Transcript
Okay, so again this week's parsha is תזריע Tazria. Rather than go through the detailed parsha as we normally do inside, we're going to study a topic which is a corollary of our parsha. I will just tell you a beautiful insight from רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, so you have something from the parsha. Ask רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, what is the connection between last week's parsha and this? What is the theme? We know that we often understand, we learn from סמיכות הפרשיות smichas haparshiyos. When there's a juxtaposition or there's a connection between two adjacent sections, we learn something from it. Nothing is coincidental, nothing is chance. So I ask רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, what's the connection between the end of פרשת שמיני Parshas Shmini, the second half which deals with all the laws of כשרות kashrus, what we'd studied in depth last week and so all the different מפרשים meforshim, and פרשת תזריע Parshas Tazria, which deals with the laws of צרעת tzaraas? And רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter in his typical fashion says, you know what the connection is? The תורה Torah is telling us something very important. Be as careful with what comes out of your mouth as what you put into it. פרשת שמיני Parshas Shmini is all about what we put into our mouths. It's the laws of כשרות kashrus, and we are forever learning about and in many cases adding more stringencies to what we put in our mouth. The technicalities and the minutiae of כשרות kashrus, the biotechnology of food, the new laws that are coming out on emulsifiers and additives and derivatives and ingredients, the complexities of כשרות kashrus that are that are changing every single day. And we have organizations and we have הלכה halachic journals and articles and תשובות chuvos and we have the חומרא chumra of the week when it comes to כשרות kashrus. People who are scrupulous in terms of what they eat and where they'll eat and in whose home they'll eat. We are scrupulous when it comes to what we put in our mouths. Says רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, right after פרשת שמיני Parshas Shmini comes פרשת תזריע Parshas Tazria to tell us, be as careful of what comes out of your mouth, what you say and how you speak, as what you put in your mouth. Because after all, while many, many reasons are given for the cause of צרעת tzaraas, of a spiritual leprosy, רב הירש Rav Hirsch describes at length that of course, it's not a physical leprosy, it's not a physical dermatological element. We're talking about a spiritual disease. Evidence from the beginning of the פרשה parsha, תזריע Tazria says, if you're covered, if you're covered from head to toe in this indication, you're in fact טהור tahor. You're not טמא tamei, you're not contaminated. If it was a dermatological disease, a skin disease, it would make no sense that if you're fully covered by it, then of course you are, of course you're diagnosed with and you are also contagious. So clearly, רב הירש Rav Hirsch proves from here and a number of other points that this is a spiritual element. Many, many reasons are given for the cause of the spiritual element. The most popular and famous among them is לשון הרע lashon hara, gossip, רכילות rechilus. That in fact, מצורע metzora comes from the etymology of מוציא רע motzi ra. The מצורע metzora brings evil into the world. The סלונים רב Slanimer Rebbe says that when it comes to other sins that we do, we make momentary lapse of judgment. We have momentary moments of insanity. We shouldn't have thought that, looked at that, eaten that. But whom do we affect? Ourselves. We have a terrible moment of lapse of judgment and we have an indiscretion, and the result is a negative impact on ourselves. But when we share gossip or רכילות rechilus, when we spread something negative, when we marginalize, when we dismiss, when we judge others, we're מוציא רע motzi ra. We haven't just done רע ra, it's not that we performed something negative ourselves in an indiscretion, but we've brought רע ra, we've brought evil and wickedness into the world. We've, we've generated, we've created something that now needs to be reckoned with. Speech creates. We know that. God created the world through speech. Our scholar in residence this past שבת Shabbos, Rabbi Ari Kahn, spoke at שלוש סעודות Shalosh Seudos about this idea, that God created the world. We know he didn't need speech. He could have created the world with thought, could have created the world just by creating. And nevertheless, it goes out of its way, our Rabbis teach us that God created the world with speech. Speech creates. If there's any generation can appreciate this more than any, it's ours, with speech recognition technology. You talk into your phone. I'll tell you a great story. I should really save this for a דרשה drasha, but my wife just told me this story. She was pushing, she was putting one of our daughters to sleep, and she, they were saying שמע Shma. And my daughter looked up and said, \"Who is השם Hashem married to?\" So before יוכבד Yocheved had a chance to say anything, she says, \"I know. He's married to Siri. Because you hear Siri, and Siri does what you ask, but you can't see Siri, just like השם Hashem. And just like השם Hashem, Siri lives in the cloud.\" That's what she said. השם Hashem's married to Siri. חס ושלום Chas v'shalom, חס ושלום chas v'shalom. Of course, we have to correct that and teach that. But anyway, so you take your phone, you press a button, you tell Siri what you want. Speech recognition technology. You get in the car and many cars, you could speak into the car and it lowers the windows or it changes the radio station or it adjusts the climate, adjusts the climate. Speech recognition. So we know that speech creates. So מוציא רע motzi ra, it's not just, says the סלונים רב Slonimer Rebbe, like other indiscretions where we've done something negative ourselves, we've brought רע ra. The חפץ חיים Chofetz Chaim's great metaphor to the pillow and the feather, right? Everybody knows that. A person who came to the חפץ חיים Chofetz Chaim, I've spoken לשון הרע lashon hara, how can I correct it? The חפץ חיים Chofetz Chaim said, \"Bring me a pillow.\" Brought him a pillow. In those days, it was filled with feathers. The חפץ חיים Chofetz Chaim cut a hole and then slammed the pillow, and the feathers began to spread everywhere. And he said, \"Collect all the feathers.\" The man said, \"I can't. They're blowing everywhere. There's no way I can track them down.\" And he said, \"That is לשון הרע lashon hara.\" It's מוציא רע motzi ra. The minute you spread it, you put it out in the world, it's in the open, you can't bring it back. Blogs and Facebook and text messages and emails, and even just conversation over שבת Shabbos table and coffee, you can't bring it back. It's מוציא רע motzi ra. It created wickedness. You know, you made a mistake and you took the wrong jelly beans on שבת Shabbos and it was בורר borer, you did something wrong yourself. You looked at the wrong, you did something wrong. You ate something you shouldn't, you ate without a ברכה bracha, you did something wrong. But when you speak gossip, you're מוציא רע motzi ra, says the רב Rebbe. You're bringing wickedness into the world. It's a whole new level and that's why it yields this punishment, these פרשיות parshiyos. So it says רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, as his typical fashion, be as careful with what you comes out of your mouth as what you put into your mouth. Hence the juxtaposition of פרשת תזריע Parshas Tazria and of פרשת שמיני Parshas Shmini and תזריע Tazria. This was רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter. רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, his whole essence was character development, was placing an emphasis on the way we treat others as much as we do or more than the way we treat God. I'll tell you one other רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter story. A person came to him and said, in anticipation of פסח Pesach, in anticipation of פסח Pesach, what חומרא chumra, I'm going to the מצה matzah factory, going to make my own מצה matzah. There's a מצה matzah factory opening in Boca, actually, we'll be able to make our own מצה matzah in חבורות chaburos. They're just putting the final touches on. If you want to make your own מצה matzah, said to רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, the great רבי ישראל Rabbi Yisrael, I'm going to the מצה matzah factory, what should I be strict about? What חומרא chumra should I adopt for myself? The 18-minute מצות matzos and the watching and the water and the and the כלים keilim and the, what חומרא chumra should I adopt? Said רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, you know what חומרא chumra to adopt? Make sure to check that the women who work at the מצה matzah factory are paid properly and are given enough of a break. Who worked in the מצה matzah factory? Poor, widowed, widows, women who were desperate and destitute. רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter said, you know what חומרא chumra you should adopt? Make sure that the women are paid well, make sure they're given enough of a break. Anyway, there's countless רבי ישראל סלנטר Rabbi Yisrael Salanter stories. Okay, so that's פרשת תזריע Parshas Tazria, that's an overview of פרשת תזריע Parshas Tazria. That's an overview of פרשת תזריע Parshas Tazria. Why רב חיים שמואלביץ Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz, I'll tell you one other. רב חיים שמואלביץ Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz says, why is the מצורע metzora, what's the punishment for the מצורע metzora? Isolation, seclusion, מחוץ למחנה michutz lamachaneh, בדד ישב badad yeisheiv. They have to live outside the camp. By the way, for how many days? A week. A week in order to confirm the diagnosis, a week outside the camp. משך חכמה Meshech Chochma and the סלונים רב Slonimer Rebbe also has a long essay, why a week? We find a week, everything. The beginning of the פרשה parsha, a week with טומאה tumah, with a woman, a week, a week, a week, a week. He says, every time you see the notion of a week, know what the Torah is saying is, what has to happen if you mandate a week? What does the person have to experience? A שבת Shabbos. When a baby can't have a ברית bris until after a week, what must the baby experience before their ברית bris? A שבת Shabbos. When someone is sent מחוץ למחנה michutz lamachaneh, what must they experience? A שבת Shabbos. שבת Shabbos rejuvenates and regenerates and renews. And that's the whole essence of שבת Shabbos. He has a long essay about that. But the מצורע metzora is out מחוץ למחנה michutz lamachaneh. Why, says רב חיים שמואלביץ Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz? Because what was the result? What did the מצורע metzora cause others? If you're מוציא רע motzi ra, if you speak gossip, ill of someone else, you make them feel alone. When you find out, when an individual finds out that they were spoken about negatively, they feel very alone. It's a very lonely feeling. Nobody came to my defense, nobody stopped it. Everyone allowed it, everyone accepted it, everyone listened to it. Nobody questioned it or challenged it. It makes you feel terribly isolated and alone. So therefore, the speaker of the לשון הרע lashon hara, מידה כנגד מידה midah keneged midah, in order to understand the harm that they caused, must live מחוץ למחנה michutz lamachaneh בדד ישב badad yeisheiv. They must be alone in order to understand the aloneness, the isolation they made someone else feel. Okay, there's a lot more to talk about תזריע Tazria, but we're going to talk about another הלכה halachic subject. Abortion. This year is the 41st anniversary of Roe versus Wade. We're now four decades past the landmark Supreme Court decision that revolutionized the law on abortion in our blessed country. Source number one, page one, if you're listening online, you'll see the source sheets there. Now we got to do this really quickly. Roe versus Wade, Wikipedia, the great authoritative work, has a summary of this decision. In deciding Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court ruled the Texas statute that forbade abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. Court did not recognize the right to abortion in all cases, but the court basically had to decide was the following. Is the notion of abortion, what is the status of a fetus? What is the status of an embryo in utero? Do we view the fetus as an identity unto itself with its own rights and its own entitlements? Or do we view the fetus as an organ of the mother? Is the fetus essentially a liver, a kidney, a bladder? Is the kidney just another organ of the mother, in which case the mother maintains and retains a right to privacy and a right to autonomy? Or does this fetus have an independent status and therefore independent rights? And what the court in Texas ruled that was later expanded upon was that the right to privacy existed for the mother and included the right to have an abortion. And why did it reach this conclusion? Instead, it chose to point out historically under English and American common law and statutes, quote, \"The unborn have never been recognized as persons in the whole sense.\" And thus the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life, specifically enumerated in the 14th Amendment. So though we have a constitutional right to life, a constitutional right to life, that right to life exists for whom? The living. The living, a person. Roe Wade determined that the unborn are not living in the whole sense, and therefore are not covered by the right to life, and essentially, therefore, the unborn are viewed as an extension of the mother, an organ, a limb of the mother. The mother has a right to privacy and a right to choose and a right to abort, to abort. Now, interestingly, it's just a footnote, it's not meaningful, but it's interesting, Jane Roe of the landmark Roe versus Wade, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, is now an anti-abortion advocate. McCorvey writes she never had the abortion. She became a pawn of two young and ambitious lawyers who were looking for a plaintiff that they could use. Now, I'm sure that this case would have nevertheless come before the Supreme Court. Someone else would have brought it. Nothing would have changed historically, but I think it is a fascinating footnote that the Roe of Roe versus Wade is now a staunch anti-abortion advocate. This decision, this decision has had massive consequences. Just how many? In the last 40 years, in the last four decades, 40 years is not a lot. In the last 40 years since Roe versus Wade, how many abortions? There were 56 million reported abortions in America alone. In America alone. Now to give you perspective on 56 million, you're talking seven or eight times the state of Israel. Seven or eight times the state of Israel never came to live, never came to exist because they were aborted instead. In the 40 years, 56 million reported abortions in America. Roe versus Wade indeed was a landmark decision. 56 million. The mother has a right to choose was the decision. And we'll get into it right now הלכה halachically, what is the Jewish view. It's interesting that we view this as a mother's right to choose. We often think about it from the perspective of it's the mother's body, it's a woman's right, it's a woman's right to choose. I'll just as an editorial aside, this is not הלכה halachic or authoritative, but I submit for your consideration, it's a mother's right to choose, it's her body? What if a husband, what if a husband, what if a man and a woman have a pregnancy that was not planned, an unplanned pregnancy? And so he turns to her and says, \"Let's have an abortion. I'm not interested. This was a casual relationship. Nobody planned this.\" And she says, \"No, I insist on having this baby.\" So who has to pay for that baby? So why does he not have a right in deciding? Right? This emphasis on the mother's right to choose, the mother's right to privacy, it's all about the mother's body. So if that were right, then the law should be adjusted. The husband should have, the husband, the father should have a right to say, if it's your right to choose, then it's your right to pay for it. But yet we have this kind of double standard that it's the mother's right, the mother's privacy, the mother's body, but the father has to finance, the father has to pay for it. That's just as an editorial side, not a הלכה halachic statement. Yes. Let's say you could do a paternity test, even in utero. If not, afterwards, can he come back to the court and say, \"I don't want to pay. I wasn't interested.\" My point is that it's, to me, it's naive to suggest that only the mother, the only the mother, the woman, has a relationship and it's her choice exclusively because that's not the standard that we hold it to. But that's an aside. So 56 million. We're going to get to that right now. So 56 million reported legal, reported, I shouldn't, reported abortions in America. When I heard that statistic and I read that statistic, I couldn't help my first thought was, what if one of those unborn who never saw the light of day had the cure to cancer? Could you imagine how that could have changed the world? But then my next thought was, what if those unborn was the next Hitler and was going to propagate a terrible genocide or atrocity or evil in this world? We'll never know. We can't look back and try to guess who was unborn and what they would have brought to the world. But I'll just share with you one fascinating insight from the great book Freakonomics. Two economists, Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner, two great economists wrote a book applying the principles of economics to contemporary world, real world situations. It's a great book. They put out a sequel called SuperFreakonomics. They have a blog where they have similar ideas they share regularly. It's really worthwhile. In their book, in their book, they say the following. In the first year of Roe versus Wade, 750,000 women had abortions in the United States, one abortion for every four live births. By 