Andrew of Caesarea Identifying the “Altar” (θυσιαστήριον) of Revelation 8:3 with the Person of Jesus

 

8:3b. And to him was given much incense, in order to offer the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;

This altar is Christ, upon whom is established every ministering and holy power and to whom the sacrifices of martyrdom are carried, of whom the altar was the foreshadowing shown to Moses on the mountain together with the tabernacle. The incense is the prayers of the saints, as sweet fragrances to God, as has been said. And before the throne meaning Christ, clearly the supreme [88] holy powers, as has been said, on account of the flow of fiery divine love in them and pure wisdom and knowledge. The interpretation of the names of the supreme powers who approach God shows precisely that. (Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, ed. David G. Hunter [trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou; The Fathers of the Church 123; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011], 113)

 

Nonnus of Panopolis (5th century) Using θεοπνευστος for Jesus’s Sandals

  

καὶ ὁπίστερος ὅστις ἱκάνει, Σήμερον ὑμεῖων μέσος ἵσταται, οὐ πρὸς ἄκρου, Ἀνδρομένην παλάμην οὐκ ἀξίος εἰμι πελάσσας, Λῦσαι μόνων ἱμάντα θεοπνεύστοιο πεδίλου. (Nonnus of Panopolis, Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.27 [PG 43:753])

 

And whoever comes last, today stands in the midst of you, not at the edge; I am not worthy, with a man’s hand, to draw near and loosen even the single strap of the God-breathed sandal.

 

The Use of θεόπνους in the Works of Leontius of Byzantium and George of Pisidia

Lampe, in his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, defines θεόπνους thusly:

 

θεόπνους, breathed on by God, permeated with God’s Spirit ζῶν δὲ Χριστὸς σῶμα θ. καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν σαρκὶ θεϊκόν, νοῦς οὐράνιος Apoll.fr.155(p.249.3)ap.Leont.B.Apoll.(M.86.1964b); τῶν ὑπερτέρων νόων ὑπερβέβηκεν ἡ θεόπνους ἀκρότης Geo.Pis.hex.1474(M.92.1547a). (“Θεόπνους,” in A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1961], 630)

 

Here are the two references from above:

 

Leontius of Byzantium (480-543), Against the Forgeries of the Apollinarists (Migne 86:1961, 1964):

 

Καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερα πάλιν.

 

Καὶ ἐν ταὐτῷ μὲν ἐνεργοῦν εἶδος τὸ Πνεῦμα, ποιαὐτὴν ἐνέργειαν οἷα καὶ χωρισθείη ἂν, θεῖον ἡγῇσεαυτόν, ὡς καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σοῦ χρωτὸς ἀπερ[ρ]ιμμένον ὕφασμα, δύνασθαι νόσους ἰᾶσθαι; τὸ δὲ ἀχωρίστως θεῷ συναφθέν, καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν τὴν οὐσιώδη γεγονός, Ὁ Λόγος γὰρ, φησί, σὰρξ ἐγένετο, τοῦτο οὐ θεῖον οὐδὲ θεὸν ὑπελήγας;

 

Πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, «Οὐκ ἤδο- [ἢ] κρεοφαγίας παρὰ Θεῷ,» φησὶν οὕτως·

 

Οὐ μὴν ὅτι τὸ συναμφότερον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἠνωμένον τῷ οὐρανίῳ, καὶ πρῶτον ἐν μετ’ αὐτοῦ γεγονὸς οὐράνιον κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἐστίν, καὶ ὡς οὐράνιον προσκυνεῖται τῇ τοῦ οὐρανίου Θεοῦ προσκυνήσει, καὶ ὡς οὐράνιον σῴζει τῇ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δυνάμει.

 

Καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον ἐπιστολῆς, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή, «Ἐμοὶ καὶ φιλίας ὑποθέσεως ἡ εἰσέ-
βεια,» μετ’ ὀλίγα φησὶν οὕτως

 

Ὅτι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐδεὶς ἐπάγειν δύναται ταῦτα κατὰ τινων λεγόμενα, δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐξ ὧν αὖθις γράφομεν· οὔτε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ λέγοντες, οὔτε ὁμοούσιον τῷ Θεῷ καθ’ ὅσον ἐστὶ σὰρξ καὶ σύ θεός· θεῖον δὲ καθ’ ὅσον εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον ἤνωται θεότητι.

