GEN346 The release of the Jewish woman from the commandment of procreation has made possible the evolvement of a concept of woman as a personality and not as a child-bearing machine. Certainly woman is involved in the commandment to preserve the race, but it is her privilege to determine whether she becomes involved or not. The rabbinic opinion on this subject and its formulation in Jewish law may have been the first stage in the full emancipation of woman.  The freedom of woman from the obligation to propagate may be viewed also from another vantage–point. Woman has from time immemorial been regarded in all ancient religions as the fertility symbol par excellence. The orgiastic rites and the institution of sacred prostitution in the worship of the goddesses of fertility, whether Astarte, Aphrodite, or Venus, were accepted as an integral part of man’s religion. The liberation of woman from the obligation of procreation would tend to disassociate her from serving as a symbol of fertility. The props would thus be removed from under one of the oldest pagan rites known to man. That the exception of women from the commandment of procreation is not contrary to the literal meaning of the Biblical text is confirmed by [this verse]: “Therefore shall a man forsake his father and mother and cling to his wife.” It is a man who abandons his parents’ home to seek a wife and not vice versa. The comment of Philo on this passage is in harmony with our remarks above: “And most excellent and careful w it not to say that the woman should leve her parents and be joined to her husband – for the audacity of man is bolder than the nature of woman … but that for the sake of woman man is to do this. Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin, Bk. 1. No 29 ROSNER 69-70

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN407 See [[GEN27]] Genesis 1:12 good  ROSNER 60-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN422 Before Adam sinned it was not necessary for him to till the soil. “With the sweat of your face will you eat bread” [this verse] is indeed a curse, but it is a dispensation as well. Without such dispensation Adam would have had no right to plow the field or to uproot thorns and thistles. One who enters his neighbor’s field and engages in such acts is an intruder and usurper. Since the land was created by God, Adam had no right to till the soil unless given specific dispensation.  In declaring, “By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread” God at one and the same time grants dispensation for tilling the soil and indicates that henceforth it is the divine will that Adam do so. Adam may not longer simply rely only upon the largess of God; he must till the soil for sustenance. ROSNER 22

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN553 See [[GEN27]] Genesis 1:12 good  ROSNER 60-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN555 Is the commandment of procreation applicable to non-Jews as well as Jews?  On the surface it would seem obvious that the obligation devolves upon them as well, for was this commandment not given to Adam and Noah, the fathers of the human race? Thus, one of the great codifiers of early times, Rav Ahai of Shabha, She’eltot No 165 explicitly states that the commandment is of universal scope. However, most of the codifiers have maintained that a non-Jew may remain celibate and not thereby evade the fulfillment of the Divine commandment.  The ground for the exclusion of Gentiles from this commandment is to be found in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 59a, which states “Every commandment that was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai applies to both Israel and the sons of Noah; a commandment that was given to the sons of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai is intended only for the sons of Israel and not for the sons of Noah.” This declaration implies that the Siniatic revelation is the source of the commandments that bind both Israel and the nations. The Noachide revelation as such is no longer a living tradition among the nations of the world cf. Bava Kamma 38a. Except insofar as it manifests itself in various religious traditions, both ancient and more recent and is known only through the Torah given at Sinai. Hence, the acceptance of the Noachide commandments must be based upon the Written and Oral law which alone have preserved the record of the Noachide revelation. One who observes these commandments because of their reasonableness is regarded as a wise, but not as a God-revering, man.  Maimonides, Melakhim, VIII, 11, according to the correct reading.  Whatever was repeated at Sinai from the original revelation was directed both to Israel and humanity at large. What was not repeated was removed from its former area of application and limited to Israel. Sanhedrin 58a The commandment of procreation was not repeated at Sinai. Therefore, it no longer applies to the Noachides. Ibid, 59b. The question, of course, arises as to the reason for the exclusion of Noachides from the obligation to propagate. Perhaps the fact that the sexual instinct had been used perversely by the Generation of the Flood and had been elevated to a divine status [this verse] was responsible for its removal from the sphere of Divine commandments. The preservation of the species would be assured by the very dint of a most powerful human drive. It may, moreover, be possible that once the earth was replenished with human beings, the commandment was removed from the Noachides and transferred to the children of Israel, who were few in number, Deuteronomy 7:7 to ensure their physical survival, so that their covenant with God will be continued throughout the generations. ROSNER 70

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN623 It is axiomatic, according to Halakhah, that death coincides with cessation of respiration. The primary source of this definition is to be found in Yoma 85a in connection with suspension of Sabbath regulations for the sake of the preservation of human life. The case in point concerns an individual trapped under a fallen building. Since desecration of the Sabbath is mandated even on the mere chance that a human life may be preserved, the debris of a collapsed building must be cleared away even if it is doubtful that the person under the rubble is still alive. However, once it has been determined with certainty that the person has expired, no further violation of the Sabbath regulations may be sanctioned. The question which then arises is how much of the body must be uncovered in order to ascertain conclusively that death has in fact occurred? … the absence of respiration is regarded by all as being conclusive. … The necessity for the examination of the nostrils is based upon the assumption that it is possible for life to exist even though such life may be undetectable by means of an examination for the presence of a heartbeat … In demonstration of the principle that respiration is the determining factor, the Gemara cites [this verse].  [See also Genesis 2:7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN654 See [[GEN151]] Genesis 1:28 fruitful ROSNER-BLEICH 63

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN658 See [[LEV760]] Leviticus 19:29 daughter ROSNER-BLECH 67-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN688 This [this verse’s] earliest and most detailed Biblical prohibition against homicide contains one phrase which is an apparent redundancy. Since the phrase “from the hand of man” pronounces man culpable for the murder of his fellow-man, to what point is it necessary for Scripture to reiterate “from the hand of a person’s’ brother will I require the life of man?” Fratricide is certainly no less heinous a crime than ordinary homicide.  R. Jacob Zevi Mecklenburg, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, Ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbalah, astutely comments that while murder is the antithesis of brotherly love, in some circumstances the taking of the life of one’s fellow man may be perceived as indeed being an act of love par excellence. Euthanasia, designed to put an end to unbearable suffering, is born not of hatred or anger, but of concern and compassion. It is precisely the taking of life even under circumstances in which it is manifestly obvious that the perpetrator is motivated by feelings of love and brotherly compassion which the Torah finds necessary to brand as murder, pure and simple. Despite the noble intent which prompts such an action, mercy killing is proscribed as an unwarranted intervention in an area which must be governed only by God Himself. The life of man may be reclaimed only by the Author of life. As long as man is yet endowed with a spark of life – as defined by God’s eternal Law – man dare not presume to hasten death, no matter how hopeless or meaningless continued existence may appear to be in the eyes of a mortal perceiver. ROSNER 303

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN692 No one has the right to volunteer his life. In Jewish law the right to expose oneself to voluntary martyrdom is strictly limited to cases involving either resistance to the three cardinal sins (idolatry, murder and immorality (adultery and incest)) or "the sanctification of God's Name," i.e. to die for one's religious faith. To lay down one's life in any but these rigidly defined cases is regarded as a mortal offense, (Maimonides, Hil. Yesodei ha-Torah, 5:4), certainly when there are no religious considerations involved (See Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics (1962), p. 53). The jurisdiction over life is not man's (except where such a right is expressly conferred by the Creator), and killing oneself by suicide, or allowing oneself to be killed by unauthorized martyrdom, is as much a crime as killing someone else (based on [this verse] and commentaries).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT