Bioethics III ~ Abortion

The importance of pregnancy in the Torah

(כח) וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(28) God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”
(א) וְשָׂרַי֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת אַבְרָ֔ם לֹ֥א יָלְדָ֖ה ל֑וֹ וְלָ֛הּ שִׁפְחָ֥ה מִצְרִ֖ית וּשְׁמָ֥הּ הָגָֽר׃ (ב) וַתֹּ֨אמֶר שָׂרַ֜י אֶל־אַבְרָ֗ם הִנֵּה־נָ֞א עֲצָרַ֤נִי יְהוָה֙ מִלֶּ֔דֶת בֹּא־נָא֙ אֶל־שִׁפְחָתִ֔י אוּלַ֥י אִבָּנֶ֖ה מִמֶּ֑נָּה וַיִּשְׁמַ֥ע אַבְרָ֖ם לְק֥וֹל שָׂרָֽי׃
(1) Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. She had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. (2) And Sarai said to Abram, “Look, the LORD has kept me from bearing. Consort with my maid; perhaps I shall have a son through her.” And Abram heeded Sarai’s request.
(א) וַתֵּ֣רֶא רָחֵ֗ל כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יָֽלְדָה֙ לְיַעֲקֹ֔ב וַתְּקַנֵּ֥א רָחֵ֖ל בַּאֲחֹתָ֑הּ וַתֹּ֤אמֶר אֶֽל־יַעֲקֹב֙ הָֽבָה־לִּ֣י בָנִ֔ים וְאִם־אַ֖יִן מֵתָ֥ה אָנֹֽכִי׃ (ב) וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֥ף יַעֲקֹ֖ב בְּרָחֵ֑ל וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הֲתַ֤חַת אֱלֹהִים֙ אָנֹ֔כִי אֲשֶׁר־מָנַ֥ע מִמֵּ֖ךְ פְּרִי־בָֽטֶן׃ (ג) וַתֹּ֕אמֶר הִנֵּ֛ה אֲמָתִ֥י בִלְהָ֖ה בֹּ֣א אֵלֶ֑יהָ וְתֵלֵד֙ עַל־בִּרְכַּ֔י וְאִבָּנֶ֥ה גַם־אָנֹכִ֖י מִמֶּֽנָּה׃
(1) When Rachel saw that she had borne Jacob no children, she became envious of her sister; and Rachel said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die.” (2) Jacob was incensed at Rachel, and said, “Can I take the place of God, who has denied you fruit of the womb?” (3) She said, “Here is my maid Bilhah. Consort with her, that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children.”
(טו) וַיִּקְרָ֨א יַעֲקֹ֜ב אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁר֩ דִּבֶּ֨ר אִתּ֥וֹ שָׁ֛ם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בֵּֽית־אֵֽל׃ (טז) וַיִּסְעוּ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית אֵ֔ל וַֽיְהִי־ע֥וֹד כִּבְרַת־הָאָ֖רֶץ לָב֣וֹא אֶפְרָ֑תָה וַתֵּ֥לֶד רָחֵ֖ל וַתְּקַ֥שׁ בְּלִדְתָּֽהּ׃ (יז) וַיְהִ֥י בְהַקְשֹׁתָ֖הּ בְּלִדְתָּ֑הּ וַתֹּ֨אמֶר לָ֤הּ הַמְיַלֶּ֙דֶת֙ אַל־תִּ֣ירְאִ֔י כִּֽי־גַם־זֶ֥ה לָ֖ךְ בֵּֽן׃ (יח) וַיְהִ֞י בְּצֵ֤את נַפְשָׁהּ֙ כִּ֣י מֵ֔תָה וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בֶּן־אוֹנִ֑י וְאָבִ֖יו קָֽרָא־ל֥וֹ בִנְיָמִֽין׃ (יט) וַתָּ֖מָת רָחֵ֑ל וַתִּקָּבֵר֙ בְּדֶ֣רֶךְ אֶפְרָ֔תָה הִ֖וא בֵּ֥ית לָֽחֶם׃
(15) Jacob gave the site, where God had spoken to him, the name of Bethel. (16) They set out from Bethel; but when they were still some distance short of Ephrath, Rachel was in childbirth, and she had hard labor. (17) When her labor was at its hardest, the midwife said to her, “Have no fear, for it is another boy for you.” (18) But as she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. (19) Thus Rachel died. She was buried on the road to Ephrath—now Bethlehem.

There is also the reality of death of the mother during labor.

(כב) וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃ (כג) וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ (כד) עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃ (כה) כְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃ (ס)

(22) When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. (23) But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

This is the chief source regarding abortion.

~ What is the case?

~ There are two possibilities for the word “damage” or אסון. What are they?

(כז) וַיֹּ֛אמֶר עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֖י אֵלֵ֑ינוּ אַתֶּ֣ם יְדַעְתֶּ֔ם כִּ֥י שְׁנַ֖יִם יָֽלְדָה־לִּ֥י אִשְׁתִּֽי׃ (כח) וַיֵּצֵ֤א הָֽאֶחָד֙ מֵֽאִתִּ֔י וָאֹמַ֕ר אַ֖ךְ טָרֹ֣ף טֹרָ֑ף וְלֹ֥א רְאִיתִ֖יו עַד־הֵֽנָּה׃ (כט) וּלְקַחְתֶּ֧ם גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֛ה מֵעִ֥ם פָּנַ֖י וְקָרָ֣הוּ אָס֑וֹן וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּ֧ם אֶת־שֵׂיבָתִ֛י בְּרָעָ֖ה שְׁאֹֽלָה׃ (ל) וְעַתָּ֗ה כְּבֹאִי֙ אֶל־עַבְדְּךָ֣ אָבִ֔י וְהַנַּ֖עַר אֵינֶ֣נּוּ אִתָּ֑נוּ וְנַפְשׁ֖וֹ קְשׁוּרָ֥ה בְנַפְשֽׁוֹ׃ (לא) וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה׃
(27) Your servant my father said to us, ‘As you know, my wife bore me two sons. (28) But one is gone from me, and I said: Alas, he was torn by a beast! And I have not seen him since. (29) If you take this one from me, too, and he meets with disaster, you will send my white head down to Sheol in sorrow.’ (30) “Now, if I come to your servant my father and the boy is not with us—since his own life is so bound up with his— (31) when he sees that the boy is not with us, he will die, and your servants will send the white head of your servant our father down to Sheol in grief.

The contemporary Roman Catholic position is that ensoulment occurs at conception. Abortion makes baptism impossible for Christians, leaving the fetus damned eternally by original sin. Ensoulment is not a halachic (Jewish law) issue, since Jews do not have the concept of damnation by the original sin.

(ו) הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מַקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתְּכִין אֶת הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ אֵבָרִים אֵבָרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחַיֶּיהָ קוֹדְמִין לְחַיָּיו. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, אֵין נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נָפֶשׁ:

(6) A woman who was having trouble giving birth, they cut up the fetus inside her and take it out limb by limb, because her life comes before its life. If most of it had come out already they do not touch it because we do not push off one life for another.

מתני' גהאשה שיצאה ליהרג אין ממתינין לה עד שתלד האשה שישבה על המשבר ממתינין לה עד שתלד האשה שנהרגה נהנין בשערה בהמה שנהרגה אסורה בהנאה: גמ' פשיטא גופה היא איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל וכתיב (שמות כא, כב) כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה ממונא דבעל הוא ולא ליפסדיה מיניה קמ"ל

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).

אמר רב הונא קטן הרודף ניתן להצילו בנפשו קסבר רודף אינו צריך התראה לא שנא גדול ולא שנא קטן איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא יצא ראשו אין נוגעין בו לפי שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש ואמאי רודף הוא שאני התם דמשמיא קא רדפי לה
§ Rav Huna says: If a minor was pursuing another person in order to kill him, the pursued party may be saved with the pursuer’s life. That is to say, one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, and one does not say that since the minor lacks halakhic competence, he is not subject to punishment. The Gemara explains: Rav Huna maintains that a pursuer, in general, does not require forewarning, and there is no difference with regard to this matter between an adult and a minor. The essence of the matter is rescuing the pursued party from death, and therefore the pursuer’s liability to receive the death penalty is irrelevant. Rav Ḥisda raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: If a woman was giving birth and her life was being endangered by the fetus, the life of the fetus may be sacrificed in order to save the mother. But once his head has emerged during the birthing process, he may not be harmed in order to save the mother, because one life may not be pushed aside to save another life. If one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, why is this so? The fetus is a pursuer who is endangering his mother’s life. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is different there, with regard to the woman giving birth, since she is being pursued by Heaven. Since the fetus is not acting of his own volition and endangering his mother of his own will, his life may not be taken in order to save his mother.
אמר רב חסדא טובלת ואוכלת עד ארבעים דאי לא מיעברא הא לא מיעברא ואי מיעברא עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא
Rav Ḥisda said: She immerses and partakes of teruma only until forty days after her husband’s death, when there is still no reason for concern, as if she is not pregnant then she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.
אלא הא דתנן ולד טרפה ר' אליעזר אומר לא יקרב לגבי מזבח ר' יהושע אומר יקרב במאי קא מיפלגי כשעיברה ולבסוף נטרפה רבי אליעזר סבר עובר ירך אמו הוא ור' יהושע סבר עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא אי הכי אדמיפלגי לגבוה ליפלגו להדיוט
Rav Ashi asks: But if a tereifa cannot become pregnant, that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal became pregnant and only afterward was rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother and is rendered a tereifa as part of its body, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a fetus is not considered like the thigh of its mother. The Gemara objects: But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them dispute the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.

