Biblical Phrases Against Abortion

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

Wisdom 12:5-7:

"...These merciless murderers of children, and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our fathers, that the land that is dearest of all to you might receive a worth colony of God's children."

Some might say, "Okay, obviously God disapproves of infanticide, but that doesn't say that the fetus is a human being."

Psalm 51:7:

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."

Now, how can a fetus have sin if a fetus doesn't have a soul, and how can a fetus have a soul if a fetus is a blob of cells and not a human?

[Jrosemary]

Re an individual sperm and egg: this seems to me an issue of contraception. Traditional Judaism tends to frown on contraception. A husband and wife, ideally, would be open to their sperm and egg connecting and ultimately creating new life.

And the question is: why? Is a 1/2 soul in each sperm and egg?

No. This has to do with the mitzvah (commandment) to be fruitful and multiply found in Genesis 1:28. Nonetheless, there is no outright ban on birth control in any branch of Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is the most restrictive, but nonetheless views certain forms of contraceptives--and the use of contraceptives under certain circumstances--as halachically permissible.

There are cases, however, in which birth control is permissible. I don't know what the halachic decisions regarding things like stem cell research are--that goes far beyond my halachic knowledge. (I suspect Orthodox Judaism may have different teachings than my own Conservative branch on this matter--or both may still be debating the issue.)

Let me know what you find out if you ever look into it. I'd like to know.

You asked for it, so I'm delivering. Eliot Dorff--a Conservative rabbi who is an expert in the philosophy of Conservative Judaism and bioethics--gave this response to the question of stem cell research and halacha. The Conservative Law Committee overwhelmingly adopted it. It should answer both your questions on stem cell research and give you more information on how Judaism views the fetus. This particular response, however, is only 'official' in Conservative Judaism; other branches will have their own responses. Ok, here goes:

Today, scientists are especially interested in doing research on embryonic stem cells, which can and do transform themselves into all of the tissues of the body (i.e., they are “pluripotent�). From the study of these cells, scientists hope to accomplish at least the following three things:

1. Learn about the process of cell specialization. How do stem cells decide which tissues to become and how many to make of each type of tissue? We know that turning genes on and off is central to the process of human development, but we do not know much about how these decisions are made in the process of human development or how stem cells are turned on or off. Some of our most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell specialization and cell division. A better understanding of normal cell development is necessary for scientists to learn what goes wrong with cells when cancer or birth defects occur so that, hopefully, some day such abnormal developments can be arrested and reversed.

2. Test drugs more safely and efficiently. Research on pluripotent cells could also dramatically change the way we develop drugs and test them for safety. Only the drugs proven to be safe and effective in cell line testing would graduate to further testing in laboratory animals and ultimately in human subjects.

3. Develop cell therapies. Each year, thousands of people die for want of a suitable organ for transplant. Pluripotent stem cell research has the potential to resolve this problem. Once we know how to direct such cells to create specific kinds of cells and how to turn them on and off, we have the potential of using them to create whatever organs are needed.

Furthermore, stem cell therapies may cure conditions that organ transplantation has not yet been able to cure. Specifically, scientists hope to use cell therapies to cure Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injuries, strokes, burns, heart diseases, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Preliminary work in mice and other animals has already demonstrated that healthy heart muscle cells transplanted into a diseased heart successfully repopulate the heart tissue and work together with the host cells to repair diseased heart muscle; it is therefore not simply a “pipe dream� to imagine that the same kind of therapy might work in humans.

Embryonic stem cells may be derived from any of the following sources:

1. Aborted fetuses. This method, of course, immediately raises the issue of the conditions under which abortion is permitted, if ever. In the context of America’s “abortion wars,� researchers do not plan on using this source of stem cells.

2. Frozen embryos destined to be discarded. Couples having difficulty conceiving a child may use in vitro fertilization (IVF)– that is, fertilization in a glass dish – in that effort. When the couple has had as many children as they plan to have, they commonly ask that their remaining frozen embryos be destroyed so that they no longer have to pay for the storage. But with the informed consent of such couples, the embryos may be used instead for medical research. It is this method that most scientists interested in carrying out embryonic stem cell research plan on using.

3. Stem-cell “farms.� Very few couples, though, agree to have their frozen embryos used for medical research, probably because producing them in the first place was so expensive and emotionally draining for the infertile couple. For that reason and others, the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine of Eastern Virginia Medical School revealed that it had procured sperm and eggs from donors who had expressly agreed that their gametes would be used not to overcome infertility but for medical research. This raised a storm of protest.

In addition, scientists are experimenting with several other methods to produce stem cells: Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), the same technique that has been used for cloning plants and animals; extracting a cell from an embryo; and even prompting the egg cell alone to produce stem cells.

Fundamental Jewish Perspectives Relevant to Stem Cell Research

Jewish tradition holds that our bodies belong to God; we have them on loan during our lease on life. God, as owner of our bodies, can and does impose conditions on the use of our bodies. Among those is the requirement that we seek to preserve human life and health (pikuah nefesh). As a corollary to this, we have a duty to seek to develop new cures for human diseases.

Jewish tradition accepts both natural and artificial means to overcome illness. Physicians are the agents and partners of God in the ongoing act of healing. Thus, the mere fact that human beings created a specific therapy rather than finding it in nature does not impugn its legitimacy. On the contrary, we have a duty to God to develop and use any therapies that can aid us in taking care of our bodies, which ultimately belong to God. At the same time, all human beings, regardless of their levels of ability and disability, are created in the image of God and are to be valued as such.

