Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 006

Wednesday, September 15 1999

• Re: Glatt -- Hatam Sofer, YD 39
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• Re: Blanket Mechila
• Re: Glatt -- Hatam Sofer YD 39
• Definition of Anava
• Re: Blanket Mechila
• Re: Glatt -- Hatam Sofer YD 39
• Re: Definition of Anava
• Gedolim and Poskim
• Re: Gadol vs. Gedulah -- the case of the Hafetz Hayyim
• [none]
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• age of gedolim
• Mechila
• Infertility treatments for a non-Jew
• Re: Infertility Treatments for a Non-married Woman

Eli Clark <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> quotes me and writes:
:> I would say no, but to do so I'm going to invoke my multiple dirachim /
:> multiple archetypes idea again. (Mechilah everyone?)

:> The Anav and the Shomer Nafsho are different archetypes. (I wonder if the
:> Ch"S's "Shomer Nafsho" is related to the M"B's "Ba'al Nefesh".) Pursuing
:> a given archetype is another way of saying following a given derech.

: Without rejecting in any way the validity of R. Micha's analysis, I
: think there may be a much simpler explanation in this case.  According
: to Hatam Sofer the peeling (kelifah) is acceptable if done by a baki and
: yirei Shamayim.  Because it will not always be clear whether the kolef
: was indeed qualified in terms of beki'ut or yir'at Shamayim, there are
: reasonable grounds for a shomer nafsho to distance himself.

First, I hope it was clear from the last line in my previous post that I
think we're reading things into the Chasam Sofer's words that probably
weren't his intent. He was phrasing the p'sak as a quote of Tehillim.

That said... Lihefech, combining our two statements is beautiful.

The Anav is the one who is not going to go around judging others' beki'us
or yir'as Shamayim. Therefore, someone working on the derech of Anivus ought
to eat this meat. Being machmir WRT the meat would actually be inappropriate,
not just pointless, as I implied earlier.

However, the Shomer Nafsho would place watching what he eats as a higher
priority than avoiding judging others.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Sep-99: Revi'i, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 17

--- Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> wrote:

 The
> Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
> gadol in psak or learning but in tzidkas. 

Rav Eidensohn:

You are the author of the Yad Yisroel and, therefore, perhaps, one of
the worlds foremost authorities on the Chafetz Chaim's Mishna Berurah.
In light of that, could you please elaborate on the above statement? 
It is, of course, true that the Caftez Chaim's Tzidkis is legendary.
But, wouildn't you agree that, with the wide spread acceptance of the
Mishna Berurah as Psak Halacha, that the Chaftez Chaim's Gadlus extends
to the area of Psak as well?

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Many have the custom to say in Krias Shma Al Hamitah, Hareine Mochel...

I too am granting (if even needed), and requesting Mechila on any real or 
assumed Pgiah to any and all.

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

Now that I posted the same thing twice, let's see if I can get my clarification
out this time.

My point was that there is no problem lehalachah, either choice is muttar. One
can either eat the meat, or one can refrain from doing so until he can judge
the fitness of the socheit (particularly since the shocheit will never know).

The question is, how would one go lifnim mishuras hadin? Being machmir WRT
glatt is a kulah WRT judging others. There's no way to play safe in both
domains.

An anav would focus on avoiding judging others. Therefore, if he were to choose
a chumrah, that would be the one he'd choose. "Yochlu anavim viyisba'u".

OTOH, someone who is looking to guard himself from ta'avos hanefesh is going
to place greater value in not eating possibly treif than in judging others.
He would therefore choose to be lifnim mishuras hadin by not eating the
meat.

(Much like the machlokes between Chassidus and Hisnagdus about z'man tefillah
vs. greater kavannah. When you're in a situation where you have to choose
between davening bizman, or preparing one's kavanos and ending up davening
l'achar z'man -- which is preferred? Different dirachim are going to yield
different hekpeidos.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Sep-99: Revi'i, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 17

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Glatt -- Hatam Sofer, YD 39

The Anav is the one who is not going to go around judging others' beki'us
or yir'as Shamayim. Therefore, someone working on the derech of Anivus
ought to eat this meat. Being machmir WRT the meat would actually be
inappropriate, not just pointless, as I implied earlier. 

