May 5, 2010 / 21 Iyar 5770

Torah Reading: Behar-Bechukotai

Join our weekly email - Over 260,000 subscribers:

Aish.com

Wallcam

Ask the Rabbi

Holidays

Video

MP3

Jewlarious

Pathways

Shabbat

Holocaust

Israel Programs

Aish Int'l

Shopping

Emails

Home

Jewish World

Current Issues

Spirituality

Family

Dating

Jewish Literacy

Torah Portion

About
us / Donate

HOME

Current Issues

Science & Medicine

Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?

Is the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos permitted for stem cell
research?
by Daniel Eisenberg, M.D.

Today, a man lies dying of liver failure in a hospital. There is little
expectation that he will be one of the lucky few to receive a transplant before
he becomes too ill to save. Even if he did receive a transplant, he will be
burdened with taking multiple anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life,
which in and of themselves would significantly compromise his health.

Tomorrow, scientists develop a method to build this man a new liver, one that
would be a perfect match for him, requiring no anti-rejection drugs whatsoever.
There is a catch. To perfect such a solution would require the destruction of
other lives. Would Judaism sanction such a solution?

Jewish law clearly forbids the taking of one life to save another. The Talmud
forbids saving one's life at the expense of another by asking how one knows that
his life is more valuable than his neighbor's. Perhaps your neighbor's life is
more valuable.

WHEN THE FETUS IS A THREAT TO LIFE

One may kill someone who is unjustly pursuing a
third party to kill him.

But, what if the life that would need to be sacrificed was that of a fetus?
May we permit abortion to save the life of an already born person? The Mishna
clearly states that if the life of a woman in labor is threatened by her fetus,
the fetus should be aborted. But once a portion of the baby has emerged,
we may not abort the fetus, because "one may not set aside one person's life for
the sake of another." The principle behind this ruling is that one may kill
someone who is unjustly pursuing a third party to kill him. Since the fetus, who
is not yet considered a "complete" person, is "pursuing" the mother in a way
that will inevitably result in her death, we may kill it first. But, once it has
even partially emerged, it is considered a full-fledged person. Now we are faced
with a dilemma, states Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the most respected rabbis
of the 20th century: who is pursuing whom?

WHEN PURSUING EACH OTHER

Imagine that you are transported back in time to Weehawken, New Jersey, on
July 11, 1804. As you step out of the time machine you see Aaron Burr, pulling
out a revolver to shoot Alexander Hamilton, Former United States Secretary Of
The Treasury. Simultaneously, you see Hamilton also drawing his revolver to kill
Burr! What should you do? Kill Burr? Kill Hamilton? Jewish law would rule that
you may kill neither, because they are pursuing each other and you do not know
which one, if either, is an innocent party.

In our case of the baby struggling to be born at the expense of the mother
and the mother struggling to survive at the expense of the fetus, are not the
baby and the mother each "pursuing" the other? In such a case, the general rule
is that we may not choose either, since each is a complete and autonomous
person, and each is both the pursuer and the pursued. Luckily for us, these
scenarios are very rare occurrences in our day thanks to Caesarian sections.

A life-threatening situation for another adult
would not justify our killing a fetus.

But, since the rationale for abortion in Jewish law is based on the fetus
being a pursuer of the mother, a life-threatening situation for another
adult would not justify our killing a fetus, since the fetus does not threaten
the life of anyone except the mother. Therefore, we cannot allow abortion, even
to save the life of our patient with liver failure.

DESTROYING "PRE-EMBRYOS"

But there is hope. What if the scientists "merely" needed to destroy excess
fertilized eggs from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures that are only a few
days old and have not yet been implanted in a woman's uterus? Is the destruction
of these "pre-embryos" ethically acceptable to us? That is exactly the debate
that currently rages regarding stem cell research.

While stem cells can be derived from aborted fetuses and even adults, the
best source for stem cells is the small clump of cells that compose the early
zygote only a few days following conception. Therefore, to best investigate the
latent possibilities inherent in stem cells, scientists wish to use the
approximately 100,000 "excess" frozen pre-embryos that are "left over" from
earlier IVF attempts. Is it ethical to allow the destruction of pre-embryos to
obtain stem cells for research that may some day save thousands of lives?

Early stem cells have the ability to differentiate into every cell of the
human body, potentially forming an entire fetus. If we were able to manipulate
the conditions controlling cellular differentiation, we might create replacement
cells and organs, potentially curing illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's
disease, and Parkinson's disease.

But, the ultimate promise of stem cell technology would be to combine it with
cloning. Imagine our man dying of liver failure. If we could clone one of his
cells, but instead of allowing the cloned cell to develop into a fetus, we might
place it into the appropriate environment that would cause it to differentiate
into a liver that would be virtually genetically identical to that of the sick
man. If we could "grow" this liver to maturity, we could offer the sick man a
liver transplant without the risk of rejection and without the need for
anti-rejection drugs.

