Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 178

Monday, December 13 1999

• ERCHA'OHT
• Re: ERCHA'OHT
• Agunot
• personal feelings
• RE: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem...
• Re: personal feelings
• Re[2]: Mesaye'a
• Re[4]: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem...
• Re[2]: Mesaye'a
• Re: Homosexuality (was Re: what counts as suffering)
• Re[2]: Homosexuality Correction
• Re[2]: AGUNOHT--Another approach
• Re: abortion for "them" and for "us"
• Homosexuality
• Takanos
• homosexuality (was agunos, etc.)
• Re: Orthodox feminism
• Re: Mesaye'a
• Re: Mesaye'a

There is a difference between Ercha'oht Goyim (where to serve as a judge
is an issur d'oraita) and ercha'oht hedyotot (e.g. what the gemara in
Sanhedrin 23a calls "ercha'oht she'b'suria": Jews who are not *smuchin*
who were appointed as judges becuase of the paucity of talmidei chachamim
in the area: this is muttar; vs. ercha'oht hedyotot in a place where
there *are* chacahmim (may be an issur d'rabbanan). The TUR HM 1 follows
the Ramban (end of parshat shoftim) that there is no mitzva d'oraita today
for appointment of dayyanim.

But lawyers aren't judges so what would be the problem ??

Josh

On 13 Dec 99, at 13:17, BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:

> There is a difference between Ercha'oht Goyim (where to serve as a judge
> is an issur d'oraita) and ercha'oht hedyotot (e.g. what the gemara in
> Sanhedrin 23a calls "ercha'oht she'b'suria": Jews who are not *smuchin*
> who were appointed as judges becuase of the paucity of talmidei chachamim
> in the area: this is muttar; vs. ercha'oht hedyotot in a place where
> there *are* chacahmim (may be an issur d'rabbanan). The TUR HM 1 follows
> the Ramban (end of parshat shoftim) that there is no mitzva d'oraita today
> for appointment of dayyanim.
> 
> But lawyers aren't judges so what would be the problem ??

It isn't the lawyers - it's the courts. They don't judge in accordance 
with Halacha. See CM 25:1, and the article I cited from the Journal 
of Halacha and Contemporary Society Vol. II No. 1.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

> 
> We can accuse those that disagree with Rabbi Rackman of being inconsiderate 
> pietistic chauvinists.  This is neither fair, nor helpful, to any of the 
> parties involved.
> 
> We can attempt to derive other halachic solutions.  This is certainly beyond 
> my own  capabilities, but it seems like an idea worthy of support and 
> promotion among thye more learned.
> 
In actuality I think that R. Rackman has done more harm than good to the
cause of Agunot. Because his approach is not supported by any major posek
it tends to smear all attempts at solving the agunah problem with the
same brush.

A fundamental question is the attitude of a posek towards the entire question.
Some poskin seem to take the attitude that we deal with this issue the same
way we would deal with a shabbat question. Hence, a solution is acceptable
only if it is okay according to all, or almost all shittot. Some people
have been quoted to say that it is not a problem in their community
and so they are  not willing to take any special measures of any kind.
Other poskim have the attitude that because of the situation they are 
willing to rely on a daat yachid of some major acharon.
So I feel that to simply state that this is a halachic issue without
outside influences is being naive.

Eli Turkel

> 
> 1) Halacha is not subject to our personal feelings
> about it's fairness. 

I disagree.
I think that it is quite clear that a posek's teshuva to many issues
is determined by his personal feelings. Some poskim are more machmir
and some more makil as matter of principle.

I once heard from Rav Soloveitchik that he was machmir in netillat yadaim
because it is no big deal to use more water. He emphasized that the halacha
might be different if someone has to shlep the water up from the river.
Hence, in many other issues poskim will be machmir if they don't feel it
is a major issue.
Every posek has to weigh the problem of the agunah against his fear of
allowing a married woman to remarry. How he paskens is determined by
the weight he gives to various factors, eg how much to rely on a minority
viewpoint. Bottom line this comes down to personal feelings more than
strict halacha.

