GEN1476 If the unborn child is not considered a nefesh, why should its destruction not be allowed under all circumstances? Why is only a threat to the mother’s life or health an acceptable reason for therapeutic abortion? One answer is given by Rabbi Ya’ir Bacharach who, contrary to the Mishnah in tractate Arachin 1:4, states that one waits for a condemned pregnant woman to give birth because a potential human being can arise from each drop of human seed (sperm). Interference with this pregnancy would constitute expulsion of semen for naught, an act akin the coitus interruptus as practiced by Er and Onan [this verse] and strictly prohibited by Jewish law. This reason and prohibited therapeutic abortion upon demand is also subscribed to by others.  Responsa Ateret Chachamin, Ehven Ha’ezer no. 1; Responsa She’elat Yaavetz, Vol. 1. No 43 by Rabbi Jacob Emden.  A second reason for not allowing abortion without a specific indication is that the unborn fetus, although not a person, does have some status. This is evident from the laws regarding ritual impurity and offerings that a woman who aborts after 40 days of conception must adhere to. These requirements are similar to those prescribed following the live birth of a child. Thus the fetus may be considered as a “partial person.” Responsa Tzonfat Paneach, Vol. 1, no. 49   A third reason for prohibiting abortion on demand is that one is not permitted to wound oneself Bava Kamma 91b; Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Chovel U’mazik, Chapter 5, Par. 1 and thus a woman undergoing vaginal abortion by manipulative means is considered as intentionally wounding herself. At least two Rabbinic authorities adhere to this viewpoint. Responsa Marahit, Vol. 1. No. 99 by Rabbi Joseph Trani; M.Y.H. See ref. 59   A fourth reason for prohibiting abortion without maternal danger is asserted by at least one Rabbi Responsa Beth Shlomoh, Choshen Mishpat no. 132 who states that the operative intervention entails danger. One is prohibited by Jewish law from placing oneself in danger based upon Deuteronomy 4:15: “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves…” Another reason for prohibiting therapeutic abortion in cases where no threat to the mother exists is stated by the present Chief Rabbi of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman.  He states that one may desecrate the Sabbath to save a life or preserve the health of an fetus in order that the child may observe many Sabbaths later. Ramban on Niddah 44b  As a result, destroying the fetus, although not legally murder, is nevertheless forbidden because of an appurtenance to murder.   Rabbi Bacharach, who permits   abortion prior to 40 days of pregnancy because the fetus has no status at all but is considered mere fluid, is taken to task by Rabbi Unterman who states that even prior to 40 days there is an appurtenance to murder. Another argument of Rabbi Unterman is that a fetus, even less than 40 days after conception, is considered a potential (literally: questionable) human being which, by nature alone, without interference, will become an actual human being. Thus a potential person (sofek nefesh) has enough status to prohibit its own destruction. A final argument to Rabbi Unterman comes from the interpretation of R. Ishmael for the Scriptural verse Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God   did He make man.”   This can be translated“ whoso sheddeth the blood of man in man, his blood shall be shed…”. The “man in man” in interpreted to mean a fetus. Sanhedrin 57b This Noachidic prohibition of killing a fetus applies also to Israelites even though the Jewish legal consequences might differ.   A final reason for prohibiting abortion on demand in Jewish law is suggested by the present Chief Emmanuel Jakobovits  Jakobovits, I. “Jewish Views on Abortion,” in Abortion and the Law, edited by D. T. Smith pp 124-143 and Belgian Rabbi Moshe Yonah Zweig, among others. They point to the Mishnah in Tractate Oholoth 7:6 which permits abortion prior to birth of the child only when the mother’s life is in danger. The implication is that when the mother’s life is not at stake, it would be prohibited to kill the unborn fetus. (By Fred Rosner, "The Jewish Attitude Toward Abortion") KELLNER 262-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1474 Although this story is about interrupted coitus and not masturbation, its negative view of “spilling semen” is considered the basis for the prohibition against male masturbation (hence the term “onanism”). The Mishnah and Gemara elaborate on this prohibition Mishnah Niddah 2:1, Niddah 13a-b, as does later Jewish law. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 23:2. Female masturbation is almost never mentioned, though the Talmud does describe one woman’s practice of having intercourse with a phallus-like object in negative terms. Avodah Zarah 44a. Today more people describe masturbation as a positive, healthy part of human sexuality. Elliot Dorff suggests that masturbation should be permitted on the grounds that its physiological ill effects, as described by doctor and important legal authority Maimonides, have since proven to be untrue. “A Jewish Perspective on Birth Control and Procreation,” in Ruttenberg, Ed., The Passionate Torah, pp. 158-9. See also Elliot N. Dorff, Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics, pp. 116-20. Rebecca Alpert points out that the connection between the story of Onan and masturbation is not necessarily one to be taken for granted. She writes, “What was Onan’s crime? The most obvious conclusion is that it was his refusal to comply with the task his father set for him, which was to impregnate Tamar. So although the term ‘onanism’ should refer to a refusal to follow orders to take a stance against the custom of levirate marriage, it refers instead to the method Onan used to accomplish this act, namely, ‘letting his seed go to waste.’” She suggests that masturbation should be reframed in Jewish life based on Jewish values, including those of self-care, self-knowledge, preparation for connection with others, and privacy. Rebecca Alpert, “Reconsidering Solitary Sex from a Jewish Perspective,” in Ruttenberg, Ed., The Passionate Torah, p. 182, 187-9. OXFORD 391

