I have been following your excellent work making these points clear on other platforms, and I'm glad you decided to bring them here too. To quote a rabbinic tale, "This, too, is Torah, and I need to learn!"
FWIW the whole thing in Judaism is that the fetus is regarded as a potential life, which does not have the same status as someone who's been born, but that has a status of some sort (especially after the 7-8 week mark). What that means to different people emotionally and how they make sense of it varies--a legal status is not the same thing as an emotional connection and relationship. And that's where we can hold pastorally that people's experiences emotionally of pregnancy loss and pregnancy termination might be quite different, and that's OK.
So I saw a number of times in the texts you quoted the phrase "there is room to be lenient," which suggests that there is in fact a prohibition, but one whose importance should not be considered to outweigh other important factors such as the health or emotional well-being of the pregnant person. This seems to be the general understanding underlying all the responsa: that while one must take any risk or need (of whatever kind) on the mother's part seriously, abortion is not permitted _unless_ there is such risk or need.
What I can't figure out is: what is the source of said prohibition in the first place? What is the ostensible halacha that we are being lenient _about_?
The fetus is regarded as *potential life* so poskim (uh, legal decisors, for those just tuning in) are thoughtful about the Jewish legal math they do, here. And yes, some other Jewish legal thinkers regard the Mishnah as saying abortion is required to save a life and that the fetus' status as a potential life outweighs other factors in other cases--but notably even the majority of those who hold by this opinion strongly believe that Roe should not be overturned because it continues to violate Jewish religious freedom (cf the reality of what happens in Texas, where people with ectopic pregnancies are denied abortion care and told to drive to Oklahoma and wished good luck, the proposed ectopic pregnancy law in MO, etc.) And the fact of the matter is, the dominant voice in the tradition is this other voice that I have cited--abortion is required to save a life and permitted in other cases. Which is why Rabbis for Repro (rabbisforrepro.org) has rabbis of every single denomination, including the heads of the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movement, the former president of YCT, why the project partners routinely with JOFA and Yeshivat Maharat, etc. (There is no official "Orthodox" denomination the way there is the others, for those just tuning in.)
A really good question. Since the texts state that for the first 40 days there is no legal issue at all. The fetus is "just water". Then after that, it's treated as a piece of property right up until birth, and people are allowed to destroy their own property if they want. Maybe the most generous interpretation is that they're trying to say just not to make the decision lightly? Which still feels condescending to me.
I mean, I have no problem with saying "don't make the decision lightly" -- but there are lots of decisions one shouldn't make lightly, and they're not talked about as though there's a prohibition one might be transgressing.
(One minor quibble: it's treated as a piece of one's own body, which in traditional halachic thought is _not_ the same thing as a piece of one's own property, in a lot of complicated ways.)
If getting a tattoo is out… the starting point of “don’t” makes more sense. But then the question of saving life, avoiding harm, etc comes in which is rarely at issue with e.g. tattoos.
The thing that always gets me is the statistic that very religious communities tend to terminate pregnancies at the same rate as other communities. The hypocrisy and deceit is unnerving.
Thanks for all of your work and activism around this, Rabbi.
Another available resource for pregnant people who need assistance getting information and abortion services in the US is the auntienetwork subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/auntienetwork/
I always take heart from the nuance presented in these discussions. My own mother, based on lifelong health issues, was given the option to terminate her pregnancy if it looked I wasn't going to be a viable birth. She made up her mind to carry the pregnancy even if it affected her own life, but she never begrudged any other person who'd choose differently. So, despite what the bumper stickers in my town say, her child was, in fact, her choice.
I like the idea of the Hebrew concept "pikuach nefesh," protecting a life above all other factors. It's something I wish other religious figures would take to heart on issues like these.
Question about the Emden text, about the adulterous woman! Is the adultery just part of the background of this specific case, or is the argument being made that the woe/shame of having an illegitimate child is itself the justification?
