- This topic has 120 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ubiq.
There is no such חוות יאיר. True he goes through כדרך הלומדים various קושיות and סברות to answer those קשיות. But l’maskono he paskens the Rambam Rashi and Tosfos who klor learn the sugya in Sanhedrin as רציחה ממש. No one ever quotes any rishonim who argue these Poskim. The acharonim only deal with kashyas (like the Uber of a sotah) and try to resolve them with the osak of the Gemorrah in Sanhedrin.
The maharit you quote is completely סותר a different teshuva in maharit and what he writes in the Teshuva you are quoting is so vait that R Moshe says it was a talmid “טועה ומטעה” who wrote that teshuva. R Moshe (as well as R Unterman) point out that in that same teshuva he quotes a ridiculous teshuva of the Rashba claiming that the Ramban was advising a non Jewish woman ato have an abortion. RMoshe and R Unterman both point out that no such teshuva exists in our Rashba and have no hesitation in saying that is was just a ruse that this טועה ומטעה was מזייף.
Interestingly, at the end of the Teshuva R Moshe says שרי ליה מאריה on the ‘חכם אחד’ who was matir. He also says that this חכם אחד’s chiluk of seven months is just made up out of whole cloth. It has no basis in logic or kabolo. What? Bc at seven months in chazal an Uber is considered viable? What nafka mina does that have ? If it is only a חבלה go up to 9 months. The whole thing is simply ridiculous.
R Moshe , שלא כדרכו, goes out of his way to denounce what is happening in the world regarding the zilzul in רציחה ממש which is abortion.
He was clearly unnerved at this new low in basic morality.
Also, This contradicts Tendlers tzu shtel of what R Moshe probably did say about generally not wanting the Malchus to get involved in religion even if we agree e.g. forbidding an assur type of contraception. Abortion is not a specific religious issue. It is basic morality. To practice it the way it is practiced today is the depths of depravity and how could anyone especially a Jew who claims to be in favor of Hashem and His Torah be in favor of depravity.
Btw, you didn’t answer many of my kashyos on חבלה which is fine. Just know that R Moshe (and re some of them, Tosfos, the חוות יאיר as well) who make these points as well. Not to answer Them is not so fine.
I mentioned the Meharsha why Pharaoh picked Jewish midwifes. Don’t discount the Tzitz Eliezer with his twenty one volumes. There are two ways to pasken, bottom up or top down. Most poskim pasken from bottom up, looking at precedence from other recent poskim, whereas Reb Moshe ztz’l went from top down, learning the gemora first and the rishonim next and ignoring the current achronim.
Avira, I have never seen the title רשכבה’ג on Reb Moshe ztz’l rather than רבן של ישראל.
I know that it is a D&C. Someone else referred to it as a “DNC”. Which actually is the Democratic National Committee. And that is clearly an abortion.
As I pointed out from Rav Chezkinu, that by a Jew, the Torah says it is not retzicha.
BY
Part 1
“There is no such חוות יאיר.”This is incorrect IT is siman 31
At one point he says “וא”כ לפי מ”ש היה היתר גמור שאלתך אשר שאלת מדין תורה לולי המנהג הפשוט בינינו וביניהם מפני גדר פרצות המריצות והזונים אחריהם”
To be clear, he doesnt say its mutar, Hashchasa zera isnt “אף כי י”ל דאשה נמי נהי דלא מפקדא אפריה ורביה מ”מ שייךם בה קצת מצו’ לשבת יצרה כמ”ש ריב”ם בגיטין דמיא לכן אע”ג דמותר לה לשתות כוס עיקרין כבס”פ הבע”י וכמ”ש רמב”ם וטור א”ה סי’ ה’ מ”מ לעשות מעשה לא שרינן”
but its not murder
“But l’maskono he paskens the Rambam Rashi and Tosfos who klor learn the sugya in Sanhedrin as רציחה ממש”
Definitely not “learn klr” There is a stira in Tosfos (see Tosfors Sanhedrin 59a Leica MEidam), Rashi says it isnt murder “Not a nefesh” Rambam does (acording to most )
Though we don;t have to get bogged down on this. As I said earlier there are a few shitos that hold its murder. No question there .
And I am not arguing abortion is muttar, that isnt my opinion at all.
