Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Who doesn’t know this?
Its used becasue it is excellent and easily searchable
Why does closing a Yeshiva give honor to soldiers?
If you said should they sing the national anthem or raise a flag say some tehilim, even a moment of silence (to reflect on their sacrifice) I’d understand.
But why close the Yeshiva? I don’t get it
“ubi, you seemed to imply that all these states are not doing reasonable background checks as relevant to the recent event.”
Unclear how you made that inference.
I was replying to a specific comment
I quoted it to avoid confusion
This is the line
““There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.””Gun control laws should not be limited to what would have prevented the last big news story.
Say when (not if ) the next shooter steasls the healdines occurs and he is 22. does that mean any call to raise age to buy guns to 21 is moot, since it wouldn’t have stopped THAT shooter?
Obviously not, if an idea would help/makes sense it should be implemented . perioduniversal background checks are a good idea (in my opinion and most Americans including most gun owners) the fact that it wouldn’t have stopped THIS shooter is immaterial.
Halevai’s suggestion in the OP “Maybe gun manufacturers should be required to make the barrels even more pronounced, in that a bullet should be able to be traced to its licenced owner without having to get hold of the gun first.” Would not have prevented this shooting either.
AAQ
“So, these states DO have background checks except the gun shows?”
I believe license firearm dealers are federally mandated to perform background checks, this applies in all states“Did the latest murderer buy his gun at the gun show? ”
No“Are gun shows a significant source of guns used in crime?”
Yes. Though exact data is hard to vcme by as no records are kept (whcih is exactly the problem)
Bu several reports indicate that this is a source of guns used in crime see aTF report from 2000 Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws against Firearms Traffickers. found that 30% of guns used in crimes were bought through gun shows. his was the second most common source of guns used by criminals (first place were those bought through a strawman which accounted for ~ 40%)not sure what that rat is that you smelled.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
“There’s no reason people should object to background checks, but I believe that is already in place.”
They are not.
and while this is something that nearly 90% of the country agrees is a good idea including the vast majority of gun owners, the NRA opposes it.The last time this was discussed I commented
” but right now today 8/15/2019 the following states : AL, AK, AZ, AR FL, GA,, ID, IN, IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MO MT ME NH NC ND OH OK PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WV WI WY Do NOT require background checks for all gun sales (aka the “gun show loophole”)”I don’t think much has changed in the past 2 and half years since I wrote that
“This whole business of looking good by the Goyim is completely secondary, if even that much.”
one of the dafim this week is explciit that looking good in fornt of Goyim is a “kiddush Hashem”
Yevamos 79 a relates
In regard to the hanging of Shaul’s descendants which violated a pasuk in the TorahThe Gemara says
טאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: מוּטָב שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְיִתְקַדֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְרִים וְשָׁבִים אוֹמְרִים: מָה טִיבָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ? הַלָּלוּ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים הֵם. וּמָה עָשׂוּ? פָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בְּגֵרִים גְּרוּרִים. אָמְרוּ: אֵין לְךָ אוּמָּה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהִדָּבֵק בָּהּ כָּזוֹ.
It is clear these “ovrim veshavim” were not Jewish
Lol UJM
you don’t need to parse a letter to not e an “extra” phrase written over an over and over and over (literally)
If you don’t know why he wrote it, just say so.
My question is pashut pshat what does “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” add that he was careful to include it EVERY time.I know why, Jackk knows, Aseh knows.
B’seder you don’t know no shame in saying soUJM
Actually not.
And of course if it where true, there would be no need to stick in that phrase multiple times.But ok, i’ll bite. What was R’ Zweibel (and the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of America on whose behalf he was writing) looking to add wit h the phrase “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” If it didn’t add anything to “necessary to preserve the life of the mother”?
If it was once, fine I agree don’t be medayek in every word but it is every single time.
Why not just say “necessary to preserve the life of the mother” And thats it, if yo uthink that is Halacha’s approach
Aseh
Great point, I didn’t think of that distinction. Though worth noting that R’ Moshe does not make this distinction IIRC.
to clarify what I meant by “In practice it is this way as well” I meant in practice Poskim use a “looser” (or stricter depending on your frame of reference) definition of “life at risk” than doctors would
Jackk
Your understanding is exactly right .
