1. Rabbeinu Tam is mechadesh based on the yerushalmi that if one beitzah is removed, he is still kasher. There are 2 versions in the yerushalmi based on the girsah: 1. if the beitzah left behind and the one removed were both healthy (b'shleimin) he is kasher. 2. if the beitzah left behind was the right one (b'shel yemin) he is kasher. The Rema 5:7 writes that some are matir if the beitzah that was removed was healthy and the one left behind (which is also healthy) is the right one. The Rama is machmir for both interpretations of the yerushalmi, and still paskens not to rely on it at all, so if either one of the beitztim were removed, he is passul.
2. There is an important machlokes in classifying "bidei shamaim". The Rosh understands from Rashi that only if one is born missing beitzim or they get damaged by hail (or some natural phenomenon) is it considered bidei shamayim and kasher. But if it occurs bec. of illness he is passul. But the Rambam and most others disagree and maintain that illness qualifies as bidei shamayim. The poskim write (see pischei teshuva 5:7 in the name of chasam sofer) that if they must be surgically removed due to illness, that also qualifies as bidei shamayim and he is kasher.
6 comments:
Shoel U'meishiv says that if it's bidei shamayim, it is possible for him to father a child
even if they are completely removed bidei shamayim? sound a bit unlikely!
there is an issue of preventive surgery, if the sickness might spread.
R' Moshe discusses prostate surgery, where the problem is that the prostate is enlarged and therefore causes pressure on the bladder (iy"h you and i should still have a few years left before we have to worry about this). The surgery often involves cutting the vas deferens in order to prevent infection (although i don't understand exactly how it prevents infection). R' Moshe points out that since the illness is in the prostate and not in the vas deferens, this would qualify as bidei adam and render the person pasul b'kahal (he is matir only if it is cut inside the body near the prosate, rather than being cut in the scrotum, since inside the body is not called chutei beitzim).
The Shoel in the Shoel U'meishiv wanted to say like that because otherwise why would bidei shamayim be mutar. The Shoel U'meishiv vehemently disagrees.
Avromi said...
In relevance to a petzua daka bidei shamayim from earlier:
The Shoel in the Shoel U'meishiv wanted to say that if it's bidei shamayim, he could father a child because otherwise why would bidei shamayim be mutar. The Shoel U'meishiv vehemently disagrees.
Post a Comment