[Avodah] Abortion isn't Murder

Chana Luntz Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk
Tue Jul 16 16:05:21 PDT 2013

Previous message: [Avodah] Abortion isn't Murder
Next message: [Avodah] Abortion isn't Murder
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

RMB writes:

>Just because the topic came up on Areivim a mere 2-1/2 months after the
last time it did here, I thouhgt I >would just list the sources posted here
in the past which insist that abortion isn't murder.

I am sure that I have also posted the Tzitz Eliezer's summary and round up
of the achronim from Tzitz Eliezer chelek 9, siman 51 perek 3 but if not,
here it is in the original Hebrew and with my translation:

סיכום היוצא לנו להלכה מכל האמור בשער זה
א' בן נח נהרג על העוברין. ויש דעה שאינו נהרג
ב' ישראל אינו נהרג על העוברין.

ג' כשיש צורך והדין נותן שמותר לסדר לאשה הפלה יש להעדיף לבצע זאת על ידי רופא
ישראל.
ד' יש להחמיר בסידור הפלה לעכו"ם מלישראל באשר המה מצווין גם על העוברין
ועוברים על לפ"ע ]לפני עיור[ כשאין אחרים בלעדו שמוכנים ג"כ לבצע זאת. ומכ"ש
שאסור זאת כשלא נשקפת סכנה לאשה. וכמו כן כשיש מן הצורך לסדר הפלה לעכו"ם יש
לחזר שיעשה זה רופא ישראל.
ה' יש סוברים שאף על פי שישראל אינו נהרג על העוברין מכל מקום יש עליו איסור
תורה מעשות זאת.
ו' ויש סוברים שגם איסור תורה ליכא ויש רק איסור מדרבנן.
ז' וישנם גם הסוברים שגם מדרבנן האיסור שיש בזה הוא קלוש
ח' ע"פ תורת הנסתר האיסור בהפלת עובר חמור עד מאד.
ט' כשנשקפת סכנה לאשה בהמשכת ההריון יש להתיר הפלת העובר בשופי.

י' 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.
י"א כן יש להתיר כנ"ז כשהאשה מינקת
י"ב אשת איש שזנתה או נאנסה ונתעברה ואפילו מעכו"ם שאין הולד ממזר וחזרה בתשובה
מצדדים כמה מגדולי הפוס' להתיר לסדר הפלה אי משום בזיונה ואי משום חלול השם
ופגם ובזיון המשפחה [ואי משום נימוקים אחרים הנזכרים בפנים].
,
י"ג לסדר הפלה קודם שנמלאו ארבעים יום מהריונה וגם לרבות קודם ג' חדשים מהריונה
הוא קיל בהרבה מלסדר לאחר מיכן ויש על כן לצדד להתיר לסדר הפלה קודם שנמלאו לה
כנ"ל והעובר איננו עוד בתנועה גם כשיש חשש מבוסס שהעובר שיולד יצא בעל מום ובעל
יסורים.
י"ד מאידך להמית הולד כשהאשה יושבת כבר על המשבר והולד כבר נעקר לצאת הוא חמור
בהרבה מלפני שנעקר ואין להתיר בכגון זה כי אם במקום סכנה של ממש לאשה ט"ו גם
במקום שהדין נותן להתיר הפלה מכל מקום יש לקבל על כך גם הסכמת הבעל כי ממונו
הוא
ט"ז כן יש לחזר לסדר ההפלה ע"י שתיית רפואה מעשיית מעשה בידים
י"ז אשה שחולה במחלה מסוכנת שעומדת למות ממנה וההריון שהרה בו אם תמשיך בו יקרב
מיתתה והאשה מתחננת שלא לסדר לה הפלה ולא איכפת לה אם זה יקרב מימתה ובלבד
שישאר אחריה זכר, יש מקום להתיר להיות בזה שב ואל תעשה.

י"ח כל בני ישראל מוזהרים באזהרה חמורה לא לנהוג קלות ראש בהפסקת ההריון,
ואחריות הפרוצות והזונים אחריהם שגם אומות העולם גדרו עצמם בזה ותיקנו תקנות
ועונשים גדולה מוטלת בזה הן על השואל והן על הנשאל. מלבד מה שיש בזה משום
גידור פרצת חמורים על העוברים והמסייעים, וישראל קדושים המה

The conclusion that arises l’halacha from what has been said in this
section:

