With a unique ‘inside, outsider’ perspective lens, Susan Martha Kahn explores the connection between rabbinic beliefs about kinship and reproductive technologies in the context of an overarching Rabbinic kinship cosmology. Through ethnographic study conducted in IVF clinics, hospitals, and support groups for unmarried women in Jerusalem, Kahn delves into the overlap between the secular and religious uses of reproductive technologies (ovum donation, artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization) and examines how rabbinic kinship beliefs paved the way for unmarried Jewish women to make use of these technologies. Furthermore, she examines the legal discourse that depicts Jewish women’s bodies as reproductive resources to warrant the use of these technologies (Kahn 2).
Through interviews and participant observation Kahn explores the dominant Jewish Israeli view on IVF practices. Reproductive technologies are allowed and even encouraged as a means of furthering the Jewish bloodline and realizing God’s command to multiply. Reproduction is an “imperative religious duty,” sanctioned by the very specific economic, political, social, and historical contexts that have given rise to the use of new reproductive technologies as a way to satisfy that duty (Kahn 3). Kahn captures this overarching sentiment through her interviews, “If you’re not a mother, you don’t exist in Israeli society” (9), as stated by a social worker at a fertility clinic in Jerusalem. I personally felt the language surrounding this supposed “duty of woman” to be a bit reductive. It seems the legislation and general attitude toward these Jewish Israeli women reduces them to their baseline femininity, minimizing them to their reproductive capacities. As a non-practicing Jewish-American unmarried woman, Kahn has a unique outsider and insider perspective that allows her to conduct her ethnography from a removed yet group-accepted stance. Nonetheless, she may be subject to some semblance of personal biases, as the societal expectations she faces (or rather, does not face) as an American non-practicing Jew, vary greatly in comparison to her devout Jewish Israeli counterparts.
With our class last week in mind, in which we explored the two Genesis creation stories presented in the Hebrew English Tanakh, it must be noted that the commandment to multiply isn’t actually presented as a commandment. Interestingly, justification for the usage of reproductive practices in Israel are founded on the basis of this (supposed) command. Given that most Israelis communicate in Hebrew, one would assume the Israeli Jews featured in this ethnographical study have read the direct Hebraic version. In the first book of Genesis, “God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and God said to them, Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it” (Genesis 1.14 line 28 as cited in the Hebrew English Tanakh). Here, this excerpt states that man and woman receive the ability to procreate as a blessing, rather than an obligatory command.
Throughout Kahn’s ethnographical account, a hierarchical ordering of values is present: the need to follow the command to reproduce outweighs the social value of maintaining a normative, nuclear household. Kahn states, “…unmarried Israeli women who have conceived children via artificial insemination can be understood to preserve the honor and prestige of the traditional family at the same time that they comply with the dominant ideology of the family as the center of social life”(45). It seems here that the traditional family style- consisting of two biological parents- is ranked as not as important when considering ideals to strive for, so long as an unmarried Jewish woman is making use of her reproductive capacities in an effort to further the Jewish population and fulfill that specific duty as procreator.
When faced with the topic of reproductive technologies, Michael J. Broyde employs a case-by-case evaluative approach, modeled after the same approach emphasized by those who follow Jewish law, halakhah. While evaluating the case of cloning, Broyde references a duality often found in Jewish thought: on one hand, an obligation for individuals to help those in need, coupled with the command to reproduce, encourages the use of reproductive technologies to reach that end goal of reproduction. However, Jewish law also warns of the “slippery slope” people encounter when they attempt to medal in things out of their scope, as some things are better left in God’s hands. It is worth noting that both Broyde and Kahn reference a moral imperative to reproduce as a core justification often employed to warrant use of reproductive technologies. After a series of analyses regarding cloning, Broyde reaches the bottom-line conclusion that within the Jewish faith, cloning is ultimately a form of “assisted reproduction” (Broyde 296), situated in the same category as other reproductive interventions such as artificial insemination or surrogacy. Cloning is a permissible reproductive interventionist approach, save for the few cases in which a rabbi may override its usage. As seen in the Kahn reading, it appears that the Jewish moral imperative of reproduction trumps controversy regarding reproductive technologies, justified by the Jewish commandment to multiply. Broyde’s discussion of cloning, as viewed by halakhic law, adds to Kahn’s ethnography by detailing verdicts on specific nuanced circumstances in which parenthood may come into question. I found the discussion on gestational mothers (Broyde 316) particularly interesting, as Jewish law would consider the woman who births a child as the proper mother, despite a genetic difference (in the case of surrogacy).
