[Avodah] [Areivim] URL: article about halachic infertility - and aseh doche lo ta'aseh

[Chana Luntz]

Further to our conversation regarding aseh doche lo ta'aseh - I saw over
shabbas that Rav Moshe has a teshuva on the question in Iggeros Moshe
Yoreh Deah chelek aleph siman 93 - ie specifically on the question of
whether one can pudh off the zayin nekiim in the face of pru u'rvu -
although he concludes inconclusively (at least in writing).

He, like RZS, appears initially to see the problem as being for her -
that for him it would seem initially that there is no problem, as it is
only an issur d'rabbanan in the face of a d'orisa mitzvah - but for her
there is a problem because she is not commanded in pru u'rvu, and is she
allowed to sin in an issur kal in order to enable her husband to fulfil
a mitzvah raba.  Cases he cites are the heter to freeing (presumably he
means the half slave) in order to enable pru 'urvu and the heter to
enable his friend to fulfil the mitzvah of pesach and he also quotes the
beis yosef in orech chaim at the end of siman 306 that one can even be
over on the issur of shabbat in order to save his daughter from shmad.
But on the other hand he says that it does not seem to him that we can
prove a general rule from here because we see that it is forbidden to be
over on an issur shvus to bring a knife even if the issur is a
d'rabbanan even though that will allow the kiyum of the mitzvah raba of
bris mila and also it is forbidden to do haza even to enable the mitzva
raba of pesach (and he brings tosfos that even though one can be over no
a shvus of amira l'akum vis a vis yishuv eretz yisroel, they then say
not for other mitzvos).  

And from this he writes that maybe there is even a problem for him to be
over on a d'rabbanan, even though it is clear that to enable pru u'rvu
we can free a slave, because maybe it is only a d'orisa that can be
pushed off in order to enable a mitzvah raba to be performed.

Some thoughts on this:

The case of not bringing a knife on shabbas has, I thought, a lot to do
with the fact that bringing the knife is something that could have been
done erev shabbas (the shulchan aruch refers to this explicitly in siman
331, si'if 1).  While I thought that rabbinical prohibitions could be
violated for a bris mila if they do not involve preparations that could
have been done previously.  Is it not the second case that is more
analogous here?

Both Shabbas and Pesach are cases where, if the mitzvah cannot be done
in its correct time, it can be done later - in the case of mila it can
be pushed off until yom rishon, while in the case of Pesach, that is
what Pesach sheni is for.  While the other cases are cases where unless
one is allowed to be over on the d'rabbanan, the mitzvah may never be
performed - which would seem to be more analogous to our case.

While Rav Moshe starts out apparently differentiating the case where one
person is over an issur to help another - in bringing the case of the
half slave (where the issur of freeing is clearly that of the master) he
seems in effect to be discounting that as a problem, and rather focusses
on whether you can be doche a rabbinical issur to enable a biblical
mitzvah, regardless of who is doing it (there is no suggestion that
bringing the knife for the bris mila might  be more permissible if it is
done by the father than by anybody else).

On another matter, some people have questioned my statement that giving
a sperm donation is a vadai issur d'orisa (and in particular have
pointed me in the direction of Bnei Banim vol 4 siman 19 and Ezer
Mekodesh Even Haezer 25:2).  

On the other hand, Rav Moshe in`Even HaEzer chelek aleph siman 64 while
he brings that which is found in the Tosphos Rid in Yevamos that the
ma'aseh of Er v' Onan is dependent on kavanah, that if the kavanah is
not to make her pregnant that is assur, but if the kavana is to fulfil
the desire of the eiver that is mutar and that R' Meir and the Chachamim
disagree about if his kavanah is not to make her pregnant because of
sakana and see further discussions there - but clearly rejects this
approach, on the grounds that, if this is the case, why is everybody so
concerned about somebody having hirhurim in the day because of what may
happen at night etc etc - which is certainly the way I have always
understood it.  Maybe more when I have had a chance to look at more than
the first few paragraphs of the Bene Banim as the implications do seem
dramatic.

And on the subject of consistency - if we are going to hold that a woman
has no mizvah of pru u'rvu even on a rabbinic level, that has
implications, not just for a miut that may be suffering from
infertility, but for the rov who have no such problems vis a vis the
whole question of women specific birth control (ie the pill - and why
Rabbinic sanction is generally regarded as necessary).  And similarly if
we can comfortably ignore questions of safety vis a vis ovulation
extending drugs the same can presumably be said for birth control pills.

Regards

Chana