Tzitz Eliezer (13:102) Abortion because of Tay Sachs In all cases the child will die before the age of four after progressive physical and mental deterioration and there is no known treatment. There are tests that clearly establish whether the embryo has Tay Sachs. There is a well-known leniency of Rav Yaakov Emden who allows abortion within the first three months even in cases which are not life threatening to the mother It is permitted in the case of the serious condition of Tay Sachs to abort until seven months. A Jew does not get capital punishment for killing an embryo. In addition many poskim view abortion as only a rabbinic prohibition or merely a restriction for the good of society but not murder and therefore the Maharit (9:97-99) permits a Jew to do abortion when it serves the needs of the mothers health even if not life saving. In addition there is the leniency of Rav Yaakov Emden (1:43) who allows abortion in cases of great need even when it is not life saving but saves the mother from great suffering. . Therefore if there is a need because of great pain or suffering as exists in our case of Tay Sachs (and it doesn’t make a difference if the child is taken away and institutionalized until he dies.) It would appear that if there was a leniency to permit abortion in halacha because of great need of suffering this would be a classic case.. If possible the abortion should be done by a female doctor since according to the view that abortion is prohibited because of wasting seed and that prohibition doesn’t apply to women according to most poskim.
Tzitz Eliezar (14:100) Abortion leniency in cases of great need – in particular for Tay Sachs. Concerning the analysis of abortion done bythe gaon Rav Moshe Feinstein shlita., I reviewed it two or three times, and even though there is much to comment and criticize nevertheless I have decided for practical reasons not to do so and will only briefly comment on fundamental points and not with a lot of noise but in a quiet calm manner and let the reader decide between us. Regarding Tosfos (Niddah 44) which states that abortion is permitted, he takes the simplest path and declares that it is an error in the text and that it should say patur (exempt) rather than permitted. He is not bothered by Tosfos makes the statement twice that abortion is permitted and simply states that Tosfos really views abortion as prohibited because it is permitted to profane Shabbos to save its life. With all due respect Sir this is not acceptable. We are dependent on the previous generations and they struggled each one in his own way to try and establish what the intent of Tosfos (Niddah) was and how to reconcile the words. Not a single authority concluded like this easy way to declare that there was an error in the text. . I am totally amazed how he could ignore all the sources from previous generations including some close to the period of Rishonim that clearly disagree with him and furthermore don’t view abortion as murder. .
Where can one find the "well known leniency of Rav Yaakov Emden who allows abortion within the first three months even in cases which are not life threatening to the mother"? Is that recorded anywhere in Rav Yaakov Emden's piskei teshuva? Is it really that straightforward?
ReplyDeletethe sources are stated in the post
ReplyDeleteIf memory serves, the Tzitz Eliezer was an outlier on this.
ReplyDeleteyes he still is
ReplyDeleteNo comment
ReplyDeleteWow! what can a no comment comment mean?
ReplyDeleteit means when there is a machloket between Giants, a little mouse like me should keep quiet
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/964154/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/rav-moshe-and-his-halachic-adversaries-the-tzitz-eliezer-and-abortion/
ReplyDeletetalk about the machloket
Excellent discussion - you should listen to it
ReplyDeletegood point!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting what he says about RSZA
ReplyDelete“Abortion - the lenient view” Torah thought on אחרי קדשים
ReplyDeleteויקרא פרשת קדושים פרק יט פסוק יד
לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:
מדרש הגדול ויקרא פרשת קדושים פרק יט פסוק יד
ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל. לפני סומה בדבר. בא ואמר לך בת איש פלוני מהיא לכהונה אל תאמר לו כשרה והיא אינה אלא פסולה.
Pesachim 22b
But what of the limb of a living animal, though it is written, thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh [Deut. XII, 23. This is interpreted as an injunction against eating a limb torn from a living animal.], yet it was taught. R. Nathan said: How do we know that a man must not hold out a cup of wine to a nazirite or the limb of a living animal to the children of Noah [The technical designation for all but Jews. A nazirite must not drink wine, nor may non-Jews eat of the limb of a living animal.]? Because it is stated, thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind [Lev. XIX. 14. This is understood metaphorically: do not lead anyone to sin.].
“You shall not curse the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:14).
This is a Torah prohibition. What if a pregnant woman comes to a rabbi and asked the rabbi if she may have an abortion? This lady is certainly not blind. Everyone talks and reads about the Jewish view on abortion. My theory. If the rabbi wants to tell the lady the lenient view, this rabbi would not be in violation of Leviticus 19:14. Yes I would be angry at the rabbi. Why? I’m against abortions. Sorry, I'm not reading the lenient views on abortion.
Daf Hayomi Yoma 9a:
ReplyDelete“Because he [Johanan, the high priest] sent into all the districts of Israel and he found that they [the great mass of the people, exclusive of the Haberim. V. Glos. s.v. haber] were separating only the great heave-offering [V. Sot. 48a]; [it is also right that the Sages did not impose upon these bakers] the first tithe and the poor man's tithe [The first tithe belonged to the Levite and was due annually; the second tithe was to be consumed by the owner in Jerusalem, annually; the third tithe was due every third year-it was the poor man's tithe.], because [of the principle that] the claimant must produce evidence [The heave-offering of the tithe, like the terumah (v. Glos.) itself, was, on penalty of death through divine action, forbidden to be eaten by a non-priest. With regard to the poor man's tithe, the baker could say: If you want to assert legal claim thereto, you will have to prove that the ‘am ha-arez, from whom I bought it, has failed to give tithe thereof before he sold it to me. Unless such proof was forthcoming, there was no legal claim on the part of the Levite on the non-Levite poor to its possession.]; but the second tithe, let then [the baker] separate, take it up to Jerusalem and eat it there! ‘Ulla said: Because these parhedrin [Paredroi-assessors, counsellors. The Mishnah J. reads paledroi. The Tosef. paredroi. These assessors had a bad reputation from their oppressive measures at the market places, over which, as commissioners, they had jurisdiction. So that, apart from the fact that the high priests, during the second Temple, were changed as often as these officials, the fact that they were dubbed paredroi indicates that there must have been more than one point of contact between these officials and the priests.] were beating them all the twelve months [Usually their office was of twelve months’ duration. As the next line shows, these officials made full use of their twelve months’ opportunity for abuse of power.] and telling them ‘sell cheap, sell cheap,’ the Sages did not burden them [to set apart the second tithe and take it up to Jerusalem] [The Sages preferred to give the baker haberim the benefit of the doubt that the ‘amme ha-arez, as a rule, do give the tithe.]”
Wow what a story of abuse of power of officials in Jerusalem during the first Holy Temple. Rabbis, by “You shall not curse the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:14), are extremely careful not to place stumbling blocks before the blind.