Abortion in Rabbinic Thought

(5) And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. (6) Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man. (7) And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; swarm in the earth, and multiply therein.’ .

“Rav Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars’ Book of Aggada: A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, “And surely your blood of your lives will I require” Genesis 9:5. This shows that even one judge [may ry a heathen]. “At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given. “And at the hand of man” even on the testimony of one witness, “at the hand of man” but not at the hand [ie on the testimony] of a woman; “his brother” teaching that even a relation may testify. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embry. What is R. Ishmael’s reason? Because it is written, “Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within another man shall his blood be shed.” [related to Genesis 9:6] What is a man within another man? An embryo in his mother’s womb. But first the Tanna [whoe xcludes the murder of an embryo from capital punishment] is a Tanna of thes chool of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation. He connects the [second] “man” with the latter half of the sentence, and interprets thus: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, within man [ie within him] shall his blood be she” Now, how can man’s blood be shed, and yet be retained within him? By strangulation.

Mishnah: If a woman is about to be executed, one does not wait for her until she gives birth. But if she had already sat on the birthstool, one waits for her until she gives birth. If a woman has been put to death one may use her hair; if an animal has been put to death it is forbidden to make any use of it.

Gemara: But that is self-evident, for it is her body! It is necessary to teach it, for one might have assumed since Scripture says: According as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, that it (the unborn child) is the husband's property, of which he should not be deprived, therefore we are informed (that it is not so). But perhaps (the former point of view) may indeed (be the law)? Said R. Abbuha in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture says: They shall die, also both of them, that included the child. But this (verse) is required for the inference that they must both be of equal condition as R. Joseph teaches? We infer it from 'also'.

But if she had already sat on the birthstool: What is the reason? As soon as it moves (from its place in the womb) it is another body. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: If a woman is about to be executed one strikes her against her womb so that the child may die first, to avoid her being disgraced. That means to say that (otherwise) she dies first? But we have established (assumption) principle that the child dies first, for we learnt: A child one day old inherits and bequeaths, and R. Shesheth said (in explanation): He inherits the mother's property to bequeath to his brothers from his father. Now this (as is clearly indicated) applies only to a child 'one day old', but not to an embryo, because it would die first and no son already in the grave can inherit from his mother to bequeath to his paternal brothers? This applies only to (her natural) death, because the child's life is very frail, the 'drop' (of poison) from the angel of death enters and destroys its vital organs, but in the case of death by execution she dies first. But there was a case in which (the child) moved three times? Mar son of R. Ashi said: That is analogous to the tail of a lizard which moves (after being cut off).

R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If a woman who has been sitting on a birthstool died on a Sabbath, one may bring a knife and cut her womb open to take out the child. But that is self-evident? What is he doing? Only cutting flesh? Rabbah said: It is necessary (to permit the) fetching of the knife by way of a public thoroughfare. But what is he informing us? That in case of doubt one may desecrate the Sabbath! Surely we have learnt already: If debris falls down upon one and there is doubt whether he is there or not, or whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Cannanite or an Israelite, one may removed the debris from above him! You might have said: There (permission was given) because (the person in question) had at least presumption of having been alive, but here where it (the embryo) did not have such original presumption of life, one might say no (desecration of the Sabbath shall be permitted), therefore we are informed (that it is).

Also seen in Hilchot Rotseach 1:1, also Maimonidies, "the child is sacrificed because it has the status of a pursuer (רודף), one who threatens the life of another, and hence its life may be taken.