kidney
peace
In recent days, Arnon Segal’s kidney donation became public, in which he asked to donate only to Jews.
If we ignore the declaration and semantics and focus only on Segal’s actual claim, does the rabbi think it is racist? Or immoral? How is that different from if he only wanted to contribute to a nuclear family and is merely expanding the claim here?
In any case, I don’t have the mental tools to analyze this case, and of course the media immediately attacked him for being racist and so on and so forth.
I would be happy if the Rabbi would express his opinion on the matter, and if there is no hassle, I would be happy to have a more in-depth discussion.
First of all, it’s very nice that you donated, and I’m afraid of criticizing those who donate. Especially if I myself didn’t donate.
Secondly, I don’t see racism here. It is permissible and perhaps even appropriate for a person to favor members of his family or people. There may be other side considerations, such as if you don’t donate to the Gentiles, they won’t donate to us. But in principle, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.
If he had instructed not to donate a kidney at all to a Gentile, even if the donor is not Jewish, that would have been worse. But even that should be discussed, because a person has the right not to give himself up for someone who is not from his family or people. Most of us don’t do this even for our own people.
If he orders not to donate a kidney to a gentile but only to a Jew after his death – that would be more problematic. Although even there most people do not donate organs at all, meaning they see it as a heavy price for some reason. So if it is a heavy price, a person has the right to be willing to pay a heavy price only for his own people.
Ultimately, the whole story here is part of the anti-racism carnival that is common in our districts, which I have dealt with more than once. It has no basis. People speak slogans from the gut.
The problem with Arnon Segal's behavior is that the damage he is capable of creating in a chain reaction will outweigh the benefit of his donation by tens of times.
Haredim do not sign the Edi card, but still shamelessly benefit from organs donated by others.
In the religious public, the situation is better, but still very far from the situation in the secular public.
Today, the situation is that organ donations after death reach patients regardless of religion, race and gender according to the most noble principles.
Segal's behavior could lead to a counter-protest in which Edi card signers will start adding restrictions (only for Jews/Arabs, religious/secular, settlers/non-settlers or just a clause against Haredim)
Shouldn't Segal's behavior be prohibited for this reason?
Absolutely not. The fact that there is demagogy and brainwashing that leads people to see such a thing as racism is their problem. Instead of prohibiting a good person from doing what he believes in, we need to fight against the infantile brainwashing that is so harmful to us. Of course, if there is a person who is willing to donate to any person, a blessing will come upon him. But someone who does not do this but donates to his people or family is not doing anything wrong. On the contrary, he is ten times better than all his snide critics who themselves did not donate to anyone. Prohibiting donations to my people or my family is absurd and a surrender to stupidity.
By the way: Is it permissible to donate organs after death?
I think it is a great mitzvah.
What is the Halacha position on organ donation?
Answer: The only halachic dispute regarding organ donation from the deceased concerns determining the moment of death – does
according to Halacha brain-respiratory death mean the moment of death of the person, and then it is possible to donate organs that are still functioning but are in the body of the deceased, or does
according to Halacha cardio-respiratory death mean the moment of death of the person, and therefore as long as the heart is beating, organs cannot be donated.
Many rabbis have ruled that brain-respiratory death is the halachic death.
This is the decision of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel
throughout its generations; this is how the Chief Rabbis of Israel have ruled, including Rabbis Ovadia Yosef, Shlomo Goren, Avraham Shapira, Mordechai
Eliyahu, Shlomo Amar, and David Lau; This position was also taken by Rabbis Moshe Feinstein and Shaul Israeli, and they wished long life to
Rabbis Yaakov Ariel, Nachum Rabinowitz, Chaim Druckman, Aryeh Stern, Dov Lior, Zephaniah Drori, Shmuel Eliyahu, Yehoshua
Zuckerman and others.
https://www.adi.gov.il/media/2011/shot_82.pdf
As I explained before, it has nothing to do with determining the moment of death. See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D1
And this is of course only with regard to organs that the soul depends on. A kidney is not such an organ. There are donations that can be taken after death and they are not under discussion either.
Hello,
I was very surprised to see your answer on this subject, I would appreciate it if you could answer a few questions for me.
First of all, it is clear that donating a kidney is an altruistic thing that not many people are able/willing to do – I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Do you think a person who does a good deed is immune to all criticism? I don't really see the logic in that.
