Printed fromtemplate4new.centers.chabad.org
ב"ה

Jewish amazingness

Shabbos

 Testingcandle lighting 2

 How are you doing!!!

Is Cosmetic Surgery Permissible According to Jewish Law?

 The issue of cosmetic surgery is discussed by several contemporaryposekim (halachic authorities), who address several concerns such surgery poses.

Though I will be giving you a brief overview of the pertinent issues discussed, the information provided is for academic purposes only. Before making an actual decision in this regard, you must personally speak to your rabbi, who will render a decision based on your individual circumstances.

Our bodies are not our personal property which we may treat as we please. Our bodies are on loan to us from G‑d for the duration of our lives, to enable us to fulfill our mission in this world—a mission which requires having a physical body. (A soul alone cannot don tefillin or light Shabbat candles.) As our bodies are merely on loan, we are not entitled to mutilate them in any way. Thus, “wounding oneself” by undergoing surgery is problematic.

Now, we are commanded by the Torah to heal ourselves, maintain our health and value our lives. Therefore, surgery which is deemed necessary in the course of the treatment of an illness or injury is allowed—and actually required. But the question remains: is the prohibition of tampering with our bodies waived for a purely cosmetic concern?

An additional consideration raised by the posekim in regard to purely cosmetic surgery is the fact that every surgery, especially one which requires general anesthesia, presents a certain element of risk and a chance of complications. As mentioned above, we are enjoined to guard our health and to avoid unnecessary risks to our wellbeing.

In 1964, a question was posed to several leading posekim regarding a woman who felt that benefiting from plastic surgery would enhance her prospects of finding a suitable husband.

Rabbi Jacob Breisch (author of responsa Chelkat Yaakov) maintained that the prohibition of wounding oneself does not apply in a situation where the pain is intended to alleviate another, more excruciating, pain. He brought proofs from various places in the Talmud that the psychological pain associated with having abnormal features overrides the pain associated with the surgery. He therefore permitted this surgery when done to alleviate psychological distress. A similar explanation was offered by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the most recognized posekof the past generation (1895–1986), who explained that the Torah only prohibits self-affliction when done with malice, or in a degrading manner.

Rabbi Breisch also addressed the risks associated with surgery, and ruled that with the advancement of experience and expertise in this area of medicine, the risks involved have been greatly minimized, and therefore undergoing such a surgery cannot be reasonably considered a risk to life.

However, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (1916–2006, author of responsa 1 from which we learn that one may and must seek medical help, does not apply to ailments that are purely cosmetic.

He also adds a philosophical reasoning. One must believe that G‑d, the greatest artisan of all, formed him or her in the most fitting way, and one must not change this form. Changing one’s figure for beauty concerns alone is tantamount to insulting G‑d’s handiwork!

Many authorities have reached some sort of compromise—ruling that cosmetic surgery is permitted in order to remove an abnormality, if there is a grave psychological need, or to facilitate a happy marriage or decent livelihood; but prohibited if it is being done for beauty or convenience alone.

3

As this is a very subjective issue, in which people can easily delude themselves about the degree of pain and abnormality associated with their looks, it is of utmost importance to personally discuss this with your rabbi for an objective assessment as to the degree of need and convenience, which varies with each case.

Best wishes,
Rabbi Baruch S. Davidson

 

 

 

A Lesson from a Robot

 

 

 

 

The line between creator and creation has gotten blurrier lately, thanks to sophisticated robots that are smart enough to invent technologies of their own. These are not simplistic gadgets the likes of which you might concoct while daydreaming at a red light or doodling on a napkin. We are speaking about innovative pharmaceutical formulations and genetic fixes that might normally take dozens of scientists many years and millions of dollars to develop.

The robot itself has become the scientist's scientistThis new breed of robot has taken information technology to a whole new level. What once was called the science of automation has been overturned to become the automation of science. Yes, the robot itself has become the scientist's scientist.

Divine Providence is often credited with providing the remedy before the affliction. The modern affliction is complexity. For example, the problems that scientists face today in biotechnology involve thousands of variables, each having various states and interactions with other variables and environmental elements, resulting in millions of possible outcomes that all have to be evaluated before you even get to the stage of making an experiment to physically test anything. Whew!

The cure is processing power. Today's robots can identify problems, review existing options, design new alternatives, test them all theoretically, and determine the most effective and robust solutions. Amazing.

But the new cures generate their own set of afflictions, one of which is legal. Who has the right to patent these cybersolutions, the inventor of the robot, or the robot itself? Believe it or not, according to the journal, SCIENCE, it depends on where you (or the robot) lives. In the USA, only inventions by humans can be protected by patents. In Europe, it seems, the laws governing intellectual property extend to any legal entity, possibly even robots.

What can we learn from all this? First let's look at things from the robot's perspective. Left to its own devices, such a smartbot could look at himself proudly and proclaim, "Wow, I'm amazing! I've studied everything out there and there's nothing that can analyze problems and create solutions like I can."

Your scope is limited, your intelligence artificial, your personality vacuousWell hang on there, Mr. Bot. You are yourself a mere creation, the product of analysis and design by a creative intelligence greater than yours. True, you too can invent, and brilliantly at that, but your scope is limited, your intelligence artificial, your personality vacuous, your circuitry simplistic. And besides, the very tasks you have been hardwired from the outset to perform are the very tasks you falsely pride yourself in. If anyone deserves the credit, it is the creative genius that made you the creative genius you are.

And the same may be said of us.

Man, the inventor, is the invention of an inventive mind like his, but infinitely greater still. True, his analytic and creative prowess is incomparable in all the world, but man would do well to heed the Torah's admonition in Deuteronomy 7:12-11:25: "And you think, 'My strength and the power of my hand acquired this wealth for me.'"

Is it any more ludicrous for our techno-babies to take exclusive credit for their inventions than it is for us to boast of ours? Honesty demands that we too look upstream to acknowledge our source and recognize who owns what.

There's another lesson to learn from robots. As sophisticated as they get, they only appear to be conscious, sentient and free-willed. To equate robots with humans is not only a false vaunting of their qualities, it is an abdication and gross neglect of ours. And if that happens, G‑d forbid, then indeed they would deserve their patent rights – at least more than we would.

Vive la difference.

 

 

 

Looking for older posts? See the sidebar for the Archive.