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

GEN1478 One who fondles children, [i.e., leading to his arousal and the ejaculation of semen, cf. Nidah 13b), or masturbates, using his hand or foot, is punishable with misah bidei Shamayim [Divine capital punishment] (i.e. for wasting his semen).  Our Sages, z”L, said Nidah 13b that his punishment is equal to that of the Generation of the Flood, which corrupted its ways. Similarly, one who performs a deed such as that of Er and Onan – “to thresh within and ejaculate without,” so as to waste semen – is sentenced to death, as the pasuk says [this verse]. The pasuk also says concerning those who waste semen Isaiah 57:5, “You who stimulate yourselves under the elah-trees, under every luxuriant tree – [you] who slaughter the children [by wasting semen, he has slaughtered the children that would have been born of that seed. Maharsha, Nidah 13a).  GATES 285-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1479 R. Ami said: “Whoever arouses licentious thought in himself is not admitted into the domain of the Holy One Blessed be He, it being written there: ‘And it was evil in the eyes of the L-or,’ and elsewhere Psalms 5:4: ‘For You are not a God who desires evildoers; evil shall not dwell with You’” Niddah 13b TEMIMAH-GEN 159

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1480 See [[GEN1466]] Genesis 37:32 examine FREUND 87-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1481 R. Shmuel b. Nachmani said: “If someone begins a mitzvah and does not finish it, and someone else comes along and finishes it, he buries his wife and sons, as it is written: ‘And Shua’s daughter died,’ and Er and Onan had died. Sotah 13b TEMIMAH-GEN 160

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1482 He thought her a harlot because she covered her face? R. Elazar said: “Because she had kept her face covered in her father-in-law’s house [which explains why Judah did not recognize her now],” as R. Shmuel b. Nachmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: “Every daughter-in-law who is modest in her father-in-law’s house merits that kings and prophet descend from her.   Whence is this derived? From Tamar [kinGodavid; prophet-Isaiah]” Sotah 10b TEMIMAH-GEN 161

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1483 It would seem to be permitted to deceive someone who has deceived you, in order to undo the damage. … According to an ancient tradition – which Torah law later incorporated – since both of Shelah’s brothers had been childless at the time of their deaths, [Judah] was obligated to marry Tamar. … Tamar, who was legally forbidden to marry any other man, set out to deceive and seduce Judah into sleeping with her … [s]he did this because she did not want to be left both unmarried and forever childless.   The biblical text clearly sees Tamar’s act of deception as a legitimate act of self-defense on her part (indeed, Perez, the older of the twin sons who resulted from this act of deception, became an ancestor of King David, and thus of Judaism’s messianic line). Judah himself recognized that Tamar’s act was justified.   When he learned of her deception, he declared Genesis 38:26, “She is more righteous than I.” TELVOL1:435-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1484 Although it may not have been the original intent of the biblical writers and editors, the story of Judah and Tamar [this chapter] and its placement in the text can inform Jewish attitudes about sexual activity.   The ideal is a committed relationship; if that ends, the remaining partner is able to pursue other sexual relationships.   For Tamar, after the death of her husband, it is another husband.   For Judah, after the death of his wife, it is a non-committed sexual liaison.   The biblical text makes no judgment about Judah’s relations with a prostitute (Tamar in disguise) or about Tamar’s decision to play the role of a prostitute in order to become pregnant by her father-in-law Judah.   The problem comes in Judah’s not honoring his responsibility to secure another sexual partner/husband for Tamar.   Additionally, the story is a seemingly incongruent interruption of the Joseph saga.  However, it precedes the attempted seduction of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife.   Joseph manages to escape though Potiphar’s wife punishes him with an accusation of rape.   The two stores, read side-by-side, might be examples of appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior.  The actions of Judah and Tamar, who are both without committed relationships, fall inside the norm of appropriate sexual behavior. The conduct of Potiphar’s wife, a married woman seeking sex from Joseph, a man not her husband, falls far outside it.  AGTJL 173

SHOW FULL EXCERPT