In practice it is this way as well
Every time abortion comes up, many posters mistakenly comment something along the lines of
“…abortion is only allowed if the mother’s physical life is in danger,…”It is worth noting that in 1989 Rabbi Zwiebel at the behest of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah submitted an amicus brief in the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
“For the reasons stated above, amicus curiae Agudath Israel of America respectfully submits that Roe v. Wade’s holding that all abortions are expressions of a constitutional right that is “fundamental” should be overruled; that abortion should be deemed a “fundamental” right only where necessary to preserve the life of the mother OR WHERE MANDATED BY THE MOTHER’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; and that Missouri’s legislative “finding” that human life begins at conception should be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.
(emphasis added)This line appears over and over again in the brief “Thus, even if the right to most abortions is not fundamental, the right to some abortions — those necessary to preserve maternal life and those mandated by a woman’s religious beliefs — is.”
In fact It seems EVERY TIME the phrase “to protect maternal life” appears it is immediately followed by “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief’s”
The idea that the ONLY abortions allowed is to protect the life of the mother, is not the Torah True (TM) approach
In Buffalo there was an armed security officer
In Texas (according to some reports) the shooter was confornted by armed officers before he entered the school.More guns is unfortunately not the answer
“No reasonable person thinks that abortion is not murder.”
This is offensive the Achiezer, Seridei Eish, Maharit , R’ Yaakov Emdedn Tzitz eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, chavas Yair, Minhas chinuch were all reasonable people.
Sure you can argue with them. But to say they weren’t reasonable isn’t nice to say the least“Stop being motzi Shem Ra on one of the gedolei hador and gonask mechila. Alternatively,learn how to read before quoting someone.”
If you can’t identify the “Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.” I expect you to ask mechila and/or learn to read before quoting someone
“Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.
Surprise surprise, lo hada”m.”who said that?
AAQ
” but generally exalting R Moshe to press people to disregard a different serious posek is simply halachic bullying”I don;lt think its bullying, I think heis new t oall this . So he thinks Saying “R’ Moshe ” over and over and telling us how great he was (As if the rest of us don;t know) is a winning argument,
As he learns more he’ll fins several pesakim
This on the other hand ” They’d recoil in horror at the shattering of skulls, dismemberment and brutal torture that abortion often entails.” is a bt more bullying.
Though it too is irrelevent. My Bubbeh would recoil in horro at a description of how Sereifa is done. That doesnt mean we skip the end of Sanhedrin come to think of it there are a few blat in Yevamos she’d recoil from too, I guess we skip those ?
Avirah
” And they would scream “murderer!” Without getting into any shailos if it’s *really* murder or not.”Speak for yourself, may be your zeideh was an am haaretz. not sure that is muttar to say, but definitely don;t say that about all of us
And you have a funny idea about how pesak works. This isn’t about who was “bigger” A point you’ve made a few times that is completely irrelevant . (See YD 3:88 where he gives chizuk to someone afraid to argue with the Chazon Ish) Sure R’ Moshe is greater, pesak doesnt always follow who was “greater” .
you personally hold like R’ Moshe, Beseder. He is vey happy I’m sure he is pumped to get your stamp of approval.AAQ
“”you may be right and your opponents holding by minority opinion””
H isnt right. R’ Moshe Is the minority opinion. As demonstrated repeatedly .
Though certainly I’d be chosesh for such a significant minority opieion for such a potetially chamur issurujm
“or undergoes an abortion will be executed”undergoing is probably not assur, there is probably no lifnei iver for a beni noach.
but sure I agree“Why is there even any hava mina that there might be a right to kill a mamzer, any more than to kill a non-mamzer?”
There is no such hava aminah. but according to most poskim abortion isnt murder. In the case of a mamzer R’ Yaakov Emden holds it is muttar to abort (not murder obviously) a mamzer.“but i believe that Rav Shlomo Zalman considered abortion to be Retzichah for Jews also”
I’m not sure if he wrote anything himself on the matter. Both Nishmas Avraham and Shulchan Shlomo (hilchas refuah) write that he held it is gezel
I’m skeptical of your example, Haman’s name and father is read twice a year in a sing song tune that everyone I know recognizes and can easily finish “Haman ben…” .
