Noahide apologists always try to deflect from Noahide Law by saying Jews are not obligated to "force" non-Jews to follow Noahide Law. No, however, Jews are obligated to convince non-Jews to "force" the Noahide Laws upon themselves and others. This is indirect tyranny.
https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/united-states-of-moral-decline/2022/07/03/
"Beyond this the marriage laws of different nations may differ in their details. But the God of the Universe universally forbids polyandry — the combination of a woman with more than one man.
This prohibition reflects our species' nature. A man needs his mate to be exclusive to him; most women, apparently, can at least function if their mates are only devoted to them. Local cultural expectations aside, it follows that polygamy — meaning in this case polygyny, the combination of a man with more than one (eligible) woman, in or out of a marriage relationship — is not universally forbidden." (Dallen, 2003, pp. 167-168)
SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.
Since Roe v Wade was overturned, Jews have been using this as a way to talk about the Noahide Laws (here & here). Here we learn that according to Jewish law, only a non-Jew is put to death for an abortion, Abortion is technically illegal for a Jew, but there is no punishment. Rabbi Schneerson says this is because the fetus of a non-Jew belongs to Jews, but the adult Jew is more important than a Jewish fetus (here)
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/abortion-in-the-mishnah/
Abortion in the Mishnah
Miri Weismman
JUN 28, 2022,
Following the US Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I found it hard to cope and feel very empathetic towards American women who will no doubt suffer as a result of this new reality. As an orthodox Jew, I found it crucial to restudy the Torah’s outlook on abortion.
From what I’ve read, there are only three sources that deal with abortion in the Mishnah. Here, I will attempt to study each one and reveal modern insights.
The first is found in Mishnah Bava Kamma 5:4:
שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, פָּטוּר מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. וְאָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת, שָׁמִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה כַּמָּה הִיא יָפָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה מִשֶּׁיָּלָדָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִם כֵּן, מִשֶּׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת, מַשְׁבַּחַת. אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין, וְנוֹתֵן לַבַּעַל. וְאִם אֵין לָהּ בַּעַל, נוֹתֵן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת, פָּטוּר
Translation from Neusner: “An ox which was intending to gore its fellow, but hit a woman, and her offspring came forth as a miscarriage– the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation for the offspring. And a man who was intending to hit his fellow man but hit a woman, and her offspring came forth, pays compensation for the offspring. How does one assess compensation for the offspring? They make an estimate of the woman’s value before she gave birth, and how much she is worth now. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, ‘if so, once a woman gives birth, she should gain in value!’ ‘But: They make an estimate of the offspring’s value.’ And one pays the husband. But if she does not have a husband, the owner of the ox pays the husband’s heirs. If she was a slave girl who was freed, or a convert, the man is exempt from paying compensation.”
How is the miscarriage compensated for?
The woman is assessed — how much she is worth on the slave market before giving birth and how much after giving birth and she will get paid the difference. However, R. Shimon b. Gamliel says that she is actually worth more after giving birth because her life is no longer at risk. Therefore, she is not compensated. Rather, she is compensated for what could have been, the value of the child, but the husband gets the money. The payment for the damages to the woman herself is a payment to the woman and the payment for the loss of the offspring is a payment to her husband. (This could be because the man is responsible for the family so a loss in the family directly affects his role in providing. It could also be because the offspring carries on the legacy of the father and his family name, not the mother, so the heir is more valuable to the father than to the mother.)
Why can a miscarriage be paid off but a murder cannot?
According to the Torah, usually a person who accidentally kills another person cannot pay in order to atone for his crime, rather he is exiled to a refuge city. However, in the case described in this verse the person did not kill an independent human being but rather he caused a miscarriage. Therefore, the Torah allows him to make financial compensation for the loss of the fetus/baby.