However, the Shomer Nafsho would place watching what he eats as a higher
priority than avoiding judging others. 

-mi

-------------- 

You have made an anav equal a pesi ("ya'amin l'kol davar"). The type of
person who if he sees a "K" on a product will eat it. An anav is no less
of a charif and "arum b'da'as" than a non-anav. The difference is purely
in internal humility. NO MORE. 

Working on Anivus does not mean you make yourself a fool. That is
precisely the negative stereotype that RAEK - in an essay posted on the
Aishdas website - seeks to dispell decisively. Your anav is truly "meek" -
a Christian perspective on anivus. Our archetype for an anav is a Moshe
Rabbeinu - bold, courageous, knowledgable - but completely subservient to
Hashem and retzono, and deferential to others because their madreiga vis a
vis their potential may well exceed his.

But not somebody who puts on blinders.

Working on anava is not suspension of judgement.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 9/15/99 2:20:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
david.nadoff@bfkpn.com writes:

<< 
 I follow Rabbi Bechhofer's lead in granting m'chila to everyone, and humbly 
requesting their
 pardon in turn. 
 
 G'mar tov
 David 
  >>
as do I , but I wonder if next year we might have a sign up board for this 
purpose so as not to bombard everyone ( I don't mind, but others might)

Gmar Chatima  Tova
Joel Rich

In a message dated 9/15/99 2:18:00 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> The question is, how would one go lifnim mishuras hadin? Being machmir WRT
>  glatt is a kulah WRT judging others. There's no way to play safe in both
>  domains.

They are Lav Davkoh contradictary, by not eating such meat from anybody, it 
could be that you are accepting Chumras HaBeis Yosef, not judging anyone, (of 
course the question would come up if there was no other meat on Yom Tov). and 
see Y"D end of 116.

GCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

RYGB writes:
: You have made an anav equal a pesi ("ya'amin l'kol davar"). The type of
: person who if he sees a "K" on a product will eat it. An anav is no less
: of a charif and "arum b'da'as" than a non-anav. The difference is purely
: in internal humility. NO MORE. 

I'll give RYGB benefit of the doubt, since he sent out a reply I knew he had
prepared before my clarification, and sent it out far too soon after my second
(third) post to have really read that clarification. My mistake in resending
the first one cost him time he didn't have to wait for the follow-up.

I'm not saying an anav bends halachah, that he is any less charif, or that he's
a pesi.

I'm not saying an anav is meek, if the issue were din (such as trusting a "K")
he'd stand up for the halachah. But the Chasam Sofer already said he doesn't
believe this to be din. Someone, even if he didn't mean anavim in particular,
is allowed to eat and be full (which seems to imply not only permissability
but some level of approval).

When going lifnim mishuras hadin, though, then you have to see when a chumrah
in one priority will be a kulah in another. I'm talking specifically about how
people pursuing different ideals are going to deal with a situation where
different priorities conflict.

In this conflict, the more obvious chumrah (which is always the choice that
involves doing without) is to not eat the meat. The less obvious one is that
it can be seen as casting aspersions on shochtim. Choosing not to eat the meat
doesn't really get you off smelling like a rose, there's still this nekudah
that you need to compramise on.

The Shomer Nafsho, though, has a clear mandate to place watching how he serves
his gashmius as the higher priority. Therefore, an issue like casting an
aspersion a shocheit wouldn't even know of would clearly be overridden.

However, to an Anav, it's not so clear which should have higher priority. This
isn't a question of the meekness of the anav, it's one of whether the
implication that "I'm more frum than the shocheit" distracts from /his/ ikkar,
anivus, more than the chumrah of not eating the meat assists his Avodah Hashem.
With that assessment, it's not an appropriate chumrah.

He's not kowtowing to "whatever the shocheit says". He is choosing not to go
lifnim mishuras hadin if involves acting as if he were a ba'al ga'avah. Even
if muttar to do so, and there's value to doing so. Because to him, this
chumrah costs more than that value.