בעי רבי ירמיה עובר במעי אשה הוי גלגלים או לא כיון דאמר מר עובר ירך אמו הלכך גופה הוא ולא הוי גלגלין או דלמא כיון דסופו לצאת מיפרש פריש מינה

Rabbi Yirmeya raised yet another dilemma: Does a dead fetus in its dead mother’s womb form a mixture with regard to her, so that the bodies are considered like two corpses buried together, or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since the Master said that a fetus is considered as the thigh of its mother, it is therefore like her body and it does not form a mixture with it? Or perhaps one should maintain: Since in most cases a fetus will ultimately emerge from the womb at birth, it is already considered separated from her, and it is like any other corpse buried with the woman.

Responsa Tzitz Eliezer 13:102

It is clear that in Jewish law an Israelite is not liable to capital punishment for feticide.... An Israelite woman was permitted to undergo a therapeutic abortion, even though her life was not at stake.... This permissive ruling applies even when there is no direct threat to the life of the mother, but merely a need to save her from great pain, which falls within the rubric of "great need." Now, is it possible to imagine a case in which there is more need, pain, and distress, than the present one, in which the mother is confronted by the [prospect of a] suffering child whose certain death is only a few years away and nothing can be done to save it?

שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת־הָאָדָם׃

Whoever sheds the blood of man, By man shall his blood be shed; For in His image Did God make man.

מַאן דְּקָטִיל בְּנוֹי, הַהוּא עוֹבָּרָא דְּמִתְעַבְּרָא אִתְּתֵיהּ, וְגָרִים לְקַטָלָא לֵיהּ בִּמְעָהָא, דְּסָתִיר בִּנְיָינָא דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא וְאוּמָנוּתָא דִּילֵיהּ.

He who kills his sons. It is told about and embryo that was killed in its mother's womb that is as destructing the building of Hashem and his Omanut (art, creation or faith)

ואמר ליה אנטונינוס לרבי מאימתי יצה"ר שולט באדם משעת יצירה או משעת יציאה א"ל משעת יצירה א"ל א"כ בועט במעי אמו ויוצא אלא משעת יציאה אמר רבי דבר זה למדני אנטונינוס ומקרא מסייעו שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) לפתח חטאת רובץ
And Antoninos said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From when does the evil inclination dominate a person? Is it from the moment of the formation of the embryo or from the moment of emergence from the womb? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: It is from the moment of the formation of the embryo. Antoninos said to him: If so, the evil inclination would cause the fetus to kick his mother’s innards and emerge from the womb. Rather, the evil inclination dominates a person from the moment of emergence from the womb. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Antoninos taught me this matter, and there is a verse that supports him, as it is stated: “Sin crouches at the entrance” (Genesis 4:7), indicating that it is from the moment of birth, when the newborn emerges from the entrance of his mother’s womb, that the evil inclination lurks.

וכמה הכרת העובר סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר שלשה חדשים

At what stage is the embryo discernible? Symmachus citing R. Meir replied: Three months after conception

דדריש ר' חנינא בר פפא אותו מלאך הממונה על ההריון לילה שמו ונוטל טפה ומעמידה לפני הקב"ה ואומר לפניו רבש"ע טפה זו מה תהא עליה גבור או חלש חכם או טיפש עשיר או עני ואילו רשע או צדיק לא קאמר כדר' חנינא דא"ר חנינא הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים שנאמר (דברים י, יב) ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה וגו'

For R. Chanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of Hashem saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop? Shall it produce a strong man or a weak man, a wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man?' Whereas 'wicked man' or 'righteous one' he does not mention, in agreement with the view of R. Chanina. For R. Chanina stated: Everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of G-d, as it is said, And now, Israel, what doth does Hashem require of thee, but to fear etc.

