Protections for Unborn Babies in Judaism

Summary

The article explores the complex interplay between Jewish law (Halacha), the sanctity of life, and the permissibility of abortion, particularly in the context of Shabbat observance and the principle of Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life). Key points include: 

Pekuach Nefesh and Shabbat:

The Rambam (Maimonides) emphasizes that saving a life overrides Shabbat prohibitions, even if there is only a possibility of preserving life. This principle extends to unborn children when their lives are at risk.

Examples include lighting a candle for a woman in labor, even if she is blind, as light has a calming effect.

The Concept of Rodef (Pursuer):

If an unborn baby endangers the mother’s life, it is considered a rodef, and abortion is permitted to save the mother. However, once the baby’s head emerges, it is no longer permissible to harm the baby, as one life cannot be sacrificed for another.

The decision to abort must be based on medical judgment, not personal choice.

Current medical interventions that invalidate the rodef exception.

Pregnancies that pose a serious threat to a mother’s life occur during the second and third trimester. At this time, abortion is very risky, involving 2-3 days of preparation and introducing toxic chemicals and dangerous surgical instruments into the uterus to dismember the baby, a process that can rupture the uterus. An abortion at this time puts the mother’s life in grave danger beyond her already life threatening condition. Preterm delivery is much safer and can often save the baby’s life. See AAPLOG’s video The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?"

Sanctity of Life:

The Torah and Halacha place immense value on life, including unborn life. Gentile laws (Noachide laws) impose severe penalties for killing an unborn baby, highlighting the gravity of the act.

Jewish law prohibits advising or enabling actions that would lead to the death penalty, such as abortion, unless explicitly permitted under Halacha.

Halachic Exceptions:

Abortion is only permitted when the mother’s life is in immediate danger. As stated above, dangerous abortion procedures at this time in pregnancy pose a greater risk to the mother. The safer and possibly life saving alternative of preterm delivery is preferred. Mental health concerns, socioeconomic factors, or the identity of the father are not valid grounds for abortion under Halacha. Ectopic pregnancy, which requires surgical intervention, is not considered abortion because it's function is to save a woman's life not to deliberately destroy an unborn baby.

Rabbis cannot expand Halacha to include mental health as a justification for abortion, as this contradicts traditional interpretations.

Moral and Ethical Obligations:

The Torah commands Jews to admonish others who stray from ethical paths, including those who advocate for or perform abortions outside Halachic guidelines.

The mitzvah of Lifnei Iver (not placing a stumbling block before the blind) underscores the responsibility to prevent others from committing morally or legally wrong actions.

Community and Education:

The article stresses the importance of teaching and preserving Torah commandments to maintain a just and ethical society.

It calls for vigilance against corrupting influences and emphasizes the role of community leaders in guiding others toward moral behavior.

Debunking Misconceptions:

Common claims, such as allowing abortion for mental health reasons or expanding Halacha to include modern interpretations, are refuted based on traditional sources like the Mishneh Torah and Talmud.

Conclusion:

The article reaffirms the sanctity of life as a core Jewish value, emphasizing that abortion is only permissible under strict Halachic conditions. It calls for adherence to Torah principles, ethical leadership, and the preservation of life, even in complex or controversial situations.

Thank you.

Rabbi Yosef Chaim.

Protections for Unborn Babies in Judaism

Full Article

Today, we delve into a crucial and complex aspect of our observance of Shabbat; the limits of extending the principle of Pikuach Nefesh - the imperative to save lives - even when it involves controversial or complex situations such as those involving unborn children.

In Hilchot Shabbat from the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam elucidates that the principle of preserving life overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat. Rambam states, “one is commanded to violate the Sabbath for the sake of saving a life, even if there is only a possibility of saving a life.” (Hilchot Shabbat chapter 2 Halachot 1-3). I understand the negative connotation to hearing someone say that we are commanded to violate Shabbat. I think a better way to articulate it would be to say that in these situations we have an obligation to do things that would otherwise be considered a violation of Shabbat.

