Neanderthal converts?

[muman613]

I understand the question about whether a human clone is 'human'. Is it possible that man can create a soul? I believe that souls are placed in the body of man by Hashem himself. What kind of soul would be placed in a body that is created artificially by man? I just don't know what the answer is in this case...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I understand the question about whether a human clone is 'human'. Is it possible that man can create a soul? I believe that souls are placed in the body of man by Hashem himself. What kind of soul would be placed in a body that is created artificially by man? I just don't know what the answer is in this case...

Muman,

When two people procreate, at what point does G-d introduce the soul to the resulting child?  The entry of sperm into egg?  The union as a preimplantation zygote?  The beginning stage of the embryo after it has implanted in the uterine wall?  The developing fetus?  Surely not just after the water breaks and the child is born (although maybe that could be the answer?)   I would love to hear your answer, as it seems to me it is mere speculation as to when G-d does so.   In any case, ALL of these stages take place in producing the "clone" of a human being, just as it does when two people produce a child, or when they produce identical twins (identical DNA) -except that with a clone some stages may take place in vitro outside the mother as opposed to totally in vivo with a natural conception.   The only difference here is that instead of having half the DNA from mother and half the DNA from the father, the "clone" would have all chromosomal DNA from one parent (except for that which gets transferred by the carrying surregate mother/the egg donor - mitochondrial DNA is known to be transferred matrilineally).   Maybe there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "clone" here.  We are not talking about science fiction but a realistic scientific term.

When an infertile couple opts for IVF (In vitro fertilization procedure) is there any doubt that the child has a soul or is a human?

When two twins have identical DNA, is there any doubt that both are human and both have souls?   I'm not sure I understand where you or anyone else with a similar argument in this thread is going with any of this.

[muman613]

I believe that a human must have a mother and a father, come from the DNA of two living human beings. I dont know if my definition is the correct one, but according to my definition a clone would not be technically human because he would not have a mother and father, only coming from a single set of DNA.

When we are talking about cloning it means that a new organism is created from a single human DNA. They would only have the same DNA as the donor, the same as the donors mother and father.

I dont know if what I am saying is according to halacha, and halacha is a lot more lenient than I am... But I am against cloning and against genetic engineering. When mankind feels like it controls life and death it quickly loses its humanity. I believe that some human hardship was created for the reason to bring us closer to Hashem. When humanity thinks that science is the answer and we can genetically engineer whatever kind of children we want, without any diseases, and they are all intelligent {or dumb}, it will become like the worlds I read about in Highschool english class, the storys of Brave New World and 1984.

But I think this talk about clones is veering a bit from the original topic of Neanderthals. I still believe that they are not human and thus would not be eligible to convert to Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_new_world
Brave New World is a novel by Aldous Huxley, written in 1931 and published in 1932. Set in the London of AD 2540 (632 A.F. in the book), the novel anticipates developments in reproductive technology and sleep-learning that combine to change society. The future society is an embodiment of the ideals that form the basis of futurism. Huxley answered this book with a reassessment in an essay, Brave New World Revisited (1958), and with his final work, a novel titled Island (1962), both summarized below.

In 1999, the Modern Library ranked Brave New World fifth on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century.[1]

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

When humanity thinks that science is the answer and we can genetically engineer whatever kind of children we want, without any diseases, and they are all intelligent {or dumb}, it will become like the worlds I read about in Highschool english class, the storys of Brave New World and 1984. 

Who said anything about doing that?  It sounds like you are confusing two different things.

A clone would have all the same genetic strengths and all the same genetic weaknesses as its DNA donor.

Genetic engineering is an entire discipline in biology which is not limited to something petty and beyond realistic scope like what you presented.

I have read Brave New world and 1984, both excellent books.

[Rubystars]

I understand the question about whether a human clone is 'human'. Is it possible that man can create a soul? I believe that souls are placed in the body of man by Hashem himself. What kind of soul would be placed in a body that is created artificially by man? I just don't know what the answer is in this case...

Clones are like identical twins. Identical twins both have their own unique soul, right? It's just that they came from the same sperm and egg. 

[Raulmarrio2000]

1- I didn't say that it's wrong to love the primitives or it is suicidal to wish they were alive. I only said that they were already extinct when Torah was given and it has no sense to investigate whether they were humans or not because it would be to investigate a secret that H" seems to have considered unnecessary since He didn't explain it in the Torah.

2- The issue of clones has nothing to do with the stages of development of embryos or the question of when H" places the human soul in the baby. A soul is not tied to chemistry or brain capabilities. A complete mentally rertarded still has a human soul. H" is all powerfull and could even put a human soul in an animal if He wanted, but He does not do so. The problem with clones is that H" did not order us to do that and Torah seems to suggest that human reprduction must be through the union of a man and a woman. We don't know if H" would place a Neshama into a clon or not, and certainly we don't have Moses to send him to the Sanctuary and ask H" about it. So we'd better stop being so curious and accept that there are many things we don't know and we don't need to know.

3- Scientifically, a clon has the same genetic code of the donor but it's not the same as twins. A clon would be a baby with his/her cells being several years old. That's why Dolly had so many early health problems.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

1- I didn't say that it's wrong to love the primitives or it is suicidal to wish they were alive. I only said that they were already extinct when Torah was given and it has no sense to investigate whether they were humans or not because it would be to investigate a secret that H" seems to have considered unnecessary since He didn't explain it in the Torah.