Pointing out that it's the Shomer Nafsho who would choose to do without in
this situation in no way belittles the Anav. Saying the anav would choose to
trust another person rather than this one particular chumrah doesn't deny
his charifus (or that he'd be the one doing without in some other situation).


I think Yitzhok Zirkind's objection, though, has merit. If someone sets up Beis
Yoseif as a rule, he isn't really judging anyone. Much like the neighborhood
Rav who makes it policy not to eat in any of his mispallelim's homes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Sep-99: Revi'i, Ha'Azinu
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 38b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 17

To repeat my earlier Post
What makes a Gadol is consesnus - similar to having a following.

And that's what makes the Mishna Bruro so choshuv now - the consensus of the 
Yeshivishe Velt.


RMF:>>
Those who know me (in a laining sort of way) know that I often make 
mention of R. Breuer's kuntrus zeicher/zecher.  My point was that the 
hamon 'am, which has accepted the "safek" announced by the MB, 
nevertheless only does so for Parshat Zachor.  From here we can 
derive that for regular kriyat haTorah we do not reread psukim based 
on safek, but we make a decision as to the correct girsah.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe<<

Bekizur, let me point out that the MB seems to have been the first Litvisher 
poseik to enshrine the "yotzei lechol hadeios shito" on a consistent basis. 
Despite authoring one of the greatest analytical works on Halocho (that is the 
Beiur Halocho) the MB beshito tried to be chosheish for every dei'o. This 
reminds me of the Chasam Sofer who would not eat sugar by itself because he 
could not take sides as to which brocho was the proper one.  (And my impression 
is that this is consistent with a Hungarian style hashkofo)

My impression is that at least within the "Litvisher velt, this was a major 
break from tradition.  The general Litvisher Derech, as well as the specific 
branches such as Brisk, usually worked with an analytical, scientific style in 
order to come to a definite conclusion about halacha. I think the Oruch 
Hashulchan is an example of this style, analyzing by histrocial precedent and 
coming to a definitive conclusion and not afraid of being meikel (or machmir!) 
but simply being decisive.  Similarly, the teshuvos of R. Yitzchok Elchonon, R. 
Moshe Feinstein, and I would guess R. Chaim Ozer - all followed this approach. 
However,The MB's style and hashkofo introduced a break - let's do it this way 
AND THAT WAY.  I suscpect this is due to his persona as a tzaddik and a baal 
mussar.  Not that he incorporated actual mussar within the MB, rather he saw it 
as some kind of inyan to be yotzei lechol hadeios.

Take the Rav and Sefiro.  Since the Rav held that the aveilus of Seifo is a 
function of being social, therefore he is meikel on private music and machmir on
public baseball games.  IOW, he asserts a principle, and follows it to a logical
conclusion. (Whether or not his conclusion is universally accepted is bseide the
point) What IS the point is that he was clear-cut and decisive.  PSAK means to 
cut, it cuts both ways sharply, it is decisive.  Chosheish/humro is dull, in 
that it akes no sides, cuts off no options.,  It's fuzzy.  It's imprecise.  It 
is indecisive.

Beniddon diddon, it would be characteristic of PSAK to read either Zeicher or 
Zecher as opposed to starting a brand new minhog of re-reading.  OTOH the world 
of Cheshash says do both - but why stop there?

Rich Wolpoe

"Clark, Eli" wrote:

> In v4n3 Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
>
> : The historical fact is that the Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
> : posek or  gadol in learning during his lifetime...
>
> ... What I do know is that, on a range of halakhic controversies of
> international import, the Hafetz Hayyim was consulted, along with many
> other gedolim.  This suggests to me that, in addition to his reputation
> for piety, he was viewed as a Gadol in pesak and/or learning.   Could I
> trouble you specify the basis for your assertion to the contrary?

My original posting brought the testimony of Rav Chaim Ozer and Rav Hutner
to that effect. The Chafetz Chaim was viewed as a gadol but in Tzidkas  not
in halacha or learning. The major controversies were - to the best of my
understanding  - not readily categorized as halachic issues nor did they
involve high levels of learning.

