Quicksilver כספית

Christian right seems to be doing the right thing on mercury, toxics, etc

"Mothers Facing Pollution Risks Find Allies in the Religious Right

The religious right and environmentalists are teaming up to protect women and their babies from the dangers of exposure to pollution and toxic waste.

By Teresita Perez                                      March 12, 2007

Tuli Hughes's first three pregnancies ended in miscarriage. During her fourth pregnancy, she gave birth prematurely to a baby with a fatal birth defect who died a few minutes after being born. On her fifth try, Tuli again gave birth prematurely; the baby weighed about one pound and also died within minutes.

An explanation may be found in the environmental conditions in Tuli's neighborhood of Bayview-Hunters Point, which is home to San Francisco's main power and sewage treatment plants and the now-closed Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, a Superfund toxic waste site.

…   Conservative evangelical Christians have begun to press for stronger environmental protections to ensure the health of vulnerable communities. Much attention has been given to recent efforts by prominent evangelicals pressing for action on global warming. But some are also taking on mercury pollution as a threat to the "sanctity of life."   …

Religious conservatives are starting to take note of this reproductive risk. At an anti-abortion-rights rally last year, evangelical leaders from the National Association of Evangelicals and the Evangelical Environmental Network actually carried a banner that read "Stop Mercury Poisoning of the Unborn" and distributed fliers that urged Christians to speak out against President Bush's Orwellian "Clear Skies Initiative."

"Clear Skies" purports to clamp down on mercury emissions and other air pollution, but in fact relaxes existing protections under the Clean Air Act. EPA's Children's Health Advisory Committee concluded that the plan "does not sufficiently protect our nation's children." Congress has failed to pass "Clear Skies" legislation, but the administration is putting in place major elements through regulation. …"

Read the rest here from American Progress.

FYI more on “Clear Skies” at U.S. PIRG or Sierra Club.

Update on Judaism and the environment

There is a new call for papers for the Twentieth Annual Klutznick-Harris Symposium at the University of Nebraska. Slated for October 28 and 29, 2007, the theme will be “‘The Mountains Shall Drip Wine’: Jews and the Environment.” Proposals due April 15th, more info here.

From Adam Teva v’Din (IUED):

March 13, 2007

The Knesset plenary has approved in first reading the government-backed amendment to expand the Beverage Container Deposit Law (the "Bottle Bill") to include 1.5 liter (family-size) bottles. The expanded bill also increases manufacturers' and importers' responsibility for collecting and recycling of beverage bottles and cans.

IUED has worked closely with the Environment Ministry, the Forum for the Deposit Law and the Knesset's Environmental Caucus to combat moves by manufacturers and ELA Recycling Cooperation to derail the entire Deposit Law.
…  Since Israel introduced the Deposit Law in 2001, over 1.5 billion bottles and cans have been recycled. Litter has been reduced. And over 260,000 tons of greenhouse gases have been saved. [See this for background.]

From Canfei Nesharim’s newsletter:

If you would like to receive a complimentary copy of Derech HaTeva, a Torah and Science Journal, a publication from Stern College for Women, Yeshiva University, e-mail Harvey Babich at [yu . edu] with your complete mailing (not e-mail) address.

From Hazon:

The 7th Annual New York Jewish Environmental Bike Ride on Labor Day Weekend, August 31- September 3rd, 2007, raises money for cutting-edge Jewish environmental projects in the United States and Israel. The NY Jewish Environmental Bike Ride is more than a bike ride, it is a four-day event that includes a Shabbat retreat and a 2-day Ride and so much more! [The rides are 60 and 57 miles each. – Kaspit]

Update on success of GZA

The Green Zionist Alliance successfully got three resolutions adopted at the World Zionist Congress. Read below or read more.

·     The first resolution will make Sustainable Development a stronger objective of Jewish National Fund/Keren Kayemet L’Yisrael (JNF/KKL) projects.

·     The second resolution will lead to the creation of environmental impact statements for World Zionist Organization projects. At present there are no policies within WZO institutions that are in compliance with internationally-recognized standards of environmental responsibility.