Moreover, we are not God. We are not omniscient, as God is, and so we must take whatever precautions we can to ensure that our actions do not harm ourselves or our world in the very effort to improve them. A certain epistemological humility, in other words, must pervade whatever we do, especially when we are pushing the scientific envelope, as we are in stem cell research. We are, says Genesis 2:15, supposed to work the world and preserve it; it is that balance that is our Divine duty.

Jewish Views of Genetic Materials

During the first 40 days of gestation, the fetus, according to the Talmud, is “as if it were simply water,� and from the 41st day until birth it is “like the thigh of its mother.� Neither men nor women may amputate their thigh at will because that would be injuring their bodies, which belong to God. Thus, according to Jewish law, abortion is generally prohibited, not as an act of murder (the Catholic position) but as an act of self-injury. On the other hand, if the thigh turns gangrenous, then both men and women have the positive duty to have their thigh amputated in order to save their lives. Similarly, if the woman’s life or health is at stake, an abortion must be performed to save the life or the physical or mental health of the woman, for she is without question a full-fledged human being with all the protections of Jewish law, while the fetus is still only part of the woman’s body.

When there is an elevated risk to the woman beyond that of normal pregnancy but not so much as to constitute a clear threat to her life or health, abortion is permitted but not required; that is an assessment that the woman should make in consultation with the father, other members of her family, her physician, her rabbi, and anyone else who can help her grapple with the many issues involved in her particular case. Some recent authorities, including the Conservative Movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, would also permit abortions in cases where testing indicates that the fetus is “severely defective,� suffering from serious malformations or terminal diseases like Tay-Sachs.

The upshot of the Jewish stance on abortion, then, is that if a fetus had been aborted for legitimate reasons under Jewish law, then the aborted fetus may be used to advance our efforts to preserve the life and health of others. If we may, and even should, use the bodies of human beings to enable others to live through organ transplantation, how much more so may we use a part of a body – in this case, the fetus – for that purpose. Using aborted fetuses to do research is not as directly and clearly permitted as using them for the cures themselves once they have been developed; but since aborted fetusus would otherwise just be discarded or buried, we may and should extend the permission to use them for research that holds out the hope for curing diseases and saving lives.

Stem cells for research purposes, though, can also be procured from donated sperm and eggs mixed together in a petri dish and cultured there. Since genetic materials outside the uterus have no chance of developing into a human being, they have even less legal status in Jewish law than zygotes and embryos in the first stages of gestation, when the Talmud classifies them “as if it were simply water.� Abortion is still prohibited during that time except for therapeutic purposes, for in the uterus such gametes have the potential of growing into a human being, but outside the womb, at least as of now, they have no such potential.

In our own day, when we understand that the fertilized egg cell has all the DNA that will ultimately produce a human being, we must clearly have respect for human embryos and even for human gametes alone (sperm and eggs), for they are the building blocks of human procreation. That is, given modern scientific knowledge, we cannot simply say that since the sources of Jewish law never talk about embryos outside the womb, no law exists on the subject, and we may rule however we wish. We Conservative Jews, who take an historical approach to Jewish law, must take modern science into account in our decisions. For that matter, even the Rabbis who proclaimed the embryo in the first 40 days to be “as if it were simply water� clearly were announcing an analogy and not an equivalence, for they say that the embryo is “as if� it were water, and they clearly knew that from that water a child might develop, unlike any glass of drinking water!

Still, while we should have respect for gametes and embryos, they may be discarded if they are not going to be used for some good purpose. Since they cannot become a human being outside a woman’s uterus, their status is even less than that of an embryo in the first 40 days of gestation, and thus we should not prohibit simply discarding them. Moreover, when a couple agrees to donate such embryos for purposes of medical research, our respect for such pre-embryos and embryos outside the womb should certainly be superseded by our duty to seek to cure diseases.

As a result, frozen embryos originally created for purposes of overcoming infertility may be discarded (presumably after the couple has had as many children as they plan to produce or has given up in that effort), but they may also be used for good purposes. One such purpose is to produce stem cells for medical research. Indeed, couples should be encouraged to donate their extra embryos for such efforts.

What about creating embryos specifically for the purpose of doing medical research? That lacks the justification of using materials that would just be discarded anyway, but creating embryos specifically for research is nevertheless permissible under one condition.

Unlike the Catholic view, the problem in doing this for the Jewish tradition is not that it would amount to murder to destroy an embryo outside the uterus, for in that state an embryo has even lesser status than an embryo in its first 40 days in utero, much less that of a person. Neither would procuring the sperm for “farmed� embryos through masturbation constitute “wasting seed,� for here the purpose of masturbating would be specifically to use the man’s semen for the consecrated purpose of finding ways to heal illnesses.

Procuring eggs from a woman for this purpose, however, does pose a problem. It is not so much that this requires subjecting her to an invasive medical procedure, for now eggs can be procured without surgery and with minimal risk or pain through laparoscopy. To produce the eggs, though, the woman must be exposed to the drugs that produce hyper-ovulation, and there is some evidence that repeated use of such drugs increases a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer.