דרש רב שמלאי למה הולד דומה במעי אמו לפנקס שמקופל ומונח ידיו על שתי צדעיו שתי אציליו על ב' ארכובותיו וב' עקביו על ב' עגבותיו וראשו מונח לו בין ברכיו ופיו סתום וטבורו פתוח ואוכל ממה שאמו אוכלת ושותה ממה שאמו שותה ואינו מוציא רעי שמא יהרוג את אמו וכיון שיצא לאויר העולם נפתח הסתום ונסתם הפתוח שאלמלא כן אינו יכול לחיות אפילו שעה אחת ונר דלוק לו על ראשו וצופה ומביט מסוף העולם ועד סופו שנאמר (איוב כט, ג) בהלו נרו עלי ראשי לאורו אלך חשך ואל תתמה שהרי אדם ישן כאן ורואה חלום באספמיא ואין לך ימים שאדם שרוי בטובה יותר מאותן הימים שנאמר (איוב כט, ב) מי יתנני כירחי קדם כימי אלוה ישמרני ואיזהו ימים שיש בהם ירחים ואין בהם שנים הוי אומר אלו ירחי לידה ומלמדין אותו כל התורה כולה שנאמר (משלי ד ד) ויורני ויאמר לי יתמך דברי לבך שמור מצותי וחיה ואומר (איוב כט, ד) בסוד אלוה עלי אהלי מאי ואומר וכי תימא נביא הוא דקאמר ת"ש בסוד אלוה עלי אהלי וכיון שבא לאויר העולם בא מלאך וסטרו על פיו ומשכחו כל התורה כולה שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) לפתח חטאת רובץ ואינו יוצא משם עד שמשביעין אותו שנאמר (ישעיהו מה, כג) כי לי תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון כי לי תכרע כל ברך זה יום המיתה שנאמר (תהלים כב, ל) לפניו יכרעו כל יורדי עפר תשבע כל לשון זה יום הלידה שנאמר (תהלים כד, ד) נקי כפים ובר לבב אשר לא נשא לשוא נפשו ולא נשבע למרמה ומה היא השבועה שמשביעין אותו תהי צדיק ואל תהי רשע ואפילו כל העולם כולו אומרים לך צדיק אתה היה בעיניך כרשע והוי יודע שהקב"ה טהור ומשרתיו טהורים ונשמה שנתן בך טהורה היא אם אתה משמרה בטהרה מוטב ואם לאו הריני נוטלה ממך

R. Simlai delivered the following discourse: What does an embryo resemble when it is in the bowels of its mother? Folded writing tablets. Its hands rest on its two temples respectively, its two elbows on its two legs and its two heels against its buttocks. Its head lies between its knees, its mouth is closed and its navel is open, and it eats what its mother eats and drinks what its mother drinks, but produces no excrements because otherwise it might kill its mother. As soon, however, as it sees the light the closed organ opens and the open one closes, for if that had not happened the embryo could not live even one single hour. A light burns above its head and it looks and sees from one end of the world to the other, as it is said, then his lamp shined above my head, and by His light I walked through darkness. And do not be astonished at this, for a person sleeping here might see a dream in Spain. And there is no time in which a man enjoys greater happiness than in those days, for it is said, O that I were as the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me; now which are the days' that make up 'months' and do not make up years? The months of pregnancy of course. It is also taught all the Torah from beginning to end, for it is said, And he taught me, and said unto me: 'Let thy heart hold fast my words, keep my commandments and live', and it is also said, When the converse of G-d was upon my tent. Why the addition of 'and it is also said'? — In case you might say that it was only the prophet who said that, come and hear 'when the converse of God was upon my tent. As soon as it, sees the light an angel approaches, slaps it on its mouth and causes it to forget all the Torah completely, as it is said, Sin coucheth at the door. It does not emerge from there before it is made to take an oath, as it is said, That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear; 'That unto Me every knee shall bow' refers to the day of dying of which it is said All they that go down to the dust shall kneel before Him; 'Every tongue shall swear' refers to the day of birth of which it is said, He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn deceitfully. What is the nature of the oath that it is made to take? Be righteous, and be never wicked; and even if all the world tells you, You are righteous', consider yourself wicked. Always bear in mind that the Holy One, blessed be He, is pure, that his ministers are pure and that the soul which He gave you is pure; if you preserve it in purity, well and good, but if not, I will take it away from you.

יצא ראשו - באשה המקשה לילד ומסוכנת וקתני רישא החיה פושטת ידה וחותכתו ומוציאתו לאברים דכל זמן שלא יצא לאויר העולם לאו נפש הוא וניתן להורגו ולהציל את אמו אבל יצא ראשו אין נוגעים בו להורגו דהוה ליה כילוד ואין דוחין נפש מפני נפש

its head came out: With a women that is experiencing difficulty giving birth and is in [mortal] danger. And it is taught in the first section [of this teaching], "the midwife extends her hand and cuts it up and extracts [the pieces];" as the entire time that that it has not gone out into the environment of the world, it is not a soul, and [so] it is possible to kill it and to save its mother. But when its head came out, we cannot touch it to kill it, as it is like a born [baby]; and we do not push off one soul for the sake of another.