Now if you said they don’t know Yerachmiel’s father I’d believe you, though I don’t think that is indicative of people not learning very strongly; even though that too is mefurash in the passuk
I don’ t think learning and preparing for a chidon haTananch are the same (though to be clear I do think there is value in knowing who Yerachmiel (which one’s?) father was) .(My list is heavy on Achronim becasue Rishonim’s views are often in dispute. For example R’ Moshe held the Rambam views abortion as murder; the Achiezer and Minchas chinuch argue, but according to some yo ucan add the Rambam to the bove list. Similarly the Achiezer brings from a Ran in chullin that it isnt murder, though again others dispute this.
also, as mentioned in previous threads; not murder does not equal muttar. This should be obvious but this point often gets lost so it is worth repeating. One poster mistakenly suggested if it isnt murder it should be celebrated. A contention that is utterly baffling )
Phil
your comment is shocking
to just dismiss the vast vast majority of poskim who do not hold abotyion is murder (at least for yidden), should make any frum yid shudder. It is one thing to (wrongly) claim that klal yisroel has accepted the opinion of those who wholsd it is murder. But to completly dismiss the Achiezer, Seridei Eish, Maharit , R’ Yaakov Emdedn Tzitz eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, chavas Yair, Minhas chinuch, Rashi, Tosfos (some Baalei Tosfos there is a machlokes) among others as not even existing!?!How low we have you fallen. Our parents and grandparents would be shocked at this discussion, to just mach avek all those shitos.
Again you dont hold of them fine. You want to be machmir (or meikel) on yourself and not allow those abortions b’seder. but to say they don’t exist?“. However, to oivdei Hashem who value life abortion is repulsive and unthinkable even when technically allowed by halacha ”
Nu nu so you are frummer than the Borei Olam,, to most people that isnt how halacha works, if muttar its muttar if asur than assur.
” After 40 days abortion is only allowed if the mother’s physical life is in danger, not if there’s a perceived threat of mental health issues.”
In your opinion. and you are free to have an opinion. I’ll bet noone ever came to you with suc ha sheilah. The poskim who get these shailahs’ do sometimes allow after 40 days .
“Abortion is murder. Abortion is murder. Abortion is murder. Period.”
Is that how halacha works? You repeat things over an over and they become true
AAQ
Thanks
We should add Gideon (shoftim 8:30)
Yerachmiel (divrei Hayamim alef 2:26)But clearly very rare
your cases mostly involve yibum , and king (sometimes both)UJM
“The Darchei Moshe and Rema demonstrate Rabbeinu Gershom provided exceptions to the Cherem, such as if the wife couldn’t have children. This effectively establishes that prior to R”G’s Cherem no such exceptions were necessary for polygyny.”got it, though
I’m not questioning if it was allowed.
Of course it was.
I am looking for a source as to how it was done in practice.
The Remah does imply that there were such places “ועיין בי”ד סי’ רכ”ח אם הלך ממקום שנהגו להחמיר למקום שנהגו להקל”Thanks
“As far as Tanach or Chazal, they didn’t always tell us everyone’s full marital statuses, ”
got it, So you cant think of any others eitherUntil Rabbeinu Gershom, the people married to more than one wife were regular Yidden, [citation needed]
not saying you are wrong.
would love a source .alos not you didnt answer my question (As usual)
Here it is again
Any others? (ie people in Tanacha/Mishna/Gemara with more than one wife?
Here is the list so far: Avraham, Yaakov Elkanah, Dovid, Shlomo, Eisav and Lamech“While there are exceptions like Yaakov Avinu even when it was allowed the norm was one wife.”
Not just Yaakov aveinu
ALL the cases I can think of involved special circumstances either a melech, or one wife couldn’t have children
Avraham, Yaakov (who was tricked), Elkanah, Dovid, Shlomo
of course we find Eisav and Lamech though not exactly role models
Any others?
“*Halachicly* is abortion considered murder”
Depends on circumstances in some cases no, in other cases its a machlokes” and would you be chaiv hereg?”
No” would it make a diffrence what trymester? ”
Machlokes“Also is it part of sheva mitzvos bnei noach?”
YesThat was a rather long solution to a crises I didn’t know existed , namely the “same color same size sock crises”
This solution wouldn’t even work for the “different color sock crises” not to mention much else else“Of course, more than 10% ends up merging in, significantly delaying the rest.”
This is incorrect.
The way you describe is very inefficent and causes traffic.
bot h lanes should be utilized until the end then merge in an alternating fashionThis has been studied over and over
See for example “EVALUATION OF THE LATE MERGE WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL STRATEGY ”or “Dynamic Late Merge Control Concept for Work Zones on Rural Freeways”
so to answer your question
“which one would you choose or any better suggestions?”