I also want to divide the question into two, specifically regarding Arnon, from what I saw in interviews with him, he did not prefer a Jew but wanted to donate only to a Jew, (it is clear to me that this is his right – also his right to prefer white people who are 1.80 tall). The question of whether it is moral to present such a condition, seems to contradict the categorical imperative. I assume that most people would not want everyone to donate only to their own people (certainly not Jews who constitute one tenth of a percent or less), and I am not even talking about the implications of this statement.
The second part is if we leave Arnon and assume that he does not donate only to Jews but prefers them, is this a proper preference? I see a big difference between a family and the people, I assume that in a donation to family members the donation stems from a need and familiarity, meaning that if it were not for the need of the family member, the donor would probably not have donated to an anonymous person, which is not the case with a donation to a non-relative where a person does not even know the donor but the donation is completely altruistic. Therefore, I do not really see why the preference of data such as a nation is moral (again, a person is allowed to do this, the question is whether it is proper). I have seen many people get hung up on the statement "Your city's poor come first", and I ask myself about the quote why it is moral? In similar cases we would call such a preference nepotism. For example, if there are two equal candidates for a certain position and the only difference is that one of them is from my city (or a relative), is it morally justified to favor the relative and deny the other an equal chance of being elected (say, in a lottery)?
Thanks in advance.
I didn't write that you can't criticize an altruistic person, but that it's not logical to criticize altruism. I gave the example of a person who gave 100 shekels in charity and you argue with him why he shouldn't give a thousand. Arnon sees his people as an extended family. You may not (although I highly doubt it. Would you say that the state should support all the poor in the world, not just the poor of our country?! As I recall, you disbelieve in the morality of the poor of your previous city). And what about medical care throughout the universe? And education? By the way, now I remember that there was a column on universalism and there I explained the consequential problem it has.
In short, in my opinion, these perplexities are completely unfounded.
The issue of the chance of being elected is also unfounded. The chance of being elected comes to everyone. My kidney is absolutely not. A state should treat all its citizens equally (but not the citizens of other countries), but I don't.
Hello,
1. I still don't understand why it doesn't make sense to criticize altruism and the example of 100 1000 shekels is not a good example in my opinion, a better example could be someone who brings a poor person 100 shekels but throws them at him in a disparaging manner. I'm not telling anyone to donate both kidneys, I'm just criticizing the statement not to donate without a Jew.
2. I don't see the nation as an extended family, and I even mentioned earlier the difference between a relative whose donation probably comes from need and acquaintance versus a person from the ’nation’ whose donation is anonymous (Arnon doesn't know the donor either).
3. It seems you didn't address the first part of my question – In Arnon's case, he didn't prefer a Jew but was willing to donate only to a Jew, considering that you also distinguished between the cases, it's surprising to me that you didn't address the question of why it's moral.
4. I really think that the state has some responsibility towards the world's poor (the word "need" is not appropriate here), and indeed in reality there are government and international projects to eradicate poverty, and in the earthquake in Turkey many countries sent aid. Therefore, I do not understand the bewilderment that the state has a responsibility towards the world's poor. Also referring to the state as something amorphous is not clear, a state is ultimately the sum of its citizens and there is a kind of unwritten contract between the citizens, so there is a certain "priority" towards the citizens, but not because they are a "family" but because they have a common fund. And yet, in my opinion, we always have to ask when the quality of life of the citizens is preferable to the life of the world's poor - I do not have a clear answer and there are constraints so that we cannot donate all of our product to the poor, but we do have to ask what the priorities are.
If it is not a hassle, I would be happy if you sent the link to the column on universalism.
5. Regarding what you said that the kidney does not belong to everyone, I think it touches on the second point, which is that in the end, if you don't know the donor, why is there a preference for one of the people? And again, I don't disagree that the kidney is his and he has the right to do with it what he wants. The question of whether it is appropriate, perhaps I will rephrase the question: A rich person who has a lot of money has no obligation to donate money to the needy, but do you think that he also doesn't have some kind of "responsibility" towards the poor?
Thank you.
Everything was explained.
1. I explained that there is no basis for criticizing his altruism. It is not giving in a disparaging way, but giving to this and not to that. There is nothing wrong with that, certainly not in front of someone who does not give at all.
2. I know you do not, but he does. The difference in familiarity is irrelevant. Proximity is what determines. If I did not know my son for some reason, then it is immoral to agree to give only to him?
3. Considering that I also addressed this, what else am I supposed to say. I said what I had to say.
4. In short, you agree with what I said. Hanging it on one fund or another is irrelevant. The country also supports those who do not contribute to the fund. Actually, mainly those.
5. He is not a rich man. He has two kidneys just like you and me.
I think we have exhausted them.
The column on universalism is 188. I also deal with this in columns 51 and 266.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