(ג) תנוקת בת יום אחד מיטמאה בנדה בת עשרה ימים מיטמאה בזיבה. תנוק בן יום אחד מיטמא בזיבה. ומיטמא בנגעים. ומיטמא בטמא מת. וזוקק ליבום ופוטר מן היבום ומאכיל בתרומה ופוסל מן התרומה ונוחל ומנחיל. וההורגו חייב. והרי הוא לאביו ולאמו ולכל קרוביו. כחתן שלם:

(3) A baby girl one day old can become impure as a niddah. At ten days old she can become impure as a zavah A baby boy one day old.... can become impure as a zav, or impure by having nega'im, or impure through [contact with] the impurity of a corpse; and he creates a bond for yibum [the obligation to perform Levirate marriage]; and he can exempt one from requiring yibum and he can feed terumah and he can render terumah to be forbidden and he can inherit or cause others to inherit and one who kills him is liable [for murder]; and he is thereby fully a family member to his father and to his mother and for all his relatives.

I. Diverse opinions of modern rabbinic scholars.

Excerpted from "Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law"

by David M. Feldman.

The first position can be identified especially with Chief Rabbi Unterman, who sees any abortion as "akin to homicide", and therefore permissible only in cases of corresponding gravity, such as saving the life of the mother. It then builds down from this strict position to embrace a broader interpretation of life-saving situations which include a threat to her health, for example, as well as a threat to her life.

The other viewpoint (identifiable with the late Chief Rabbi Uziel and others...), assumes no real prohibition against abortion at any time, except perhaps during the most advanced stage of pregnancy, and builds up from this lenient position to safeguard against indiscriminate abortion.

"It follows that we may not induce an abortion to save her from a disease deriving from....other "fevers" (not directly caused by the pregnancy itself)...in the 6th month of her pregnancy...We must save her by other treatments." (Pachad Yitzhak, by R. Isaac Lampronti. Italy, 18th C)

"Mental health risk has been definitely equated to physical-health risk. This woman who is in danger of losing her mental health unless the pregnancy is interrupted, therefore, would accordingly qualify." (Responsum L'vushai Mord'khai, 1913)

"There is room to permit abortion for "great need"; as long as the birth process has not yet begun, even if the reason is not yet to save her life - even if only to save her from the "great pain" it causes her." (She'elat Ya'avetz, R. Jacob Emden, Hamburg, 18th C)

It continues with Bachrach (seventeenth century), whose famous Responsum saw no legal bar to abortion but would not permit it in the case before him. The case was one of a pregnancy conceived in adultery; the woman, in "deep remorse", wanted to destroy the fruit of her sin....

(Quoting that responsum:) "Therefore, according to what we have shown, strict Torah law would permit what you ask, were it not for the practice among us and among them to seek to curb immorality....Whoever assists [in making the abortion possible] gives a hand to transgressors."

It is clear that abortion is not permitted without reason. That would be destructive and frustrative of the possibility of life. But for a reason, even if it is a slim reason, such as to prevent her disgrace, then we have precedent and authority to permit it. (Responsum of Chief Rabbi Uziel)

תנו רבנן שלשה שותפין יש באדם הקב"ה ואביו ואמו אביו מזריע הלובן שממנו עצמות וגידים וצפרנים ומוח שבראשו ולובן שבעין אמו מזרעת אודם שממנו עור ובשר ושערות ושחור שבעין והקב"ה נותן בו רוח ונשמה וקלסתר פנים וראיית העין ושמיעת האוזן ודבור פה והלוך רגלים ובינה והשכל וכיון שהגיע זמנו להפטר מן העולם הקב"ה נוטל חלקו וחלק אביו ואמו מניח לפניהם

Our Rabbis taught: There are three partners in a person - the Holy One, the father and the mother. The father inseminates with the white, from which comes the bones, the sinews, the nails, the brain, and seven whites. The mother produces the red, from which comes the skin, the flesh, the hair, and seven blacks. The Holy One places in him spirit and soul, facial expression, eyesight, hearing, speech, ability to walk, intuition and logic. When the person's time comes to exempt from the world, the Holy One takes His part, and the father's and mother's parts lie before them.

ואצטריך למיכתב מכה איש ואיצטריך למכתב כל מכה נפש דאי כתב רחמנא מכה איש ומת הוה אמינא איש דבר מצוה אין קטן לא כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש ואי כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש הוה אמינא אפילו נפלים אפילו בן שמונה צריכי.

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: “One who strikes a man,” and it was necessary for the Torah to write: “Anyone who kills a soul, the murderer shall be slain on the basis of witnesses” (Numbers 35:30), since if the Merciful One wrote only: “One who strikes a man and he dies,” I would say that one who strikes a man, i.e., an adult, who is obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot, yes, he is executed, but one who kills a minor, no, he is not executed. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Anyone who kills a soul.” And if the Merciful One wrote only: “Anyone who kills a soul,” I would say that one is executed even if he killed a non-viable newborn, or even if he killed a child born after a gestation period of eight months, who, in talmudic times, was also considered non-viable. Consequently, both verses are necessary.