This attitude is certainly mistaken.  The Torah is not a biology text book.  As such, it did not tell us the answer to MANY secrets of G-d's creation that can be uncovered through investigation.  It makes absolutely zero sense to say that if something is not revealed directly in the Torah that it is by definition not worth looking into, or worse that it is "forbidden" somehow.   Then there would be no science, even though the Rambam says that to engage in scientific study is a mitzvah.

2- The problem with clones is that H" did not order us to do that and Torah seems to suggest that human reprduction must be through the union of a man and a woman. 

Very subjective.  We go by what it "seems to suggest" - without any other indication or source to back that up?  And make a dogma out of it?

We don't know if H" would place a Neshama into a clon or not, and certainly we don't have Moses to send him to the Sanctuary and ask H" about it. So we'd better stop being so curious and accept that there are many things we don't know and we don't need to know. 

A clone of a human would be a human, so why would there be any question whether G-d would put a soul into one of them?   Do we need to go to the Sanctuary and ask G-d if green apples will grow on trees just like red apples do?  Or can we simply look at the trees, watch them grow, and know implicitly that green apples are just as much apples as red apples?

3- Scientifically, a clon has the same genetic code of the donor but it's not the same as twins. A clon would be a baby with his/her cells being several years old. That's why Dolly had so many early health problems.

Huh?  To be born, the clone would have to go through all the same stages any human goes through - namely fertilized zygote, implanted embryo, fetus, birth as a newborn baby.  Health defects are a danger of the cloning procedure itself, but that does not change whether the person is human or not.  Is someone with health problems less human or not human?  No.  You even said yourself above that a mentally handicapped baby has a soul.

Whether human cloning is dangerous, practical, feasible etc is a separate question.  For many reasons it is outlawed in the US, and I agree with that law.   But there can be no question that if a human clone was produced, it is a human newborn baby, with the same DNA as an already living person.   A different person.   A new person.   A human.

[muman613]

How would a Clone honor its mother and father? Could it even come close to performing this command?

What about the mitzvah of Puru E'Revu? The command to be fruitful and multiply... This command requires a man and a woman to engage in sexual relations in order to produce a child. I dont think that Hashem intended humans to play G-d and create people without mothers and fathers. The commandments to honor parents is because a person must be able to honor his parents in order to be able to honor Hashem..

[Raulmarrio2000]

Torah allows scientifical investigation. The question about human soul is not scientific but metaphisical. Even if science could tell something about Neanderthals, we don't have them now to examine. That sorts of speculations are no good and have no0 practical application.

Torah does not say that cloning is allowed either. The only way of reproduction mentioned in the Torah is by a man and a woman. And science can tell nothing about Neshamot. We just don't know and should not take that risks. You admitted in a previous post that you understand the doubt of whether a clon is a human bieng.

And scientifically, a clon is not a fertilized egg. It's just a feminine reproductive  cell with the nucleous of a cell of the donor. It's proven that DNA has something like a bilogical clock and a clon would be a baby, let's say 30 years old. His/her life expectancy would be much less than a sexually produced baby.

Now I don't see any problem with the mitzvah of honouring one parents or be fruitfull. Certainly, when someone is unable to do a mitzva, he is exempt. Like a child who has no way to know who his parents are and can't honor them. Or an steril man who cannot be fruitfull

[muman613]

Torah allows scientifical investigation. The question about human soul is not scientific but metaphisical. Even if science could tell something about Neanderthals, we don't have them now to examine. That sorts of speculations are no good and have no0 practical application.

Torah does not say that cloning is allowed either. The only way of reproduction mentioned in the Torah is by a man and a woman. And science can tell nothing about Neshamot. We just don't know and should not take that risks. You admitted in a previous post that you understand the doubt of whether a clon is a human bieng.

And scientifically, a clon is not a fertilized egg. It's just a feminine reproductive  cell with the nucleous of a cell of the donor. It's proven that DNA has something like a bilogical clock and a clon would be a baby, let's say 30 years old. His/her life expectancy would be much less than a sexually produced baby.

Now I don't see any problem with the mitzvah of honouring one parents or be fruitfull. Certainly, when someone is unable to do a mitzva, he is exempt. Like a child who has no way to know who his parents are and can't honor them. Or an steril man who cannot be fruitfull

Then how do you know that Torah says that a human must be produced by a man and a woman? Other than the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying and honoring parents there is little in the Torah about this subject. I bring these two examples as why I believe there is a problem with cloning.

The two examples you cited, a man who cannot have children and a person who doesn't know his parents, are in the control of Hashem. But if we were to create an organism it is our creation and not Hashems.

Remember the idea that we all have three parents, our mother, our father, and Hashem. Hashem is always the third party involved in creating a human being. In the case of the clone Hashem is only in control of the physical growth of the cells... But the conception of the child only occurs in the mind of the person who is being cloned.

