hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (02/13/86)
This is a reply to a note received by mail. I am posting it because it may be of general interest. > > From: Adam Reed <ihnp4!mtuxo!hfavr> > > The Holocaust has to do with the murder of a living > > Jewish *soul or mind (nefesh)*. In the Jewish tradition, a newborn is > > not considered a nefesh until he or she has lived the prescribed number > > of days on earth. > From: "Steve Munson" <allegra!purdue!sbm> > I am intrigued; how many days are prescribed? I have never seen > mention of this in the Bible. The human embryo develops a brain three > weeks after conception. On the other hand, my understanding is that > nefesh has nothing to do with mind or soul as most people think of it. > Dr. H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College has said, "the Bible does > not say we have a soul. 'Nefesh' is the person himself, his need for > food, the very blood in his veins, his being." This would seem to mean > that a person is a nefesh right from birth, if not from conception. 1. The Oral Tradition prescribes 30 days from birth before a newborn is considered a nefesh. A newborn who dies without having lived on earth for 30 days is not mourned. 2. Nefesh is indeed what one is, and not something one has. This is because in the Jewish tradition, the mind is the soul is the person. Biological functions necessary to support the mind are indeed a component of nefesh, but the mind is indispensable: no mind means no soul means no person. 3. The fact that the human embryo develops a brain three weeks after conception is not relevant to the question of nefesh: animals have brains, but they do not have minds and are not persons. 4. Waiting only 30 days from birth, before a newborn is considered a nefesh, is a "fence" to make sure that every actual nefesh is considered one, since signs of actually having a mind do not appear until considerably later. Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)
mphw@mhuxm.UUCP (M. Z. Krumbein) (02/14/86)
> > 1. The Oral Tradition prescribes 30 days from birth before a newborn is > considered a nefesh. A newborn who dies without having lived on > earth for 30 days is not mourned. As far as I remember, a person who kills a healthy child is liable to capital punishment, though the child was just born. Calling abortion (on demand) murder (or close to it) is not precisely foreign to Jewish tradition. What you said about mourning is true (stardard halachic practice, to the best of my knowledge). M. Krumbein GECON @ ATT-BL WH3a331 1-202-386-3193 whuxb!steve mhuxm!mphw and coming soon to a location near you ... The legendary East Side bums were gone forevermore... -- Moshe Yess, guesting on "Journeys"
hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (02/14/86)
>>(Adam Reed) >> 1. The Oral Tradition prescribes 30 days from birth before a newborn is >> considered a nefesh. A newborn who dies without having lived on >> earth for 30 days is not mourned. >(M. Krumbein) >As far as I remember, a person who kills a healthy child is liable >to capital punishment, though the child was just born. (Adam Reed) Capital punishment was extremely rare in practice - recall that the Talmud is very harsh on a Sanhedrin that would authorize an execution once per generation. Given its rarity in practice, liability to capital punishment was used as a mark of strong moral disapproval, and applied to a very wide variety of offenses, including such things as working on the Shabat. Capital punishment was never applied to consensual abortion, indicating that abortion, although unquestionably an offense, is less reprehensible than, e.g., working on the Shabat. Moreover, it was not applicable to infanticide unless the infant was healthy enough to have a good chance of eventually becoming a person. This indicates that the relevant factor is the future potential for becoming a person, rather than biological life per se. >Calling abortion (on demand) murder (or close to it) is not precisely >foreign to Jewish tradition. Nothing is so foreign to Jewish tradition as reliance on emotionally charged slogans, such as "abortion is murder", in place of reasoned argument. I find that for the most part, the Jewish tradition regards abortion as an offense for the same reason it regards failure to have regular marital relations as an offense: because it prevents a potential person from coming into being. This is materially different from murder, which is the destruction of an already existing person. Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtuxo!hfavr)
ksc@uclachem.UUCP (Kim Cary) (02/25/86)
> 1. The Oral Tradition prescribes 30 days from birth before a newborn is > considered a nefesh. A newborn who dies without having lived on > earth for 30 days is not mourned. > 2. Nefesh is indeed what one is, and not something one has. This is > because in the Jewish tradition, the mind is the soul is the person. > Biological functions necessary to support the mind are indeed a > component of nefesh, but the mind is indispensable: no mind > means no soul means no person. > Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam) Would you post your references for these statements, particularly for the 30 days and the "nefesh"=mind concept? Thanks. Does this tradition attempt to account for why *circumcision* (a physical sign of a living being's covenant relation to his God) is prescribed by the Scripture for the 8th, and not the 30th day? Kim Cary (uclachem\!ksc@ucla-cs)
hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (03/04/86)
> > 1. The Oral Tradition prescribes 30 days from birth before a newborn is > > considered a nefesh. A newborn who dies without having lived on > > earth for 30 days is not mourned. > > 2. Nefesh is indeed what one is, and not something one has. This is > > because in the Jewish tradition, the mind is the soul is the person. > > Biological functions necessary to support the mind are indeed a > > component of nefesh, but the mind is indispensable: no mind > > means no soul means no person. > > Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam) > > Would you post your references for these statements, particularly for > the 30 days and the "nefesh"=mind concept? Thanks. > > Does this tradition attempt to account for why *circumcision* > (a physical sign of a living being's covenant relation to his God) > is prescribed by the Scripture for the 8th, and not the 30th day? > > Kim Cary (uclachem\!ksc@ucla-cs) Within the Jewish tradition ontological questions, such as when one becomes a person, can only be answered from halachot that apply - in this case, to any (Jewish) person qua person. Now most halachot apply only in specific contexts that are not necessarily encountered by every person. Some apply only to Jews of a specific gender (male/female) or caste (cohen/levi/israel). Most of the rest can be overridden for medical, economic, and other reasons. The only halachot that clearly apply to every Jewish nefesh without exception are those of death and mourning. The fact that these halachot do not apply unless the deceased has lived at least 30 days after birth implies, at least to me, that one is not considered a full-fledged Nefesh until that point. As for milah, it is an obligation on the father, and not on the infant. The mohel acts as an agent of the father, not of the baby. This makes it necessary for milah to take place BEFORE the infant is considered a person in his own right, to make sure that the milah is valid without requiring the infant's own intention or consent. Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)