1. a non Jew merits the death penalty for [killing] fetuses, and there is an
opinion that they do not merit the death penalty;
2. a Jew does not merit the death penalty for [killing] fetuses;
3. when there is a need [tzorech] the rule is that it is permitted to
arrange for a woman to abort and it is better that this is performed by
way of a Jewish doctor;
4. it is stricter regarding the performing of an abortion on a non-Jew than
on a Jew because they [ie the non-Jews] are commanded [ie forbidden in the
killing of] also on fetuses and one can violate [the prohibition of putting
a stumbling block] before the blind when there is no other who is able also
to perform the act. But that which is written it is forbidden is when there
is not seen to be a danger to the woman and likewise when there is a need to
perform an abortion on a non Jewish woman, one should be careful that this
is done by way of a Jewish doctor;
5. there are those who hold that even though a Jew does not merit the death
penalty for killing fetuses, in any event there is a prohibition from the
Torah to do this;
6. there are those who hold that even a prohibition from the Torah there is
none, and there is only a prohibition from the rabbis;
7. and there are also those who hold that even the prohibition from the
rabbis that there is is weak;
8. according to the hidden torah [kabbalah] the prohibition of aborting a
fetus is very strict;
9. when it is seen that there is a danger to the woman with continuing the
pregnancy it is permitted to abort the fetus without any difficulty;
10. also when the situation is that the health of the woman is very weak and
for the sake of healing her or quieting her great pain it is needed to
perform an abortion on the fetus, even though there is no fundamental danger
[sakana mamashis]; also there is place to permit this to be done according
to the view of the decisor when he sees the situation which is before him;
11. and similarly there is to permit likewise when the woman is nursing;
12. a married woman who was unfaithful or was raped and conceived (even from
a non Jew where the baby would not be a mamzer) and she does teshuva, with
the support of many gedolei poskim it is permitted to abort either because
of her embarrassment or because of the chillul hashem and the stain and
embarrassment of the family [if not for other reasons as mentioned inside];
13. to perform an abortion prior to the expiry of 40 days of the pregnancy
and also including before 3 months of the pregnancy it is much more lenient
than performing it after this and there is on this support to permit to
perform an abortion prior to the expiry of the aforesaid when the fetus is
no longer moving and also when there is a justifiable suspicion that the
fetuses will be born defective or subject to pain [baal mum or baal isurim];
14. on the other hand to kill the baby when the woman sits already on the
birthing stool and the fetus has already uprooted itself to come out it is
very serious because it has uprooted itself and there is no permission in
this situation except in a case of definite danger to the mother [sakana
shel mamash]
15. also in a place where the halacha gives to permit abortion in all cases
you need to seek on this also the agreement of the husband because it is his
money;
16. and so to repeat to perform an abortion by way of the medical system you
may do a physical action [ma'ase b'yadaim];
17. a woman who is sick from a very dangerous sickness which makes her
terminally ill and if the pregnancy is allowed to continue it will bring her
death closer and the woman requests that they not make for her an abortion
saying it does not matter to her if they bring her death closer so long as
she leaves behind offspring there is place to permit this and not do
anything [shev v'al ta'aseh];
18. all Jews are warned with a great warning not to behave in a frivolous
manner in terminating a pregnancy, and a great responsibility falls both on
the asker and the asked. Besides that which is in this
[a danger] because of the potential of a breaching of the boundaries by the
wanton who will behave immorally after them, but also because the people of
the world limit themselves in this matter and make restrictions and severe
punishments on the [killing of] fetuses and on those who help
them and Jews are to be holy.

Note that each of these items is further detailed and elaborated on in the
body of the teshuva - with the sources as to who said what.

>Before I do so, I must acknowledge RMF's daas yachid in IM CM 2:69(b),
which argues it is murder.

I have been told (although I have no written source) that the late
Lubavitcher Rebbe held similarly - which may be where RZS is coming from.
However, it is certainly true that these are very much minority opinions.

>Tosafos say abortion is mutar on Niddah 44b "eihu". This is usually
interpreted away: That either they are >saying it isn't under the same issur
as for benei Noach, but still assur, or that they are speaking only >bemaom
saqanah.

>The Ran (Chullin 58a) says abotion is deRabbanan.

Here are some of the primary sources on which the Rishonim draw:

שמות פרק כא

)כב( וכי ינצו אנשים ונגפו אשה הרה ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש כאשר
ישית עליו בעל האשה ונתן בפללים:
)כג( ואם אסון יהיה ונתתה נפש תחת נפש:

1. Shemos 21
(22) If men quarrel and hurt a pregnant woman so that she
miscarries, and yet no fatality ensues: he shall surely be punished
according to what the woman’s husband will cause to be assessed upon him and
he shall pay as the judges determine.
(23) But if a fatality ensues it will be that you shall give a life
for a life.

