¹ Ex. 21:22–23. See Jackson, B.S., Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (Leiden, 1975) 75–107Google Scholar, for a comprehensive textual and legal analysis of this difficult passage.

² Cf. Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29; Jackson, at 78.

³ Mekhilta, ad loc.; Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Abrahams, I. (Jerusalem, 1967) 275Google Scholar; Phillips, A., Ancient Israel's Criminal Law (Oxford, 1970) 88–89.Google Scholar See Jackson, at 77.

⁴ See Ex. 21:35 and Daube, D., Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge, 1947) 148.Google Scholar See also Jackson, at 90. According to Amram, D., “Retaliation and Compensation”, repr. Studies in Jewish Jurisprudence (“N.Y., 1974) vol. 2, p. 198Google Scholar, women would often adjudicate in disputes, thereby exposing themselves to blows of this nature. This may also account, to some extent, for the detailed treatment in both the Bible and other ancient Near-Eastern codes, of a situation which does not seem, at first sight, to deserve such extensive attention. But see Driver, G.R. and Miles, J.C., The Babyonian Laws, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1952) 416Google Scholar, for another approach to this question. The intentional nature of the blow is also indicated in Josephus, , Antiquities of the Jews, 4:8Google Scholar, and in Philo, , The Special Laws, 3:108.Google Scholar

⁵ M. Sanh. 9:2; Sanh. 79a; Y. Sanh. 271–b.

⁶ (1479–1573). Responsa Radbaz (Mikhtav Yad), no. 22. Cf. Responsa Radbaz, no. 695 where R. Zimra reiterates the non-homicidal nature of foeticide.

⁷ See infra, p. 119 ff.

⁸ Arakhin 7a. See infra, p. 113.

⁹ See Waldenberg, R. Eliezer (b. 1917), Responso Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 9, no. 51:3.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Elon, M., The Principles of Jewish Law (Jerusalem, 1975) 482.Google Scholar

¹¹ Driver & Miles, supra n. 4, at 415; Cuq, E.., Etudes sur le Droit Babylonien (Paris, 1929) 450, 491Google Scholar; Caradascia, G., Les Lois Assyriennes (Paris, 1969) 244.Google Scholar

¹² Middle Assyrian Laws, 53, Driver, G.R. and Miles, J.C., The Assyrian Laws (Aalen, 1976) 117.Google Scholar

¹³ Caradascia, at 245; Sulzberger, N., “Ancient Hebrew Law of Homicide”, repr. Studies in Jewish Jurisprudence (N.Y. 1974), vol. 2, p. 140Google Scholar; Soden, A. Von, “Die Assyrer und der Krieg” (1966) 25 Iraq 245.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Weinfeld, M., “The Genuine Jewish Attitude towards Abortion” (1977) 42 Zion 130Google Scholar, and see infra p. 116.

¹⁵ Hammurabi's Code, 209, 210; Driver & Miles, vol. 2, p. 29; Cuq, at 450; Elon, at 482. On the common origin of the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern codes, see Aptowitzer, V., “The Status of the Embryo in Jewish Law” (1924) 15 Jewish Quarterly Review (N.S.) 85Google Scholar; cf. Kuzari 1:83.

¹⁶ The statement of legal material in the form of Biblical exegesis. See Elon, at 58–64.

¹⁷ Mekhilta, Tractate, Nezikin, ch. 8, trans. Lauterbach, J.Z. (Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1961) 65.Google Scholar

¹⁸ M. Niddah 5:2. Cf. Sanh. 84b. See Maimonides, , Hilkhot Rozeah 2:6Google Scholar for a comprehensive definition of a viable being for the purposes of the law of homicide.

¹⁹ Sifra, Emor. ch. 20; Mekhilta idem. 33.

²⁰ Tos. Sanh. 84b, s.v. hava.

²¹ M. Oholoth 7:6; cf. T. Yeb. 9:5; Arak. 1:4; Sifri Zutah, 334.

²² Generally taken as referring to the head; T. Yeb. ibid.; Yeb. 72b; M. Nidd. 3:5; Nidd. 29a; Y. Sanh. 8:9. See Maimonides, Hilkhot Rozeah 1:9.

