(ו) שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹקִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָאָדָֽם׃
(6) Whoever sheds human blood, by human [hands] shall that one’s blood be shed; For in the image of God was humankind made.
משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין מאי טעמיה דרבי ישמעאל דכתיב (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך איזהו אדם שהוא באדם הוי אומר זה עובר שבמעי אמו
It is stated in that book of Aggadot that the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: A descendant of Noah is executed even for killing fetuses. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: It is derived from that which is written: “One who sheds the blood of a person, by a person [ba’adam] his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The word ba’adam literally means: In a person, and is interpreted homiletically: What is a person that is in a person? You must say: This is a fetus that is in its mother’s womb. Accordingly, a descendant of Noah is liable for killing a fetus.
1. How do you interpret the Genesis text? Do you agree with Gemara's explanation?
2. What do we conclude from this?
(יז) וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּ֥י יַכֶּ֖ה כׇּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃
(17) If any party kills any human being, that person shall be put to death.
(11) R. Meir Simchah of Dvinsk, in his biblical novellae, Meshekh Hokhmah, Exod. 35:2, offers an interesting scriptural foundation for this prohibition, demonstrating that, while not a penal crime, the killing of a fetus is punishable by "death at the hands of heaven." He observes that Scripture invariably refers to capital punishment by employing the formula "mot yumat—he shall surely be put to death." The use of the single expression "yumat—he shall be put to death" is understood in rabbinic exegesis as having reference to death at the hands of heaven.
1. What does the commentary elucidate about the Torah text?
2. Is there a difference between punishment from Heaven and punishment on earth? How might we understand the commentary through a modern political lens?
(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 [two or more] parties 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, 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.
ואי מיעברא עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא
And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water.
1. How do these texts differ from the first few?
2. How did the ancients understand what a fetus was?
הַנּוֹגֵף אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת לַבַּעַל וְנֵזֶק וְצַעַר לָאִשָּׁה:
A person who strikes a woman and causes her to miscarry is liable, even if her injury was caused unintentionally. He must compensate the woman's husband for the value of the fetus, and the woman for the injury and the pain.
1. This text follows the halacha for property, claiming the fetus as the couple's property. How might this affect the way we understand abortion?
(ו) האשה שהיא מקשה לילד, מחתכין את הולד במעיה ומוציאין אותו אברים אברים, מפני שחייה קודמין לחייו. יצא רבו, אין נוגעין בו, שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש.
(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.
איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא יצא ראשו אין נוגעין בו לפי שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש
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.
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.
והא דתנן וההורגו חייב. ודוקא בן יום א' אבל עובר לא דלא קרינא ביה נפש אדם וה"נ אמרינן בסנהדרין (עב, ב) האשה שמקשה לילד מביאין סכין ומחתכין אותו אבר אבר יצא ראשו אין נוגעין בו שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש אלמא מעיקרא ליכא משום הצלת נפש וקרא נמי כתיב דמשלם דמי ולדות ...
In regard to the statement of the Mishnah, "one who kills [a newborn baby] is liable [for the death penalty]:" only a newborn but not a fetus, which is not called a human being [nefesh adam], as is stated in bSanhedrin (72b)...
(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.
1. What/who are the priorities of these texts?
2. How do the rabbis distinguish between the mother, the fetus, and the baby?
a) recognizes the preservation of a mother’s emotional health to be as important as her physical well-being; and
b) properly considers the danger of anticipated physical or mental damage; and
c) permits abortion in pregnancies resulting from sexual crime including rape, statutory rape, and incest.
We strongly urge the broad liberalization of abortion laws in the various states, and call upon our members to work toward this end.
1. Affirming the right of American women to choose safe, legal abortion;
2. Opposing the limiting of Federal and State funding of abortions for poor women;
3. Opposing those hospital policies and legal harassments that would limit access to abortion; and
4. Opposing anti-abortion legislation, including any constitutional amendment that would make abortion illegal, as threats to both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
There is essentially no dispute in the Jewish tradition that contraception should be used when the health of the mother may be at risk. This is supported not only by the principle stated above about the primacy of protecting life, but is also specifically discussed in the Jewish sources regarding birth control. Contraception has also long been permitted for women with childbearing difficulties. In fact Jewish authorities in the case of a risk to the mother actually prefer the use of contraception to abstinence. One important issue surrounding Jewish views on contraception is that there is a prohibition on the ‘destruction’ or ‘wasting’ of a man’s ‘seed.’ This prohibition (coupled with the obligation to be fruitful and multiply) is why very traditional Jews often avoid birth control and tend to have large families. The more liberal orthodox authorities and the more liberal Jewish denominations permit birth control (at least for some period of time), by taking into account other considerations such as the ability of the couple to financially or emotionally support children; the welfare of existing children; the importance of a couple solidifying their relationship before child-rearing; and the physical and emotional needs of the mother. In cases where contraception is warranted, traditional Jewish authorities prefer certain forms of contraception: specifically those used by women rather than men (since the obligation of procreation technically falls on males), and methods that do not ‘destroy a man’s seed,’ such as the pill or an IUD. Almost all Jewish authorities would permit the use of condoms to protect against sexually transmitted infections.