The biography of the Ohr Somayach by Y.M. Rapport (Targum Press) [highly
recommended] describes in detail one of these cases. Let me offer some of
the text to illustrate the importance of non halachic issues.

page 93 Russian and the Rabbinate

   "Rav Meir Simcha took perhaps his most controversial stand at the St.
Petersburg rabbinical conference of 1910, convened by the prime minister of
Czarist Russia...
    For years, the government had appointed "official rabbis rabbainim
mitaam. These "rabbis" were not necessarily Torah scholars or even observant
Jews; their major qualification was their proficiency in Russian. ...Jewish
communities also had de facto rabbis - scholars and poskim who truly served
a rabbinic function. Sympathetic to Jewish concerns, Stolypin sought to
grant these true spiritual leaders government recognition, thereby
abolishing the unwieldy dual rabbinate.
   This meant that these rabbis would have to learn Russian however...But
there was a real fear that eventually Russian would become part of the
official yeshiva curriculum. And who knew whether it would stop there or
expand into other areas...
     This did not mean that the talmidei chachamim of this period had no
secular educations. But they acquired them on their own, not in yeshiva.
     The issue became a major bone of contention among the conference
delegates, who included R. Chaim Soleveitchik of Brisk, R. Itzele of
Ponevezh, R. Malkiel Tennenbaum of Lomza, R. Chaim Ozer of Vilna. R. Shalom
Dov Ber, the Lubavitcher Rebbe; R. Moshe Landinski ...representative of the
Chofetz Chaim, and Rav Meir Simcha.
   Too old and weak to attend...R. David Friedman, av beis din of
Karin...argued that it is not forbidden to teach children the language of
the land...those who needed to learn...for their livelihhod...were allowed
to study Russian...
   This position was strongly supported by Rav Meir Simcha and the Chassidic
rebbe of Babrioisk...Rav Meir Simcha firmly believed that every rabbi should
acquire a certain amount of secular education. He declared that since there
was no prohibition against learning Russian, and since it would not cuase
any interruption or neglect of Torah study, nor would it affect anyone's
yiras shamayim, it was a good idea.
 R. Chaim Soleveitchik ...referring to him [Rav Meir Simcha] as the "gaon of
the generation". Nevertheless backed by the Lubavticher Rebbe and a letter
from the Chofetz Chaim adamantly fought any secular studies in the yeshiva.

 ......The revered sage, then over 70 years old, immediately set out for
St.Petersburg..........

        The Chofetz Chaim spoke with tears in his eyes and passion in his
voice, and his sincerity and eloquence left the assemblage visibly moved.
          R. Chaim Ozer of Vilna countered with a short speech reiterating
his endorsement of the government's suggestion. He added that his
grandfather...R. Yisroel Salanter, knew Russian well and felt that the
rabbinate should too.
           Rav Meir Simcha argued...How could the government grant rabbis
official power if they could not communicate with its representatives?
          In the initial voting, the delegation had approved the suggestion
by Rav Meir Simcha and R. Itzele of Ponivezh that rabbis be tested on the
courses included in the 4 year high school curriculum. But after the Chofetz
Chaim's impassioned plea, this approval was rescinded.....
        ....A sharp exchange followed in which Rav Meir Simcha told the
Chofetz chaim that, living in a small town, he could not understand the
challenges faced by the rav of a large city. "And can you, who has never
learned or taught in a yeshiva, truly understand the dangers of your
suggestion" answered the Chofetz Chaim.
...........Yet shortly after their encounter, Rav Meir Simcha said of the
Chofetz Chaim, "That little Jew from a little town can inspire the Jewish
people more than the rav of the greatest city"....As R. Chaim told one of
his attendants after the conference, "Can I deny that Rav Meir Simcha is the
gadol hador!?"..after Rav Meir Simcha's death, it was the Chofetz Chaim who
lamented, "Now that Rav Meir Simcha is gone - who will lead us?"

-------------------------------------------
If you have know any cases where the Chofetz Chaim was asked to posken on a
major halachic dispute - I would be interested in hearing about it. I
believe that it was it was in order to attend this conference the Chofetz
Chaim was given smicha by Rav Chaim Ozer. Rabbi Shurkin told that the
standard picture we have of the Chofetz Chaim comes from the passport photo.
The Chofetz Chaim ripped it up after the conference and the picture was made
based on the scraps of that photo - and thus is not a completely accurate
likeness.