Of course there are limits to everything and a posek needs good sources
for a heter. However, what is good enough for some poskim is not good
enough for others.

Eli Turkel

On 8 Dec 99, at 16:52, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> Is halacha a dead letter, or is it a guide to life?  When was there ever
> a Torah-based society in which torah law could be enforced, at least since
> the time of Shlomo haMelech?  There were non-Torah-based societies in
> which the rabbanim found ways to enforce Torah law, e.g., through
> excommunication, the kipah in antiquity, etc.

Actually, I think the lack of authority of batei din in modern times is 
unprecedented in the entire history of the Jewish people. In Europe, 
as recently as the last century, many Jewish communities were 
the masters of their own affairs (e.g. Germany), and the community 
was able to do a lot more to force its members to comply than it is 
able to do today.

> Is modern society, where Jews are no longer ghettoized, so different
> from any society conceivable by halacha, that the rabbanim can find no
> way to enforce the halacha? to restore the equity granted by the takanah
> Rabbenu Gershom that women must consent to divorce? to engage in the kind
> of sympathy encouraged by the ethico-legal works?

I think it is different because we are no longer willing to use some 
of the means that halacha gave our Rabbanim to force recalcitrant 
husbands to do what they are supposed to do - e.g. kofin osso ad 
sheyomar rotzeh ani. And if you think incarceration is a solution, 
think again. There are many husbands in Israel who are sitting in 
jail for refusing to give their wives gittin. Hasn't helped in most 
instances.

I'm NOT saying, let's go out and beat all the recalcitrant husbands 
(although clearly some of them deserve it). But I do think that the 
community (and not just the Rabbanim) has to take a lot more 
initiative in calling these people on the carpet for their actions. That 
means walking out when the husband comes into shul, not doing 
business with him, organizing demonstrations outside his home 
and place of employment, attempting to obtain and enforce 
contempt of court orders where possible. All of these methods 
HAVE worked. We just don't pursue them a lot of times (I haven't 
seen ANYONE pursue them in Israel).

> New situations have arisen, and halacha has always found ways to deal
> with them.  Today we have an explosion of husbands blackmailing wives
> to force a favorable financial settlement.  

"Forcing a favorable financial settlement" is an understated way of 
describing what's going on today. How many of us have not heard 
of gittin being used as ransom? How many of us have not heard of 
women paying thousands of dollars out of their own and their 
family's pockets and giving up ANY financial settlement?

Women, in this open society,
> could easily leave the Torah society and remarry under non-halachic 
> systems.  

Yes, they could, but doing so also has halachic consequences. I 
wonder how many women actually do that. I suspect that women 
for whom a get really matters wait for it and do not remarry. Maybe 
I'm being naive - I don't have any statistics for that one....

Do the rabbis of today want to encourage this?  If so, they
> can continue on the road documented in so many tragic tales (Ms. Ragen's
> cases notwithstanding), keep divorce under wraps, keep women chained to
> unscrupulous husbands, not do their darnedest to find a systematic way
> to counteract the explosion of extortion.  

Ah, but THIS is where the problem lies. The problem (IMHO) is less 
that Rabbanim refuse to try to force the husband to give a get; the 
cases where the husband out and out refuses to give a get are rare 
AFAIK. The bigger problem (IMHO) is that many Rabbanim are too 
quick to order Shalom Bayis in cases where there is clearly no 
chance of shalom, and where their orders may be endangering the 
wife's physical health and well being. Many batei din tell a wife to 
agree to having NO support because, "if you ask for support, he'll 
hold up your get," even in cases where the husband has given NO 
indication of any attempt to hold up the get.

> I won't go so far as Blu Greenberg in saying "where there's a rabbinic 
> will, there's a halachic way", but why don't we ever hear about attempts
> to find a systematic solution, other than R' Rackman's?  

