(19) I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed.
How does this text inform the Jewish attitude towards life? How do you know this text has been used in Jewish discourse?
(22) And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her child comes out, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Other Translations:
Etz Hayim Humash English Ex. 21:22-24
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. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Five Books of Moses Everett Fox translation Ex. 21:22
When two men scuffle and deal a blow to a pregnant woman, so that her children abort-forth, but (other) harm does not occur, he is to be fined, yes, fined, as the woman’s spouse imposes for him, but he is to give it (only) according to assessment.
New International Version (NIV) Ex. 21:22-25
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take 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.
What is happening in our text?
What is the standing of an unborn fetus?
How do you understand the use of the word "harm"? Who could have been harmed but wasn't according to the simple meaning of the text?
How could this text be used as a legal precedent?
Philo, The Special Laws, III:XIX
But if anyone has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed אסוֹן, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct Shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor's workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world.
(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.
What does this text imply of the status of the life of the mother and the life of the fetus?
When, according to this, the fetus attains 'personhood'?
(ד) האשה שהיא יוצאה להרג, אין ממתינין לה עד שתלד.ישבה על המשבר , ממתינין לה עד שתלד.
(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.
How does this text present a tension with the previous text? How can you solve that tension?
How does this text understand the formation of a fetus?
How could it be used to give guidelines regarding abortion?
If now assaults a woman, even unintentionally, and her child comes out, he must pay the value of the child to the husband and the compensation for injury and pain to the woman.
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 נימא מסייעא ליה רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו אומר לו ראה שישראל הוא ובן ברית הוא והתורה אמרה (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך אמרה תורה הצל דמו של זה בדמו של זה ההיא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה היא דתניא רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר חבר אין צריך התראה לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד
[The discussion comes from thieves breaking into houses and whether one should warn them before attacking them] R. Huna said: A minor in pursuit [who is a rodef] may be slain to save the pursued. Thus he maintains that a pursuer, whether an adult or a minor, need not be formally warned. R. Hisda asked R. Huna: we learnt: Once his head has come forth, he may not be harmed, because one life may not be taken to save another. But why so? Is he not a pursuer? — There it is different, for she is pursued by heaven.
Shall we say that the following supports him? If a man was pursuing after his fellow to slay him, he (observer) says to him, 'See, he is an Israelite, and a son of the covenant, while the Torah has said, 'Whosoever would shed the blood of a man, [to save] that man shall his own blood be shed' meaning, save the blood of the pursued by the blood of the pursuer'! That is based on the ruling of R. Jose son of R. Judah. For it has been taught; R. Jose son of R. Judah said: A haver need not be warned, because a warning is necessary only to distinguish between ignorance and presumption.
א"ל אנטונינוס לרבי מפני מה חמה יוצאה במזרח ושוקעת במערב א"ל אי הוה איפכא נמי הכי הוה אמרת לי א"ל הכי קאמינא לך מפני מה שוקעת במערב א"ל כדי ליתן שלום לקונה שנאמר (נחמיה ט, ו) וצבא השמים לך משתחוים א"ל ותיתי עד פלגא דרקיע ותתן שלמא ותיעול משום פועלים ומשום עוברי דרכים וא"ל אנטונינוס לרבי נשמה מאימתי ניתנה באדם משעת פקידה או משעת יצירה א"ל משעת יצירה א"ל אפשר חתיכה של בשר עומדת שלשה ימים בלא מלח ואינה מסרחת אלא משעת פקידה אמר רבי דבר זה למדני אנטונינוס ומקרא מסייעו שנאמר (איוב י, יב) ופקודתך שמרה רוחי 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
Antoninus said to Rabi, 'Why does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?' He replied, 'Were it reversed, thou wouldst ask the same question.' 'This is my question,' said he, 'why set in the west?' He answered, 'In order to salute its Maker, as it is written, And the host of the heavens make obeisance to thee.' 'Then,' said he to him, 'it should go only as far as mid-heaven, pay homage, and then re-ascend?' — 'On account of the workers and wayfarers.' Antoninus said to Rabi: At what point is the soul given to a human? Is it from the moment of decree [that such a child will exist], or from the moment of formation? He responded: "from the moment of formation." He replied, "is it possible that a piece of meat can last for three days without salt, and yet not become rotten? Rather it must be from the moment of decree." Rabi said: "This thing that I learned from Antoninus, and there is a supporting verse: [Job 10] Your Providence has guarded my soul." A ntoninus also inquired of Rabi, 'From what time does the Evil Inclination hold sway over a person; from the formation [of the embryo], or from [its] issuing forth [into the light of the world]?! — 'From the formation,' he replied. 'If so,' he objected, 'it would rebel in its mother's womb and go forth. But it is from when it issues.' Rabi said: This thing Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is said, 'At the door [i.e.,where the babe emerges] sin lies in wait.'