This principle is deeply rooted in our tradition and correctly places the sanctity of life above the restrictions of Shabbat. Rambam further explains that even the INDIRECT POTENTIAL for saving a life justifies doing what would otherwise be considered one of the Shabbat prohibitions. For example, he says that “If there is any possibility of life being saved or if a person is in a state of danger, one is permitted to violate Shabbat.” In Hilchot Shabbat chapter 2 Halacha 11, he states that “if she requires a light, a candle may be lit for her.” This leniency is granted even if she is blind, because light has a calming influence even if she does not see. To be clear this is not permission for every pregnant woman to start violating Shabbat, but this is not an isolated example. It does specifically mention lots of Melachot that are typically forbidden on Shabbat.

To extend this principle to unborn children, we must understand the concept of a rodef - a pursuer who poses a threat to another's life. According to Rambam, if a situation arises where a fetus is at risk due to the actions of its mother or others, it can be considered a case of rodef. The mother, if she seeks an abortion, which Hilchot Rotzeach uShimirat Nefesh makes it clear that a rodef can be a man or a woman. It specifically says that every Jewish person is commanded to attempt to save the person being pursued even if it is necessary to kill the pursuer. It asks the question, “What is implied?” And then it answers that if the rodef was warned and continues to pursue the intended victim even though they did not acknowledge the warning, since they continued the pursuit they should be killed. It cites an example in Devarim (Deuteronomy) in the Torah which states that you may show no pity in this case. The example given describes a situation where a woman grabs a man in an area that he could potentially use to bring life into this world.

As the Rambam writes, “if someone is pursuing another to kill him, it is permitted to kill the pursuer to save the pursued.” This applies even if the threat is indirect, such as through potential harm caused by abortion. The following is the exact Halacha word for word verbatim.

Hilchot Rotzeach chapter 1 Halacha 9 states, “this, indeed, is one of the negative mitzvot - not to take pity on the life of a rodef.”

On this basis, our sages ruled that when complications arise and a pregnant woman cannot give birth, it is permitted to abort the fetus in her womb, whether with a knife or with drugs for the fetus is considered a rodef of its mother.

“If the head of the fetus emerges, it should not be touched, because one life should not be sacrificed for another. Although the mother may die, this is the nature of the world.”

That is the only time abortion is permitted. Medical technology now available makes deliberately destroying a baby in the womb to save the mother’s life unnecessary. It is important to point out that knowledgeable, well trained medical doctors determine that the life of the mother is in danger and how to save her life and also the baby’s life, if possible. This decision is not between the woman and her doctor.

Pregnancies that pose a serious threat to a mother’s life occur during the second and third trimester. At this time, abortion is very risky, involving 2-3 days of preparation and introducing toxic chemicals and dangerous surgical instruments into the uterus to dismember the baby, a process that can rupture the uterus. An abortion at this time puts the mother’s life in grave danger beyond her already life threatening condition. Preterm delivery is much safer and can often save the baby’s life. See AAPLOG’s video The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?"

Pregnancies that pose a serious threat to a mother’s life occur during the second and third trimester. At this time, abortion is very risky, involving 2-3 days of preparation and introducing toxic chemicals and dangerous surgical instruments into the uterus to dismember the baby, a process that can rupture the uterus. An abortion at this time puts the mother’s life in grave danger beyond her already life threatening condition. Preterm delivery is much safer and can often save the baby’s life. See AAPLOG’s video The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?"

Furthermore, Rambam notes a critical point regarding the sanctity of life and the consequences of the transgressions.

In Hilchot Melachim chapter 9 Halacha 4, “a gentile (Ben Noach, see Sefer Hamada Hilchot Avodat Kochavim chapter 10 Halacha 6 to learn why we do not offer this path to gentiles today. We may only accept full converts to Judaism) who slays any soul, even a FETUS in its mother's womb, should be executed in retribution for its death. Similarly, if he slew a person who would have otherwise died in the near future, placed a person before a lion, or starved a person to death, he should be executed for through one manner or other, he killed.”