1980, the number of abortions reached 1.6 million, one for every 2.2 live births. In the country of 225 million people, 1.6 million abortions a year, one for every 140 Americans may not seem dramatic. In the first year after when abortion was reinstated in Romania, there was an abortion for every 22 Romanians. But still, 1.6 million American women a year who got pregnant were suddenly not having those babies. Now, before Roe Wade, it was predominantly the daughters of middle or upper-class families who could arrange and afford a safe illegal abortion. Instead of an illegal procedure that might cost $500, after Roe Wade when it became legal, and clinics were open, any woman could easily attain an abortion often for less than $100. What sort of woman was most likely to take advantage of Roe Wade? Very often she was unmarried or in her teens or poor, and sometimes all three. What kind of future might her children have had? Her child have had? One study has shown that the typical child who went unborn in the earliest years of legalized abortions would have been 50% more likely than average to live in poverty, would have also been 60% more likely to grow up with just one parent. These two factors, childhood poverty and single parent household, are among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future. Growing up in a single parent home roughly doubles a child's propensity to commit crime. So does having a teenage mother. Another study has shown that low maternal education is a single most powerful factor leading to criminality. In other words, say the authors of Freakonomics, the very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives. To be sure, legalized abortion in the United States had myriad consequences. Infanticide fell dramatically, so did shotgun marriages, as well as the number of babies put up for abortion, adoption, I'm sorry, by adoption. Conception rose by nearly 30%, but births actually fell by six, indicating that many women used abortion as a method of birth control, a crude and drastic sort of insurance policy. Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and here is their controversial thesis, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. You see, in the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe Wade was hitting its late teen years, the years during which young men enter their criminal prime, the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age, minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness, unwantedness leads to higher crime, legalized abortion therefore led to less crime. Their thesis, which was very, very controversial was, said in the '90s, you remember that then-mayor Rudy Giuliani was credited with fighting crime. He took a hard stand in Manhattan, in New York City, and crime rates fell dramatically. Rudy Giuliani was hailed, was hailed, thank you, as a hero, was celebrated as being, as being tremendous. Claim the authors of Freakonomics, it wasn't Rudy Giuliani. The crime rate fell because the would-be criminals were never born. Because if you look, Rudy Giuliani's drop in crime came exactly 15, 16, 17 years after Roe versus Wade, when there was an entire cohort of would-be criminals who were never born because they were aborted instead. A very controversial position. So, just as a matter of information, abortion is actually down. It's been going down. It was at an all-time low since Roe Wade last year. This could be for a number of factors, could be because of advances in birth control, could be because of the morning after pill, could be for a whole host of reasons, but abortion was at an all-time low since Roe versus Wade this past year, but still it is a very, very drastic number. So what is the Jewish view of abortion? That's what I want to spend our time on and you'll see that it connects loosely to to our פרשה parsha. But the It's interesting if you look in our world today, there are two very polarized positions on abortion. When you hear this very emotionally charged debate, a debate that usually comes up around election time, when we want to know what our officials believe, it's one of the, it's for, for some people, it's what they vote on. So you hear two different things. There's pro-life, and there's pro-choice. Pro-life says abortions are prohibited in all circumstances. We feel fetuses are living beings, they're entitled to rights, and therefore pro-life, it's murder to abort a fetus. Everything needs to be done to reverse the law and to maintain the, the rights of these unborn, and pro-life to maintain their right to life. On the other position, you have a very, often, often described, at least in my opinion, as a very casual relationship with these fetuses. It's the mother's right to choose. If she wants to have her appendix removed, if she wants to have botox, if she wants to have an abortion, it's a mother's right to choose. This is an extension of her body and a very flippant and casual way in which we talk about abortion even as a form of birth control, an irresponsible form of birth control. So which one does Judaism have more in common with? If we have to choose an elected official, if this is our position issue, we're going to vote on, which one does Judaism have more in common with? The pro-lifers who says life, the extend the life of the fetus under all circumstances, abortion is murder and must be stopped, or the pro-choice, the person, not all, I'm not, don't mean to overgeneralize, but those who have a, those who have a very casual, flippant connection and say, it's a mother's body, it's the right for her to choose, she wants to have her wisdom teeth extracted, she wants to have the fetus extracted, it's her choice. So what I want to share with you in our limited time today is that Judaism has what I think is missing in the public debate and conversation, Judaism has a very nuanced position. It doesn't fit into either of these molds. And frankly, it doesn't fit into most politicians' points of view. We have a very, very nuanced position on this issue, and we have to be very careful who we support politically if we're basing our support on this, on this issue. Source number four, where you see this conversation begin is in a משנה Mishna in אהלות Ohalos. The משנה Mishna in אהלות Ohalos sets down the following fact. האשה שהיא מקשה לילד haisha shehi maksha leileid, a woman who is struggling in childbirth, מחתכין את הולד במעיה mechatkhin es havlad b'me'eha, the presence of this fetus, fully developed fetus, she's in childbirth, is threatening the life of the mother. So you have a conflict between the well-being of the mother and the well-being of the child. Whose life takes precedence? Says the משנה Mishna clearly, unequivocally, explicitly, the life of the mother. And I would add graphically, it says it. You cut up the fetus in the womb, and you remove it limb by limb, מפני שחייה קודמין לחייו mipnei shechayeha kodmin l'chayav, because the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus, of the unborn. יצא רובו אין נוגעין בו, שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש Yatza rubo ein nog'in bo, she'ein docha nefesh mipnei nefesh. If the head or most of the body exit, now it's considered to be born, it's not unborn, it's alive. Now there's no difference between the mother and the child. Now there's no conflict in their lives. Now they have equal status and you're not allowed to, you're not allowed to kill the child in order to save the mother. So the משנה Mishna is clear, this is codified in הלכה halacha. By the way, as a side, this is not what Catholicism believes. Catholicism believes the unborn is as alive as the mother, they have equal rights, and if the mother's life is failing, if the mother's health is failing because of the presence of the fetus, you do nothing. Let the mother die, but you cannot take the life of the fetus in order to save the life of a mother. For many years, Jews were cautioned not to give birth in Catholic hospitals because if God forbid this situation arose, it would not go the way that הלכה halacha determines. So this is the Jewish point of view. What do you see from here? Look what רש\"י Rashi says. Source five. רש\"י Rashi in סנהדרין Sanhedrin says, you know what you see from here? כי כל זמן שלא יצא לאויר העולם, לאו נפש הוא Ki kol zman shelo yatza l'avir ha'olam, lav nefesh hu. What you see from here is we know in general, we saw this in the דף יומי Daf Yomi recently, that we have a principle, when there's a conflict between two lives, someone puts a gun to my head and says, \"Kill so-and-so or you must die,\" what is the הלכה halacha? It's one of the three cardinal sins. I have to give my life up rather than murder someone else. Now when it comes to the other cardinal sins, גילוי עריות giluy arayos and and עבודה זרה avodah zarah, the גמרא Gemara quotes verses. The גמרא Gemara quotes explicit פסוקים psukim which teach me that I have to give up my life rather than violate. But when it comes to murder, the גמרא Gemara does not quote a verse that teaches me that I have to give up my life rather than murder. Instead, the גמרא Gemara quotes a סברא