·     The third resolution requires the use of recycled paper in all World Zionist Organization offices. This resolution will lead to the production of office-recycled paper in Israel for the first time in Israel’s history. Upon the third resolution’s passage, the hall of the Congress buzzed with excitement in recognition of what had just taken place.

Kaspit

Unethical medical experiments on Jews

Haaretz reports that "Doctors at Kaplan Hospital in Rehovot and Harzfeld Geriatric Hospital in Gedera have carried out dozens of illegal experiments on hundreds of patients in their 90s and older, a Health Ministry inquiry committee has recently found."

So far, haven't seen info on the types of experiments or any responses by those accused of these crimes.

Kaspit

Cycling for the environment

Every once in a while, perhaps one should put down the texts and actually venture out into the environment. You can go for a walk... or you can bike in the desert heat... Here are reports from Hazon's Israel Ride 2006, "cycling for peace, partnership and environmental protection." 

Kaspit

Yes, I've neglected the blog in favor of other text studies. Personally I'm doing fine and venturing outdoors myself at times. Maybe I can add blogging in at some point...

Teasers about Tenafly eruv battle

Tenafly NJ was home to a big communal and legal brouhaha over a proposed eruv.  The eruv was proposed on June 1, 1999 and, once installation of the ritual boundary was underway in fall 2000, the eruv was opposed by the Borough of Tenafly. The lawsuit wound its way through U.S. federal courts, the eruv supporters won in the U.S. Court of Appeals (pdf file), and a final appeal was denied by the Supreme Court. Is it discriminatory for a government to deny Jews the opportunity to set up a ritual eruv? Does it violate the Establishment Clause for a municipality to authorize and assist an eruv?

At the Jewish Law website, you can read amicus curiae briefs by the Orthodox Union (joined by ADL, RCA, AJC, Hadassah, Reform Judaism) and Agudath Israel. The site also mentions two previous cases: Smith v. Community Bd. No. 14, 491 NYS2d 584, 128 Misc2d 944 (S.Ct. Queens County, 1985) and ACLU of New Jersey v. City of Long Branch, 670 F. Supp 1293 (D.N.J. 1987). Background on Tenafly for the media, with many good links. An atheist's brief recap and comment on the Tenafly case.

Read about the ACLU's involvement, which went from neutral to anti-eruv, I believe.

Take care and stay well-bounded,

Kaspit

PS  I found various legal articles that discuss the Tenafly case. These include:

COMMENT: USING AN ERUV TO UNTANGLE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUPREME COURT'S RELIGION-CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE 5 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 831 by Shira J. Schlaff

SUMMARY (courtesy of Lexis): ... This comment uses the creation of an eruv, the name of this procedure, as a case-study to display the ambiguities of current First Amendment law and the need for more specific guidance from the Supreme Court on what the Establishment Clause permits and forbids and what the Free Exercise Clause requires. ... An eruv should also pass Establishment Clause scrutiny even if it is considered speech, and no other groups are permitted access to the forum since it passes the Lemon and endorsement tests even if there is no additional purpose of complying with the Free Speech Clause. ... If a restriction on an eruv fails the reasonableness test that would most likely be applied if a wide variety of groups are denied access and restrictions on other forms of speech do not, permitting an eruv is not "preferential," but neutral. ... Since an eruv would almost always be less obtrusive than any other request, a city cannot permit other groups to have access, and deny access to eruv seekers on the grounds that its ordinance is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of avoiding visual clutter and maintaining control over city property. ... " In Lukumi, the Court noted that the Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is "masked as well as overt. ...