(ז) הַמַּפֶּלֶת לְיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים, אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוָלָד. לְיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה.

(7) If she miscarries on the fortieth day [since her prior immersion], she need not be concerned that it was a fetus. If [she miscarries] on the forty-first day, she should sit [for the required number of days] for a male and for a female.

וכמה הכרת העובר סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר שלשה חדשים

At what stage is the embryo discernible? Symmachus citing R. Meir replied: Three months after conception.

(ד) הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה לֵהָרֵג, אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. יָשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר, מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד.

(4) If a woman is about to be executed, they do not wait for her until she gives birth. But if she had already sat on the birthstool, they wait for her until she gives birth.

מתני' גהאשה שיצאה ליהרג אין ממתינין לה עד שתלד האשה שישבה על המשבר ממתינין לה עד שתלד האשה שנהרגה:

גמ' פשיטא גופה היא איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל וכתיב (שמות כא, כב) כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה ממונא דבעל הוא ולא ליפסדיה מיניה קמ"ל

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...

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 fetus) is the husband's property, of which he should not be deprived, therefore we are informed (that it is not so).

(א) ב הנוגף את האשה ויצאו ילדיה אע"פ שלא נתכוון חייב לשלם דמי ולדות לבעל ונזק וצער לאשה.

If now assaults a woman, even unintentionally, and her child is born prematurely, he must pay the value of the child to the husband and the compensation for injury and pain to the woman.

יצא ראשו - באשה המקשה לילד ומסוכנת וקתני רישא החיה פושטת ידה וחותכתו ומוציאתו לאברים דכל זמן שלא יצא לאויר העולם לאו נפש הוא וניתן להורגו ולהציל את אמו אבל יצא ראשו אין נוגעים בו להורגו דהוה ליה כילוד ואין דוחין נפש מפני נפש
[In the case of] a pregnant woman [who is in mortal danger during childbirth, she may] extend her hand and cut up [her fetus] and remove it limb by limb, for as long as it has not emerged to the world, it is not a nefesh [soul] and it is permitted to kill it and to save its mother. But if its head has emerged, one may not touch it to kill it, for it is as living offspring, and one does not set aside one nefesh for another.
(ט) אף זו מצות לא תעשה שלא לחוס על נפש הרודף. לפיכך הורו חכמים שהעוברה שהיא מקשה לילד מותר לחתוך העובר במיעיה. בין בסם בין ביד מפני שהוא כרודף אחריה להורגה. ואם משהוציא ראשו אין נוגעין בו שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש וזהו טבעו של עולם.
(9) ... It is a negative commandment that one should not protect the life of a rodef (pursuer). For this reason, the sages ruled that in the case of a pregnant woman in a dangerous labor, it is permissible to dismember the fetus in her womb - whether with a drug or by hand because it is like a rodef pursuing her to kill her. However, once his head has emerged one may not touch him, as we do not set aside one nefesh [soul] for another, and this is the natural way of the world.
בת כהן שנישאת לישראל ומת טובלת ואוכלת בתרומה לערב אמר רב חסדא טובלת ואוכלת עד ארבעים דאי לא מיעברא הא לא מיעברא ואי מיעברא עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא

If a priest's daughter was married to an Israelite who died, she may perform her ritual immersion and eat terumah the same evening! R. Hisda replied: ... She performs the immersion but may eat terumah only until the fortieth day. For if she is not found pregnant she never was pregnant; and if she is found pregnant, the semen, until the fortieth day, is only a mere fluid.

רמבן תורת ואדם

לענין שמירת מצות מחללין עליו אמרה תורה חלל עליו שבת אחת שמא ישמור שבתות הרבה. הלכך אפילו בהצלת עובר פחות מבן ארבעים יום שאין בו חיות כלל מחללין כדעת בעל הלכות ז“ל.

Ramban Torat Ha'adam

As far as the observance of mitzvot is concerned, we would violate them for his (the fetus’s) sake, for the Torah says to violate one Shabbat for his sake, since if he is saved he will have the chance to observe many more Shabbatot. Therefore, even for the sake of a fetus that is less than forty days post-conception, that as of yet has no life to it at all, we would still violate the Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of the author of Halachot Gedolot.

ציץ אלעזר חלק ט סימן נא פרק ג

כשנשקפת סכנה לאשה בהמשכת ההריון יש להתיר הפלת העובר בשופי. גם כשמצב בריאותה של האשה רופף מאד ולשם רפואתה או השקטת מכאוביה הגדולים דרוש לבצע הפלת העובר, אע“פ שאין סכנה ממשית, גם כן יש מקום להתיר לעשות זאת, וכפי ראות עיני המורה המצב שלפניו.