Let me see what the Rabbis say:

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cloning.html

 Of course, to reach this result, one must resolve a number of halachic disputes about the duty to procreate. There are those authorities who maintain that absent a sexual relationship, there is no paternity; certainly those authorities rule that no paternity is established in the case of cloning.15 So too there are some authorities who rule that absent a sexual relationship -- even if paternity is established -- there is no fulfillment of the biblical obligation to "be fruitful and multiply" or a fulfillment of the rabbinic obligation to "inhabit the earth". Cloning involves no sexual relationship, and thus would not fulfill the mitzvah to procreate according to Jewish law.16

However, neither of these two approaches are considered normative in Jewish law. The vast majority of Jewish law authorities rule that children produced through other than sexual means are the legal children of the inseminator, and indeed such activity is considered a positive religious activity (a mitzvah) -- a good deed. As Professor Irving Breitowitz stated in a recent article on preembryos:

...

 V. Conclusion

In sum, one is inclined to state that halacha views cloning as far far less than the ideal way to reproduce people; however, when no other method is available it would appear that Jewish law accepts that having children through cloning is perhaps a mitzvah in a number of circumstances and is morally neutral in a number of other circumstances. Clones, of course, are full human, and are to be treated with the fully dignity of any human being. Clones are not robots, slaves, or semi-humans, and any attempt to classify them as such must be vigorously combated.

In addition it would appear that the relationship between the male clonor and the clonee is that of father and child and the relationship between the gestational mother and the child that she bears is one of mother and child.68 Where the clonor is a woman, there is a natural tension between her status as a mother and the status of the gestational mother as a mother.69 While this writer is inclined to think that the gestational mother is the "real mother" according to Jewish law, there is some halachic discussion that argues that the gestational mother is not the real mother, and the genetic mother is, thus making the clonor the mother. In addition there is the extremely thoughtful opinion by Rabbi Bleich arguing that both can be the mother. Certainly the woman clonor is to be considered, at the very least, a possible mother (a safek mother) such that it would be prohibited for the clonee to have a sexual relationship with any of the members of the family of the genetic donor as well as the surrogate mother.70

There is a natural tendency to prohibit that which is unknown, and that tendency is itself a morally commendable virtue lest one engage in activity which is prohibited as its consequences are not understood. However, prohibiting that which one does not understand is a regrettable state of affairs. The Jewish tradition imposes a duty on those capable to resolve such matters to do so. This preliminary analysis is submitted in the hopes that others will comment and critique it and Jewish law will develop an established policy concerning a variety of issues relating to cloning.71
Postscript

The words of Rabbi Judah Luria (Maharal from Prague) speaks eloquently about the power of human creativity to reshape the universe, and how that power was given to humanity at the time of creation. He states:

The creativity of people is greater than nature. When G-d created in the six days of creation the laws of nature, the simple and complex, and finished creating the world, there remained additional power to create anew, just like people can create new animal species through inter-species breeding .... People bring to fruition things that are not found in nature; nonetheless, since these are activities that occur through nature, it is as if it entered the world to be created.....72

Maharal's point is that human creativity is part of the creation of the world, and this creativity changes the world, which is proper. The fulfillment of the Biblical mandate to conquer the earth (vekivshuha),73 is understood in the Jewish tradition as permitting people to modify -- conquer -- nature to make it more amenable to its inhabitants, people. Cloning is but one example of that conquest, which when used to advance humanity, is without theological problem in the Jewish tradition.

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/assia_english/steinberg.htm
D. THE HALACHIC APPROACH
In general, the Jewish viewpoint concerning scientific or social innovations with no clear indication of where they will lead is conservative and careful. For this reason we need to proceed with extreme caution and accept scientific and technological innovations slowly and gradually. On the other hand, in principle anything which is not prohibited is permitted. "Anything which we have no reason to prohibit is permitted without having to find a reason for its permissibility, for the Torah does not mention every permissible thing but rather only those things which are forbidden."1 The question we face, with regard to the technology of human cloning, is whether the actual process or its results transgress any general philosophical principle or any specific law.

1. Does the development of human cloning techniques contradict faith in the Creator of the Universe?
There can be no doubt that the answer to this question is negative. This technique, like other modern fertility methods, simply reveals data which exists within nature, and makes use of information about what already exists. Under no circumstances can a clone be regarded as the formation of an entirely new creation. Even human cloning technology ultimately brings about the creation of human beings through natural pregnancy and birth; only the technical means of commencing the formation of the embryo is different from the natural process. In a similar way, today we are able to bring about a natural pregnancy and birth by means of other modern fertility methods such as IVF, where the beginning of the formation of the embryo is also different from the natural process. In other words, we are speaking of the creation of human beings from something which already exists, in a process which is different from the usual procedure only in technique and not in essence. Only the Creator of the Universe is capable of creation ex nihilo. Moreover, this technology holds no solution to the riddle of life and its basic essence.

2. Should the technology of human cloning be prohibited in principle on halachic-philosophical grounds because it represents undesirable interference in nature?

In principle the answer is no, although some of the details of how this technique is carried out may give rise to situations which we would regard as negative and undesirable interference in nature.

According to the Jewish view, we are not only permitted but in fact obligated to build and perfect the world in every way we can for human benefit. Actions aimed at improving the world should not be perceived in principle as contradicting a divine decree and as constituting negative involvement in creation. On the contrary, such actions are considered to embody positive partnership between the Almighty and humans.