(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.
In what way is a fetus likened to a pursuer (e.g. an assasin?)
Is this a fair comparison? Are there limits for this comparison?
(ה) כיצד מאימין (את העדים) על עדי נפשות. היו מכניסין אותן ומאימין עליהן. שמא תאמרו מאמד, ומשמועה, עד מפי עד, ומפי אדם נאמן שמענו, או שמא אי אתם יודעין שסופנו לבדוק אתכם בדרישה ובחקירה. הוו יודעין שלא כדיני ממונות דיני נפשות. דיני ממונות, אדם נותן ממון ומתכפר לו. דיני נפשות, דמו ודם זרעיותיו תלוין בו עד סוף העולם, שכן מצינו בקין שהרג את אחיו, שנאמר (בראשית ד, י) דמי אחיך צעקים, אינו אומר דם אחיך אלא דמי אחיך, דמו ודם זרעיותיו. דבר אחר, דמי אחיך, שהיה דמו משלך על העצים ועל האבנים. לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי, ללמדך, שכל המאבד נפש אחת מישראל, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו אבד עולם מלא. וכל המקים נפש אחת מישראל, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו קים עולם מלא. ומפני שלום הבריות, שלא יאמר אדם לחברו, אבא גדול מאביך. ושלא יהו מינין אומרים, הרבה רשויות בשמים. ולהגיד גדלתו שלהקדוש ברוך הוא, שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד וכלן דומין זה לזה, ומלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא טבע כל אדם בחותמו שלאדם הראשון, ואין אחד מהן דומה לחברו. לפיכך כל אחד ואחד חיב לומר, בשבילי נברא העולם. ושמא תאמרו מה לנו ולצרה הזאת, והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע אם לוא יגיד וגומר. ושמא תאמרו מה לנו לחוב בדמו שלזה, והלא כבר נאמר (משלי יא, י) ובאבד רשעים רנה.
How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], 'Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world. For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, 'The bloods of your brother cry out' (Gen. 4:10). It doesn't say, 'The blood of your brother', but rather 'The bloods of your brother' - meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another interpretation: 'The bloods of your brother' that his blood was splattered over trees and stones. Therefore just a single Human was created in the world, to teach that if any person has caused a single life to perish from Israel, s/he is deemed by Scripture as if s/he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, s/he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Also [just one human was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, 'My father was greater than your father'. Also, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, 'There are many ruling powers in heaven'. Also [just one human was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy One of Blessing; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy One of Blessing, has stamped every human with the seal of the first Human, yet not one of them are like another. And so everyone must say, 'For my sake was the world created.' And if perhaps you [the witnesses] would say 'Why should we be involved with this trouble?!'[ie, we are not testifying, this is too serious!] Was it not said, 'he, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear the iniquity - of the murderer]' (Vayikra/Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, 'Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?', was it not said, 'When the wicked perish there is rejoicing' (Proverbs 11:10).]
Does this source contradict the previous sources? Why or why not?
How could this source be used as a legal precedent for prohibiting abortion?
