Abortion and the Pro-Life

vs. Pro-Choice Debate

For technical information regarding

use of this document, press ctrl and
click here
 Abortion and the Pro-Life vs. Pro Choice Debate
I. Introduction
a. The debate over abortion finds its way into the issues of every U.S.
presidential election. The president appoints all new judges of the
Supreme Court, the only government body that can overturn Roe V.
Wade.
b. This shiur will provide a Jewish perspective on abortion. We will see that
the arguments in the secular world supporting and prohibiting abortion do
not necessarily reflect the Jewish arguments supporting and prohibiting
abortion.
c. This shiur is for education purposes only and should not be construed
as an endorsement of any candidate.
II. The difference between Noachide law and Jewish law
a. Gemara Sanhedrin- Regarding the seven mitzvot for B'nei Noach, the
Gemara derives that a non-Jew is culpable for murder if he performs an
abortion. {}
b. Mishna Niddah- If you kill a one day old child you are chayav misah. {}
i. The clear implication is that before the child is born, there is no
chiyuv misah.
ii. Ramban states this explicitly. {}
c. Tosafos- There is a principle that there is nothing prohibited to non-Jews
that is permissible to Jews. Doesn't abortion seem to contradict this
principle? Tosafot answer that although there is no chiyuv misah if a Jew
performs an abortion, it is nevertheless prohibited. {} Tosafos can be
understood in two ways:
i. There is no chiyuv misah but there is an issur d'oraisa
ii. There is no issur d'oraisa for a Jew to perform an abortion.
III. Is Abortion a biblical prohibition or a rabbinic prohibition?
a. Ramban- The reason why you are not chayav misah for abortion is that the
fetus is not considered a nefesh. Implies that there is no biblical
prohibition against abortion. {}
b. Ran- cites the Mishna {} that if a woman is chayeves misah, we don't
delay the execution and we actually kill the fetus before killing her.
i. Ran states that if we followed the opinion ubar yerech imo, we can
say that the fetus is also chayav misah as is every other limb of her
body. However, Ran notes that even if one follows the opinion
ubar lav yerech imo, one still kills the fetus and since it is not yet
born we are not concerned [for any prohibition that may be
involved]. {}
c. Rashi- The Gemara discusses whether the laws of rodef apply to a child
who is pursuing. The Gemara cites the Mishna {} that states that if a fetus
is causing complications in the delivery one may terminate the pregnancy.
However, once the head is delivered, one may not choose the life of the
mother over the fetus. The Gemara asks: isn't the baby nevertheless
considered a rodef? The Gemara answers that the baby was naturally
placed in this position and therefore he is not considered a rodef. {}
 i. Rashi- Even though the fetus is also in a natural position of
endangering the mother, the reason why one may kill the fetus is
not because he is a rodef but because he is not a nefesh. {}
d. Rambam- Implies that the reason why you can kill the fetus in utero is that
he is considered a rodef. {}
i. The fact that it is necessary to classify him as a rodef implies that
otherwise, it would be prohibited to kill the fetus, even though the
mother's life is in danger. This indicates that abortion is
tantamount to murder and is not considered a rabbinic violation.
This in fact is the opinion of R. Chaim Soloveitchik and R. Moshe
Feinstein.
1. R. Akiva Eger's question- the reason to allow killing the
fetus can't be because of rodef because if he was a rodef,
even after birth he would be considered a rodef. Rather,
the reason must be because a fetus is not a nefesh. How
can Rambam categorize the fetus as a rodef? {}
2. R. Moshe {}
a. The fact that a personal was naturally positioned as
a rodef does not make him any less of a rodef.
However, when he didn't create the situation and
only one can live and not the other, each one is
considered a rodef after the other.
b. When you normally have two people who are