 

Πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, «Δοξάσωμεν πρεπόντως τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,» φησὶν οὕτως περὶ τὸ τέλος·Ζῶν δὲ Χριστὸς σῶμα θεόπνευστον, καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν σαρκὶ θείκον, νοῦς οὐράνιος, οὗ μετασχεῖν εὐχόμεθα·κατὰ τὸ, «Ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν»· αἰωνὶ ἁγία θεότητι συγγενής, καὶ τοῖς μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς ἐνιδρύσασα θεότητα, θεμέλιος αἰωνίου ζωῆς, ἀρχηγὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἀνθρωπείης, αἰωνίου κτίσεως δημιουργός, τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος πατήρ.

 

Πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ συλλογιστικῷ, συνκειμένῳ εἰς τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Ἰωάννην, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, «Διὰ τοῦ Λόγου τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,» κατὰ τὴν εὐαγγελιστικήν, φησὶν οὕτως·

 

Πῶς οὖ θεὸς ἀληθῶς ὁ λέγων· Τόσον χρόνον μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; τὴν ὡς ἀνθρώπου συνδιάτριβην μετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐν το σούτῳ χρόνῳ δηλοῖ, καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον θεὸν ἀποδείκνυς· ὥστε οὐκ αἰσχυντέον ὁμοούσιον τῷ θεῷ τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον λέγειν, θεότητος εἴδει τῷ πατρικῷ γνωριζόμενον, ὡς ἡ ὕλη τῷ σώματι.

 

 

Again, elsewhere:

 

And in the same way the Spirit is at work; and would you not regard that very power as divine, even as a garment taken from your own body can heal diseases? But what is inseparably joined to God, and has become one with him through union, as the Word says, “The Word became flesh,” would you not think that to be divine, indeed God himself?

 

Again, in another discourse, whose beginning is “Not [the same?] sacrifice of flesh before God,” he says this:

 

Not that both natures came from heaven, but that what has been joined to the heavenly, and has become heavenly through union, is heavenly; and as heavenly it is worshiped with the worship paid to the heavenly God, and as heavenly it saves by the power of heaven.

 

And from the letter to Dionysius, whose beginning is “For me, and for the sake of friendship, piety…,” he says a little later:

 

That no one can charge us with saying these things about certain persons is clear from what we write again: we are not saying either that the Savior’s flesh is from heaven, or that, as flesh, it is consubstantial with God; but it is divine insofar as it has been united into one person with divinity.

 

Again, in another discourse, whose beginning is “Let us rightly glorify our Lord Jesus Christ,” he says near the end:

 

The living Christ is a God-breathed body, and a divine spirit in flesh, a heavenly mind, in which we pray to share; according to “But we have the mind of Christ”: allied to holy divinity and bestowing divinity on those who partake of it, foundation of eternal life, source of human incorruption, maker of eternal creation, father of the age to come.

 

Again, in another argumentative discourse composed on the Evangelist John, whose beginning is “Through the Word all things came to be,” he says in the exposition:

 

How then is the one who says, “Have I been with you so long, and still you do not know me, Philip?” truly God? He is showing his dwelling among human beings for such a long time in the manner of a man, and thereby proving the man to be God. So one should not be ashamed to call such a man consubstantial with God, since he is known by the paternal divinity, just as matter is by the body.

 

 

George of Pisidia (580-634), Hexaemeron, Lines 1472-1490 [=(Migne PG 92:1546-47):

 

Καὶ συγχομίζειν, ὥσπερ ἄλλος τοὺς φόρους,
Ἐκεῖθεν ἔνθεν τὰς φορὰς τῶν λειψάνων
Ἀρτηρίας, καὶ νεῦρα, σάρκας, καὶ φλέβας,
Καὶ παντὸς ἄρθρου συλλογὴν κεχρυμμένων,
Συνεισάγειν δὲ τὰς ἑκάστου λοιπάδας·
Εἰσὶ γὰρ ἄχρι καὶ τριχὸς γεγραμμένοι·
Φέρειν τε πᾶσαν τὴν ἐναπόγραφον φύσιν
Τῇ πρὸς τὸν αὐτῆς δεσπότην περιστάσει·
Ὅπως ὑφέξει τοῖς ἐπείκταις ἀγγέλοις
Τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς τῶν χρεῶν καὶ τῶν τόκων,
Καὶ τὰς ἀπαρχὰς τῆς γεώδους καρδίας.