There is a clear better suggestion. stay in your lane and merge at the last minute better for you, AND better for society. The rare win win.ujm
Yes
Rambam Sanhedrin 12:4
מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ אֵין מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא יֵהָרֵג בְּיוֹמוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה עֻבָּרָה אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. וּמַכִּין אוֹתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַהֵרָיוֹן עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הַוָּלָד תְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל אִם יָשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד(To clarify my “I have” refers to the opening clause: “if you saw….” )
Avira
“question. If you saw a detailed video of a 2nd trimester fetus, with its organs, its heart beating, its brain firing neurons, its limbs developing…would you crush its skull, sever its spinal chord and dismember him?”
I have. and no I wouldn’t
(even if medically necessary I don’t think I could. Definitely if she was being led to be executed al pi beis din, and they ruled to perform the abortion first I can’t imagine being able to do that. I don’t know what that changes)why do you ask?
“For goyim it’s called a nefesh anyway, so your statement is just plainly against the pasuk. Just flat out ignorance.”
My focus is/was on yidden“if a lady is alloyed to do abortion to her own body because it is hers and dont tell me what to do then how could you force people to take vaccines”
Great question.
IT is becasue vaccines tend ** to affect people around them, abortion does not*. Furthermore vaccines protect people themselves which is in the State’s interest too similar to Seatbelts, abortion does not (in fact banning abortion would put peopl’es healh at risk since it would lead to unsafe abortions, Note: this is not an argument I find compelling since if it is wrong, its is wrong and should be banned we don;t not ban things becasue people break the law; we don;t avoid barbed wire outside sensitive buildings because it would lead to thieves cutting themselves, but it is still worth noting)
*Aye you will say abortion dos affect the life of another, namely the baby. This isn t true. Since in their view (and according to most in halachas’ view as well) a fetus is not a “life” as it is totally dependent on another. Lest yo usay, a baby is also dependent on another. There is a clear distinction, a baby’s life depends on ANYONE else. Not one person, a mother who can’t take care of a child does not have to, she can drop off the baby and “society” will take care of it. Such an option does not exist during pregnancy forcing a woman to serve as an incubator for an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is not at all similar to forcing a vaccine to help protect herself/society
Hope this helps
** Don;t get caught up on a particular vaccine that may not help others. I may concede that that one can’t be forced, (though again EVEN there it may ok to force if it helps her, I ma on the fence)
moishek
“Anyone here disagree?”
almost everybody does from both a halachic and logical standpoint.
“Yes, a woman has a right to her own body.”
I can’t understand how a frum Jew can write this. absolutely not. Disagree completely. A frum Jew cannot get a tattoo, can’t just chop of a limb that they don’t like, can
‘t eat what they want can’t wear what they want etc etcCutting of an arm? Absolutly forbidden. Even plastic surgery is a machlokes and not so clear.
suicide? Gezunterheit?
What are you talking aboutyeshivaguy
want*
BY
Part 2
“you didn’t answer many of my kashyos on חבלה which is fine”
I missed them!ITs not fine, I would never just ignore a question yet keep replying I think that isnt nice. I am sorry I left you waiting for an answer
(I don’t really understand your assessment “you didn’t answer many of my kashyos on חבלה which is fine. Just know that R Moshe (and re some of them, Tosfos, the חוות יאיר as well) who make these points as well. Not to answer Them is not so fine.”
The opposite is true, We are having a conversation. To just idnore Your question isnt nice. I’m not having a conversation with R’Moshe etc, I missed all the questions you think he posed to me, though I am flattered, that you view me as equipped to answer them.I reread your posts looking for the question (and hoping that maybe maybe you had the honesty to answer my question opposed to you,)
I found them, they where aimed at RE not me, which is why I skipped them
Since you want me to address them, I am happy too.
note, I am not saying it is chavala so the question isnt on me. I can give possible answers but the short answer is “I Don;t know”
Ask the MAharit who held that way, ask R’ Shlomo Zalman who is quoted by Nishmas Avraham as saying it is Gezel (I don’t have it with me, he might answer your questions)“A) the drosho from where it is assur is שפך דם האדם באדם.
The Torah clearly is calling this שפיכות דמים. Nu, so you will taana why does a husband get paid for חבלה? Not a particularly bothersome kashya. An eved who is killed also gives the owner a monetary compensation and there surely is no heter to kill an eved.”
