Babies for sale: Producing babies for sale with surrogate mothers

Time

It's a money-making scheme that's been described in court as a “baby-selling ring,” which had brokered deals for at least 12 unwitting couples before being dismantled by the FBI. According to the Los Angeles Times, Theresa Erickson, a noted San Diego fertility attorney, and Maryland attorney Hilary Neiman, who is well-known in surrogacy circles, were charged with wire fraud; the coordinator, Carla Chambers, was charged with "monetary transactions in property derived from illegal activity." All three pleaded guilty over the last few weeks in federal court. They have yet to be sentenced. [...]

Rav Wosner: Mandated reporting of crime is permitted - even if results in death

Rav Wosner(Shevet HaLevi 2:58): … Concerning the issue of reporting the tax cheat to the government see Bava Metzia (83b) concerning R’ Eliezer the son of Rav Shimon bar Yochai. The gemora reports that he reported thieves to the government. This is proof that where the government has authorized a Jew to report thieves that it is permitted. Even though he was criticized “how long are you handing the people of our G‑d to be killed” – because the punishment for thieves in those days was death. This is relevant also for a similar criticism from Eliyahu Hanavi to R’ Yishmael which is reported in that gemora. However the actual halacha seems that even when it results in the death penalty it is considered “the law of the land is the law.”  See the Ritva on that gemora which is found in the Shita Mekubetzes. …Also look at the Responsa of the Alshech who states that a person is not considered an informant for those things required by the law of the land….It is also obvious that this is not comparable to the case of R’ Eleazar ben R’ Shimon (Bava Metzia 83a) which involved danger to the person arrested. In contrast in our case here when they will just punish the person arrested and there is never a threat to life.

Rashba:Destroy even a sofek rodef - for self protection

Rashba(1:181): Question: Regarding an incident described in Bava Kama (117a). A certain man wanted to reveal the straw of another to the authorities - knowing that it would be confiscated. He appeared before Rav who ordered him not to reveal it. The man responded that he wasn’t going to listen to Rav and that he would reveal it. R’ Kahana who was sitting before Rav killed the man by ripping out his windpipe… This raises a serious question. Just because a person insisted that he was going to inform the authorities about another person’s straw he deserved to be killed? Furthermore at that point it wasn’t certain that he was actually going to do that which he threatened. So how can he be killed on a doubt - perhaps he was simply making an empty threat? A moser (informer) is like a snake and whoever wants to kill him has the right. This that you ask how it is possible to kill him when it is not certain that he will carry out his threats. If he regularly informs then his threat is considered as if he will certainly do it. Thus the case of one who repeatedly informs is governed by the rule of self-defense, “you should kill someone who comes to kill.” Thus we see that Rav Shila (Berachos 58a) did not delay killing someone who threatens to inform on him. Furthermore all those who inform – even if it just involves money – is considered a murderer. We don’t say that we should wait till he murders and only then take him to beis din to be tried and executed. However even regarding a person who doesn’t habitually inform on others, if it is obvious that he wants to inform - as was the case of Rav Kahana where the person was told not to inform and he arrogantly said that he was going to inform – it is considered that we clearly know that he will do it. Even with this degree of uncertainty - the informer is killed. Even a third party can save the intended victim by killing the moser since it is equivalent to saving a pursued person by killing the pursuer (rodef). We don’t entertain the possibility that even though he is actively pursuing the victim that perhaps he will have second thoughts and not carrying out his threats.

Maharam Shick:Calling the police- even when permitted - is not for Gedolim

Maharam Shick[i](C.M. 50): [In the case of someone’s brother who had died suddenly and his sister‑in‑law is suspected of poisoning her husband. Based on Bava Metzia (83b) regarding R’ Eliezer catching Jewish robbers for the Roman the halacha would allow reporting her to the police.]. While that is the halacha, nevertheless that gemora itself indicates that it is inappropriate for gedolim to be the ones to report the transgressor to the secular authorities. This is also the view of the Rashba cited by the Beis Yosef (C.M. 388). An even greater proof against reporting transgressors to secular authorities – even when there is a possible danger in not reporting – is found in the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:5) writes that if non‑Jews specify which Jew they want and they will kill all the Jews if he isn’t handed over – they should give him over. However the Rambam notes that if that wanted Jew deserves the death penalty he can be given over to save the others – but this halacha is not to be publicized. This is also the view of the Yerushalmi (Terumos 8:4)…. Consequently while one should not protest against those who follow the straight halacha and report the criminal to the authorities - which has many poskim to rely on - nevertheless the gedolim should not get involved in reporting these crimes but rather should be passive. This is as we saw with Shimon ben Shetach who did not have proper evidence that someone was a murderer - even though it was obvious – and therefore he did nothing. Also look at Sheilas Yaavetz (2:9)…

---

[i]  מהר"ם שיק (חושן משפט נ'): אמנם כל זה לדינא אבל מהתם עצמו מוכח דלכל הפחות אין לגדולי ישראל להתאמץ ולהשתדל וכמ"ש הרשב"א בתתשובה הנ"ל המובאת בב"י סי' שפ"ח. וגדולה מזה אפילו יש חשש סכנה לכלם כ' הרמב"ם דאפילו יחדוהו ואפילו חייב מיתה דאין מורין כן. וכמו"ש בפ"ה מה' יסודי התורה הלכה ה' והוא מהירושלמי (תרומות ח:ד), והגם דהב"ח בתושבה סי' מ"ג צידד בזה וכ' סברות לחלק ולדבריו יש גם כאן מקום לחלק ולהתירץ מ"מ הש"ך ביו"ד סי' קנ"ו סקט"ו לא ישרו בעיניו החילוקים עיי"ש. ולכך נהי דאין למחות לאחרינא ומאלה דעביד ומשתדל כדין עביד דיש לו הרבה פוסקים לסמוך עליהם. מ"מ עכ"פ אין לגדולי ישראל להשתדל בזה אלא להיות בשב וא"ת וכמו שאמר שמוען בש"ט ומה אעשה שאין דמך מסור בידי ועיין בשאילת יעב"ץ (ב:ט) וכעת אינו בידי כו' והמקום יפרע מהם וד' יגזור פרצת עמו בני ישראל ברחמים ...