²³ M. Arakhin 1:4. See Tosafot R. Akiba Eiger, ad. loc. Similarly, a pregnant sotah was required to drink the prescribed potion in spite of the risk to her foetus; M. Sotah 4:4. See Aptowitzer, supra n. 15 at 103.

²⁴ According to the Tosefta, the infant must also extend his hand out of the womb before execution is delayed. Apparently, this criterion was rejected and it does not appear in later sources: see Hasdei David, ad. loc.

²⁵ Arakhin 7a.

²⁶ R. Solomon b. Isaac (1040–1105), principal commentator on the Talmud whose grandsons founded the great Franco-German school of Talmud study, that of the Tosafists.

²⁷ Arakhin 7a.

²⁸ This argument is mentioned in various Rabbinic responsa as a grounds for leniency in permitting abortion, e.g. R. Jair Hayyim Bachrach (1638–1702), Responsa Havvot Yair, no. 31; Ouziel, R. Ben-Zion Meir Hai (1880–1953), Responsa Mishpetei Ouziel, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 46.Google Scholar

²⁹ During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, glosses on the Talmud were composed by Tosafists, scholars in France and Germany who created an original style of Talmudic analysis, M. Elon, at 920. See Urbach, E., Baalei Hatosafot (Jerusalem, 1968).Google Scholar

³⁰ Arak. 7b s.v. yashva. This explanation is also given, inter alia, by R. Nissim Gerondi (c. 1380), Commentary to Aliasi, , Hullin, 3Google Scholar (19a) s.v. ul'inyan valad. For a rationalization of this law, see Aptowitzer, at 99, and Preuss, J., Biblical and Talmudic Medicine trans. Rosner, F. (N.Y. 1978) 421.Google Scholar

³¹ See a lengthy exposition on this point in R. Schneur Zalman of Lublin (d. 1902), Responsa Toral Hesed, Even Haezer, no. 42. We are not dealing here with the status of the foetus in ritual or civil law. In addition to the many jurisprudential questions raised by the transfer of principles from one realm to the other with Jewish Law, there appears to be a general consensus of opinion in relation to at least one such principle of ritual law (“ubar yerekh imo”) that it ought not to be applied to the law of abortion. This opinion is shared by R. Nissim, and many Aharonim. See also Ellinson, G., “Ha'ubar B'halkhah” (1970) 66 Sinai 20Google Scholar, and Carmy, S., “Halakhah and Philosophical Approaches to Abortion” (1977) 16:3Tradition 143–144.Google Scholar In responsa Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 13, no. 102, R. Waldenberg points out that rules governing the treatment of the foetus on the Sabbath and rules pertaining to the law of abortion are to be treated separately. Also note Drori, M., “Hahandassa Hagenetit etc.” (1979) 1 T'humin 280Google Scholar for a survey of the use of extra-legal sources in this field and the problems raised thereby.

³² Legal norms which according to Jewish Law are binding upon non-Jews. See M. Elon, supra n. 10, at 708.

³³ Gen. 9:6 Sanh. 57b, cf. Y. Kidd. 1:1. See also Gen. Rabbah, ch. 34, sec. 6 (ed. Albeck) 325.

³⁴ Whether or not Maimonides would maintain, on the basis of the Talmudic axiom “there is nothing which is permitted to an Israelite but forbidden to a non-Jew (n. 35, infra)” that Jews were bound by the Noachide Laws is a moot point. See. Sofer, R. Moses (1762–1839) Responsa Halam Sofer, Yoreh DeahGoogle Scholar, no. 19 and Schick, R. Moses (1807–1879), Responsa Maharam Schick, Yoreh Deah, 145.Google Scholar The general view of the modern authorities, however, is as stated in the body of the text. Also, see Erusi, R., “Abortion-Theory and Practice in the Halakha” (1977) 8 Dine Israel 125.Google Scholar For a criticism of Erusi's methodological points, see note 143.

³⁵ Sanh. 59a.

³⁶ Sanh. ibid. s.v. leka; Hull. 33a, s.v. ehad.