There is no heter for chavala either. Calling it Chavala isnt a “heter” to abort. Malbin Pnei chaveiro b’rabim is also called “kei’lo shofech damim ” (wink wink) That doesnt mean it has all the rules of shefichas damim (Though iirc I think tosfos does take it literally that it is yaharog veal yaavor)
B) why do we need to come on to רודף when being mattir when the mothers life is in danger. The simple klal of פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה would clearly apply to חבלה. Nor vus, it is רציחה which only has a heter through the unique vehicle of רודף.”
The minhas chinuch I quoted earlier asks this question he leaves it as Tzorech iyan, (note that therfore we say it is murder , he says explcitly that it is NOT murder, art least for Jews) You cant expect me to have a better answer than the minchas chinuch.
Again. I grant these arent satisfying answers, but as mentioned several tiems I Am NOT arguing abortion is muttar, nor that it is chavala. There are shitos that hols that way. MAreh makom ani loch,
any other questions?
BY
Part 1
“There is no such חוות יאיר.”This is incorrect IT is siman 31
At one point he says “וא”כ לפי מ”ש היה היתר גמור שאלתך אשר שאלת מדין תורה לולי המנהג הפשוט בינינו וביניהם מפני גדר פרצות המריצות והזונים אחריהם”
To be clear, he doesnt say its mutar, Hashchasa zera isnt “אף כי י”ל דאשה נמי נהי דלא מפקדא אפריה ורביה מ”מ שייךם בה קצת מצו’ לשבת יצרה כמ”ש ריב”ם בגיטין דמיא לכן אע”ג דמותר לה לשתות כוס עיקרין כבס”פ הבע”י וכמ”ש רמב”ם וטור א”ה סי’ ה’ מ”מ לעשות מעשה לא שרינן”
but its not murder
“But l’maskono he paskens the Rambam Rashi and Tosfos who klor learn the sugya in Sanhedrin as רציחה ממש”
Definitely not “learn klr” There is a stira in Tosfos (see Tosfors Sanhedrin 59a Leica MEidam), Rashi says it isnt murder “Not a nefesh” Rambam does (acording to most )
Though we don;t have to get bogged down on this. As I said earlier there are a few shitos that hold its murder. No question there .
And I am not arguing abortion is muttar, that isnt my opinion at all.
I’m not arguing that it should be allowed in any particular case. I am not a posek, and even if I was such a psak is way above my pay grade.
Sure I can (and have) guided someone who is in such a position to a local center that can direct such questions to Rabbonim that deal with these terrible situations (they never got Avir’as memo “That being said, in practical halacha, the great tzitz eliezer should not be counted together with rav moshe. They were simply in different universes. A psak from the tzitz eliezer when compared to the ineffably vast torah depth and bredth of רשכבה”ג maran rav moshe, is not counted.” )To be clear I am not debating if abortion is if it Deoraysa/Drabbanon due to murder or soemthing else this is not a new question It has been discussed again and again by those way more qualified. I have absolutely nothing to add to that discussion.
I am just commenting on a few incorrect statements you’ve made (and talking in learning a little as questions arise) Here they are:
“Anyone who promotes abortion rights is a racist on a genocidal level.”
““It created a constitutional right out of thin air sans amendment.””
“The abortion issue is not church and state. Abortion is murder. Period”
and
“רציחה is so basic a moral imperative that it’s being a ייהרג ואל יעבור does not even require a posuk; a crude svora suffices.”I asked questions on the first 2 (unanswered sadly) the last two I didnt ask a question because I don’t have any .
the murder comment is debated. and the last one is simply wrong. Mai chazis DOES NOT apply to abortion. WE DO choose one over the other (either because its being rodef, or because its not a nefesh etc etc)RE
Rodaf does apply to a Goy (at least by a Rodef to murder someone a Rodef for Arayos, he says it doesnt.
The way I understand the minchas chhinuch is that when the mother’s life is in danger and abortion is allowed it isnt literally becasue the fetus is being rodef the mother, if it where that wouldn’t change at birth. Once the baby’s head is out it is a life/nefesh and if her life is in danger from it we don’t say it is being Rodef rather they are equal. What changed? *
The answer is that it became a nefesh. A fetus is not a nefesh it is not a full fledged life. Now there is still an issur to abort generally but if her life is in danger then like all mitzvos besides three (abortion is not one of them) we violate the issur.