                        Daniel Eidensohn

Subject: Age of a Gadol

Carl writes

>> Also Rav Ovadiah Yosef was considered a gadol at least by sefardim for
>> many years.

>Then how do you explain that he was pushed out of his position as 
>the Rishon LeZion in the early 80's? While R. Ovadia's status is 
>clearly not subject to any sort of dispute today, I question whether 
>the masses truly appreciated him properly 15 or 20 years ago.

Rav Ovadiah Yosef was pushed out by politicians who changed the rules
over how long someone could be chief rabbi. The rules were changed
for other reasons than Rav Yosef. In any case it has nothing to do
with being recognized as a gadol.

>> I dont think we have gedolim like the Ramban who wrote major works at
>> the age of 17 but thet are not all in retirement age. Also if I remember,
>> the first seforim of Chazon Ish and the Steipler appeared when they were
>> not that old.

>I don't question that. There are definitely young talmidei 
>chachamim who publish brilliant sforim (which, unfortunately, in 
>many cases are not noticed until years later). But were they 
>RECOGNIZED as gdolim by the masses at that age? 

The main problem with recognition is that their is an older generation.
Hence, it is difficult to introduce a young person as a gadol at the
"expense" of the older rav. As such the younger one usually has to
wait until the older generation retires or passes on.
This is especially true today when gadlus is institutionalized, eg
moetzet gedolei hatorah etc.

Just a single example, I believe that RSZ Auerbach wrote some of his
first seforim when he was in his 30s. he also came out with his psak
on electricity disagreeing with Chazon Ish. At the time some people
wanted to put him in cherem for the audacity of disagreeing with
Chazon Ish. It seems that the logic of his arguments were not 
sufficient. Today that we recognize RSZA as a gadol we take for
granted his right to disagree with CI.

Similarly, any young gadol today has an intrinsic problem disagreeing
with the older generation.
As others have pointed out many gedolim died at an early age.
However, I am not sure that this occured in recent history.

Aryeh kaplan has the problem that most of his books are in English
and are of an expository nature. Thus, it is hard to classify him
as a gadol compared to someone else who wrote chiddushim.
It said that Rav Meir Simchah wrote his perush on chumash early
in life bit didn't publish it until many years later after the
Ohr Sameach appeared. Apparently he was told that no one would take
his work seriously unless he first established himself in Talmud.

Again, from my private worldview I dislike the labelling of people
as gadol or non-gadol. I think R. Aryeh Kaplan's works should be
judged on their own merit wothout labeling the author.

GCT
Eli

harry maryles wrote:

> --- Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> wrote:
>
>  The
> > Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
> > gadol in psak or learning but in tzidkas.
>
> Rav Eidensohn:
>
> You are the author of the Yad Yisroel and, therefore, perhaps, one of
> the worlds foremost authorities on the Chafetz Chaim's Mishna Berurah.

Not so - unfortunately.

> In light of that, could you please elaborate on the above statement?
> It is, of course, true that the Caftez Chaim's Tzidkis is legendary.
> But, wouildn't you agree that, with the wide spread acceptance of the
> Mishna Berurah as Psak Halacha, that the Chaftez Chaim's Gadlus extends
> to the area of Psak as well?

I basically agree with R. Richard Wolpe's evaluation of the Mishna Berua as
a halacha sefer.  My above statement was specifically referring to the
period of the Chafetz Chaim's life. My point was that gadlus in halacha is
not a requirement to be considered a gadol. I do agree with you that the
present acceptance of the  Mishna Berura  does modify and expand his
gadlus. As a number of talmidei chachom have told me - it is not that the
Chofetz Chaim was not a great lomdan but that in comparison to such giants
as Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Chaim Ozer, Rav Meir Simcha etc., he was not in
their league. The Aruch HaShulchan is more representative of a sefer made
by a gadol in halacha than is the Mishna Berura.
To complicate things more - the Biur Halacha is where true genius is
demonstrated. But his son - Rav Aryeh Leib - claims to have written many of
those concerning hilchos Shabbos. Rabbi Elimelech Bluth - Rav Moshe
Feinsteins gabbai for many years said that Rav Moshe once told him "The
Mishna Berua was composed by a committee of Talmidei Chachomim. Therefore
it is more binding on Klall Yisroel than if composed by an individual".
These statements cause rage - to put it mildly - when mentioned to some
contemporary talmidei chachomim. Though Rav Sternbuch told me that he had
no problem with them - he acknowledged that many others could not accept
them.