I’m not arguing that it should be allowed in any particular case. I am not a posek, and even if I was such a psak is way above my pay grade.
Sure I can (and have) guided someone who is in such a position to a local center that can direct such questions to Rabbonim that deal with these terrible situations (they never got Avir’as memo “That being said, in practical halacha, the great tzitz eliezer should not be counted together with rav moshe. They were simply in different universes. A psak from the tzitz eliezer when compared to the ineffably vast torah depth and bredth of רשכבה”ג maran rav moshe, is not counted.” )To be clear I am not debating if abortion is if it Deoraysa/Drabbanon due to murder or soemthing else this is not a new question It has been discussed again and again by those way more qualified. I have absolutely nothing to add to that discussion.
I am just commenting on a few incorrect statements you’ve made (and talking in learning a little as questions arise) Here they are:
“Anyone who promotes abortion rights is a racist on a genocidal level.”
““It created a constitutional right out of thin air sans amendment.””
“The abortion issue is not church and state. Abortion is murder. Period”
and
“רציחה is so basic a moral imperative that it’s being a ייהרג ואל יעבור does not even require a posuk; a crude svora suffices.”I asked questions on the first 2 (unanswered sadly) the last two I didnt ask a question because I don’t have any .
the murder comment is debated. and the last one is simply wrong. Mai chazis DOES NOT apply to abortion. WE DO choose one over the other (either because its being rodef, or because its not a nefesh etc etc)BY
Part 2
“you didn’t answer many of my kashyos on חבלה which is fine”
I missed them!ITs not fine, I would never just ignore a question yet keep replying I think that isnt nice. I am sorry I left you waiting for an answer
(I don’t really understand your assessment “you didn’t answer many of my kashyos on חבלה which is fine. Just know that R Moshe (and re some of them, Tosfos, the חוות יאיר as well) who make these points as well. Not to answer Them is not so fine.”
The opposite is true, We are having a conversation. To just idnore Your question isnt nice. I’m not having a conversation with R’Moshe etc, I missed all the questions you think he posed to me, though I am flattered, that you view me as equipped to answer them.I reread your posts looking for the question (and hoping that maybe maybe you had the honesty to answer my question opposed to you,)
I found them, they where aimed at RE not me, which is why I skipped them
Since you want me to address them, I am happy too.
note, I am not saying it is chavala so the question isnt on me. I can give possible answers but the short answer is “I Don;t know”
Ask the MAharit who held that way, ask R’ Shlomo Zalman who is quoted by Nishmas Avraham as saying it is Gezel (I don’t have it with me, he might answer your questions)“A) the drosho from where it is assur is שפך דם האדם באדם.
The Torah clearly is calling this שפיכות דמים. Nu, so you will taana why does a husband get paid for חבלה? Not a particularly bothersome kashya. An eved who is killed also gives the owner a monetary compensation and there surely is no heter to kill an eved.”
There is no heter for chavala either. Calling it Chavala isnt a “heter” to abort. Malbin Pnei chaveiro b’rabim is also called “kei’lo shofech damim ” (wink wink) That doesnt mean it has all the rules of shefichas damim (Though iirc I think tosfos does take it literally that it is yaharog veal yaavor)
B) why do we need to come on to רודף when being mattir when the mothers life is in danger. The simple klal of פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה would clearly apply to חבלה. Nor vus, it is רציחה which only has a heter through the unique vehicle of רודף.”
The minhas chinuch I quoted earlier asks this question he leaves it as Tzorech iyan, (note that therfore we say it is murder , he says explcitly that it is NOT murder, art least for Jews) You cant expect me to have a better answer than the minchas chinuch.
Again. I grant these arent satisfying answers, but as mentioned several tiems I Am NOT arguing abortion is muttar, nor that it is chavala. There are shitos that hols that way. MAreh makom ani loch,
any other questions?
I am adding a part of Rav Tendler zatsals interview that might add some insight because it started off referring to a specific case. It is worthwhile to read it entirely.
The first question was:
Jewish Review: Rabbi Tendler, the recent Long Island court case where a husband sought to terminate the pregnancy of his comatose wife on the theory that such action might help the wife recover created a huge stir in the media. Could you comment, from the point of view of Jewish law, on this case and the court’s eventual decision to allow the termination of the pregnancy?
