Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Abortion Igros Moshe (C.M. 2:69)

Igros Moshe (C.M. 2:69) Abortion is prohibited also  for the pain of the mother both for Jews and non-Jews.  Tosfos (Sanhedrin 59a) states explicitly says it is obviously prohibited for Jews since whatever is prohibited to non-Jews is also prohibited to Jews and it is considered murder. .It raises the question but for a Jew it is permitted to save the mother while this is not so for a non-Jew? It answers that for a Jew it is a mitzva to kill the embryo to save the mother.while the heter of pikuach nefesh does not apply to a non-Jew  We see that Tosfos views abortion as murder.  While it does state twice in Tosfos (Nida 44a) that abortion is permitted. But it is obvious that is a mistake. According to the Rambam abortion is only permitted in life threateing situations prior to the baby’s head coming out because the embryo is considered a rodef. Why does he have that condition since the baby still endangers the mother even after the head comes out? The simple answer is that when the head comes out we don’t know who is the rodef since the mother endangers the child and the child endangers the mother and thus Rambam also views abortion as murder. Furthermore abortion is prohibited unless it is certain to the doctor that the mother will die otherwise and thus abortion can not be done even when it is known the baby will not live long such as in Tay Sachs even if this will greatly upset the mother.  Therefore I told the religious doctors not to test for Tay Sachs Regarding the Chavis Yair which permits abortion – that is an erroneous text. Regarding the Maharit there are two contradictory tshuvos. And one of them must be a forgery and therefore the one that permits abortion should be ignored.  Similarly what is stated in the Rashba about the Ramban that he performed abortions for non=Jews. That Rashba does not appear in our Rashba and also must be a forgery.  Both the Tzitz Eliezar and the Seridei Aish (Noam volume 9) say that the Chavis Yair holds abortion is prohibited as I have written. I was astonished to read the analysis of the sefardi posek Rav Pealim( 1:14) who says abortion would be permitted except for the concern for prostitutes. He then notes that Tosfos (Chullin) prohibits abortion and then apparently rules that l’chatchila abortion should not be permitted though he doesn’t write that it is prohibited from Tosfos (Chullin) and Rambam. He does note the Maharit (99) that permits abortion  but not Maharit (97) which prohibits abortion and thus we must conclude that the Maharit holds abortion is prohibited as I noted before and he is not a source for this halacha. The Seridei Aish improperly cites the Ramban claiming he holds abortion is not a Torah prohibition and yet it is permitted to profane the Shabbos to save it. In fact the Ramban that is cited does not say that the Torah permits abortion but only that until the head appears there is no requirement to save its life and therefore its life is not valued as that of its mother but nevertheless Shabbos can be profaned to save its life.  It is thus obvious that the Ramban holds there is an obligation to save the life of the embryo and that surely there is a Torah prohibition to kill it. It is not clear how he derives the conclusion that the Ramban permits abortion and his words should not be relied upon on his view in this matter at all.  In Rav Yakov Emden (1:43) I saw words that should not be said that an embryo of a mamzer can be aborted because when there was Sanhedrin, if a pregnant woman was to get capital punishment they would not wait until she gave birth to execute her. So today when there is no Sanhedrin and even if she was not sentenced to death the law of execution still exists. His words are total nonsense even though a great man wrote them but since the sentence was not passed the accused is not liable to the death penalty. Therefor anyone who kills someone today who was not sentence directly by Sanhedrin is a murder no matter what crime they committed and even if there were witnesses and warning.  This that he adds that a person today  who transgressed a serious crime intentionally and commits suicide it is a meritorious act.  These words are absurd and no one should pay attention to them.  I am writing this analysis of abortion because of the great disregard for this since many countries in the world permit abortion including the government of Israel. Since a great  unknown number of babies have been aborted in modern times there is a great need to make Torah restrictions and surely not leniencies concerning the severe crime of murder. Consequently I was astonished to read a teshuva of an Israeli scholar who wrote to the director od Shaarei Tzedek Hospital in the journal Asia (13) permitting abortion for Tay Sachs after the third month he claims it is permitted since abortion is only a rabbinic prohibition according to many poskim.  He cites the Maharit (99) that permits abortion without mentioning that Maharit (97) prohibits abortion.  He also cites Rav Yaakov Emden as permitting when in fact he prohibits abortion with the language in case of great need it is permitted. So even if you want to claim there are justifications for leniency there are  more to prohibit.  He also cites Rav Pelim. He concludes to be lenient in the case of Tay Sachs and abort until seven months. . This time frame makes no sense as no one talks about it. Therefore it is clear and obvious as I have written  that according the Rishonim and Poskim that abortion is prohibited as actual murder,even for mamzer and Tay Sachs. One should not err and rely on the tshuva of this chachom