pursuing each other, you can't take sides because
"who is to say that his blood is redder than the
other's." This is why you can't choose the life of the
mother over the child once his head emerged.
c. Nevertheless, when the fetus is in-utero, the fetus is
pursuing the mother and the mother is pursuing the
fetus. Since the mother is a full life and the fetus is
not yet a nefesh, one can choose the mother over the
fetus.
3. R. Chaim as explained by R. Isser Zalman Meltzer-similar
idea {}
a. Rambam applies the concept of rodef to luggage on
a ship that is going to capsize if some of the load is
not thrown overboard. {}
b. In that case, one must choose between the luggage
or the people. We view each group as a rodef after
the other and the people are chosen over the
luggage.
c. Similarly, the mother is a rodef after the fetus and
the fetus is a rodef after the mother. Since the fetus
has a lesser status, the mother's life is chosen.
4. Based on R. Moshe's and R. Chaim's explanations, in
reality, it is biblically prohibited to kill a fetus and the only
 time we do so is when we are told to choose the life of the
mother over the fetus.
ii. The alternative interpretation of Rambam is to assume that even
Rambam agrees that the aborting a fetus is not retzicha.
1. S'ma- Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 425:2) quotes Rambam
verbatim. S'ma notes that the reason why one may not kill
the child once his head comes out is that he is not
considered a rodef. Nevertheless, before it comes out, one
may kill the fetus because it is not yet a nefesh. {}
a. It is clear that S'ma that Rambam holds that even if
the fetus is not categorized as a rodef, it is still
permissible to kill it.
b. One must then question why Rambam uses the term
"k'rodef"
2. Tiferes Tzvi (explaining S'ma) {}
a. S'ma seems to consider the loss of a fetus a
monetary loss and not a loss of life.
b. It is permissible to steal in order to save a life as
long as you repay the property owner.
c. In the case of the fetus, killing the fetus to save a
life would not be permissible since there is no way
to repay the "owner" of the fetus.
d. However, once you classify the fetus as a rodef, it is
now permissible to kill the fetus the same way it is
permissible to cause monetary loss to an object that
is considered a rodef (and there is no obligation to
repay).
3. Teshuvos Geonei Basrai (a collection of teshuvos from
various Acharonim) {}
a. In reality, even if the fetus is not a rodef, he can be
killed because he is not a nefesh.
b. The only reason why Rambam categorizes him as a
rodef is so that you can use any method of killing
him and you do not have to choose the most
pleasant means of killing him.
4. A variation on Teshuvos Geonei Basrai
a. Rambam's formulation of the Halacha seems to
focus on the prohibition against having mercy on a
rodef.
b. Perhaps Rambam agrees that even if the fetus is not
classified as a rodef that you can kill it to save the
mother.
c. However, the Rambam is warning those who want
to let nature take its course and be passive on the
matter that it is actually prohibited to have mercy on
a rodef and since the fetus is not a nefesh, he is
 similar to the luggage and one may not have mercy
on him.
e. The approach of Toras Chesed (R. Shneur Zalman Pradkin of Lublin,
click here to access the entire teshuva)
i. The whole discussion is contingent on whether you hold ubar
yerech imo or lav yerech imo. {}
1. According to Ran (cited above), if you hold lav yerech imo,
you have to assume that the fetus is not a nefesh because
there is no other way to explain killing the fetus of a
woman who is chayeves misah.
2. Rambam is of the opinion that ubar yerech imo {} and
therefore the only reason why you kill the fetus is that the
fetus as an appendage also participated in the act that is
punishable by death. Ordinarily you cannot consider it a
non-nefesh for the purpose of killing it.
a. One must still question Rambam's classification of
the fetus as a rodef. If the fetus is considered is an