Don Seeman highlights the need to add cultural contexts into the discussion on reproductive technologies. While examining whether a new medical technology is deemed ethical or not, one must closely consider the context in which interpretation occurs, referred to as a “hermeneutic strategy” (Seeman 342). In order to examine how different communities respond to the question of these technologies, we must consider the interpretative variance between communities (Seeman 340), cultural nuance, and lived experience (Seeman 357).
I found Seeman’s discussion of what is “natural” as a foundation to secular law as quite thought provoking. “Natural” as a foundation to law, in the case of France (amongst other nations), invokes the question of the natural as a secular idea. Perhaps, what is envisioned as natural is simply playing off of biblical notions of the “natural” family unit (heterosexual couple and their children) and may not actually be “natural” to us. In line with this thinking, I pose the question: what is truly natural about this nuclear family unit?
The theme of birth mothers as true mothers appears in this text well, similar to the discussion explored in Broyde’s text. Jewish law “…makes no provision for the formal transference of maternal identity from a birth mother to another woman-the birth mother remains the mother for many halachic purposes no matter who may raise the child…” (Seeman 342). However, it seems there is example of a biblical instance in which pseudo-surrogacy is employed in Genesis 16, yet the child produced does not end up belonging to the gestational mother. Here, Seeman highlights the variance in hermeneutic interpretation of a biblical passage, as many scholars of Jewish thought have chosen to selectively ignore this passage, as they feel halakhic law supersedes this biblical account.
Seeman’s inclusion of this passage from Genesis 16 serves as a means of elucidating the widespread, age old preoccupation with reproduction and reproductive technologies, present in a myriad of cultural contexts. Responses and preoccupations with reproductive technologies can only be understood within the distinct social context in which these issues arise. Often the question of kinship- which is regarded differently in each culture- plays a significant role in how reproductive technologies are employed or disregarded. Ultimately, answers to the question of reproductive technologies are inextricably tethered to social reproduction, not simply biological, contrary to beliefs Western minded individuals may assume because we typically rely on biology/bloodlines as a means of determining kinship.
In chapter three of “Reproducing Jews” we see how the Rabbis vary greatly with their perceptions of sperm-donors. Some equate the sperm donation with adultery whereas others see it as a way to “be fruitful and multiply.” This is representative with the other two readings that show that unlike the Catholic Church, there are varying opinions on reproductive technologies in Judaism. This extends from secular Jewish women to Orthodox Rabbis. In terms of cloning, Broyde and Kahn describe similar thought processes of the Jewish people. Both texts conclude that cloning is cannot be interpreted as immoral, since there are “no precedents” and it “does not directly violate any specific Halakhic principles” (Kahn, 104). Seeman’s text states that Israel is one of a few nations that has not outlawed research on cloning; the United States has banned it. The difference in acceptance of the Jewish religion compared to the Catholic religion has to do with different values attributed to reproduction. Kahn describes Israel and Jews as “pro-natalist” wishing to produce as many Jews as possible because of Arab and Palestinian birth rates in Israel but also from a post-Holocaust world (3). This results in Israel not having a term for an illegitimate child and funding the births of children to unmarried and homosexual women, with the goal of reproducing many Jews (Kahn, 17).
I found it remarkable how willing Israel was to help as many women become mothers, regardless of marital status and sexual orientation. On the other hand, I agree with you that this can be a way to reduce women to their reproductive capability. Regardless of the origin of Israel’s pro-natalist mindset, it is important that this country has such liberal outlooks on reproductive technologies. It makes for very interesting comparisons to other religions, since these religions were formed thousands of years before these technologies existed, and all decide their outlooks based on interpretations.
