LEV257 There is at least one early source which apparently declares that a male cannot acquire the status of a woman by means of surgery. Rabbi Abraham Hirsch (No'am 5733) sites the comments of Rabbenu Hananel, quoted by Ibn Ezra in his commentary on [this verse]. Rabbenu Hananel declares that intercourse between a normal male and a male in whom an artificial vagina has been fashioned by means of surgery constitutes sodomy. This would appear to be the case, according to Rabbenu Hananel, even if the male genitalia were removed [Lengthy footnote containing author's analysis and argumentation regarding this point is omitted here; as of excerpt transcription in February 2020, the footnote is accessible at books.google.com by copying and pasting the sentence preceding it into an internet search engine - AJL]. The corollary to this question arises with regard to a woman who has acquired the sexual characteristics of a male as a result of transsexual surgery. The 19th-century author, R. Joseph Palaggi, Yosef et Ehav 3;5, opines that no divorce is necessary in order to dissolve a marriage contracted prior to such transformation. This author goes beyond the position of Besamin Rosh, who, as noted, did not reach a definitive conclusion in his discussion of the parallel question with regard to sex change in a male. In opposition to R. Palaggi's view it may, however, the argued that gender is irreversibly determined at birth and that sex, in so far as Halakhah is concerned, cannot be transformed by surgical procedures. This position is particularly cogent in view of the fact that fertile organs of the opposite sex cannot be acquired by means of surgery. The view that sexual identity cannot be changed by means of surgery would appear to be the position of Rabbenu Hananel. According to Rabbenu Hananel, this principle would appear to govern all halakhic questions pertaining to sexual identity.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV415 It may also be stated that enticing one into the use of psychedelics [drugs] entails also the issur of ve-lifne iver lo titen mikhshol -- placing a stumbling block before the inexperienced and naïve [this verse; See Semag, Lavin 168 based on Sifra, ad loc., Pesahim 22b and Zohar Kedoshim 85a. Compare Deuteronomy 27:18 Rashi ad loc]. Violation of such an ethical precept involves a large variety of moral principles bordering on wrong counsel and ill advice, which are an expression of human callousness and disrespect for our fellow man. Maimonides in his Regimen Sanitatis reiterates "the deep concern of the Torah for the mental welfare of the Israelites, whether they be sinful or righteous." In many of his medical works, he stresses "the importance of mental health, the improvement of behavior which is the cure of the mind and its faculties," stating repeatedly "how dangerous it is to indulge in medicine, tranquilizers, sedatives or stimulants and becoming habituated to them." (Maimonides, Pirkei Moshe, 8; see also Eight Chapters, 1.) ... New biomedical evidence points to the genetic damage caused by LSD to the chromosomes, which according to Dr. Maimon Cohen of the State University School of Medicine, could lead to mental retardation and physical abnormalities in the offsprings of LSD users as shown in a number of maternity cases. Traditionally viewed, then taking psychedelic drugs and exposing oneself to a "bad trip" with all the possible psychotic repercussions would be considered a transgression of the positive commandment for man's welfare in the Torah, ve-nishmartem me'od le-nafshoteikhem (taking protective measures to guard one's health) [Deuteronomy 4:15-AJL], committing an act of havallah be-azmo (self-damage) and hampering his homeostasis and mental balance from performing the Divine way of life properly.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV423 Surprisingly, there is one source which appears to rule that destruction of the fetus by Noachides [i.e., non-Jews, who are not bound by Halakhah but by the seven universal laws of morality conveyed to all of humanity through Noah - AJL], at least under some circumstances, does not constitute a moral offense. Maharit (Teshuvot Maharit, I, no. 99) writes: "I remember having seen in a responsum of the Rashba that he bears witness that Ramban rendered medical aid to a gentile woman in return for compensation in order that she might conceive and aided her in aborting the fruit of her womb." (Lengthy footnote questioning the authenticity of this account is omitted - AJL). It is of course inconceivable that an individual of Nachmanides' piety and erudition would have violated the injunction "Thou shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person" [this verse] or that he would have actively assisted transgressors. Applying the line of reasoning adduced above, Rabbi Unterman draws the conclusion that there is a fundamental distinction between