While such risks may be undertaken to overcome a woman’s own infertility – or even, I have held [see Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1998)], to donate eggs once or twice to infertile couples – taking such risks for medical research is less warranted, especially since embryos can also be obtained from frozen stores that couples plan on discarding and possibly from some of the other new methods that researchers are now developing. Thus, while obtaining embryonic stem cells from frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded is best, embryos may also be specifically created for purposes of medical research on the condition that the woman providing the eggs for such efforts does so only once or twice.

Other Factors in this Decision

Given that the materials for stem cell research can be procured in permissible ways, the technology itself is morally neutral. It gains its moral valence on the basis of what we do with it. The question, then, reduces to a risk-benefit analysis of stem cell research. In this context, two things should be noted:

1. Jewish tradition sees the provision of health care as a communal responsibility. Especially since much of the basic science in this area was funded by the government, the government has the right to require private companies to provide their applications of that science to those who cannot afford them at reduced rates or, if necessary, even for free. At the same time, Jewish tradition does not demand socialism, and, for many good reasons, we in the United States have adopted a modified, capitalistic system of economics. The trick, then, will be to balance access to applications of the new technology with the legitimate right of a private company to make a profit on its efforts to develop and market applications of stem cell research.

2. As difficult as it may be, we must draw a clear line between uses of this or any other technology for cure, which are to be applauded, as against uses of technology for enhancement, which must be approached with extreme caution. Jews have felt the brunt of campaigns of eugenics and so we are especially sensitive to creating a model human being that is to be replicated through some of the technologies that have evolved in our time and in times to come. Moreover, when Jews see a disabled human being, we are not to recoil from the disability or count our blessings for not being disabledin that way;rather, we are commanded to recite ablessing thanking God for making people different.

The potential of embryonic stem cell research for creating organs for transplant and cures for diseases is, at least in theory, both awesome and hopeful. In light of our Divine mandate to seek to maintain life and health, I would argue that, from a Jewish perspective, we have a duty to proceed with this research.

[scourge99]

And the question is: why? Is a 1/2 soul in each sperm and egg?

No. This has to do with the mitzvah (commandment) to be fruitful and multiply found in Genesis 1:28. Nonetheless, there is no outright ban on birth control in any branch of Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is the most restrictive, but nonetheless views certain forms of contraceptives--and the use of contraceptives under certain circumstances--as halachically permissible.

that answers the "what". Not the "why".

You asked for it, so I'm delivering. Eliot Dorff--a Conservative rabbi who is an expert in the philosophy of Conservative Judaism and bioethics--gave this response to the question of stem cell research and halacha. The Conservative Law Committee overwhelmingly adopted it. It should answer both your questions on stem cell research and give you more information on how Judaism views the fetus. This particular response, however, is only 'official' in Conservative Judaism; other branches will have their own responses. Ok, here goes:

....

Well that's a fairly good overview of what some believe but it still doesn't explain WHY! Why someone believes is always far more interesting and enlightening than WHAT someone believes. Its also far more conducive to debate.

[Jrosemary]

Well that's a fairly good overview of what some believe but it still doesn't explain WHY! Why someone believes is always far more interesting and enlightening than WHAT someone believes. Its also far more conducive to debate.

I don't know if it's an overview of 'what some believe' so much as a halachic interpretation. It's not that Eliot Dorff is saying: "here's what Conservative Jews should believe." Some Conservative Jews will never look at the response our Law Committee voted in. I didn't look at it until today--in fact, I wasn't even sure that the Law Committee had prepared and voted on responses to the question of stem cell research yet. I looked it up in order to answer your post.

Instead, Dorff presented what he felt was a halachically sound response to the issue of stem cell research. In other words, Judaism has this whole body of law, derived from the Torah, the rest of the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew Bible), the Talmud, innumerable commentaries, etc. How does stem cell research fit in with the principles and precedents of that law? That's the question Dorff answered.

So perhaps the question becomes: why follow that law? Why should a given Jew let it influence her opinion on stem cell research?

And the answer will vary with every Jew you meet. Heck, the same Jew might give you three different and seemingly contradictory answers.

Some Jews care about halacha for the sake of tradition. Some Jews care about halacha because they believe that God inspired it and wishes us to follow it as part of our covenantal relationship with Him. Some Jews care about halacha because it's so deeply embedded in our culture. Some Jews care about halacha because some of our best and brightest have argued it out for centuries, offering multiple interpretations and thereby leaving us an unimaginably rich body of work.

Some might say all of the above. And others will say they don't care about halacha in the least; thank you very much.

I'll be honest; I don't have a firm view on stem cell research. I do respect Eliot Dorff, however, and his interpretations of halacha. His response is certainly something that will weigh with me--but it's not likely to be the only thing I base my opinion on.

[scourge99]

Well that's a fairly good overview of what some believe but it still doesn't explain WHY! Why someone believes is always far more interesting and enlightening than WHAT someone believes. Its also far more conducive to debate.

I don't know if it's an overview of 'what some believe' so much as a halachic interpretation. It's not that Eliot Dorff is saying: "here's what Conservative Jews should believe." Some Conservative Jews will never look at the response our Law Committee voted in. I didn't look at it until today--in fact, I wasn't even sure that the Law Committee had prepared and voted on responses to the question of stem cell research yet. I looked it up in order to answer your post.