I thought your blog was a well thought out summary of the readings presented this week, and brought a different point of view to the readings. The readings from last week, specifically the first two chapters of Genesis, aided the analysis of the readings presented for this week. Like you stated, in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, procreation is not a command found within the Bible. This misconception is found in many modern religious teachings, specifically Catholicism. According to the Broyde reading, it seems that reproductive technologies are permissible in the Jewish faith as long as the actions and motives are considered moral.
Another interesting part of the Broyde article that stuck out to me was the Jewish law that states the woman who births the child is considered the proper mother. In other bioethics classes, we discussed surrogacy and the different types of parents. There are parents who produce the biological aspects of the child, egg and sperm. There are also surrogate mothers. The debate surrounding who is the true mother is still out for discussion, at least for American culture.
I enjoyed reading your eloquently written blog post, and I found some things you said to be rather interesting, for they didn’t even cross my mind when I was reading the texts. Your point about “the reductive” nature of Judaism was very thought provoking to me. Initially, when I was reading the texts, I was thinking to myself that permissiveness in religion might be the way to go, especially for women. Women in the Jewish community, from what I have gathered, have a better chance of undergoing reproduction via ART than most catholic women would. While I do agree with the “reduction” of women that goes along with that, I do believe that most women WANT to reproduce. And so, a permissive religion like Judaism would be ideal for women that want to reproduce in a way that is not “natural” or is immoral under religious law.
Another thing that I thought was interesting as I read was the lack of unity among rabbis. At first, I thought that this was extremely inefficient and allowed for too many different interpretations within the religion. However, now I realize that this idea allows for almost everyone in the Jewish community to fit Judaism into their lifestyles. The fact that someone can go to a specific rabbi for a specific issue, such as ART and reproduction, and be able to cater to their needs is quite remarkable and appealing to me in a religion.
Going along with this point, when I read Professor Seeman’s piece, one particular thought stood out to me. He highlights two ideas that come with different religious practices, one being a “positive ethical ideology” and the other being “negative limits”. With this in mind, I thought that permissiveness might be a more effective way to instill beliefs and promote follower growth of religion as opposed to restrictiveness. Permissive traditions allow for more choices among the followers, and provide a baseline that many people can obey rather than having a centralized set of rules that people may break or even cause them to walk away from that religion. Overall, I think permissiveness allows for flow with modernity and the changing of the times as well as the evolving aspects of a person’s life.
After reading your post, I found myself thinking about feminism and the role of women in religion and modern society. I agree with you that the interviews conducted by Khan depict Jewish Israeli women as valuable if they are able to reproduce, which feels very reductive. Despite this, many Jewish Israeli women actively seek reproductive technologies to have children and the government supports this mission. BUT, I think it is naïve to think that Israel is the only society to hold such convictions.
The concept that all women possess the innate desire to have children is a widely held belief around the world. In many societies, women are automatically assigned domestic duties and are asked to make numerous sacrifices (education, career, etc.) in order to fulfill the “mother” role. In the United States today, and many other western nations, feminism and equality are major social debates. The fight for women’s equality in the workforce, for example, can be seen as an attempt to show society that individuals are more than just their reproductive capability. This makes me wonder how religious traditions, like Judaism, fit in with messages of female empowerment in a nation like Israel.
Thank you for your thorough analysis of the pieces for this week. I found Kahn’s book to be very interesting and I have mixed feelings about the ways Israeli women are encouraged to reproduce. On one hand, I think it is important for women to have the option to reproduce however they see fit, but on the other hand I question the underlying premise behind the support of reproductive technologies. I agree that it seems very reductionist to imply that women serve a purpose to further the Jewish population—especially since not all women agree with this purpose. On page 54-55, Kahn recounts meeting lesbian women that appeared on a television show to raise awareness about children born to lesbian mothers. The television show received positive reviews from most of the public regarding artificial insemination and sexual orientation. While I believe that the acceptance of these two concepts is good, Kahn explains that the concepts are accepted because reproducing perpetuates the woman’s role as a mother. Therefore, I don’t believe the acceptance of artificial insemination and sexual orientation is in good faith. Additionally, some lesbian women denounced the television show because they felt it was, “propagating stereotypes about the importance of having children”. Overall, I feel that the overwhelming acceptance of reproductive technologies in Jewish culture is rooted in the faulty premise that women are primarily agents of reproduction.