Bottom line. Our perception of the Chofetz Chaim is different than that of
his contemporaries. Some say he is now more viewed as more the Mishna
Berura i.e., halacha and lomdus than the Chofetz Chaim - tzidkas. Anyway
you analyze it he was a genuine gadol.


                                     Daniel Eidensohn

also the Ari was 36 (maybe 38?) when he was niftar.


(still waiting to see any comments on Rav Schach's assuring shaving 
machines)

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Do lurkers have to ask mechila?
In any event, if I have offended any one (including RYGB and list owner
RMB) I ask for mechila.
But being a lurker,  no list member need ask for my forgiveness; yet if
anyone feels they need to, no problem.
Gemar Chasima Tova
steve katz

Rav YGB writes "On a related note, I do not remember where, but one of our
more medically
inclined chaverim doubtless will recall, there is a correpsondence
recorded between Rabbeinu Yona and his mechutan, the Ramban. The Ramban,
as a doctor, successfully treated a non-Jewish woman for infertility. RY
wrote him a note to the effect (quote from memory): "Yasher kochacha
she'ata marbeh zar'o shel Amalek". I think the BY brings this down
somewhere in EH."
I quoted that machlokes in my post!
BTW the source of the Ramban is the Rashba Shut haRashba chelek 1 siman
120.  He paskens like the Ramban mishum eivah.  Also nowhere is it said
that the Ramban's tipul was successful, only that he provided his services
as a physician beschar to her.
The bais Yosef who brings Rabbeinu Yonah is in YD end of 154.
The chasam Sofer BTW paskens like the Ramban, so I think I am amply
justified in treating goyim for infertility.  My question re: non-marrieds
still stands open for comments.
Shaul Weinreb

--- Saul Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu> wrote:
> I'm currently working with an infertility specialist
> (I am a medical
> student, and in my final year of school, I chose
> this as one of my
> electives) and an interesting question has been on
> my mind for a while. If
> a woman who is not married desires treatment for
> infertility, am I allowed
> to help her concieve?
> 1) I would imagine that with a Jewish woman there is
> a problem of mesayeyah
> yedei ovrei aveirah, certainly if she is being
> helped with her "partner's"
> participation, but what about artificial
> insemination where there is no act
> of Biah Assurah (at least no act that I would be a
> mesayayah in)?
> 2) what about a non-Jewish woman in a "steady"
> non-married relationship (if
> there is such a thing)? is she any different than a
> non-Jewish married
> woman?  What is the significance of a non-Jewish
> marriage and maybe
> halachically a woman who lives with a man is
> considered married anyway?
> (I am assuming the Shita of the Ramban that we can
> treat goyim for
> infertility vs. Rabbeinu Yonah who held that it is
> not allowed)
> 3) What about a woman who is completely
> "partnerless", I find it personally
> extremely bothersome for many obvious reasons to
> help her become pregnant,
> but what are the halachic implications?
> Shaul Weinreb
> 

If I correctly remember what RYGB told me, R. Moshe paskined that
L'Halacha, the determinant of motherhood is passage of the baby through
the birth canal, at birth, regardless of how she concieved. Therefore,
a woman is permitted to be artificially inseminated even with the sperm
of her own father, and the resultant child is not a mamzer.  It is only
the Issur Aryos that is forbidden between the above mentioned couple
(father-daughter).  

Therefore, it seems to me that artificial insemination of any kind
should not be any kind of halachik problem in terms of issurei biyah. I
suppose a comprable analagy would be intervenous feeding on Yom Kipur. 
That, of course, would not violate any issur of eating on Yom Kipur.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

*******************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]