.

52 comments :

  1. On what basis is he saying tosfos in Nida is a mistake?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "obvious that is a mistake" Umm. Is this kind of like the stance "This source is a forgery" when someone considers the views of that source beyond the pale even though there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a forgery? Or is there something else going on here?

    ReplyDelete
  3. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/08/abortions-that-are-kosher/

    A very detailed survey of various poskim

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Tzuriel is not a major posek

    ReplyDelete
  5. no question the author of this analysis is a great "posek."
    Daniel Sayani is a student of traditional Jewish texts, with an eye towards their contemporary applications. He has been widely published on issues of religion, ethics, and their geopolitical dimensions, and he is excited about entering the next phase of his academic and professional life. He is also an ordained Orthodox rabbi, and a firm proponent of mesorah. Rabbi Sayani is frequently consulted for his expertise in matters pertaining to chevra kadisha and Jewish end-of-life practices.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not looking for a "heter" - I want to know on what basis RMF negates the Tosafot? who has done this before in history?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You want to judge whether Rav Moshe knew what he was saying or had the right to say what he did?!

    ReplyDelete
  8. You already posted a Teshuva of his about disagreeing with Gedolim, so that cat is out of the bag.
    If it is an innovation, need to know how that authority is derived. If it is not an innovation, need to see who else has done this in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ruach hachaim. R Chaim of volozhin quotes the Gra. Sometimes the truth is with the student, not the teacher.
    Asking a question, and you are rattled, uncharacteristically.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow! so ypu are big enough to ask these questions. You seem to be unaware of the full quote of Rav Chaim

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rav Moshe was not authorizing you to do anything

    ReplyDelete
  12. what nonsense "Wow! so you are big enough to ask these questions."
    I will ask any question i like

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why does he have to be big to ask a question?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Of course but that doesn't mean that they are respectfully asked

    ReplyDelete
  15. how do you know what my intentions are with this?
    I am curious to know how a Gadol haDor in recent times can make a statement that if made, eg by a YU professor, he would be accused of apikorsus.
    Rav Ovadia Yosef mentioned R Yom Tov Shwartz and said that he has to speak respectfully about the Posek hador and not belittle him or use rude language. I have done neither. I have simply asked a technical question about the halachic process.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I suggest you reread your original comment

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Furthermore, the
    Mishna states that the struggle is conditional on being ‘in the dust at
    their feet’ which means we must be humble and submissive and figuratively
    sit on the ground before them in these discussions. "


    - Rav Chaim of Volozhin

    ReplyDelete
  18. so how about those who pillory R' Shmuel K today?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Like Rav Sternbuch or Rav Miller or Rav Feldman? i.e. vast majority of contemporary poskim?!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Does that mean anyone else can as well?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Of course it depends on how you ask. To state that he poskened the way an apikorus would is not the way to ask

    ReplyDelete
  22. https://seforimblog.com/2020/11/rabbi-steinman-and-the-messiah-part-1/

    unfortunately, such terrible things were said about a recent Gadol hador

    ReplyDelete
  23. And therefore you identify with Peleg?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nope, and therefore I disagree with anyone who is mevazeh Talmidei chachamim. the actual discussion that Rav Shteinman ztl had is an interesting one - but that is for a different thread.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am a supporter of Rav Shteinman ztl, and of Rav Kanievsky shlita and Rav Edelstein shlita, although i am not chareidi or Bnei Brak.