 

Σπόρου τε καρπὸν, καὶ σπορᾶς ἀκαρπίαν,
Ζυγοῦ τε λείμμα, καὶ ροπῆς εὐσταθμίαν,
Καὶ πᾶσαν ἁπλῶς ψυχικὴν λειτουργείαν.
Οὕτως ἑαυτὸν ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ἔθου
Γνωστὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν, καίπερ ὢν κεχρυμμένος·
Ὅσον γὰρ ἡμᾶς τῶν ὑπερτέρων νόων
Ὑπερέδειξεν ἡ θεόπνους ἀκρότης,
Τοσοῦτον αὐτάς αἱ μέσαι,

καὶ τὰς μέσας

 

 

And to gather them together, as another gathers taxes,
from here and there the scattered portions of the remains:
arteries, sinews, flesh, and veins,
and the hidden gathering of every joint;
and to bring together the remaining parts of each one.
For they are written down even to a hair.
And to bring back the whole nature, inscribed as it is,
to the condition of its own master,
so that it may render to the exacting angels
an account of debts and interest,
and the firstfruits of the earthy heart:
the fruit of seed and the barrenness of sowing,
the deficiency in the balance and the evenness of the scale,
and every simple function of the soul.
Thus you have made yourself known to us through your activities,
though hidden; for in proportion as the God-breathed summit
has shown us the things above the higher minds,
so much do the intermediate beings, and the middle ones

 

Methodius of Olympus (d. 311) Refering To His Sermon as being a θεοπνευστος composition

  

Λέγει Μωσαϊκῶς· Οὗτός μου θεός, καὶ δοξάσω αὐτόν, θεὸς τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ ὑψώσω αὐτόν. Ἐχόμενα δὲ τῶν εὐχαριστηρίων (45), ἐξετάσωμεν [χριστωτάτα], τίς ἡ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ ἐξεγείρασα πρόφασις τὴν βασιλείαν τῆς δόξης. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ σωματικῶς γεννηθῆναι ἡ περὶ ἡμᾶς εὐσπλαγχνία ἐξεδίδαξε τὸν ἀθάνατον· τὸ δὲ ὑποκείμενον τυγχάνοντα (44), τὸν ἐν χρόνῳ ἄχροον, καὶ τοῖς σπαργάνοις ἐγκεκλεισμένον ἀκαλύφως, μετοικὸν τε καὶ μεταβάστην γενέσθαι, ποία ἄρα γίνεται ἀνάγκη; Εἰ δὲ βούλῃ γνῶναι καὶ τοῦτο, ὦ θειότατόν μου καὶ θεόπνευστον σύστημα, ἄκουε Μωυσέως διαπρυσίως κηρύττοντος τῷ λαῷ, καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν τῆς ὑπερφυοῦς γεννήσεως ἐγκαινίζοντος αὐτούς, καὶ λέγοντος· Πᾶν ἄρσεν, διανοῖγον μήτραν, ἅγιον τῷ Κυρίῳ κληθήσεται. (Methodius of Olympus, “Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna” [Migne PG 18:353])

 

 

Moses says in the Mosaic manner: “This is my God, and I will glorify him; the God of my father, and I will exalt him.” Next, after the thanksgiving, let us examine as carefully as possible what the occasion was in Bethlehem that brought about the kingdom of glory. For that he was born bodily in Bethlehem was taught by the loving-kindness shown toward us; but that the one who is timeless in time, and who was enclosed unseen in swaddling clothes, should become a sojourner and an exile—what necessity could there be for that? If you wish to know this too, my God-beholding and God-inspired composition, listen to Moses proclaiming clearly to the people and leading them into knowledge of the wondrous birth, saying: “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”

 

The Synodical Letter of Ephesus Calling Its Condemnation of Nestorius as a θεοπνευστος (God-breathed) Judgment

  

Τῷ εὐλαβεστάτῳ κλήρῳ καὶ τῷ λαῷ παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου.

 

Οὐδείς τολμήσας τῷ ἰδίῳ κτίστῃ ἐναντιωθῆναι ἔμεινεν ἔκτος θείας δίκης, ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ὅσον ἤκε καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην ὄψιν, ἠμείφθη μερικῶς διὰ τὸ τὴν τελειοτέραν ἀμοιβὴν τῷ τῆς κρίσεως καιρῷ κατ’ αὐτοῦ φυλάττεσθαι.