³⁷ Weiss, I.H., Dor Dor V'Dorshav (Berlin, 1923) 23.Google Scholar However, according to Aptowitzer, supra n. 15 at 114, n. 187, this view is untenable, and he supports the idea that it reflects a separate legal tradition on abortion.

³⁸ Aptowitzer, at 113; Geiger, A., Hamikrah V'tirgumav (Jerusalem, 1948) 280Google Scholar; Alon, G., Mehkarim B'toldot Israel (Tel Aviv, 1967), vol. 1, p. 280.Google Scholar

³⁹ Weinberg, R. Jehiel Jacob (1885–1966), Responsa Seridei Esh, pt. 3 no. 127, 346Google Scholar; Isser, R.Unterman, Judah (1886–1966), “Beinyan Pikuah Nefesh shel Ubar” (1963) 6 Noam 9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ R. Unterman, idem, at 6; cf. Schorr, R. Isaac, Responsa Koali Shor, vol. 1Google Scholar, no. 20. See infra, p. 126.

⁴¹ See infra, p. 123 ff.

⁴² The translation of the Bible into Greek. See Elon, M., Hamishpat Haiwri, (Jerusalem, 1973) vol. 3, p. 841.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ex. 21:22–23. See Alon, supra n. 38 at 280, n. 32; Geiger, supra n. 38, at 280, n. 1.

⁴⁴ Hittite Laws, 17.

⁴⁵ De Historia Animalia, 7:3. Plato also believed that the foetus became a living body in its mother's womb; see Plutarch, , De Placitics Philosophorum 5:15.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Politics 7:4.

⁴⁷ Geiger, supra n. 38, at 280, n. 38. See Weinfeld, supra n. 14, at 129, n. 3.

⁴⁸ See Aptowitzer, at 8.

⁴⁹ Hadassi, , Eshkol Hakofer, 238, 91aGoogle Scholar; 270, 103b; 308, 114b. See Wienfeld, at 140.

⁵⁰ See Elon, at 842. On Philo's attitude to the Halakhah, see Alon, G., “Leheker Hahalakhah Shel Philon” (1933) 5 Sinai 24Google Scholar; (1935) 6 ibid., 30, 452. Philo lived in Alexandria in the first century.

⁵¹ De Specialibus Legibus, 2:19, cf. Les Oeuvres de Philo d'Alexandria (Paris, 1970) 3:108.

⁵² Wolfson, H., Philo (Jerusalem, 1970) vol. 1, p. 37Google Scholar; Goodenough, E.R., The Juriprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt (Amsterdam, 1968)Google Scholar; Aptowitzer, at 87.

⁵³ De Virtue, 18, based on an a fortiori argument from Lev. 22:28. He also accepted the distinction between the formation times for the male and the female foetus (Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesis, 1:15).

⁵⁴ Elon, at 842.

⁵⁵ See supra, n. 4. Also see Daube, supra n. 4 at 148, n. 12.

⁵⁶ The double fine indicates the influence of the classical notion that the foetus is state property. See Aptowitzer, at 87, n. 187; Greenberg, M., “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law”, in Y. Kaufman Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1966) 210Google Scholar; Goodenough, supra n. 52 at 13; Weinfeld, at 136; cf. Cameron, A., “Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics” (1932) 46 Classical Review 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ Antiquities of the Jews 4:8

⁵⁸ Contra Apion 2:25.

⁵⁹ Aptowitzer at 86, n. 117.

⁶⁰ For a striking example, see Philo's explanation of Ex. 22:27 in De Specialibus Legibus 1:53, and compare it to Antiquities of the Jews, 2:2735, moreover, it is a moot point whether Philo had any knowledge of Hebrew.

⁶¹ Third century Alexandria. Clement brought the sophistication of his Alexandrian Greek philosophical training to Christian doctrine, see Osborn, E.F., The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge, 1947).Google Scholar

⁶² Paedagogus 3:10; Alon, at 280, n. 29. See Richardson, C.C. (ed.), Library of Christian Classics (London, 1955) vol. 2, p. 17.Google Scholar

⁶³ “Embassy for the Christians”, Richardson, idem, 338. Cf. Hilgers, and Horan, (ed.), Abortion and Social Justice (N.Y., 1972)Google Scholar Intro.

⁶⁴ Written in Eretz Yisrael or in Syria in the first century, a few years after the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.). See Alon, at 274, and Aptowitzer, at 85, n. 113. Also see Vokes, F.E., The Riddle of the Didache (London, 1938).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Richardson, vol. 1, p. 172.

⁶⁶ c. 160–220. Tertullian was both a Roman jurist and a philosopher; see Shortt, C. de L., The Influence of Philosophy on the Mind of Tertullian (London, 1933).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Apologeticum ad Nationes, 1:15.

⁶⁸ Weinfeld, at 142. According to this Judean sect, it was forbidden to sacrifice a pregnant animal on the basis of the verse in Lev. 22:28. In the Rabbinic tradition, no such prohibition exists.

⁶⁹ One of the most important of the Qumran finds, it is probably late second century. See Yadin, Y., Megillat Hamikdash (Jerusalem, 1977)Google Scholar and Falk, Z., “The Temple Scroll and the Codification of Jewish Law” (1979) 2 Jewish Law Annual 33.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Falk, Z., Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth (Leiden, 1972) pt. 1, 34.Google Scholar

⁷¹ For a treatment of the distinction between the formed and the unformed foetus in the Canon Law on abortion, see infra, p. 128 ff.

⁷² Weinfeld, at 138.

⁷³ Supra, n. 68.

⁷⁴ See supra, n. 71.

⁷⁵ Weinfeld also points out the differences in attitudes to contraception and sterilization. These issues, however, are beyond the scope of this article.

⁷⁶ The period of the Rishonim (“early” scholars) extends from the middle of the eleventh century until the sixteenth century (the great codificatory age of R. Joseph Karo (1488–1575), R. Moses Isseries (1530–1572), and the Shulkhan Arukh (published in 1565). See Elon, supra n. 10, at 17.

⁷⁷ Rashi, Sanh. 72b, s.v. yaza; Ramban (R. Moses b. Nahman, 1194–1270), novellae Nidd. 42b; Torat Ha'adam, Inyan Hasakanah (Jerusalem, 1964), 29; R. Menahem Hameiri (1249–1315), Bet Habehirah, Sanh. 72b; Shab. 107b, Ramah (R. Meir Abulafiah, c. 1170–1244) Yad Remah, Sanh. 57a, 72b; Ran, supra n. 30; Radbaz, supra n. 6. For Maimonides' view, see infra p. 121 ff. These sources deal with abortion as a criminal offence. Discussions of abortion in terms of ritual laws or homiletics are not included here, in the light of the observations in n. 31, supra. Moreover, the considerations involved in permitting the transgressing of the Sabbath in order to save a foetus are not in the same category as those involved in abortion, see e.g. Tzitz Eliezer, at 209.

⁷⁸ See e.g. Zweig, R. Moses Jonah (1910–1963), “Al Hapalah Melakhutit” (1964) 7 Noam 47.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The written decisions of leading authorities on the various questions submitted to them. Elon, at 13.

⁸⁰ See infra, p. 123 ff.

⁸¹ Sanh. 59a, s.v. leka, Hull. 33a, s.v. ehad. Elsewhere, the Tosafot state that although it is permitted to kill a foetus, the Sabbath may still be profaned in order to save its life (Nidd. 44a, s.v. ihu). According to the notes of R. Zvi Hirsh Chajes (1805–1855), ad. loc., we may imply from here that according to Tosafot it is permitted in the first instance to kill a foetus. According to R. Jacob Emben (1697–1776), however, the text is not to be understood literally, for “who would allow a foetus to be killed without reason, even though there is no capital punishment for doing so” (Notes, ad. loc.). Moreover, on logical grounds, Chajes' contention is untenable, and obviously the expression “patur” (exempt from punishment) ought to have been employed instead of “mutar”— permitted. See Schmelkes, R. Isaac (1828–1906), Responsa Bet Yitzhak, vol. 2, no. 162.Google Scholar According to R. Moses Feinstein (b. 1895), “it is abundantly clear that we are dealing with a scribal error and the text ought to read “patur” instead of “mutar”, “Bedin Harigat Ubar”, in R. Ezekiel Abramski Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1975) 462. See also Bleich, J.D., “Abortion in Halakhic Literature” (1968) 10 Tradition 110, n. 4.Google Scholar

⁸² Seridei Esh. 346.

⁸³ See Faur, J., “The Legal Thinking of Tosaphot—An Historical Approach” (1975) 6 Dine Israel xliii.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See Pollock, F., Essays in the Law (London, 1922) 48.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ For a definition see infra, n. 101.

⁸⁶ R. Moses b. Maimon (1135–1204). The greatest figure in post-Talmudic Judaism and brilliant innovator in the codification of Jewish Law. See Elon, at 128.

⁸⁷ Sanh. 72b. Maimonides, , Hilkhot Rozeah 1:6–15.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Maimonides, ibid. 1:9.

⁸⁹ Deut. 25:12.

⁹⁰ Sanh. 72b.

⁹¹ See Bleich, at 89, and Feldman, D.M., Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law (N.Y., 1974) 276.Google Scholar

⁹² Sanh. 72b.

⁹³ (1713–1793). Responsa Noda Beyehudah, pt. 2, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 59.

⁹⁴ Havvot Yair, 31.

⁹⁵ (1853–1918). Novellae on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rozeah 1:9.

⁹⁶ According to R. Isser Judah Unterman (supra n. 59), the basis for Maimonides' view is the obligation to preserve life rather than any prohibition on foeticide.

⁹⁷ Koah Shor, 20; Torat Hesed 13A. See also Enker, A., Hekhreah Vzorekh Bedinei Onshin (Ramat Gan, 1977) 221Google Scholar, n. 44 (with D. Frimer) and Warhaftig, I., “Haganah Azmit Beaverot Rezah Vehabalah” (1977) 81 Sinai 45.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Seridei Esh. 343: Feldman, supra n. 91, at 293.

⁹⁹ See infra, p. 126 ff.

¹⁰⁰ See infra, nn. 126 and 127.

¹⁰¹ Lit. “Later scholars”. This period extends to the Emancipation of European Jewry in the eighteenth century, see Elon, at 18.

¹⁰² The Shulkhan Arukh is the authoritative code of Jewish Law. Elon, at 138.

¹⁰³ Hoshen Mishpat, 425:2.

¹⁰⁴ R. Joshua Falk, late sixteenth century, Sejer Me'irat Einayim (“Sma”), Hoshen Mishpat 425:8. See Noda Beyehudah, supra n. 93, for a criticism of the Sma's view and a defence of it by R. Landau. Also see R. Zweig, supra n. 78, at 41.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. R. Zekhariah Mendel, middle eighteenth century, Be'er Hetev, ad. loc.

¹⁰⁶ For a comprehensive analysis, see R. Hayyim Hezekiah Medini (1823–1904) in his Sdei Hemed, Kelalim, Maarekhet Ha'alef 52, vol. 1, p. 175, Shiurei Hapeah, Maarekhet Ha'alef 19, vol. 1, p. 304, and Torat Hesed, supra n. 31.

¹⁰⁷ (1500–1580). Responsa Maahrit nos. 97, 99.

¹⁰⁸ Deut. 25:3.

¹⁰⁹ On the inconsistencies in R. Trani's responsa, see Tzitz Eliezer, at 237 and R. Moses Feinstein, supra n. 81, at 461.

¹¹⁰ See Seridei Esh. 349.

¹¹¹ Havvot Yair, supra n. 28.

¹¹² Tos. Gitt. 41b, s.v. lo. On Onanism in general, see Tos. Sanh. 59b, s.v. veha, and Feldman, supra n. 91 at 144 ff.

¹¹³ Emden, R. Jacob, Responsa She'elat Ya'avetz, 43Google Scholar; Seridei Esh. 345; Mishpetei Ouziel, 212.

¹¹⁴ Seridei Esh. ibid. Also see Feldman, at 251.

¹¹⁵ See supra n. 113.

¹¹⁶ Note that in Jewish Law, a bastard is a product of an adulterous or an incestuous union, and not merely someone born out of wedlock.

¹¹⁷ She'elat Ya'avetz, supra n. 113.

¹¹⁸ Tzitz Eliezer, 236.

¹¹⁹ See R. Moses Feinstein, at 467.

¹²⁰ E.g. R. Samuel Kaidanower (1614–1676), Responsa Emunat Shmuel, no. 14; Torat Hesed, 31; R. Solomon Kluger (1785–1869), Responsa Zelutah D'avraham, no. 60; Palaggi, R. Hayyim (1788–1869), Responsa Hayyim Veshalom, vol. 1, no. 40Google Scholar, and see Sedei Hemed, supra n. 106.

¹²¹ (1863–1940).

¹²² Following the opinion of R. Nissim.

¹²³ See Seridei Esh. 350.

¹²⁴ Torat Hesed, 31.

¹²⁵ Supra, p. 116 ff.

¹²⁶ See e.g. R. Feinstein, supra n. 81, at 469, who states quite categorically that “I have written all this in the light of the general breakdown in morality, both in the world at large and in the State of Israel…. In such times, it is necessary to make a fence around the Torah.” Cf. Havvot Yair, supra n. 28.

¹²⁷ According to R. Moses Jonah Zweig, supra n. 78, at 45, in an article discussing the abortion of a thalydomide foetus, a strict attitude is necessary in order to ensure that the Divine Name is not profaned by stating a lenient position in Jewish Law, “when jurists, physicians, and the Church have come out clearly against foeticide”.

¹²⁸ Supra n. 28.

¹²⁹ Mishpetei Ouziel, 213.

¹³⁰ R. Zweig, supra n. 78.

¹³¹ R. Unterman, supra n. 39.

¹³² Supra n. 7.

¹³³ See Sanh. 74a; Maimonides, , Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah, 5.Google Scholar Homicide is one of the three cardinal offences, which may not be committed, even on pain of death (See Minhat Hinukh 2, 296).

¹³⁴ R. Unterman, supra n. 39 at 8.

¹³⁵ Born 1920. Responsa Yabiah Omer, vol. 4, Even Ha'ezer, no. 1.

¹³⁶ Supra n. 79.

¹³⁷ Tzitz Eliezer 209.

¹³⁸ Responsa Maharit, nos. 97, 99, supra n. 107: Responsa Radbaz, supra n. 6.

¹³⁹ Supra n. 79.

¹⁴⁰ The Tosafot in Nidd., supra n. 89, and R. Joseph Trani's responsum, supra n. 107.

¹⁴¹ R. Jacob Emden's responsum and R. Weinberg's view. R. Feinstein cites R. Waldenberg's opinion, which appeared in a halakhic medical journal (1976) 13 Assiah 8, without mentioning him by name, and dismisses it as totally without basis. In relation to R. Emden's responsum, he argues that the phrase “there is a ground for leniency in a case of great need” (infra p. 18) implies that there are more grounds upon which one may reach a strict decision than a lenient one. R. Waldenberg dismisses this contention as far-fetched (Steinberg, A. ed., Hilkhot Rof'im u'Refuah (Jerusalem, 1978) 43Google Scholar).

¹⁴² Hilkhot Rof'im u'Refuah, 30.

¹⁴³ On the question of methodology, the view put forward by Erusi, supra n. 34, that responsa do not constitute Jewish Law for the purposes of a comprehensive definition of the legal position in relation to abortion on the grounds that they are too indirect, seems totally without foundation. It is clear that the responsa do constitute a major source of Jewish Law (see Elon, at 1213 ff.), and if Erusi's point is that the Jewish attitude to abortion in a non-legal context is not to be found in the responsa, then the discussion is not a legal one, but a philosophical one, and should be argued in those terms. It may also be significant that R. Feinstein expressed his views in an article and not in a responsum. This may be an indication of the fact that he was more concerned to state the general attitude of Judaism to the abortion of a Tay-Sachs foetus rather than the legal position in a particular case. See M. Drori, supra n. 31, at 225, n. 8, for criticism of Erusi.

¹⁴⁴ E.g., R. Waldenberg's decision.

¹⁴⁵ E.g., R. Unterman's view.

¹⁴⁶ See supra, p. 118 for the position in the Didache and the views of Clement and Tertullian. It is noteworthy that this became the view of the Orthodox Church which, in the words of Basil of Cappadocia (329–379), rejected the “hairsplitting difference between the formed and the unformed” (Letters 188).

¹⁴⁷ 345–430. Augustine of Hippo was the most influential of the Church Fathers and his doctrines became the accepted ones of the Church of Rome. See Bonner, G., St. Augustine of Hippo (Philadelphia, 1964).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Questions on the Heptateuch, 80.

¹⁴⁹ See supra, p. 116; Noonan, J.T. ed., The Morality of Abortion (Cambridge, Mass., 1971) 17.Google Scholar Elsewhere, Augustine expressed his utter abhorrance of abortion on moral grounds (On Marriage and Concupiscience 1:12), but on legal grounds, he holds that abortion of an unformed foetus is not considered homicide.

¹⁵⁰ 335–420.

¹⁵¹ Epistles 121:4.

¹⁵² “He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body” (Concordia Discordentiura Canonum, Decretum 2:32:2). Gratian was a Camaldolese monk of the early twelfth century and compiler of the Decretals.

¹⁵³ Cimetier, P., Les Sources du Droit Ecclésiastique (Paris, 1930).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ 1550–1610. Professor of moral theology and master of the Canon Law, his De Sancto Matrimoni is still a classic work on the law of marriage.

¹⁵⁵ De Sancto Matrimoni Sacramento 3:20. See Noonan, supra n. 149 at 29, and Grisez, G.G., Abortion: The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments (N.Y., 1970) 117.Google Scholar Also, note the similar view of Torreblanca, Franciscus, Epitome Delictorum sive de Magia, 2:43.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Enchiridon Sybolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, ed. Denzinger, H., Schonmetzer, A., n. 2134. 157 Canon 2350:1.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Canon 2350:1.

¹⁵⁸ Noonan, at 45. It is noteworthy that Noonan in his comprehensive essay, “An Almost Absolute Value in History”, supra n. 149 at 1, does not mention the lenient opinion of Torreblanca and his school. This is quite possibly due to the influence of the current view under which all abortion is forbidden.

¹⁵⁹ Originally it was based on the Aristotlean distinction, 40 days for a male and 80 for a female. See Granfield, D., The Abortion Decision (N.Y., 1969) 65.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ It is in this form that the distinction is found in Medieval English Law (Bracton J., De Corona, 4:121; see Winfield, P.H., “The Unborn Child” (1944) 5 Cambridge Law Journal 76Google Scholar). In Coke's day, however, abortion of a foetus after quickening was “a great misprision but not murder” (Institutes of the Law of England, 3:50). Coke's view was held by Hale, (Pleas of the Crown, 1:437)Google Scholar, Hawkins, (Pleas of the Crown, 1:121Google Scholar), and Chitty (Criminal Law, 3:800). It was not abolished until 1837 and not entirely removed from the Criminal Law of England until 1931, when the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act provided that the commuting of a pregnant woman's death sentence to life imprisonment no longer depended upon whether her foetus had quickened or not (Archbold's Procedure, 229).

¹⁶¹ For a comprehensive discussion of the old statutes, see Quay, E., “Justifiable Abortion—Medical and Legal Foundations” (1961) 4 Georgia Law Review 395.Google Scholar

¹⁶² See e.g. Abulafiah, R. Meir, Yad Remali Sanh., 91b and 72b.Google Scholar See generally, Feldman, at 272.

¹⁶³ See supra p. 128 andd not the following statement in Havvot Yair: “There are a number of distinctions … after 40 days … after foetal movement which occurs just after the third month … However, it is not our intention to follow arbitrary or baseless opinions, but the law of the Torah.”

¹⁶⁴ Such a discussion would require treatment of the relationship between scientific postulates and law, a subject which merits a separate article.