Ibel, I think you did a great job on your blog post! You made many strong points and I found that you effectively analyzed the texts. Taking Kahn’s background into account when analyzing her text was a interesting component of your post. I am not sure that I agree with your statement that the language used in her text is reductive as I feel it accurately communicated the attitudes in Jerusalem towards Jewish Israeli women. Although I personally do not agree with the stance that reproduction is the “duty of a woman” (Kahn, 3) , I do not think it my beliefs validate or invalidate the perspective shown in the ethnography.
The text we were assigned from Broyde this week was particularly interesting. I liked how he gave simplified summaries of the different assisted reproductive technologies and case examples to demonstrate their complexities. I was surprised when he concluded that cloning is a form of assisted reproduction in Jewish faith but was able to follow his reasoning. In my opinion, his discussion of the discrepancy of interpretation between Rabbis concerning assisted reproductive technologies gave his piece more weight.
I found it particularly interesting how you connected our ethics lecture last week to this week’s readings. In doing the readings, it was easy to see how the readings and meeting last week was a good precursor to this week. In “Ethnography, Exegesis, and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The Next Reproductive Technologies in Israel”, Professor Seeman discusses French enlightenment thought on bioethics, the Genesis creation stories, Donum Vitae, referencing every reading we had in Unit Three. Interpretation seems to be an underlying conversation of many of our discussions in this class. It is eye-opening to me to see that within a religion or chapter of sacred text, many interpretations can be drawn on a single subject. Although this makes religion more accessible, the seeming fluidity of religion makes me question the validity of interpretation.
Hey, Ibel
I love your reflection for this week. It is very thorough and helpful! My favorite part of your summary and analysis is that you made the connection with the two genesis theories we talked last week. These two theories are very different from each other. You pointed out that men and women creating offspring are viewed as a blessing instead of an obligatory. I found interesting that it is more important to use the unmarried Jewish woman’s uterus reproductive capacities than build a traditional family structure. Among all the articles, I think Broyde’s article is the most interesting because he uses case-by-case evaluative approach, which helps me understand the effect of Jewish law on artificial reproduction much more in a personal level. Cloning is a very controversial topic. However, according to Jewish law, one answer is clear. If cloning is a justified procedure, Jewish law would agree that the woman who gives birth is the mother instead of the one who contributed the genes.
I began this week’s readings by reading the chapter by the chapter by Michael J. Broyde. What I found most interesting about his interpretation of the morality of human cloning was the way he stood faithfully by an interpretation of the issue through the lens of Halakha. Most debates on the topic of human cloning or any reproductive technology are often based on a loose understanding of the potential for the technology. It can feel as though many arguments are based not on a set of concrete morals, but rather gut-feelings and emotions. These technologies are so far off and odd to think about, they can feel like a violation of nature, and therefore they must be immoral. However, articulating an argument beyond that is difficult, especially when little is known about what these technologies may actually look like or how they may be used for in practice.
Artificial reproductive technologies have been commonplace for quite some time and they are better understood by the public. This changes the way these technologies are accepted and how debates around them are structured. The difference between the texts was obvious once I began to read Kahn’s book. She looks at the same issue from three different perspectives. Although they have the same knowledge of the subject, everyone’s experience with it is different in the book. This changed the argument, wherein more “traditional” Jewish communities the argument was still pondering whether these technologies were permissible or moral, woman in the fertility clinic in Jerusalem were more concerned with the ideas that have come about because of the integration of ART in their lives, such as what the implications of NOT using it would be.
I found your comment about equating a woman’s place in society with being a mother interesting. I did not think about that while reading this book but it is illuminating. The question about that I have is that while their religion allows for women to have more choice in their lives, do other expectations or social norms change that choice into an obligation. While women in Israeli society are allowed to use ART, are they allowed to not use it as well?
I really enjoyed reading your blog post as I felt you were able to effectively tie in multiple ideas surrounding ART–from our lecture last week regarding Genesis and the varying stances.