 

ὅθεν καὶ Νεστόριος ὁ τῆς δυσσεβοῦς αἱρέσεως ἀνακαινιστὴς φθάσας ἐν τῇ Ἐφεσίων, ἔνθα ὁ θεολόγος Ἰωάννης καὶ ἡ θεοτόκος παρθένος ἡ ἁγία Μαρία, τοῦ συλλόγου τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων καὶ ἐπισκόπων ξενώσας ἑαυτόν καὶ κακῷ τῷ συνειδότι ἀπαντῆσαι μὴ τολμήσας, μετὰ τρίτην κλῆσιν ψήφῳ δικαίᾳ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος καὶ τῆς αὐτῶν θεοπνεύστου κρίσεως κατακέκριται καὶ ἐκβέβληται ἐγγράφως ἐπὶ πράξεως ὑπομνημάτων πάσης ἱερατικῆς ἀξίας.

 

χαίρετε τοίνυν ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε, πάλιν ἐρῶ χαίρετε.

 

κατήρηται γὰρ τὸ σκάνδαλον καὶ ἐξεριζώθη τὸ ζιζάνιον ἐκ τοῦ γεωργίου τοῦ πνευματικοῦ χωρίου, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀναζωπυρήσατε καὶ λαβόντες τὸν θώρακα τῆς πίστεως ἐκποδίην ἐλάσατε τοὺς τῆς μιαρᾶς καὶ βεβήλου καινοφροσύνης ἐργάτας· ἔσται γὰρ ὑμῖν ὁ μισθὸς οὐκ ἐλάττων τῶν ἐνταῦθα κεκμηκότων.

 

πάντας ὑμᾶς ἀσπάζονται οἱ ἐνταῦθα σὺν ἡμῖν γνήσιοι ἀδελφοί. (Cyril of Alexandria, Letter from Ephesus to the Fathers of the Monastics (“Epistulae Variae”), in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. Edwardus Schwartz, 4 vols. [Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1927], 1.1.2, page 70)

 

 

To the most reverent clergy and the people, from the holy synod.

 

No one who dared to oppose his own Creator escaped divine justice; rather, as soon as he came even into human sight, he was in some measure repaid, because a fuller recompense was being reserved against him for the time of judgment.

 

Thus Nestorius, the renovator of a wicked heresy, having arrived in Ephesus, where are the theologian John and the holy virgin Mother of God, Saint Mary, and having shut himself off from the gathering of the holy fathers and bishops, and not daring to face his guilty conscience, after a third summons was rightly condemned by the vote of the holy Trinity and by their God-inspired judgment, and was formally expelled from all priestly dignity by written record.

 

Rejoice therefore always in the Lord; again I say, rejoice.

 

For the stumbling-block has been removed and the tares have been uprooted from the field of the spiritual place. You, then, rekindle yourselves and, taking up the breastplate of faith, drive far away the workers of the foul and profane new doctrine. For your reward will not be less than that of those who have labored here.

 

All the brethren here with us send greetings to you.

 

Gregory of Nyssa Using θεοπνευστος for Basil the Great's Commentary on Genesis

  

Ταῦτα ποιεῖς, ὦ ἄνθρωπε τοῦ θεοῦ; κατατολμᾶν ἡμᾶς τῶν ἀτολμήτων ἐγκελευόμενος, καὶ πράγμασιν ἐγχειρεῖν τοιούτοις, ὧν οὐ τὸ τυχεῖν μόνον ἐστὶν ἀμήχανον, ἀλλὰ οὐδὲ τὸ ἐγχειρῆσαι, κατὰ γε τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον, ἀνέγκλητον; Τῶν γὰρ κατὰ θείαν ἐπίνοιαν ἐν τῇ κοσμογονίᾳ φιλοσοφηθέντων τῷ μεγάλῳ Μωσῇ, τὰ δοκοῦντα κατὰ τὴν πρόχειρον τῶν γεγραμμένων σημασίαν ὑπεναντίως ἔχειν, ἐπέταξας ἡμῖν διὰ τινος ἀκολούθου διανοίας εἰς εἱρμὸν ἀγαγεῖν, καὶ συμφωνοῦσαν πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἀποδεῖξαι τὴν ἁγίαν Γραφήν· καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ τὴν θεόπνευστον ἐκείνην τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ προκείμενον θεωρίαν, ἣν οἱ ἐγνωκότες πάντες οὐδὲν ἔλαττον τῶν αὐτῷ Μωσῇ περισοφισμένων θαυμάζουσιν· εὖ καὶ εἰκότως, οἶμαι, τοῦτο ποιοῦντες. (Gregory of Nyssa, In Hexaemeron, “Prooemium” [PG 44:61])