Tzitz Eliezer 9:51 Chap. 3

If there is a danger to the mother from continuing the pregnancy, one should permit abortion without hesitation. Also, if her health is poor and to cure her or to relieve her from great pain it is necessary to abort the fetus, even if she is not in actual danger, there is room to permit it, based on the halachic authority’s evaluation of the situation.

Fetus has life threatening genetic disease

ציץ אלעזר חלק יג סימן קב פרק א

הפסקת הריון בגלל המחלה הנקראת תייסקס כאשר מאבחנים את המחלה בעובר: והנה אחרי העיון בדבר בכובד ראש בכל צדדי הנתונים שבבעיה האמורה, נלפענ“ד על יסוד הבירורים. הנרחבים שכתבתי בדבר הפסקת הריון בספרי שו“ת צ“א חלק ט‘ סי‘ נ“א שער ג‘ על שלשת פרקיו הארוכים. כי שבמקרה המיוחד הזה אשר תוצאות כה חמורות בכנפיו עם המשכת ההריון והלידה, אפשר להתיר הפסקת הריון עד שבעה חדשים, ובאופן שבביצוע הפסקת ההריון לא יהא כרוך בשום סכנה לאם. משבעה חדשים והלאה הדבר כבר יותר חמור.

Tzitz Eliezer 13:102 Chap 1

Regarding the termination of pregnancy due to detection of Tay-Sachs in the fetus: After seriously examining all the facts concerning this serious question, in my humble opinion, based on what I have already clarified concerning the termination of pregnancy in my work Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 9:51 (Section 3), it would be possible to permit performing an abortion up until the seventh month in this unique circumstance where the consequences of continuing the pregnancy are so severe. The abortion must be performed in a manner that there be no danger involved to the mother. From seven months and on the matter is much more severe.

אגרות משה חושן משפט פרק ב סט

דאף הולדות שלפי דעת הרופאים הם כאלו שלא יחיו שנים רבות כהא דנולדים איזה ילדים במחלה הנקראת תיי - סקס אפילו כשנודע ע“י הבדיקות בעובר שנתחדש עתה שהולד יהיה ולד כזה אסור כיון דלהאם ליכא סכנה ואינו רודף אין להתיר אפילו שהצער יהיה גדול מאד... וברור ופשוט כדכתבתי הלכה הברורה ע“פ רבותינו הראשונים המפרשים והפוסקים ממש שאסור בדין רציחה ממש כל עובר בין כשר בין ממזר בין סתם עוברים ובין הידועים לחולי תיי - סקס שכולן אסורין מדינא ממש.

Igrot Moshe Chosen Mishpat II, 69

Even for children for whom the doctors predict a very short life span, such as those children who are born with the disease called Tay-Sachs, which through newly developed tests can be diagnosed prenatally, it would be forbidden since there is no danger to the mother and the infant is not a rodef. One cannot permit an abortion even though there is very great suffering involved … It is incontrovertible and clear as I have written, a straightforward halachah according to the words of our Masters, the traditional commentaries and halachic authorities, that abortion would be forbidden as bona-fide murder, for any fetus; legitimate or a mamzer, genetically normal or afflicted with Tay-Sachs, are all included in the prohibition according to Jewish law.

ואם לחשך אדם לומר זו הלכה שנויה אם היתה עוברה זכתה לו אמור לו שני גדולי הדור פירשו את הדבר ר' זירא ור' שמואל בר רב יצחק
And if a person will whisper a question to you, saying: This ruling, that a slave cannot receive a bill of manumission for his fellow slave from their common master, is difficult, as a halakha was taught that states the opposite: If a maidservant was pregnant at that time, then she acquired freedom for the unborn child, and the child and mother both belong to the same master, then say to him that two greats of the generation already explained the matter, and they are Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak.
חד אמר הא מני רבי היא דאמר המשחרר חצי עבדו קנה וחד אמר מאי טעמא דרבי בהא קסבר עובר ירך אמו הוא ונעשה כמי שהקנה לה אחד מאבריה:
One of them said: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: With regard to one who emancipates half of his slave, the slave acquires freedom for half of himself, and one of them added an explanation and said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for this ruling? He holds: A fetus is considered as its mother’s thigh, i.e., a part of its mother’s body, and it is as though the master transferred ownership of one of her limbs to her. Since the maidservant is pregnant, the child is considered to be a part of her, and it is as though he emancipated a portion of her body. Therefore, the mother is not acting as an agent for the child, and this halakha does not present a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion.

Here, the fetus is thought of as a part of the mother's body. Consequently, if one of our 'limbs' is causing damage to the rest of the body, it may be removed in order to save the mother's health.