Unfortunately, we still do not know if we can successfully clone a human, nor
are we sure what practical value can be derived from stem cells. It will require
years of very expensive, labor-intensive research to determine the potential
that stem cells hold for the treatment, palliation, and cure of human
illness.

ARE "PRE-EMBRYOS" INCLUDED IN THE PROHIBITION OF ABORTION?

Is it ethical to sacrifice pre-embryos to experiment with their stem cells in
the hope of some day saving many lives? While many ethical issues arise, the key
one is whether pre-embryos are included in the prohibition of abortion. The
consensus thus far is that it an embryo is not protected by the limitations on
abortion until it is implanted in a woman. Most rationales given for why the
Torah forbids abortion, except to save the mother's life, revolve around the
fetus being within the woman.

The consensus is that an embryo is not protected
by the limitations on abortion until it is implanted in a woman.

The logic of only ascribing humanity to an embryo once it is implanted in the
womb is simple. Left undisturbed, an embryo in its mother's womb will most
likely continue to grow and reach parturition. But the pre-embryo created by
IVF, if left untouched in its "test tube," will die. The pre-embryo requires
active intervention to even reach a situation which we consider to be true
potential life. The alternative to this reasoning would be to argue that the
killing of adult skin cells is forbidden, since a person could potentially be
cloned from any cell in an adult's body.

ANOTHER RATIONALE

Additionally, there is another sound reason to allow destruction of
pre-embryos to save a life. When necessary to save a life, Judaism requires us
to transgress all of the laws in the Torah, with the exception of murder,
adultery, and idol worship. For example, if someone is gravely ill on Yom
Kippur, we would drive in a car to get them non-kosher food even if necessary to
save their life. If a pre-embryo is not covered by the Biblical commandment of
"thou shall not murder," then we might allow destroying a pre-embryo for its
stem cells if it would save the life of an already born person. We are
left with the question of whether research is considered the saving of a life.
This argument becomes even more appealing if concrete life-saving medical
treatments can be demonstrated.

For these as well as many other reasons, many contemporary halachic decisors
have ruled that the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos for stem cell
research is permitted (see my more extensive article on stem cell research and
Jewish Law at: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html)

CHEAPENING THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE

Nevertheless, many Rabbis oppose the deliberate creation of pre-embryos for
the purpose of their destruction, as this would cheapen the value of human
life.

The halachic process offers fascinating insight into all areas of ethics,
including biomedical ethics. It gives us the opportunity to evaluate the
explosion of technology that surrounds us through the lens of the Torah,
insuring that we remain the masters of our science and not vice versa. Judaism
has no issue with technology. It only requires the ethical and responsible use
of science to better our lives. Let us pray that tomorrow, our patient with
liver failure will be cured.

Published: Saturday, November 10, 2001
Hear
related audio on this topic.

Aish.com relies on your support. Click here to
support us.

Visitor Comments: 85

(85) chris, April 30, 2010

for or against stem cell research

im am doing a doing a for or against stem cell research and i am for it for
i have been saved by stem cell reasearch. for i had cancer at the age of 13
and i am now the age of 16 and if it where not for stem cell reaserach i would
not be hear rite now so for all of you that say it is unethical and that it is
murder it is not for the fact the embryos are not even remotly human untill
two weeks of age. and who ever embryo saved my life i ow my gratetud to them
for the life that could have been later on saved mine.

(84) Laura, April 26, 2010

I'm also doing a research project on stem cells to either be for or against
it.With all do respect, I differ with some of the people stating their
opinions. Stem cells are taken from the embryo. This situation does affect
everyone in one way or another because one should understand cultual
diversity, and the many other confounding variables of taking stem cells from
the "pre-embryo". Fact is, pre or post it's an embryo alright.

(83) Chanan, April 12, 2010

Mulitpotential, nonembryonic adult stems cells

BS"D Since 1995 I have been involved in research indicating that adult,
pluripotent (multipotential) stem cells exist in the brain and can be used for
regenerative applications to brain diseases and injuries. These are not
embryonic stem cells; rather, they are cells naturally found in the areas of
the brain involved in learning and memory. This presents a viable alternative
to embryonic stem cells and its attendant controversy. Let's daven that Hashem
will allow this work to yield therapeutic results for those who are ill and
injured.

(82) Kevin, April 11, 2010

I understand both of your situation, but you have to remember that all of
us at one point were an embryos what if you were one of the ones developed to
be used as study. With a sucess rate of zero why are we wasting time and money
we have other issues at hand. Also with the alturnitives there is no need for
the research adult cells have more promise anyway. i understand ur bias but
you have to think of the situation as a whole

(81) Briana, March 22, 2010

Ethical or Not

I'm 14 and doing a research semester project on stem cells. I believe that
stem cell research is ethical because scientists are figuring out that stem
cells may cure many diseases. Testing on embryos is not like dissecting a
human that's alive. The embryo isnt even formed enough to wear it can be
called a child. Im sorry if you don't feel the same way i do, but everyone has
there own opinions. For the people who listen to others' info and take their
advice on stem cell research; you need to do some research for yourself and
decide on your own if this is unethical. Many people don't know what stem cell
research is doing and learning so don't form opinions before you learn a
little more about this debate.

