GEN700 The rules and regulations governing suicide are discussed in at least two tractates of the Talmud.  In Baba Kamma 61a is found the following: “No Halakhah may be quoted in the name of one who surrenders himself to meet death for the words of the Torah.” Further in the same tractate (91b) we find: “…who is the Tanna that maintains that a man may not injure himself? It could hardly be said that he was the Tanna of the teaching: ‘And surely your own blood of your souls will I require’ [this verse] which Rabbi Eleazar interpreted to mean that I will require your blood if shed by the hands of yourselves (i.e., suicide), for murder is perhaps different …” Rashi interprets this scriptural verse to mean that even though one strangles oneself so that no blood flows, still I will require it. The major Talmudic discussion of rules governing suicide is found in chapter 2 of Semahot. Here we are told that we do not occupy ourselves at all with the funeral rites of someone who committed suicide willfully. Rabbi Ishmael said: “We exclaim over him “Alas for a lost (life). Alas for a lost (life).” Rabbi Akiva said to him: Leave him unmourned; speak neither well nor ill of him.” Further “we do not rend garments for him, nor bare the shoulder (as signs of mourning), or deliver a memorial address over him. We do, however, stand in a row for him (at the cemetery after the funeral to offer condolences) and recite the mourner’s benediction for him because this is respectful for the living (relatives). The general rule is that we occupy ourselves with anything that is intended as a matter of honor for the living …” ROSNER 323-4

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN718 See [[LEV423]] Leviticus 19:14 stumbling block ROSNER-BLECH 144-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN715 Feticide … is expressly forbidden under the statues of the Noachide Code. The Noachide prohibition is derived by R. Ishmael Sanhedrin 57b from the wording of [this verse].  Rendering this verse as “Whoso sheddeth the blood of man, within man shall his blood be shed,” rather than “Whoso sheddeth the blood of man, by man [i.e., through a human court] shall his blood be shed, R. Ishmael queries, “Who is a man within a man? … A fetus within the womb of them other.” Tosafot deduces that this practice is prohibited to Jews as well by virtue of the Talmudic principle, “Is there anything which is forbidden to a Noachide yet permitted to a Jew?” Application of this principle clearly establishes a Biblical prohibition. (Continued at [[LEV950]] Leviticus 24:21 human ROSNER-BLEICH 137) ROSNER 135-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN729 A rationale for the exemption of women from the obligation of procreation is given by the great Gaon of this century, Rabbi Meir Simhah ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, in his Biblical commentary. Meshekh Hokhmah to this verse. He writes: “It is not amiss to assume that the reason why women are exempt from the obligation of procreation is grounded in the reasonableness of the judgments of the Lord and His ways. The Torah did not impose upon Israel burdens too difficult for a person to bear … Women whose lives are jeopardized by conception and birth were not enjoined …  [See also Genesis 1:28  multiply ROSNER 64] ROSNER 65

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN740 Of Ham, the son of Noah, we are told that “he saw the nakedness of his father” and told his two brothers [this verse]. Why should this act have warranted the harsh imprecation hurled at Ham by his father? The rabbis offer two answers: one, that the text implied that Ham castrated Noah: second, that the Biblical expression is an idiom for homosexual intercourse (see Rashi). On the scriptural story of Potiphar’s purchase of Joseph as a slave Genesis 39:1, the Talmud comments that he acquired him for homosexual purposes, but that a miracle occurred and God sent the angel Gabriel to castrate Potiphar Sotah 13b. (Continued at [[LEV254]] Leviticus 18:22 male ROSNER-BLEICH 202) ROSNER 201-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN874 Is Artificial Insemination from a Donor (A.I.D.) Permissible?   … the question … has not yet been definitively answered.  Rabbi Waldenberg categorically prohibits it as an utter abomination, and cites Rashi’s comment on a Talmudic passage. Rashi interprets the Biblical phase “…to be a God unto thee and to thy see after thee” [this verse] to mean that God favors only those whose genealogy (i.e. paternity) is known. Rashi commentary to Yevamot 42a.   