 

 

Are you doing this, O man of God? Are you urging us to dare what is undaring, and to undertake things of such a kind that not only is it impossible to attain them, but even to attempt them, at least in my judgment, is not blameless? For among the things philosophically treated according to divine insight in the creation of the world by the great Moses, what seem, according to the surface meaning of the written words, to be at odds with one another, you have ordered us to bring into a coherent sequence by some consecutive line of reasoning, and to show Holy Scripture to be in harmony with itself; and this after that God-breathed exposition of our father on the present subject, which all who know it admire no less than the very things so ingeniously handled by Moses himself. And rightly and reasonably, I think, they do this.

 

Ronald L. Eisenberg on Modern Jewish Traditions Concerning the Dead

  

Autopsy

 

Whether autopsies are permitted is an extremely controversial issue among traditional Jews. It brings into direct opposition two fundamental principles—kavod ha-met (reverence for the human body after death) and pikuach nefesh (the preservation of life). Many rabbis have argued that the biblical requirement for burial as soon as possible (Deut. 21:22–23), combined with the prohibition against desecrating the corpse (nivvul ha-met), forbids mutilation of the body for post-mortem examination. However, others have countered that reverence for the corpse must yield to the superior value of life and its preservation. Indeed, the duty of saving and maintaining life, which includes even cases of a doubtful nature, overrides all but three commandments of the Torah (against idolatry, adultery, and murder).

 

It was not until the 18th century, when human bodies began to be commonly used systematically for medical research, that the permissibility of autopsies for medical research and saving lives became a practical halakhic question. The first clearly recorded ruling permitting an autopsy in the interest of the living was issued in a responsum by Ezekiel Landau of Prague. However, it was strictly limited to a situation in which, at the time of death, there was in the same hospital another patient suffering from the same symptoms, so that the autopsy could be of immediate value in saving a life. The problem became an important issue in Israel with the establishment of the Medical School of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Rav Kook, the usually liberal Ashkenazic chief rabbi of Palestine, entirely forbade the autopsy of Jewish bodies for medical purposes. However, a 1949 agreement between Hadassah Hospital and Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog, which was incorporated into Israeli law four years later, permitted autopsies in the following situations: (1) when the civil law demanded it in cases of crime or accidental death, (2) to establish the cause of death when it was doubtful, (3) to save lives (i.e., when an autopsy may yield medical information that would directly benefit another person), and (4) in cases of hereditary disease, when an autopsy may directly benefit the survivors. Before an autopsy could be performed, it was necessary to obtain the signatures of three doctors. The medical dissection must be performed with the utmost respect for the deceased. Any organs dissected were to be handed over to the hevra kadisha for burial after the necessary examinations had been performed.

 

As autopsies became more routine and after allegations of widespread abuse of the legal safeguards, certain Orthodox circles in Israel agitated to have the law amended by reverting to the strictly limited permission given by Rabbi Landau. Consequently, in 1980 (despite strenuous opposition by Israeli medical researchers), the law was changed to make it more difficult to justify the need for performing an autopsy. Autopsies are now permissible only if there is a specific legal or medical reason to warrant one in a given case.

 

Although from the halakhic point of view the objections that apply to autopsies also apply to dissection for the purpose of anatomic study, enough people bequeath their bodies for this purpose that it has not sparked substantial religious opposition. The only restrictions are that the remains be buried in a timely fashion according to Jewish law and custom and that the decision be in accord with the wishes not only of the deceased but also of his or her family. Today, medical schools in the United States have a sufficient supply of bodies of unknown, abandoned individuals from county morgues. Therefore, Jews should not volunteer to have their bodies dissected, for there is no medical need to override the respect for a corpse required by the concept of kavod ha-met.

 

There is general agreement among halakhic experts that autopsies are permitted in the case of violent or accidental death or when a crime is suspected.

 

Organ Donation

 

As with autopsies, the issue of organ donation revolves around the often-conflicting principles of kavod ha-met and pikuach nefesh. In this instance, however, these two basic tenets work in tandem, for it is assumed that deceased persons would be honored if their organs were used to preserve the life of another. Giving a person the opportunity to live by donating an organ is also the ultimate act of hesed, lovingkindness to one’s fellow human being.