I think Rabbi Willig's pre-nuptial agreement was such an attempt. I 
am sure that there are others, but they may be quieter.

We hear about
> individual rabbis doing tremendous things to free individual agunot,
> we hear about individual rabbis doing horrendous things to dismiss the
> concerns of individual agunot, but we don't hear about potential solutions
> to the class of extortion-agunot.

Does anyone have a clue how large a class we are talking about? 
And while I am playing lawyer, how are we defining "aguna?" 

> BTW, if you haven't noticed yet, as a pessimist I'm much better at
> describing problems than at suggesting workable solutions.

I don't think there are any easy workable solutions. That may make 
me an even bigger pessimist....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 13 Dec 99, at 13:44, Eli Turkel wrote:

> > 
> > 1) Halacha is not subject to our personal feelings
> > about it's fairness. 
> 
> I disagree.
> I think that it is quite clear that a posek's teshuva to many issues
> is determined by his personal feelings. Some poskim are more machmir
> and some more makil as matter of principle.

To a point, I agree with that.

> I once heard from Rav Soloveitchik that he was machmir in netillat yadaim
> because it is no big deal to use more water. He emphasized that the halacha
> might be different if someone has to shlep the water up from the river.
> Hence, in many other issues poskim will be machmir if they don't feel it
> is a major issue.
> Every posek has to weigh the problem of the agunah against his fear of
> allowing a married woman to remarry. How he paskens is determined by
> the weight he gives to various factors, eg how much to rely on a minority
> viewpoint. Bottom line this comes down to personal feelings more than
> strict halacha.

To a certain extent I agree with you. The problem is that no other 
posek is required to accept your posek's psak - it only applies to 
you. So while the Rav zt"l could be machmir on the shiur of water 
in netillas yadayim, it would only affect him and those who followed 
his psak. I am sure that the Rav would have agreed that those who 
did not follow his psak were yotzei, at least b'dieved.

OTOH, if, for example, there is a Beis Din which is declaring 
women who are agunos to be freed from their ex-husbands and 
allowing them to remarry in a manner that most other poskim hold 
to be halachically insufficient, that woman may be following her 
posek, but others can still regard her children from her second 
marriage as mamzeirim R"L.

Yes, I know, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel intermarried with each 
other despite their machlokes over arayos, but I don't think Beis 
Hillel's majority was as overwhelming as today's majority of poskim 
that is opposed to what R. Rackman is doing. Personally, my 
disgust with people who withhold gittin notwithstanding, I would be 
seriously concerned if I felt that poskim were being matir agunos 
on a shaky halachic basis because of a subjective evaluation that 
some of the women "can't take it."

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

This is how I understand Torah uMadda in general

Properly undrestood Torah and Science both embrace Hashem (and each other)

Rich wolpoe 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
 Despite what William Jennings Bryan may have said on the courtroom steps, 
evolutionism does not exclude HaShem. Properly understood, the theory 
embraces Him.
?

David Finch

ein kol chodosh tachas hashomesh?!?! <big grin>

Rich Wwolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


<< And talking about secular music consider Ricky Nelson's "Fools Rush in 
where 
 wise men fear to tread" >>

Ricky's lyrics are nothing new. It's all in Koheleth.

David Finch

My biggest problem with Darwinian Evolution is the WAY it is taught in schools.

It's taught as a DOGMA and if you don't believe in it you are a Neanderthal, 
etc.

It would be more intellectually honest - imho - to teach it as a theory; as a 
tremendous insight on the part of Darwin.  But just as Newton had theories of 
relativity that have since been modified by the likes of Einstein, so too is 
Darwin's theory to be taken with a grain fo salt.  Then one can mention that 
there are a few alternatvivse such as:

1) G-d driven evolution
2) Creationism
3) etc.

Then humbly submit that none have been verified in a labrotory, that they are 
all our best understandings of how we got here and the last word has yet to be 
spoken, etc.

