A Modern Orthodox Sage on Abortion

Feb. 15 2016

Unlike most conservative Christian denominations, Orthodox Judaism tends to be more hedged in its opposition to abortion. Gidon Rothstein analyzes an essay on the subject by the late Aharon Lichtenstein, one of the greatest Modern Orthodox talmudists. In brief, Lichtenstein’s reading of halakhah generally permits abortion until the 40th day from conception, forbids it in all but extreme cases in the third trimester, and entertains a variety of reasons to allow it, in specific circumstances, during the intervening period. Rothstein writes:

Lichtenstein closes [his essay] with two general points. First, he has left some areas of the discussion not fully determined. This was not out of any hesitation to come to conclusions, but because he thinks [halakhic decisions] cannot be painted with too broad a brush, which is why he was always . . . insistent on laying out parameters rather than giving firm answers; the flexibility in the sources means the same rabbinic authority might in one case prohibit an abortion but in another case . . . allow it.

He wrote as he did to leave room for human input into decisions, which is how halakhah is supposed to work. . . .

Without apologizing, he did note that the “liberal” view on this issue comes at the expense of the humanity of the fetus. In order to allow the mother to do what she feels right, the liberal view had to ignore or dismiss the concerns and humanity of the fetus.

In arguing that the decision often [should] go the other way, Lichtenstein closed by reminding his listeners and readers that this isn’t only out of obedience to the will of God, but is also an expression of halakhah’s concern with human dignity and welfare, which “rises up in indignation against the torrent of abortions.”

Read more at Torah Musings

More about: Abortion, Aharon Lichtenstein, Halakhah, Modern Orthodoxy, Religion & Holidays

Egypt Is Trapped by the Gaza Dilemma It Helped to Create

Feb. 14 2025

Recent satellite imagery has shown a buildup of Egyptian tanks near the Israeli border, in violation of Egypt-Israel agreements going back to the 1970s. It’s possible Cairo wants to prevent Palestinians from entering the Sinai from Gaza, or perhaps it wants to send a message to the U.S. that it will take all measures necessary to keep that from happening. But there is also a chance, however small, that it could be preparing for something more dangerous. David Wurmser examines President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi’s predicament:

Egypt’s abysmal behavior in allowing its common border with Gaza to be used for the dangerous smuggling of weapons, money, and materiel to Hamas built the problem that exploded on October 7. Hamas could arm only to the level that Egypt enabled it. Once exposed, rather than help Israel fix the problem it enabled, Egypt manufactured tensions with Israel to divert attention from its own culpability.

Now that the Trump administration is threatening to remove the population of Gaza, President Sisi is reaping the consequences of a problem he and his predecessors helped to sow. That, writes Wurmser, leaves him with a dilemma:

On one hand, Egypt fears for its regime’s survival if it accepts Trump’s plan. It would position Cairo as a participant in a second disaster, or nakba. It knows from its own history; King Farouk was overthrown in 1952 in part for his failure to prevent the first nakba in 1948. Any leader who fails to stop a second nakba, let alone participates in it, risks losing legitimacy and being seen as weak. The perception of buckling on the Palestine issue also resulted in the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981. President Sisi risks being seen by his own population as too weak to stand up to Israel or the United States, as not upholding his manliness.

In a worst-case scenario, Wurmser argues, Sisi might decide that he’d rather fight a disastrous war with Israel and blow up his relationship with Washington than display that kind of weakness.

Read more at The Editors

More about: Egypt, Gaza War 2023