Jewish law and Noachide law with regard to the assessment of potential life. According to many authorities, Noachides are under no obligation to preserve the lives of their fellows, to "be fruitful and multiply" or to refrain from wasting the male seed. They are forbidden to commit homicide and to take the life of "a man within a man" [See Genesis 9:6 - AJL] but bear no responsibility for the safeguarding and preservation of seminal life. It would appear, then, that Halakhah holds them accountable only for actual, in contradistinction to potential, life. [Footnote omitted; as of excerpt transcription in February 2020, the footnote is accessible at books.google.com by copying and pasting the sentence preceding it into an internet search engine - AJL].] Accordingly, there is no objection to Noachides aborting or to giving advice and rendering indirect assistance to Noachides in aborting, a fetus within the first forty days of gestation. Since Halakhah considers that during this initial period the embryo has not as yet developed distinctly recognizable organs or an independent circulatory system it cannot be considered "a man with a man" and hence its destruction does not constitute murder under the Noachide dispensation. Nahmanides, Rabbi Unterman avers, sanctioned the performance of abortions by Noachides only within this forty-day period [lengthy footnote omitted].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV475 [This verse]. Duties toward our fellow men are described in Leviticus 19:11-16. According to Hertz (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, London, Soncino Press, 2nd edit. 1962, pp. 499-501), these precepts restate the fundamental rules of life in human society that are contained in the second tablet of the Decalogue. These moral principles were expanded by the Sages and apply to every phase of civil and criminal law.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV483 See [[EXOD229]] Exodus 15:26 diseases ROSNER 20-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV506 Rabbi Joseph H. Prouser contends that it is obligatory for Jews to donate their organs upon their own death, and arrangements should be made while one is still alive to that effect. Furthermore, the family that refuses to allow the deceased's organs to be harvested is in violation of [this verse]. https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/prouser_chesed.pdf; https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/prouser_organ.pdf (By Shai Cherry, "Ethical Theories in the Conservative Movement"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV672 Nahmanides also finds that the obligation of the physician to heal is inherent in the commandment, "And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self" [this verse] (Torat ha-adam, Kitvei Ramban, ed. Bernard Chavel (Jerusalem, 5724), II, 43). As an instantiation of the general obligation to manifest love and concern for one's neighbor, the obligation to heal encompasses not only situations posing a threat to life and limb or demanding restoration of impaired health but also situations of lesser gravity warranting medical attention for relief of pain and promotion of well-being (See R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ramat Rahel, no. 21).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV760 From Jeremiah's message of encouragement to the exiles in Babylonia (Jeremiah 29:6), the Talmud derives the ruling that it is the duty of a father to facilitate the marriage of his daughter by providing her trousseau. This duty is considered Biblically binding (See Ketubbot 52b. See, however, Ritva, quoted in Shittah Mekubezet). An early rabbinic work, She'eltot, cites this passage as one of the proof-texts making marriage and procreation a religious obligation (Section 21; see Kiddushin 30b). Maimonides, however, in line with his view that there is no commitment of procreation for a woman, regards Jeremiah's injunction – – that the father makes provisions for his daughter to enable her to marry--not as Biblical law but as a rabbinic enactment (Ishut, XX, 1, cf. Ketubbot 68a). It is possible that Maimonides also related the injunction of Jeremiah, in addition to the above considerations, to another rule expounded in the Talmud (Yevamot 62b), which reads thus in Maimonides' paraphrase: "The Sages have instructed a person to marry off his sons and daughters as soon as they mature, for, if allowed to remain unmarried, they will fall into a life of sinfulness or preoccupation with sinful fancies." (Issurei Bi'ah, XXI, 25). The duty of the father to marry off his daughters would not necessarily, on this basis, be included in the category of the laws of procreation, but would rather be regarded as a derivative of the Biblical law: [this verse]. ... The opinion that a woman is not commanded, yet, for her, participation in the fulfillment of procreation constitutes a religious duty is expressed in the Midrash Tanhuma (Noah, 12; however, in the Buber edition (Noah, 18) it appears that this is the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka) and the medieval Lekah Tov (Gen. 9:1). In these texts it is stated that man is more obligated than woman. Possibly what is implied is that in the case of woman the fulfillment of the religious obligation is altogether voluntary and cannot be enforced by religious courts.