Halakhah su Isaia 45:26

One should not engage in conversation after the cup of blessing, and one should not say the blessing over a “cup of tribulations.” What is a “cup of tribulations”? A second cup. The reason for this is that pairs are bad luck. As they taught in a baraita, “Whoever drinks double – that is, a pair of cups – should not say the blessing, because of the verse “Be proper to meet your God, O Israel.”³²³Am 4:12: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!” (JSB), but this midrashic use of the verse picks up on the connotation of nakhon – being proper or correct – from the root of the imperative verb hikon “prepare.” And the reason for prohibiting pairs is because of witchcraft and beings composed of two who rule over anyone who eats and drinking something in pairs. And another reason to distance oneself from “twos” is that that are separated from the power of One, for pairs come from the power of “twos.” So in order to fix one’s heart on unity and distance oneself from dualistic faith, like what is alluded to in Scripture, “Do not mix with shonim,”³²⁴Pr 24:21: “Do not mix with dissenters” (JSB). However, R. Bahya is clearly playing on the connection between “shonim” – literally, “those who differ” and shnayim – “two. In other words, he reads the verse as, “Do not mix with dualists.” The Talmudic prohibitions on pairs probably had something to do with their Babylonian cultural context, i.e., the dualistic Zoroastrianism of the Sassanid Persian empire. those who believe in twos or more. Therefore they prohibited pairs even for things eaten and drunk, for it is appropriate for natural matters to be a sign and symbol of appropriate practices and beliefs,³²⁵Literally, “appropriate matters.” But some mss. of R. Bahya’s text read “intellectual and spiritual matters,” making his point clearer. in that you already knew that true beliefs thus require actions. And you see that in the story of Creation, it was not said, “that it was good” on the second day.³²⁶That expression ki tov, which appears after the descriptions of what was created on the other five days in Genesis 1, is conspicuously absent at the end of the account of day two. For we follow what they said in Genesis Rabbah, that on it dissent and Gehennah were created, and without a doubt, with things like these created on it, it is a dangerous day, on which it is prohibited to begin any work, as our rabbis z”l said, “One does not begin things on the second day, because whoever adds something to one, there’s no good in him [or it], and thus it was called yom sheni – “day two,” which is from the expression shinui – “change.” For in One there is no change, which is what is written: “For I am the Lord, I have not changed.”³²⁷Mal 3:6. But the second day was the beginning of change, and from then on, change in what was created is desirable, and on the rest of the days after it we have found basis for an accusation against all of them, e.g., on the third day God said, “Let the earth bring forth fruit trees,” but it actually brought forth only “trees bearing fruit.”³²⁸Gen 1:11,12. R. Bahya picks up on the slightly different phrasing: “fruit tree bearing fruit” (1:11) vs. “tree bearing, to imply that the earth did not do exactly as God commanded. Similarly on the fourth day the moon made an accusation saying, “It isn’t fair for two kings to use one crown.”³²⁹B. Hullin 60b. This is the midrash told there:
And God made the two great lights? but later it says: “the great light and the small light”! The moon said before the Holy One: Master of the world, is it possible for two kings to use one crown? God said to her: Go and diminish yourself! She said before God: Because I asked a good question, I should diminish myself? God said: Go and rule both in day and in night. She said: What advantage is that? A candle in the daylight is useless. God said: Go and let Israel count their days and years by you. She said: They use the daylight [of the sun] to count seasonal cycles as well…Seeing that she was not appeased, the Holy One said: Bring a (sacrificial) atonement for me that I diminished the moon! This is what R. Shimon ben Lakish said: What is different about the ram of the new moon that it is offered “for God” (And one ram of the flock for a sin offering for God…Numbers 28:14). Said the Holy One: This ram shall be an atonement for me that I diminished the moon. And likewise on the fifth day, God killed the male Leviathan,³³⁰Though in his commentary to the Torah on Gen 1:4, R. Bahya uses the version of this midrash found in b. Bava Batra 74b: God castrated the male Leviathan and killed the female Leviathan. For had they mated with one another, they would have destroyed the world. which can be interpreted as He hid the heavenly light. And likewise on the sixth day, Adam sinned and changed the will of Ha-Shem, and about this it is said, “altering his face, you sent him out.”³³¹Job 14:20, which R. Bahya interprets as “you (Adam)– changed God’s face, and so ‘made” Him (God) send you out of the Garden of Eden.” See how the second day is the cause behind all of this, because all of these things come from its power and follow it. To the extent it said “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel,”³³²Am 4:12. who is one, and it added “O Israel,” who is the one singular nation of the one God, as it is said, “And who is like Your people, one nation on earth,”³³³I Chr 17:21. you should prepare and direct yourself to meet the One. So you should not eat or drink things in pairs, so that you will not think dualistic things in your heart.

However, you could be roused and open the eyes of your heart to the way of the wisdom of Kabbalah, that blessings are not just the private individual’s need alone, that something in them meets a “need” of the One Above, as Scripture says, “And you shall eat and be full, and you shall bless the LORD your God.” This verse permits the heart to understand the secret of blessings, and you will not find in the whole Torah anywhere that the Holy One Blessed be He commands us to bless His name unless it is with “Amen.” And because of this David said, “I will bless Your name”³⁴⁵Ps 145:1.and likewise he said, “Thank Him, and bless His name,”³⁴⁶Ps 100:4. and many other sayings like this. Accordingly you need to comprehend that blessings aren’t for the private individual’s needs at all, and that they are not only an expression of thanks, but they are an expression of addition and increase, as in the connotation of “He will bless your bread and water.”³⁴⁷Ex 23:25. And understand this statement of the sages z”l, when that said at the end of the chapter “The one who receives” on the topic of the creditor:³⁴⁸B. Bava Metzia 114a:
Scripture says (Dt 24:13) “that he may sleep in his cloth and bless you,” thus excluding hekdesh, which needs no blessing. Does it not? But it is written, “And you shall eat and be full, and you shall bless the Lord your God.” (Dt 8:10) But Scripture says, “And it shall be accounted to you as righteousness [i.e., charity].” (Dt 24:13) Hence it [the law of returning] holds good only for him [the creditor] for whom the act of righteousness is necessary, thus excluding hekdesh [as a creditor], which does not require righteousness. “that he may sleep in his cloth and bless you,”³⁴⁹Dt 24:13. If you’ve taken a pledge of clothing from a poor person for a loan, you must not keep it overnight, but rather, “when the sun goes down, you shall restore to him the pledge that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; it will be an act of righteousness – tzedakah – before the Lord your God.”someone who needs a blessing, namely, a private individual, but if it is hekdesh, it doesn’t need a blessing,³⁵⁰That is, if the person pledges something that is hekdesh – property consecrated for use in the Temple for which no blessing is required, hence it must be an exception to Dt. 24:13, which specifies a blessing. “it would be an act of righteousness,” to the One to whom all acts of righteousness already belong. The sages z”l explained this with the interpretation that hekdesh requires a blessing, but does not require tzedakah. And they made this even clearer in tractate Berakhot, “R. Ishmael said to him, ‘Bless me, my son,’”³⁵¹B. Berakhot 7a. and in tractate Shabbat, “The Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses, ‘You could have helped Me,’”³⁵²B. Shabbat 89a. – this deals with the matter of blessings.³⁵³In each of the these examples, someone like “the man who has everything” asks for something from someone clearly his inferior, with a lot less of his own to give. And they also said that the Holy One Blessed be He desires the prayer of the righteous who are much smaller in number than the rest of the large nations, even though they are not “a numerous people, the glory of a king.”³⁵⁴Pr 14:28. But rather, certainly the expression “you shall bless” is an expression of addition and increase, and it connotes a brekhah – a “pool” gushing from its source, and thus we mention in our prayer titromam and titbarakh – “you shall be exalted and be blessed,”³⁵⁵In the blessing Yotzer Or in Shahrit. and in the language of the Kaddish – yitbarakh va-yishtabah, va-yitpa’ar, va-yitromam, vayitnasay. And it also has the connotation of berekhah – “kneeling” and bowing down, to He to whom every knee (berekh) must bend. And so you will find in the Book of Bahir, “What is the meaning of berakhah? It is the “tongue” of the “knee” – berekh, as it said, ‘and to You every knee must bend and every tongue give homage’³⁵⁶Is 45:23.– the One to whom every knee bows down.”³⁵⁷Sefer Ha-Bahir, Ot 9. Behold, this is among the mysteries of the Torah, and the whole issue of kavvanah – “intention”- in prayer follows it, but it is not right to explain and expand upon this further in writing.

Indeed, the world was created only for procreation as it is said, "He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45:18).

And know and understand that it was about this intellectual meal of the resurrection of the dead that rabbis z”l interpreted in a midrash in Tractate Pesahim:⁸¹B. Pesahim 119b. “‘And Abraham made a great feast on the day of the weaning [ha–higamel], etc.’⁸²Gen 21:8. The Holy One, blessed be He, will in time to come make a banquet for the righteous on the day when He will reward [yigamel hesed] the seed of Isaac, and the cup of blessing will be given to Abraham to bless and he says to them, “I won’t say the blessing because Ishmael came from me.” The cup of blessing is given to Isaac to bless, and he says, “I won’t say the blessing because Esau came out of me.” The cup of blessing is given to Jacob to bless and he says to them, “I won’t say the blessing because I married two sisters while they were both alive.” The cup of blessing is given to Moses to bless, and he says, “I won’t say the blessing, because I didn’t merit entering the land of Israel.” The cup of blessing is given to Joshua to bless and he said to them, “I won’t say the blessing, because I never merited having a son. The cup of blessing was giving to David to bless, and he says to them, “I will say the blessing, and it is right for me to bless the King (may He be blessed), as it is said, “I raise the cup of deliverance and invoke the name of the Lord.”⁸³Ps 116:13.

You will find also in the words of Moses at the end of the Torah a promise well-known to be about the world to come, which is what is written, “O happy Israel! Who is like you, A people delivered by the Lord.”¹¹⁵Dt 33:29. Because it specified above the destined physical rewards, when it said, “Thus Israel will dwell in safety, untroubled will be Jacob’s abode, in a land of grain and wine, under heavens dripping dew,”¹¹⁶Ibid., 33:28. so it connected it immediately to “O Happy Israel!” to say “don’t think that the only recompense and reward you’ll have for doing the mitzvoth will be in this world.” That’s why it said, “O Happy [ashrekha] Israel,” as our sages taught in a midrash, “‘You shall be happy [ashrekha] and you shall prosper,’¹¹⁷Ps 128:2. ‘You shall be happy’ – in this world, and ‘You shall prosper’ – in the world to come.”¹¹⁸M. Avot 4:1. And afterwards it said, “Who is like you?”¹¹⁹Dt 33:29. that is to say, who among all the nations is like you will be “delivered by the Lord” – which means the salvation [t’shua’at] of the soul in the world of souls, which is why it said, “delivered [nosha’] by the Lord.”¹²⁰Ibid. It’s like the similar expression of the prophet: “Israel has been delivered [nosha’] by the Lord, with salvation [t’shuat] everlasting.”¹²¹Is 45:17: literally “salvation of the worlds” – t’shuat olamim – the plural of which R. Bahya without a doubt understands as an allusion to salvation in both worlds – this world and the world to come. And it said, “your protecting shield”¹²²Dt 33:29. because after it specified the reward of the soul and its salvation in the world of souls, it gave a sign for this and said that Ha-Shem (may He be blessed) is their shield, their protection and their “sword triumphant” [herev ge’utam], ¹²³Ibid., literally, “the sword of your pride.”that is, something they could be proud [le-hitga’ot] about, hence “your protecting shield.”¹²⁴Ibid. And this would even include what midat ha-din above is called – magen – “shield”, because one usually holds a shield in the left hand, and He keeps us safe with it so that by protecting us, we need not be afraid of the enemy overpowering it, and so David said, “You have granted me the shield of Your protection – magen yish’ekha“¹²⁵2 Sam 22:36, or “shield of Your salvation.” – the shield which protects You. And he explained further, “For YHWH God is sun and shield,”¹²⁶Ps 84:12. that is, “the Great Name” [of YHWH], the quality of Jacob, which is called “sun.”¹²⁷E.g., in Joseph’s dream, Gen 37:9, where the sun clearly stands for Jacob. I think R. Bahya means that “sun” is expression for God’s other main attribute, His “right hand” – midat ha-rahamim. Thus, when David referred to “Lord God” as “sun and shield” in Ps 84:12, from a kabbalistic perspective, it’s a reference to God having both midat ha-din and midat ha-rahamim, the attribute of severity and the attribute of compassion. I.e., YHWH (“Lord”) = “sun” = “Jacob” = midat ha-rahamim, while Elohim (“God”) = “shield” = midat ha-din. And so our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash, “Jacob said, ‘Who revealed to him [Joseph] that my name [sh’my] was ‘sun’?”¹²⁸Bereshit Rabba 84:10. Or as R. Bahya interprets it, sh’my= shem Y’, “the great name of YHWH.” And he called the heavenly midat ha-din “shield,” and this what is meant by “For YHWH God is sun and shield;”¹²⁹Ps 84:12. this is why it is specified “Your protecting shield, your sword of pride”¹³⁰Dt 33:29. because of Israel having this eternal success and ultimate victory over all their enemies. So all this is a sign that they are attached to and will be delivered by Ha-Shem in the world of souls. If so, then the account of the things destined for the soul in the Torah are only there by analogy and as a sign, so set your heart to the words of Moses, how he wanted on the day of his death to “seal” his words in the upper world – understand this!

In the early days of in vitro fertilization a position similar to that advanced by Rabbi Waldenberg was presented by R. Judah Gershuni in the Tishri 5739 issue of Or ha-Mizraḥ.⁸This article is reprinted in Rabbi Gershuni’s Kol Ẓofayikh (Jerusalem, 5740), pp. 361–367. Rabbi Gershuni's argument is based upon a statement of Divrei Malki'el, IV, no. 107. There is a significant disagreement among rabbinic authorities with regard to whether a paternal relationship may occur as a result of artificial insemination or whether such a relationship can arise only as the result of a sexual act.⁹The primary source affirming a paternal relationship is Hagahot Semak, cited by Mishneh le-Melekh, Hilkhot Ishut 15:4; Baḥ, Yoreh De‘ah 195; and Bet Shmu’el, Even ha-Ezer 1:10. A similar view is expressed by Ḥelkat Meḥokek, Even ha-Ezer 1:8; Teshuvot Tashbaẓ, III, no. 263; Turei Even, Ḥaggigah 15a; Bnei Ahuvah, Hilkhot Ishut 15; Arukh la-Ner, Yevamot 10a; Mishneh le-Melekh, Hilkhot Issurei Bi’ah 17:13; She’ilat Ya‘aveẓ, II, no. 97; Maharam Shik al Taryag Miẓvot, no. 1; Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel, II, no.107; R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, No‘am, I (5717), 155; R. Israel Ze’ev Mintzberg , No‘am, I, 129; R. Joshua Baumol, Teshuvot Emek Halakhah, I, no. 68; R. Avigdor Nebenzahl, Sefer Assia, V, 92–93; and R. Ovadiah Yosef, quoted by Moshe Drori, Teḥumin, I (5740), 287, and Abraham S. Abraham, Nishmat Avraham, Even ha-Ezer 1:5, sec. 3. An opposing view is expressed by Taz, Even ha-Ezer 1:8; Birkei Yosef, Even ha-Ezer 1:14; R. Ovadiah Hedaya, No‘am, I, 130–137; R. Moshe Aryeh Leib Shapiro, No‘am, I, 138–142; and R. Ben Zion Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Even ha-Ezer, no. 19, reprinted in Piskei Uzi’el (Jerusalem, 5737), pp. 282–283. Teshuvot Ḥelkat Ya‘akov, I, no. 24, regards the issue as a matter of doubt. Divrei Malki'el expresses tentative support for the latter position but does so on the basis of the novel view that "once the semen has been emitted and has warmth only because of the ministration of the physician and his skill with the pipette or due to the heat of the bath" a baby born as a result of that process is not regarded as the son of the donor. Although Divrei Malki'el stands virtually alone in developing this argument¹⁰In his previously cited article in Be-Shevilei ha-Refu’ah, p. 30, R. Moshe Sternbuch presents an argument quite similar to that advanced by Divrei Malki’el in rejecting a paternal relationship between the donor of the semen and the child born of subsequent in vitro fertilization even when the zygote is implanted in the donor’s wife. Rabbi Sternbuch argues that “the act of conception takes place in the sterile petri dish itself which acts to commence conception, to unite both of them (i.e., the ovum and the sperm) as in the womb. This is not in the manner of conception since another power is combined therein, that is, the petri dish.”
The effect of denying paternal identity, asserts Rabbi Sternbuch, is to prohibit in vitro fertilization entirely. Rabbinic authorities who permit ejaculation of semen by the husband for purposes of artificial insemination sanction that procedure only because it leads to procreation. However, if in vitro fertilization does not result in a father-child relationship it does not serve to fulfill the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” and hence ejaculation of semen for purposes of in vitro procedures is not permissible. See sources cited supra, note 8. With regard to artificial insemination, some authorities, including Arukh la-Ner, Yevamot 10a, and Maharam Shik al Taryag Miẓvot, no. 1, maintain that, although the child is considered the son of the donor, the donor does not fulfill the precept of procreation because no sexual act is involved. Rabbi Gershuni, although he too denies that artificial insemination results in a paternal-filial relationship, nevertheless regards the procedure as permissible for a married couple. Rabbi Gershuni argues that although artificial insemination does not serve to fulfill the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply,” nevertheless, since the procedure results in procreation of the human species, it serves to fulfill the prophetic mandate “He created [the universe] not to be a waste, He formed it to be populated” (Isaiah 45:18) and hence ejaculation of semen for that purpose is not for naught.
For a vaguely similar reason Rabbi Sternbuch, p. 29, opines that destruction of an embryo fertilized outside of a woman’s body is not prohibited. He states that “…. the prohibition against abortion is in the woman’s uterus, for the [embryo] has the potential to develop and become complete in her womb and it is destroyed. But here, outside the womb, an additional operation is required to implant [the embryo] in the woman’s uterus and without this it will … of its own not reach completion….” Rabbi Sternbuch cites no sources in support of that distinction. A similar view is advanced, without elaboration or citation of sources, by R. Chaim David Halevy, Assia, vol. XII, no. 3–4 (Kislev 5750). One source that might be cited in support of such a conclusion is Teshuvot Ḥakham Ẓevi, no. 93. Citing Sanhedrin 57b, Ḥakham Ẓevi rules that destruction of a golem does not constitute an act of homicide and is not prohibited because its gestation is not in the form of a “man within a man,” as evidenced by the fact that the Gemara, Sanhedrin 65b, reports that Rabbi Zeira commanded a person created by utilization of Sefer Yeẓirah to return to dust. That statement, however, cannot be taken as definitive since Ḥakham Ẓevi concludes that a golem lacks status as a Jew or as a human being for other purposes as well. See also R. Joseph Rosen, Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa‘aneaḥ (Jerusalem, 5728), II, no. 7. Genesis 9:6 is cited by the Gemara and rendered “Whosoever sheds the blood of a man within a man his blood shall be shed” in establishing feticide as a capital transgression in the Noahide Code. Accordingly, there would be strong grounds to assume that a Noahide does not incur capital punishment for destruction of an embryo fertilized in vitro, but not for support of the position that a person born of in vitro fertilization may be destroyed with impunity or even for the position that there is no halakhic consideration forbidding a Jew to destroy a developing embryo outside the human body. Moreover, Ramban, cited by Ran, Yoma 82a, and Rosh, Yoma 8:13, maintains that Sabbath restrictions and the like are suspended for the purpose of preserving the life of a fetus. Those comments clearly reflect the view that there is an obligation to preserve fetal life. Thus, there are no obvious grounds for assuming that nascent human life may be destroyed with impunity simply because it is not sheltered in its natural habitat, i.e., its development takes place outside the mother’s womb. R. Samuel ha-Levi Woszner, Teshuvot Shevet ha-Levi, V, no. 47, expresses the opinion that Sabbath restrictions are not suspended for the preservation of a zygote that has as yet not been implanted in the gestational mother on the grounds that the vast majority of such zygotes are not viable but adds the cautionary note that the empirical situation, and hence the halakhic ruling, may change with advances in the development of reproductive knowledge and techniques. The clear implication of his position is that destruction of such nascent life cannot be countenanced. R. Mordecai Eliyahu, Teḥumin, XI (5750), states unequivocally that surplus ova may not be destroyed. For a further discussion of the propriety of destroying fertilized ova see this writer’s article, “Ethical Concerns in Artificial Procreation: A Jewish Perspective,” Publications de l’Academie du Royaume du Maroc, vol. X: Problèmes d’Éthique Engendrés par les Nouvelles Maîtrises de la Procréation Humaine (Agadir, 1986), pp. 143–145.
There are, however, strong reasons to assume that there is no prohibition against the destruction of a nonviable fetus, as is stated by Rabbi Sternbuch, loc. cit. See Abraham S. Abraham, Nishmat Avraham, Ḥoshen Mishpat 425:1, sec. 19, and R. Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, Teḥumin, V, 250. Nevertheless, such a conclusion is contrary to the view expressed by R. Eleazar Fleckles, Teshuvah me-Ahavah, no. 53, with regard to a nonviable neonate. See also Teshuvot Radbaz, II, no. 695. and himself concludes that a child born of artificial insemination is indeed the child of the donor, Rabbi Gershuni observes that a fertilized zygote sustained in a petri dish by means of "artificial nutrition and blood serum" should not be regarded by Jewish law as the child of either parent. The earlier presented rebuttal of Rabbi Waldenberg's argument applies with equal force to that advanced by Rabbi Gershuni. Moreover, any cogency the argument may have with regard to establishment of a paternal relationship notwithstanding, if parturition, in and of itself, serves to establish a maternal relationship, the sources of antecedent nutrition of the fetus are totally irrelevant.

What brought this commentator to this difficulty was because many treated the verse “In the beginning God created (bara)” (ibid. 1:1) as if it was written “At the beginning of God’s creating (bero) the heavens and the earth, the earth was empty (tohu) and void (vohu)” – it did not exist, meaning there was no earth. Similarly, “darkness” is the absence of light, meaning there was none.¹⁰ According to this interpretation nothing existed prior to the creation of light. So the first created condition was light, followed by darkness at night. Thus a 24-hour day consists of light followed by darkness – day followed by night. But this interpretation is completely incorrect. Because why did he need to mention the heavens since it did not state that they were nonexistent like the earth? Also, from a grammatical point of view, why is there an added vav (“and”) to the word “veha’arez”? This is not the same as the extra vav found in verbs, as in “On the third day Abraham lifted (vayisa) his eyes” (ibid. 22:4), “he abandoned (vaya’azov) his servants” (Exodus 9:21). They are like the weak fe in Arabic, for Arabic forms are similar to those of the Holy Tongue (Hebrew). However, no vav is added to nouns. Also, according to this interpretation the wind and the water were not created,¹¹ No mention is made of the creation of air and water, even though they are referred to in verse 2. yet it is written in the book of Psalms with regard to both of these “for He commanded and they came to be” (148:5).¹² The verses in Psalms are: “Praise Him, heavens of heavens (the sphere of fire), and waters that are above the heavens. They should praise the name of God, for he commanded and they were created” (148:4–5). Even darkness was created, as it is written “who forms light and creates darkness” (Isaiah 45:7).

Now the darkness proceeded the light, as it is written (Genesis 1:2). The great movement (diurnal movement) includes the time of darkness and light, and that is called “yom” (day), that is, a complete day of twenty-four hours.¹⁸ Thus “day” includes a period of darkness and a period of light, in that order. This does not conflict with the fact that Scripture first mentioned “God called the light ‘day’” (Genesis 1:5) before the night, for this is common with the Hebrew language, namely, when someone mentions two things he should begin with the latter.¹⁹ Verses 3 and 4 refer to the light, therefore verse 5 begins by calling the light “day.” For example, “I gave Jacob and Esau to Isaac, and I gave to Esau…” (Joshua 24:4). In the same way, “Your’s is the day also the night” (Psalms 74:16), and he mentions the minor luminary (the moon) that governs the night before the greater luminary (the sun), although the latter is more important than the former. Also, do not be perplexed when Scripture says “He formed the light and created darkness” (Isaiah 40:12). Scripture puts the light first because it has advantages over darkness, even though darkness came before the light. Similarly, in the verse “His sons Isaac and Ishmael” (Genesis 25:9).²⁰ Isaac is mentioned first, even though he was the younger son. Also, “There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife” (ibid. 49:31), although he buried her.²¹ Abraham is mentioned first although Sarah was buried first.

Preservation of human life is commonly seen as the rationale underlying the ban against induced abortion. Each of the diverse authorities heretofore cited considers the essence of the prohibition to be closely akin to that of homicide. There are, however, other authorities who deem the destruction of a fetus to be unrelated to the taking of human life but nevertheless forbidden on extraneous grounds. Chief among these are the opinions of those who maintain that feticide is precluded as constituting a form of destruction of the male seed or that it is forbidden as a form of unlawful flagellation. R. Shlomoh Drimer (Teshuvot Bet Shlomoh, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 132) contends that the destruction of a fetus cannot be a form of homicide since the fetus cannot be viewed as "a life" in its prenatal state.¹³R. Drimer similarly argues that the a priori principle “How do you know that your blood is sweeter than the blood of your fellow?” cannot be applied in assessing the value of fetal life. Cf. below n. 65. He does not, however, spell out the nature of the crime committed in causing the death of a fetus. The origin of this view can be traced to the Teshuvot ha-Radbaz, II, no. 695, in which the author states explicitly that destruction of a fetus is not a form of homicide. R. Ya'ir Chaim Bachrach (Havot Ya'ir, no. 31), argues that feticide is included in the interdiction against onanism¹⁴This determination is based upon Tosafot, Sanhedrin 59b, and others who maintain that such practices are biblically prohibited. For a comprehensive list of sources, see Oẓar ha-Poskim (Jerusalem, 5725), IX, 163–64, and R. Moses D. Tendler, Tradition, IX (1967), nos. 1–2, pp. 211–12. Regarding the question of whether Noachides are bound by the prohibition against onanism, see Tosafot, Sanhedrin 59b; Mishneh le-Melekh, Hilkhot Melakhim 10:7; R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, He’emek She’elah 165:2; and R. Joseph Rosen, Teshuvot Ẓofnat Pa‘aneaḥ (New York, 5714), no. 30. and reasons that destroying the fetus is within the scope of the verse "slaying the children in the valley under the clefts of the rocks" (Isa. 57:5), which is interpreted by the Gemara, Niddah 13a, as having reference to the destruction of the male seed.¹⁵R. Jacob Emden, She’elot Ya‘aveẓ, (New York, 5721), no. 43, also makes brief mention of this consideration. See also Zekhuta de-Avraham, cited by R. Meir Dan Plocki, Ḥemdat Yisra’el (Pietrokow, 5687), p. 175. The author of Zekhuta de-Avraham offers an identical opinion, adding that feticide and onanism incur the self-same penalty—"death at the hands of heaven."¹⁶Cited by Ḥemdat Yisra’el, p. 175. In his responsum Havot Ya'ir accepts the ruling of Tosafot (Yevamot 12b) that women are also bound by the prohibition against destroying the male seed. He notes that, even according to the view of Rabbenu Tam that women are not included in this specific prohibition,¹⁷It is on the basis of Ḥavot Ya’ir’s declaration that feticide is forbidden as a form of “destruction of the seed” and of the diminished severity of such an act when performed by a woman (according to Rabbenu Tam) that R. Waldenberg counsels that it is preferable to seek a female (Jewish) doctor to perform even those abortions which are halakhically permissible. See Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IX, 235. these practices are nevertheless forbidden to them, for women, too (Tosafot, Gittin 41b), are bound to bring to fulfillment the divine design of a populated world as stated in the words of Isaiah 45:18, "He created it [the earth] not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited."¹⁸Following this line of reasoning, feticide would be biblically forbidden even according to Rabbenu Nissim, who does not consider destruction of a fetus to be a form of homicide.

A somewhat similar objection is voiced by the late Rabbi Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg.²¹Seridei Esh (Jerusalem, 5726), III, no. 127, pp. 344f. This responsum was originally published as an article in No‘am, IX (1966), pp. 193–215, and was reprinted subsequently in the third volume of Seridei Esh with a number of added notes. Havot Ya'ir maintains that women, although not bound by the commandment "be fruitful and multiply," are nevertheless obligated to fulfill the intent expressed in the verse, "He formed it [the earth] to be inhabited." This consideration, Havot Ya'ir maintains, precludes feticide even on the part of women. Rabbi Weinberg rebuts this contention, asserting that the obligation set forth in Isaiah 45:18 is understood by the authorities as paralleling the injunction "be fruitful and multiply" in that such considerations apply only to one's own progeny. Accordingly argues Rabbi Weinberg, assimilation of the prohibition against feticide to the ban against onanism would lead to the bizarre conclusion that a woman might be permitted to perform an abortion upon any woman other than herself—a conclusion not to be found in any halakhic source.