Despite Israel being identified as a Jewish State, there are a lot of intricacies that surround this Jewish State identity that plays out into Israeli citizens’ lives. This is where the whole concept of the secular Jewish identity comes in, and the lack in uniformity regarding various rabbis’ stances on ART–where religion is able to interpreted differently across populations of people in order to make some version of religion palatable for each individual. I found Kahn’s account to touch upon ideas of what it means to be culturally Jewish versus religiously Jewish–and how those ideas play out in regards to ART.
A side note, one thing that I found to be very interesting was Israel’s policies regarding ART–where there is a sperm matching system, often based on how the prospective mother phenotypically looks like. I found the lack of agency that the prospective mother has in the sperm choosing process to be quite jarring, especially when the Israeli state is more supportive of single mothers than that other countries.
Hey Ibel,
First, I think you did a great job summing up the articles. I especially liked how you incorporated the book of Genesis from last week’s lecture to show the difference in perceived Jewish expectation of what they believe the bible says versus what was written. In Micheal Broyde’s article, Modern Reproductive technologies and Jewish Laws, he addressed various moral and technical questions that come alone with cloning. Who is the clone’s family? Would it be the authorities who label the gestational mother, the gestational mother, or the donor? This question leads to more questions that affect one’s interpretation of Jewish Law. It was easy to see how this kind of technology is viewed as“denigration of human beings”. This topic shows a lot of similarities to the subject discussed in the 1994 French bioethics debate that specified who could use this reproductive technology. Similar to Dr.Ball’s article, The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethics Debates, this technology can be seen as a threat to the traditional family. Brody explains similar topics to this, and how some see this technology is a slippery slope. Don Seeman expands on this argument. He explains the how textual interpretation have affected the view of this technology. He shows various biblical quote that shows bias. These interpretations differ depending on the communities, culture and one’s personal experience. This article made me think about our guest lecture last class. He broke down the first three chapters in the book of genesis and showed how different thinking have affected even the writings in the bible.
Ibel,
I thought your blog post this week was extremely insightful and thought provoking! One thing I did want to comment on was whether or not, reproduction is a command. In Genesis 1:28, part of last weeks readings it states: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Boyd interprets this as Jewish law saying that women have no obligation to reproduce but I would argue differently. The Bible also says in Psalms 127:3-5 “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!”
To me this is God’s commandment for man and women. To procreate and reproduce. To grow the Church and the family of God. Judaism, like Catholicism, and many other denominations of Christianity are faiths that place a large value on families and children- children are gifts from the Lord. It is interesting to read Boyd’s research on how Halakha views ART, one quote that really stuck out to me was on page 310 where he says: “Thus when cloning involves the taking of genetic materials from one woman and putting it in the egg of another woman, while yet a third woman carries the child to term, there is no mitzvah involved…” This in interesting to me because if there is no mitzvah then the action is not good but it’s also not bad. It’s almost as if Halakha has not yet decided the stance they want to take on human cloning. The question of human cloning is a huge one, especially when ethically concerned. There are many things to be skeptical of but also many things to find valuable research in.
I think your post is very well thought out and highlights the bigger issues present within this week’s readings very well. One point I did not ponder too deeply before reading your post was your emphasis on how the Israeli society does seem to reduce Jewish women’s status for not being mothers. Having always grown up in a relatively secular family in the United States, it’s hard for me to fully understand what it would be like to grow up in a religious ideal that so strongly engraves in a woman that her value to society rests solely in motherhood. Nevertheless, I strongly respect the Jewish religion’s emphasis on research and study. It was clear throughout the reading’s this week that when discussing these reproductive issues, the Rabbis clearly did their homework on the scientific background of such technologies. When Kahn visits the PUAH office in chapter, she mentions how she was surprised at the degree of knowledge the Rabbis were able to present on the reproductive technologies. Personally, I found the Rabbis dedication to resolving issues related to couple’s infertility on a case-by-case basis to be most surprising. In contrast to the Catholic church’s one-size fits all approach to reproductive technologies, the Jewish faith seems to work overtime to ensure that the moral and ethical decisions they propose fit the context the individuals affected.