This idea finds expression in several forms from the time of the Talmudic Sages up until great modern Jewish thinkers. The Talmud states, "Rabbi Yishmael taught: The words and he shall surely be healed (Exodus 21:19) teach us that a doctor is permitted to heal."2 Rashi explains: "Our attitude should not be that G-d has made him ill and the doctor is (doing the opposite and) healing him." This means that we shouldn't think that it is G-d's will that this person remain ill and that it is forbidden to heal him.

The Midrash expresses this idea as follows:

    Once Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva were walking in the streets of Jerusalem, and another person was with them. A certain man who was ill approached them and said, "My masters, tell me, how can I become healed?"
    They said to him, "Do such and such and you will be healed."
    He asked, "But who struck me (with this illness)?"
    They replied, "It was G-d."
    He said, "Then are you not involving yourselves in something which is not your business? After all, G-d struck me with this illness, and now you are healing me. Are you not contradicting His will?"
    They asked him, "What is your occupation?"
    He answered, "I am a laborer of the soil. See, I am carrying my scythe."
    They asked him, "Who created the vine?"
    He answered, "G-d."
    They said, "Are you then not involving yourself in something which is not your business? G-d created it, and you cut down its fruit!"
    He said to them, "Do you not see the scythe in my hand? Were it not for my ploughing and cutting down and fertilizing and weeding, no- thing would grow!"
    They answered, "Foolish man! By virtue of the nature of your work you should know what is written: Man's days are like the harvest (Psalms 103). Just as a plant in ground that is not weeded and fertilized and ploughed cannot grow, and if it grows but has no water and is not fertilized it cannot live and it will die - so it is with the body. The 'fertilizer' in this case is the drugs and medicines, and the 'farmer' here is the doctor."
    He said to them, "Please (forgive me and) do not punish me."3

The same idea is also to be found among the early commentators. Ramban, for instance, comments on the command given to Adam to "conquer (the earth)" as follows: "and conquer it - G-d gave man power and control on earth to do as he wishes with the animals and insects and everything which crawls on the earth, and to build, to uproot what is planted, to quarry copper from the mountains, etc."4

However, although in principle we are permitted to interfere in nature, as explained above, such permission depends on three necessary preconditions:

   1. The actual act of "perfecting of the world" must not involve any halachic prohibition;
   2. The act must lead to no unavoidable or irreversible result which is prohibited;
   3. The act of improvement must bring benefit to human beings, or at least a measure of benefit which exceeds the damage caused.

This idea is expressed in different ways by various Jewish philosophers. Some explain the prohibition of witchcraft as being based on the fact that it brings about a change in nature: "For at the beginning of time the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave each and every creation its nature to act well and properly for the benefit of man whom He created, and He commanded each creation to act in its proper way... And in the act of interfering there are aspects which man is not permitted to make use of, for G-d knows that ultimately the effect of these aspects on man will be bad, and for this reason He forbade it."5

Similarly, when it comes to the prohibition of cross breeding animals, we find the following: "For the Holy One, Blessed be He, created His world with wisdom, with insight, with knowledge, etc. And since G-d knows that everything He creates is perfectly and completely suited to its purpose in the world, He commanded each species to reproduce more of its own kind, as is written in the order of creation, and that the species should not intermingle lest their perfection become lost, and His blessing would no longer be upon them."6

In each of the above examples there is a clear halachic prohibition - the first concerning witchcraft, the second concerning the crossbreeding of two different species of animals - and in both cases the resulting damage is expected to be greater than any benefit. Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook expressed this idea as follows:

    Nature is highly praiseworthy in its proper place, and when artificiality takes over in place of nature it is spoiled. For this reason many Torah Sages deplore the illnesses and weaknesses which have come about in people because of their distancing themselves from nature. And although the Almighty, Blessed be He, created the world such that we should act, perfect and improve it, man must nevertheless ensure, with extreme caution, that he is truly perfecting nature, which is a gift from G-d... For man's ability and conscientiousness is also a Divine gift and a natural phenomenon, but when he destroys and spoils something which nature should do alone... then he does damage to his own soul. For this reason the Torah limited man's ability to change natural things, and said: "You shall not breed different species among your animals, you shall not sow your fields with different types of seeds together, and a garment of mixed fabric (sha'atnez) shall not be upon you"...all this in order to inculcate in man's heart the obligation to be careful not to destroy nature where it is better left alone. And this is an important principle for man's personal morality, for a person should train himself in order to encourage his positive natural tendencies, reminding him of goodness and righteousness, G-d's pleasantness and the love and fear of Him and the destiny which He determines, as a natural characteristic, if a person (will only) make the effort to clear his mind of the manifold vanities which he entertains in order that these positive characteristics be well absorbed in his soul... 7

Therefore, from the point of view of Jewish philosophy we can say that the use of human cloning technology does not theoretically represent undesirable meddling in nature. Cloning is a natural action (as opposed to witchcraft, for example), and does not give rise to a species which does not already exist, such that it cannot be included under the category of either witchcraft or interbreeding. In this sense, therefore, there is no difference between the technology of human cloning and the use of antibiotics to kill bacteria which cause illness or carrying out organ transplants for patients requiring them, since such actions would also seem to represent interference in "G-d's will" - since it was G-d, after all, who created the illness. And so cloning needs to be evaluated according to the two limiting conditions listed above - whether it brings any form of assistance, healing or other benefit to human beings, and whether the technology itself or its results are free of any actual prohibition. So long as the response to both of these questions is positive, cloning should not be regarded as negative and prohibited interference in nature.