svara. The גמרא Gemara quotes a logical conclusion. And what's the logical conclusion the גמרא Gemara says? מה חזית דדמך סומק טפי Mai chazis d'damach sumak tefei? Why, how, why do you think that your blood is redder, your blood is thicker than the next person? Who says your life is more valuable than the next person? By the way, just as an aside, when I learned this סוגיא sugya, I have a big question on it. What do you mean? I have the opposite סברא svara. The סברא svara says, וחי בהם v'chai bahem. חייך קודמין Chayecha kodmin. Your life comes first. You have to live. So maybe you're right. My blood is not any redder, but you know what? If there's a conflict between your life and my life, the תורה Torah adjures me that I have to do everything to preserve my life. So the סברא svara says, yeah, kill that person because חייך קודמין chayecha kodmin, וחי בהם v'chai bahem. So it's ironic to me that the one that's the most complicated, there's no verse, it's a סברא svara. Okay, that's my question. If you have a good answer, feel free to share it with me. Awesome, but what do you see from this סברא svara? The גמרא Gemara takes for granted, says it's a logical conclusion that you cannot kill somebody in order to preserve your life. Who says that life is more valuable? But what is the premise of that equation? The premise of the equation is that our lives are of equal value. Two living beings, by the way, הלכה halachically even, two living beings, one just celebrated their hundredth birthday and the other turned 18, are of equal value. You have all these הלכה halachic questions of triage. Two ambulances pull into the emergency room at the exact same moment. You have one respirator available, one life support system available. An 18-year-old had a motorcycle accident, put him on the respirator, you can save his life. He can live another 80 years. The hundred-year-old comes in, put him on the respirator, they may never awaken, let alone what kind of life quality of life they will have. What does הלכה halacha say? Who gets the respirator, the life support? What if the hundred-year-old ambulance pulled in 60 seconds before the 18-year-old's ambulance? These triage questions, complicated הלכה halachic questions, very, very difficult ones. But you see the premise of the logical conclusion of the סברא svara of the גמרא Gemara is, lives are of equal value, we don't judge, we don't assign, we don't assign labels. So says רש\"י Rashi, if the משנה Mishna in אהלות Ohalos goes out of its way to say that if a fetus challenges the life of the mother, you chop up the fetus, sorry to be graphic, but that's the language of the משנה Mishna, you chop up the fetus, you remove the fetus, you preserve the life of the mother, says רש\"י Rashi, that can only be because the unborn is not called living. If the unborn were called living, their lives would be equal, you wouldn't be allowed to do it. Says the גמרא Gemara in סנהדרין Sanhedrin. Here's something fascinating. Just hold the questions because I see we're going to run out of time. Where does the, where does the Torah say abortion is prohibited? This is really the essence of our question today. Where in the Torah? I want to know. Where does it say that abortion is prohibited? Ask any Jew, what's the Jewish position on abortion? It's אסור assur. It's prohibited. Great. Where's the verse? What פרשה parsha? It doesn't appear. It doesn't appear in the Torah. Not only does it not appear in the Torah, it doesn't appear explicitly in the Talmud that a Jew is prohibited to perform a voluntary or elective abortion. Says the גמרא Gemara in סנהדרין Sanhedrin, נז עמוד ב nun zayin amud beis, משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו, אף עוברין, a נוח Noachide, a בן נח ben Noach, a non-Jew is liable for killing a fetus. מאי טעמא דרבי ישמעאל Mai taama d'Rabbi Yishmael? Where did רבי ישמעאל Rabbi Yishmael learn this, that a non-Jew is prohibited to abort? דכתיב Dichtiv, the פסוק pasuk says in פרשת נח Parshas Noach, שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך shofech dam ha'adam ba'adam damo yishafech. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. איזהו אדם שהוא באדם Eizehu adam shehu ba'adam? It's a very, very peculiar verse. You see all of the commentaries debate over there, trying to understand it. Right? It doesn't flow well, the פסוק pasuk. שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך Shofech dam ha'adam ba'adam damo yishafech. A very difficult verse. So it says רבי ישמעאל Rabbi Yishmael, who is an אדם באדם adam ba'adam? What is a circumstance where there's a person within another person and you're not allowed to take the person within the other person? הוי אומר, זה עובר שבמעי אמו Havay omeir, zeh ubar she'bimei imo. This is the prohibition of abortion. And to whom is it given? A בן נח ben Noach. This פסוק pasuk in פרשת נח Parshas Noach, שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך shofech dam ha'adam ba'adam damo yishafech, is given to בני נח Bnei Noach. This is a נוח Noachide law. So not only is it nowhere in the Torah, even in the גמרא Gemara, this prohibition of abortion is given to non-Jews. How do we know we're liable as well? Because we have a principle. Anything that a non-Jew is warned in, certainly a Jew is not allowed to do. We are given more מצוות mitzvos. We are given a stricter lifestyle. We're held to an even higher standard. So there's nothing that the non-Jew is forbidden and that the Jew is permitted in. So therefore, we just apply that rule to know that we too are forbidden to perform abortion. But I find it amazing that such an enormous issue as abortion, not only is not a פסוק pasuk in the Torah, it's not, it's not an explicit passage in the גמרא Gemara either. We're simply applying the precedent from בני נח Bnei Noach, from non-Jews. By the way, for this reason, the non-Jew who performs an abortion, it's a capital crime. The punishment is the death penalty in the days that there was a בית דין beis din and the death penalty. Because the Jew, we're just extending the prohibition from the non-Jew, but it's not given explicitly to the Jew. There's no death penalty. It's not considered a capital crime. And this has halachic consequences, because in times where abortion is permitted, you might think that our poskim would say find a non-Jewish doctor to do the abortion. It's the opposite. Our poskim say, find a Jewish doctor. Because the non-Jewish doctor has greater consequences, so another סניף snif, another another variable that we employ to permit abortion in certain circumstances is specifically to pursue a Jewish doctor, not a non-Jewish doctor. Fine. Is this prohibition of abortion biblical or rabbinic?We said it doesn't appear in the תורה Torah. The תלמודי Talmudic passage is talking about in a case of a non-Jew. True, it's a פסוק pasuk in פרשת נח Parshas Noach, but is this biblical or is this rabbinic? So you may be surprised to learn, that is a subject of debate. ברוך אתה אדוני אלוהינו מלך העולם שהכל נהיה בדברו Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech ha'olam shehakol nihiyeh bidvaro. אמן Amen.Source seven. The נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram, which I'm going to draw from extensively this morning. The נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram, Rabbi Doctor אברהם Avraham, אברהם Avraham, that's his name, who is a great halachic authority and physician in Israel today. In his incredible work נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram, there are two encyclopedias of medical ethics which are unbelievably important today. One is called אנציקלופדיה רפואית Encyclopedia Refuis. That's by Dr. Rabbi Dr. Steinberg. He's been a guest in our shul a number of times. It's a phenomenal work. It basically covers all medical ethical issues by the order of the alphabet. And the other work is נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram, Rabbi Dr. אברהם אברהם Avraham Avraham, his son was a classmate of mine in קרן ביבנה Keren B'Yavneh. So the נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram is organized according to the order of שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch. Medical ethics according to the order of שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch, and it's been translated, the נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram into English, by Artscroll. So I drew extensively from the נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram because he summarizes these issues very well. The אחיעזר Achiezer, Rav חיים עוזר גרודזינסקי Chaim Ozer Grodzinski writes that, you know, the אחיעזר Achiezer, Rav חיים עוזר Chaim Ozer was arguably the greatest halachic authority in Lithuania and Eastern Europe in the 20th, in the early 20th century. Rav חיים עוזר גרודזינסקי Chaim Ozer Grodzinski. Bret Stephens, the great journalist at the Wall Street Journal, former editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, when he spoke here, he was here for שבת Shabbos a few weeks ago. So after he spoke, after מוסף Musaf, because of course we'd never talk during דאווענען davening, he said to me, he said, you