כ”ז שלא יצא ראשו לא הוי נפש ע”כ חותכין אותו להציל האם וכפירש”י שם אף דאסור להרוג העוברין ג”כ כמבואר בדנ”ט בתוס’ שם מכל מקום כל עבירות נדחות מפני סכנות נפשות אך נפש אינו נדחה מחמת הסברא דמ”ח אבל עובר ל”ש מאי חזית כי לא הוי נפש רק דהתורה אסרה כמו איסור אחר אבל לא הוי ש”ד.
Once it is born NOW it is al life and even if it is “pursuing” her killing it aborting?) is assur .To be fair the Rambam does formulate abortion as being allowed becasue it is rodef (sounds literal, though says “k’rodef”) . On Whcih the Minchas chinuch writes he doesnt understand
וז”ל הר”מ פ”א מה’ רוצח אף זו מצות לא תעשה שלא לחוס על הרודף לפיכך אמרו חכמים האשה שהיתה מקשה לילד מותר לחתוך העובר בין בסם ובין ביד מפני שהוא כרודף יצא ראשו אין נוגעין בו שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש וזה טבעו של עולם והנה מה שסיים דזה טבעו של עולם היינו תירוץ הש”ס דמשמיא קרדפי לה ע”כ לא הוי רודף. אך מ”ש בתחלת דבריו דאם לא יצא ראשו חותכין מפני שהוא רודף וכתב על הקודם לפיכך משמע מטעם דהוי רודף לא זכיתי להבין דבאמת לא הוי רודף דהא משמיא רדפו לה והא דמותר לחתוך העובר היינו דלא הוי נפש אבל רודף לא הוי ומאי זה שכתב לשון לפיכך דמשמע דהוא מטעם רודף וצ”ע
Now Since the fetus is NOT being rodef he is mesupak if a Goy can commit abortion to save a life, do we say since the yget kiled its a nefesh and cant choose one over the other, or since a Jew is allowed to abort in such a case, it isnt a nefesh. He sides wit hthe tzad that assur
*This isnt my own question, all ask this and many answers are given.
Re
296והנה בב”נ קי”ל דנהרג על העוברין אם כן אני מסופק בב”נ המקשה לילד אף דלא יצא ראשו אפשר דאסור לחתוך העובר כי הוי נפש ואין דוחין נפש מפני נפש ורודף לא הוי. א”ד דבאמת כיון דחזינן גבי ישראל דלא איקרי נפש רק דגזרה התורה שופך כו’ באדם אבל נפש לא מיקרי שרי להציל עצמו כמו שאר עבירות ול”ש מאי חזית דדמא כו’ דלא אקרי נפש אך לפמש”ל דאסור להציל ב”נ אחר שיעבור עבירה בשביל חבירו אם כן חי’ או רופא עכו”ם הם אסורים לחתוך הוולד בשביל סכנת האם כיון דלא הוי רודף ואסור להם לעבור בשביל הצלת חבירו כנ”ל ואי”ה לקמן בדין רודף נאריך בזה ואין כאן מקומו
BY1212
“I wasn’t aware that the סברא to be maikil is bc they say it a חבלה. Not רציחה. If indeed this is this סברא it is an untenable position.”
Luckily the crises preganncy center in Boro Park doesnt look to you to determine wha tpositions are tenible and what aren’t.
The Maharit says abortion is chavala (he leived pre 20’t century
Chavos Yair says Hotzaas zerah (based on this the Tzitz Eleizer says IF an abortion is require r”l better a woman do it sicn e she has less of an issur Hashcasas zera)
Nishmas Avrhama quotes R’ Shlomo Zalman as saying its stealingAmong other reasons. Relatively few say it is murder.
To be clear NONE of the above are muttar for the sake of convenience nor career.“bichlal that something should be classified for a goy a certain. Way and a yid a different way makes no sense על פניו.”
Try to be careful how you phrase things .
For a goy abortion might be murder (he is certainly guilty of capital offence) and some assur even to save a mother’s life (Minchas Chinuch)You have me mixed up with someone
you said “Anyone who promotes abortion rights is a racist on a genocidal level”
I found that comment funny, and was curious if you meant it, SO I asked a follow up question
You then made a few other untrue statements, which prompted more questions.If you want to back peddle and say your main point was something else “There is really one main simple point here. And this is why this gets me so upset…” A point that I do not disagree with that’s fine of course. (Though your side issue that you are not defending included some harsh criticism of me ” smug racist such as yourself” “Ubiquitin the Eugenicist” thats the kind of think intellectually honest people would back up or apologize for not just run and say, oh that wasn’t my main point)
Just please don’t make any assumptions about me or my position “And what is stated as a curse in the תוכחה regarding נשים רומניות you glorify.” “Glorify” ? what are you talking about? If you have a question for me I, am happy to answer, elaborate, explain.