appendage of the mother it should be permissible to
remove that appendage to save the rest of the body
even if the "appendage" is not a rodef.
b. Toras Chesed suggests that the case is one where
the woman is already on the birthing stool. As
such, it is no longer considered an appendage of the
mother because it began to move down the birth
canal. If this fetus were not considered a rodef, it
would be prohibited to kill it to save the mother.
ii. If you hold ubar lav yerech imo, you can kill the fetus when there
is a strong reason to do so. If you hold yerech imo, you can only
do so for the health of the mother. {}
iii. Toras Chesed's approach seems to be the opposite of the current
pro-life vs. pro choice debate:
1. The pro-life advocates argue that the fetus is an
independent entity and therefore, abortion is tantamount to
murder.
2. The pro-choice advocates argue that the fetus is a limb of
the woman's body and she can make her own choice what
she wants to do with that limb.
a. It's important to note that Roe V. Wade did not
accept this argument completely because it did not
recognize an absolute right to perform an abortion.
3. Why then is the Torah view (according to Toras Chesed)
the exact opposite?
iv. Understanding Ubar yerech imo through the discussion about
kaparos (we mentioned this piece in the shiur about kapraos)
1. Tashbetz- A male uses a rooster and a female uses a
chicken for kaparos. {}
 2. Maharil- A pregnant woman should use two birds, one for
her and one for the fetus. {}
3. Rama- The reason why she uses a second bird is because
the fetus may be a male. Therefore, she takes a female bird
for herself and a male bird for the fetus. {}
4. This implies that if we know that the fetus is female, only
one bird is required.
5. The Vilna Gaon explains the opinion of Rama based on the
concept of ubar yerech imo. {}
a. The Vilna Gaon asserts that most Rishonim are of
the opinion that it is considered an appendage of the
woman.
6. One must add to the Vilna Gaon's explanation:
a. Ostensibly, one should reach the opposite
conclusion:
i. If ubar lav yerech imo, it is its own entity
and one should perform a separate set of
kaparos on its behalf.
ii. If ubar yerech imo, the kaparos that the
mother performs should encompass the
"additional limb" in her body and no
additional kaparos should be required.
b. Why then does the Vilna Gaon explain that Rama
holds ubar yerech imo?
c. Additionally, why is the additional set required only
if the fetus is male and not female?
d. One must conclude that ubar yerech imo doesn't just
view the fetus as a limb. Rather, the fetus is its own
entity that is piggybacking off of the life force of
the mother. The mother is sharing her "nishmas
chaim" with the fetus.
i. If the fetus is a male, the mother's neshama
needs a male kaparah in addition to her
female kaparah.
ii. If the fetus is a female, one set of kaparos is
sufficient.
iii. If one assumes ubar lav yerech imo, no
kaparos are required for the fetus because
there is no neshama in the fetus and it is not
piggybacking off of the mother's life force.
ii. We can now appreciate why according to Toras Chesed, abortion
is a more serious violation if you hold ubar yerech imo:
1. If you hold ubar yerech imo, there is an actual life that you
are ending by performing abortion. You are severing the
body from its nishmas chaim.
2. If you hold ubar lav yerech imo, the fetus has no nishmas
chaim.
 ‫הפלת עובר‬
‫רישא החיה פושטת ידה וחותכתו ומוציאתו‬ ‫‪ .1‬סנהדרין נז‪:‬‬
‫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 ואם תאמר מעשה דשבע בן בכרי‬
‫הנה ראשו מושלך אליך דדחו נפש מפני נפש התם‬ ‫‪ .2‬נדה מג‪-:‬מד‪.‬‬
‫משום דאפילו לא מסרוהו לו היה נהרג בעיר‬ ‫תנוקת בת יום אחד מטמאה בנדה בת י' ימים‬
‫כשיתפשנה יואב והן נהרגין עמו אבל אם היה הוא‬ ‫מטמאה בזיבה תנוק בן יום אחד מטמא בזיבה‬
‫ניצול אף על פי שהן נהרגין לא היו רשאין למסרו‬ ‫ומטמא בנגעים ומטמא בטמא מת ‪ ...‬וההורגו חייב‪.‬‬
‫כדי להציל עצמן אי נמי משום דמורד במלכות הוה‬
‫והכי מפרש לה בתוספתא‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬רמב"ן נדה מד‪ :‬והא‬

