GEN872 Those who do not fulfill the mitzvah of begetting children cause the Shechinah [Divine Presence] to depart from Israel, as it is written: “To be a God to you and to your children after you” – When there are children after you, the Shechinah rests upon them; but when there are not, upon what does it rest? Upon the trees and stones.  Yevamot 64a  TEMIMAH-GEN 73

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN873 Religion eventually replaced folk-customs as the primary source of ethics. Divine approval was substituted for popular approval as the criterion of moral conduct. As religion progressively evolved from a narrow tribal cult to embrace the terminology of universalism, it projected a broad morality divorced from parochialism. The triumph of Judaic monotheism inevitably led to the introduction of universalist concepts.  The Decalogue opened with the solemn declaration of monotheism, coupled with the declaration of the rights of man.   Its universality was acknowledged by Luther, who considered it a summary of all Christian ethics. The Age of Religion did not necessarily witness a rise of ethical societies. As a matter of practical expediency, religious leaders have accommodated themselves, at various stages in man’s history, to slavery, feudalism, industrial baronism, military dictatorships, and paranoid nationalism. In that respect there was no clear break with primitive ethical standards. On a personal level, too, religious ethics were not adequately reflected in the daily conduct of individuals. An overemphasis on ritualism frequently led to the stifling of moralism. Rituals are essential to the preservation of religion. They stimulate the exercise of self-discipline and safeguard the ethical principles with which they are associated. Yet the average religious individual finds it easier to express piety through a zealous observance of rituals then to make the effort central to the development of an ethical personality.  Furthermore, moralism is a nondenominational concept, while ritualism is sectarian and has a greater appeal to a member of a particular creed. Ritualism has consequently come to be regarded as the primary objective of religion. One may point to a number of statements in the Bible and Talmud which command ethical conduct per se, regardless of one’s zeal for ritual observance. Hillel considered the Golden Rule the very core and essence of Judaism. Rabbi Akiva upheld this rule as a “great principle of the Law.” The injunction to love man was thus given greater prominence than the injunction till love God. The rabbinic priorities were reversed in Luke 10:27 in the establishment of the proper conduct which guarantees eternal life. OriGenesis (3rd cent.), the outstanding Christian theologian of the early church, declared that a heretic whose moral life is good is to be condemned more than one whose moral life is unsatisfactory.   This became the dominant view which appealed to pietists of many generations, undermining the moral force of religion. It was not until the 17th century that the lone voice of John Selden, an Anglican theologian, proclaimed that Jews who are morally correct are entitled to the same heavenly rewards as Christians, a prospect long held out by rabbinic sages for all righteous gentiles. It was not until the 19yh century that Tolstoy declared that “love thy neighbor as thyself” is a summary of Christianity. Religion has undoubtedly played a vital role in shaping men’s ethical outlook. It is reasonable to expect that laws rooted in religion have also influenced moral insights. One is more likely to find this in Judaism and Islam, where law and morality flow from the same religious source. Judaism bases the relationship between man and God on a legal compact, the Covenant [this verse]. This helped Jews and Muslims to envision a link between law and ethics. The development of law in Judaism and Islam devolved on the legal scholar, who was also the exponent of religious ethics. Christendom, on the other hand, accepted Roman law as its own civil law. It adopted most of Rome’s legal concepts and rejected only the Roman views of slavery and marriage.   BLOCH 9-10

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

GEN875 Women [who have been divorced or widowed] should not get engaged or married until three months have passed.  Why so? R. Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: “Because it is written: ‘To be a God to you and to your children after you’ – [Wait three months] to distinguish between the children of the first husband and that of the second [so that He is definitely a God to your children]” Yevamot 42a TEMIMAH-GEN 73

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN876 With ten trials was Abraham our Father proved. Pirkei Avot V:4   “When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him: I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be whole. [Genesis 17:1] Said the Holy, Blessed One to him: Until now you have not been whole before Me.  Circumcise yourself; then you will walk before Me and be whole.” The physical act of surgery involved, was trial enough for a man of such advanced age. But circumcision is more: it is a sign of the Covenant between the Israelite and the Almighty. [this verse] When a Jewish slave refused to go free from servitude at the end of his six year term, Scripture decrees that he had to have an ear-lobe pierced, as a physical sign of his permanent servitude.   [Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:17. The Hebrew term for such a slave is eved nirtzah, a “pierced slave” (see e.g. Talmud Kiddushin 17b); it has been suggested, however, to translate it as a “willing slave,” giving nirtzah the meaning it has as the last of the guide words to the Passover seder.] So must the Jew bear an indelible sign testifying that he is a lifelong servant of the Almighty.   After a lifetime of loyalty to the Almighty, Abraham did not question this Divine command, but obeyed – at ninety-nine.   This test too has been bequeathed to the Jewish people to inherit the name, every Jew enters the Covenant of Abraham and imposes it on his children in turn, accepting the ineradicable sign of the corps of Heaven’s own willing servants. In the ranks of Abraham, we bear this testimony that we accept the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven. SINAI3 37

