According to the rabbinic tradition, Gentiles are entirely exempt from the 613 commandments that constitute the terms of the Jewish covenant with God, but they are obligated to follow seven laws given to Noah after the Flood. These include prohibitions on murder, theft, and so forth. With this distinction in mind, Michael Broyde tackles the question of how Orthodox Jews ought to respond to the question, raised anew by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, of whether abortion should be legal, which in turn rests on the nature of halakhic attitudes toward abortion:

It is well known that the nature of the prohibition [on abortion] is disputed in Jewish law. Some rabbinic authorities rule that nearly all abortions are non-capital murder, permitted only to save a pregnant woman’s life. Others rule that abortion is almost never murder but some lesser prohibition, and is permitted [under many circumstances]. Still others rule that abortion flips from non-murder to non-capital murder in the middle of the pregnancy. Despite the vast literature on this matter, no consensus has developed.

At the same time, it is equally obvious that Noahide law prohibits more abortions for Gentiles than Jewish law does for Jews.

The reason for this unique situation is that the Noahide laws do not come with an interpretive tradition that would allow for the adjudication of hard or ambiguous cases, exemptions, and intermediate categories. Thus, many rabbis conclude, for Gentiles abortion is simply murder. But, asks Broyde, where does that put Jews in relation to abortion law:

Is there, then, a halakhic obligation for Jews to urge non-Jews to follow Noahide law? Maimonides (Hilkhot Malakhim 8:10) seems to indicate that Jews share an obligation to participate in and enforce Noahide law, but nearly all other [medieval rabbis] disagree. . . . Indeed, most [rabbinic authorities] of the last 500 years permit a Jew, for his or her economic benefit, to participate in a transaction even if a Gentile in the transaction thereby violates Noahide law. This speaks volumes about practical Jewish law on this subject.

In my view, American Orthodoxy’s decision to support the expansion or contraction of civil or political rights in American law has never been a Jewish-law discussion, nor will it ever be.

Earlier this month, an operative working for, or in conjunction with, Hizballah snuck across the Israel-Lebanese border and planted a sophisticated explosive near the town of Megiddo, which killed a civilian when detonated. On Thursday, another Iranian proxy group launched a drone at a U.S. military base in Syria, killing a contractor and wounding five American soldiers. The former attack appears to be an attempt to change what Israeli officials and analysts call the “rules of the game”: the mutually understood redlines that keep the Jewish state and Hizballah from going to war. Nadav Pollak explains how he believes Jerusalem should respond:

Israel cannot stop at pointing fingers and issuing harsh statements. The Megiddo attack might have caused much more damage given the additional explosives and other weapons the terrorist was carrying; even the lone device detonated at Megiddo could have easily been used to destroy a larger target such as a bus. Moreover, Hizballah’s apparent effort to test (or shift) Jerusalem’s redlines on a dangerous frontier needs to be answered. If [the terrorist group’s leader Hassan] Nasrallah has misjudged Israel, then it is incumbent on Jerusalem to make this clear.

Unfortunately, the days of keeping the north quiet at any cost have passed, especially if Hizballah no longer believes Israel is willing to respond forcefully. The last time the organization perceived Israel to be weak was in 2006, and its resultant cross-border operations (e.g., kidnapping Israeli soldiers) led to a war that proved to be devastating, mostly to Lebanon. If Hizballah tries to challenge Israel again, Israel should be ready to take strong action such as targeting the group’s commanders and headquarters in Lebanon—even if this runs the risk of intense fire exchanges or war.

Relevant preparations for this option should include increased monitoring of Hizballah officials—overtly and covertly—and perhaps even the transfer of some military units to the north. Hizballah needs to know that Israel is no longer shying away from conflict, since this may be the only way of forcing the group to return to the old, accepted rules of the game and step down from the precipice of a war that it does not appear to want.