    ReplyDelete
  26. R' Moshe's technique was to dismiss out of hand opinions (even in the rishonim) that he disagreed with by saying they were forgeries. This is not the only time. R' Dovid Cohen of Brooklyn said that R' Moshe did not really think they were forgeries, only that it was a polite way of saying he thinks it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  27. “Abortion Igros Moshe (C.M. 2:69)” Torah thought words of Abaye daf hayomi on Torah’s promise that the front plate the high priest wears cancels sins of unclean in the Holy Temple.
    Yoma 7b
    “Abaye said: If the front plate were broken there is no conflicting opinion, all agreeing that it effects no pardon . The dispute concerns only the case when it is hung up on a peg, R. Judah holding, [“It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things, that the Israelites consecrate, from any of their sacred donations, it shall be on his forehead at all times, to win acceptance for them before the Lord.” (Exodus 28:38] And it shall be upon the forehead [of Aaron] and he shall bear, whilst R. Simeon bases his opinion on, And it shall be continually upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord. Now what does continually mean? Shall I say that it shall indeed be continually on his forehead? How is that possible? Must he not enter the privy occasionally, must he not sleep at times? Rather must it all imply that [the front plate] continually effects pardon.”

    Hertz Chumash p. 343: “Aron shall bear. The meaning is probably this: What is presented to God must be without blemish, and the mode of presentation must be in agreement with the previous rites. Should there, however, be any imperfection in the sacrifice, or any error in the manner of offering, the High Priest assumes the responsibility. He is the custodian of the sanctuary; and by virtue of his sacred office, exemplified by the goldplate on his forehead, he can secure Divine acceptance of the offerings brought to the altar of God.”
    Beautiful. Where is the front plate of the high priest? Some say in the Vatican. Plain reading this front plate has magic qualities.

    Today with the majority of the Jewish people, beyond doubt, living in Israel---we need the magical front plate. On Israel’s 1st birthday there were 650,000 Jews in Israel and 5.5 million in America. Today, Israel’s 73rd birthday .... I’m so glad I made aliya 7/9/1991. Thank you God.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rav Moshe did not have a high opinion of the Tzitz Eliezar and vice versa

    ReplyDelete
  29. R' Dovid Cohen says that R' Moshe was not making a historical assertion about the authenticity of the text. He was saying that it is not to be regarded as part of the normative halachic discourse, and this was a nice way of saying it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. >That Rashba does not appear in our Rashba and also must be a forgery.
    Am I the only one that notices that RMF, zt"l, uses the forgery excuse whenever he comes up against something he can't otherwise explain?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Did you bother reading the Teshuva or you just KNOW!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Interesting but irrelevant - if you read the tshuva he doesnt say or indicate that at all

    ReplyDelete
  33. is that a sarcastic comment? ( I am not familiar with the author)

    ReplyDelete
  34. > And one of them must be a forgery and therefore the one that permits abortion should be ignored. Similarly what is stated in the Rashba about the Ramban that he performed abortions for non=Jews. That Rashba does not appear in our Rashba and also must be a forgery.

    Twice. In this teshuvah, he says it twice. There's other places too, where a Rishon says something that doesn't follow the party line and he declares that it must be a forgery. It just seems an easy out, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  35. For those interested in the most correct answer to R' Moshe Feinstein's problem with the Rashba, who allegedly states that the Ramban performed abortions for non-Jews, as supposedly quoted in the Shut Maharit (1:99).

    The answer is, that careful reading of the first edition of the Shut Maharit (Constantinople, 5402), shows that the Rashba NEVER said anything of the sort in the name of the Ramban, and the misunderstanding is due to the fact that the Lemberg edition of the Maharit is missing a crucial period (!), which thereby gives this illusion.
    [This fact was pointed out to RMF, and is found in the next siman in Igros Moshe (C.M. 2:70)].

    For those capable of following in Hebrew, here is my explanation spelled out in greater detail.