This to me is a more honest and fair approach to any theory, kbadeihu 
v'chashdihu

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


So, What's the problem. 

I certainly have no problem keeping creationism out of 
the public school system, although I do believe it 
would be beneficial to Societal evolution, if 
creationism were taught alongside evolutionary theory. 
I just don't believe it is a halachik mandate to 
support it's teaching in public school.

Furthermore, and more importantly, as long as 
Evolution is not presented as the only possible origin 
of the species, it is a perfectly acceptable theory. 
And even if it is foolishly presented the origin of 
the species, that does not necessarily contradict the 
belief that G-d created the Universe. It only states 
that his method was evolution. One can study and 
believe in the theory of evolution and still be a 
devout, G-d fearing Jew.

HM

I think those that take a "soft" stand against "closet" homosexuality 
amongst the Orhtodox are saying taht this is a case of both mumar letieovon 
and betzin'o.

This is quite different that taking a public stance (omeir mutar) or a mumar 
lhach'is stance.  A mumar leteiovon is very much akin to an alcoholic or a 
drug addict - they know it is wong but they cannot resist their Yetzer.  (R. 
Gorelick OBM made this analogy in shiur).

Certainly the ACT is a tei'ovon - the Torah says so.  But I think a "frum" 
homosexual would probably feel the ACT is not ok either, only they are not 
such gibborim that they can withstanding such strong drives.   For this kind 
of situation, I am reminded of Bruriah's peshat - Yitamu chato'im v'lo 
chot'im.  Eradciate the  SIN not the SINNER.  The "SINNERS" in this case are 
mistomo otherwise very good people who perhaps have a weakness, a flaw, a 
defect in their avoda.

OTOH, tThe case of mos yumosso is al pi ediim and hasro'o where the act is 
both PUBLIC and LEHACH'IS - remember one must say af al pi kein to get 
missas beis din.

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


From the continuation, I think Shalom Carmy understood correctly, 
and therefore I am treating what Shalom wrote as if it had been 
written by David.

>  The prohibition of homosexuality does not need to be uprooted. 

It doesn't? Then why does the Torah refer to it as a toeva? Why does the Torah 
say "mos yoomsoo dmayehm bom," i.e. that the punishment is skilla. 

<snip>
-- Carl

Correction:
The act is a TO'IE'VO


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


Certainly the ACT is a tei'ovon - the Torah says so.  
<snip>

Rich Wolpoe

Ein hochi nami!

How about parying for the tormentors to change thier minds, do teshuvo and let 
the Aguno go free!  A win-win situation perhaps?!

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

On 12 Dec 99, at 10:35, Russell J Hendel wrote:

> I would advocate a
> ---public policy of encouraging agunoth to pray for the death of their 
> tormentors

One is not supposed to pray for tzaros to befall his/her tormentors 
because doing so encourages a closer examination of his own 
actions. Therefore, while this might be appealing, I would say yotzo 
schoro b'hefseido.

-- Carl

I was negligent in myself not referring to the Igros Moshe's retort to the
Tzitz Eliezer in which he claims that harigas ubarin is retzicha without a
chiyuv misa; and I believe R' Chaim Brisker is of the same opinion.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Pawshas@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: abortion for "them" and for "us"


> Someone asked how abortion could be more serious for a Gentile than for a
Jew.
>
> Sanhedrin 57b learns that Gentiles are prohibited from aborting a child
based
> on the Torah's use of "Dimchem leNafshoseichem." The Gemara does not apply
> this to Jews; it appears that a Jewish fetus is not a "Nefesh" until
birth.
> (There are a number of interesting points to be made on this, as to the
> development of a Nefesh and the question of different stages during
> gestation. This is a long issue.)
>
> You might want to take a good look at Tosafos Niddah 44b on "Ish Ki
Yakeh;"
> he says that abortion of a Jewish fetus is "Mutar." The Sedei Chemed (Peas
> haSadeh 1:52), the Achiezer (3:65) , the Chavos Yair (31) and Mishpitei
Uziel
> (EH 79) have different ways of dealing with this.
>

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Homosexuality (was Re: what counts as suffering)
 
<<not put people to death, but does that mean that we are permitted 
to call a known (i.e. one who proclaims it after hasraa,>>

	AFAIK there is no chiyuv misah to proclaim oneself a homosexual (or
anything else,  for that matter.