Instead, Dorff presented what he felt was a halachically sound response to the issue of stem cell research. In other words, Judaism has this whole body of law, derived from the Torah, the rest of the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew Bible), the Talmud, innumerable commentaries, etc. How does stem cell research fit in with the principles and precedents of that law? That's the question Dorff answered.

No. Not quite. He answered what people should believe not how he or others came to that conclusion. That's what I want to know. Like I said before, knowing WHAT someone believes is fairly boring, but knowing why is different. More on this below.

So perhaps the question becomes: why follow that law? Why should a given Jew let it influence her opinion on stem cell research?

No the question is how did they come up with the law exactly. What is the exegesis that lead to these abortion, stem cell laws, etc?

Some Jews care about halacha for the sake of tradition. Some Jews care about halacha because they believe that God inspired it and wishes us to follow it as part of our covenantal relationship with Him. Some Jews care about halacha because it's so deeply embedded in our culture. Some Jews care about halacha because some of our best and brightest have argued it out for centuries, offering multiple interpretations and thereby leaving us an unimaginably rich body of work.

I don't really care why or why not people follow jewish law. That's irrelevant. I want to know the justification and reasoning the law makers and bible interpreters formulated such laws.

[Jrosemary]

No. Not quite. He answered what people should believe not how he or others came to that conclusion. That's what I want to know.

Just to clarify, Dorff didn't hand down this responsum from on high. He presented this halachic argument to the rest of the Law Committee of Conservative Judaism who then voted on whether or not to accept it. No Jew ever gets far by telling other Jews what to believe--hence his responsum is an argument that this is a sound interpretation of halacha and Jewish principles and therefore a correct stance for Conservative Judaism.

He explains how he reached his conclusions, referencing both parts of the Talmud and precedence in Jewish law, in the responsum that I quoted. Therefore, I don't understand why you're asking how he came to his conclusions.

If you're questioning why he accepts Jewish teachings--well, ok, that may be valid but it's not a question I can answer for you. Please see my post above for some examples of why individual Jews may value halacha and the Jewish tradition, but I'm not going to dare speak for another Jew.

However, it would seem that's not your question:

I don't really care why or why not people follow Jewish law. That's irrelevant. I want to know the justification and reasoning the law makers and bible interpreters formulated such laws.

You also say:

No the question is how did they come up with the law exactly. What is the exegesis that lead to these abortion, stem cell laws, etc?

Are you asking me to explain, in a post on these forums, some four thousand years of Jewish history? Or even just 2000 years of rabbinic commentary?

I've given, in a post above, an important passage from the Torah that has been enormously influential in rabbinic Judaism in deciding issues concerning abortion. I've explained, to the best of my abilities, the implications of that passage (the exegesis) and the precise teachings of traditional Judaism on the issue of abortion (largely repeated in Dorff's responsum, which also referenced certain Talmudic passages and explained how they have a bearing on the abortion and stem cell issues.)

I've also made a stab--a poor one, perhaps--at explaining why many Jews see halacha as binding or at least influential in their lives.

I may seem dense to you, but I don't know what else you're looking for. I'm sorry, but I can't take you through every Talmudic reference or commentary on the issue. I'm not a Talmudic scholar, which may be what you require. You seem to require someone more knowledgable than myself, at any event. (Although if I come across a good book on the matter I'll be sure to recommend it to you.) Neither can I take you into the mind of the rabbinic commentators--much less into the mind of the authors of the Torah, Tanakh, etc.

As to the stem cell issue--I can't think of anything to add to Dorff's responsum. He did, in my opinion, an excellent job of explaining the Jewish principles behind his interpretation of the halachic issues surrounding the question.

If you wish to try to explain what you're asking in a different way, to help me understand what you're driving at, I'll be happy to revisit your question.

[scourge99]

No. Not quite. He answered what people should believe not how he or others came to that conclusion. That's what I want to know.

Just to clarify, Dorff didn't hand down this responsum from on high. He presented this halachic argument to the rest of the Law Committee of Conservative Judaism who then voted on whether or not to accept it. No Jew ever gets far by telling other Jews what to believe--hence his responsum is an argument that this is a sound interpretation of halacha and Jewish principles and therefore a correct stance for Conservative Judaism.

Once again, this is interesting to know but irrelevant to my questions.

He explains how he reached his conclusions, referencing both parts of the Talmud and precedence in Jewish law, in the responsum that I quoted. Therefore, I don't understand why you're asking how he came to his conclusions.

No, what he does is make vague references and assumptions. Obviously these people are much more educated in this area than I and when they make such assumptions they are probably agreed upon by the others. But to someone from the outside such as myself they seem unsubstantiated. Now I don't expect anyone to explain every single last detail but when I do bring up an issue I expect that there should be at least some answer for it whether you know it or not.

For example, court rulings often cite previous case law. Often times the courts directly reference these cases wen substantiating their verdicts. This gives traceability and substantiation to the ruling. But that is not what he did. For example:

"if a fetus had been aborted for legitimate reasons under Jewish law," (what are legitimate reasons under Jewish law?)

"Unlike the Catholic view, the problem in doing this for the Jewish tradition is not that it would amount to murder to destroy an embryo outside the uterus, for in that state an embryo has even lesser status than an embryo in its first 40 days in utero, much less that of a person. Neither would procuring the sperm for “farmed� embryos through masturbation constitute “wasting seed,� for here the purpose of masturbating would be specifically to use the man’s semen for the consecrated purpose of finding ways to heal illnesses. "

If you're questioning why he accepts Jewish teachings

I'm not. I said I wasn't in the last post.