Similarly, one should be executed if he killed a pursuer when he could have saved the pursuer’s

potential victim by maiming one of the pursuer’s limbs. These laws do not apply regarding Jews.

Sefer Shoftim Hilchot Melachim chapter 10 Halacha 1

Speaking of gentiles; “one who killed without knowing that it is forbidden to kill, he is considered close to having sinned intentionally and is executed.” This is not considered an inadvertent violation, for he should have learned the obligations incumbent upon him and did not. This would apply to abortion doctors. This is an example that not knowing what you are doing is punishable by death does not get you out of receiving that death penalty. Although to be clear in this example before the death penalty was given to the gentile, they would be given the option to convert to Judaism where if they accepted and converted their life would be spared.so they could convert even if it was just to avoid the death penalty.

Although the aforementioned is the law for gentiles and not Jews, it highlights the gravity with which we must regard the protection of life. Given this, the recommendation for someone to engage in an act that would warrant a death penalty, (in this case the Slaying of a fetus, or an abortion) must be approached with extreme caution. For the following reasons; 

1. Because you would be held accountable for advising somebody to go do something that they would be executed for, no different than if you advised somebody to go murder their spouse and then they did it based on them mistakenly believing that it was legally permissible, because you told them that it was, and then they were given the death penalty for doing what you advised them to do. Halachically, you would be liable.

1. The obligation to save a life, including the unborn, takes precedence. We must be mindful that our actions should always align with the principles of Torah law and not lead to inadvertent transgressions or negative outcomes.

1. Hilchot Shabbat chapter 2 Halacha 3 states that it is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath laws on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill. The Jerusalem Talmud in Yoma 8;5 states that a person who administers treatment quickly is praiseworthy and one who raises questions is considered as if he shed blood. So, we see here that we can be considered as if we shed blood by merely raising questions to ask if this cause is worthy of violating Shabbat which doesn't mean that we won't help it just means we hesitated before we helped by asking the question. Reflected in the interpretation of the phrase of Leviticus 18:5, “which a person shall perform to live through them” as “to live through them and not to die through them” this teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not bring vengeance to the world but rather to bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world

Rambam goes on to say that concerning those non-believers who say that this constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden, (even though here he's referring to the Sadducees and the Karaites) I see no reason why it would not also apply to religious Jews who would object to placing the praiseworthy act of attempting to save the lives of children above the melachot, one may apply to the verse Ezekiel 20:25, “I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live” where he seems to be interpreting the verse as meaning that since these  individuals purposely misinterpret Torah, G-d causes their misinterpretations to be cruel and harsh so that they will not live and spread such an approach.

In educational contexts, if materials (carrying, writing, etc.) are needed to guide individuals and help them make informed decisions about pregnancy and abortion, and these actions could prevent harm, the principle of Pikuach Nefesh might justify the necessary Shabbat violations to distribute such materials. The intent is to preserve life and avoid significant harm.

The teachings of Rambam affirm that while Shabbat is a day of rest, the imperative to protect and preserve life, including that of unborn children, can extend to actions normally prohibited on Shabbat. We must navigate these issues with sensitivity and adherence to our principles, ensuring that our actions are both compassionate and lawful.

Sefer Zemanim Hilchot Shabbat chapter 2 Halacha 15

“When a woman dies while in labor on the Sabbath, a knife should be brought - even if it must be carried throughout the public domain - and the woman's womb cut open and the fetus removed, for it is possible that it will still be alive. The rationale for this ruling is that the Sabbath laws are violated even when there is only a possibility of saving a life, even when there is no established status on which to base our presumption that the fetus is alive.” Generally, a living person can be assumed to continue to live until we are certain that he has died. Although such a presumption cannot be made about this fetus, permission is, nevertheless, granted for the Sabbath laws to be violated on its behalf.

