Humanities desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 18

Saying hamotzi for cooked sticky rice

Halachically, if I cook rice (with water, and maybe a little salt) that is naturally so sticky I can mould it into balls, shouldn't one be able to say hamotzi on it? I'm interested in Sephardic / Mizrahi commentary as well. My question is motivated primarily because rice is my staple food. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say a blessing, m'zonót seems more indicated. --Lambiam 05:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger possible area of dispute would seem to be rice bread, something more like bread but made from rice flour without any of the other 5 grains. Although at least one authority still suggests Mezonot for such cases. [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [2], subsection 6. But you're better off asking your local halachic authority than strangers on the internet, especially as most internet resources have an Ashkenazi bias. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When was the earliest time that someone with bullet wounds comparable to those of Ronald Reagan in 1981 could have realistically survived?

When was the earliest time that someone with bullet wounds comparable to those of Ronald Reagan in 1981 could have realistically survived? For those of you who don't know, Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley on March 30, 1981--specifically with one of Hinckley's bullets ricocheting off of Reagan's presidential limousine and hitting Reagan below the armpit, where it subsequently hit one of his ribs and then went into one of his lungs--causing this lung of Reagan's to collapse and ending up one inch or even less than that from Reagan's heart and aorta. Apparently this bullet was designed to explode upon impact but failed to do so but nevertheless the damage that this bullet did, in fact, do--with one collapsed lung and with Reagan bleeding quickly and excessively up to the point that he would die pretty quickly without treatment--was in fact quite significant even by the standards of 1981. Ultimately Reagan's doctors were able to halt the bleeding that Reagan endured, give Reagan a lot of blood transfusions, restore Reagan's damaged lung to full capacity, and remove the bullet from Reagan's lung (near Reagan's heart and Reagan's aorta)--thus ensuring that Reagan's life would be saved and that Reagan isn't going to have any further medical problems as a result of this bullet and shooting.

However, what I was wondering is this--when exactly is the earliest point in history when someone could have experienced shooting injuries comparable to those of Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 and still have realistically survived and recovered afterwards? Any thoughts on this?

I know that former US President Teddy Roosevelt was able to survive getting shot back in 1912, but to my knowledge his injuries back then were much less severe than those of Ronald Reagan in 1981. Specifically, Roosevelt didn't actually have any collapsed lungs and he also didn't suffer from massive and rapid bleeding like Reagan did. Futurist110 (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before antibiotics were developed that can safely be administered intravenously, the patient undergoing such extensive surgery, even when by itself entirely successful, would not have survived the inevitably ensuing infection. I think these only became available after World War II. Another critical issue is the monitoring of the patient's status during a long period of general anesthesia. Anaesthetic machines were developed earlier, but I'm not sure they would have been up to the monitoring task. While I don't dare to pinpoint a year, I guess that 1950 is not far off the mark, medical miracles excluded. --Lambiam 05:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molnar, Thomas; Hasse, Jochen; Jeyasingham, Kumarasingham; Rendeki, Szilard (January 2004). "Changing Dogmas: History of Development inTreatment Modalities of Traumatic Pneumothorax,Hemothorax, and Posttraumatic Empyema Thoracis". Annals of Thoracic Surgery. PMID 14726106. has a section for The Great War Immediate thoracic surgery was rather an exception and was indicated only in cases of major bleeding and uncontrollable pneumothorax, even as early as 1914 on the German side. No major surgeries with this indication took place before 1916 in the hospitals of the Allied forces. cites Duval, Pierre (1919). "Gunshot wounds of the lung and their treatment at the front". Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics. 28. and a couple works in German. A good number of surgeons returned from the trenches with experiences of the capabilities of their own hands and of the lung to survive trauma and aggressive treatment. fiveby (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites the case of Ludwig Rehn who in 1896 "sutured an actively bleeding wound in the right ventricle of a patient who had been stabbed", which is thought to be the first example of heart surgery. Also Robert Edward Gross who performed hole in the heart surgery in 1939. So major thoracic surgery was survivable before antibiotics. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Boer War: A History by Denis Judd, Keith Surridge (p. 139) has an account by the British Chief Medical Officer in the Siege of Ladysmith (1899-1900) reporting the damage caused by the new type of ammunition used by the Boers, by which "Men shot through the lungs have very little trouble from the wounds" (presumably they just stitched them up rather than operating). The older black powder bullets were larger and caused more traumatic injuries. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stitching them up would only work if the bullet has already exited the lung, no? After all, leaving a bullet in a lung could be rather dangerous, no? Futurist110 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Military rifles of that era were much more powerful than now, and would easily pass through a human. The rifle bullet which killed JFK also (allegedly) passed through the chest of John Connally and ended up in his arm. Modern 5.56 mmm bullets are smaller but designed to yaw and fragment inside you. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for the second part of your question, "Over the last century, only four cases have been published of patients sustaining gunshot wounds to the chest, managed nonoperatively, who eventually expectorated [i.e. coughed-up] the bullet". [3] However New evidence says leaving bullets inside of gunshot victims could cause mental deterioration (2017) which says: "First-time gunshot victims tend to be surprised to learn that the bullet often doesn’t need to be removed... This week new data from the CDC warns us that bullet fragments left inside of people can have insidious long-term consequences". Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those soft lead balls would also flatten (or even shatter) if they hit bone right (or armor), leaving a much large exit hole than the entry hole. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also dragging bits of clothing into the wound, hence the custom of putting on a clean shirt before a battle. Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]