I don't really care why or why not people follow Jewish law. That's irrelevant. I want to know the justification and reasoning the law makers and bible interpreters formulated such laws.

You also say:

No the question is how did they come up with the law exactly. What is the exegesis that lead to these abortion, stem cell laws, etc?

Are you asking me to explain, in a post on these forums, some four thousand years of Jewish history? Or even just 2000 years of rabbinic commentary?

No. Just like if I ask a biologist a question about evolution I would expect him to focus on the specifics of the question, not go into a never ending speech of every aspect of biology.

Obviously some questions can have very complex answers. However, I believe I at least have enough of a fundamental basis that such an occurrence is unlikely.

I've given, in a post above, an important passage from the Torah that has been enormously influential in rabbinic Judaism in deciding issues concerning abortion. I've explained, to the best of my abilities, the implications of that passage (the exegesis) and the precise teachings of traditional Judaism on the issue of abortion (largely repeated in Dorff's responsum, which also referenced certain Talmudic passages and explained how they have a bearing on the abortion and stem cell issues.)

And I asked why you think punishment is about harm to the fetus rather than a violation of property. We see many places in the bible where its more about a violation of the property of a man than it is about the fair treatment of women. E.G, if a man and a woman are caught sleeping together the man has to pay the father. Its because of passages such as these I'm inclined to believe that punishment is doled out NOT because harming a fetus is an affront to God or the "potential person" but because its viewed as damaging the fathers property. Notice that even in the passage you cited its about retribution for the father, not God, not the woman, and not the child.

I'm not a Talmudic scholar, which may be what you require. You seem to require someone more knowledgable than myself, at any event.

Well if you wish to bow out that is your choice. All I am asking is your honest opinion and a genuine analysis of my points. Nothing more.

[Jrosemary]

And I asked why you think punishment is about harm to the fetus rather than a violation of property. We see many places in the bible where its more about a violation of the property of a man than it is about the fair treatment of women. E.G, if a man and a woman are caught sleeping together the man has to pay the father. Its because of passages such as these I'm inclined to believe that punishment is doled out NOT because harming a fetus is an affront to God or the "potential person" but because its viewed as damaging the fathers property. Notice that even in the passage you cited its about retribution for the father, not God, not the woman, and not the child.

Ah . . . ok, I just don't see the relevancy of your point. Even if it is a property issue, it would still be clear that the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus. And I don't think harming the fetus is viewed as an affront to God, except indirectly. It's viewed as harming the mother, a bearer of God's image, and that's viewed as an affront to God.

But let's look at a clear-cut property issue. According to Mishpatim, the section of Exodus that largely deals with slavery (and the same section, in fact, that gives the law regarding what happens if two men fighting shove into a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry or die) makes it plain that if you beat your slave to death you're liable to pay with your life. Here's the passage:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other's property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

You can't use lethal force on your slave or you're liable to be executed. Commentaries on this verse say the master can't use a rod anywhere on the body that is especially vulnerable. At any event, if the slave dies there and then, the master is assumed to have killed the slave deliberately and potentially faces the death penalty. If the slave lingers for a couple of days, the master is given the benefit of the doubt.

However, also according to Mishpatim, if you've caused bodily injury to your slave, you must release him:

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave , male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. (Exodus 21: 26-27)

So if any permanent harm came to your slave when you beat him, you must free the slave. These passages, by the way, refer to non-Israelite slaves; those who have the least protection.

(If the slaves were fellow Israelites, it would be eye-for-eye, etc. Again, even though in practice you didn't literally take an eye for an eye in any case. See the famous commentator Maimonides: "There never was any Rabbi, from the time of Moses, who ruled, based on an eye-for-an-eye, that he who blinds another should himself be blinded.")

The whole concept of slavery is hardly ideal, but it was the reality in the ancient world. Commentators have used these verses to reaffirm the humanity of all slaves. (And Jews and Christians alike have used them, ultimately, to argue against slavery altogether.) The Etz Hayim Torah and Commentary (which is the one you'll find in the pews of many Conservative synagogues) comments:

A master who causes his slave irreparable bodily injury is guilty of aggravated assault. He has robbed his slave of his humanity and dignity; for that, the slave gains his or her freedom. This biblical law, like that of verses 20-21, has no parallel in other Near Eastern legislation . . .

To harm a slave is to inflict harm on a human being, a bearer of God's image. No other ancient society, and few premodern societies, granted slaves this measure of humanity.

That's a reference to Genesis 1:27:

And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Even if another human being is your property--again, a clear-cut property issue--harming that person is still harming a full-fledged human who bears the image of God; hence the punishment must take account of that.

But the Torah does not view the fetus as a full-fledged human being; a bearer of
God's image. Otherwise, when two men fight and cause a woman to miscarry, the one judged responsible would potentially face the death penalty. (Again, death penalties were not liberally handed out in practice, but the principle of a life-for-a-life remains.) Because the Torah doesn't view the fetus as a life, a miscarriage is regarded as harm to the mother. Here's the Etz Hayim's commentary:

Applying this text to all forms of miscarriage, Jewish law requires different forms of mourning for a fetus than for someone born alive. Full mourning rites are not appropriate for a fetal loss . . .