תָּנֵי רַב בִּיבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בְּמוֹךְ: קְטַנָּה, מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וּמְנִיקָה. קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְשֶׁמָּא תָּמוּת. מְעוּבֶּרֶת — שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲשֶׂה עוּבָּרָהּ סַנְדָּל. מְנִיקָה — שֶׁמָּא תִּגְמוֹל בְּנָהּ וְיָמוּת.
§ Incidental to the case of refusal, the Gemara cites a related halakha. Rav Beivai taught a baraitabefore Rav Naḥman: Three women may engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent, a soft fabric placed at the entrance to their wombs to prevent conception, despite the fact that this practice is generally prohibited. They are as follows: A minor, a woman who is already pregnant, and a nursing woman. The baraita specifies the reason for each exception: A minor may do so lest she become pregnant and perhaps die; a pregnant woman, lest she be impregnated a second time and her previous fetus becomes deformed into the shape of a sandal fish by being squashed by the pressure of the second fetus. As for a nursing woman, she does so lest she become pregnant and her milk dry up, in which case she will wean her son too early, thereby endangering him, and he will die.
1. What are the rabbis concerned about re: contraception?
2. What are the leniencies?
(ח) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוּדָה֙ לְאוֹנָ֔ן בֹּ֛א אֶל־אֵ֥שֶׁת אָחִ֖יךָ וְיַבֵּ֣ם אֹתָ֑הּ וְהָקֵ֥ם זֶ֖רַע לְאָחִֽיךָ׃(ט) וַיֵּ֣דַע אוֹנָ֔ן כִּ֛י לֹּ֥א ל֖וֹ יִהְיֶ֣ה הַזָּ֑רַע וְהָיָ֞ה אִם־בָּ֨א אֶל־אֵ֤שֶׁת אָחִיו֙ וְשִׁחֵ֣ת אַ֔רְצָה לְבִלְתִּ֥י נְתׇן־זֶ֖רַע לְאָחִֽיו׃(י) וַיֵּ֛רַע בְּעֵינֵ֥י ה׳ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיָּ֖מֶת גַּם־אֹתֽוֹ׃
(8) Then Judah said to Onan, “Join with your brother’s wife and do your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother.”(9) But Onan, knowing that the offspring would not count as his, let [the semen] go to waste whenever he joined with his brother’s wife, so as not to provide offspring for his brother.(10) What he did was displeasing to ה׳, who took his life also.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִישׁ מְצֻוֶּוה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, אֲבָל לֹא הָאִשָּׁה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְבָרֶךְ אוֹתָם אֱלֹקִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם [אֱלֹהִים] פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ״.
MISHNA:A man is commanded with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that a woman is also commanded, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).
1. It seems the biggest issue in regard to birth control is the commandment not to "waste seed." Why might that matter to the ancients?
2. How can contraception still be used without breaking this commandment? Is it possible?
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מְחַמִּין חַמִּין לַחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת, בֵּין לְהַשְׁקוֹתוֹ בֵּין לְהַבְרוֹתוֹ. וְלֹא שַׁבָּת זוֹ בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא לְשַׁבָּת אַחֶרֶת. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים: נַמְתִּין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא יַבְרִיא, אֶלָּא מְחַמִּין לוֹ מִיָּד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא סָפֵק שַׁבָּת זוֹ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ סָפֵק שַׁבָּת אַחֶרֶת.
That was also taught in a baraita: One heats water for an ill person on Shabbat, whether to give him to drink or to wash him, since it might help him recover. And they did not say it is permitted to desecrate only the current Shabbat for him, but even a different, future Shabbat. And one must not say: Let us wait and perform this labor for him after Shabbat, perhaps he will get well in the meantime. Rather, one heats it for him immediately because any case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation overrides Shabbat. And this is so not only with regard to uncertainty whether his life is in danger on the current Shabbat, but even in a case of uncertainty with regard to danger on a different Shabbat.
1. Here, it's clear that we're allowed to break Shabbat for pikuach nefesh - preservation of the soul. If someone is hurt, in need, etc., halacha can be broken to maintain safety. What might this mean in terms of abortion and contraception? What are some cases in which halacha could be broken?
A majority of Jewish authorities not only permit IVF when using a husband’s sperm and a wife’s egg, but given the pro-natalist nature of the tradition, they welcome it as an aid to infertile couples. A minority of Jewish authorities object to IVF based on what they see as the problematic category of ‘wasting seed’ (see contraception section above), and the process of IVF as “upsetting the order of creation” for the fulfillment of the command to be fruitful and multiply. Most religious authorities permit destroying excess frozen embryos or using them for medical research since they fall in the category of ‘less than 40 days’ (see Abortion above), and also have no independent status of their own since they cannot develop naturally outside the womb. The issues of donor sperm, eggs, and embryos raise complicated issues in Jewish law, including concerns of ‘adultery,’ the possibility of ‘unintentional incest’ in future generations, the issue of ‘wasting seed’ (see Contraception above), and the potential for exploitation of donors. While a range of opinions exists in the more traditional branches of Judaism, the Conservative Movement’s position is that helping infertile couples in this way is sufficient justification to override all these concerns and so expressly permits it. In all cases above, the woman who gestates and gives birth to a child is to be treated as the child's mother for purposes of Jewish law, including the determination of Jewish religious identity.