Moreover, even though the prohibition of interbreeding contains the idea of preserving the integrity of the various natural species and the negation of the idea of creating new ones, clearly this is not the only reason for the prohibition, because among the details of the laws involved we find certain examples which do not fit this idea: in sowing two types of seeds together we do not create a new species, and this prohibition in any case does not apply outside of the Land of Israel. Likewise, this prohibition applies only to the seeds of edible species8. With regard to trees, the sowing of seeds of different types together is permissible; we are only commanded against grafting of different types. When it comes to sha'atnez - a mixture of linen and wool in our clothing - there is no creation of any new species. Indeed, the Torah commands us: you shall keep My statutes - you shall not interbreed your animals, you shall not sow your field with different types of seeds together, and a garment of sha'atnez shall not be upon you10, indicating that all these concepts fall under the category of "statutes" - laws which are "decrees of the King, the reasons for which we cannot understand."11 In light of this, it would seem that the prohibition of interbreeding (and thereby creating new species) should not be expanded to include other situations which are halachically different - even if in such cases the possibility of creating new species arises. And according to the Rambam12, all the laws of interbreeding are related to distancing ourselves from idolatry, rather than being meant to serve as the basis for a prohibition against the creation of new species.

3. Do the benefits of human cloning technology outweigh the potential damage?
We cannot yet provide a definite answer to this ques tion. As is apparent from the factual background above, there are potential advantages as well as possible problems involved. Quite obviously a blanket go-ahead will cause damage that will be much greater than any potential benefit. But proper control and limits on the aims of this technology could bring about a more positive balance.

4. Does the actual technology of human cloning involve any actual halachic prohibition?
From the halachic point of view we can say that there is no specific or defined prohibition involved in the actual technique of human cloning or in the creation of a human being other than by means of sexual intercourse. In reference to the natural means of reproduction the Talmudic Sages taught that there are three partners in the creation of a person: G-d, the father and the mother13. This is clearly the most preferred reproductive method Jewish thought, and even in a world where cloning takes place most people will still be in created by means of this partnership. However, there is no proof that the Sages were stipulating an obligation to procreate in this way; they were merely indicating that this is the regular way of the world. Moreover, in essence their statement still holds true, because even a person who is cloned is formed from genetic material from a man and a woman and a human-spiritual essence bestowed by G-d. From the halachic point of view there is even a certain measure of leeway for the use of cloning methods for the sake of fertility in preference to other modern methods of fertility treatment, because here there is no need to collect sperm from the male donor.

There are those who are opposed to cloning on the grounds that it falls under the category of witchcraft, particularly in light of the fact that in the Torah and in the Talmud we find references to witchcraft specifically in the context of the creation of humans and animals using methods which are not natural14. We do not believe that there is any basis to this claim. There can be no doubt that according to those Rishonim (early commentators) who maintained that witchcraft has no substance and that it was forbidden by the Torah only because of the similarities and associations with idolatry, there is no connection between this prohibition and the technology of human cloning. This was the view of the Rambam15, who believed that: "they (such practices) have no existence in reality, and the intelligence cannot accept that they involve anything at all...because all witches and wizards are idolaters...and all these things are lies and falsehood...and it is not worthy that Israel, who are very wise, should follow such nonsense." Similarly, Rabbeinu Hananel16 states: "For witchcraft has no effect; only that which is ordained by the Almighty, and the reason why one who practices witchcraft is punished is because he has transgressed what the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him not to do."17 Clearly, cloning is scientifically analyzed and understood, and it is an existing fact. According to Rambam in his Guide for the Perplexed,18 any phenomenon where the connection between cause and effect can be understood according to the accepted rules of science and which is in accordance with natural logic is not an example of witchcraft. Likewise, things which have been proven by experience, even if not obvious according to natural logic, are also permitted. Even according to the opinion of those Rishonim (e.g., Ramban19, Rashba20, Rabbeinu Be-Haye21, Sefer ha-Hinnukh22, as well as the Vilna Gaon23) who believed that witchcraft is real, it would still seem that the prohibition which they discuss does not include the issue at hand. They refer specifically to creations which are used by "angels of destruction,"24 whose whole purpose is to destroy and ruin. When the intentions are good they cannot be included in the category of witchcraft, as explained in the Sefer ha-Hinnukh:25 "And this is what our Sages, of blessed memory, said as a general rule: 'Anything which brings some type of healing does not belong to the ways of the Emorite.26' In other words, it should not be forbidden on the grounds that it constitutes witchcraft since experience has shown that it involves some type of benefit...for these things were prohibited only because of the potential danger which they contain.27" Furthermore, processes which are in essence natural do not belong to the category of witchcraft or "practices of the Emorites" - even if in certain details they are carried out in an unusual way. Me'iri ruled as follows: "Anything which is done by means of a natural action is not included in the category of witchcraft. Even if we came to know how to bring about the creation of beautiful people other than by means of sexual union, as the Books of Nature indicate as a possibility, we would be permitted to do so, for anything which is natural is not considered witchcraft. Similarly, our Sages taught:28 'Anything which brings some type of healing is not to be considered as a practice of the Emorites.'" We can certainly say that the technology of cloning fulfills these requirements, and is in accordance with Me'iri's definition.