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. It is, however, an injury to the woman; and as such, abortion is generally prohibited. It is allowed only to save the physical or mental health of the mother.

I hope this helped.

Edit: I forgot to address this:

"if a fetus had been aborted for legitimate reasons under Jewish law," (what are legitimate reasons under Jewish law?)

Actually, I've addressed this numerous times now and Dorff explains it in his responsum. Jewish law permits an abortion only when the life, physical health or mental health of the mother is at stake. Again, an abortion is considered harm to the mother, so you perform one only to avoid greater harm to the mother.

[scourge99]

And I asked why you think punishment is about harm to the fetus rather than a violation of property. We see many places in the bible where its more about a violation of the property of a man than it is about the fair treatment of women. E.G, if a man and a woman are caught sleeping together the man has to pay the father. Its because of passages such as these I'm inclined to believe that punishment is doled out NOT because harming a fetus is an affront to God or the "potential person" but because its viewed as damaging the fathers property. Notice that even in the passage you cited its about retribution for the father, not God, not the woman, and not the child.

Ah . . . ok, I just don't see the relevancy of your point. Even if it is a property issue, it would still be clear that the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus.

"the mother's life is more valuable to who?" is the question I'd like to know. Based on this passage alone I'm unable to determine the answer.

And I don't think harming the fetus is viewed as an affront to God, except indirectly. It's viewed as harming the mother, a bearer of God's image, and that's viewed as an affront to God.

Where do you get this idea that harming the "bearer of God's image" is an affront to God? I don't see how that follows from any of the passages mentioned so far. In fact, the bible condones harming bearers of God's imagine in many circumstances.

But let's look at a clear-cut property issue. According to Mishpatim, the section of Exodus that largely deals with slavery (and the same section, in fact, that gives the law regarding what happens if two men fighting shove into a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry or die) makes it plain that if you beat your slave to death you're liable to pay with your life. Here's the passage:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other's property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

You can't use lethal force on your slave or you're liable to be executed. Commentaries on this verse say the master can't use a rod anywhere on the body that is especially vulnerable. At any event, if the slave dies there and then, the master is assumed to have killed the slave deliberately and potentially faces the death penalty. If the slave lingers for a couple of days, the master is given the benefit of the doubt.

However, also according to Mishpatim, if you've caused bodily injury to your slave, you must release him:

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave , male or female, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth. (Exodus 21: 26-27)

So if any permanent harm came to your slave when you beat him, you must free the slave. These passages, by the way, refer to non-Israelite slaves; those who have the least protection.

(If the slaves were fellow Israelites, it would be eye-for-eye, etc. Again, even though in practice you didn't literally take an eye for an eye in any case. See the famous commentator Maimonides: "There never was any Rabbi, from the time of Moses, who ruled, based on an eye-for-an-eye, that he who blinds another should himself be blinded.")

I think you've diluted these passages a bit.

You seem to be under the impression that this was some sort of primitive medical test. That if a man beats his slave and he dies within two days then it means that the man is guilty for the slaves death. But if he beats the slave and he doesn't die after 2 or more days then the slave master must not have been at fault for the slaves death and the slave must have died for some other unrelated or greater affliction. That is something you interject on the passage of your own accord and as far as I know without just cause. I find no reason to believe that this passage means anything but what it clearly says. That masters are free to beat their slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days (and as long as they don't cause permanent or debilitating injuries, as we see from other passages)

Furthermore, you go on to overgeneralize the next passage about physical harm. The passage says that if you cause permanent bodily harm to a list of specified organs and parts then the master is to be punished. You overgeneralize this to ANY bodily harm which, once again, I find to be your own unsubstantiated opinion interjected over the plain and simple reading of the text. A slave master is free to beat his Jewish slave as long as he doesn't knock out teeth, blind him, or cause other permanent and debilitating injuries, period.

The whole concept of slavery is hardly ideal, but it was the reality in the ancient world. Commentators have used these verses to reaffirm the humanity of all slaves. (And Jews and Christians alike have used them, ultimately, to argue against slavery altogether.) The Etz Hayim Torah and Commentary (which is the one you'll find in the pews of many Conservative synagogues) comments:

A master who causes his slave irreparable bodily injury is guilty of aggravated assault. He has robbed his slave of his humanity and dignity; for that, the slave gains his or her freedom. This biblical law, like that of verses 20-21, has no parallel in other Near Eastern legislation . . .

To harm a slave is to inflict harm on a human being, a bearer of God's image. No other ancient society, and few premodern societies, granted slaves this measure of humanity.

Yet slaves were NOT seen as equals despite all the spin and double speak. And that is the point. The bible condones slavery, condones unconditional beatings, and condones a lesser status amongst men. It is not a glass-half-full outlook against a glass-half-empty, the glass is simply empty from the start. Slavery, beatings, and lesser status amongst men is wrong as anyone in this day and age can plainly reason with our intellects and dare I say intuition alone.

I have noticed that Bible readers of today wish to harmonize their personal sense of morality with the Bible and by doing such contort, downplay and often outright ignore straight forward passages for interpretation that better match their own ideals.

That's a reference to Genesis 1:27:

And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Even if another human being is your property--again, a clear-cut property issue--harming that person is still harming a full-fledged human who bears the image of God; hence the punishment must take account of that.