We will see later rulings that extend the idea of a mother's health to both her physical and emotional well-being.

Rabbi Jacob Emden (Germany, 1697-1776)

"And even in the case of a legitimate fetus there is reason to be lenient if there is a great need, so long as labor has not begun (or: as long as the child has not yet begun to move); even if the mother's life is not in jeopardy, but only so as to save her from an evil associated with it that would cause her great pain...("When Life is in the balance", p. 92)

*Rabbi Yehiel Jacob Weinberg: 1966 ruling permitting a woman who contracted rubella during the 1st trimester to abort due to fear it would be born "without some organ or without intelligence...causing her pain."

*Rabbi Ben Zion Uzziel (former chief Rabbi of Israel) - case of a woman in danger of becoming totally deaf in both ears if she continued the pregnancy, ruled that "[deafness] will ruin the rest of her life, make her miserable al her days and make her undesirable in the eyes of her husband...Therefore...she should be permitted to abort her fetus.

*Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Jerusalem): In the case of a baby who will have Tay-Sachs, "One should permit...abortion as soon as it becomes evident without doubt from the test that, indeed such a baby shall be born...if, indeed, we may permit an abortion according to the halachah because of 'a great need' and because of pain and suffering, it seems that this is the classic case for such permission. And it is irrelevant in what way the pain and suffering is expressed, whether it is physical or psychological. Indeed, psychological suffering is in many ays much greater than the suffering of the flesh.

*Rabbi Kassel Abelson (Conservative, 1980s): "If the tests indicate that the child will be born with major defects that would preclude a normal life and that make the mother and the family anxious about the future, it is permitted to abort the fetus.

*Rabbi Isaac Klein (1979): Abortion is permissible in all cases that the mother's physical or mental health is threatened by the likelihood of bearing a deformed child. However, "...when in abortion is desired for reasons of convenience...it is forbidden."

("When Life is in the Balance, pp. 93-95)

Summary of Roe V. Wade 1973 from www.lawnix.com

Summary of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973).

Facts

Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade (D).

A three-judge District Court panel tried the cases together and held that Roe and Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, and that declaratory relief was warranted. The court also ruled however that injunctive relief was not warranted and that the Does’ complaint was not justiciable.

Roe and Hallford won their lawsuits at trial. The district court held that the Texas abortion statutes were void as vague and for overbroadly infringing the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The Does lost, however, because the district court ruled that injunctive relief against enforcement of the laws was not warranted.

The Does appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and Wade cross-appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Roe and Hallford.

Issues

  1. Do abortion laws that criminalize all abortions, except those required on medical advice to save the life of the mother, violate the Constitution of the United States?
  2. Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the right to privacy, including the right to obtain an abortion?
  3. Are there any circumstances where a state may enact laws prohibiting abortion?
  4. Did the fact that Roe’s pregnancy had already terminated naturally before this case was decided by the Supreme Court render her lawsuit moot?
  5. Was the district court correct in denying injunctive relief?

Holding and Rule (Blackmun)

  1. Yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  2. Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action.
  3. Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
  4. No. The natural termination of Roe’s pregnancy did not render her suit moot.
  5. Yes. The district court was correct in denying injunctive relief.

The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

רַב שִׁימִי בַּר עוּקְבָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מָר עוּקְבָא, הֲוָה שְׁכִיחַ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, וַהֲוָה מְסַדַּר אַגָּדָתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב, ״בָּרְכִי נַפְשִׁי אֶת ה׳ וְכָל קְרָבַי אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשׁוֹ״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם צָר צוּרָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַכּוֹתֶל, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָטִיל בָּהּ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה קְרָבַיִם וּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵּן, צָר צוּרָה בְּתוֹךְ צוּרָה וּמֵטִיל בָּהּ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה קְרָבַיִם וּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרָה חַנָּה: ״אֵין קָדוֹשׁ כַּה׳ כִּי אֵין בִּלְתֶּךָ וְאֵין צוּר כֵּאלֹהֵינוּ״.
Other interpretations of this verse exist. The Gemara relates how Rav Shimi bar Ukva, and some say Mar Ukva, would regularly study before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, who was well versed in aggada and would arrange the aggada before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
Once, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said to him: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Bless the Lord, my soul, and all that is within me bless His Holy name”?
Rav Shimi bar Ukva said to Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood, as this verse praises the formation of man in his mother’s womb. The attribute of flesh and blood is such that he shapes a form on the wall for all to see, yet he cannot instill it with a spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. While the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not so, as God shapes one form within another form, a child in its mother’s womb, and instills it with spirit and soul, bowels and intestines. And this is the explanation of what Hannah said with regard to the birth of Samuel: “There is none holy like the Lord, for there is none like You, and there is no Rock like our God” (I Samuel 2:2).