Subscribe
Subscribe to receive new posts:
Available Now!
When Judaism Meets Science
Archive for the ‘Bible’ Category
Judaism and Reproductive Science: Be Fruitful and Multiply. But How?
Guest Essay by Prof. William D. Petok
Credit: wikigramas.org
The Bible and Fertility
The Biblical imperative is clear. “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and tame it . . . .” (Gen. 1:28.) And God gives no description of how Adam and Eve are to do this. Again, after the flood, the same message comes from on high: “God then blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’”(Gen. 9:1.) At least seven more times the commandment is given. This must be important!
Later in the text we are introduced to the problem of infertility. Sarah struggles and suggests that Abraham use the first known surrogate, Hagar, her handmaiden. After Ishmael is born Sarah conceives at the ripe age of 90. Tension between the two women increases and Hagar and Ishmael are cast out.
Infertility skips Isaac and Rebecca but plagues the next generation of the Matriarchs. “When Rachel saw that she was not bearing [children] to Jacob, Rachel came to envy her sister. She said to Jacob, “Let me have children; otherwise I am a dead woman.’” (Gen. 30:1.)
And finally, Elkahnah’s wife is stricken. Unfortunately, Elkhanah misses an opportunity to connect with his wife when he says “Am I not more to you than ten sons?” (1 Sam. 1:8.) Then, “In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the Lord, weeping bitterly. And she made a vow, saying, ‘Lord Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget Your servant, but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life.’” (1 Sam. 1:10-11.) Miraculously, as in earlier texts, she conceives, and a son is born.
Modern Fertility Strategies
Today, we are less likely to rely on divine intervention for fertility problems. Reproductive medicine has developed an array of strategies for both men and women who are unable to create children “the old-fashioned way.” The most complex of these are considered Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and include In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in which eggs and sperm join without other manipulation in a petri dish, Intrauterine Insemination (IUI), in which sperm is introduced to the uterus via a catheter, Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), in which a single sperm is injected into a single egg under the microscope, the use of donor sperm or eggs, and the use of a gestational carrier when a woman’s is unable to carry a pregnancy to term for medical reasons. More recently, pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) allows the determination of genetic problems with an embryo before it is transferred to a uterus. The process involves removing several cells in order to test them. Finally, egg freezing allows a woman to freeze her eggs for later use or donation at a later time.
As an added benefit of these technologies, same sex couples who wish to have children to whom they have a genetic connection can employ one or more of the above methods and build their families.
When Judaism Meets Reproductive Science
What does Judaism, the religion that brought us “Be fruitful and multiply,” have to say about these methods which did not exist when the biblical authors created the texts above? Many religions approach the problem of infertility with some amount of overlap. Judaism says that procreation is a religious duty, that infertility is imposed by God and may be seen as a punishment for wrongdoing. In fact, all the major religions take the view that infertility is a punitive response from the deity. As with most religions, Judaism has denominations ranging from the most orthodox to the most liberal. And the range of opinions on what is acceptable is significant. Generally, the more strictly one adheres to Jewish law, the more restrictive are the options.
Judaism in its most conservative forms is fairly flexible when it comes to ART. IVF is acceptable, particularly when the sperm and egg come from the individuals who will carry to term and raise the infant. IUI is acceptable if the sperm comes from the husband of the woman who will carry the pregnancy.
Egg donation
There are rabbis who will reject the use of donor eggs while others allow it with the husband’s consent. A major concern, if the donor is Jewish, would be the “provenance” of the egg for future marriage of the child. Regardless of faith, it’s a bad idea to marry a half sibling. The genetic consequences could be problematic. In the most religious circles, a gentile donor is preferred, the assumption being that the child will only marry a Jew, thus removing concerns about gene lines and consanguinity. Many authorities would favor a full conversion to insure the Jewish heritage of the child.
Sperm Donation
The use of donor sperm from a Jewish donor is not allowed because it constitutes an adulterous relationship, at least metaphorically, because the donor creates a child with a woman who is not his wife. The child would then be considered a mamzer or bastard.
