The whole theory of evolution in modern biology revolves around the principle of biological fitness. Definitions of fitness have changed over time, but the main idea remains the same, i.e., in a system with limited resources, an organism that produces relatively more offspring will be more likely to pass its heritable traits on to future generations and thus be more “fit” with respect to evolutionary change (avoiding extinction and surviving speciation). In practice (i.e., in the lab) we commonly estimate fitness by reproductive success (number of offspring). This isn’t always straight-forward though, as we next may want to consider the relative viability of those offspring. For example, will they actually be able to have more offspring themselves than progeny from a smaller clutch would be? Just because they came out, do they matter? Apparently there is an interesting analogy of this question in Judaism, where there is an extended development of the concept of an individual and its value over time, extending from before they are born and the G-dly soul has yet to enter the body, to their path through the birth canal, and continuing to change over thirteen years during maturity into adulthood. We don’t congratulate a pregnant mother, as the unborn child has yet to embrace mitzvot, and even the newborn baby may be considered a miscarriage if, G-d forbid, it dies before thirty days. Nevertheless, Judaism places extreme emphasis on producing babies, primarily stemming from the first thing commanded of us, in Genesis 1:28, that we be fruitful and multiply. It seems modern science’s understanding of biological fitness is a concept that has been around in the Torah for quite some time! So sex is a very necessary and important thing, and Judaic sources do anything but shy away from this function of life. Describing the understanding of sex in Judaic scripture as, “powerful, magical, dangerous, and holy,” Jay Michaelson in his recent book goes on to explain,
So too, in the Talmudic tradition, where sex is celebrated, feared, regulated, and endlessly discussed. First, most of the Rabbis frowned on celibacy. The Talmud in Yevamot 8:7 records Rabbi Eleazer ben Azariah as saying that “anyone who does not engage in procreation nullifes the Divine image.” Yet Talmudic sex is much more than procreation. If the tales in the Talmud are any indication, our sages were passionate beings whose attitude toward sexual matters ranged from boastful pride (even about the size of their anatomy) to extreme reverence for beauty and its power to bring about inspiration or calamity. The Talmud is not prudish; it recommends foods for good sex (Eruvin 28a and Kiddushin 2b), discusses multiple orgasim (Niddah 13a) and the length of time required for sexual intercourse (Sotah 4a), frowns upon wearing clothes during sex (Ketubot 48a), and explicitly permits oral sex (Nedarim 20a-b). It is also insistent that a husband provide his wife with sexual pleasure during “her time” (onatah), listing the required frequency of sex [Kethuboth 61b] according to the occupation of the husband: every day for those with no job, twice a week for laborers, once a week for mule drivers, once a month for camel drivers, once every six months for sailors. Within the Talmud’s various parameters, sexual love is celebrated and sanctified.
The values placed on producing new life have extroadinary consequences throughout halacha and form the basis of many decisions in the field of jewish medical ethics. Abortion of an unborn fetus, for example, can be justified in conditions that place the mother’s health at risk. At the root of this decision is a differential understanding of who is alive and when. The Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits, wrote in 1983,
The Bible does not specifically deal with either criminal or therapeutic abortion. But in legislating on the liability for assaulting a pregnant mother and causing a miscarriage, the text in the Book of Exodus (21:22) implies that the destruction of an unborn child is not culpable as murder, and that the fetus does not, therefore, enjoy the same absolute title to life as an existing human being. The Talmud takes this an important step further by ruling in favour of an embryotomy where a difficult delivery otherwise threatens the mother’s life…. Similar considerations govern the attitude to birth control. Where genuine fears exist, attested by reliable medical opinion, that a renewed pregnancy might possibly cause some serious risk ot the mother, rabbinical verdicts on the use of contraceptive precautions would generally be liberal.
Another example of perhaps surprisingly progressive and liberal leanings of orthodox Judaism is found with respect to human cloning. Rabbi Nissan Dovid Dubov gave a lecture available online on this issue, covering topics from the development of reproductive technologies, to who owns our DNA and the ethical considerations of cloning. Coming full circle though, our ability (or inability) to define life also impacts our understanding of death. Not surprisingly, there is debate about what it means to die. I’m most familiar with invertebrates and an extroadinarily fuzzy definition of death there; indeed, you can remove the head from an ant or cockroach and they will continue to be functional animals for quite some time. As such, we are forced to not discuss life and death, but the relative functionality of different animal systems (water loss rate, neuron excitability, metabolic rate, etc.). I was under the impression that our medical understanding of death in humans would be somewhat more advanced. Apparently, in modern science, it really isn’t. In hospital emergency rooms, death is ascertained not by some complicated recording of the brain or heart, but rather by checking for a variety of reflexes that we presume are indications of brain function. Judaism defines death as cessation of respiratory and cardiovascular function. Is one definition really more valid than the other? It is an important question, with ramifications for when euthenasia may be applied or organs harvested. Is science the right place to turn for an answer? If so, has it actually supplied a sufficient one?