    יש שהשתבשו בהבנת דברי המהרי"ט, ומצטטים אותו בזה הלשון: "וזכורני שראיתי להרשב"א ז"ל בתשובה שהעיד על הרמב"ן ז"ל שנתעסק עם גויה אחת שתתעבר בשכר ולהתעסק עמה שתפיל פרי בטנה וכו'" [וכן מופיע בשו"ת מהרי"ט, דפוס לבוב].

    ברם, האמת יורה דרכו, והמדקדק בגוף התשובה יראה שהמהרי"ט נשאל שם ב' שאלות, א', האם מותר להתעסק עם גויה להתעבר, ב', האם מותר להתעסק עם גויה שתפיל. על השאלה הראשונה השיב, דמותר בכה"ג שמשלמת על כך, ומייתי על כך מעשה רב מהרמב"ן [המובא בשו"ת הרשב"א (ח"א, סי' קכ)] שנתעסק עם גויה אחת שתתעבר בשכר. וצריך להיות שם נקודה, כלומר, סוף פיסקא. ואחר כך מתחיל להתייחס לשאלה השניה, "ולהתעסק עמה שתפיל פרי בטנה וכו'" [אח"כ מצאתי כן להדיא בשו"ת מהרי"ט דפוס ראשון (קושטאנדינה, ת"ב [את"א]) שמתחיל שם פיסקא חדשה לגמרי].

    ובכך הצדקנו את הצדיק, דמעולם לא מצאנו שהרמב״ן התעסק לעזור להנכרית שתפיל עוברה, וגם המהרי"ט לא אמר כן מעולם.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Proud Conservative MomApril 20, 2021 at 11:44 PM

    WOW!! Another stellar example of it being absolutely 💯percent crucial, to know all of the complete facts.
    Thank you most kindly, for that education!

    ReplyDelete
  37. To me that doesn't actually portray the stance in any more charitable light and doesn't make it nicer. Of course, he can reject different views as he sees fit, but I would think other poskim would not be beholden to that.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rav Moshe makes a point that since abortion is rife, even in Israel, he is finding for it to be assur. These comments have been described as "teleological".
    Similarly, with the smoking teshuva, since it was widespread even amongst great rabbis, he did not rule it to be assur outright.
    So , from my mouse's perspective, the gadol hador takes every factor into consideration, not just a balance of textual authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Of course he doesn't. If he wrote that it would defeat the entire purpose. He did not want to say flat out "this Rishon is wrong," so he says "it must have been a scribal error." But he does not actually believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. No poskim are beholden to R' Moshe in anything.

    ReplyDelete
  41. And therefore you think it is no big deal to disagree with his clear psak?!

    ReplyDelete
  42. A posek can , Rav Moshe said so himself.

    ReplyDelete
  43. said that anyone can reject his psak even if they can't disprove what he said?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Nope - a posek with sources and proof or different interpretation.
    A less controversial example - international dateline. Chazon ish held one opinion, other poskim disagreed. How can anyone disagree with the chazon ish? They did, but were not apikorsim.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That was not Rav Moshe's approach. BTW no body says you either accept the psak or you are an apikorus. There is the concept of ailu v'elu. Rav Moshe never claimed infallibilty but he also didn't ever say everyone was correct
    As note on the recording you posted, Rav Moshe did not acknowledge the validity of any view on abortion other than his own

    ReplyDelete
  46. In matters of abortion, there are many many rabbonim who do not follow R' Moshe's opinion. They don't shout it from the rooftops, but people who are in the types of situations that need a psak know who to go to.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I don't "know this" at all. I heard it from Rav Dovid Cohen of Flatbush. He said it on the Headlines podcast about abortion a couple of years ago. You can ask him how he knows it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm not disagreeing with your comments.
    Rsza also agreed with Rav Moshe, but directed the questioner to the Tzitz eliezer, for a kula. (According to the same recording).

    ReplyDelete
  49. we don't know why. Maybe she was obviously demanding an abortion

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.