If you don’t have a question form me thats fine too, I will bli neder answer this is a topic I find interesting from many directions.
All I ask is don’t stick words into my mouth(As an aside you’ve thought through this issue so little I find it irksome. The Sevara you mention DOES NOT apply to abortion . We DO say the mother is סומק טפי compared to the fetus, as you may know when a mother’s life is in danger prior to the Fetus being born (I know drawing lines makes you nervous but the Rambam helps, as mentioned (An opinion you dismissed as that of “of a medieval Spanish Jewish Talmudist” one that was “clearly illogical ” R”L !!!)
to be clear obviously that in no way means career is דידך סומק טפי a position I did not endorse, let alone glorify)Avira
“If it’s not murder, then go and celebrate it ”
I don’t understand this. Amputating a leg isn’t murder, does that mean it should be celebrated with balloons?
Why cant something not be murder but still not worthy of celebration?
BY12
your comment seems geared to me “Today the argument has migrated to they can’t care for their children so we should encourage them to kill them. This was actually Margaret Sangers actual stated philosophy. You were mechaven to that monsters daas. Yasher koiach. Ubiquitin the Eugenicist.”
But that isnt what I said. Newsflash MArgaret Sanger is dead. Her views arent relevent .
I noticed you didnt answer my question nor address any of my points
Here is my question again:Just So I have this straight. The guys waving swastikas, chanting “Jews will not replace us” who say Blacks are inferior and should be slaves, but opposes abortion, Is less racist than , say a black single woman trying to put herself through school/ work to get ahead in life who is saddled with an unwanted pregnancy ** Is that correct?
If you can’t or won’t answer my question thats fine. Just leave me out of your comments .
I don’t understand most of what you wrote as you use “You” and “your” a lot but nothing you said relates t o any of my numerous points I made to you .
Again I don’t expect you to address m actual points, I realzie you are merely repeating Rigth wing talking points, without actually knowing what you re talking about (eg ““It created a constitutional right out of thin air “) this was another winner “because blacks can’t care for themselves we should make it legal to murder their babies” Who is “we…murder”? and why limit to blacks?
But at least a simple question deserves an answer.
Or not, in which case move onhere it is again
Just So I have this straight. The guys waving swastikas, chanting “Jews will not replace us” who say Blacks are inferior and should be slaves, but opposes abortion, Is less racist than , say a black single woman trying to put herself through school/ work to get ahead in life who is saddled with an unwanted pregnancy ** Is that correct?
BY1212
Your last comment rasied more questions than your first:
“It created a constitutional right out of thin air sans amendment.”
so not quite. It further expanded a Constitutional right “to privacy” previously upheld in Griswold (1965) preventing laws against married couples buying contraceptives.
Pierce (1925) Stiking down an Oregan law requiring all children attend Public School
Meyer (1923) Preventing laws against teaching foreign languagesNow you can argue that there is no “right to privacy” and that all these cases were wrongly decided, and that the State can legislate all these things. You can’t argue that it was “out of thin air” It was based on decades of precedent.
Do you support overturning all those cases?
“The abortion issue is not church and state. Abortion is murder. Period”
no not period. It is murder based on your interpretation of Halacha, According to some it isnt murder, according to others it is murder for goyim not for Jews (try explaining that to a court)
Imposing your religous view on the rest of the country is church and state issue.“bc hey, where do you draw the line?”
Lots of choices, can draw at birth (as Teh Rambam says until head leaves) can draw at viability outside the womb, can draw at 40 days . Not sure why being scared of where to draw the line is a reason to ban all cases.
No driving cars! Driving to fast is deadly! where would we draw the line as to how fast is safe. Ban them all/. I don’t get it“They are pretty stupid racists if you ask me”
Wasn’t asking you But your post was very very funny,so glad you added it
Just So I have this straight. The guys waving swastikas, chanting “Jews will not replace us” who say Blacks are inferior and should be slaves, but opposes abortion, Is less racist than , say a black single woman trying to put herself through school/ work to get ahead in life who is saddled with an unwanted pregnancy ** Is that correct?
