SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

A new ground for doubt arises, however, in the Shulhan Arukh (besides the doubt of violating the Sabbath in vain if the child is already dead). In Orah Hayim 330.4, Joseph Caro gives the law according to the Talmud and Maimonides : but Moses Isserles (Poland 16th century) says: We do not do this operation nowadays because we are no longer skilled in determining precisely whether the mother is dead or not; perhaps she is alive(that is, in coma) and may give birth to the child naturally. However, Isserles himself in his Responsa does not seem concerned with this doubt(that the mother may still be alive), and in his responsum#40 he answers in the affirmative-­that is, that the operation should be performed.

As for the later authorities, they all are practically unanimous in favor of permitting the operation(even on the Sabbath ), and certainly on weekdays). What concerns these later authorities 1s whether or not the permission to perform this operation after the mother is dead may not imply the larger permission for autopsy in general, which Jewish law forbids, except under special circumstances. Generally speaking, it is not permitted to mutilate (lenavel) the body of the dead. Therefore, in a discussion between Moses

Schick of Ofen and Jacob Ettlinger of Hamburg(both in the first half of the 19th century), this matter is debated(see Responsa of Ettlinger, Binyan Tziyon 1.171). Moses Schick said in this discussion(in his Responsa Yoreh De-a 347) that we may mutilate the body of a woman to save her child, and Ettlinger says that this permission does not justify general mutilation(as in autopsy) because this operation(that is, the Caesarean ) is not really a disfiguring of the body of the woman.

Moses Kunitz (of Budapest , d. 1837) gives almost the exact case discussed here in answer to a question asked of him by Abraham Oppenheimer. The woman was eight months pregnant when she died. A skilled doctor said that she is definitely dead and that the baby is alive. Accepting the opinion of the skilled physician, both doubts mentioned above are canceled. The woman is definitely dead, so the doubt mentioned by Issereles that we have not the skill to be sure when a person is dead is now obviated; and the physician says that the child is definitely alive, so the doubt discussed by Rashi and the Talmud that we may be violating the Sabbath (if

208