Halacha 16

All activities necessary to save a life should be performed on the Sabbath; there is no necessity

to receive license from the court. The more zealous one is in this regard, the more praiseworthy.

What is implied?

If one sees that a child has fallen into the sea, one may spread out a net and hoist him up, although one catches fish together with him. If a person hears that a child fell into the sea and spreads out a net to hoist him up but raises up only fish he is absolutely free of liability. If he intended to raise a fish, and in fact he lifted up both fish and a child he is not held liable. Since he lifted a child together with the fish, he is not held liable even when he did not hear that the child had fallen into the water. That means even when his intention was to catch fish on Shabbat, he's given immunity because he saved the life that he had no intention of saving, that he didn't know he was going to be saving. These seemingly endless examples continue throughout halacha.

May we continue to balance our observance of Shabbat with our profound commitment to preserving life, guided by wisdom and clarity.

So now that we have established the permissibility of doing whatever it takes in an effort to save lives even of unborn children even on Shabbat. Let's examine what level of obligation we have to be committed to this worthy cause.

In Deuteronomy chapter 5, we read the reiteration of the 10 commandments, which serve as a cornerstone of Jewish ethical teachings. Each commandment reflects a universal principle that transcends specific cultural or historical contexts. For example, the commandment against theft underscores the importance of respecting others’ property, while the prohibition against murder highlights the fundamental value of human life. These principles are not arbitrary but are rooted in a rational understanding of human dignity and social order.

I would argue that adherence to these commandments fosters a just and ethical society. By committing to these principles, we create a framework for behavior that aligns with reason and divine will. This approach not only enhances personal integrity but also contributes to the well- being of the community as a whole.

The importance of remembering and teaching

The Torah warns against forgetting the commandments and stresses the importance of teaching them to future generations. Forgetting the commandments or failing to pass them on would not only diminish their impact but also lead to moral and spiritual decay. By making the commandments a central part of our lives and ensuring that they are taught to our children and grandchildren, we instill a lasting sense of reverence and commitment to divine principles.

Guarding against corruption

The Torah warns us, “Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God.” I see this as an admonition to remain vigilant against the corrupting influences that might lead us away from our ethical commitments. This vigilance is essential to preserving the integrity of the divine commandments and ensuring that our society remains just and righteous. These laws are not just divine decrees, but they are grounded in principles of justice and ethics that benefit all of humanity. By preserving and teaching these commandments, we foster a society that embodies divine wisdom and moral integrity.

In Sefer Hamada, Hilchot Teshuvah chapter 4 Halacha 1-2, we read that there are 24 deed which hold back teshuva. Four are the Commission of severe sins. We read here that God will not grant the person who commits such deeds to repent because of the gravity of his transgressions. 

They are:

a) one who causes the masses to sin, included in this category is one who holds back the many from performing a positive command. I would argue that murdering children holds them back from performing the positive commandments that they would have performed had they been allowed to live.

b) one who leads his fellow man astray from the path of good to that of bad. Here I would argue that people were on a good path when they were complying with the commandment that God gave us to keep his statutes and his judgments including but not limited to the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

c) one who sees his son becoming associated with evil influences and refrains from rebuking him. Since his son is under his authority, were he to rebuke him, he would have separated himself from these influences. Hence, by refraining from admonishing him, it is considered as if he caused him to sin. Included in this sin are also all of those who have the potential to rebuke others, whether an individual, or a group, and refrain from doing so, leaving them to their shortcomings. So, we see here that it is a dereliction of duty to see people on the wrong path and not warn them.

d) one who says, “I will sin, and then repent.” Included in this category is one who says, “I will sin, and Yom Kippur will atone for me.” Remember that all four of these are sins are so severe that it's possible that God might not allow the person who commits such deeds to repent because of the gravity of these transgressions. These four sins are not merely about those who commit atrocities like killing children; they also apply to us if we fail to act and intervene to prevent such injustices.