You really did a great job on connecting the readings and raising some thought provoking ideas through your blog. I agree with you that Khan offers a hierarchical ordering of values in the Israeli society whereas Broyde refers to a duality found in Jewish thought. Contrasting the beliefs of Catholic interpretations, both the Jewish and Israeli cultures seem to have similar interpretation of Bible’s account for reproduction as a “blessing.” However, while Khan took an ethnographic approach, Broyde directly analyzes the Jewish law and beliefs. In some way, I do find the Khan’s account of Israeli women more convincing due to more frequent use of primary evidence. I also find the perspective of Seeman interesting as it indeed adds a new layer to the understanding of interpretation of the biblical text as there seems to be a hierarchical ordering of the halakhic law over the biblical account in the Jewish culture. Seeman’s discussion offers insight into methodology of scholars making attempts to analyze religion and biotechnology as most are biased with a vague sense of “nature” and suggests a more ethnographical approach in analysis regarding these issues.
Hi Ibel,
I think that your response is very well written and a contains a strong analysis. I am curious on your opinion to the relationship of the perception of these technologies from a religious standpoint with knowing that there are more fertility clinics per capita in Israel than in any other country in the world and that when it comes to in-vitro fertilization it has the world’s highest per capita rate. It is evident, that for Israel as a country, in a way revolves around reproduction. Do you think that the cultural values Israel promotes aligns directly with old religious text? I find it interesting how the meaning of text, especially religious text can be interpreted very differently and especially as it gets translated on over time. I like the point you made in relation to it brings women down to just their physical abilities when saying that. I also relate to your point of how it is important to recognize that the author may be coming from her own bias perspective, which is of course inevitable. We have had interesting conversations about the nuclear family and how various cultures see and understand this from varying perspectives. I am curious what you think about this.
I found the perspectives of Michael J. Broyde to be very interesting and also controversial. I personally do not agree with his stance on cloning. I think it is particularly problematic that again it is strongly based on the premise of reproduction being a command. This made me think about how important it is to spread awareness and have a focus when educating others about to text on recognizing the discrepancy that can come out of reading and interpreting text. I think the point he makes that regardless where the eggs come from, whoever births the baby is the mom is complex. To me, it seems this is almost a way to clarify and prove the importance and prevalence of reproduction. This makes me think about the conversation we had about differentiating views on when life begins and who has the right for deciding. It is a complex idea with lots of overarching themes involved.
I thought that you analyze the three readings in a sophisticated and thorough manner. I also liked how you included the Book of Genesis discussion from our previous class. It is important because the difference of whether eisegesis or exegesis occurs affects what we consider laws or “natural” laws now. I also found Broyde’s discussion on gestational mothers interesting because it affects people in our culture today. To relating our readings to our (pop) culture today, Kim Kardashian’s third son was born through a surrogate. I am curious to see how and what role (if any) the surrogate mother will play in the child’s life. Since the Jewish law would consider the woman who gives birth to the child as the mother, Kim would not be recognized as the mother of her child with her husband despite their DNAs that created the child. The case-by-case approach by Bryode also made it easier for me as a reader to trust him as a scholar because he covers many of the different nuances and conflicts that can come up when Jewish law and artificial reproduction clash.
First, I really enjoyed reading your well-written summary with your thoughts in-between.
Personally, I really think that making a statement such as “If you’re not a mother, you don’t exist in Israeli society,” is a cynical, reductive interpretation of role of females. In Kahn’s book, it seems like reproduction itself is so important in Israeli society that any methods to get pregnant is possible or preferred. She states, “Thus every Israeli, regardless of religion or marital status, is eligible for unlimited rounds of in-vitro fertilization treatment free of charge, up to the birth of two live children.” This is really interesting because unlike where I am from, South Korea, it is important to fulfill that specific duty as procreator for women. I agree that Broyde and Kahn reference a moral imperative of reproduction as a core justification to warrant the use of reproductive technologies. This really contrasts my thought because I thought Jews have a strong religious belief system that could question about these technologies like other religious groups. Another interesting part was that Jewish law defines proper mother as the woman who gave birth to the child, limiting surrogacy or adaptation, etc. The reason it interests me is because I thought Jewish law seems to welcome all methods for females to reproduce, but this law can be limiting to fulfill the duty as procreator. However, based on Seeman’s reading, it might be way more complex than that to simplify the meaning to these laws since different communities respond differently to these technologies, and there are variances between communities, cultural nuance, and lived experience, as you mentioned.