But ONLY if you cause permanent or debilitating bodily damage in one of the forms listed. You overgeneralize this to mean any bodily damage which it clearly does not say despite the attempts by others who claim such without any substantiation.

But the Torah does not view the fetus as a full-fledged human being; a bearer of
God's image. Otherwise, when two men fight and cause a woman to miscarry, the one judged responsible would potentially face the death penalty. (Again, death penalties were not liberally handed out in practice, but the principle of a life-for-a-life remains.) Because the Torah doesn't view the fetus as a life, a miscarriage is regarded as harm to the mother. Here's the Etz Hayim's commentary:

Applying this text to all forms of miscarriage, Jewish law requires different forms of mourning for a fetus than for someone born alive. Full mourning rites are not appropriate for a fetal loss . . .

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. It is, however, an injury to the woman; and as such, abortion is generally prohibited. It is allowed only to save the physical or mental health of the mother.

I partially agree with your interpretation here. Though I wouldn't go as far to say its about retribution for harming the woman since its not clear whether its retribution for the father of the child or the mother or some other reason.

"if a fetus had been aborted for legitimate reasons under Jewish law," (what are legitimate reasons under Jewish law?)

Actually, I've addressed this numerous times now and Dorff explains it in his responsum. Jewish law permits an abortion only when the life, physical health or mental health of the mother is at stake. Again, an abortion is considered harm to the mother, so you perform one only to avoid greater harm to the mother.

Thank you. But as always I want to know why. I'm curious what passages or precedent this interpretation is derived from.

[Jrosemary]

"the mother's life is more valuable to who?" is the question I'd like to know. Based on this passage alone I'm unable to determine the answer . . .

The bible condones slavery, condones unconditional beatings, and condones a lesser status amongst men. It is not a glass-half-full outlook against a glass-half-empty, the glass is simply empty from the start. Slavery, beatings, and lesser status amongst men is wrong as anyone in this day and age can plainly reason with our intellects and dare I say intuition alone . . .

I have noticed that Bible readers of today wish to harmonize their personal sense of morality with the Bible and by doing such contort, downplay and often outright ignore straight forward passages for interpretation that better match their own ideals.

I think a large part of the problem we're having is that you're positing a literalist view of Scripture that Judaism doesn't share. You seem to want all the answers from Torah alone--but Judaism doesn't view the matter that way. You can't get the answers from Torah alone.

Again, all I've set out do here is explain the traditional Jewish teaching on abortion. So I can't give you the answers to that or slavery or any other issue from the Torah alone. I don't think the Torah has them by itself. It requires commentary and human reason.

We don't read the Bible with a literalist viewpoint or follow its words literally, and never have. Hence Maimonides, who lived from about 1135 C.E.--1204 C.E., saying that no rabbi, from the time of Moses on, has ever taken an eye-for-an-eye to mean that if a man blinds someone else, that man should be blinded! That's not how we deal with Scripture. We always bring our human brains and reasoning to bear on Scripture.

Moreover, we view the Torah through the lens of the Talmud--which contains centuries of arguments and debates on the interpretation and application of the Torah and which tends to preserve both minority and majority opinions. There's also midrash, which are extra-biblical stories about the stories found in the Torah; sort of a rabbinic 'fan fiction' of the Torah. All of this carries weight in Judaism.

I can't overstress this--we are not biblical fundamentalists. We don't read the Torah looking for all the answers. So I think you are quite right to criticize the fact that the Torah allows slavery; more on that below.

Bearing all this in mind, if I seem to overgeneralize--and I am, I suppose, from a literalist viewpoint--it's because I'm not looking at just the words of the Torah, but at what, to Jews, those words seem to imply. In other words, what are the implications of the Torah? If you must set your slave free if you maim him, what are the implications of that law? If you can potentially face execution for beating a slave to death, what are the implications? If the life-for-a-life principle doesn't come to bear whan a man causes a woman to miscarry, what are the implications of that?

Jews have argued about these implications for centuries and centuries--and all these arguments and debates are invaluable in helping determine halacha (Jewish law) for today. The Torah, the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, other Jewish commentaries and precedents, plus our own brains, reasoning and moral conscience all intersect when we deal with Scripture and the implications of Scripture.

So when I talk about the implications of a man beating his slave to death, I'm relying largely on Jewish understandings of the implications of that law. Judaism understands the principle behind that to be that a slave is still a full human being--not that a master should figure out a way to kill his slave slowly enough so that the poor bloke doesn't die immediately and the master escapes the death penalty. According to Judaism, as human beings, we have a moral responsibility in how we read Scripture. We have to bring our moral conscience and reasoning to the text.

Therefore, we don't have to harmonize the Torah to match our own moral ideals. There's a good deal in the Torah that we can't so harmonize--including the fact that the Torah shows God allowing slavery (regardless of whether that was merely a concession on God's part, rather than the ideal God imagines and even if the Torah's laws regarding slavery were a sliver more humane than those of other near east cultures of the same time period.)

Instead of trying to twist the Torah to match our own moral ideals, we use our human reasoning, moral conscience and the larger principle of liberation found repeatedly in the Torah to criticize the fact that the Torah allows slavery. If that doesn't make sense, just remember that in the Torah itself, both Abraham and Moses stand toe to toe with God and argue with Him--Abraham questions God's justice and reminds Him that the Judge of all the earth must Himself be just; Moses shames God into relenting in His anger against the Israelite people. Then we have the daughters of Zelophehad, who bring a case before Moses questioning the justice of God's law. Moses brings the case before God, who agrees with the daughters of Zelophehad and changes His law accordingly. We've got plenty of precedent for arguing with the Torah's vision of God and law right in the Torah itself.