know, Rabbi, I recently learned that my grandfather's brother was a great rabbi in Lithuania. Maybe you heard of him. I said, who who was your grandfather's brother? He said, a Rabbi Grodzinski. I said, Rav חיים עוזר Chaim Ozer? He said, yeah, that's it. I said, now now you know where your brains, now you know where your smarts come from. The great Rav חיים עוזר גרודזינסקי Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, the אחיעזר Achiezer. The אחיעזר Achiezer says, although the accepted ruling is that the Torah forbids an abortion, the ר\"ן Ran, רבינו ניסים Rabbeinu Nissim, one of the ראשונים Rishonim, believes the prohibition is רבנן rabbinic. The מהר\"ש ענגיל Maharash Engel believes this is also the רמב\"ם's Rambam's opinion. Rav חיים פלאג'י Chaim Palagi, the בית יהודה Beis Yehuda, the מהר\"ש ענגיל Maharash Engel himself, all rule the prohibition is רבנן rabbinic. So you may be shocked to learn that there are a group of ראשונים Rishonim and אחרונים Acharonim who believe that abortion, what we take for granted, what many Jews say, it's murder, it's wrong, pro-life, that there is a group who believe that abortion is a rabbinic prohibition, is a rabbinic prohibition. That means that just to put it in context, if you have that bowl of jelly beans that's mixed colors and you select the jelly beans in the wrong way, violating the biblical prohibition of בורר borer, you have violated a stricter prohibition than an abortion in their opinion. Just to put it in context, biblical versus rabbinic. They believe it's rabbinic.In summation, however, a little bit later, the נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram concludes, the majority, the overwhelming majority of ראשונים Rishonim and אחרונים Acharonim, later authorities, rule, aborting a fetus is prohibited by the Torah. If there's no danger or possible danger to the mother's life as a result of the pregnancy or labor. The חקרי לב Chikrei Lev writes that the deciding ruling is like that of תוספות Tosfos, that aborting a fetus is prohibited by Torah law. It's also the רמב\"ם's Rambam's opinion according to the תורת חסד Toras Chesed. This is the ruling of the מהר\"ם שיק Maharam Schick, צפנת פענח Tzofnas Paneach, אחיעזר Achiezer, אור שמח Ohr Somayach, בית יצחק Beis Yitzchak, שדי חמד Sdei Chemed, יביע אומר Yabia Omer, אגרות משה Igros Moshe, שלמה זלמן אויערבאך Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Ovadia Yosef, and many many others. So we follow the opinion, to put it in context, it's not only no different, it's stricter than the jelly beans, it is a biblical prohibition. But we're left, of course, with the great question. If it's a biblical prohibition, what's the biblical prohibition? It doesn't say anywhere in the תורה Torah. Even the גמרא Gemara says only working off the פסוק pasuk in פרשת נח Parshas Noach, dealing with בני נח bnei Noach, non-Jews, what's the biblical prohibition of abortion? What is one violating? What is the prohibition?The רמב\"ם Rambam writes in source number eight, הלכות רוצח Hilchos Rotzeach. Says the רמב\"ם Rambam, אף זו מצוות לא תעשה שלא לחוס על נפש הרודף af zu mitzvas lo sa'aseh shelo lachos al nefesh harodef. The רמב\"ם Rambam is writing in הלכות רוצח Hilchos Rotzeach in the following law. A is pursuing B, A is trying to kill B. B is innocent. A is a pursuer. C comes along and sees A pursuing B, and what does C do? Kill A. Is C liable for killing A? C is celebrated for killing A. Why? What is A called in הלכה halacha? A רודף rodef. A רודף rodef is a pursuer trying to kill somebody else. So if you intervene, if you intercede to save the innocent and take out the pursuer, not only are you exempt, but that is the correct thing to do. So that's what the Torah says. זו מצוות לא תעשה שלא לחוס על נפש הרודף zu mitzvas lo sa'aseh shelo lachos al nefesh harodef. You're not supposed to take pity on a רודף rodef. You don't say, I can't pull the trigger, I feel bad. Feel bad for the נרדף nirdaf. Show sympathy for the pursued, not the pursuer. לפיכך lefikach, in this context says the רמב\"ם Rambam, הורו חכמים שהעוברה שהיא מקשה לילד, מותר לחתוך העובר במעיה, בין בסם בין ביד, מפני שהוא כרודף אחריה להורגה. ואם משהוציא ראשו, אין נוגעין בו, שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש, וזהו טבעו של עולם Horu chachamim sheha'ubara shehi mekasheh leleid, mutar lachtoch ha'ubar b'mei'eha, bein b'sam bein b'yad, mipnei shehu k'rodef achareha le'horgah. V'im mish'hotzi rosho, ein nog'in bo, she'ein dochin nefesh mipnei nefesh, v'zehu tiv'o shel olam. Says the רמב\"ם Rambam that the reason, this Mishnah in Ohalos, the reason if a fetus challenges the well-being of the mother, you kill the fetus is because of one reason and one reason only. What status does the fetus have? The fetus is a רודף rodef. The fetus is a pursuer. It's going to kill the mother. The mother's the נרדף nirdaf, the pursued. You as C, the third party, need to not show sympathy to the pursuer, take out the pursuer in order to save the pursued. But says the רמב\"ם Rambam, if the baby's head is out, ראשו rosho, or רובו rubo, or most of the body, then you're not allowed to touch the baby. What happened? Now the baby is a is a full person. אין דוחין נפש מפני נפש וזהו טבעו של עולם ein dochin nefesh mipnei nefesh, v'zehu tiv'o shel olam. Says Rav Moshe Feinstein based on this, based on this רמב\"ם Rambam. Says Rav Moshe. What do you see from here? The fact that the רמב\"ם Rambam has to use the principle of רודף rodef. What do you see from here? He teaches that in fact, a fetus is a living person. Because what is the only justification? What is the only defense that we ever have for killing a living person? If they're a רודף rodef. Without there being a רודף rodef, you wouldn't be allowed to kill. So what do you see from the fact that the רמב\"ם Rambam needs to invoke רודף rodef in order to justify taking the life of the fetus? How does the רמב\"ם Rambam treat the fetus? As a fully living being. Which means that taking the life of the fetus when it's not a pursuer is tantamount to murder. So Rav Moshe Feinstein's position, source number nine in אגרות משה Igros Moshe, it's in a number of places, but here's a תשובה teshuva in חושן משפט חלק ב' בעניין הפלת עובר לברר שאסור אף בשביל צער האם Choshen Mishpat chelek beis, b'inyan hapalas ubber l'vareir she'asur af bishvil tza'ar ha'em, even when the mother is in pain, he says that abortion, not the mother is threatened, but the mother's just in pain. Abortion is prohibited. And what does he base it on? The רמב\"ם Rambam. The fact that the רמב\"ם Rambam invokes רודף rodef teaches Rav Moshe that without רודף rodef, taking the life of the fetus is tantamount to murder. And he writes very strongly about this because he's going to reference the ציץ אליעזר Tzitz Eliezer. Rav Eliezer Waldenberg has a very lenient ruling. And Rav Moshe writes, לכן נשתוממתי בראותי תשובה מחכם אחד בארץ ישראל שנכתב למנהל בית החולים שערי צדק lachen nishtomamti b'ro'si teshuva mei'chacham echad b'eretz yisrael shenichtav l'menahel beis hacholim Shaarei Tzedek. Who was the פוסק posek of שערי צדק Shaarei Tzedek? The ציץ אליעזר Tzitz Eliezer Rav Waldenberg zatzal. And Rav Moshe says, I'm shocked to read a תשובה teshuva who's lenient in this regard. And Rav Moshe says, you cannot rule like him. Look at the end of his תשובה teshuva. ברור ופשוט כדכתבתי דהלכה ברורה ופשוטה ברמב\"ם ובראשונים ובמפרשים והפוסקים ממש שאסור בדין רציחה ממש, כל עובר, בין כשר בין ממזר, בין סתם עוברים, בין הידועים לחולי תסכס... כולם אסורים בדין ממש Barur v'pashut k'dichtavti d'halacha brurah u'pshutah b'Rambam u'b'rishonim u'b'mefarshim v'haposkim mamash she'asur b'din retzicha mamash, kol ubber, bein kosher bein mamzer, bein stam ubbrim, bein ha'yeduim l'cholei Tay-Sachs... kulam assurim b'dinah mamash. Abortion is prohibited as murder, says Rav Moshe. If the fetus is healthy or the fetus has Tay-Sachs. If the fetus is regular or the fetus is a ממזר mamzer, I don't care, says Rav Moshe, it is murder. ואין לטעות ולסמוך על תשובת חכם זה v'ein litos v'lismoch al teshovas chacham zeh, do not make the mistake of following or relying on this תשובה teshuva of the rabbi of שערי צדק Shaarei Tzedek. He's talking about the ציץ אליעזר Tzitz Eliezer. וצריך למחות בזה... לכבוד התורה ולדין האמת v'tzarich limchos b'zeh... l'kvod haTorah v'l'din ha'emes. He said I have to set aside the כבוד kavod of this great rabbi because I need to teach the correct thing which is it would be murder, it would be murder to perform an abortion on a baby just because they have Tay-Sachs, or the mother's a victim of rape, or the child would be a ממזר mamzer, or all these other circumstances, says Rav Moshe, it is murder through and through based on the רמב\"ם Rambam.That's a good question, why is it only a לאו lav, why is there no capital punishment? It's a good question. It's a good question, but for Rav Moshe, for Rav Moshe it's murder. Source number 10, the רמב\"ן Ramban throws a wrinkle. The רמב\"ן Ramban is dealing with another גמרא Gemara. The גמרא Gemara says elsewhere, the גמרא Gemara says elsewhere, yes, if the child threatens the life of the mother, we abort the child. But what about if the