After a few questions and answers Rabbi Tendler says the following.
Rabbi Tendler: It is important to point out that the thrust to defend the Klein fetus came from the Pro-lifers,who are largely Catholic, and who follow the edict of their Pope, who has been resting his prestige on his ability to prevail on the abortion issue. We must realize that, in the Catholic Church, fetal life takes precedence over maternal life, because in their view, a fetus, unlike the mother, is yet without sin. This is a fundamental difference with the Jewish point of view on abortion.
Jewish Review: And I suppose this is why we don’t see Jewish groups joining the right to life movement.?
Rabbi Tendler: Correct,and this is why a person such as I, who is as opposed to abortion as anyone, will not partake in a joint statement with such groups, for they are actually prepared to commit murder according to our halakha. To sacrifice the woman in order to save the fetus is an act of murder according to Jewish law.I agree that it is possible that Rav Tendler might have made a tzu shtel based on his understanding of Rav Moshe Zatsal’s views of laws that affect religion, but not heard directly from him, his opinion regarding the US making laws regarding abortion.
Another proof is that a woman requiring execution is killed with the fetus together.
Most fetuses are not viable until birth so it is not a nefesh but by the goyim we don’t go after rov, the proof is Pidyan Haben after thirty days.
@meheichi teisi
“I’m astounded that you didn’t already get ripped to shreds by the others in the coffee room.”
This one really aged well lol. I was going to respond to your unintelligent comment but looks like other people got to it before me.Jack, tendler is misunderstanding the pro life position among goyim, and is extrapolating from rav Moshe. He’s also contradicting himself. In the first piece he says not to get involved at all, even if it’s a clear violation of the 7 mitzvos. Later he says that he’s not getting involved because they are advocating what he calls murder. For goyim, the jury seems to be out on whether or not they can kill the baby to save the mother. Is there a din rodef by goyim? Who knows
Avirah,
How can you say that he is misunderstanding the pro life position among goyim when he is referring to a case where the pro-life community went to war against the Jewish family to prevent them from performing an abortion and saving the mother ?
There were some from the pro-life community who agreed in the Klein case that they should be allowed to perform abortion because the Doctors felt that the Mother’s life was at stake. But there were others, who held exactly the way Rabbi Tendler described, and they hired very expensive lawyers and sued to prevent it. It is possible that if this case would have been before RvW or in a post RvW world, the pro-life people would have won and murdered the mother to prevent the abortion.Rabbi Tendler also critically said that the definition of saving the Mothers life Al Pi Halacha is not the same as the Goyim’s definition.
Regarding Rav Tendler extrapolating from Rav Moshe, I already agreed that is a possibility. But you also are only extrapolating.
I don’t know where you see a contradiction in his words in the article.
Please respond to the rest of my comment
That’s the part which is interesting.
Ideally, abortion should be legal when halachically appropriate, but not when assur.
We are unlikely to have the law written that way, so what the appropriate position for a Torah Yid to take (and the public position of our institutions) is something for our gedolim to decide.
Ubiquitin, thank you, but I don’t think I deserve any “credit” for the level of entertainment (or lack thereof) in the cr.
You guys are arguing about a singular decision. Maybe there are different steps here? For example, it is possible to advocate against federal support and encouragement, at the same time not criminalizing individual actions. Proper social policies could significantly reduce unwanted outcomes without having government policing everything
Now that Roe v. Wade is B”H about to fall into the dustbin of history, IY”H the newly constituted Supreme Court will soon overturn other despicable decisions such as Obergefell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.
etc …
Griswold v. Connecticut
Loving v. Virginia
Plyler v. DoeA Louisiana House committee approved a bill this week that defines a fetus as “a human being from the moment of fertilization”.
No, they won’t reinstate Dred Scott. No need to engage in unrealistic scare tactics.
The 4 cases I mentioned are on the fanatical, radical Christian right’s list of goals to accomplish after overthrowing RvW. They have already publicized them. And they will not stop until they accomplish their goal.
Those who helped them out, will not be able to stop them.
modified a bit
No one’s trying to ban interracial marriages. Except, possibly, some quacks. No one serious. So stop with the fake scare tactics.
And if illegal aliens don’t get a free education after breaking into the country, then they’ll be less incentive to illegally enter the country. Sounds like a good idea.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.