All I've been doing here is trying to show you where, in Judaism, the conversation about abortion starts and trying to give some idea of how we ended with the traditional Jewish teaching we have today: that the life and health of the mother is, for us, the most important part of the question.

As far as human life being valuable to God, largely because humans are the image of God--the conversation starts in two places in the Torah:

And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

That's part of the first creation story. After the flood-story, we have God telling Noah and his family (who now represent all of humanity):

But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man!

Whoever sheds the blood of man
By man shall his blood be shed
For in His image
Did God make man. (Genesis 9:5-6)

Again, this is where we start. But we never end with a literal reading of the Torah. We bring our brains, our reasoning, our moral conscience and all the interpretations and arguments about these words over our long history to bear.

[scourge99]

"the mother's life is more valuable to who?" is the question I'd like to know. Based on this passage alone I'm unable to determine the answer . . .

The bible condones slavery, condones unconditional beatings, and condones a lesser status amongst men. It is not a glass-half-full outlook against a glass-half-empty, the glass is simply empty from the start. Slavery, beatings, and lesser status amongst men is wrong as anyone in this day and age can plainly reason with our intellects and dare I say intuition alone . . .

I have noticed that Bible readers of today wish to harmonize their personal sense of morality with the Bible and by doing such contort, downplay and often outright ignore straight forward passages for interpretation that better match their own ideals.

I think a large part of the problem we're having is that you're positing a literalist view of Scripture that Judaism doesn't share.

I don't believe all passages should be read literally. However, you beg an interesting question. How does one go about determining which scriptures to read literally and which to read metaphorically or otherwise?

You seem to want all the answers from Torah alone--but Judaism doesn't view the matter that way. You can't get the answers from Torah alone.

I'm more than willing to reference other material. Granted, I'm unfamiliar with other Jewish texts. Where do these other texts obtain their authority?

Again, all I've set out do here is explain the traditional Jewish teaching on abortion. So I can't give you the answers to that or slavery or any other issue from the Torah alone. I don't think the Torah has them by itself. It requires commentary and human reason.

OK. If you ever come across the answers I'd like to get the Jewish perspective.

We don't read the Bible with a literalist viewpoint or follow its words literally, and never have. Hence Maimonides, who lived from about 1135 C.E.--1204 C.E., saying that no rabbi, from the time of Moses on, has ever taken an eye-for-an-eye to mean that if a man blinds someone else, that man should be blinded! That's not how we deal with Scripture. We always bring our human brains and reasoning to bear on Scripture.

So how does one determine when to "use your brain and reasoning on scripture" as opposed to simply reading it literally?

I can't overstress this--we are not biblical fundamentalists. We don't read the Torah looking for all the answers. So I think you are quite right to criticize the fact that the Torah allows slavery; more on that below.

I definitely understand. The bible is a book meant to introduce one to the transcendent, its not a science book. But as enchanting as that statement sounds it really doesn't help determine truth from falsehood.

Bearing all this in mind, if I seem to overgeneralize--and I am, I suppose, from a literalist viewpoint--it's because I'm not looking at just the words of the Torah, but at what, to Jews, those words seem to imply. In other words, what are the implications of the Torah? If you must set your slave free if you maim him, what are the implications of that law? If you can potentially face execution for beating a slave to death, what are the implications? If the life-for-a-life principle doesn't come to bear whan a man causes a woman to miscarry, what are the implications of that?

And as I said above, how does that have any bearing on truth. It appears its all in the "eye of the beholder". You interpret it from your subjective viewpoint. How do you determine whether you are interpreting correctly or incorrectly?

According to Judaism, as human beings, we have a moral responsibility in how we read Scripture. We have to bring our moral conscience and reasoning to the text.

But our morals and our conscience are dependent on our environment and situations in part. Is everyone's interpretation right? Is there some type of vote? Do the people in power only have the authority to decide?

Therefore, we don't have to harmonize the Torah to match our own moral ideals. There's a good deal in the Torah that we can't so harmonize--including the fact that the Torah shows God allowing slavery (regardless of whether that was merely a concession on God's part, rather than the ideal God imagines and even if the Torah's laws regarding slavery were a sliver more humane than those of other near east cultures of the same time period.)

Instead of trying to twist the Torah to match our own moral ideals, we use our human reasoning, moral conscience and the larger principle of liberation found repeatedly in the Torah to criticize the fact that the Torah allows slavery. If that doesn't make sense, just remember that in the Torah itself, both Abraham and Moses stand toe to toe with God and argue with Him--Abraham questions God's justice and reminds Him that the Judge of all the earth must Himself be just; Moses shames God into relenting in His anger against the Israelite people. Then we have the daughters of Zelophehad, who bring a case before Moses questioning the justice of God's law. Moses brings the case before God, who agrees with the daughters of Zelophehad and changes His law accordingly. We've got plenty of precedent for arguing with the Torah's vision of God and law right in the Torah itself.

Well I'd never heard that before: man arguing with God and the Bible. man having authority to override it. Presuming its true that puts a whole new spin on things. Thanks.