mother on שבת Shabbos, her health is not compromised, but her pregnancy is. The mother on שבת Shabbos, her pregnancy is compromised. Can she violate שבת Shabbos in order to save the life of the fetus? What's the הלכה halacha? Absolutely. The גמרא Gemara says clearly, you violate שבת Shabbos to save the life of the fetus. The mother will live either way. Can you violate שבת Shabbos to save the life of the fetus? Absolutely. So you're left with the following question. What? Why? If we said that if the if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you can abort the fetus, which we concluded means that the fetus is not considered to be living. Well if the fetus is not considered to be living, then why can you violate שבת Shabbos to save the fetus? You can only violate שבת Shabbos to save a life. If the fetus is not living, why is it permissible to violate to violate שבת Shabbos?This is the question the רמב\"ן Ramban deals with. And the רמב\"ן Ramban in sources 10 and 11, in תורת האדם Toras HaAdam and in his commentary on נידה Niddah, introduces us to a new concept and says there's an in-between. Until now, we thought the fetus is either, the unborn is either considered to be a life or not a life. Says the רמב\"ן Ramban, there's a third possibility. The fetus is considered to be a potential life. And a potential life also has a status in הלכה halacha. When it comes to the conflict between a potential life and a life, who trumps whom? The life. So you save the mother. But can you violate שבת Shabbos even to save a potential life? Absolutely. And the רמב\"ן Ramban invokes another גמרא Gemara that we're מחלל שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה mechalel shabbos achas k'dei sheyishmor shabbosos harbeh, we violate שבת Shabbos so someone can save, observe many שבת Shabboses. So apply that principle to the unborn. If you violate שבת Shabbos to save the unborn, the unborn can spend a lifetime of observing שבת Shabbos. So therefore, it's different thresholds, different definitions of life. In conflict with the mother, the unborn is called not a life. You save the mother. But in in terms of in conflict with שבת Shabbos, the unborn is considered a potential life, you violate שבת Shabbos to save the unborn. It's considered. At what point are you considered a potential life? Let's say the IVF doctor in their laboratory, their freezer system, the electricity breaks down, the backup generator breaks down, the freezer breaks down, and all the frozen embryos are going to thaw and they're going to rot. Can the doctor violate שבת Shabbos to save them? Can you violate שבת Shabbos? So this הלכה halacha will likely change in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime. But the פוסקים poskim, Rav Wosner and others say, right now the answer is no. When from when are you called a potential life? Only from when if you leave all well enough alone, it would result in a life. Meaning, a fetus within the womb. Where if you do nothing, in five months, six months, nine months, please God, be a healthy baby. But a embryo in a freezer, if you leave well enough alone, nothing will happen. So it's not yet called a potential life. Now why do I say it'll change in our lifetime? Because science is advancing at such a rapid rate that in our lifetime, the next lifetime, it's possible they will create an artificial womb. So that the husband will donate sperm and the woman her eggs, maybe this couple's never even met, maybe they live on separate continents. And in a laboratory, they'll mix the ingredients, create conception, take this zygote, this blastocyst, this pre-embryo, put it in a artificial womb and through gestation, nine months, and give birth to a baby. Maybe in our lifetime, maybe in the next. At that point, a potential life will be determined, the potential life much sooner, right, and in different way. But for right now, the פוסקים poskim still say that in the freezer, it's not yet called a potential life.So for the רמב\"ן Ramban that introduces us to a new principle. And based on this רמב\"ן Ramban, the שבט הלוי Shevet HaLevi, Rav Wosner, a great פוסק posek in בני ברק Bnei Brak, whose great-niece lives in our community, Rav Wosner is Genie Rabb's great uncle, Genie's grand grandmother's brother. So Rav Wosner, a great פוסק posek in בני ברק Bnei Brak, says, based on the רמב\"ן Ramban, that Rav Moshe is not necessarily right. It's not murder. Because there's no such thing as murder of a potential life. Murder applies to the living. The fact that when you you you save, the fact that Rav Moshe derives this from this notion of the רודף rodef, because even a potential life in order to take it out, but it doesn't make it murder because of the רמב\"ן Ramban, says Rav Wosner, that potential life is not called murder. So if it's not murder, if Rav Moshe is wrong, then what is the prohibition of abortion? What is the biblical prohibition? Why is it wrong? So there are a number of other suggestions which are offered of why it may be. The חות יאיר Chavas Yair, Rav Yair Chaim Bacharach, a great פוסק posek in the 17th century in Germany, חות יאיר Chavas Yair says, you know what it is? It is הוצאת זרע לבטלה hotzaas zera l'vatalah, השחתת זרע hashchatas zera. השחתת זרע hashchatas zera. If one is forbidden from, not only are you not allowed to waste seed in terms of the extraction of seed for waste. There's also a prohibition of destroying seed even once it is extracted. So if that's true for seed, all the more so for an embryo, for a fetus. So he says the prohibition of abortion is the destruction of seed, השחתת זרע hashchatas zera. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zatzal, source 14, is quoted in the נשמת אברהם Nishmas Avram, that we know that there's a הלכה halacha, a fetus in utero is considered to be able to own property. זכין לאדם שלא בפניו zachin l'adam shelo b'fanav. If you wanted to set up, you know, I learned in wills and estates, you can create a trust fund for an unborn child. Did you know that? A young person who's not even married could set up trusts for their grandchildren. They have no children, but they could set up trusts for their grandchildren. In the law, in American laws, wills and estates. Well in הלכה halacha, I don't know if it's true דבר שלא בא לעולם davar shelo ba la'olam, not even pregnant, but if a woman is pregnant, you could set up a halachic fund for the fetus and they would have the halachic status of owning money, such that if you rob them, you were stealing, you were violating the prohibition of stealing. So it says Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, if that's true for assets for money that the fetus owns, then certainly it's true for the fetus itself. Just as it's forbidden to rob a fetus of money that's belonging to it, so too it's forbidden to rob it of life itself. That's the prohibition of of murder. There are other suggestions which are given as well. The מהרי\"ט Maharit says it can be derived from tort law. You're not allowed to harm or wound, what greater harm or wound is there? Some say it's חבלה chavalah, it's the prohibition of creating a blemish or a wound. There are all kinds of other suggested reasons of the prohibition of of abortion. רציחה, חבלה, השחתת זרע retzicha, chavalah, hashchatas zera, and so on. Rav ציץ אליעזר Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, who Rav Moshe was so vehemently against, he rules very leniently when it comes to abortion. He understands that abortion is permitted in many, many circumstances. You can look there in his תשובה teshuva, he spells it out.From when is abortion prohibited? When does it begin? Whatever the prohibition is: murder, or wasting seed, or חבלה chavalah, causing a wound, or stealing, you're stealing from a fetus, you're stealing its life. Whatever these many suggestions, when does it begin? So we have a principle that before 40 days of gestation, of pregnancy, it's not considered a pregnant. It's considered to be embryonic fluid. The woman is bloated. She's not pregnant. Halachically, I don't mean to minimize the feeling of pregnancy. You know, one third, statistically, one third of pregnancies end in miscarriage. One third. Many women don't even know they had a miscarriage. They think they had a heavy flow. They don't even appreciate that they had a miscarriage, but one third of pregnancies end early on in miscarriage. Before 40 days, the גמרא Gemara in יבמות ס\"ט Yevamos samech-tes calls it עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא הוא ad arba'im maya b'alma hu. Till 40 days, it's merely water. It's not considered a child, it's embryonic fluid. And there's many halachic consequences. This milestone of 40 days is very significant. First of all, when it comes to המפלת עד יום ארבעים אינה חוששת לולד hamapeles ad yom arba'im, eina chosheshes l'vlad. If a woman has a miscarriage before 40 days, she is not considered to having been pregnant. So in other words, if a woman has a miscarriage before 40 days and then has a first child, that first child, if it's a boy, will be the בכור bechor. If she has a miscarriage after 40 days, that first child is not considered