Halakhah su Deuteronomio 27:15

Rabbi Ben-Zion Uziel, in his Mishpetei Uziel, Hoshen Mishpat, III, no. 46, advances an original line of reasoning in substantiation of R. Jacob Emden's decision regarding the abortion of a bastard fetus. The Gemara (Sotah 37b) declares: "The whole section refers to none other than an adulterer and an adulteress—'Cursed is the man who makes a graven or molten image (Deut. 27:15). Is it sufficient merely to pronounce such a person cursed? [His transgression is punishable not merely by a curse but by death.] Rather it refers to one who has engaged in immoral intercourse and begets a son who goes to live among the heathen and worships idols. Cursed be the father and mother of this person, for this is what they caused him to do." Rashi explains that since such a person is debarred from the assembly and cannot marry a Jewish woman of legitimate birth, his embarrassment causes him to mingle with heathens and his heathen associations lead him to idolatry. From this discussion one may deduce that while the act of adultery carries with it a statutory punishment irrespective of future developments, there is yet another "curse" incurred if the union leads to the birth of bastard progeny. Therefore, rules Rabbi Uziel, it is permissible to destroy the embryo in order not to incur this curse. It is of course self-understood that reference is only to cases of bastards falling under the "curse" and not to the progeny of an unmarried woman, for the Torah regards as a bastard only the issue of an adulterous or incestuous union. Rabbi Uziel further declares that only the parents themselves may abort the fetus. His reasoning is that only, they incur the curse, hence only they may obviate the curse by destroying the fetus. An outsider who incurs no penalty does not experience the "grave need" deemed essential by R. Jacob Emden and has, therefore, no right to interfere with the development of the unborn child.

Its laws are, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:4; Avodah Zarah 51b), "What is [the difference] between [an idol] of an Israelite and [the idol] of a gentile? The [idol] of a gentile is immediately forbidden to benefit from, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:25), 'The statues of their gods shall you burn with fire, etc.' - from when they became statues, it becomes a god for him. But for the Israelite, it does not become forbidden to benefit from until it is worshiped, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:15), 'and places [it] secretly' - until he does things to it secretly, which are its worship. But the auxiliaries of idolatry - whether of a gentile or whether of an Israelite are not forbidden until they use them for idolatry. And the wage of the one who makes [the idol] is permissible, even though he is lashed - and even if he makes it for a gentile, such that it is forbidden when it is finished even before it is worshiped. Nonetheless, it is not forbidden until it is finished, and the last hammer-blow is not worth the value of a small coin (such that all the tangible value was invested before it was forbidden)." [These] and the rest of its many details are in Tractate Avodah Zarah (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 141).

And it is in the category of this prohibition whether it is the idolatry itself or whether it is its auxiliaries or whether it is its offering, and whether it is the idolatry of an Israelite or of a gentile. And what is [the difference] between this and that? That of a gentile is forbidden immediately from when it is made, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:25), "The sculptures of their gods" - from the time that they are sculpted. And that of an Israelite is not forbidden until it is worshiped, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:15), "and places it in hiding" - until he does to it things that are in hiding (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:4).