The phrase in the Talmujd itself reads “to distinguish between the seed of the first (husband) and the seed of the second” Thus, Rabbi Waldenberg prohibits A.I.D. because the genealogy of the child is unknown. Another reason given by Rabbi Waldenberg and in many other responsa is “lest he marry his sister” as mentioned in the Talmud. Therefore, avoidance of possible incest would interdict A.I.D. A third reason for prohibiting it is that after the “proxy” father’s death, his other children may “steal” the portion of inheritance belonging to the child produced by A.I.D. Alternatively, the child may wrongly receive inheritance from his mother’s husband upon the latter’s death. Therefore, the question of stealing an inheritance makes A.I.D. forbidden. Even if the donor’s identity is known, continues Rabbi Waldenberg, A.I.D. is still prohibited, one reason being that the scriptural phrase “And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife to defile thyself with her” Leviticus 18:20 includes the prohibition of having one’s semen enter another’s wife even without the sexual act. There is, generally, strong rabbinic opinion, including that of Jakobovits, that A.I.D. should be condemned as “an act of hideousness” or “an abomination” or “human stud farming.” Although, technically, A.I.D. does not produce an illegitimate offspring, according to most viewpoints, it should be outlawed lest it pave the way to increased promiscuity. Only under the situations of extreme need does rabbinic opinion, as stated by Schwardron S.M. Schwadron, Maharsham (Brezany, 1910), vol 3. No. 268 and Bauol Y. Baumol, Emek Halakhah (New York, 1934), no 68. permit A.I.D. ROSNER 110-11

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN880 In female-to-male transformations a simulated male organ is often created by means of skin grafts and silicone forms. In some cases this effect is achieved by freeing the clitoris from its connective tissue. There is no question that this newly fashioned organ need not be circumcised. This is abundantly clear from the conclusion reached by She’elat Yavez, I, no. 171, in the discussion of a similar question arising with regard to a congenital defect.   Yosef et Ehav cites the comments of Yad Ne’eman, who maintains that circumcision would be unnecessary even if the new organ were physiologically similar to that of a male in every respect. In the opinion of the latter authority, the phraseology employed by Scripture, “uncircumcised male” [this verse] applies solely to an individual who is a male at the time of birth. A peripheral halakhic question which arises in cases of sexual transformation concerns which of the blessings included in the morning service should be recited by an individual who has undergone a transsexual procedure. Is the person in question to recite the blessing “Who has not made me a womah” or the blessing “Who has made me in accordance with His will”? The question is a compound oned involving two separate issues. The first question is identical with the issue previously discussed: Is the individual’s gender deemed to have been changed or is it deemed to have remained unchanged? [The author discussed differing rabbinic opinions without citing a consensus, although the citations appear to favor the view that surgery has no halakhic effect upon gender status with respect to, for example, mitzvot performance obligations and divorce requirements – AJL]. Secondly, assuming that surgical transformation is to be recognized as indeed having effected a transformation from the point of view of Halakhah, there exists a halakhic controvery with regard to whether the blessings to be recited each morning are determined by the individual’s status at birth or by his status at the time the blessings are pronounced. The difference of opinion is reflected in the controversy with regard to the recitation of the blessing “Who has not made me a gentile” by a proselyte. Rambam maintains that since the convert was born a gentile, it follows that he cannot truthfully pronounce the blessing “Who has not made me a gentile.” Rashi disagrees and maintains that the blessing is fundamentally an expression of thanksgiving for being bound by the commandments of the Torah incumbent upon members of the Jewish faith and hence may be pronounced by the proselyte, since at the time of the recitation of the blessing he is indeed a Jew and subject to all mitzvot.  The blessings “Who has not made me a woman” and “Who has made me in accordance with His will” reflect the differing status of men and women with regard to the performance of mitzvot. Hence, if the surgical transformation effects a change in the eyes of Halakhah, the proper blessing should, according to the opinion of Rashi, reflect the changed status, whereas, according to the opinion of Rambam, the usage “Who has made” or “Who has not made” in this context would express a falsehood.   