the first of her womb, is not considered to be the בכור bechor. There would be no פדיון הבן pidyon haben. If she was pregnant for more than 40 days and miscarried, there would be no פדיון הבן pidyon haben. If it was less than 40 days, there would be. Another example, this relates to our פרשה parsha is, does she see the ימי טומאת יולדת yemei tumas yoledes? Does she have the status of a יולדת yoledes? Is she with what our פרשה parsha begins with, does she have the status of a woman who gave birth with the laws of purity and impurity that affect her, which are very different? Look at the Mishna the way it continues, the Mishna in Niddah 30. Source 17. If she miscarried on the 41st day, she observes the laws of טומאה tumah of a male and the birth of a female birth and of a נידה niddah. Rav Yishmael teaches, if she miscarried on the 41st day following conception, she has to observe the טומאה tumah laws of both a male and a female. She doesn't know. If she miscarried on the 81st day, she observes the laws of טומאה tumah of a male, of a female, and a נידה niddah. For the basic form of a male embryo is completed on the 41st day, and the basic form of a female is completed by the 81st day. This is based on our פרשה parsha. Beginning of Tazria teaches 40 days, 80 days, and the Mishna assumes there's a difference. The חכמים chachamim disagree. Both the creation of the male and the female requires the same amount of time. This one and that one both require 40 days. Now, by the way, scientifically, it's very interesting. There are scientific journals which quote that, while the, while the fetus or the embryo, the cells have the capacity to emerge as either the XY, XX, the chromosomes, chromosomally, the fetus could, the embryo could emerge either male or female, they begin to show the signs of identity at the 40th day. Science shows, around the 40th day. And that's when essentially it's irreversible. That's why the גמרא Gemara in ברכות Brachos also says, by the way, it's appropriate to daven for the gender of your child till the 40th day. After that time, it's been determined. It's inappropriate. There's a ירושלמי Yerushalmi that says you could keep davening because it would be a hidden miracle, not a revealed one, because it would be, it's been known to change in utero, right? My son, my son, we were told early on in the pregnancy after a sonogram, was a little beautiful girl. We spent months thinking she was pregnant with a girl, and only later at another sonogram, it's an incredible story for another time. So, was it really a boy from the beginning, or did all the davening pay off? I don't know. It's not for me to say, but ברוך השם baruch Hashem, he's a full and full, all the way, you know. I volunteer to check his diaper regularly and I'm telling you he's a he's a boy all the way through. ברוך השם כן יהי רצון Baruch Hashem, ken yehi ratzon. So anyway, interesting, source 18. Rabbi J. David Bleich in his bioethics book writes in a footnote, it's perhaps of interest, again, based on this week's parsha, it's perhaps of interest to note that Aristotle declares that male fetus endowed with the rational soul on the 40th day of gestation, and the female on the 80th. Where do you think Aristotle got that from? It's a possible, the Mishnah, it's possible the the rabbis of the Mishnah, I should say, it's possible from the from the from the Torah. This distinction corresponds not only to the respective periods of impurity prescribed by Leviticus, our parsha, but to the opinion of Rav Yishmael in the Mishnah, who is of the opinion that prescribed periods of impurity correspond to the number of days required for the animation of the respective sexes and therefore declares no impurity results from the miscarriage of a female embryo less than 80 days. Aristotle's representation of animation as occurring on the 40th or 80th day, depending on the sex of the fetus, was later incorporated into both canon and Justinian law. Very interesting. And as I said, it has halachic consequences. If a woman miscarries less than 40 days, what she miscarried will not create טומאה tumah. Does not have the status of a corpse. After 40 days, it does. Because 40 days is מיא בעלמא maya b'alma. So, by the way, if you want to set up an account, this is the ש\"ך Shach in source 20, חושן משפט Choshen Mishpat. If you want to set up a trust fund for a baby when a woman's pregnant less than 40 days, you can't. Only when she's pregnant more than 40 days. All of these halachic nafka minas, 40 day is a serious demarcation. So what's the status of an abortion before 40 days? Well, it's going to depend on what the reason is. If according to the, if the reason is murder, so maybe before 40 days, you can't call it murder. It's מיא בעלמא maya b'alma. Maybe Rav Moshe will be lenient before 40 days. Again, it's unusual to know you're pregnant before 40 days, but let's say you know, maybe Rav Moshe will be lenient because you can't call it murder of embryonic fluid. But if the reason is השחתת זרע hashchatas zera, if the reason is destroying seed, you can't destroy even seed that's embryonic fluid mixed with embryonic fluid. So depending on your reason, before 40 days might be a leniency. And many פוסקים poskim bring it as a variable, a סניף להיתר snif l'heter. There are times where they will be lenient when the pregnancy, the gestation is less than 40 days. What I want to do for the next five minutes, what I want to spend the time in to end the class is to show you that which which is what the point of this class was, that while we live in a polarized society who have very opposite opinions when it comes to abortion. Either pro-life, the living, it's tantamount to murder under no circumstances, or a very casual, flippant, ah, it's the woman's choice, the woman's choice, it's nothing, you know. Judaism has a much more nuanced view, which is that abortion is prohibited. It is forbidden. What's the nature? It's unclear, it's debated. Are there extended circumstances where it's permitted? Yes, when it comes in conflict with the mother. Is that because the fetus is a life? According to Rav Moshe, the fetus is a full-fledged life. It's murder, according to based on the Rambam. According to the Ramban, and therefore the Shevet HaLevi, the Rav Wosner and others, no, the fetus is a potential life. And a potential life has some rights, but not enough to supersede the mother. According to others, it's not even a potential life. Maybe it's just seed, and that too is prohibited. But I want to show you a number of examples, the nuances in the פוסקים poskim. As observant Jews, for us to say abortion is prohibited blankly, uniformly is simply inaccurate. Yes, yes, the principle is abortion is prohibited, but there are many of nuanced circumstances. So here are just a few.Aborting a pregnancy of less than 40 days. This all comes from Nishmas Avram, page nine. A fetus which according to the doctors is 40 days old is halachically only about 26 days old, right? Again, when you go to the doctor, a gynecologist, an OBGYN measures the pregnancy from the first day of the previous period. But we know halachically that there's we measure pregnancy from the night of the mikvah. It couldn't have happened before that, which is at least 12 days after the first day of the last period. So when measuring the 40 days, the Nishmas Avram cautions, when measuring those 40 days of pregnancy, make sure you're defining it by the Jewish definition, not the OBGYN definition, which could be 12 days later than their definition. Now, right, he writes that extensively, the bottom of the left hand column. Therefore, many אחרונים Acharonim tend to be more lenient with regard to the abortion of such a fetus, meaning before 40 days. Certain diseases such as Tay-Sachs can be diagnosed in the fetus before it is 40 days old by the technique of CVS, chorionic villus sampling. Procedure is carried out 10 to 12 weeks of gestation, carries a 2.3% risk of miscarriage of a normal fetus, additional risk of inducing congenital defects. In a study published in June 2002, CVS was carried out in 82 Orthodox women at 7 to 8 weeks of gestation, which is less than 40 days. The rate of miscarriage was 5% at less than 28 weeks. Rav Neuwirth, the author of שמירת שבת כהלכתה Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa, who passed away a couple years ago, wrote to me that he had spoken to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who told him in certain cases it would be permitted to carry out CVS, and if it were done before the 40 days had lapsed, it would be permitted to abort an affected baby. So you see Rav Shlomo Zalman, who may not have been lenient on Tay-Sachs later on in pregnancy, was before 40 days because of this principle of מיא בעלמא maya b'alma that it's not a real bonafide pregnancy, it's not yet even a potential life. So therefore, if you could diagnose Tay-Sachs in under 40 days, there'd be greater room for leniency. When the pregnancy itself is a danger to the mother. Page 10. A situation where the danger to the mother is certain, even probable, there's no question the fetus must be aborted