This source raises questions of what is considered a life, if you can compensate a miscarriage with money. One could potentially argue from this verse that according to the Torah, a fetus is not equal to a born human being. However, an exemption from murder charges for one who accidentally causes a miscarriage is not necessarily an approval for abortion.
Let’s explore another source. This is the most famous source on abortion and it is found in Mishnah Ohalot 7:6:
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:
Translation from Neusner: “The woman who is in hard labor– they chop up the child in her womb and they remove it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over his life. If its greater part has gone forth, they do not touch him, for they do not set aside one life on account of another life.”
When can the baby be aborted to save the mother?
While still in the womb, the mother’s life takes precedence over the fetus’s. Therefore, the doctors may abort the fetus in order to save the mother. Rashi on Sanhedrin 72b:14 “as the entire time that it has not gone out into the air of the world, it is not [considered] a soul, and [so] it is possible to kill it and to save its mother. (Translation from Artscroll) Indeed, one might even go so far as to not call it a life, because it is still in the womb. Maimonides explains that the fetus is considered a life, but it is also considered a “rodef” (a killer chasing a person) and therefore, one must still kill it.
When can the baby not be aborted to save the mother?
Once most of the child has emerged, it is forbidden to do anything to harm the child because it is forbidden to take one life in order to save another. The child is considered to be a “life” once most of it has emerged from the womb. Rashi on Sanhedrin 72b:14 “But when its head comes 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.” (Translation from Artscroll)
The Gemara in Sanhedrin 72b:14 answers: “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.” In this scenario, where the baby is half out, both mother and baby are each other’s Rodef and have equal claim to live. (One can now follow up and ask on rambam, why only when it’s partially out is the baby considered an atypical rodef and therefore can’t be killed, while when it’s still inside it is considered a real rodef and can be killed? There is no recorded answer.)
This is only outright source that allows abortion. It raises questions of when a fetus is considered a life if one can abort a fully formed baby because at that moment it is still in the womb. Allowing an abortion up until the last moments before birth is radically liberal compared to contemporary opinions that decide based on the stages of pregnancy and fetus formation.
Let’s look at the last source, found in Gemara Sanhedrin 57b, which quotes from earlier times: Rabbi Ishmael, who was a Taana in the time of the Mishnah, is quoted in the book of Aggadah from the Academy of Rav.
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
Translation from Artscroll: “Rav Yaakov bar Acha found that in the book of Aggadah in the academy of Rav was written: A Noahide is executed by one judge on the basis of one witness without warning. From the mouth of a man, but not from the mouth of a woman: and even a relative. In the name of R’ Yishmael they said: ‘Even for fetuses.’”
What is the source in question?
שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָאָדָֽם׃ (Bereshit 9:6) “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God, was humankind made.” The simple meaning is “Whoever sheds a man’s blood, through another man’s testimony, his (the murderer’s) blood shall be shed.” A kills B, C testifies against A to get A killed. Through C’s testimony, A is killed. Rabbi Yishmael understands the verse as, “whoever sheds the blood of a man in a man, his blood shall be shed.” A human in a human is a fetus. Meaning, abortion is punishable by death for a Noahide.
Does the term ‘Noahides’ come to teach that this only applies to non-Jews?
According to Sanhedrin 59a: ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור “There is nothing that for a Jew is permissible and for a non-Jew is prohibited.” When Hashem commanded Noah, He meant to include Jews as well. Tosofot derives from here that there must be a prohibition for Jews against abortion, one that is akin to murder. Just because a Jew does not get the death penalty does not mean that the abortion is permissible for Jews.
In the times of the Mishnah, Romans killed fetuses of unwanted pregnancies, so Rabbi Yishmael understands the pasuk this way to tell the non-Jews of his time that abortion is a major sin and is punishable by death (Weiss in Dor Dor V’Dor Shav.) It is not explicitly written that this also applies to Jews, and that could be because Jews at that time did not find themselves in situations of unwanted pregnancies because there was less adultery and rape in Jewish communities.