‫‪ .10‬רמב"ם הל' רוצח א‪:‬ח‪-‬ט‬

‫אחד מבושיו‪ ,‬ואחד כל דבר שיש בו סכנת נפשות‪,‬‬
‫אחד האיש שאחז את האשה‪ ,‬ענין הכתוב שכל‬
‫החושב להכות חבירו הכייה הממיתה אותו מצילין‬
‫את הנרדף בכפו של רודף‪ ,‬ואם אינן יכולין מצילין‬
‫אותו אף בנפשו‪ ,‬שנ' לא תחוס עינך‪ .‬הרי זו‬
‫מצות לא תעשה שלא לחוס על נפש הרודף‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬תוס' סנהדרין נט‪ .‬ד"ה ליכא‬
‫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.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬מש' ערכין ז‪.‬‬

‫‪ .11‬תוס' רבי עקיבא איגר למש' אהלות ז‪:‬ו‬

‫‪ .6‬הר"ן חולין יט‪ .‬ד"ה ולענין‬

‫‪ .7‬אהלות ז‪:‬ו‬
‫האשה שהיא מקשה לילד מחתכין את הולד במעיה‬
‫ומוציאין אותו איברים איברים מפני שחייה‬
‫קודמין לחייו יצא ראשו אין נגעין בו שאין דוחין‬
‫נפש מפני נפש‪.‬‬

‫‪ .8‬גמ' סנהדרין עב‪:‬‬

‫אמאי )כשיצא ראשו אין נגעין בו( רודף הוא שאני‬
‫התם דמשמיא קא רדפי לה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .9‬רש"י שם ד"ה יצא ראשו‬

‫יצא ראשו ‪ -‬באשה המקשה לילד ומסוכנת וקתני‬
 ‫‪ .15‬סמ"ע תכה‪:‬ח‬
‫‪ .12‬אגרות משה יו"ד ב‪:‬ס‬

‫‪ .16‬שו"ת תפארת צבי או"ח ס' יד‬

‫‪ .13‬אבן האזל הל' רוצח א‪:‬ט‬

‫‪ .14‬רמב"ם הל' חובל ומזיק ח‪:‬טו‬

‫ספינה שחשבה להשבר מעובד המשוי ועמד אחד‬
‫מהן והקל ממשה להשליך לים פטור שהמשא שבה‬
‫כמו רודף אחריהם להרגם ומצוה רבה עשה‬
‫שהשליך והושיעם‪.‬‬
 ‫‪ .20‬תורת חסד אהע"ז ס' מב‬ ‫‪ .17‬תשובות גאוני בתראי ס' מה‬

‫‪ .18‬יבמות עח‪.‬‬

‫‪ .19‬רמב"ם הל' שחיטה יב‪:‬י‬

‫מותר לשחוט את המעוברת עובר ירך אמו הוא‪.‬‬
‫ואם יצא העובר חי אחר שחיטה והפריס על גבי‬
‫קרקע אין שוחטין אותו ביום אחד ואם שחט אינו‬
‫לוקה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .21‬תשב"ץ קטן ס' קכה‬

‫‪ .22‬מהרי"ל הל' ערב יום הכיפורים ס' ב‬

‫אמהר"י סג"ל אשה מעוברת תקח שתי כפרות‬
‫האחד בשביל העובר‪.‬‬

‫‪ .23‬רמ"א או"ח תרה‪:‬א‬

‫ונוהגין ליקח תרנגול זכר לזכר‪ ,‬ולנקבה לוקחין‬
‫תרנגולת )ב"י בשם תשב"ץ(‪ ,‬ולוקחין למעוברת‬
‫ב' תרנגולים אולי תלד זכר‪.‬‬
 ‫‪ .24‬ביאור הגר"א או"ח תרה‪:‬א‬
‫דקיימא לן עובר ירך אמו הוא דרבי יוחנן דסבירא‬
‫ליה בתמורה כ"ה א' עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא‬
‫אתותב שם וכן הסוגי' בספ"ב דגיטין וכן ברפ"ה‬
‫דב"ק פרה שהזיקה גובה מולדה מ"ט כו' וכן‬
‫במתניתין דערכין ז' א' וע' רש"י שם ד"ה אין‬
‫ממתינין כו' ובגמרא שם פשיטא גופה היא כו'‬
‫ועיין תו' דב"ק מ"ז א' ד"ה מ"ט כו' וכ"פ הרא"ש‬
‫שם ובת"ה נ"ג א' ובמשמר' הבית שם דלא כרא"ה‬
‫ור"ת וע' תוס' דסנהדרין פ' ב' ד"ה עובר כו'‪ .‬ומ"א‬
‫כת' משום דשני גופים מתכפרים בכפרה אחת‬
‫כמ"ש במנחות בכל הקרבנות לבד ממנחה שנא'‬
‫נפש ואינו נרא' דלא דמי לנדבה‪.‬‬