For men with male factor infertility, this option is removed. A non-Jewish donor, on the other hand, changes the equation. The child can’t unknowingly marry a half-sibling because in “proper” marriage arrangements there is only a Jewish option. If a donor is Jewish, accurate records must be kept to insure that the donor’s subsequent children are not potential marriage mates.
Seed Spilling
The issue of IUI, IVF, and ICSI are complicated by how the sperm and egg “get together.” Since these procedures all take place without intercourse, “spilling of seed,” or masturbation, is required. The original text from Genesis (38:9) and then again in Leviticus presents questions about emission of semen and raises similar questions about ritual purity. Jews who follow a strict interpretation of text will then have a problem with how sperm are obtained for the procedures above. Typically, a man provides a specimen for use by masturbating into a collection cup. But this violates the prohibition of spilling seed. In order to avoid the prohibition, special collection condoms have been created so the couple can have intercourse and the “seed is not spilt.” In the most observant situations, there is a small hole at the top of the condom, so it is “possible” for seed to escape into the vagina and it won’t be “wasted.” From a medical/scientific point of view these machinations are less than desirable, but acceptable.
Surrogacy
Some Jewish denominations allow surrogacy via gestational carrier. This a distinctly different form of surrogacy than the one Abraham employed. Today that would be referred to as “traditional surrogacy” in which the carrier is inseminated with the father’s sperm, carries the child to birth and the turns the infant over to the parents who will raise it. This practice is used far less today than 25 years ago because of advances in IVF which allow creation of a fetus outside the womb and subsequent transfer to a carrier. In the best case, the carrier would be an unmarried woman. However, some Halachic authorities raise the question of maternal identity. Is the carrier, who’s only contribution to the birth is her womb, a mother? It is possible to find Halachic authorities who make the case both for and against gestational surrogacy. Liberal Judaism, which has accepted patrilineal descent, finds gestational surrogacy acceptable.
Most gestational surrogacy arrangements today involve a woman who is done creating her own family. As with any pregnancy, one risk is future infertility due to complications of gestation or birth. Another reason for this guideline is that a woman who has her own children is more likely to turn over a child she has carried for someone else. Many carriers comment that they loved being pregnant and look forward to the process especially because they will be able to sleep through the night after the delivery!
Anonymity
While egg and sperm donors were initially required to be anonymous for reasons that don’t make sense today, there is a strong movement to create donor sibling registries. This allows donor conceived children to find their half-siblings, “diblings” in some circles, and obtain ongoing medical information about their donor which may impact them in the future. When donor sperm and later donor egg procedures became possible, no one could have predicted the impact of technology on reproduction. Today, with genetic testing from organizations such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com, it is almost impossible for a donor to remain anonymous. In the not too distant future, children who are not told about their donor conception could easily discover the “truth” when they take biology in middle school and bring home the DNA swab kit to learn about their own genetic makeup.
Egg Freezing
Egg freezing, a process in which a woman’s ovaries are stimulated in a controlled fashion to produce more eggs than are normal for one cycle, is gaining acceptance in the Orthodox community. The procedure allows eggs to be retrieved by needle aspiration while the woman is sedated. They are subsequently frozen and stored in cryopreservation tanks for later use. For an unmarried woman in her late 30’s, this is a significant development as it allows her to preserve some measure of fertility until she finds a mate. It is also significant for a woman who has a medical condition that requires treatment that can render her infertile, such as some treatments for cancer and other diseases. As striking a development as it sounds, it is an imperfect process. Not all frozen eggs will thaw properly and not all of those that do thaw will fertilize. Finally, not all those that fertilize will develop into embryos that can be transferred.
Genetic Testing
Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) was developed to diagnose genetically transmittable disorders. The process involves removing a single cell from a day 3 embryo and studying the genetic makeup of that cell. While the process is taking place, the embryo is frozen for later use. At day 3, the eight cells that make up the embryo are undifferentiated. Removing one will not affect the subsequent development of the embryo. The information obtained can prevent the transfer of embryos with Tay-Sachs, Down’s syndrome, and other disorders. It could also be used for sex determination, something that Halachic and non-Halachic authorities consider frivolous.