ARTICLE: A Matter of Constitutional Luck: The General Applicability Requirement in Free Exercise Jurisprudence by CHRISTOPHER C. LUND (26 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 627) Excerpt:

The general applicability test puts center stage the existence of secular exceptions (and thus the existence of secular burdens) in determining whether a religious claimant should get an exception. ... Other cases, such as Tenafly Eruv Association, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly n90 and Rader v. Johnston, n91 also expose the role that demographic factors can play in exemption analysis. In the Tenafly case, a group of Orthodox Jewish residents sought permission to attach lechis, which are thin black strips of plastic, along neighborhood utility poles. In doing so, the residents were attempting to create an eruv, a ceremonial demarcation of a particular area. Creating an eruv allows Orthodox Jews, who are usually forbidden from pushing or carrying objects outside their homes on the Sabbath, to conceive of the entire space within the eruv as their home. Without an eruv, Orthodox Jews who have small children or who are disabled cannot attend synagogue on the Sabbath. n92 The Third Circuit granted the residents a preliminary injunction against enforcement of an ordinance forbidding signs on public places because the rule was not enforced in a generally applicable manner. The Third Circuit relied upon the fact that, among other exceptions, the Borough had allowed orange ribbons to remain on utility poles during a controversy over school regionalization and the fact that residents often nailed their address number signs to utility poles. n93 As these exceptions were necessary to the result, the clear implication is, of course, that if the Orthodox Jews had lived in a community where people posted their address numbers over their doors and where the school district was not embroiled in political controversy, the Orthodox Jews living there would have no right to an eruv. n94    (n94 I must confess that this discussion oversimplifies the case in Tenafly. The Borough made several other exceptions to the rule; it permitted local churches to post permanent directional signs, residents to post lost animal signs, and the local Chamber of Commerce to affix holiday displays. Id. at 151-52. My point, however, remains. All of the secular exceptions seem traceable to idiosyncratic factors about the Borough of Tenafly that may not exist in other communities. It seems instinctive to question the sense of an exemption system that makes religious claimants' rights contingent on such factors.)

NOTE: The Utility and Efficacy of the Rluipa: Was It a Waste? (31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 723) by SARA SMOLIK

The Appeals Court found that the association could not sustain its claim that the ordinance infringed on its free speech rights. n216 The association argued that the lechis that marked the eruv's boundaries were so innocuous that even members of the Tenafly Orthodox community  [*751]  would not be able to recognize them for what they were; rather, knowledge of the eruv and its boundaries would be passed by word of mouth. n217 Because of this, the court determined that the act of affixing lechis to the utility poles was not "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to be deemed expressive conduct" worthy of protection under free speech jurisprudence. n218 The court concluded that, in the absence of evidence that such demarcations convey an "attitude or belief," geographical boundary lines, like the eruv or fences and walls, were not expression protected by the First Amendment. n219

In reaching this holding, the Tenafly Eruv court was obviously concerned with the implications of making it easier for plaintiffs bringing free exercise claims to allege an infringement of hybrid rights. n220 The court expressed concern that, by analyzing the construction of an eruv under the Free Speech Clause, it would set a precedent that would easily allow plaintiffs and courts to side-step the essential holding of Smith. n221 "Moreover, if solely the act of erecting a wall separating the interior of a building from the secular world constituted 'speech,' every religious group that wanted to challenge a zoning regulation preventing them from constructing a house of worship could raise a 'hybrid' rights claim triggering strict scrutiny." n222 Commentators have expressed similar concerns that Smith's exemption for hybrid rights threatens to swallow the rule it creates. n223

Eruv background -- links

Since the Talmudic daf yomi readings are deep into the Jewish practice of eruv*, this post provides a range of useful links. You are welcome to add links through the comments page.

To my readers: Due to my temporary break from new posts, a few readers kindly suggested that I leave at least a note about the status of this blog. It is my intention to improve and add to this Quicksilver blog, but I am currently pulled away to other compelling work. Apologies for not mentioning this break before. I will try to add some new posts between now and mid-January, when I hope to resume on a more regular basis. (If anyone would like to offer a guest post that fits within the scope of this blog, you would be most welcome. Send me an email.) Now, back to Eruvin:

Links about eruv (draft):

For a general guide to the topic of eruv and a long list of websites for eruvim in various communities, see Wikipedia's eruv article.

Fine explanation about eruvs and Boro Park (Brooklyn) by Rav Yehonatan Chipman

Another fine eruv site, from Univ. of Maryland.

Eruvin in Modern Metropolitan Areas, a 1995 book by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, which can be read on-line and downloaded for a minimal price. And here YGB discusses eruv in the context of a piece on rabbinic authority.