Gershon

Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:12:32 -0800 (PST)
> From: harry maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: poverty
> 
<<I am not a math expert but if my calculations are correct, then the
grand total of wedding expenses for your daughter can not exceed $2500.  
Sounds good. Now I can afford that Porsche 911 I was thinking about.>>

	**Your**   daughter's wedding is going to cost more than $2500, unless
you've bought in (sorry,  poor choice of words :)) to the takanos.  Have
you sold your soul for a Porsche?

	Seriously,  has anyone seen these takanos in print (such as on the walls
of Meah Shearim)?

	BTW,  also seriously,  yasher kochacha on your posts on solving the
agunah issue.  

Gershon

From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject: Re: what counts as suffering 

<<The same with homosexuality. There are many frum Jews who are
homosexual, as 
a physical and psychological fact. >>

	Whence these data?

<<That is their sexual orientation. That is what they are. For them it is
not a matter of choice.>> 

	I think that as ma'aminim in bechira this PC position is untenable. 
Anyone who transgresses such strict issurim is an avaryan and a rosho, 
not a proponent of an alternate life style or even a nebbach.  

<< They are stuck with it. It's a birthmark.>>

	Chas vesholom to preclude teshuva from those Jews who have been over
such issurim chamurim.   And teshuva is what they need,  not acceptance.

<<But has been ingrained for centuries in our community, and is much a
part of our lives as the Shabbos Goy.>>

	Homosexuals accepted in the Jewish community for centuries?  I think you
are not even recalling the situation vis a vis homosexuals IN THE WORLD
AT LARGE up to the  sixties and seventies when toeva became natural.  Kal
vachomer ben bno shel kal vachomer that the Jewish community never
accepted it nor does it accept it now except for those who have been
mislead by the perverted liberalism which guides the Western world
nowadays.

Gershon

Our chaverim should be advised of a thoughtful essay on Orthodox Feminism by
Avodah member R' Emauel Feldman in the current Jewish Action> I suspect his
attitude most closely captures the opinion of many of our group's regular
posters.

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

My earlier post was a little muddle-headed so I am reposting with what I 
hope is a more correct analysis.

Let us assume that Planned Parenthood actually administers abortions, a 
fact of which I am not certain, and that a significant portion of the 
doctors who administer these abortions are Jewish, a fact which is almost a 
given in today's society.

Being a lawyer for them is not lifnei iveir because there are plenty of 
(gentile) lawyers who could also perform this service for them so it is 
chad avra denahara.  Assuming that you are not undercharging the fees there 
is no prohibition of lifnei iveir.

However, for Jewish doctors there might be a problem of mesaye'a lidvar 
aveirah.  According to the Shach (Y"D 151:6) there is no prohibition of 
mesaye'a for a mumar and abortion doctors are certainly mumrim to that 
issur.  The only exception being a doctor who has not yet performed one (or 
three) abortions yet.  That is certainly a miyut. According to the Dagul 
Merevavah (sham) there is no issur of mesaye'a for any meizid which all of 
these doctors are.

According to the Binyan Tzion (16) there is no issur of mesaye'a that is 
not connected to the prohibited act and serving as a lawyer has no 
connection to the actual abortions.  According to the Meishiv Davar 
(2:31-32) the issur of mesaye'a does not apply to one who is earning his 
livelihood which these lawyers are in the process of doing.  See also Shu"t 
Kesav Sofer (83).