5. What halachic problems are associated with human cloning? Do the results of this technology create halachically forbidden situations?
The following are a number of halachic problems arising from the use of this technology:

    * Does the cloned product fall under the halachic category of a golem29, which does not have the full status of a human being, such that he cannot be counted for a minyan and may even be killed without the killer being guilty of murder?30 The answer is definitely negative since the principal reason that a golem does not have the full status of a human and may be killed is because the Torah says: He who spills a person's blood (lit., the blood of a person in a person) will in turn have his blood spilled."31 From here we learn that the prohibition of murder applies specifically to a person who is created within another person - i.e., someone who existed as an embryo within a mother's womb. This is not the case with a golem, who is brought to life by mystical means - e.g., by means of Sefer ha-Yetzirah or by putting a paper with G-d's full name written on it into his mouth32. In the case of cloning we are dealing with the product of purely natural substances, and the child who is born is in fact first a fetus in its mother's womb. Therefore the product of cloning clearly has the same status as any other flesh-and-blood person, since anyone born of a woman is considered a person regardless of how he came into existence. Therefore such issues as the prohibition against murder would apply to him as well33.
    * Does one by means of this technique fulfill the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply"? The answer to this question depends on a dispute between halachic authorities. Some hold that the mitzvah of reproduction is fulfilled specifically through full and natural sexual relations; others maintain that the mitzvah is concerned not with how the union is carried out but rather with the result - the birth of a living child34.
    * How are we to define fatherhood in the framework of the cloning process? According to halacha, the person who donates the sperm is the father, whether he is the husband of the woman who carries the embryo or a stranger. However, as yet no halachic definition of fatherhood exists in a case where the male's is not sperm but rather some other genetic material, such as the nucleus of a mature cell. How are the mother and father to be defined in this process? We may examine this question in light of three different possibilities:

    a) Let us suppose that we take a mature cell from a woman and reactivate its original ability to subdivide and eventually become a complete organism. This cell is then implanted into an ovum from the same woman, with the nucleus removed. We wait for the first subdivision and then return the fertilized egg into the same woman's womb. In this instance it seems clear that the woman is halachically considered the mother of the embryo, since she contributes the genetic material, carries the fetus, and gives birth to it. However, the identity of the father is more problematic: perhaps this fetus is not considered to have a father at all; perhaps its maternal grandfather is also its father, since the male genetic material comes from him; perhaps the mother is also the "father" in this case, since the source of the embryo is exclusively the woman. The third possibility appears to lie outside of the boundaries of halacha - there is no precedent for the idea of a woman representing a "father." Likewise, it seems farfetched to attribute fatherhood to the maternal grandfather, since it was not his sperm which led directly to the creation of the embryo but rather his earlier contribution which led to the mature cell of the embryo's mother - a cell which has already developed into a whole separate body with a separate identity. Therefore it would seem that in such a case the embryo will not be considered to have any halachic father. And it would appear that this fetus would have the same status as a shetuki (a child who does not know the identity of his father). Halachically, such a person is forbidden to marry a Jewish woman35 (because since his father's identity is unknown, any woman may possibly be his half-sister). In truth, our situation is actually different from that of a shetuki because the latter Talmudic definition refers to someone whose father does in fact exist but is unknown, while in our case it seems that there is no actual father according to the halachic definition. Moreover, we could ensure that the cloned product is prohibited from marrying the offspring of anyone who could in any way be considered as one of its "parents," which is not so in the case of the shetuki because for him any man could be his father, and therefore every potential marriage partner could possibly be his sibling. Therefore it would seem that the cloned individual in our situation would be permitted to marry a Jewish woman in light of the ruling36 that someone whose status is not precisely defined as a shetuki is permitted to marry a Jewish woman, even though his father's identity is not known to him. (For example, an orphan who never knew his father is certainly permitted to marry a Jewish woman.)

    b) A husband contributes the mature cell and his wife contributes the egg. Here, too, it is clear that the woman is the halachic mother, but there is still some doubt as to whether the husband is halachically to be considered the father. Although genetically he certainly is the father, from a halachic point of view it will depend on whether the definition of fatherhood refers specifically to someone who contributes sperm, or whether a father can be someone who contributes any genetic material.

    c) The donor of the egg is a married woman and the donor of the mature cell is a Jewish man other than her husband. In this instance we have the added halachic complication of the possibility of mamzerut (a child born of a forbidden union). This question is dealt with at length with regard to artificial insemination by a Jewish man other than the woman's husband37. However, it would seem that even according to those who define the child of such a union a mamzer, our situation does not involve sperm from an outside donor but rather complex genetic material. Hence the question here would seem to depend on the definition of fatherhood. If the donor of a mature cell is not considered to be the father then the problem of mamzerut falls away.

[Raulmarrio2000]

A child who does not know his parents may also be in that situation due to human intervention. By this logic, in case of war, if a hospital has to be abandoned and the patients taken somewhere else in a hurry to save their lives, then it would also be forbidden lest the children lose contact with their parents.

A man who cannot have children is already unable to fullfill the mitzvah of being fruitfull, no matters if he attempts cloning or not.

The problem with cloning is that we just don't know all the details and probably will never know. The articles you post are commentaries, not a definite psak. As for now, science hasn't even solved the problem of DNA age, and a clon would be several years old at birth. Certainly, no Rav would allow a cruel procedure to create a human being with a little life expectancy. They are just answering theoretical issues.