* to be clear According to Halacha there is no such Autonomy, like many factes of life there are restrictions on what we (all people for that matter) can do we are not free to eat what we want, wear what we want etc etc, this isnt my view I just find your take on their view amusing
** Not saying that is a valid reason for abortion. Just trying to wrap my head around your take regarding racisim
“Abortion bans will not apply if the mother’s life is at risk. There will certainly be exceptions permitting abortions if the mother will otherwise die.”
I am not sure how you knw that. Many do not believe there should be such exceptions. How are you so sure?
There was a famous case of Savita Halappanavar Who died as a result of being denied an abortion under Irelands’ then restrictive anti-abortion laws. This was in 2013, not all that long ago.I grant that probably there will be such exceptions. But there are other complicated factors that come into play
What if the risk isn’t due to the pregnancy directly, but rather an extraneous cause (eg Cancer that requires chemo)
Of course you were careful to leave off mental health.
Sure in those cases not all poskim allow it As is true in any area in halacha (Though in practice both are unfortunate necessary and practiced in our community though as I live in NY this will not change with the pending Supreme court decision)The question is ultimately who should decide what defines “life at t risk” The Government/courts ? OR a Woman’s Rabbi.
I find it a little surprising that people who get nervous at a whiff of government intervention in schools, and want the government to stay out of chinuch (a position I generally agree with) suddenly want more government oversight
To be clear Not trying to convince anyone here. I’ve said this piece many times before. people who don’t know/believe this is happening won’t believe an anonymous online poster. It is easy to dismiss the concerns of a bunch of faceless people who engage in “lack self control and irresponsible, immoral choices,” and lump the other cases in there. There are how many thousands of frum girls living in Say Brooklyn, ask yourself if you really think none of them ever got stuck with an “unwanted child” not due to their own lack of self control but to someone elses’ r”L ? Sure its rare. Very rare. Ok very very rare. But do you really think it hasn’t happened?
What should be done in that case? And more importantly who should decide? A Judge or a Rav?
DY
good to see you
I miss your comments I feel like things have been less interesting (not sure if that is cause or effect of your laying low)Thanks
My apologies, when you said “the Balfour declaration was not agreed upon (insert italics) by the people who lived in eretz yisroel, and their surroundings,” I assumed it was relevant to the halachic discussion specifically as to whether it occurred with “Consent of nations” (according to those who say it matters), as thee way you wrote it sounded like you were replying to that point.
That there was no “consent of the nations” since the inhabitants and neighbors (!?) didnt agree. to which I asked why does that matter, they were not in control.
apologies if I got that wrong
Avira
do you have a source for your claim that halacha does not recognize Goyim’s conquest?Troll hunter
UJM
“By time the British later gained control of the land, they did not espouse or support the principles of Balfour.”
not quite true
From the Mandate for Palestine Assigning the British control over Palestine at the San Remo conference . (Signed by the British)
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, …
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; ….
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion….
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home….”
“And the UN declared Jerusalem to be an international city not to be controlled by the Zionists or Jews.”
Ok so limit that comment to parts assigned to be a Jewish State.
Avira
“Ubiq – the UN decided on a Homeland, not a state. There was also provision for an arab state in the area. That makes the Arabs, according to your reasoning, baalei devarim too.”
I don’t know where you are getting your information from UN resolution Resolution 181 (II) athat was voted for by the UN after the British handed over the issue explicitly called for a “Jewish State” (You might be mixing up with Balfour which said “Homeland” not “State”
And I don’t really get your comment regarding arabs they are baalie Devarim. Ok mazel tov.
You said ““the Balfour declaration was not agreed upon (insert italics) by the people who lived in eretz yisroel, and their surroundings,”” My question was why does that matter?
“the Balfour declaration was not agreed upon (insert italics) by the people who lived in eretz yisroel, and their suroundings,”
Why is that necessary? I was under the impression that halacha recognizes conquest as creating ownership. The British conquered Palestine from the Ottoman’s it was theirs not the inhabitant’s and certainly not the neighbors (not sure why that would even enter the equation) ?
“They were mesalek themselves from the whole issue,”
Not exactly, they handed the “question of Palestine” to the U.N. Now the U.N gets to decide. The U.N voted to create a Jewish StateGot
Yes its an old question, but its a good one, I was just saying I thought thats what your question was going to be. I was surprised the question was on “Kindergarten & Cheder pictures”
they are alos often drawn with letters aleph Beis gimmel… etc As far as I’m aware there is no shita that says the luchos had 10 letters. for that matter Even when it does say the dibros it is always “Anochi Hashem “Lo yiheye” Never the full dibros