Representing those who teach creationism, which usually involves teaching 
atheism also, would be the same.  There is no lifnei iveir as long as the 
fees are at a standard rate.  There are probably fewer Jewish teachers than 
there are Jewish abortionist doctors but mesaye'a might still be a problem. 
 However, given the shitos outlined above it should still be mutar.

I am most appreciative of R' Gil's well researched and lucid response.

Another member noted the Nishmas Avrohom's extensive discussion of mesaye'a
in the fourth volume of the work.

He is very stringent.

I would like to propose bthe following hierarchy vis a vis a doctor, which
can be copied to other professions - in the issur of mesaye'a:

1. Assisting a doctor in performing a vasectomy (issur d'orysa).

2. Assisting a doctor in performing a tubal ligation (issur d'rabbanan).

3. Advising a doctor in either of the above procedures (not mesaye'a
b'yadayim).

I believe a lot of this goes to the issue of how the Rishonim learn the
gemara in Nedarinm 22 where Ulla was "para lo beis ha'shechita".

In any event, it seems to me that there should be more of a kulla in #2 than
#1, as #2 is a trei d'rabbanan. The NA does not distinguish. In the case of
a Jewish doctor performing the operation he assers.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <gil.student@citicorp.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Mesaye'a


> Leshem talmud torah velo leshem halachah lema'aseh:
>
> First of all, we have to clarify that we are talking about cases where
> there are plenty of other lawyers available so that this is chad avra
> denahara and we do not have lifnei iveir problems.  Given that this is
> America that is not a problem.  RYGB suggests that the lawyer's services
> can't be pro-bono.  I assume this is based on the Chavos Yair's famous
psak
> that if you are offering services significantly cheaper than anyone else
> then it is trei avra denahara and lifnei iveir.  That being the case, the
> lawyer should not charge significantly less than a standard rate.
>
> Now that there is no problem of lifnei iveir, we have to address mesaye'a.
> Tosafos in Avodah Zara (6a) imply that there is no problem of mesaye'a in
> giving someone assur food.  Tosafos in Shabbos (3a) say that there is a
> problem of mesaye'a in holding something in you hand for someone else to
> pick it up and move it from one reshus to another.  The Shach is meyashev
> this stirah by explaining that mesaye'a does not apply to a mumar.  In
> Avodah Zara tosafos is talking about a mumar while in Shabbos tosafos is
> talking about a non-mumar.  The Dagul Merevavah extends this further.  He
> says that mesaye'a does not apply to a meizid.  Rav Moshe Feinstein
> explicitly accepts this Dagul Merevavah.  The Avnei Nezer seems to accept
> the Shach without the Dagul Merevavah's addition.
>
> The Binyan Tzion offers another (and IMHO better) yishuv.  He explains
that
> mesaye'a only applies at the exact time of the aveirah.  In Shabbos, you
> are holding out the object for the person to take at the time of the
> aveirah.  In Avodah Zara you are giving someone food for him to eat at a
> later time.  The Netziv in Meishiv Davar accepts this understanding of
> tosafos but adds that according to Rashi and the Rambam one could only do
> it as part of one's livelihood.
>
> According to the Binyan Tzion, a lawyer is not involved with the actual
> ma'aseh aveirah but only with advice and representation beforehand.
> According to the Netziv, this is part of a lawyer's livelihood.  So these
> two poskim would seem to permit it.
>
> According to the Shach, if the person wanting an abortion is not Shomer
> Shabbos (and by definition a mumar to all mitzvos) or has had abortions
> before (and therefore a mumar to this mitzvah) then there is no problem of
> mesaye'a.  Otherwise there is.  According to the Dagul Merevavah, if she
> wants an abortion then she is a meizidah and there is no prohibition of
> mesaye'a.  It might be assur to bring the subject up because until then
she
> might not want an abortion.
>
> A counsel for creationists, who presumably are spreading atheism along
with
> their creationism, will be representing gentiles.  There is no prohibiton
> of mesaye'a for a gentile.

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


[ 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         ]