Halacha 2 states that there are five deeds which cause the paths of Teshuvah to be locked before those who commit them. One of those is a person who hates admonishment; this will not leave him a path to repentance. Admonishment leads to teshuva. When a person is informed about his sins and shamed because of them, he will repent. Accordingly, rebukes are included in the Torah. Imagine the creator of the world telling you “Is this the way you repay God, you ungrateful, unwise nation.” Your heart should be sinking in devastation, at the very thought of that.

Sefer Hamada Hilchot De’ot chapter 6 Halacha 7

It is a mitzvah for a person who sees that his fellow Jew has sinned or is following an improper path to attempt to correct his behavior and to inform him that he is causing himself a loss by his evil deeds, as Leviticus 19:17 states, “you shall surely admonish your colleague.”

The expression “improper path” refers to incorrect behavior even if no actual violation of Torah law is involved. We don't need a specific commandment to describe every individual act which is indicative of us being on an improper path, we are given plenty of examples. By sinning, a person causes a real loss to not only himself but to the entire world. This is particularly true in the case of abortion. Not only are we losing the child but all of the good deeds that child would have gone on to do, all of the work that he could have done to fix and help repair the world, is not only lost but snuffed out.

Torah gives us the Mitzvah of Lifnei Ivver in Leviticus 19;10, “you shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God.” This means revere Hashem, who can punish you, although your victims cannot. The mitzvah obligates us to be responsible, by demonstrating our ability to respond, by not placing someone on a course that is criminal, (leading to the death penalty) immoral or simply dangerous, or by ignoring that they are on such a course. This means we can't stand by and say it's not my problem, or it's not my place to get involved.

Examples:

a) Shemot (Exodus) 21:33, when a man opens or digs a pit and does not cover it and an animal falls into it, he must make restitution. The owner of the pit must pay.

b) Devarim (Deuteronomy) 22:8, when you build a new house, you shall make a guardrail for your roof so that you do not bring blood guilt on your house.

c) Bloodguilt refers to the liability for punishment for shedding blood. The biblical concept of blood guilt derives from the belief that deeds generate consequences and that sin is a danger to the sinner. The most vivid examples of this belief appear in connection with unlawful homicide, referred to as innocent blood (dam naki (naqi) in Jonah 1:14); that cries out for vengeance (Genesis 4:10); is rejected by the earth (Isaiah 26:21, Ezekiel 24:7); and pollutes it (Numbers 35:33-34). Blood guilt attaches to the slayer and his family (II Samuel 3:28); for generations (II Kings 9:26); and even to his city (Jeremiah 26:5); nation (Deuteronomy 21:8); and land (Deuteronomy 24:4).

Deliberate homicide

The penalty is death by man (Genesis 9:6), or failing that, by God (Genesis 9:5; Leviticus 20:4-5). A man can either be the direct cause (Numbers 35:16-21) or the indirect cause, e.g., a watchman (II Kings 10:24; Ezekiel 33:6), priests (Numbers 18:1-3), homeowner (Deuteronomy 19:12), but God is the final guarantor that homicide is ultimately punished. His personal intervention is expressed throughout the Hebrew Bible by using terms like “attend to” “avenge” “exact punishment” and others.

Homicidal beast

The penalty is death by stoning and the shunning of the carcass. The supreme value of human life in the Bible is best expressed in the law that a homicidal beast is also guilty and that not only must it be killed but its carcass, laden with blood guilt, must be reviled. (Exodus 21:28-29; Genesis 9:5)

We are taught in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Fathers) 2:5, “do not separate yourself from the

community.” Accordingly, we must prevent anyone from being separated against their will, this would include the unborn child.