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN878 Circumcision. Hashem wants a permanent sign on the bodies of Jewish males in order to set our nation apart from all other nations. He wants us to be physically distinguishable from the other nations, just as we differ from them spiritually. Why are males not born circumcised? Why does the Torah require Jews to perform circumcision on Jewish males? Through this commandment, the Creator alludes to a deep spiritual truth: Just as it is for us to perfect the male body through circumcision, it is possible for us to perfect our souls through our actions.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN877 In our own day, some Jews have questioned the wisdom of circumcising boys. The relevant medical associations have wavered on its medical advisability, recommending it during the last several decades of the 20th Century and now saying that its medical risks and benefits are roughly equivalent, making circumcision medically optional. The Jewish tradition, however, never advocated circumcision for medical reasons. Its purpose was instead religious. First, by literally inscribing a sign of God’s covenant with Israel on the man’s flesh, circumcision symbolizes that this covenant between God and the People Israel is immutable.… Second, because circumcision changes the surface of a male generative organ, it symbolizes that this covenant is to last from generation to generation. The same symbolism was not needed in removing a girl’s clitoris, presumably because from ancient times to the modern era the man was the head of the house, and therefore making men part of the covenant throughout all generations immediately made all the female members of their families part of the covenant as well. Third, circumcision has implications for Tikkun Olam as well. In graphically tying Jews to the covenant, circumcision symbolizes Jews’ commitment to Judaism’s moral duties at least as much as to its rites. These include, of course, the duties discussed in this in previous chapters regarding speech, the poor, captives, the sick, and one’s parents and children. In light of all these religious meanings of circumcision, meanings that go to the heart of Jewish identity and continuity, it is not surprising that the Rabbis determined that if an infant boy is healthy, his circumcision must take place on the eighth day, as the Torah commands, even if that means making some exceptions to the Sabbath or High Holy Day rules to enable that to happen. Aside from saving a person’s life or health, circumcision is the only commandment that supersedes the Sabbath in this way. DORFFWITO 210-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN879 Radak (commentary on this verse) explains that the mark of the brit milah must specifically be made upon the organ of procreation to symbolize that each Jews must overcome his animalistic, physical desires.   This is echoed by Rabbi Judah Halevi, Kuzari 1, 115.   Isaac Irama (commentary of Akedat Yitzchak on Genesis 17) explains the symbolism of the circumcision a bit differently and stresses the national symbol. He says that this commandment binds all Jews together.  By putting a physical demarcation upon each Jews, separating him as a Jew from the non-Jews, all Jews will feel a special kinship, causing more harmony among Jews.   AMEMEI 156-7.

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

GEN881 If one has as good eye, an humble temperament, and a lowly spirit, he is of the disciples of Abraham our Father. Pirkei Avot V:2   … the Almighty promised Abraham that at last Sarah would bear him a son. The Patriarch’s only reply was, “O that Ishmael might live before thee!”  In his humility, Abraham was ready to be satisfied with whatever he had.   One Sage learned directly from Abraham.   At the wedding-feast for his son, Rabbi Gamaliel II personally poured cups of wine for his colleagues.   He offered a cup to R. Eli’ezer, and that Sage would not take it; he offered it to R. Joshua, and that Sage accepted it.   Said R. Eli’ezer, “What is this, Joshua? Is it right that we should sit reclining and Gamaliel the son of Rabbi [Judah haNasi] should stand and serve us?”  Replied R. Joshua, “Let him serve. Abraham, the world’s most outstanding citizen, attended upon ministering angels.  Think you they looked like ministering angels to him? They appeared to him as nothing but idolatrous Arabs. Then shall we not surely allow Gamaliel the son of Rabbi to serve us?” Said R. Tzadok to them, “You have overlooked the glory of the Omnipresent [God] and concerned yourselves with the glory of a flesh-and-blood mortal. The Holy, Blessed One, who spoke and the world became, makes winds blow, clouds rise, rain fall, and plants sprout, and thus He sets a meal-table for every single person. Shall then Gamaliel the son of Rabbi not attend upon us?” Talmud Kiddushin 32, Midrash Sifre, Deuteronomy §38.   SINAI3 202

SHOW FULL EXCERPT