[Raulmarrio2000]

http://www.chabaduchicago.com/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/242917/jewish/Reproductive-Cloning-By-Rabbi-Dr.-Jonathan-Sacks.htm

By Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks

Reproductive cloning is no substitute for humanity's perfect flaws

The proposed experiments on human cloning, announced by Italian embryologist Severino Antinoni, are dangerous, irresponsible and deserve condemnation. They mark a new low in playing roulette with human life.
First things first. Cloning is a procedure fraught with hazard. In the experiments that created Dolly the sheep, 277 cloned embryos were produced. Only 29 developed to the point where they could be implanted and only one survived to term. The others developed abnormalities and were aborted. In all animal experiments to date less than 3 per cent of cloning attempts succeed. Not only are there fetal deaths and stillborn infants, but even among those that survive there is a high incidence of subsequent, initially undetected, abnormality.

Only a month ago a major study in America showed that cloned mice, outwardly healthy, carried a basic genetic instability that put them at risk of subsequent deformation and premature death. Cloning apparently disturbs the normal process of "genomic imprinting" by which the genes on the chromosomes from one of the parents are switched on or off. The evidence has already convinced many scientists that mammalian cloning is an intrinsically flawed process. Certainly it is too unsafe ever to be used in human reproduction.

These are not lay reactions. Dr Ian Wilmut who cloned Dolly the sheep has said many times that he believes human cloning will never be acceptable. Two months ago the Royal Society called for a worldwide ban on human reproductive cloning. The risks are too high and the unknowns too great. These are wise voices. When in doubt, do not play games with someone else's life.

It is one thing to attempt a hazardous medical procedure on a living patient who otherwise faces certain death, quite another to bring children into being who will carry massive risks of abnormality, malformation and premature death. What will the doctors, or the parent, say to those who do not turn out as expected? Sorry? I thought it was safe? The thalidomide tragedy was surely enough to make scientists think twice before making available treatments not fully tested, that have a high - in this case overwhelming - chance of failure.

However, cloning is not just another technology. It raises issues not posed by other forms of assisted reproduction such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation. Somatic cell nuclear cell transfer is a form of asexual reproduction. We do not know why it is that large, long living creatures like us reproduce sexually. From an evolutionary point of view, asexual reproduction seems much simpler. It avoids the problems of finding a mate and all the love and war to which that leads. Yet none of the higher mammals reproduce asexually. Is it because only by the unpredictable combination of genetic endowments of parents and grandparents can a species generate the variety it needs to survive? The history of the human presence on earth is marked by a destruction of bio-diversity on a massive scale. To take risks with our own genetic future would be suicidal.

However, the real objection to cloning is the threat to the integrity of children so born. To be sure, genetically identical persons already exist in the case of identical twins. It is one thing, though, for this to occur, quite another deliberately to bring it about. Identical twins do not come into being so that one may serve as a substitute or replacement or the source of compatible tissue for the other. Cloning represents an ethical danger in a way that naturally occurring phenomena do not. It treats persons as means rather than as ends in themselves. It will be a decisive further step to the commodification of human life. It cannot but transform some of the most basic features of our humanity.

Every child born of the genetic mix between two parents is unpredictable, a gift of grace, like yet unlike those who have brought it into the world. That mix of kinship and difference is the essential feature of human relationships. It lies behind what is surely the defining belief of Western civilization, that each individual is unique, non-substitutable and irreplaceable. What would become of love if we knew that if we lost our beloved we could create a replica? What would happen to our sense of self if we discovered that we were manufactured to order?

If there is a mystery at the heart of the human condition it is otherness: the otherness of man and woman, parent and child. It is the space we make for otherness that makes love something other than narcissism and parenthood something greater than self-replication. It is this that gives every human child the right to be themselves, to know they are not reproductions of someone else, constructed according to a preplanned genetic template on someone else's whim. Without this, would childhood be bearable? Would love survive? Would a world of clones still be a human world? I doubt it.

There are some mysteries before which the only appropriate response is reverence, responsibility and restraint. Dr Antinori and his team have shown a lack of all three.

Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom

 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

How would a Clone honor its mother and father? Could it even come close to performing this command? 

Silly.

How does an adopted child honor its mother and father?   How does an orphan honor its mother and father?

What a silly argument.  I suspect you were not sincerely presenting that as an argument.  Please be real.

What about the mitzvah of Puru E'Revu? The command to be fruitful and multiply... This command requires a man and a woman to engage in sexual relations in order to produce a child. I dont think that Hashem intended humans to play G-d and create people without mothers and fathers. The commandments to honor parents is because a person must be able to honor his parents in order to be able to honor Hashem..

And a human being produced through cloning is also equally able to procreate with a spouse (female spouse if he is male, male spouse if he is female), just like any other human.

A cloning procedure would be done for medical purposes, either for research (not carried to the full term, but only to embryo stage - thus a "clone" never comes about), or due to infertility perhaps to produce a child.   Like IVF.   I don't think you have a problem with IVF, do you Muman?   The argument you present here against cloning can be applied no differently to IVF-produced babies.   Yet IVF technique seems accepted by standard halacha, and famous Dr. Baruch Brooks is in consultation with Rav Eliyashiv about his clinic's fertility work where they certainly help produce children for infertile couples.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Torah allows scientifical investigation. The question about human soul is not scientific but metaphisical. Even if science could tell something about Neanderthals, we don't have them now to examine. That sorts of speculations are no good and have no0 practical application. 

