9

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Torah and Science that was universally believed for over a thousand years, and then HAKIRAH SHOULD BE congratu- replaced by the very different lated on another wonderful issue heliocentric theory? (no. 17). In the issue, Nathan Aviezer criticizes R. Moshe Meisel- The answer is “no!”. The geo- man’s recent book on Torah and centric theory was universally Science. While his points are con- accepted for a millennium on re- vincing, I would like to correct one ligious grounds alone. The beliefs error in this review. Aviezer writes: of the Church demanded that man’s place must be at the center Finally, a word should be said of the universe. about the failed geocentric the- ory of the solar system, in which This is incorrect. First of all, the it was erroneously assumed that Ptolemaic system of geocentrism all planetary orbits could be de- was as much science as the Coper- scribed as circles revolving nican system, and had nothing to do around the Earth. Is that not an with theology. 1 Secondly, geocen- example of a scientific theory —————————————————————————————

1 Rather than refer to any number of extremely subtle), stellar parallax was books on the history of astronomy, not detected until the 19th century. here is what the Wikipedia entry on Therefore, the Greeks chose the sim- “Geocentric Model” has to say: pler of the two explanations. The lack “Adherence to the geocentric model of any observable parallax was consid- stemmed largely from several im- ered a fatal flaw of any non-geocentric portant observations. First of all, if the theory. Another observation used in fa- Earth did move, then one ought to be vor of the geocentric model at the time able to observe the shifting of the fixed was the apparent consistency of Venus' stars due to stellar parallax. In short, if luminosity, thus implying that it is usu- the earth was moving the shapes of the ally about the same distance from constellations should change consider- Earth, which is more consistent with ably over the course of a year. If they geocentrism than heliocentrism. In re- did not appear to move, the stars are ei- ality, that is because the loss of light ther much further away than the Sun caused by its phases compensates for and the planets than previously con- the increase in apparent size caused by ceived, making their motion undetecta- its varying distance from Earth. Once ble, or in reality they are not moving at again, Aristotle's objections of helio- all. Because the stars were actually centrism utilized his ideas concerning much further away than Greek astron- omers postulated (making movement

Ḥ akirah 18 © 2014 10 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought trism long predates the second-cen- Miller quotes comments I made in tury Ptolemy. Aristotle was a geo- an online class. In this class I re- centrist, and in Aristotle’s view the ferred to R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s most important part of the world is doubt that real Hasidism could ever not the center. “For the medieval take root in the United States. I mind, under the influence of Aris- misspoke when I said that the tape totle, the earth as the center of the of the Rav was from the 1970s. In world was not a position of honor. fact, he made this comment in the On the contrary, as Prof. Lovejoy 1950s. By the 1970s it was clear to put it, it was ‘the place farthest re- all that Hasidism had become a suc- moved from the Empyrean, the cess in America. bottom of creation, to which its dregs and baser elements sank. The Marc B. Shapiro actual center, indeed, was Hell; in University of Scranton the spatial sense, the medieval world was literally diabolocentric.’”2 Aviezer “blames” geocentrism Professor Nathan Aviezer responds: on the Church, and yet Maimonides (and every other Jewish and Islamic Professor Marc Shapiro’s thought- thinker of his day) was a geocentrist. ful letter correctly points out that Maimonides also had a strong anti- the geocentric theory was sup- anthropocentric view, as he did not ported by many seemingly sound regard man as the central purpose “scientific” reasons. However, I of the universe. This view of Mai- cannot agree with his statement that monides was an important source the geocentric theory “had nothing for Norman Lamm in his famous to do with theology.” In fact, this article “The Religious Implications theory had everything to do with theol- of Extraterrestrial Life.” Only those ogy, as I will show by several exam- who are convinced that they are the ples. center of the universe would be 1. One must surely wonder why troubled by the discovery of other the Church took such a strong po- inhabited worlds, and that is why sition concerning the structure of Maimonides’ outlook came in so the solar system. Why did the handy for Lamm. Church care whether or not the ge- Also, on p. 224 n. 15, Chaim ocentric theory was correct? The

————————————————————————————— the natural tendency of earth-like ob- (such as birds or clouds) would be left jects. The natural state of heavy earth- behind.” like objects is to tend towards the cen- 2 Norman Lamm, “The Religious Im- ter of the earth and not move unless plications of Extraterrestrial Life,” Tra- forced by an outside object. It was also dition 7 (Winter 1965) pp. 27-28. believed by some that if the Earth ro- tated on its axis, the air and objects in it Letters to the Editor : 11 reason for their great interest in as- When this model failed to ex- tronomy was that the Church had plain the details of planetary mo- developed a theological paradigm tion, medieval astronomers did not for the structure of the universe, abandon circles. Rather, they in- based on their understanding of vented the epicycle, which is a circle Scripture, and the linchpin of the revolving around another circle. Church paradigm was the geocen- The epicycle introduces two arbi- tric theory. Therefore, when Galileo trary parameters, the radius of the publicly mocked the geocentric the- epicycle and its speed, whose values ory and supported the opposing he- can be chosen to fit the data. When liocentric theory, the Church roared the addition of an epicycle proved into action. Galileo was hauled be- insufficient to explain the accurately fore the Court of the Inquisition, known planetary orbits, the astron- forced to publicly recant the helio- omers introduced additional epicy- centric theory on pain of death, sen- cles. In the course of time, eighty ep- tenced to life imprisonment, and icycles were introduced, providing had his books placed on the Index, 160 completely arbitrary parameters, all forbidden reading for all good in the futile attempt to explain plan- Catholics. It was only the interces- etary motion in terms of an incor- sion of Pope Urban VIII, who com- rect theory. The astronomers never muted his sentence to house-arrest, abandoned circular motion and that saved Galileo from languishing they never abandoned constant in prison for the rest of his life. This speed because of theological considera- is what happens when the argument is tions that decreed that the orbits of about theology by those who take their the- all heavenly bodies must be de- ology very seriously. scribed in terms of circles moving at 2. The geocentric theory of the constant speed. solar system consisted of several as- 3. When Nicolaus Copernicus sumptions. Not only was it assumed introduced the heliocentric theory, that all heavenly bodies move he emphasized that his theory had around the Earth, it was also as- nothing at all to say about how the planets sumed that they move in circular or- actually moved. That subject was un- bits with constant speed. The rea- der the sole jurisdiction of the Church. son for this latter assumption was Copernicus, who lived in Catholic the belief of the Church that the Poland, stated that he was merely motion of the heavenly bodies is proposing a “model” on the basis of under the direct control of G-d and, which one can calculate planetary therefore, this motion must be orbits. Therefore, Copernicus was “ideal.” Since the circle is the not put on trial by the Court of the “ideal” geometric figure and a con- Inquisition. Political correctness stant speed is the “ideal” speed, was as important then as it is now. these features must characterize In fact, the heliocentric model planetary motion. of Copernicus did not explain plan- 12 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought etary motion any better than the ge- These individuals are actually un- ocentric model with its 80 epicycles. dermining observance and bear a The reason is that Copernicus still heavy burden for it. assumed circular orbits moving at Millions of our brethren have constant speed, as the Church re- separated themselves from ob- quired. However, Copernicus servance in no small measure be- pointed out that his model had the cause they perceive that the discov- very important advantage of not re- eries of science (and history and ar- quiring a whole slew of arbitrary pa- chaeology) have discredited the rameters. It wasn’t until the non- foundations of Judaism. Prominent Catholic Johannes Kepler intro- rabbis and leaders of orthodoxy are duced elliptical orbits for the plan- seen as the ‘face’ of observant Juda- ets moving at variable speeds, ac- ism. When this ‘face’ insists that cording to his famous three laws, certain ideas are inherent to proper that the planetary orbits were finally observance and belief, and that ne- explained. gating those ideas constitutes heresy, many are left with a stark choice. Since they are not about to create, on their own, a new Judaism, I WISH TO THANK Prof. Nathan they must either join in the ac- Aviezer for undertaking the task of ceptance of these ideas or position responding to and refuting the three themselves outside the community books in which their rabbinic au- of those who do. And they have thors assert what amounts to the made their choice, in droves. They twin doctrines of Talmudic infalli- ask themselves: If the face of ob- bility (in contrast to Halakhic au- servant Judaism is wrong about this thority) and scientific unreliability. and that and the other thing, what Aviezer successfully demonstrated else is it wrong about? that this notion is not only contra- dicted by the facts, it also is not in Judah Landa accord with our Torah’s principles East Brunswick, NJ and the foundations of traditional Judaism. I am animated, however, to un- The Soul of a Jew derscore an important additional point. The authors of these books, I RECENTLY, though belatedly, dis- and the many other rabbinic author- covered Rabbi Hanan Balk’s essay, ities in the ultra-orthodox commu- “The Soul of a Jew and the Soul of nity who publicly support and dis- a Non-Jew” in Hakirah, Vol. 16 seminate such views, must think (Winter 2013). The stark contrast that their efforts are enhancing the the author draws between the view observance of Judaism. This idea is of the kabbalists and that of the totally divorced from reality. The Rambam creates quite a quandary precise opposite is taking place. for the modern, humanistic reader Letters to the Editor : 13 who nevertheless embraces the rially (ibid., chap. 3). Rav Chaim Vi- Jewish mystical tradition and its tal, the leading disciple and scribe of multifarious reverberations through- the Arizal (who famously consigned out the full spectrum of Torah idolatrous gentiles to the “three thought. The reader is implicitly completely impure klipos [husks]”) asked to set aside the entire kabba- writes that one who seeks to cleave listic edifice in favor of the Rambam to the Creator must “love all crea- and the prevailing philosophical ra- tures, including non-Jews” (Shaarey tionalism of his day, which may Kedushah 1:5). Needless to say, it serve as a model for contemporary would be unthinkable to love that religious views on more or less the which is intrinsically and irredeema- same wavelength. Or just as bad, bly evil. Following in the latter’s one must appoint himself the arbi- footsteps, 18th-century kabbalist ter of mystical truth by “cherry- Rabbi Pinchas Eliyahu Horowitz of picking” the kabbalistic concepts Vilna includes a thirty-one-chapter one likes and dismissing the rest. discourse in his encyclopedic Sefer This infelicitous labor would extend HaBris (Chelek II, Maamar 13) on through centuries of religious how the mitzvah of loving one’s thought, ad ve-ad bikhlal the leading neighbor also applies to non-Jews, poskim of both Ashkenazic and Se- who contribute to the civilization fardic mesorahs. we all share. While Rabbi Balk’s summary is Among the Chasidic masters, laudably comprehensive for a Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, whose thirty-page essay, and rich in in- thought is profoundly rooted in the sights, it lacks nuance—and in so Zohar, envisions a world in which doing, does injustice to the kabba- all levels of life continually ascend lists, who share the fate of all “po- and attain harmony. Thus, all hu- litically incorrect” thinkers, past and manity is destined to enter the realm present, at the hands of intellectual of kedushah, putting an end to the commissars. Our tzaddikim deserve often adversarial relationship be- better treatment than this. tween Jew and gentile (Likutey Mo- A few points that would add haran I, 21, end). Another great some of this missing nuance to the Chasidic kabbalist, Rabbi Yitzchak discussion would be the following: Yehuda Eizik Yechiel of Komarno, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (Ramak), echoing Rav Chaim Vital, enjoins us a major commentator on the to love all humanity (Nesiv Mitzvo- “prime culprit” in this essay, the sekha). The Baal HaTanya is some- Zohar, writes eloquently of the times taken to task for his reitera- worthiness of all humanity and all tion of the Arizal’s view that the creatures, which reflects upon the souls of the nations derive from the honor of their Creator (Tomer Devo- unholy. However, in the printed rah, chap. 2). He also urges us to edition of his shiurim on Tanya, the help all beings, spiritually and mate- late Rabbi Yosef Weinberg com- ments on this statement that it does 14 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought not apply to the “chasidei umos ha- Yehoyada and the Prophet Zecha- olam,” righteous gentiles, whose riah (Sefer HaGilgulim, chap. 48). He souls do possess a degree of holi- also states that Rabbi Moshe Cor- ness (beyond the “divine spark” dovero shared a common “soul- that all creatures possess). (And root” (shoresh neshamah) with Eliezer while Rambam’s criteria for such (ibid., chap. 65). The Arizal men- status in Hilkhos Melakhim 9 is tions numerous examples of this somewhat narrow, other take a concept. broader view; e.g., Tiferes Yisrael on As Rav Kook wrote, “All exist- Avos 3:17. The latter would surely ence evolves and ascends… no par- include countless religious non- ticularity will remain outside, not a Jews and spiritual figures.) I have spark will be lost from the ensem- also read that Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak ble. All will share in the climactic of Lubavitch was once approached culmination” (Oros HaKodesh, Ben by a non-Jewish theosophist who Zion Bokser trans., Paulist Press an- wished to study Kabbalah, and the thology, p. 221). This fundamental Rebbe, persuaded of the man’s sin- concept must especially inform our cerity, took a surprisingly positive readings of the kabbalists; for as view of the enterprise. I don’t have Rav Kook also states, “Great souls an exact source, but there is a letter cannot dissociate themselves from about the encounter in Igros Rayatz. universal concerns” (ibid., p. 226). Rav Kook’s passionately ex- An additional comment. Rabbi pressed inclusivist and universalist Balk mentions in passing (note 36, views have already been cited, albeit p. 57) a remark of Rabbi Shlomo briefly, by Rabbi Balk. Rav Kook’s Wolbe that may be taken to support contemporary and friend, Rabbi the idea that there are highly Yehuda Ashlag, author of the Sulam evolved non-Jews and profoundly translation and commentary on the debased Jews, regardless of their Zohar, similarly espoused such sen- spiritual genetics—possibly in disa- timents and actually believed that greement with the kabbalistic no- the study of Kabbalah by Jews and tion that Jews are rooted in the holy non-Jews alike would save the and gentiles in the unholy. How- world. And the list goes on. ever, as we have attempted to show, How do we reconcile these the kabbalists themselves affirm the seeming contradictions among the possibility, indeed, the reality of Jewish mystics? One possibility is such evolution (though maybe not by recourse to the kabbalistic con- such devolution, except in ex- cept of spiritual evolution. For ex- tremely rare cases). This principle is ample, Rav Chaim Vital writes in explicitly invoked by diverse the name of the Arizal that Av- sources, kabbalistic and non-kabba- raham Avinu’s servant Eliezer was listic; e.g., Tiferes Yisrael on Avos 3:18 successively reincarnated as Calev (“chaviv adam shenivra be-tzelem”); ben Yefuneh, Benayahu ben Rabbi Elie Mink’s “Ascent to Har- Letters to the Editor : 15 mony” (Rabbi Munk uniquely man- But that is because he does not ad- aged to be a neo-Hirschian kabba- dress my thesis and condemns me list); and of course throughout the for something that I did not set out works of Rabbi Samson Rafael to do. R. Sears is emphasizing that Hirsch. I don’t think it is a point of in practical terms, the fact that Kab- disagreement between the various balists and those who followed schools of thought. them subscribe to a view that the Dovid Sears soul of a Jew is superior to that of a Brooklyn, NY non-Jew, does not grant permission to treat gentiles with disdain or ha- tred of any kind. To the contrary, Hanan Balk responds: such behavior is not befitting to the individual who seeks to cleave to I thank Rabbi Dovid Sears for his God and reach the highest levels of letter which challenges my depic- spirituality. My thesis, however, tion of the Kabbalistic perspective concerns only the status of the soul of the non-Jew and thereby defends of a Jew and that of a non-Jew, as the Kabbalistic literature as well as the title of the article clearly states, its authors. Utilizing his vast and was never intended to address knowledge of Kabbalistic and Ha- the practical ramifications of such sidic sources, R. Sears argues, if I perspectives. The very same sources understand him correctly, that the to which R. Sears subscribes to con- highly negative thrust that I have vey that a non-Jew must be treated presented is not sufficiently broad in such a way that is worthy of one to have offered a full picture of the who bears the Divine image, do not Kabbalistic view. A more compre- in any way deny that the soul of a hensive evaluation reveals a very non-Jew is, nonetheless, akin to that positive approach toward the non- of animals (Zohar, p. 49; Baal Jew that demands a respectful and HaTanya, p. 51; R. Kook p. 53), even loving attitude that a Jew must lacking any vestige of holiness or express toward him in daily living. Godliness (R. Hayyim Vital, p. 50). I must take issue with R. Sears I am sure that R. Sears would agree for the following reasons (all for example, that if one would pre- sources, unless otherwise indicated, sume that those who are black in are from my Hakirah article): color are inferior to those who are 1) R. Sears points out that white, but nevertheless argue that many of the greatest Kabbalists re- they should be treated respectfully quire that a Jew recognize the value and even lovingly by all, this would, of all humanity, help each human nevertheless, be problematic to the being achieve his purpose, and love ethical sense of many people. all people as God’s beloved crea- tures. Nothing that R. Sears states 2. R. Sears suggests that the disagrees with my presentation. In obligation of some authorities to fact, I completely agree with him! love all of God’s creatures is proof 16 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought that the non-Jewish soul is not 3. Finally, R. Sears makes ref- viewed as poorly as I have sug- erence to a statement of the late R. gested. For if such was the case, he Yosef Weinberg that those who are states, “it would be unthinkable to among “the righteous of the nations love that which is intrinsically and of the world” do, in fact, possess a irredeemably evil.” Perhaps this is soul that contains a degree of holi- true―but it would not be unthinka- ness that differentiates them from ble to love that which is not charac- other non-Jews. Suffice it to say that terized so much as “evil,” as “mun- no proof is provided to substantiate dane” or “animal”―which is the such a view which is completely un- manner in which the Zohar and tenable with the Zohar, as well as the most of the mystical school envi- writings of the Ari z”l and R. Hayim sion the non-Jewish soul. Indeed, R. Vital―each which makes an onto- Sears strongly emphasizes through- logical distinction between the soul out a book that he himself au- of a Jew and that of a non-Jew that thored, The Vision of Eden: Animal has no bearing upon the righteous- Welfare and Vegetarianism in Jewish ness or wickedness of either (R. M. Law and Mysticism, that Jewish mys- H. Luzzatto, p. 50 and R. Kook, p. tics obligated a Jew to exhibit re- 53 similarly disparage the most spect, kindness, compassion and saintly of the nations as “subordi- even love, to animals―as they were nate” to the Jew, who is his “supe- created with the Divine wisdom of rior”). I further remind R. Sears of Creation. Should it thereby be diffi- R. Kook’s shocking statement cult to envision that such love must (ibid.): “The difference of the Jew- also be extended to all of mankind? ish soul…and that of all the na- Alternatively, one could argue that tions…is greater than the distinc- such an attitude is borne from an- tion between the human soul and other consideration. Ramban (a that of an animal. Between the latter Kabbalist) understands the ra- there is merely a quantitative dis- tionale for the prohibitions of cru- tinction; between the former, an es- elty to animals in the Torah to be sential qualitative distinction per- founded not in our concern for tains.” And if this is not sufficient, I their feelings but rather in the need repeat what was stressed in my arti- to develop the trait of compassion cle, that R. Menahem Mendel within ourselves (Deut. 22:6). Such Schneersohn, the Lubavitcher laws, therefore, serve to refine our Rebbe, when asked in a public set- characters and promote such be- ting about the status of the non- havior in interactions with our fel- Jewish soul, had the opportunity to low man. Here, too, there is no dis- place the righteous of the world crepancy between the view that a into a separate category. He made non-Jewish soul is inferior to that of no such distinction and unapologet- a Jew but for educational and spir- ically maintained that whatever itual purposes, that fact is excluded goodness the most righteous of from consideration. gentiles possesses in his soul, that Letters to the Editor : 17 soul is not connected to a Divine line is, that they all understood that source like that of the Jew (p. 51). Rambam differentiated between the In conclusion, the difficulty cre- “standard” critically ill patient and ated by the Kabbalistic view of the the birthing woman because child- distinction of souls does not vanish birth is a natural process and mater- because those inferior souls are still nal death from childbirth is rare. to be related to in a respectful man- These poskim understood that Ram- ner. Such a view may be accepted, bam required a shinuy only for a compartmentalized, or, if one birthing woman, but not for an “or- chooses to confront the authentic- dinary” critically ill patient. ity of Kabbalah (see p. 48, footnote However, the authors lament 5), rejected, in favor of the alterna- the fact that in modern times, these tive view of Maimonides that I have halachot have “changed.” In their sought to uncover in his writings. words, “Even a brief examination The essential problem, however, re- of a respected 1979 halakhic com- mains. pendium will show how much these laws have changed. According to Rabbi Joshua Neuwirth, a woman

should travel to the hospital at the Home Birthing onset of the slightest sign of la- bor… There is no attempt to justify I applaud Rabbis Lockshin and these radical changes; piqquah ̣ nefesh Winberg for bringing the important apparently speaks for itself.” issue of the “Pikuah ̣ Nefesh” status In truth, these halakhot have not of childbirth to the attention of Ha- “changed” at all. The modern kirah’s readers, but I believe that poskim are simply following the ha- there are significant problems with lakhah according to a completely their thesis as it was presented in different understanding of this issue their article. and the shita of Rambam. R’ Neu- The authors claim that “medie- wirth is an excellent example of the val halakhic codes made a clear dis- generally accepted approach of the tinction between the birthing overwhelming majority of modern woman and the standard critically ill poskim regarding the laws of child- patient (ḥoleh she-yesh bo sakkanah)” birth on Shabbat. This approach and they bring Rambam, as inter- completely equates the birthing preted by the Maggid Mishna, as their woman and the “ordinary” critically primary support for this claim. ill patient. Allow me to briefly ex- Their understanding of the Maggid plain. Mishna follows the interpretation of For starters, in that very same the Magen Avraham and his under- Maggid Mishna that is quoted by the standing of the Maggid Mishna, authors of the article, he brings the which also seems to be the ap- opinion of Ramban who clearly proach of the Mishna Berura and the states that the yoledet has exactly the Shulkhan Arukh HaRav. The bottom 18 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought same halakhot as any critically ill pa- of death in childbirth should make tient. There is thus no dispute at all any difference to her status as being that Ramban disagrees completely in a critical situation. The bottom with the idea that there is any hala- line should be, that if an interven- khic difference between the two. tion is necessary to save her life, it Furthermore, the idea that Ram- should be done, and a shinuy should bam differentiates between the two not be required. He therefore ap- categories is highly controversial, plies the idea of requiring a shinuy and there is a preponderance of only to interventions that are being poskim who don't agree with the done “L'yashev da'ata” to calm her Maggid Mishna and his understand- fears. The net result of the Arukh ing of Rambam. They posit that HaShulkhan’s analysis is that there is Rambam also felt that a woman in no difference at all between the crit- childbirth has exactly the same sta- ically ill patient and the birthing tus as a critically ill patient, and they woman, even according to Ram- disagreed with the inferences that bam. Only when it comes to calm- Maggid Mishna made from the lan- ing the fears of the birthing woman guage of Rambam. do we require a shinuy, and even Other poskim understood the then, only when it is possible to do Maggid Mishna differently, and ap- so without a delay in her care. plied the idea that a birthing woman Many other poskim simply disa- was less of a pikuah ̣ nefesh than a crit- gree with the Maggid Mishna and ically ill patient only to certain lim- claim that Rambam never differen- ited circumstances, but in general tiated at all between a birthing they felt that the two categories fol- woman and other critically ill pa- lowed the same rules. tients. These poskim include the Beit Tur and the Shulkhan Arukh, Yehuda, the Kiryat Melekh Rav, the when they bring the halakhah of a Mikra'ey Kodesh, the Orah V'Simhạ woman in childbirth, deliberately and more. They all contend that the choose a language that absolutely Maggid Mishna was basing his as- equates a woman in childbirth with sumptions on an inference from a critically ill patient. They do not Rambam that they don’t believe is elaborate that there should be any correct. difference between the two, nor do One of the reasons for the Mag- they bring the reasoning of the Mag- gid Mishna’s claim, is that he had a gid Mishna. This leaves their inten- different version of the text of tions somewhat vague, so we have Rambam from what we have today. to rely upon the “Nosei Keilim” in or- In his text, he had a “Bet” in place der to understand their intent. The of a “Kaf” in the word “B'sakanat Arukh HaShulkhan brings the Magen nefashot.” So while in Maggid Mishna’s Avraham who claims that they are reading Rambam stated that a birth- separate categories based on the ing woman is “in a state of danger” Maggid Mishna, but he has a difficult that may be different from other time understanding why the rarity states of danger, in the reading of Letters to the Editor : 19 the other poskim Rambam was actu- halakhic literature reveals that this is ally outrightly comparing a birthing not the case. Starting with Ramban woman with other critically ill pa- and ending in modern times with tients when he stated that she is Rav Waldenberg and Rav Neuwirth “like someone in danger.” For this the poskim have ruled that a birthing reason, some poskim (see Mikraey woman has exactly the same status Kodesh and Orah V'Simhạ for exam- as any critically ill person whose life ple) disagree with the entire premise is in danger. of Maggid Mishna. I believe that a few more points Other poskim (see the Beit Yehuda need to be addressed. The Hala- and the Kiryat Melekh Rav, for exam- khah is quite clear as to when the ple) did not necessarily bring up the stage of labor begins that qualifies a textual issue, but they still disagreed woman as being in a critical state. with Maggid Mishna and claimed that This is generally accepted as the there is no reason to infer that Ram- time that “blood begins to drip.” In bam differentiated between the two today’s common language, this is categories. They held that Shulkhan usually called “bloody show,” Arukh and Tur were careful to use a which happens as a result of the di- language that unequivocally com- lation of the cervix. This is not only pared the birthing woman to other during the “final stages of labor” as critically ill patients, and that the claimed by the authors of the article. need for a shinuy would apply to This usually occurs at 3-4 centime- both. ters of dilation, which is generally Other poskim, including R’ when most doctors and hospitals Eliezer Waldenberg and RYZ will consider a patient in active la- Soloveitchik of Brisk, felt that Ram- bor and admit the woman to the bam required a shinuy only during hospital. the stages leading up to labor, but The authors go on to attribute once labor began, even Rambam the permissive attitude of modern agreed that there is no difference poskim to male physicians delivering between a critically ill patient and a babies to our understanding that a birthing woman, and neither require birthing woman is in a state of a shinuy. There are other approaches pikuah ̣ nefesh. They quote from the as well amongst the poskim, but I SA in YD 335:10 the laws of bikur think we have already made it clear holiṃ (which is discussing a layman that there is an abundance of poskim ―not a physician―taking care of a who disagreed with the idea that woman who is ill), but seem to miss there is any halakhic difference be- the fact that the laws specific to tween a birthing woman and a criti- physicians treating female patients cally ill patient. is treated at length in YD 195, and While the authors presented the has nothing to do with pikuah ̣ nefesh. halakha as presented by Rav Neu- The authors further suggest, wirth as if it was a “radical change” that halakhically speaking, we need from accepted psak, a review of the 20 : Hakirah,̣ The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought to reconsider our use of drugs in la- healthy pregnancies and non-anom- bor because they may be dangerous. alous (congenitally normal) babies. They make this suggestion as if it However, the best available sci- can be assumed that drugs in labor entific evidence available today still are inherently dangerous, but they shows that the risk of neonatal do not have any evidence to back death is 2-3 times higher in home up this claim. In fact, every treat- births, even when all of the safe- ment used in labor is subjected to guards mentioned above are put in controlled clinical trials and years of place. This evidence was quoted in experience that have attested to the American College of Obstetri- their safety and efficacy. It is be- cians and Gynecologists (ACOG) yond the scope of this letter to re- Committee Opinion No. 476 in view every pain treatment and its February 2011, and reaffirmed in specific risk/benefit profile. How- 2013. Since the risk of neonatal is ever, the medical literature on every small, ACOG still advised that type of treatment is easily accessible home birth can be done safely, as I to anyone interested in doing the re- stated above, but to claim that it is search. Halakhah strongly supports somehow safer and somehow more the treatment of a woman’s pain in halakhically preferable than hospital a safe and efficient manner, and birth, is simply wrong. thus the accepted medical treat- ments for pain have been almost A Concerned Obstetrician unanimously permitted by modern poskim without significant reserva- tion. Martin Lockshin and Seth Winberg Finally, the article suggests that respond: having a baby in a hospital may ac- tually be more dangerous than a We appreciate the concerned obste- home birth, and thus they suggest trician’s lengthy discussion of Ram- that we need to consider if it is even bam. We are still convinced that the halakhically permissible to have a best understanding of Rambam’s baby at a hospital. They are abso- position is the one we suggested in lutely correct that when done our article. properly, a home birth can be a safe We invite interested readers to and halakhically viable option for check the sources the concerned many women. Studies have shown, obstetrician cited and compare that in an integrated health care sys- them with the sources we cited in tem, with properly trained mid- our article outlining the proven dan- wives, proper protocols for choos- gers of anesthesia and analgesia in ing the right candidates for home childbirth and the statistics we cited birth, and transportation protocols from many countries of the world and agreements with nearby hospi- proving that home birth has better tals, home birth can be safe for outcomes than hospital birth for a healthy woman. Letters to the Editor : 21

The Enlightenment although it is not impossible that in the minds of some hasidim a Many thanks for the latest issue of haskala publication could possibly Hakirah and yashir kohakhạ for stim- contaminate the Shas being printed ulating reading. there. R. Maimon’s piece on divergent approaches to the enlightenment Elijah Judah Schochet was very thoughtful. I would sug- Los Angeles, CA gest, however, that Hasidic disap- proval of the Romm Press ema-  nated from competitive motives,