 

Despite this predominant opinion that delaying burial to permit organ transplantation does not diminish respect for the dead but, on the contrary, enhances it, some rabbis have limited this practice to varying degrees. The most restrictive opinion permits donations only when there is a specific patient who stands to lose his or her life or an entire physical faculty. According to this view, if a person can see out of one eye, a cornea may not be removed from a cadaver to restore vision in the other eye. A corneal transplant would be permitted only if both eyes were failing and the prospective recipient would be in danger of losing all vision, thus incurring serious potential danger to life and limb. Moreover, since the patient for whom the organ is intended must be known and present, donation to an organ bank would not be permitted.

 

Nevertheless, since there now is a shortage of donated organs and it is certain that all will be used for transplantation, most Orthodox rabbis have relaxed the restrictions on organ donations. However, there are still major problems associated with giving permission for transplantation. One is precisely defining the moment of death. According to classical Jewish sources, there were two criteria to determine when death occurred. The majority rule was the breath test, in which a feather was placed beneath the nostrils of the patient; movement of the feather indicated life, whereas lack of movement signified death (Yoma 85a; PdRE 52). This test was based on two biblical verses: “God breathed life into Adam” (Gen. 2:7), and the Flood killed “all in whose nostrils was the merest breath of life” (Gen. 7:22). A minority view in the Talmud maintained that the cessation of heartbeat was also required to determine death (Yoma 85a). Later codifiers insisted on both respiratory and cardiac manifestations of death.

 

Moses Isserles, acknowledging the difficulty of accurately distinguishing death from a fainting spell, argued that even after the cessation of breath and heartbeat one should wait a period of time before assuming that the patient is dead. In a 1988 ruling approving heart transplantation, the chief rabbinate of Israel effectively accepted the modern definition of death as a completely flat electroencephalogram (both cortical and brainstem function), which indicates the cessation of spontaneous brain activity.

 

Some Orthodox Jews resist organ donation because of the concept that death does not come at a clear, definable moment but rather occurs in stages over time. According to rabbinic lore, the complete severing of the relation between body and soul does not take place until three days after death (Gen. R. 100:7; Lev. R. 18:1; MK 3:5). During that time, the soul hovers over the grave in the hope that it may be restored to the body, departing only when decomposition begins. This was an explanation for the belief that the grief of mourners naturally becomes most intense on the third day after the death of a loved one. Moreover, this concept led the Rabbis to permit relatives to watch graves for three days in case the interred body was still alive, “for once it happened that they watched one who thereupon continued to live for 25 years and another who still had five children before dying” (Sem. 8:1). Some even believed that the soul continues to have some relationship with the body for 12 months, until the body has disintegrated (Shab. 152b–153a). Medieval folklore often spoke of the “spirit community,” in which life continued after physical death. Thus the combination of all these factors makes it understandable why some families are hesitant to donate the organs of their relatives.

 

The Talmud (Av. Zar. 29b) and Maimonides clearly indicate that it is forbidden to use a cadaver for some other purpose or extraneous benefit. Modern rabbis have employed ingenious reasoning to argue that organ donation and transplantation do not violate this rule against deriving benefit from the body (hana’ah min ha-met). Some of the arguments are as follows:

 

            1.         The prohibition against deriving benefit from a cadaver is of rabbinic origin and thus may be overridden for medical purposes.

 

            2.         Even if the prohibition is of biblical origin, what was forbidden was only conventional uses of the cadaver, not such “nonconventional” ones as medical treatment.

 

            3.         The prohibition was designed to ensure a timely burial that would prevent dishonoring the cadaver so that, once the bulk of the remains have been properly buried, individual organs can be used for transplantation without violating the original prohibition.

 

            4.         Once an organ has been transplanted, it is no longer considered as dead tissue, since it literally has been revitalized in the body of the recipient.

 

Another objection to organ transplantation is the belief among some that one must be buried complete to be resurrected whole. According to this view, donating an organ would leave the deceased without that part when the dead are brought back to life. Medieval philosophers ridiculed this concept. For example, Saadiah Gaon pointed out that if one believes that God created the world from nothing, one should surely believe that God can revive the dead even if a few parts are missing. Except for the most extreme branches of ultra-Orthodoxy, virtually all rabbis agree that saving life in the here and now clearly and unequivocally takes precedence over whatever one believes about future resurrection. (Ronald L. Eisenberg, The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004], 110-14)