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV834 Illegitimate Children. Similar circumstances [referring to preceding section "Obligations of Society" apply to children conceived by rape. The circumstances of such a conception cannot have any bearing on the child's title to life, and in the absence of any well-grounded challenge to this title there cannot be any moral justification for an abortion. Once again, the burden rests with society to relieve an innocent mother (if she so desires) from the consequences of an unprovoked assault upon her virtue if the assailant cannot be found and forced to discharge this responsibility to his child. In the case of pregnancies resulting from incestuous, adulterers, or otherwise illegitimate relations (which the mother did not resist), there are additional considerations militating against any sanction of abortion. Jewish law not only puts an extreme penalty on incest and adultery, but also imposes fearful disabilities on the products of such unions. It brands these relations as capital crimes (Leviticus 20:10-20), and it debars children born under these conditions from marriage with anyone except their like. 1. The Deterrent Effect. -- Why exact such a price from innocent children for the sins of their parents? The answer is simple: to serve as a powerful deterrent to such hideous crimes. The word-be partners to any such illicit sexual relations are to be taught that their momentary pleasure would be fraught with the most disastrous consequences for any children they might conceive. Through this knowledge they are to recoil from the very thought of incest or adultery with the same horror as they would from contemplating murder as a means to enjoyment or personal benefit. Murder is comparatively rare in civilized societies for the very reason that the dreadful consequences have evoked this horror of the crime in the public conscience. Incest and adultery, in the Jewish few are no lesser crimes (compare the juxtaposition of murder and adultery in the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20:13), and they require the same horror as an effective deterrent. 2. Parental Responsibility. -- Why create this deterrent by visiting the sins of the parents on their innocent children? First, because there is no other way to expose an offense committed in private and usually beyond the chance of detection. But, above all, this responsibility of parents for the fate of their children is an inexorable necessity in the generation of human life; it is dictated by the law of nature no less than by the moral law. If a careless mother drops her baby and thereby causes a permanent brain injury to the child, or if he syphilitic father irresponsibly transmits his disease to his offspring before birth, or if parents are negligent in the education of the children, all these children may innocently suffer and for the rest of their lives expiate the sins of their parents. This is what must be if parental responsibility is to be taken seriously. The fear that such catastrophic consequences will ensure from a surrender to temptation or from carelessness will help prevent the conception of grossly disadvantaged children or their physical or mental mutilation after birth. ... Rigid abortion laws, ruling out the post facto "correction" of rash acts, compel people to think twice before they recklessly embark on illicit or irresponsible adventures liable to inflict lifelong suffering or infamy on their progeny. To illuminate the scourge of illegitimate children more self-discipline to prevent their conception is required, not more freedom to destroy them in the womb. For each illegitimate child born because the abortion laws are strict, there may be ten or more such children not conceived because these laws are strict. The exercise of man's procreative faculties, making him (in the phrase of the Talmud) "a partner with God in creation," is man's greatest privilege and greatest responsibility. The rights and obligations implicit in the generation of human life must be evenly balanced if man is not to degenerate into an addict of lust and a moral parasite infesting the moral organism of society. Liberal abortion laws would upset that balance by facilitating sexual indulgences without insisting on corresponding responsibilities.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV844 See [[LEV254]] Leviticus 18:22 male ROSNER-BLEICH 202

SHOW FULL EXCERPT