This source teaches that killing a fetus is considered murder and therefore punishable by death for non-Jews. Through the commentaries we understand it is also forbidden to Jews, however, a Jew would not receive capital punishment.
Conclusion about abortion in the Mishnah:
It was common for Roman women to abort unwanted pregnancies, which shows that Romans viewed fetuses as property that can be aborted. Conversely, Rabbis of the Mishnah believed it is a life or, at least, a potential for life and the removal of it will come at a cost, either monetary loss or punishment. They believed that the fetus could only be aborted if the mother was in danger, and even then, the Rabbis believed that a fetus holds unalienable rights equal to a human being if the fetus is already halfway out. Jewish women terminating unwanted pregnancies doesn’t seem to have been a common occurrence because it is not discussed in the sources. If a Jewess were to find herself in this situation at that time, one can guess that it would also be prohibited, because the Torah values life, in and of itself, and forbids murder, derived from the verse, “You shall not murder” (Shemot 20:13). However, we don’t know if it would be punishable by death like it is for non-Jews.
The first two sources raise many interesting questions of what is considered a life and when is it considered a life, which can lead us to many possible conclusions and opinions on unwanted pregnancies and modern-day abortions. They also seem to reflect what would now be deemed as ‘very liberal views,’ in terms of how late a fetus is still not considered a life. The second source seems to suggest that it is not considered a life until the majority of it has emerged. The last source, however, is less gray and seems to tell modern society that abortion is not allowed at all. We do not know the Torah’s stance on abortion after rape or abortion due to unfit mothers, as it is never mentioned.
Today, there are a myriad of opinions. Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that abortion is murder, plain and simple. He argues that abortion is only moral where the life of the mother is directly at stake, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Rav Jonathon Sacks holds that abortion is not murder, rather it is taking away the potential of a life. Rav Ya’akov Kamenetsky calls abortion a form of murder after 40 days from inception. The Rabbanut Authority in Israel, grants abortion on a case by case ruling. Unmarried women or women under the age of 18 almost always have access to abortion in Israel. (Obviously, in life threatening situations, abortion is always legal.) There are many more opinions across the spectrum of Judaism and vary based on the specific scenarios in question. The main takeaway is that it is not a simple answer. I believe Israel is correct in dealing with abortion case-by-case. This way, the right to abortion is not abused, and those that need an abortion are protected by that right.
Inspirational Quote
“By now, abortion should be obsolete. And I – and probably a lot of other feminists – wish it were obsolete, because abortion, in itself, is not a value – it is simply the right to chose, which is an essential value.” — Betty Freidan
According to Noahidist author Michael Dallen, masturbation is legal but is considered sexually impure. In the same statement, he also mentions that incest is a capital crime.
"God universally prohibits the great sins, the crimes that reverse the natural order. Where He defines incest, for instance, as a capital crime, the Written Torah never even directly mentions masturbation. Yet every sexually impure act is defiling in some way." (Dallen, 2003, p. 158)
SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.
Too many times on this blog I have shown that Noahidists are using abortion to butter up Christians and Muslims for a Noahide social takeover in the realm of morality. This has been reported many times before on this site (here, here, here, here). Here Rabbi Rudomin makes it clear that setting up Noahide courts is part of ending aborti0n. The Noahide Laws will eliminate more than just abortion, but that is how they will draw Christians in, until they have become endeared to the Noahide Laws and are ready to wipe out Christianity.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/356739
The shock waves from the recent US Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade, ruling that American women do not have an automatic "constitutional" right to having abortions, but that individual states can decide their policy on the issue, is continuing to drive the Left crazy with frenzy. Thanks to the ruling of the current conservative majority of the court, simple morality rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Hebrew Bible (Torah) has been strengthened, as I noted in my recent article on Arutz Sheva "America's Six (Conservative) Guardian Angels". Of course on the surface it is a grand judicial debate about federral vs.states' rights couched in legalese, but on a much deeper level it is about morality and doing the good and right thing versus immorality.