Additional Resources
This brief overview of Judaism’s approach to ART is by no means exhaustive. The reader who wants a deeper dive into both the Jewish approach and the broader field of ART is referred to several books and websites listed below.
Grazi, Richard V. Overcoming Infertility: A guide for Jewish couples (Toby Press, 2005). An edited collection by an experienced reproductive endocrinologist with contributions from rabbinic and medical experts.
Finkelstein, Baruch and Finkelstein, Michal. (The Third Key: the Jewish couple’s guide to Fertility (Feldheim Publishers, 2005). Contains halachic explanations of ART and what is and is not permissible for the most observant.
Cardin, Nina Beth. Tears of Sorrow, Seeds of Hope. Jewish Lights Publishing, 1999. Written by a Reform rabbi, this book, subtitled “A Jewish Companion for Infertility and Pregnancy Loss,” contains spiritual resources for those coping with infertility and pregnancy loss.
Jewish Fertility Foundation. https://www.jewishfertilityfoundation.org. Headquartered in Atlanta, this organization provides financial assistance, educational awareness and emotional support to Jewish people who have medical fertility challenges.
Uprooted. https://weareuprooted.org. A Boston based organization that offers advocacy and ritual creation. Uprooted educates Jewish leaders in assisting families with fertility challenges and provides national communal support to those struggling to grow their families.
Puah. https://www.puahfertility.org. Headquartered in Israel and providing services in the United States, this organization describes itself as “fertility, medicine and halacha.” In addition to information and events, it offers lab supervision to insure rabbinic requirements that Jewish parentage is established.
A Time. https://www.atime.org. Headquartered in Brooklyn, this organization is focused on religiously observant Jews dealing with infertility and family building challenges.
RESOLVE. https://resolve.org/ The national patient advocacy organization. RESOLVE provides free support groups in more than 200 communities and is the leading patient advocacy voice.
The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. https://www.sart.org. SART provides unbiased information and sets standards for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Member clinics provide data on success rates which are validated and available online. The website contains a wealth of patient friendly information in print and video form.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine. https://www.asrm.org. ASRM is a multidisciplinary organization dedicated to the advancement of the science and practice of reproductive medicine. Its patient information page, https://www.reproductivefacts.org, contains significant information about the medical aspects of infertility and its treatment
************
William D. Petok, PhD, is a Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Thomas Jefferson University/Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA.
The views expressed by Prof. Petok are his own and not necessarily those of the Blogmaster. They are published in order to promote this blog’s mission to provide information and foster discussion about matters of faith and science. The Blogmaster thanks Prof. Petok for his contribution to this forum.
Rabbi Richard Address Explores “When Judaism Meets Science”
RABBI RICHARD ADDRESS is the Founder and Director of www.jewishsacredaging.com. There he develops and implements the Sacred Aging project which has been responsible for creating awareness and resources for congregations on the implication of the emerging longevity revolution that has begun to impact all aspects of Jewish communal and congregational life.
In winter 2018, Rabbi Address began hosting a weekly podcast, Seekers of Meaning. Rabbi Address’s interview of author Roger Price concerning the latter’s new book, When Judaism Meets Science, covers a wide range of topics, including creation, evolution, bio–ethics, fake news, the anthropic principle, a Jewdroid, and the Greenberg hurdle. Running about forty–five minutes, without commercial interruption, it can be heard here: https://jewishsacredaging.com/som-pod-roger-price-author-of-when-judaism-meets-science/
When Judaism Meets Science can be purchased from various etailers, including Amazon, and also from the publisher, Wipf and Stock.
Biology and Genesis: Are they compatible or irreconcilable?
Credit: Malka Rappaport
Introduction
Biology is the scientific study of life, and Genesis is the biblical story of life. Both address matters ranging from the origin of life to how we find life today, and both contain lessons that are important for our continued existence. And despite the fact that differences of interpretation of Genesis and the Bible in general have been the source of much discussion about perceived conflicts between religious and scientific ideas, perhaps these perspectives need not be considered so divergent.
Genesis is the first book of the Hebrew Bible, and most Jews accept the idea that it contains metaphors and should not be intended to serve as a substitute or alternative for valid scientific textbooks. However, it is also true that close reading of these stories can reveal perspectives and themes in common with many contemporary issues of scientific interest and importance. For example, the field of biology is now reaching an unprecedented peak of experimental power. We can now change our own biology in ways that were unimaginable just a few years ago. This is not to say that we should not move ahead, but we need to do so carefully. Because of this unprecedented power, though, all biologists today would be well served to incorporate ethical and moral considerations into their work to consider what should be done, not just what can be done. The stories in Genesis can help here because they directly address many biological issues of current interest, and they may provide valuable philosophical and ethical perspectives. read more
The Battle for Jerusalem and the Origin of Fake News — 2700 Years Ago
Sennacherib Prism,
Oriental Institute, U. of Chicago
How can you tell what is true and what is not in the Hebrew Bible (the “Tanakh”)? How can you separate fact from fiction and fable? In some instances, science can help. For instance, both geological and archaeological records confirm that the whole earth was not submerged in flood waters during the last six thousand years, and evolutionary biology demonstrates that all land animals and birds do not owe their existence to creatures that were on a vessel floating on those mythical waters. Similarly, we know that the Sun did not stop in the sky for twenty-four hours during a battle at Gibeon, for that would have meant that the Earth ceased to rotate during that period of time, which, in turn, would have caused cataclysmic consequences neither reported in the story nor elsewhere. (See Gen. 7:6-8; Josh. 10:12-14.)
From a modern perspective, then, it is reasonably easy to identify some biblical stories that are not factually accurate. They may well contain worthy moral or other lessons, but as factual recitations of actual occurrences, they fail.
At the same time, there are other stories in the Tanakh that seem quite plausible, even contemporary in their nature. How can we tell if they are historically true or historical fiction or simply imagined? One such story concerns the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (pronounced Seh-NACK-er ib) during the reign of the Judahite king Hezekiah about 2700 years ago. read more
The Torah and Tachlis of Violence with Firearms: Ethics and Evidence
WARNING: This is serious stuff. Human life is at stake. If you are looking for confirmation of preconceived narratives, stop. You probably will not find that here. If you are looking for solutions in slogan form or less than 750 words, stop. You surely will not find that here. We will go ten times farther than that. And this is not a discussion about some utopian ideal. It concerns the world in which we actually live, with the government and law we have and human nature as it is. If you will not deal with reality or ambiguity, stop. You will be annoyed here. If you are not interested in facts that define a problem or evidence that may offer a solution, again, please stop. Otherwise you will be disappointed and unhappy. If anyone is left, thanks in advance for considering this essay.
These days in the United States we see and hear much violence associated with firearms. Sometime it erupts in a mass shooting at a college or an elementary school, a church or a Jewish Community Center, a nightclub or, as it did most recently, an outdoor concert. Sometimes it comes with the steady staccato of an attack by one gang banger attempting to snuff out another. Sometimes it comes by way of a single bullet, the shooter and the shot being the same person. However it manifests itself, the sadness that follows is palpable. Our hearts are broken at the loss of life, of what might have been, of possibilities foreclosed permanently. And we are angry, too – angry at the perpetrator and angry about the conditions that permitted if not caused a person to become so hateful or so self-righteous or so desirous of notoriety or so callous or so full of despair that s/he acted to take a human life.
When such violence strikes, to the extent its senses and sensibilities have not been numbed, the Jewish community here has not been shy. With sermons and articles and resolutions and more, it has spoken — loudly, passionately and repeatedly. But it has not spoken uniformly, much less always wisely. There is in the Jewish community, as there is in the nation as a whole, a variety of viewpoints. The question before us is whether our tradition can offer both Torah and tachlis, that is both instruction grounded in Jewish values and ideas that are also practical and productive. read more
Judaism, Neuroscience and the Free Will Hypothesis (Part 2)
Credit: DARPA
The Jewish assumption of free will is ancient and enduring. But what does modern neuroscience have to say?
The history of neuroscientists’ efforts to explore the free will phenomenon was reviewed in 2016 by philosopher and neuroethicist Andrea Lavazza in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. The setting for our current understanding was drawn a half century ago with the discovery by Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deecke of the Readiness Potential (“RP”), a measurement of increased bio-electric activity in the brain. The RP was measured by an electroencephalogram (“EEG”), a procedure in which electrodes were placed on a subject’s scalp to allow for the recording of bio-electric activity. This activity was seen as an indication of preparation for a volitional act.
One question raised by the discovery of RP was whether an individual was conscious of an intention to act before RP appeared. In the early 1980s, Benjamin Libet, a son of Jewish immigrants from Ukraine who became a neuroscientist at the University of California-Davis, sought to answer that question. Libet and his team designed a relatively simple test. First, subjects were wired for an EEG. To record muscle contraction, electrodes were also placed on subjects’ fingers. Then the subjects were asked to do two things, spontaneously move their right finger or wrist, and, with the aid of a clock in front of them, report to researchers the time they thought they decided to do so.
What Libet found (Libet et al. 1983) was that conscious awareness of the decision to move a finger preceded the actual movement of the finger by 200 milliseconds (ms), but also that RP was evident 350 ms before such consciousness. While Libet recognized that his observations had “profound implications for the nature of free will, for individual responsibility and guilt,” his report appropriately contained several caveats. First, it noted (at 640) that the “present evidence for the unconscious initiation of a voluntary act of course applies to one very limited form of such acts.” Second (at 641), it allowed for the possibility that there could be a “conscious ‘veto’ that aborts the performance . . . (of) the self-initiated act under study here.” Finally (at 641), it acknowledged that “the possibilities for conscious initiation and control” in situations that were not spontaneous or quickly performed. read more
Judaism, Neuroscience and the Free Will Hypothesis (Part 1)
Forget Moses’s impassioned plea to the Israelites concerning their choices among the many blessings and curses that God reportedly set before them as they were about to cross the Jordan river into their promised land. (See Deut. 11:26-28, 30:15, 19.) Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne claims we have no ability to choose freely among alternatives. According to Coyne, “we couldn’t have had that V8, and Robert Frost couldn’t have taken the other road.” Presumably, the Israelites in the story had not much choice either.
Coyne argues that the free will we sense when we make a decision, the feeling that we are choosing among available alternatives, does not exist. In reality, he contends, our conduct is predetermined by physics. This result follows, he says, because our brains and bodies, the “vehicles that make ‘choices,’ are composed of molecules, and the arrangement of those molecules is entirely determined by (our) genes and (our) environment.” The decisions we think we make are, in his opinion, merely “the result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another.” read more
When a Jewdroid Walks into Shul (Part 2)
That the age of robots is coming, and soon, seems indisputable. For some, though, achievements to date in mobility, dexterity and intelligence (discussed in a prior post), may be as unsettling as they are amazing. Surely future developments will be disruptive and challenging in a wide variety of circumstances, many of which cannot even be anticipated.
How will the Jewish community react when an artificial entity is created that not only looks human, but is thoroughly versed in all things Jewish? Will the Jewdroid’s presence be too much to bear or is Judaism’s tent big enough to hold him too? Shall we reject the Jewdroid whose existence is unprecedented or shall we welcome the stranger? What assumptions and values shall inform us? Let’s look at some objections to a proposed Jewdroid.
The first, and most trivial argument, is that based on appearance: the droid does not “look Jewish.” A similar objection was raised against the Bulbas at William Tenn’s imagined interstellar Neo-Zionist convention. Whether coming from Jews or non-Jews, that line assumes that there is such a thing as a Jewish “look.” Whether there ever was a “look” is doubtful, but today any argument based on a presumed Jewish look involving a distinctive set of physical traits shared by all Jews is not only obnoxious, it is contrary to the evidence of the varieties of contemporary Jewry. In the world in which we live, Jews come in many shades, shapes and sizes, each with a wide range of physical features. Why, there are even Ginger Jews! Looks alone cannot compel a conclusion that our Jewdroid either can or cannot be Jewish. Our droid could come in any hue and be a Jew. read more
When a Jewdroid Walks into Shul (Part 1)
Credit: Jewish Museum Berlin
In a short story written expressly for inclusion in a groundbreaking anthology of Jewish science fiction and fantasy, Wandering Stars (Jewish Lights, 1974), the British writer William Tenn imagined a future galaxy populated with Jews who, consistent with their ancestors’ history, traveled far and wide in search of a better life. Among these Jews, or at least creatures who claimed to be Jews, was a certain group of small, brown pillow shaped beings covered with grey spots out of which protruded tentacles. Residents of the fourth planet in the Rigel star system (Rigel being a star in the Orion constellation as seen from Earth), they claimed to be Jewish by descent from a community of Orthodox Jews who lived in and around Paramus, New Jersey. Their non-human appearance was the result, they said, of natural relationships, over time, with the native inhabitants of their new planet. In Tenn’s tale, the Bulbas, as they were known, traveled to Venus in the year 2859 C.E. in order to participate in the First Interstellar Neo-Zionist Convention which was convened for the purpose of discussing a renewed claim to Israel, an area on Earth then free of all Jews. The question presented was whether the Bulbas could be accredited as Jews.
While set some eight centuries in the future, Tenn’s story asked age old questions about the nature of Jewishness. And if the context of the story seems far ahead of our times, the reality is that the pace of discovery regarding potential life on other planets continues to accelerate. After all, the existence of the first exoplanet, that is, a planet that is outside of our solar system and orbits its own host star, was not confirmed until 1995. Today we have identified over 3,300 such planets. The first exoplanet in a habitable zone was not found until 2010. Today we know of at least 49 such planets. In 2014, the first Earth sized exoplanet in a habitable zone was discovered. Within the past couple of months, we have found a potentially habitable exoplanet in the star system closest to Earth, that of Proxima Centauri.
At a distance of just over 4.2 light years from Earth, though, Proxima Centauri is still almost 25 trillion miles away. NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft, traveling over 36,000 miles per hour, would still need over 78,000 years to reach it. Obviously Earth bound readers of this essay will not be alive when the first probe to Proxima Centauri reports its findings. But dramatic advances in technology are raising the issue of Jewishness in yet another context. If the claim of the geographically distant Bulbas, who did not resemble our species in the slightest, was challenging, how will we consider the Jewishness of an android, a robot designed to look like us, and programmed with considerable intelligence, artificial though it may be? read more
An Ark is a Terrible Thing to Waste
Credit: Ark Encounter
Ark Encounter is a theme park in Williamstown, Kentucky that invites you to “witness history,” to participate in a “life-sized Noah’s Ark experience” and to “be amazed,” all for the single day price of $40 per adult and $28 for children over 5 years of age. Seniors get a discount. Parking pass not included. Combination rates are available if you also want to go to Ark Encounter’s “sister attraction,” the Creation Museum, just north in Petersburg, Kentucky.
The underlying premise of the Ark Museum is that beside “the Cross, the Ark of Noah is one of the greatest reminders we have of salvation.” The reference, of course, is to the biblical story of a massive, worldwide encompassing flood which destroyed all human and other land based animal life on Earth, save that of a man named Noah, his family and such animals as he was able to collect and maintain on an enormous ship, the Ark, which rode the flooded seas for an extended period. (See generally, Gen. 6:9-9:29.) Ark Encounter considers the story of Noah’s Ark to be “true,” that is, an “historical account recorded for us in the Bible.”
For young earth creationists, like the proponents of Ark Encounter, history dates back to, and only to, about 6000 years ago, when, they believe, God created heaven and earth. Based on the genealogies in Genesis, the flood began when Noah was 600 years old, in the year 1656 AC (After Creation). Following the reckoning of Irish Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th Century as to the date of creation, this equates to 2348 BCE (Before the Common Era). The traditional Jewish calculation of the date of creation is somewhat different, occurring 3761/3760 years before the start of the Common Era, with the flood commencing 1656 years later, or about 2105 BCE. read more