בערכין ז' ע"א
האשה שיצאה ליהרג אין ממתינין לה עד שתלד. האשה שישבה על המשבר - ממתינין לה עד
שתלד.

2. Arachin 7a (Mishna)
When a woman is going out to be killed [by judicial execution] we do
not wait for her until she gives birth. When a woman is sitting on the
birthing stool we wait until she gives birth.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת בערכין ז' ע"א
פשיטא, גופה היא! איצטריך, ס"ד אמינא: הואיל וכתיב [שמות כא] כאשר ישית עליו
בעל האשה, ממונא דבעל הוא ולא ליפסדיה מיניה, קמ"ל. ואימא ה"נ! אמר רבי אבהו
אמר רבי יוחנן, אמר קרא: [דברים כב] ומתו גם שניהם, לרבות את הוולד. …
ישבה על המשבר וכו'. מ"ט? כיון דעקר, גופא אחרינא הוא. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל:
האשה היוצאה ליהרג, מכין אותה כנגד בית הריון כדי שימות הוולד תחילה, כדי שלא
תבא לידי ניוול.

3. Talmud Bavli Arachin 7a (Gemora)
It is obvious [that we do not wait], it is her body. What might one
have thought? since it says in Shemos 21:22 “as the husband of the woman
shall cause to be assessed upon him” – [one would think that the fetus is]
the property of the husband and it should not be lost to him, therefore we
learn [that we don’t wait until she gives birth] . But let us say this
indeed [that we should wait]. Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rav Yochanan
it is written [Devarim 22:22] “and also both of them shall die” to include
the fetus. …

One who sat on the birthing stool: what is the reason? Since it
uprooted itself it is [considered] another body. Rav Yehuda said in the
name of Shmuel a woman who is taken out to be killed, we strike against her
womb, in order to kill the fetus first in order that she shall not come to
disgrace.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדה דף מד עמוד ב
…תנוק בן יום אחד ...וההורגו חייב...
וההורגו חייב: דכתיב: [ויקרא כ"ד] ואיש כי יכה כל נפש - מ"מ.

4. Talmud Bavli Nida 43b-44b
Mishna:… A child of one day … one who kills him is liable [for the
death penalty]…

One who kills him is liable: As it says [Vaikra 24:17] If a man
strike any life - in all cases [even a one day old child – but by
implication not an unborn fetus]

אהלות פ"ז משנה ו'
האשה שהיא מקשה לילד מחתכין את הולד במעיה ומוציאין אותו אברים אברים מפני
שחייה קודמין לחייו, יצא רובו אין נוגעין בו שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש.

5. Mishna Oholes perek 7 Mishna 6
A woman who is finding it hard to give birth, we chop up the fetus
inside the womb and we take it out limb by limb because her life has
priority to its [life]. When the majority has come out, we may not touch
it, because we do not push aside a life for a life.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין ע"ב ע"ב
אמר רב הונא: קטן הרודף ניתן להצילו בנפשו קסבר רודף אינו צריך התראה לא שנא
גדול לא שנא קטן. ומקשה עליו רב חסדא מהך משנה דתנן יצא ראשו אין נוגעין בו לפי
שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש ואמאי רודף הוא. שאני התם דמשמיא קא רדפי לה .

6. Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 72b
Rav Huna said, a minor who is chasing after another to kill him, we
are permitted to save by means of [taking] his life, as we hold that a
person chasing after another to kill [a rodef] does not need a legal
warning, and it is no difference whether he [the rodef] is an adult or a
minor. Rav Chisda asked on this from the mishna [Oholos], as it teaches
“once its head has come out we may not touch it, because we do not push
aside a life for a life” and why, [should it not be considered] a rodef? It
is different there because the mother is being pursued by heaven.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין נ"ז ע"ב
…משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין... משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין.

מאי טעמיה דרבי ישמעאל דכתיב שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך איזהו אדם שהוא באדם
הוי אומר זה עובר שבמעי אמו, ותנא קמא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דאמר כל מיתה האמורה
לבני נח אינו אלא חנק ושידי /ושדי/ ליה האי באדם אסיפיה דקרא ודריש ביה הכי
באדם דמו ישפך איזהו שפיכות דמים של אדם שהוא בגופו של אדם הוי אומר זה חנק.