if there's no other way that her life can be saved. An abortion is then obligatory, and that's the ruling of the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch. Meaning, not only is it okay, but it's obligatory. If the mother says, I'll die and let the fetus live, she's doing the wrong thing. It's obligatory to abort the fetus so that the mother lives. Now, asked Rav Zilbershtein, Rav Zilbershtein is a son-in-law of Rav Elyashiv, a rav in Bnei Brak, we're studying his חשוקי חמד Chashukei Chemed between mincha and maariv. The middle column, page 10. Rav Zilbershtein was asked, a woman in the early stages of pregnancy was found to have cancer which obligated chemotherapy. Very interesting. Now, would it be permitted to abort the fetus since the pregnancy might endanger her during the therapy, even though the fetus itself was not a רודף rodef? Think about it. The fetus here is not a רודף rodef to the life of the mother. It's just that the cancer is the רודף rodef, but being pregnant while having chemo lowers your your your ability for the chemo to be effective. So the baby's not directly a רודף rodef. You see, there's such nuance in the questions. It's not at all simple. You could look at his answer. I don't want to go through it in depth, I'm just trying to show you that Judaism has such nuance to the question. The right-hand column. Where the danger to the mother stems from an illness that preceded the pregnancy. Let's say the mother chose to get pregnant, knowing she had an illness that the baby would challenge her. Is she still, is the baby still a רודף rodef? She put herself in that circumstance. So the יביע אומר Yabia Omer, Rav Ovadia, permits an abortion where there's a good possibility that continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the mother's life, particularly if the pregnancy is of less than three months duration. I'm sorry, a different case. The mother's pregnant, the baby's not yet a threat to the mother. It's early on in the pregnancy when it would be more lenient to do an abortion, but right now there's no problem. Everyone's healthy and well. But if the pregnancy continues, then the baby will threaten the mother. Can you abort the baby because in the potential, anticipating the threat the baby will pose, the fetus will pose? Rav Ovadia said yes. Rav Moshe says no. It's forbidden to permit an abortion unless the opinion of doctors is the mother will almost certainly die if the fetus is not aborted. Unless you know the baby to be a רודף rodef with certainty, you can't in anticipation that it likely will abort the fetus. You see there's such nuance, there's such debate. Continuing the next page, 11. What about the next circumstance? A woman who is diabetic and hypertensive, she's told by a number of doctors, her pregnancy will endanger her life. She has to have an abortion. Fetus is endangering her life, and so on. She's admitted to the hospital with high blood pressure before 40 days have lapsed. Right? So she has these conditions, maybe she didn't intend on becoming pregnant. She's admitted to the hospital. It's not yet 40 days, these conditions are going to worsen, can she get an abortion? And there's a debate in this situation between the ER doctor, the internist, and her OBGYN. Rav Shlomo Zalman wrote to me that it would nevertheless appear that the gynecologist is more experienced, even if the internist is as such experienced as he, it would still be permitted to have the abortion immediately. Right? The internist was saying, nah, it's not a problem, we can control the blood pressure, the hypertension. The OBGYN said if she continues with this pregnancy, she's going to die. So Rav Shlomo Zalman listened to the OBGYN. Let's say the baby doesn't threaten, the fetus doesn't threaten the mother's life, it threatens the mother's limb. Right? Number nine. A case, doctors warned her she didn't have an abortion, she'd become totally deaf in both ears. So she'll live, but she'll be deaf. Can she have an abortion in order to preserve her hearing? It's another nuance. What about severe suffering during the pregnancy but without danger? What if the mother, the pregnancy, the mother's going to throw up nonstop, be malnourished, be dehydrated, be in incredible acute, unbearable pain, is an abortion permitted to relieve pain, even if it never threatened her life? Even if it never threatened her life. Is pain tantamount to life? What about psychiatric illness? What if the mother has bipolar, personality disorder? What if she has a psychiatric diagnosis that if she remains pregnant, she's going to have a psychotic episode, may become suicidal, maybe unable to care for the baby? Is psychiatric illness enough to take the life of the baby? The לבושי מרדכי Levushei Mordechai permits an abortion if according to medical opinion there's a danger the mother will become so severely psychiatrically ill, it will entail danger to her life. Psychiatric illness is enough of a justification to abort as well, according to some opinions. What about, continuing, what about Tay-Sachs? What kind of diseases that the baby would permit abortion? Would Tay-Sachs be, Rubella, measles, Down syndrome, page 13. ציץ אליעזר Tzitz Eliezer has a discussion. Knowing a baby will have Down syndrome, parent feels incapable of caring for that baby. Would Down syndrome be enough of a justification for? There, even, even the ציץ אליעזר Tzitz Eliezer is the most lenient, with regards to an abortion if the test is positive, writes, he cannot give a general permissive ruling to apply in all cases. Rav Shlomo Zalman was strict in the case of Down's. What about a ממזר mamzer? A woman has an extramarital affair, and if you bring this baby into the world, the baby is going to be a ממזר mamzer. A ממזר mamzer is not allowed to marry a regular person. The בן איש חי Ben Ish Chai was asked about a married woman who became pregnant from another man, five months pregnant, could she drink this medication which would abort the baby? It would be a חילול השם chillul Hashem, bring disgrace on the family, this child would suffer. Can you perform an abortion? And there are some lenient rulings. What about AIDS? What about rape? The woman is a victim of rape, can she have an abortion? What about multiple pregnancy and fetal reduction? Often in cases of infertility today, when we do IVF, they don't just put in one embryo, they put in four or five or six in anticipation that they won't all take. Let's say they take. We've had cases in our community, הלכה שאלות halachah shailos like this. I remember one where a woman became pregnant with six fetuses. And the doctors determined it would be not only unhealthy to her life, but they would be competing with one another. It's possible none of them would make it. So you have to do what's called fetal reduction. You have to choose to reduce. So you're aborting some of them. Is it permissible? There's another nuance to that which is, once you're reducing, can you determine which are boys and which are girls and say, you know what? I want boys, I want girls, I want exactly the same of each. I want the blue eyes, I want the six-foot-one, not the four-foot-one. You know, can you decide? But Rav Shlomo Zalman was lenient to abort some of the fetuses in order to save others. What you saw is that Judaism has a very nuanced approach, that unlike the normal conversation, which is really the polar opposites, there's a nuanced perspective. Abortion is prohibited. We value the life, the rights, or the potential life of the fetus, but there are circumstances where we permit it. I I close with a great article by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, שליט\"א shlita, should have a continued רפואה שלימה refuah shleimah. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein on the last page, page 15, puts the question of abortion in context and says, like all questions of הלכה halacha, we can't approach it from what makes us feel good, what makes sense, what the contemporary view is, but these are הלכתי halachic questions. Look at the second paragraph. Judged by the standard prevalent today in most of the world, at least the Western world, the הלכתי halachic approach presented here appears rather stringent. This requires no apologetics. It is worth making clear, certainly to those who in seeking a humane approach are liable to adopt slavishly an an overly liberal attitude, that from the perspective of the fetus and those concerned with its welfare, liberality in this direction comes at the expense of humanity. In so far as the caution of הלכה halacha is tied to its intimate concern for the value of kindness and mercy. It's not only the honor of God which obligates us, regardless of the cost, to avoid what is prohibited, to obey the commandments of the Almighty that are expressed in הלכה halacha. It's also the honor of man in הלכה halacha, the humane and ethical element which insists on the preservation of human dignity, concern for human welfare, that rises up in indignation against the torrent of abortions. A very interesting conclusion, a very important one. Thank you, have a wonderful.
