Abortion - the lenient view

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. .

Advising Against the Use of the International Beit Din: A Translated Letter From Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Shlita

 https://jewishlink.news/features/9425-advising-against-the-use-of-the-international-beit-din-a-translated-letter-from-rabbi-hershel-schachter-shlita

Editor’s Note: The recent publication on Torahweb.org of a letter  by Yeshiva University Rosh Yeshiva Rav Hershel Schachter, shlita, criticized the work of the International Beit Din and advised all not to rely on their rulings, and for any associated rabbanim to resign. The original was printed in Hebrew and is available here: http://torahweb.org/torah/docs/ibd-machaa.html. We present a translation here, as well as a response from representatives of the organization he is addressing. The response from the International Beit Din can be found here.  

It is a tremendous chutzpah that these three rabbis joined this beit din. Questions of this most serious nature—permitting a woman to remarry without a divorce—were brought to Rav Yitzchak Elchanan, after him to Rav Chaim Ozer and in our time to Rav Moshe Feinstein, all of whom were recognized as the greatest of their generations. It is forbidden for average rabbis to involve themselves in these matters because whoever does not understand the nature of marriages and divorces cannot be involved with them. In our generation, we present these questions to the few Torah scholars who have specialized in these laws and apprenticed under greats, and who therefore have a tradition about where to be lenient and where strict. 

 Rav) Tzvi (Hershel) Schachter, Tammuz 5775

I also agree to this objection with full force:

(Rav) Gedaliah Dov Schwartz, 21 Tammuz 5775

It is superfluous to add that there is no ruling and no judge but nonsense of fools who have appointed themselves authorities:

(Rav) Nota Tzvi Greenblatt, Memphis, 22 Tammuz 5775

The words of the above giants are clear in law and in practice, and I also join in their objection:

(Rav) Avrohom Michael Union, 26 Tammuz 5775

I also join in objecting to this brazen breach:

(Rav) Menachem Mendel Senderovitz, 3 Av 5775

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

.

אמונה בצדיקים יותר מהקב"ה

 

רוחו של הצדיק כירחפת עלינו

בירמא דהילרלא קדישא, כאשן יהודים יושבים ומתאחדים לשמר ולזכור של הצדיק הרה "ק רבי ישעי'לה בן רבי משה מקערעסטיר זכותו תגן עלינו, בוודאי ובוודאי שרוחו הגדול מרחפת עלינו ואפשר לפעול וכרת בזכותו הגדולה.

כדי שנזכה אכן שרוחו הגדולה תרחף עלינו ונרכל לפעול בזכותו ישועות גדולות, אבר צריכים לדעת את גודל חשיבות האמרנה בצדיקים.
רוחו של הצדיק כירחפת עלינו

בירמא דהילרלא קדישא, כאשן יהודים יושבים ומתאחדים לשמר ולזכור של הצדיק הרה "ק רבי ישעי'לה בן רבי משה מקערעסטיר זכותו תגן עלינו, בוודאי ובוודאי שרוחו הגדול מרחפת עלינו ואפשר לפעול וכרת בזכותו הגדולה.

כדי שנזכה אכן שרוחו הגדולה תרחף עלינו ונרכל לפעול בזכותו ישועות גדולות, אבר צריכים לדעת את גודל חשיבות האמרנה בצדיקים.

אכירנת צרייזים צריכה יהירת ער הסרף

בעניין זה יש מאמר נורא בשם הרה"ק רבי יהושע מבעלזא זי"ע, בפרשת ויצא, כאשר אמרה רחל אמנו ליעקב אבינו: הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי. מיין, ריחו אף יעקב ברחל ויאמר, התחת אלקים אנכי, אשר מנע ממך פרי בטן. על פי זה מסביר הרה':ק מבעלזא כי אמנם עניין האמונה בבורא עולם הינו עבודה גדולה ובשמיים יודעים שיש בה עליות וירידות וצריך להתחזק

בה כל העת. אך אמונה בצדיקים, צוינה להיות אמונה עז הסוף. אם זו אמונה חלשה, זה לא עובד. ועל פי זה הוא מסביר כי 'ויחר אף יעקב ברחל', היה בגלל שהיא אמרה 'ואם אין מתה אנכי', שבכך היא ביטאה שאין לה אמונת צדיקים שלמה בו, אלא היה לה גם צד שלא יכול לעזור לה ואז 'מתה אנכי'. על כך ענה לה יעקב אבינו 'התחת אלקים אנכי' וכי אמונה בצדיק זה אמונה בבורא עולם? אמונה בבורא עולם היא עבודה גדולה ובשמיים יודעים שיש בה עליות וירידות. אך אמונה בצדיקים, צוינה להיות אמונה עז הסוף.

כאשר אבר יושבים כעת ביראה ובאהבה יחד ומעלים את זכררנר של הרה"ק מקערעסטיר, אבחנן בוודאי מאמינים בצדיק, מאמינים שהוא יכול לפעול בעבררינו בפני כסא הכבוד בשמיים בררדארת מוחלטת, בבחינת "ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדן", כי רק אז אבחנן בוודאי ניוושע בזכותו.