As Arutz Sheva, reported both American and Israel Haredim are generally anti-abortion on demand: "Haredim in Israel only sector not backing a 'right to abortion'" and "Why an Orthodox Jewish Organization (Agudath Israel of America) welcomed the end of Roe v. Wade". Religious Zionists, except for a super-liberal sector, are as well. Why is it that observant Jews have those views? There would seem to be a direct correlation between their strict adherence to and practice of Halakha (Jewish Law) with intense devotion to the practice of the Mitzvot (the Torah's Commandments) and doing the Will of Hashem (God) that drives them to naturally and organically understand that abortion on demand is wrong. Only great Poskim, Torah scholars who are experts in deciding how to understand and apply Jewish Law in consultation with expert medical opinion, taking into account the health, life and well being of pregnant women, have the final say in Judaism as to if and when an abortion is to be allowed.
This idea is so alien to modern secularized people who cannot fathom how it can be that a woman does not have the automatic constitutional and human right to terminate her own pregnancy. A perusal of the opinions of liberal-minded Jewish writers makes this very clear. Lisa Fishbayn Joffe asks: "Do abortion bans violate Jews' religious rights?" and cites the views of the different denominations. Since most Jews are not Orthodox, the official Reform view is prevalent, namely "that pregnant individuals should have complete responsibility and autonomy over whether to terminate a pregnancy - whether or not that individual's life is at risk." Pretty much summing up the standard secular left wing point of view as well.
While an article in "My Jewish Learning" makes clear that: "Various non-religious Jewish groups have also been active in abortion access, including Jewish Women International, Hadassah and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. The American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League have both joined amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of abortion access....Orthodox organizations in contrast, do not support broad legal protections for abortion."
So one can clearly see how the cookie crumbles on the abortion issue and it becomes predictable that the Left-wing has a knee jerk reaction when they hear the word abortion, they just want to have it available and let women avail themselves of it as easily and freely as they desire.
Writing for the Touro Law Review, Dr. Adena Berkowitz's article entitled "My Body, My Choice: Biblical, Rabbinic and Contemporary Halakhic Responses to Abortion" describes and explains the various schools of thought in Jewish Law surrounding the issue of abortion. She does make the concluding point that the woman's life muist be taken into account and that the debate is not just about protecting the rights of the fetus. To which one many say that that is precisely why a competent Posek, an expert in Jewish Law needs to be consulted to decide the quandary between "six of one and half a dozen of the other", of fetal rights versus female rights!
As for the sources and origins of the prohibitions against abortion on demand in general in Torah Judaism, both Chabad.org and Aish.com, which explain things to laymen on the internet, have two good concise articles explaining the issue of abortion and observant Judaism in layman's terms.
In Judaism and Abortion on Chabad.org the article says that:
* "The first reference to abortion is in Genesis, when Noah and his descendants are forbidden to murder: 'One who sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.' (Genesis 9:6)
* The sages of the Talmud point out that the phrase 'one who sheds the blood of man through man' is more accurately translated as 'one who sheds the blood of man within man.'
* Based on this, Rabbi Ishmael [a great Jewish scholar in the Talmud] learns that under ordinary circumstances the killing of a fetus is considered a capital offense for all descendants of Noah, i.e., humankind.
* Read in isolation, one could conclude that abortion is akin to murder. But things are not so simple.
* Here is what we read in Exodus: 'Should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarried but there is no fatality...he shall give restitution according to the judges.' (Exodus 21:22).
* Since the Torah obligates only a monetary compensation but no capital punishment, the Torah seemingly views the fetus as property, not as a human life.
* There are various ways of reconciling these verses.
*All agree, however, that under ordinary circumstances abortion is prohibited."