I have been following your excellent work making these points clear on other platforms, and I'm glad you decided to bring them here too. To quote a rabbinic tale, "This, too, is Torah, and I need to learn!"
I have never been so grateful not to live in the United States. Wishing you all strength in this battle. 💖
Rabbi, thank you for this article and for the action items at the end!
FWIW the whole thing in Judaism is that the fetus is regarded as a potential life, which does not have the same status as someone who's been born, but that has a status of some sort (especially after the 7-8 week mark). What that means to different people emotionally and how they make sense of it varies--a legal status is not the same thing as an emotional connection and relationship. And that's where we can hold pastorally that people's experiences emotionally of pregnancy loss and pregnancy termination might be quite different, and that's OK.
So I saw a number of times in the texts you quoted the phrase "there is room to be lenient," which suggests that there is in fact a prohibition, but one whose importance should not be considered to outweigh other important factors such as the health or emotional well-being of the pregnant person. This seems to be the general understanding underlying all the responsa: that while one must take any risk or need (of whatever kind) on the mother's part seriously, abortion is not permitted _unless_ there is such risk or need.
What I can't figure out is: what is the source of said prohibition in the first place? What is the ostensible halacha that we are being lenient _about_?
The fetus is regarded as *potential life* so poskim (uh, legal decisors, for those just tuning in) are thoughtful about the Jewish legal math they do, here. And yes, some other Jewish legal thinkers regard the Mishnah as saying abortion is required to save a life and that the fetus' status as a potential life outweighs other factors in other cases--but notably even the majority of those who hold by this opinion strongly believe that Roe should not be overturned because it continues to violate Jewish religious freedom (cf the reality of what happens in Texas, where people with ectopic pregnancies are denied abortion care and told to drive to Oklahoma and wished good luck, the proposed ectopic pregnancy law in MO, etc.) And the fact of the matter is, the dominant voice in the tradition is this other voice that I have cited--abortion is required to save a life and permitted in other cases. Which is why Rabbis for Repro (rabbisforrepro.org) has rabbis of every single denomination, including the heads of the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movement, the former president of YCT, why the project partners routinely with JOFA and Yeshivat Maharat, etc. (There is no official "Orthodox" denomination the way there is the others, for those just tuning in.)
A really good question. Since the texts state that for the first 40 days there is no legal issue at all. The fetus is "just water". Then after that, it's treated as a piece of property right up until birth, and people are allowed to destroy their own property if they want. Maybe the most generous interpretation is that they're trying to say just not to make the decision lightly? Which still feels condescending to me.
I mean, I have no problem with saying "don't make the decision lightly" -- but there are lots of decisions one shouldn't make lightly, and they're not talked about as though there's a prohibition one might be transgressing.
(One minor quibble: it's treated as a piece of one's own body, which in traditional halachic thought is _not_ the same thing as a piece of one's own property, in a lot of complicated ways.)
If getting a tattoo is out… the starting point of “don’t” makes more sense. But then the question of saving life, avoiding harm, etc comes in which is rarely at issue with e.g. tattoos.
The thing that always gets me is the statistic that very religious communities tend to terminate pregnancies at the same rate as other communities. The hypocrisy and deceit is unnerving.
Thanks for all of your work and activism around this, Rabbi.
Another available resource for pregnant people who need assistance getting information and abortion services in the US is the auntienetwork subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/auntienetwork/
I always take heart from the nuance presented in these discussions. My own mother, based on lifelong health issues, was given the option to terminate her pregnancy if it looked I wasn't going to be a viable birth. She made up her mind to carry the pregnancy even if it affected her own life, but she never begrudged any other person who'd choose differently. So, despite what the bumper stickers in my town say, her child was, in fact, her choice.
I like the idea of the Hebrew concept "pikuach nefesh," protecting a life above all other factors. It's something I wish other religious figures would take to heart on issues like these.
Question about the Emden text, about the adulterous woman! Is the adultery just part of the background of this specific case, or is the argument being made that the woe/shame of having an illegitimate child is itself the justification?