We have made it clear that the ONLY time an abortion is permissible according to halacha is when there is a threat to the life of the Jewish mother, (which is determined by medical doctors and not the pregnant woman). According to Halacha, there are no other examples where it would be permitted. People will make the incorrect claim that it is allowed in other circumstances, and I obviously can not devote the time into debunking every false claim that gets invented, but to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who make these false claims, and not assume that they are making these false claims with nefarious motives, we can assume that they do not have a proper understanding of how Halacha functions. That itself requires a very long explanation and since it is a separate topic I will not address it here but I would direct them to Mishneh Torah in Sefer Shoftim, Hilchot Mamrim. I will however shed light on a few of the popular misguided claims that get thrown around the most.

Claim: Birth control is not allowed

Mishneh Torah in Sefer Kedushah.Issurei Biah chapter 17 Halacha 12.

A woman is permitted to drink a potion that will cause her to lose her sexual potency so that she will not conceive. This ruling serves as the basis for rabbis to permit women to take oral contraceptives. It must be emphasized that this is taken to prevent conception, not after conception. 

Sefer Hamada Hilchot De’ot chapter 1 Halacha 2. 

Rambam points out that with regard to all the traits, a man has some from the beginning of his conception, and some he may have learned from others. Here he is distinguishing between genetic traits and those that are acquired, so we see an interrelation between the body and the soul. Not only is it improper to snuff out the genetic traits which have incredible potential, but as a society we have an obligation to influence these individuals to be on a proper path. In order for them to follow that path they must first survive and not be aborted. We also see there is an obligation on us to be a good society that will teach children these principles. But what happens if we are surrounded by people who don't hold these values?

Hilchot De’ot Chapter 6 Halacha 1. 

This source tells us that it is natural for a man's character and actions to be influenced by his friends and associates and for him to follow the local norms of behavior. Therefore he should associate with the righteous and be constantly in the company of the wise so as to learn from their deeds. Conversely he should keep away from the wicked who walk in darkness so as not to learn from their deeds. 

Psalm 1:1 states happy is the man who has not followed the advice of the wicked. A person who lives in a place where the norms of behavior are evil and the inhabitants do not follow the straight path should move to a place where the people are righteous and follow the ways of the good. If all the places with which he is familiar and of which he hears reports follow improper paths, as in our times, or if he is unable to move to a place where the patterns of behavior are proper, he should remain alone in seclusion. Let him sit alone and be silent if they are wicked and sinful and do not allow him to reside there unless he mingle with them and follow their evil behavior he should go out to caves and thickets and deserts rather than follow the paths of sinners.

Claim: It would be better to not have the child because of who the father is and the mental health of the mother

Hilchot Issurei Biah chapter 15 Halacha 11 

This source discusses a Mamzer, a child of an inappropriate relationship. if an unmarried woman becomes pregnant through a promiscuous relationship we asked her what is the status of this fetus or this child. We see here the term fetus and child is used interchangeably because this is a child we are talking about. If she replies that it's the child of an acceptable lineage that she entered into relations with, meaning the father was an Israelite, her word is accepted even if most of the inhabitants of the city in which she engaged in relations are of an unacceptable lineage, meaning they were mamzerim. We don't assume the worse even when statistically it's most likely that it's not going to be the desirable outcome.

Halachah 12

If the child's mother (and here we see the term fetus is not used, the term child is used) was intellectually or emotionally unstable, we consider the child as a mamzer whose status is questionable. This ruling applies even if she said, “I engaged in relations with so and so the Mamzer.” Even if that person (the Mamzer’s father) agrees with her statement, the child's status is only doubtful. So when we know who the father is and both the father and the mother say that this child is a result of that relationship, we still do not assign the status of a mamzer to this child. The rationale is that just as she engaged in relations with the person who confirmed her statement so too she engaged in relations with others. This child is called a Shituki. He knows the identity of his mother but does not definitely know the identity of his father. So we see here that the mental health of the mother was always taken into consideration, and it was not used as an excuse to terminate a pregnancy, which would be against Halachah. In fact, when a woman is known to be intellectually or emotionally unstable, we actually use that to remove the excuse that there is something wrong with the child. Rather than assign this derogatory status to the child, we give the child the benefit of the doubt, even through we're pretty sure that there is no doubt about the child’s status.

Claim: Rabbis can expand Halacha to include things like mental health

To debunk the idea that rabbis can consider the mental health of the woman in abortion cases under Halacha, particularly in contrast to the clear restrictions historically outlined in the Mishneh Torah, l will focus on several key points rooted in Jewish legal texts and their interpretations.

Halachic Priority of Physical Health Over Mental Health

Jewish law has historically placed a greater emphasis on the physical health and life of the woman, especially when considering life-threatening circumstances. The Mishneh Torah (specifically in Hilchot Rotzeach and Hilchot Isurei Biah) states that abortion is only permissible when the life of the mother is in danger. Even within this framework, mental health concerns are not traditionally seen as valid grounds for abortion. The Mishneh Torah makes it clear that physical life takes precedence over other considerations.

Women’s Legal Standing in Halacha

Historically, the Mishneh Torah and other halachic sources consistently outline that women were required to fulfill commandments and were held accountable for their actions, such as in the context of their ability to fulfill certain mitzvot and bear punishment for violations. However, while Halacha recognizes women as independent legal entities with responsibilities, this was never extended as an excuse to permit the violation of abortion laws. The concept of a woman’s ability to fulfill obligations or be liable for punishment never introduced the flexibility to abort for reasons unrelated to her physical life. The idea that mental health concerns should take precedence over these laws does not align with the historical applications of Halacha, where the preservation of life is the paramount concern.

The Role of Rabbinic Authority

Although some rabbis in modern times have suggested a broader interpretation of Halacha to include mental health in certain circumstances, such views diverge from traditional interpretations. The classical rabbinic authorities, including those who commented on the Mishneh Torah, did not allow for leniency in abortion laws based on mental health. In fact, Jewish legal discourse traditionally upheld a strict reading of abortion law, with allowances only for cases where the mother's physical health was endangered. The notion that mental health could be used as a grounds for permitting abortion is a modern interpretation, which is not supported by earlier Halachic sources. I would also argue that rabbis have no authority to overturn this Halacha based on Hilchot Mamrim.

The Talmud and Its Interpretation of Life and Death

The Talmud's treatment of life and death emphasizes a strict boundary when it comes to life-threatening situations, especially regarding the life of a woman in pregnancy. While there is room for interpretation in cases involving physical danger, the Talmud does not create space for mental health as a ground for abortion. Rabbinic authorities have historically deferred to the concept of pikuach nefesh (saving a life) as a central principle but have not extended this to include mental health conditions that do not pose an immediate physical threat to life.

Precedent from the Past Halachic Decisions

In past rulings, where the question of mental health was raised, the consistent response has been that Halacha does not allow for abortion unless there is an immediate danger to the woman’s life, and not simply because of potential mental suffering. The ability to make exceptions for mental health concerns is a contemporary phenomenon, but one that lacks clear historical precedent. The absence of mental health considerations in classical legal texts shows that, according to Halacha, the risks to physical life always take precedence over other factors.

Now that we have established what is the proper path is, the only question left is, What do we do when we are surrounded by people who don't like hearing what the proper path is? Rambam explains that some people are born with a brain whose internal chemistry is prone to intellectual achievement; however, if this person does not develop this tendency he will not automatically become a thinker. Similarly, others have leanings towards courage or cowardice; nevertheless, these are merely tendencies and they will not manifest themselves unless consciously developed. Also, these tendencies are at all times subject to man's control. We are granted free will and choose our course of behavior. So with that I will leave you with a quote from Pirkei Avot, (Ethics of our Fathers) “In a place where no leader of man can be found, strive to be a leader of men.”

Thank you.

Rabbi Yosef Chaim

Rabbi Yosef Chaim is a modern orthodox rabbi who teaches a rationalist approach to Judaism with a focus on Torah and Halacha. As an expert in conversions, he also helps potential and recent converts with all the resources they need to succeed as a ger tzadik. He can be reached at ‭+1 (863) 216-9528‬