Here's the link to my theoretical and other comments on an eruv story by Rabbi Gil Student at Hirhurim. My post offered these links as background on the Flatbush eruv controversy: Technical Jewish legal analysis at Hirhurim here (w/in-depth comments) and by R. Yisroel Hirsch. Analysis supporting the eruv here (HT here w/comments). Non-technical discussions by Gedanken (and again). R. Micha Berger at Avodah. The bitterness. Steven Weiss on the Manhattan eruv.

Eruv Online is a blog that promotes eruv. The posts usually assume a high level of knowledge but the blog opens with a crisp social critique: "

Eruvin is different then other halachic issues in one significant aspect. Eruvin more than any other issue vests a certain amount of centralized power to the baal ha’machsher [the authority who certifies the eruv as valid -- Kaspit]. People publicly carrying in a rav’s eruv is a clear sign of the posek’s influence and support in the community, unlike relying on the rav’s hechsher on food, which is a more private matter. Consequently, there are people who find it incumbent upon themselves not to allow an eruv to be established, and insist that their rav’s opinion is the only one that can be followed. If one were to follow the history of eruvin in cities where there was no central governing rav or Bais Din, they would find that machlokas [controversy -- K] often erupted as a result of this desire for dominance in community affairs [Krakow 1888, St. Louis 1895, Odessa 1900, New York 1905 to the present, Manchester 1906, Frankfurt am Main 1914, and London 1932 to the present]. Otherwise, eruvin would generate the same level of reaction as say a mikveh [Jewish ritual bath -- Kaspit] where every individual just follows the p’sak of his own rav.

I do think eruv has a range of interesting halakhic and cultural-political features, which I hope will be discussed here.

Kol tuv,

Kaspit

* An eruv is a ritually designated enclosure, a symbolic wall or fence that marks off an area in which some sabbath prohibitions on carrying do not apply. An eruv is an example of a legal fiction in Jewish law.

Judgment day approaches...

Judges and judgments in the news. Tom DeLay indicted. A new Supreme Court Chief Justice sworn in, effectively ending the chance for a Rehnquist Memorial Amnesty inspired by Biblical law. A Rosh Yeshiva resigns because he violates Jewish law (i.e., the law against homosexual activity).

In Israel, a convicted forger refuses to resign as a judge. She also destroyed court documents. (Am I missing something here?!) Judge Hila Cohen, at least you've got chutzpah. "Your hands are sullied with blood and your fingers with sin" (Isaiah 59), the Talmud (bShab 139a) assigns this verse to corrupt judges and court scribes.

The same Talmud page teaches that it is permissible to teach boorish judges a less sophisticated form of The Law. In other words, if you aren't educated, you are in no position to take advantage of the leniencies of the erudite. So, there is one law for the unlearned, like the "Bashkarians", and a more comprehensive law for Bnei Torah, i.e. scholars of rabbinic law. In jurisprudence, this is the difference between law for the judges and law for the masses. I wonder if it also might shed light on R. Moshe Feinstein's 1981 responsum on smoking, in which he argues that smoking is permissible because "The Lord preserves the simple" (shomer peta'im HaShem) but that Bnei Torah shouldn't get addicted or let their children smoke.

Finally, judgment will come for the Red Sox. Saved by the last game of the season, the Red Sox face the White Sox. Repent all ye sinners in Red Sox Nation, else we will be wearing white -- the pure color of the High Holy-Days -- this week.

May you be sealed in the book of life,

Kaspit

Photo credit and Haaretz article, and another weird update on Judge Hila.

Siamese twins and an exceptional Jewish law ruling

Joined at the heart, it's painful to realize that these Israeli twins were doomed from start. Ha'aretz reports that the ultra-Orthodox parents would have used modern diagnostics (cf. my previous post). Furthermore: "A source close to the family said that had the diagnosis of the conjoined twins been presented in time, the parents would have sought rabbinical approval to stop the pregnancy."

It's not the first time that an Orthodox family had Siamese twins who shared a heart.

Philadelphia, 1977. The country's top halakhic authority, R. Moses Feinstein, agreed orally to let C. Everett Koop terminate one (non-viable) of the doomed twins so that the other (viable) twin could live. Here's the story as told by Rabbi Moshe Tendler. R. Feinstein apparently treats the non-viable twin as a rodef, a pursuer, who may be terminated (cp. fetus that threatens a mother's life). I believe that R. Bleich (Tradition 31:1, 1996) and R. Tendler also suggest another rationale, based on classifying the non-viable twin as a treifa, a person who cannot live for long. R. Shabtai Rappoport harmonizes the two approaches. From any standpoint, R. Feinstein's decision is highly controversial because it seems to permit the active termination of a newborn for the sake of another's life.

R. Moshe Feinstein's compassionate and sui generis decision has been used to critique the Catholic position in a similar, more famous Siamese twins case in England. (by Leora Rosen, Gregg Easterbrook)

Sobering case to consider, as we enter the gates of repentence, the gates of judgment, as The Supreme Judge decides who shall live and who shall die.

May you be written and sealed in the book of life, a redemptive Rosh ha-Shanah (Jewish New Year) to all,

Kaspit

Another link: essay on conjoined twins cases

Technologies diagnosed recently under Jewish law...

Touching and thoughtful post about ultrasound: Does Jewish law permit the use of ultrasound to diagnose the condition of the fetus? ADDeRabbi mentions one Rabbi's view: "His rationale is based on anecdotal evidence of stress caused by misdiagnosis, and some examples of cases where misdiagnosis resulted in unnecessary operations, from which the infant died. He felt that the potential costs far outweighed the potential benefits that may result from such a procedure." Read ADDeRabbi's sound rebuttal here.

"Leading Torah authorities signed the proclamation, including but not limited to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Yosef Sholom Elyashiv and the Rebbe of Gur." What was the occasion? Approval under Jewish law for "kosher" cellphones. HT to Town Crier.

And this just in time for the Days of Awe and awesome diets: Maalox is among the pharmaceuticals getting a kashrut certification. HT again to TC.

Shanah tovah u-metukah, a sweet and happy new year,

Kaspit

Roast a goose and throw its entrails to the cat...

Fate spits in the face of The Good. Yesterday, the Talmud's daf yomi readings included:

"Let him spill the produce that becomes soiled to the ground" (Shabbat 142a)
"Shake the pillow so that the money will fall off"
"A motley crew will create another bunch of mongrels" (142a)
"We shall pour water on filth until it disappears" (142b), and, last but not least,
"Roast a goose and throw its intestines entrails to the cat..."

Today, we enter the 22nd chapter of tractate Shabbat. Sample quote::

"If you bleed a beast for the sake of healing, the blood will not be a conduit for impurity." (144a)

Not to mention the vulgar imagery of R. Huna son of R. Yehoshua and Rav. Ashi at the end of chapter 21.

Alas! The Red Sox lost, the Yankees won. The Red Sox have not only fallen from 1st place, now they are also trailing in the contest for the AL wild card.

Mudville indeed,

Kaspit

P.S. Thanks to Daniel and ADDeRabbi for suggesting edits.

Circumcision as a once and future risk ...

Circumcision can be a hazardous activity in two ways, according to recent daf yomi readings (Shabbat ch. 19). For one, Jewish observance and performance of the bris milah (= covenant through circumcision) may be persecuted by Gentiles. The Romans apparently sought to suppress bris milah, as indicated by our mishnah (bShab 130a)* and other rabbinic texts (e.g., the midrash Mechilta 20:6). Despite the persecution, rabbinic Judaism continued to require bris milah, sometimes at the price of martyrdom. The gemara deduces that circumcision is extraordinary for various reasons, such as the thirteen (1) covenants for which milah is done.

Of course, circumcision is hazardous in a second way -- as a physical, "medical" procedure. In my draft chart on risk in Jewish law, I see circumcision as a fascinating case because, depending on the circumstances, a bris may exemplify four different categories of risk:

(A) First, I label circumcision as a medium risk for newborns -- not the lowest probability of harm, and not necessarily fatal harm -- in the pre-Modern era. On 134a, the rabbis focus on bandaging, which if applied badly could disfigure the child's genitalia. Circumcision was a rather risky surgical procedure in antiquity and medieval times (cp. story of womana whose first 2 sons died, 134a Shabbat).

(B) Secondly, the Talmud also looks at elevated risk conditions for circumcision, as when an infant is too weak, too emaciated, or discolored. As a general principle. the mishnah states that a sick newborn is not circumcised until he becomes healthy. Specifically, the rabbis felt that the infant's color indicates a danger to their life (e.g., yellow = jaundice) may require postponement of the procedure (134a).

(C) Third, today, yellow skin tone is much less an indicator of actual danger to the baby. Instead, doctors can measure jaundice directly. Thus, today circumcision has become far less risky thanks to medical changes.** (Hence, here is where Jewish medical ethics adapts to a change in medical care. Contrast this situation with cases of where modern-era traditional rabbis feel that nature has changed.) DovBear tells an anecdote and poses a fine question: If a "yellowish" newborn is cleared by a doctor as ready for an immediate circumcision, should the Jewish father stay loyal to the medieval rabbinic authorities who cautiously require the postponement of the bris milah? Or, can our Jewish medical ethics (halakhah) waive the postponement, and thereby recognize and downshift to a lower risk based on modern medicine's ability to cure, prevent and remedy nearly any risks from circumcision for newborns?

(D) Fourth, the halakhah of circumcision also tackles an extremely low or implausible probability of harm. The Talmudic rabbis deal with the belief (or superstition) that an ominous wind may increase the risks to the infant (bYev 72b). Today, we are not inclined to credit a spooky wind as adding any marginal risk to the bris of an 8-day newborn. Indeed, I venture to say that many Rabbis themselves may not have considered the additional marginal risk as significant. After all, they judged it unnecessary to delay circumcision for any wind-related risk because "The Lord preserves fools" (shomer peta'im haShem) -- God protects us from dangers, at least dangers like inauspicious winds.

Although circumcision may illustrate rabbinic handling of these four different types of risk, I would emphasize that circumcision is unique and not illustrative. Almost no matter what the risk, throughout history Jews have felt commanded under Jewish law to take chances and perform the bris. In other words, circumcision is one of those actions that rabbinic law considers as highly unresponsive to the changes in risk conditions.

Sincerely,

Kaspit כספית

APPENDIX: Tractate Shabbat chapter 19 deals with much Talmudic medicine. For care of a circumcised baby, for instance, the Talmud discusses the use of cumin, salves, bandages, treatment of the wound, . In interpreting a mishnah, several rabbis insist that sabbath prohibitions may be overridden in order to bathe the baby's wound, as well as its entire body, because to refrain from a hot water bath is considered dangerous (saqanah) (134b). The Talmud also discusses androgynous babies (136b), babies with rare conditions ("suppressed" or absent foreskin) premature births and the danger facing premies (135a). The Talmud also contemplates whether, during its first 30 days of life, a newborn is deemed a safeqa, one of doubtful viability (136a), which leads into several aspects of fetal and newborn medical ethics. Feverish newborn (137a). Retakes w/a second circumcision procedure (137b).

* Rabbi Eliezer rules that, as an exception to the Shabbat laws, the Jew who will perform a bris, the mohel, may carry a concealed knife to the ceremony. R. Shimon b. Elazar categorizes the bris as a divine commandment for which "Israel sent themselves to death" (masru Yisroel atzman).

** A fierce dispute is raging among different Orthodox Jewish groups over a traditional part of the bris, the removal of blood by suction (metzitzah). As I revise this post, I will add links to this dispute here. Apparently, metzitzah administered directly by mouth exposes the newborn to the very low probability of a severe infection or contagion.
On the halakhah: Hirhurim: Metzitzah I (intro, R. Soloveitchik), II (RCA statement), III (view of R. Feivel Cohen), IV, V (RCA June 7), and VI (NY Times).
On the politics: DovBear re: Rabbi Moshe Tendler (and comments re: regulation), Yeshiva Ortho. The Canonist (e.g. Agudas Israel v. Satmar). Media links.
Volokh Conspiracy blog.
Current status of dispute (YO).