The Chabad article on abortion concludes: "The Jewish Approach to Abortion in Short:
* Under normal circumstances it is forbidden to take the life of an unborn child, and it may be akin to murder (depending on the stage of pregnancy and birth).
* As long as the unborn remains a fetus, it does not have a status of personhood equal to its mother, and therefore may be sacrficed to save the life oif the mother.
* In any case where abortion may be necessary, it is of paramount importance to consult halakhic and medical experts as soon as possible."
The article in Aish.com dealing with Abortion in Jewish Law explains that:
* "To gain a clear understanding of when abortion is permitted (or even required) and when it is forbidden requires an appreciation of certain nuances of halakha (Jewish Law) which govern the status of the fetus.
* While there is debate among the Rabbis whether abortion is a Biblical or Rabbinical prohibition, all agree on the fundamental concept that fundamentally, abortion is only permitted to protect the life of the mother or in other extraordinary situations.
* Jewish law does not sanction abortion on demand without a pressing reason.
* The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in Jewish law is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being – but not quite. (Citing Rav Moshe Feinstein, 1895-1986).
* In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other 'person.'
* Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus....That is not to say that all rabbinical authorities consider abortion to be murder.
* The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some rabbinical scholars to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.
* There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic.
* Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion."
One is skating on very thin ice when it comes to nuancing the status of abortion as a subject in the broader domain that deals with the subject of killing. Not all killing is murder, but they both have death in common. Who shall live and who shall die is a decision for God to make, or for a designated legally sanctioned court. And that is where the Seven Noahide Laws that apply to all humankind equally come in (from Wikipedia):
Not to worship idols. Not to curse God. Not to commit murder. Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality. Not to steal. Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal. To establish courts of justice
We see that the subject of establishing courts of law and not to commit murder apply to the subject of taking the life of the born and the unborn to a large degree. While Jews have a sophisticated legal system and jurisprudence that helps them navigate the complex and often paradoxical and contradictory issues of life, and of death, gentiles too are obligated to have a system of justice and a reliable judiciary and not be ruled by the wild mobs or the swayed by the fads of the hour, and that is what the legal system in the United States delivers as it fulfills the Torah's Noahide requirement to have courts of law. As such they are duly empowered to issue legal rulings and opinions, hopefully in the right way and in the right spirit of the law that should ideally be rooted in the American Constitution which in turn was rooted in the values and ethics of the so-called Old Testament (the TANACH) by the Founding Fathers of America. They were definitely not WOKE, they were not Marxists, they were not anarchists!
The issue of abortion touches on the subject of classical morality rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage and the Bible specifically, as much as the moderns don't like hearing this! With all the talk of abortion rights for women, hardly anyone mentions that a lot of pregnancies especially among unmarried teens and unmarried women result from sexual promiscuity. Talking about abortion rights only is holding only one end of the stick, the end of it, the beginning part of it should start with moral education, teaching healthy values that do not glorify sex for kids and for people as if it were free ice cream handed out for fun. Sex is a serious matter and according to Judaism, and Christianity, as well as Islam and most religions, sex should take place within the bounds and bonds of marriage and not as a subject for Hollywood or Bollywood to to help sell movies or tricks on Facebook, TikTok or SnapChat.
The modern sexual revolution that took hold in the 1960s is the real source of the problem. It is sexual freedom to do as you please that causes the "unwanted" pregnancies that are the root cause of the desire for abortions. Yes, there are married women who want and get abortions, but the drive to legalize the abortion revolution comes from the unbridled sexual immorality that reigns supreme in Western society.
No doubt that the conservative majority on the US Supreme Court understands both the surface superficial debates as well as the underlying deeper moral and even spiritual tug of war between right and wrong, justice and injustice, morality and immorality, and is in its own judicial way trying to do its share to save the endangered world from itself!
Rabbi Yitschak Rudominis the author of "The Second World and Jewish Education in America: The Fall and Rise of Orthodoxy".Contact him at izakrudomin@gmail.com
