המתת עובר — עמדתה של מסורת ישראל בהשוואה לעמדת עמים אחרים

In comparison with the Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian view concerning abortion the Biblical and Rabbinic outlook in this matter is more lenient and more tolerant. The genuine Jewish attitude is mainly expressed by the following: 1. killing of a foetus does not involve death penalty, in contrast to the Septuagint interpretation of Ex. 21:22f. and to Philo (The Special Laws III, §108–109). 2. in contrast to Philo and pagan Hellenistic sources which prohibit the execution of a pregnant woman, the Jewish sources state explicitly that one should not wait till birthgiving when excuting a pregnant woman (Mishnah, Arakhin 1:4). 3. a pregnant animal can be sacrificed and this does not violate the law of Lev. 22:25 in contrast to the view expressed by Philo. 4. there is no distinction between shaped and unshaped foetus as found in the Septuagint, Philo and pagan sources (see below). 5. there is no explicit law against abortion, in contradistinction to pagan-Hellenistic, Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian sources. 6. taking drugs in order to prevent conception is not prohibited. The rigid attitude of the Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian circles towards abortion may be explained against the background of Hellenistic ethics in general. Most instructive is the inscription from Philadelphia (in Asia-minor) where one finds prohibitions of infanticide, abortion and taking drugs to prevent birth. The prohibition of abortive remedies is also reflected in the Hippocratic oath. Aristotle permits abortion only before 'sensation and life' of the foetus have begun (Pol. vii, 14:10). These views pervaded Jewish-Hellenistic circles and hence the warnings against abortion in Philo, Didache the Sybilline oracles, the letter of Barnabas and Pseudo-Phocylides. The pagan attitude towards abortion was not unknown to the Rabbis. Rabbi Yishmael states that a Gentile (ben Noah), unlike a Jew, is punished with death for killing an embryo (Sanh. 57b). According to the Assyrian law a woman who procures abortion is to be hanged. By the same token the distinction made by Aristotle, Septuagint and Philo (compare the Karaite views) between the foetus shaped and unshaped is reflected in the Hittite laws of the second millenium B.C.E. where the legislator distinguishes between killing the foetus in the fifth month and killing it in the tenth month. The difference between the Jewish and Hellenistic views of abortion seems to lie in their different attitude towards the life of an individual as a value. Abortion in the pagan world is mainly a sin against state and society (loss of manpower and the strength of the community) whereas the Jewish legislator cares about the religious-moral meaning of murder: the term murder applies to a living creature and not to a foetus which is part of its mother's body. The view of the pagans concerning infanticide may be learned from their attitude towards exposure of children. Contrary to the rigid approach towards abortion we encounter complete lawlesness in respect to exposure and especially the exposure of crippled children. This shows that the motive force concerning abortion and infanticide was mainly social-political and not religious-moral as it was amongst the Jews and later amongst the Christians. It seems, that the Karaites, dissidents of normative Judaism, deviated from the official Rabbinic view and adopted the views of the Hellenistic Jewry. It is possible that the Karaites perpetuated a tradition which was existent in the Qumran circle. In the Temple Scroll published by Y. Yadin (מגילת המקדש — ירושלים תשל"ח) we read that pregnant animals should not be sacrified (col. 12, 5) and that the woman who has a dead embryo within her body is to be considered impure like a grave (50, 10–19). These regulations stand in clear contradiction to the Halakhic principles, and overlap the Hellenistic and Jewish-Hellenistic views concerning the foetus discussed above.