אשכח ר' יעקב בר אחא דהוה כתיב בספר אגדתא דבי רב בן נח נהרג בדיין א' ובעד אחד שלא בהתראה מפי איש ולא מפי אשה ואפילו קרוב משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא (בראשית ט, ה) אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש אפילו בדיין אחד (בראשית ט, ה) מיד כל חיה אפילו שלא בהתראה (בראשית ט, ה) אדרשנו ומיד האדם אפילו בעד אחד (בראשית ט, ה) מיד איש ולא מיד אשה אחיו אפילו קרוב 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
R. Yaakov bar Acha found it written in the Book of Aggada of the house of Rav: A noachide 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 of 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 fetus. What is R. Ishmael's reason? Because it is written, Whoever sheds the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed. (Gen. 9:6) What is a man within another man? — A fetus in its mother's womb.
Christian Sources
But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace . . ." (Galatians 1:15, RSV).
"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…[saying] ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy'" (Luke 1:41, 44, NIV).
"While they were there, the time came for the baby to born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son" (Luke 2:6-7, NIV).
Given that Christians have a narrative in which their savior is incarnated already as a fetus, it makes sense that they return to the word "harm" and read it differently - so as erase the tension between the Torah and their scriptures.
Responsa Tzitz Eliezer 13:102
[Asked if a woman whose fetus has been diagnosed with Tay-Sachs can have an abortion] 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?
Etz Hayim Humash Halakhah L’Ma’aseh on Ex. 21:-22
but no other damage – Because the Torah demands only a monetary payment for the fetus in contrast to “life for life” for the woman, the fetus is not considered to be a full-fledged human being, and abortion is not murder (M. Oho. 7:6). It is, however, an injury to the woman; and as such, abortion is generally permitted. It is allowed only to save the physical or mental health of the mother. Many authorities, including the CJLS, permit abortion to prevent maternal anguish over the prospect of giving birth to a child with severe defects. Abortion is not permitted as a retroactive form of birth control.
Former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks – 2/2010 – D’var Torah on Mishpatim
Behind Jewish belief in Torah she-be-al Peh, the “Oral Law,” lies a fundamental truth. The meaning of a text is not given by the text itself. Between a text and its meaning lies the act of interpretation - and this depends on who is interpreting, in what context, and with what beliefs. Without an authoritative tradition of interpretation – in Judaism, the Oral Law – there would be chaos. To be sure, there were sectarian groups within Judaism – Sadducees, karaites and others – who accepted the Written Torah but not the Oral Law, but in reality such a doctrine is untenable…A foetus may not be a person in Jewish law, but it is a potential person and must therefore be protected. However, the theoretical difference is real. In Judaism, abortion is not murder, in Catholicism it is. ..It is fascinating to see how this difference arose – over a difference in interpretation of a single word, ason. Without tradition and all the sages meant by “the Oral Law,” we would simply not know what a verse means. Between a text and its meaning stands the act of interpretation. Without rules to guide us – rules handed down across the generations – we would be …..unable to even begin.
Tosafot (Sanhedrin 59a)
ועל העוברים דעובד כוכבים חייב, וישראל פטור?
(d) Implied Question: Why are Nochrim Chayav for killing a fetus, even though a Yisrael is Patur?
אע"ג דפטור, מ"מ לא שרי.
(e) Answer: Even though a Yisrael is Patur, he is nevertheless not permitted to do so.
מיהו קשה, דאמרינן בפרק בן סורר ומורה (לקמן דף עב:) ‘יצא ראשו, אין נוגעין בו, דאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש‘. אבל קודם שיצא ראשו, החי' פושטת ידה וחתכתו לאברים ומוציאה, כדי להציל את אמו.
(f) Question (Part 1): We have learned in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh that once the head of a fetus emerges one is not permitted to as much as touch him (to save the mother), since 'One may not push away one soul to save another''. Before it has emerged however, the midwife is permitted to place her hand inside the mother's womb and cut its limbs apart, and remove them, in rder to save the mother ...
וכה"ג בעובד כוכבים אסור, כיון שהוזהרו על העוברים?
(g) Question (Part 2): Yet this latter case is forbidden in the case of a Nochri?
וי"ל, דהא נמי בישראל מצוה כדי להציל.
(h) Answer (Part 1): Here too, like we answered earlier, in the case of a Yisrael it is a Mitzvah to kill the fetus to save the mother.
ואפשר דאפילו בעובד כוכבים שרי.
(i) Observation: In fact, it may well be permitted even for a Nochri to do so.