EXOD585 See [[EXOD543]] Exodus 21:12 man ROSNER-BLEICH 120

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD608 See [[LEV950]] Leviticus 24:21 human ROSNER-BLEICH 137

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD902 See [[DEUT3]] Deuteronomy 1:11 bless ROSNER-BLEICH 61

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD1057 See [[LEV950]] Leviticus 24:21 human ROSNER-BLEICH 137

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV213 Drawing a parallel from the commandment against the kidnapping and subsequent sale of a person into involuntary servitude [Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7 - AJL], Rabbi Unterman (No'am, VI, 4f; Shevet me-Yehudah, I, 9f) cites the opinion of Rashi, Sanhedrin 85d, who maintains that this prohibition encompasses the sale of an unborn child as well. Although the fetus may not be considered a fully developed person, his kidnapper is culpable because he has stolen an animate creature whose status is conditioned by its potential development into a viable human being. Rabbi Unterman further notes that the unborn fetus lacks human status. Consequently, it is excluded from the injunction, "and he [man] shall live by them" [this verse], which justifies violation of other precepts in order to preserve human life. Numerous authorities nevertheless permit violation of the Sabbath in order to preserve fetal life. Rabbi Unterman views such permission as being predicated upon a similar rationale. Anticipation of potential development and subsequent attainment of human status creates certain privileges and obligations with regard to the undeveloped fetus. Consideration of future potential is clearly evidenced in the Talmudic declaration: "Better to violate a single Sabbath in order to observe many Sabbaths" (Shabbat 151b). Rabbi Unterman concludes that reasoning in these terms precludes any distinction which might otherwise be drawn with regard to the various stages of fetal development.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV214 Human life is sacrosanct, and of supreme and infinite worth. Life is of itself the summum bonum of human existence. The Divine law was ordained only "that man shall live by it" [this verse]. Hence any precept, whether religious or ethical, is automatically suspended if it conflicts with the interest of human life (Yoma 85b), the exceptions being only adultery, murder and immorality (adultery and incest)--the three cardinal crimes against God, one's neighbor and oneself--as expressly stipulated in the Bible itself (Pesachim 25a and b; Yoreh De'ah, 195:3; 157:1; based on Deut. 6:5 and 22:26). The value of human life is infinite and beyond measure, so that any part of life--even if only an hour or a second-- is of precisely the same worth as seventy years of it, just as any fraction of infinity, being indivisible, remains infinite. Accordingly, to kill a decrepit patient approaching death constitutes exactly the same crime of murder as to kill a young, healthy person who may still have many decades to live (footnote five). For the same reason, one life is worth as much as a thousand or a million lives (Footnote six) – – infinity is not increased by multiplying it. This explains the unconditional Jewish opposition to deliberate euthanasia as well as to the surrender of one hostage in order to save the others if the whole group is otherwise threatened with death (footnote seven).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV222 See [[LEV903]] Leviticus 22:32 name ROSNER-BLEICH 327

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV241 See [[GEN874]] Genesis 17:7 your ROSNER-BLEICH 110-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV249 Why does the Torah forbid homosexuality? Bearing in mind that reasons proffered for the various commitments are not to be accepted as determinative, but as human efforts to explain immutable divine law, the rabbis of the Talmud and later Talmudists t did offer a number of illuminating rationales for the law. As stated, the Torah condemns homosexuality as to'evah, an abomination. The Talmud records the interpretation of Bar Kapparah who, in a play on words, defined to'evah as to'eh attah bah. "You are going astray because of it" (Nedarim 51a). The exact meaning of this passage is unclear, and various explanations have been put forward. The Pesikta (Zutartra) explains the statement of Bar Kapparah as referring to the impossibility of such a sexual act resulting in procreation. One of the major functions (if not the major purpose) of sexuality is reproduction, and this reason for man's sexual endowment is frustrated by mishkav zakhur (so too Sefer ha-Hinnukh, no. 209). Another interpretation is that of Tosafot and R. Asher ben Jehiel (in their commentaries to Ned. 51a) which applies the "going astray" or wandering to the homosexual's abandoning his wife. In other words, the abomination consists of the danger that a married man with homosexual tendencies may disrupt his family life in order to indulge his perversions. Saadiah Gaon holds the rational basis of most of the Bible's moral legislation to be the preservation of the family structure (Emunot ve-De'ot 3:1: cf. Yoma 9a). (This argument assumes contemporary cogency in the light of the avowed aim of some gay militant to destroy the family, which they consider an "oppressive institution"). A third explanation is given by a modern scholar, Rabbi Baruch Ha-Levi Epstein (Torah Temimah to this verse), who emphasizes the unnaturalness of the homosexual liaison: "You are going astray from the foundations of the creation." Mishkav zakhur defies the very structure of the anatomy of the sexes, which quite obviously was designed for heterosexual relationships. It may be, however, that the very variety of interpretations of to'evah points to a far more fundamental meaning, namely, that an act characterized as an "abomination" is prima facie disgusting and cannot be further defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matter rests. It is, as it were, a visceral reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evah constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. "This lends additional force to Rabbi David Z. Hoffmann's contention that to'evah is used by the Torah to indicate the repulsiveness of a prescribed act, no matter how much it may be in vogue among advanced and sophisticated cultures: see his Sefer Va-yikra, II, p. 54.).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV254 (Continued from [[GEN740]] Genesis 9:22 nakedness ROSNER-BLEICH 201-2) Post-Biblical literature records remarkably few incidents of homosexuality. Herod's son Alexander, according to Josephus (Wars, I, 24:7), had homosexual contact with a young eunuch. Very few reports of homosexuality have come to us from the Talmudic (TJ Sanhedrin 6:6, 23c: Jos. Ant., 15:25-30). The incidence of sodomy among Jews is interestingly reflected in the Halakhah on mishkav zakhur (the Talmudic term for homosexuality: the Bible uses various terms--thus the same term in Num. 31:17 and 35 refers to heterosexual intercourse by a woman, whereas the expression for male homosexual intercourse in [this verse and Leviticus 20:13] is mishkevei ishah). The Mishnah teaches that R. Judah forbade two bachelors from sleeping under the same blanket, for fear that this would lead to homosexual temptation (Kiddushin 4:14). However, the Sages permitted it (ibid.) because homosexuality was so rare among Jews that such preventative legislation was considered unnecessary (Kiddushin 82a). This latter view is codified as Halackhah by Maimonides (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah 22:2). Some 400 years later, R. Joseph Caro, who did not clarify the law against sodomy proper, nevertheless cautioned against being alone with another male because of the lewdness prevalent "in our times" (Even ha-Ezer 24). About a hundred years later, R. Joel Sirkes reverted to the original ruling, and suspended the prohibition because such obscene acts were unheard of among Polish Jewry (Bayit Hadash to Tur, Even ha-Ezer 24). Indeed, a distinguished contemporary of R. Joseph Caro, R. Solomon Luria, went even further and declared homosexuality so very rare that, if one refrains from sharing a blanket with another male as a special act of piety, one is guilty of self-righteous pride or religious snobbism (for the above and additional authorities, see Ozar ha-Posekim, IX, 236-238).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT