Earlier this week my roommate came home to me laying in bed curled up with Susan Kahn’s Reproducing Jews. She happened to be coming from a visit with Eliana, the wife of a young Atlanta Rabbi. Interestingly enough, that day Eliana told my roommate about her visit to her “birth control Rabbi” to discuss the possibility of getting an IUD. I asked my roommate what a birth control Rabbi was (picturing in my head my 10th-grade Sex Ed teacher wearing a kippah) she told me it was a Rabbi who specialized in what Jewish halakha says about contraception. She said that Eliana goes to a different Rabbi depending on what kinds of questions need answering in her life. This reminded me of how I go to a different store depending on what kinds of grocery items I need in my apartment: I’ll go to Whole Foods if I am looking to treat myself to overpriced fruits, Trader Joe’s for wine and avocado hummus, CVS if I need a candy bar and some laundry detergent, and Kroger for pretty much everything else.
This anecdote demonstrates what I interpret as the shopping cart-like essence of Judaism and Jewish Law. This view is highlighted in our readings this week about a Jewish take on Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).
Susan Martha Kahn’s book, Reproducing Jews, is an ethnography of Israeli Jews that seeks to identify Jewish beliefs about reproductive technologies. She looks at three populations: unmarried women who underwent IVF or were looking to, medical professionals in a fertility clinic, and finally rabbis and other Orthodox Jews who are experts in the field of ART.
Michael Broyde’s chapter examines how Judaism views reproductive cloning from a religious, biological, and legal standpoint. Broyde argues that cloning is consistent with halakhic teachings, however cautions his audience to be careful not to be too permissive especially in the face of uncertainty so as to “[minimize] the potential of Jewish Law violations.” (315) The utilitarian argument of “do no harm” that Ayman talked about in his post last week applies here.
Finally, our very own Don Seeman’s chapter from Kin, Gene, Community calls for a need to consider humanness and culture—rather than relying on rote religious-technical arguments—when doing a comparative analysis of a religious take on ethical issues such as ART. He writes, “good literature and good ethnography each make us more aware of the moral ambiguities and subtle leitmotifs as well as grand cultural narratives and power structures in which reproductive choices are made.” (357)
There is a distinct theme in these readings that contextualize this week’s topic of Religious Law. Last week we saw that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the French National Bioethics Committee cite “natural law” as their source of authority on ART. However, all three of our authors this week argue that Jewish law is divorced from, and perhaps wholly ignores, nature. In an argument against a previous comparison of Jewish and Euro-American concepts of kinship Kahn writes, “If we understand Strathern’s concept of ‘nature’ to be synonymous with a set of beliefs that privilege genetic relatedness…then we must recognize significant differences between Euro-American and Jewish beliefs about kinship.” (165) Broyde’s chapter highlights how differently Jewish Law can be interpreted in order to get certain results, which is inconsistent with an absolute, nature-driven argument. For example, he discusses IVF and how some rabbis argue that the egg donor is the true mother, some argue that the gestational mother is the true mother, and some even argue both. Seeman cites the Catholic Church’s governance via natural law as one of the reasons Jews and Christians diverge so much on this issue of ART. He writes, “a lack of overriding concern with ‘nature’ or natural law in rabbinic jurisprudence can make halachah eminently more flexible than some other forms of ethical deliberation when it comes to new reproductive technologies.” (359)
Seeman’s argument about flexibility brings us back to the shopping cart idea from the beginning of my post. The fact that Eliana, or anyone for that matter, can pick and choose her source of religious authority depending on the issue at hand seems to be a very common occurrence in Judaism. In my personal experience, I feel almost encouraged to modify Judaism to fit my lifestyle, even if that means feeling Jewish just because I like to eat challah on Fridays. In the debates about ART, it seems as though you can find a way to sculpt halakhic teachings to fit any argument. Kahn writes, “all this cutting and pasting of conceptual kinship categories is somewhat of a game” (169) when discussing how Israelis will accept paternity of Israeli Jewish sperm donors but deny it if the donor is a non-Jew.
Dr. Seeman asked us in his VoiceThread this week to consider how Judaism and Catholicism hold respectively the most permissive and the most restrictive opinions on ART. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that halakha is derived from the Talmud, the “oral torah,” which is not only based on written scripture but also on commentaries and commentaries of commentaries from a million rabbis who all have different views on every issue. Judaism 101 describes the Talmud as “some else’s class notes from a college lecture you never attended.”[1] Perhaps this structure allows for Judaism to most efficiently evolve with the times, to have greater authority technology-related issues that were inconceivable to our old friend Moses. Perhaps, as Dr. Seeman argues, it is a divorce from nature law that allows for so much plasticity in Judaism.
I can’t help but wonder, however, how big of a role the history of the Jewish people plays here. In addition to discussing what the Bible says about barren women being “an archetype of suffering,” (3) Kahn provides a historical context to Israeli pronatalism. She cites Arab birthrates, a desire to increase numbers in the Israeli Defense Forces, and replacement of Jews lost in the Holocaust as potential factors motivating such a permissive attitude about ART. On the contrary, Dr. Seeman argues the “sociological factors” such as “high Arab birth rates or the much vaunted ‘pro-natalism’ of post Holocaust Jews” (350) are insufficient in explaining Israeli Jews’ policies on ART. However, these arguments can go back even further in history. Not only have Jews never been the majority in any country they’ve ever inhabited, but they have also been the recipient of persecution and oppression time and time again.[2] I am not arguing that other religious and ethnic minorities have not also been subject to extensive persecution or that the Jews had it the worst out of anyone. I am arguing that this history undeniably weaves its way into Israeli Jewish permissiveness on the subject of technologies that allow for the production of more Jews. More generally, a shopping-cart attitude toward a religious tradition allows for pretty much anyone to adopt a “Jewish identity” in some form or another. It allows me, the worst Jew of them all, to call myself a Jew and have Jewish babies even in the absence of any substantive practice. Perhaps permissiveness in Jewish Law is equally a product of scripture, culture, and history.
Some Q’s to consider:
Does halakhic permissiveness detract from how much authority the religion itself holds?
Does Judaism really diverge from natural law, or does it simply have its own concept of natural law?
When we read interpretations, how do we know who to listen to?
When it comes to the Bible, certain interpretations can only apply to the state of affairs in a specific period in time. Do we need to keep updating in order to come to an interpretation that applies to humans of the most modern times?
Is it more effective for a religious tradition to be more permissive or more restrictive?
[1] http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
You did a good job of integrating the readings and connecting those insights to ones we’ve discussed before and experiences in your life. I like your grocery shop analogy and how you continuously connect your points to it. To answer the question, “Does Judaism really diverge from natural law, or does it simply have its own concept of natural law?” I would say that Judaism doesn’t really address natural law. The Catholic Church says it’s in the natural order of the universe for a child to be born from its biological parents, and for children to result from the conjugal act. Judaism doesn’t hold such universal beliefs about the natural order. Perhaps, this is due to the decentralized nature of authority in the Jewish religion and the emphasis on the obligation to reproduce. You also ask about the need to form new interpretations of the Bible based on modern times. I do think that interpretations have to be updated as we come across new scenarios, but I would also argue that many of the issues that arise today are similar to those which have arisen in the past. Don Seeman shows several examples of this like when he discusses Sarah’s and Hagar’s children. He says, “[reproductive dilemmas] are common to many cultural settings and may inhere to some degree in the human condition.” While these dilemmas have been addressed in the past, they do have to be interpreted in ways that relate specifically to policy. They must be defined in new ways that can apply to people’s lives in the modern setting.
Unit Four:
Hannah, I enjoyed reading your anecdote; it actually enabled me to visualize the rest of your post which helped me understand it better. I would like to respond to the following question you posed, “When we read interpretations, how do we know who to listen to?”. I first want to start off by mentioning that regardless where one stands on a position, it is important for the person to hear both sides of an argument, even if they may disagree with a certain viewpoint. This may help them modify their own beliefs, or even change their entire outlook on a topic. One aspect of Dr. Seeman’s article which I thoroughly enjoyed was his detailed biblical references. Examples can be seen when he talks about the biblical book of Ruth, Genesis 16, and Sarah’s “old-age” conception. In addition to biblical references, Dr. Seeman cites evidence from “Donum Vitae” and mentions restrictions early French law held on assisted reproductive technologies. These different text sources helped me better grasp why the Catholic Church is against assisted reproduction technologies and the overall broader argument that exists regarding ART. Near the end of the article, the idea of reproductive cloning is brought up. A reason why I enjoyed reading this section was because it foreshadowed another ethical/moral dilemma society will face in the future. Should it be allowed or not? Even though the Catholic church believes it should not, people that abide by Jewish law might feel other-wise, as seen through the following quote, “…Jewish law would recognize a cloned human being prima facie as a person subject to the same rights and responsibilities as any other person, so that the question of his or her humanity should never arise” (359). Below is a question I would like to pose to anyone reading this comment.
Where do you stand on the option of reproductive cloning and how do you think it will play into the already existing conflicts that exist regarding assisted reproductive technologies?
Hannah,
I think your analogy of grocery shopping tremendously helped hammer your point home. I really appreciate the argument you made in this post, as I have wrestled with some of these questions myself for a long time.
Your final question in the post truly made me ponder the concept of religious observance. “Is it more effective for a religious tradition to be more permissive or more restrictive?” My opinion is that there is no perfect answer here. I believe that everyone, regardless of faith or level of observance, has an ideal individual amount of freedom and restriction. This “rigidity” (for lack of a better word) may be a factor considered when deciding what form exactly in which to observe religion. I believe that finding the perfect individual balance along the religious spectrum is key, regardless of the form of observance.
Hi, Hannah! I really enjoyed your insightful response and found your shopping cart anecdote encompassing of ARTs and religious law examples discussed throughout this week’s readings.
I want to start off by saying that I am not a follower of either the Jewish or Catholic religious traditions, therefore my viewpoints to your questions may not be representative of the teachings. With that said, although there are pros and cons to both restrictive and permissive religious teachings, I think there are more benefits to the latter. This ties into the question you posed about religious interpretations and how to know who to listen to. More restrictive traditions may have similar textual interpretations throughout many sources. On the contrary, more permissive traditions may allow for more choice among its followers, providing a baseline to follow rather than restrictions. I believe this viewpoint can be strengthened by Dr. Seeman’s passage in “Ethnography, Exogenesis, and Jewish Ethical Reflection” when he says that Judaism provides “positive ethical ideologies” rather than “negative limits.”
Hannah, I really liked your relation between different grocery stores and, as you say, the “shopping-cart like essence” found in Jewish laws. It helped me more clearly visualize how and why Jewish law has so many different aspects and ideas within it, and how one can apply those different ideas to their own personal life. Regarding some of the questions you posed, I don’t think that the permissiveness of Jewish laws detracts from the authority of the Jewish religion itself. I think the permissiveness allows the religion to be applied more freely to evolving aspects of human life, such as ARTs. That being said, I don’t know if a religion being more restrictive or permissive has an influence on it’s effectiveness. I feel as though if one believes and follows in their chosen religion, that religion has it’s own meaning and effectiveness to that person. For example, the restrictive laws of the Catholic faith regarding ARTs is very effective for people within the Catholic faith, but might not necessarily be effective for Jewish people.
Hey Hannah,
I thought your post was really well formatted and extremely easy to understand. Your questions and thoughts really came through and helped me reflect on my own understanding of the readings.
I found your last question to be particularly interesting to me-whether or not having a restrictive or permissive religious tradition is the most effective option. My parents were both born in Italy and I have a catholic upbringing, but something that I was thinking about while reading the texts for last week and this week is how I think that there is a big divergence within my experience of the catholic faith to what documents like Donum Vitae “command”. So, while I think that the teachings are restrictive, I don’t think this necessarily means that the practices of catholics throughout the world are restrictive. Perhaps it is because to most people the teachings on reproduction and birth are not the most important tenants in their faith. On the other hand, a part of me also thinks being a permissive/restrictive religion is tied to being a minority or majority religion. I’m not sure how I would articulate the connection here but I do think there is some kind of logic behind it-let me know what you think.
Diana,
Thanks for this perspective…now that I think about it I have many Catholic friends like you who still identify with the religion without being bound to every one of its teachings. I also think the opposite applies: many sects of Judaism (especially Orthodox Judaism) are extremely restrictive and stick steadfastly to tradition. It is clear, however, that on the subject of ART Judaism is much more open. It might be that the correlation between being permissive and being a religious minority only applies to this specific situation when we are talking about ways to populate the earth with more Jewish babies.
-Hannah
Response to Unit 4 Blog
Thank you for your blog post, I though your shopping analogy helped to give an easy ease into the readings and frame a way to look at the possible practice some Jewish people may take with their religion. Identifying as a Christian, I was most intrigued by the differences in the Catholic and the Jewish viewpoints coming from the same texts. Your forth question at the bottom is the one that drew me in the most: When it comes to the Bible, certain interpretations can only apply to the state of affairs in a specific period in time. Do we need to keep updating in order to come to an interpretation that applies to humans of the most modern times? From my experience, I have never seen the Bible to only be applied “in a specific period in time.” If that was its purpose, then it would have only been used during that one particular time. I was a bit confused by your wording with “updating” in this questions. Did you mean scholars should reevaluate the Bible text to see if some new viewpoint can give a new translation? Or that as new technologies become available, we need to refer back to this text and see what sort of interpretations can be made from various passages and chapters? I have always seen the Bible as a consistently applicable text to live, even everyday life. While it may seem there are constantly new technologies that bring so many new questions needing to be answered, I have also come to believe “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). An example of this can be seen in Don Seeman’s work, “Ethnography, Exegesis, and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies In Israel” when he brings up Sara and Abraham’s story of having Hagar being a sort of surrogate mother for their child in relation to surrogate mothers today (342-343).
Dear Paula,
You bring up an interesting point that I honestly didn’t think about. To be candid, I have not studied the Bible that much and have very little knowledge on the subject. I suppose I make an assumption in my post that none of the teachings of the Bible apply to modern times, which is obviously not the case. I guess what I meant by “updating” is re-interpreting to fit a situation that did not exist two thousand years ago. For example, the Bible couldn’t explicitly address the ethics of Artificial Intelligence, so understanding which parts of the Bible’s teachings can apply to this new phenomenon would require a new interpretation. Does that make sense?
-Hannah
Hey Hannah, it’s Ayman from freshman year. Guy who fixed your wifi.
I thought your blog was wonderfully written, and it’s interesting to see your own Jewish identity interplay with the subject matter.
I’m glad you highlighted that Kahn thought the categorizing of kinship was a “game.” I tried to emphasize the whimsicality of religious rules and laws in my blog post last week, but I think to no avail. I think the indeterminate nature of religion is an important aspect to take into account. Jewish jurisprudence seems to be radically more liberal than other Abrahamic religions when it comes to ethics of new technologies in any field.
An equally important question is raised immediately afterwards—is this liberal attitude breeding grounds for ulterior motives, such as expansion of the IDF or returning the global Jewish population back to pre-Holocaust numbers? I agree with Professor Seeman that these notions are insufficient to explain an incredibly complex topic. When we zoom out, however, we see a larger issue with religion and ethics. How often do religions bend their knees to the will of a sovereign state? I imagine it is not often at all, but the ability of the two to be in cahoots (regardless of which direction the influence seems to be) is one of concern.
There is a large disconnect with most religious institutions and sovereign governments, and it is interesting to see a situation where the two operate relatively in concert. I still take issue with the concept of ‘natural law.’ Kenaan aptly substituted my use of ‘arbitrary’ for ‘indeterminate,’ but my point still stands. For this concept whose only grounding into the modern times is its interpretation by current leaders of various faiths is not acceptable to me as a cohesive concept. This is whimsical at best, and introduces the question of whether doing what nature does is right, or perhaps even whether we reinterpret what nature just to exert one’s will on a situation.
Hey Hannah,
I really enjoyed the overall style and lightheartedness of blog writing that you employed here. I think that the observation of a shopping cart is interesting, but I don’t necessarily personally agree with it. I think that it certainly sounds appealing to be able to pick which rabbi I turn to for only certain circumstances. Presumably there are many many rabbi out there saying different things, so I propose a new analogy, so bear with me. If Judaism is a book, and each rabbi a page in that book, I can choose a couple words from one page, and some more words from another page and so on for the various situations that arise in life. At the end of the day, my story would likely be very different from the next person’s story, and yet, of the same religion. Because of the permissiveness and lack of unity among the rabbis, there is a story that will fit almost everyone’s lifestyle, which seems to take away from the authority of the religion. I personally prefer a centralized religion where there is a more clear boundary between what is allowed and not allowed, and then gives the choice to follow or not. I think this goes along with your question about whom to listen to when reading interpretations. It is much easier in a centralized religion, like Catholicism, where there is one interpretation that stands for all. I see that this is much more difficult in a religion like Judaism, where interpretations are often lacking in unity. I fear that this would cause individuals to choose rabbi that agree with his or her current needs, and then move on when a new issue arises. Finally, on your question about is it more effective for a religion to be restrictive or permissive, I think it depends on what that religion is going for. If it looks to please its members, being permissive is usually the way to go, while being restrictive is not bending on beliefs. Anyways, I thought that this was a very well written and thought provoking post!
Ben