WWII Jewish Responsums

[Guest Aluigi]

"A charecteristic form of rabbinic legal writing, from its origins two millenia ago, is the responsum, i.e. a question asked of Jewish law asked of an authority and answered bhhy him in writing, giving his reasons for his decision. The two tragic questions that follow were asked in Kovno, Lithuania, in the Nazi era, of a young rabbi, Ephraim Oshry. That they were asked speaks eloquently of the persistence of Jewish piety under the most extreme of circumstances; that they had to be asked at all shouts out deafeningly the tale of man's inhumanity and of Jewry's suffering.

QUESTION: On the twentieth day of Iyar, 5712 (1942), the wicked ones [i.e. the Germans] published a decree that should they discover a Jewish woman pregnant they would put her to death. I was asked whether it was permissible for Jewish women imprisoned in the ghetto to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and thus to avoid endangering their lives.
RESPONSE: In Yebamot 12b we read that three categories of women may use contraceptives-- a minor [under twelve years of age], a pregnant woman, and a nursing mother. A pregnant woman may, lest she be aborted. And a nursing mother may, lest her child be prematurely weaned and die.... In the Tosafot it is written that women who are not in any of these categories are forbidden to use contraceptives and willfully destroy seed, even though the obligation "to be fruitful and multiply" is uncumbent upon men, not women....

In the case before us, there certainly would be danger to life, for if it would become known to the impure murderers, may they be cursed, that a woman is pregnant, they would put her to death. [As earlier authorities have stated], why should we forbid them the use of contraceptives since in this instance there is not what could be called willful destruction of seed? The latter term applies only when it is fitting to sow this seed. Since this is not a place in which it is fitting to do so, this is not to be termed "destruction of seed." Under these circumstances, a woman is obligated to use contraceptives when a pregnancy would endanger life. There is then no ban of destruction of seed in this case.... Furthermore [the discovery by the Germans of pregnant Jewish women, implying disobedience to their decree] can have bad consequences for the entire community. Thus everyone must agree that in this case it is permissible to use contraceptives during intercourse.



QUESTION: Immediately after we were liberated from the ghetto I was asked an important and dreadful question which concerned not only the person who came to me but also many other Jewish women who survived the atrocities committed against them when they were seized by the oppressors and their bodies ravished by German officers, may their name be cursed.

This is the question: A young woman of good family, one of the respected families of Kovno, came to me weeping. She was very unhappy and without comfort, for she, like many of our poor sisters, had been seized and humiliated by the accursed Germans. In addition to abusing her body they had tattooed on her arm the legend: "Whore for Hitler's Troops."

After Liberation she had succeeded in finding her husband and the two of them intended to renew their marriage and on the pillars of purity and sanctity to build a proper Jewish home. They wanted to build a family again, since they had lost all their children at the hands of the Germans. However, when her husband saw the dreadful words tattooed on her arm he was taken aback, declaring that they had to clarify whether she was permitted to him or not, since, when the enemy had seized her and had done with her as they pleased, perhaps there had been an element of consent in her submission. Thus she came to me to ask what to do, her eyes asking mercy.

RESPONSE: Maimonides, in differentiated between one who seduces and one who rapes, states that the former does so with the woman's consent while the latter acts against her will. If it occurred in the field we assume that she was forced unless witnesses testify that she consented. If it occurred in the city we assume that she was seduced since she did not call out, uinless witnesses testify that she had been forced [e.g. he threatened her with a sword, saying he would kill her if she called out]....

The case before us occurred in the city and since she did not cry out you might assume that she consented. However everyone knows that the sword of the oppressors was constantly held over each and every one of these women. Calling out would have been of no avail, for who would have interrupted them? Since there was no escape for these unfortunate women, this case is surely stronger than that cited by Maimonides [when he states that even in the city the girl is considered to have been forced if witnesses testify that she was threatened with the sword], for in the case before us we are all witnesses that the sword was constantly over their heads and that whoever refused was put to death. Thus surely this poor woman is permitted to her husband and there is absolutely no suspicion that she was at all co-operative, for she also saw what they did to Jewish men, women and children, that they slaughtered them without mercy. Surely these oppressors were abominable in her eyes and she could not have willingly consented in any way to lie with them....

This leads to the conclusion that in our case she definitely is believed when she states that she was forced. For iin addition [to what has been cited above] many authorities are of the opinion that also in the city and in the absence of witnesses a girl is believed when she claims "I was forced."

Far be it from anyone to cast aspersion on these honorable Jewish women. On the contrary, it is our duty to proclaim the reward they will be granted by "the One who hears the plea of the destitute." ... He will heal their sorrow and bestow upon them the blessings of womanhood.... We must avoid causing them sorrow and anguish. There are instances in which women in similar circumstances were divorced by their husbands. Alas for us that sucha thing has happened in our time.

In my opinion there is no need to make any effor to remove the contemning legend from the bodies of such women. On the contrary, it should be preserved. It should be considered not a sign of disgrace and shame but as a symbol of honor and courage... and an enduring reminder that we shall yet see the defeat of the transgressors from whose face is blotted any human semblance. They are like beasts of the forest and voracious wolves, hastening to spill innocent blood and to put to death the pious and the upright. This legend upon the arms of innocent and pure souls will always remind us of that which is written in the Torah of Moses, the man of God, "Sing aloud, O you nations, of His people; for He avenges the blood of His servants, and renders vengeance to His adversaries" [Deut. 32:43]."

Hertzberg, Arthur. [u]Judaism[/u]. Library of Congress: 1961. Pgs. 92-95.

[Guest Aluigi]

woops, i didn't mean for this to be in the Debate Table.. I was thinkin like Open Mic or somethin.

[Guest Aluigi]

MOD: Please move this to Open Mic

[CatholicforChrist]

Aluigi, what was your intent in posting it (even if it were intended for Open Mic)?

[Guest Aluigi]

I thought it was quite interesting, and i was interested in how the Jews held to anti-contraceptive doctrines under extreme circumstances and how the leadership of judaism dealt with it. I love reading about Judaism cause it's always, at least in my head, prooving Catholocism to me. Anyway, traditional Jewish teaching on contraception is kinda like unto our own (duh, cause it's biblical)

I was just really blown away by the faith these jews held on to under such bad circumstances while today's Catholic tends to throw out the doctrine of contraception on mere like economic stuff or overpopulation myth

[CatholicforChrist]

True, it is amazing to see that the piety and adherence in false religions (or at least fulfilled religions, in this case) was so much greater than the piety of those in the true religion today.