Impact of access to seforim on computer/Internet and nature of halacha

Halacha and the Internet by Rabbi Ari Kahn 

Born in Brooklyn NY, moved to Israel in 1984. I teach and write about Torah topics. Author of "Explorations" on the weekly Parsha and "Emanations" on holidays - both published by Targum/Feldheim http://rabbiarikahn.com

While Jews, especially traditional ones, seem to have an aversion to the concept of evolution, halacha itself, the stuff of which Jewish observance is made, may be seen as evolving. We who accept that Torah is the Word of God, and that the Written and Oral Torah were given to us, through Moshe, are aware that, as new situations arise, halacha adapts – has always adapted -  in an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary fashion. 

At times, though, catalysts of more dramatic change present themselves: Cataclysms, especially those that cause massive population shifts, tend to impact halachic thinking and action in more discernable increments. Nonetheless, we may say that halacha is impacted and affected, rather than pointing to blatant, obvious "changes." Part of the impact is due to what and how people learn.[1]

Throughout Jewish history, catastrophe has often given rise to the perceived need to collect data, to preserve what runs the risk of being lost. Thus, after the destruction of the First Beit Hamikdash we find the canonization of Tanach. After the destruction of the Second Beit Hamikdash, the Bar Kochva rebellion and Hadrionic persecution, the Mishna emerged in an edited form. After a major earthquake destroyed the north of Israel, the Talmud Yerushalmi was edited. In the wake of the Spanish Inquisition, the Shulchan Oruch emerged. This reaction, which we may call "preservation as a means of self-preservation," is not always immediate, but the pattern of reactive codification and archiving is unmistakable.. [...]

Orthodoxy & homosexuality: Helping gay men marry lesbian women

Time Magazine

Rav Kook:Superior morality of masses, reporting sexual abuse & Aguda

 Seforim Blog New Writings from Rav Kook part 5. by Dr. Marc Shapiro 

[I wish to thank Dr. Shapiro for drawing my attention to the following]

Let me also return to the issue of the Jewish masses’ natural morality vs. the rabbinically tuned morality of the scholars, and how according to R. Kook the former is superior to that of the latter. I was asked if I can provide some examples of this. I think the most obvious such example is the response to sexual abuse that we have witnessed in the Orthodox world. While the natural impulse of the masses was that abusers must be immediately removed from any contact with children, many of the learned rabbis were able to come up with all sorts of reasons why this was not necessary, and why the police should not be called. Over time the view of the rabbinic class has evolved and many of them now advocate a strong response to sexual abuse. However, what took them a long time to get to was immediately understood by the Jewish masses, and they understood it intuitively. Years from now people will wonder how it was that rabbis refused to protect children. It will be incomprehensible to them how this could have happened. We who lived through this experience know that it was precisely the pressure on the ground, from the Jewish laypeople (and the bloggers and newspapers), that forced changes in this matter.[3] Here I think is a good example where talmudic learning led scholars לטהר את השרץ בק"ן טעמים, while the Jewish masses, with their intuitive natural morality, saw that evil must be exposed and they emerged victorious.[4]

 ---------------------

Footnote 3

A friend insists that there is no difference between Klein's position and that of Agudat Israel. This is not true at all. Whereas Klein states that someone can never be turned in to the police, the Agudah position is that a molester can be turned in, but only after a rabbi gives approval. The Agudah position continues to develop, and I have no doubt that in the end the Agudah will end up holding a position identical to that of the RCA. I also think that it is public pressure that will move Agudah in this direction, as public pressure has been responsible for all the adjustments in the Agudah's position that we have seen until now.

Yet even without public pressure, the current Agudah position is so untenable, that is will have to be updated. For one, it asks people to violate the law. The law is clear that some people are obligated to contact the police when they suspect child abuse. By insisting that a rabbi be consulted before doing so, mandated reporters are being put in the position of being told by a rabbi to refrain from doing something that the law requires. Do the Agudah constituents realize that listening to the rabbi in these circumstances can open them up to both criminal and civil penalties? [...]

Finally, unlike so many of the cynics in our community, I don't think the Agudah position is all about protecting rabbis, guilty or not. I really do believe that the Agudah recognizes that there is a problem. It is convinced that the rabbis it will charge with examining abuse cases will indeed make sure that molesters are turned in. The problem, however, is that we have seen all this before. We have seen over and over again that it is precisely the rabbis who have failed in this matter, often because they are not willing to turn on their own. It was precisely because of this that the community of laypeople rose up and said "No more." One doesn't need to be a prophet to see that by relying on individual rabbis to determine if an accusation of sexual abuse is credible, there will continue to be cover-ups. (Am I wrong in assuming that these cover-ups never would have happened if women were in charge? Would mothers ever have permitted child molesters to continue to prey on the young?)

The Agudah position is thus both a public relations and legal disaster in the making. The Church tried such an approach already and it doesn't work. I don't understand why such smart people in the Agudah don't see how their new position is doomed to failure.