It has been suggested that the entire question may be obviated by composing a text which would be more appropriate to such situations. According to this view, the proper blessings would be “Who has transformed me into a male” and “Who has transformed me in accordance with His will.” Quite apart from the unwarranted assumption regarding divine approbation implied by this phraseology, it may be objected that in the absence of any liturgical formulation pertaining to “transformation” the proposed texts do not constitute rabbinically ordained formulae and hence cannot serve as valid substitutes for statutory blessings. Although Judaism does not sanction this reversal of sex by means of surgery, transsexualism is a disorder which should receive the fullest measure of medical and psychiatric treatment consistent with Halakhah. Transsexuals should be encouraged to undergo treatment to correct endocrine imbalances, where medically indicated, and to seek psychiatric guidance in order to alleviate the grave emotional problems which are frequently associated with this tragic condition. ROSNER 194-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1473 … Nahmanides … said that “Sexual intercourse is holy and pure when carried on properly, in the proper time and with the proper intentions. No one should claim that it is ugly or unseemly. God forbid … In a similar vein, Rabbi Jacob Emden is cited as having said: “ … to us the sexual act is worthy, good and beneficial even to the soul. No other human activity compares with it; when performed with pure and clean intention it is certainly holy. There is nothing impure or defective about it, rather much exaltation … Thus, whereas Christian teaching promulgates that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage and sexual intercourse, Judaism requires that not only need procreation result from sex, but mutual pleasure is sufficient reason for the sex act.   There are at least six methods of contraception mentioned in the Bible and Talmud. The first of these is “coitus interruptus” which is unequivocally prohibited as stated by Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Issurei Bi’ah 21:18: “It is forbidden to expend semen to no purpose. Consequently, a man should not thresh within and ejaculate without … As for masturbators, not only do they commit a strictly forbidden act, but they are also excommunicated. Concerning them it is written, ‘Your hands are full of blood’ Isaiah 1:15, and it is regarded as equivalent to killing a human being.” A similar prohibition is found in Asheri Teshuvot ha-Rosh 33:3, and in Caro’s Shulhan Arukh (Even ha-Ezer 23:5) as well as in other codes of Jewish law.   The scriptural source upon which is based the prohibition of improper emission of seed is not clear, although many consider the act of Er and Onan [this verse, 7—10] to be the classic case of coitus interruptus. The Talmud, however, Yevamot 34b, views the act of Er and Onan as unnatural intercourse. Er wanted to preserve his wife’s beauty by preventing her from becoming pregnant, and Onan sought to frustrate the Levirate law. Other possible Biblical sources outlawing emission of seed for naught have been suggested. The Decalogue’s commandment against adultery is said to have wider application, perhaps to immorality in general. The generation destroyed by the great flood is thought to have been liquidated because of the sin of improper emission of seed. Others say that this cardinal sin in implied in the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.  Finally, states Feldman, the injunction (in Leviticus 18:6) against incest, literally, “immorality with one’s own flesh” (ish ish el kol she’er besaro) includes improper emission of seed.  Whether this offense is considered homicide of only immoral as self-defilement is also a matter of argumentation. The Zohar apparently epouses both reasons. Bringing forth semen in vain would also be prohibited if a man were to use a condom during intercourse, even if the sex act were performed in the natural way. Procurement of sperm for medical reasons (i.e., not in vain) is permitted under certain circumstances, such as sterility testing.   Since the commandment of procreation in Judaism rests primarily on the man, any contraceptive method employed by him such as coitus interruptus or the condom would be strictly prohibited because of the Onanite nature of these methods. Even in situations where contraception is permitted by Jewish law, such as for situations in which pregnancy might endanger the life of the mother, these methods are not allowable. ROSNER 90-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1500 See [[GEN740]] Genesis 9:22 nakedness ROSNER 201-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1586 See [[GEN250]] Genesis 2:7 nostrils ROSNER 284-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT