You decide.
Shana, a school teacher in Florida, needs a bone marrow transplant. Otherwise, she will die.
Reuven lives in Seattle. He signed up with a bone marrow registry and, miraculously, is discovered to be a match for Shana.
In the process of preparing to donate his bone marrow, Reuven discovers that he has a blood disorder, and is at an 8% risk of death if he goes through with the bone marrow donation.
Should Reuven go through with the donation?
If he does, is Shana obligated to pay him?
You decide — but not with an offhand, or even a considered, opinion. No, you do research. You become an expert in Jewish law. You locate the relevant sources. You apply them. None of the sources are derived from this exact case. You need to argue which sources best fit this case. You become the Beth Din, the rabbinic court. As the Beth Din, you decide: Does Reuven proceed with the donation, and possibly risk his life? Does Shana die?
Are there other alternatives?
Oh, I forgot to mention. You are in 10th grade, or perhaps 11th or 12 grade, tops.
Oh, I also forgot, you need to make your ruling as a Beth Din before expert judges, and you need to do so in competition with the best student Beth Dins around the country.
One last proviso: You have seven minutes to make your case.
That’s it. Seven minutes.
And be prepared to answer tough questions, and answer them immediately, from the expert judges when you’ve finished delivering and justifying your ruling.
Good luck.
The atmosphere was electric last Sunday morning, April 25, at Herzl-RMHA as 16 of the top student Beth Dins from around the country presented their rulings.
The level of competence was withering.
The excitement was palpable.
Each Beth Din’s command of the material was impressive — so, too, each Beth Din’s confidence in its own analysis of the sources behind its ruling.
During tough questioning, no member of a single Beth Din was at a loss for words.
The sponsoring organization, RAVSAK, is a national group of 120 day schools.
Just in case anybody wondered whether their donations or tuitions to day schools are worth it, or whether these students are receiving a Jewish education on a level unimaginable in the non-day school setting, you had to be there last Sunday.
All of sudden, Jewish teenagers are citing and explaining pieces of Talmud, Jewish responsa, contemporary authorities such as the late R. Moshe Feinstein, the Jerusalem Talmud, famous authorities like Rosh and Ritva — and, in many cases, expert physicians and ethicists.
Sitting next to me was one gentlemen who said, “Wow. I never got this kind of education.”
A slapstick, quickly-put-together, cut-and-paste quotation of sources — get your personal opinion out there and then find a handy prooftext to support it: this is not what happened last Sunday.
Well, is Reuven obligated to risk his life? Is his 8% risk actually a risk? Is it merely a negligible risk? Or, is it, in fact, so low that it is, in the face of Shana’s definite, fatal prognosis, not a risk at all?
And who decides? Reuven’s personal decision? Does a Beth Din have a right to impose its thinking on him?
Is there a middle ground? Perhaps Reuven is not obligated to risk his life (if this is, in fact, the risk), but it would be meritorious for him to do so.
But wait, if it is a risk to his life, is he even allowed to donate his bone marrow?
And if he does, should Shana compensate him for his loss of work and medical expenses? What if she cannot afford it? Is the Beth Din obligated to raise the money?
And what about that blood disorder of his? Is it really a risk? Who said so? Does contemporary medical science agree? What if the medical experts disagree? Who is Jewish law obligated to listen to — the expert who says it is a risk, or the expert who says it isn’t?
All this — and more — was argued in taut, seven-minutes segments last Sunday morning,with, I should add, a fine dose of humor thrown in by a number of the student Beth Dins.
Two people are walking in a desert. One has a jug of water. It contains enough water for one of them, but not both, to reach the next oasis. Is the owner of the jug obligated to share the water, or should he keep it himself, and save his own life at the expense of the other person’s?
Rabbi Akiva rules: The owner of the jug keeps the water. Ben Petura rules: The water is shared.
This is a case in the Talmud, tractate Bava Metzia.
How is it relevant, if at all, to the case of Reuven and Shana? Much learned analysis was offered by the student rabbinic judges.
Suppose a non-Jewish government official tells a Jew: If you don’t let me cut off one of your limbs, I am going to kill a Jew. Is the threatened victim obligated to give up his limb? Or, is he a fool if he does so? Is he a saint?
This case was ruled on by Radbaz (I’m not going to reveal his ruling). This case was scrutinized by the student rabbinic judges.
Reish Lakish, a Talmudic sage, was healthy and strong. The life of one of his best friends was in danger. Reish Lakish risked his life to save his friend, and did so successfully. Is this a precedent, requiring Reuven to do the same?
Or, is the fact that Reuven and Shana are strangers, while Reish Lakish saved a close friend, mean that the case is not a precedent for Reuven?
You had to be there.
The argument, the rootedness in Jewish sources, the comfort level, the passion, the ethical sensitivity, the legal analysis — all by a type of Jewish teenager who, a generation ago, did not have this kind of education — were impressive.
Beyond impressive.
There were actually two competitions, with half the teams in one room and the other half in another. Moving between the two rooms, I witnessed student after student in control of the material, persuasive, cool under fire from the judges . . . beyond impressive.
The moot Beth Din competition has grown over the years. I predict, it’s going to need to introduce regional competitions. It’s outgrown a one-morning format.
Oh, and by the way, did you notice how the process of making the students think, and of articulating their thoughts publicly, will help them in whatever they do?
Take this: Whatever they end up doing, they will be thinking as Jews.
Informed Jews.
Educated Jews.
It was a thing of beauty.
You had to be there.
Judges for one group were local Rabbis Raphael Leban, Yaakov Meyer and Leib Zalesch. Judges for the other group were local attorneys Ted Gelt, Jordan Hochstadt and Rick Mishkin.
Winning teams were from Atlanta, Palo Alto, San Francisco and Toronto. The student advisor for a Baltimore team was Rabbi Yaakov Chaitovsky, formerly of BMH-BJ.
The student Beth Din from Herzl-RMHA, which acquitted itself brilliantly, consists of Naomi Clayman, Danielle Goss, Joel Lowinger, Lee Nisson and Sam Rotbart. Their student advisor is Rabbi Sam Strauss.
Rabbi Harry Sinoff is director of Judaic studies at Herzl-RMHA, which hosted the event.