7. Talmud Bavili Sanhedrin 57b
Mishna:… According to Rabbi Yishmoel they said [a non Jew is liable
for the dealth penalty] even for [murdering] fetuses.

According to Rabbi Yishmoel they said [a non Jew is liable for the death
penalty] even for [murdering] fetuses: What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmoel
as it is written [Breishis 9:6] “one who has spilt the blood of a man in a
man his blood shall be spilt” – who is a man who is in a man – behold say
this is a fetus in the womb of its mother. And the Tanna Kama [who
disagrees with Rabbi Yishmoel by not including this in his list of things
for which a non Jew is liable for the death penalty how does he understand
that pasuk? he] learns in accordance with the view of the house of Menashe
that is to say that all executions that they mention in connection with a
non Jew is only [by means of] strangulation, because they apply the “in a
man” to the end of the verse and they learn how is “in a man that his blood
shall be spilt” what is the spilling of blood of a man when it is in the
body of a man, behold this is strangulation.

>The Minchas Chinukh says that abortion for BN is punished with death
because it's a 7MBN and explcitly >excludes it being because it's retzichah
mamsh. And that's why the Rosh says that a Yehudi may abort a bas >Noach's
velad to save her life because it's dechuyah bemaqom sakanah like any other
issur.a

>The Zohar Shemos 3b describes abortion as being a horrible destruction of
HQBH's handiwork, the same language >it uses to describe shichvas zera
levatalah. The Chabos Ya'ir (teshuvah 31) also considers abortion to be
>hota'as SZL.

>The Maharit (1:97) concludes abortion is asur as a form of injury to the
mother.

>The Mishtetei Uziel (CM 4:46, others cited 3:47) says it's like shefichas
damim only because the gemara likens >all neglect of piryah verivyah to
shefichas damam. Leshitaso, abortion derives from piryah veriyah (an asei)!

>The Tzitz Eliezer, when he is choleiq with RMF (one of 7:48, 9:51:3,
13:102), opines that RMF's raayah chilul >Shabbos doesn't prove anything,
since "challel alav Shabbos achas kedei sheyishmo Shabasos harbei"
>applies to an ubar. This draws from the Ramban, Toras HaAdam (d"h
"ubeHalakhos Gedolos", R' Chavel ed. pg 29). >He too concludes it's hotza'as
zera levatalah, and cites the Yaavetz in 1:43.

>Although to be fair, RYE is speaking about aborting without 72 hours,
"morning after" in today's political >parlance, to prevent the birth of a
mamzer, or a woman having to carry the product of her being raped. So the
>TE is taking it further than one has to insist the Yaavetz intended.

Where do you see that the Ya'avetz it talking about aborting within 72
hours? (that he is talking about a potential mamzer, I agree). In those
days I don't think they had morning after pills, or indeed ways of being
sure that a woman was pregnant, so if that had been the case, he would
needed to have talked about a safek pregnancy.

>(Although there is no reason to insist otherwise, either.) And in any case,
the TE is an acharon to cite in >his own right.

>RJHendell quoted RASoloveitchik who notes that the Rambam (Rotzeiach
>1:9) says the ubar is "KErofeif achareha", snf it'd only in the case of
mishehotzi rosho that the Rambam says >"ein dchon nefesh mipenei nefesh".
>RAS understands the Rambam as saying the ubar isn't really a rodeif --
there is no pursuit of the mother, teva >put the two in conflict. Which is
why the Rambam doesn't allow infanticide after crowning to save the mother.
>But before that, the ubar isn't really a nefesh either, so it being
KErodeif is enough.

>This is the shitah of ROY (Yabia Omer 4, EH 1).

>RIAZ cited Eirukhin 7a, where the gemarah is discussing a mishnah that says
that BD kills a pregnant woman >without waiting for the baby is born.
>The gemara's asks that this is too obvious to even warrant a mishnah, since
a fetus is part of the mother. So >it explains that I might have had a hava
amina that the father's stake would override.

>In a similar vein was my citation this past may of Y-mi Qiddushin 13b,
where a shifchah can accepts a gett >shichrur on behalf of her velad because
it's part of her. (An eved cannot accept a gett shichrur for
>another.)

>R' Eli Turkel (2011) simply listed mar'eh meqomos from Enecy Hilchatit
Refu'it by R' Dr Steinberg:
Ramban (nidah 41a)
Yad Ramah (Sanhedrin 57b)
Radvaz (vol 2 #695)
Drisha EH 13:4
Sma CM 425:8,
Sridei Esh (vol 3:127)
and many others
see also Tosafot Sotah 26a