to save a life. Halacha doesn't try to tell you it won't work or anything like that.

I've asked pikuach nefesh questions multiple times.

[ehwhy]

OK