Very true.  Similarly, it is also true that it is impossible to determine at what stage of embryonic development God infuses a soul to the child (or maybe it happens at conception?  or maybe at birth?)  Who knows?   And who cares?  It is not really relevant.

Torah does not say that cloning is allowed either. 

Torah does not speak about many modern technologies, and why would it?   But that is the role of Judaism.  We have chachamim and the Oral Torah to address modern day concerns.   Chachamim would determine whether this fits (for a given purpose and in a given context) within the halacha, or does not.  We are not a stumbling nation poking around in the darkness, blind and with nowhere to turn and no one to lead us.  Chas veshalom.   

I want to stress that people from among the masses make assumptions quite often, and they are often baseless, at times influenced by other religions or what the spokespeople of other religions are saying as the "party line" on given issues.   The chachamim are the ones to decide what fits with Torah and what does not.  No one else.   And there is clearly a difference of opinion between our chachamim and the other religions about whether a fetus is a child or not.  In Judaism it is not a child but a potential child.   All the moreso an embryo is not considered a "life."  That is why in Judaism stem cell research is permitted from what I know.

The only way of reproduction mentioned in the Torah is by a man and a woman.

Once again, the Torah is not a science book and does not speak of modern medical technology.  And it had no reason to do so.  God's Torah is perfect.

And science can tell nothing about Neshamot.

  It doesn't need to.  What do we need to know about it?  The kaballah speaks about it and therein lies the information about neshamoth which are otherwise not relevant to this discussion.

You admitted in a previous post that you understand the doubt of whether a clon is a human bieng. 

Perhaps you refer to Muman, but I certainly did not.  In fact, I know for sure that a clone of a human being IS a human being.  It will have a full set of chromosomes, a normal human body, human brain, etc etc.   I highly contest anyone who proposes here that a clone of a human would not be human.   That is not a scientifically valid assertion.

[muman613]

Many of these points were mentioned in the portions I quoted above.

I don't need to reiterate those points.

The issue is not whether clones are human because as KWRBT pointed out they are physically identical to the original genetic material donor... But the issues I have are whether halachically this organism is a Jew, whether he can perform the mitzvot {whether he has an obligation to do so}.

I also bring the 'slippery slope' argument that this kind of thing will lead to an even more estranged method of bringing people into the world. At this time KWRBT mentions how close to natural birth this method is, that the clone goes through fetal stages, and birth from a mother, etc.... But lets just say that 10 years from now they can create an artificial, external womb. And maybe they can create a farm of artificial wombs from which many cloned children can be grown. It would not be much more difficult to argue that this too is permitted even though it may violate a couple of principles.

Science fiction is full of stories of madmen who create clone armies. Maybe this is 20 years away?

[Sveta]

Regarding Neanderthals I agree with Muman. I think of great apes and their ability to use tools (granted not as advances as Neanderthal tools) and even some ritual practices of apes..yet they are not like us. Similar but not like us. To convert, one must have the neshama already (at least some people believe so) and the sincere understanding of what it means to be a Jew. It's so serious to do so, will a Neanderthal have the understanding to accept the yoke of heaven. I don't see a cloned Neanderthal having the knowledge of how to keep kosher how will it keep any Mitzvot, who will it marry.
Will a converted Neanderthal be a "Bat/Ben Avraham Avinu"? He will be called up to the Torah? He or she will go to the mikvah?
Come on, in all honesty.

In regards to cloning, my personal opinion is that it's wrong. I do not believe that we are actually creating life, however. I think of it as a paper in a copy machine. The original paper is already made. Someone made the paper and put writing all over it. We cannot create a new one but we can put it in a machine and COPY it. Still it is wrong. Regarding how will someone gain a soul? No one can know unless we witness such an even, which I hope will not happen.
We can assume, I assume that somehow if science tries to clone a human it may not survive being born, it will not make it past a certain stage or life. If it does, then I would assume that an empty mass of body may come to this world as a cloned "human" but without a full existence. Perhaps HaShem will still love this poor creature anyways maybe granting it a soul? But honestly, I believe that there will  be some major roadblocks that scientists will never be able to replicate in human cloning.

[Rubystars]

Animals don't build fires and cook with them. Animals don't make complex tools. I'm not talking about banging a rock to open a nut here, I'm talking very sharp knives used with precision, hand axes, spears, etc.

No animal is smart enough to attach a spear tip to the end of a pole.

No animal deliberately makes fires to cook with or for warmth.

No animal wears clothing

Neanderthals were definitely a type of human.

[Cato]

Animals don't build fires and cook with them. Animals don't make complex tools. I'm not talking about banging a rock to open a nut here, I'm talking very sharp knives used with precision, hand axes, spears, etc.

No animal is smart enough to attach a spear tip to the end of a pole.

No animal deliberately makes fires to cook with or for warmth.

No animal wears clothing

Neanderthals were definitely a type of human.

Exactly. And, for others, let me repeat: if you were needing to survive in the middle of one of the 10 recent European glaciations, would you prefer to be in the company of a native Neanderthal family, or a bunch of present-day cannibals from the Congo??