(80) Anthony, March 18, 2010

I'm 14 years old, and I'm doing a big report on this for school, which
makes up a major portion of my 2nd semester grade. I personally feel this
controversial topic is ethical. I have a 20 year old brother, and he suffers
from cerebral palsy. He is crippled in the hands, but he is a drummer and
artist two things that mainly require the hands, and he is a prodigy, he is
just amazing at what he does, and he deserves the right to working hands, he
would only be better. It affects his life and he can never stop thinking about
it. Sometimes when I was young I would here him cry and it would hurt me so
bad. this made me want to pursue stem cell research as soon as a found out
about it. Could you imagine making someone who was damaged from day 1better
again? The only sacrifice would be a child thats not alive, so I think these
religious people should have a little to think about, because I not only want
him to have hands, everyone does. So I think this is very ethical.

(79) Bernadette, March 12, 2010

Embryonic/stem

Even the tite is misrepresenting the topic. Stem cell research is ethical
and moral. EMBRYONIC stem cell research is immoral and unethical,

(78) SusanE, March 5, 2010

To Answer the Original Question.............

.No................ There should not be existing pre-embryos stored outside
a womans body. To fertilize a human egg outside the body, IVF, is acceptable
to me IF that one or two eggs are then transplanted into the woman to begin
what can become a full term pregnancy. To have fertilized human eggs stored
somewhere that will eventually be disposed of in ANY other way, is an affront
to me. ------------------------- To use the stem cells from an early
spontaneous natural abortion would be something that could be considered.
-------------------- It used to be that some of us lived a short life, some of
us lived a long life. Either with or without disease. We still do. That fact
hasn't changed. We should be eradicating the reasons we get diseases like
cancer and heart disease and viruses. We are still going to die or get disease
whether we get new organs or not. That's the way the world works.
------------------ With a great respect for ethical medical research, NO to
killing the embryos that shouldn't be in the labs in the first place..

(77) Claudia Carr, March 1, 2010

essential progess

Not only is stem cell research ethical, I believe it is essential in order
to attempt to find the answers and potential cures to crippling diseases which
strip patients of their dignity and hope. We should not be put off by the
slippery slope arguments and trust in UK legilsation that permits such
research within tightly controlled boundaries.

(76) italia, February 26, 2010

i think that stem cell research is assisting the many who have severe
ailments and wish to be cured which isint such abad thing as compared to
abortion.those embryos are going to get disposed of anyway,might as well just
use it for a rather meaningfull purpose.

(75) Beverly Kurtin, February 21, 2010

Why?

Why did Hashem give us the intelligence to extend life? So we should ignore
it or kowtow to Christian sentiments who consider a clump of cells a human
life? I'm personally revolted by the deliberate waste of pre-embryos when they
could SAVE LIVES. I have a condition similar to Parkinson's. Thankfully, it is
not life-threatening. But with the proper application of a few cells could
cure the affliction. Surplus cells left over from IVF will die just as
certainly if they are used or not used, so why not use them for the benefit of
human beings who are already alive but will die if the left overs are just
flushed down the toilet like a dead goldfish? Feh!

(74) Azeem, December 13, 2009

Ban must be on usage not on research.

To put ban on embryonic stem cell research because scientists will produce
chimeras, hybrids of human and animals I think it is not correct. Because it
would be same as putting ban on usage of atomic energy as it could be used in
making an atom bomb. Now atomic energy has been used in power generation,
medical, agriculture and bio-technology. As there is a worldwide ban on making
atom bomb but not on using atomic energy, in same way there should be ban on
usage of embryonic stem cells like formation of chimeras, hybrids of animals
and human. Regarding next concern on destroying human embryo for the purpose
of research is same as putting ban on creation of these embryos in infertility
clinics. As these extra created embryos must be dying on one or another day.
Instead of destroying, these can be used in stem cell research for the
treatment of debilitating diseases.

(73) Kepha and Miryam ben Ephraim, December 6, 2009

When does a human embryo become a human?

We are struggling with such things as stem cell research. When does a human
embryo become a human. Does our Father not say that before He formed us in our
mothers womb that He knew us? How far does man go before he encroaches on that
which God Himself should have absolute authority? We feel that maybe we humans
are building towers of Babel rather than seeking Him first.

(72) karol Delmar, May 19, 2009

Embtyonic stem cell research

We have to look even farther ahead. What is permitted today opens the way
for what will be permitted tomorrow. Already scientists are trying to make
chimeras, human animal hybrids, an unimaginable source of evil in the future.
These cells are their raw material. Science says what we can or could do, but
it does say what is ethical to do. Adult stem cells have already been used
successfully, and have the wonderful advantage of not being rejected by the
body, if they are taken from the same person. This avoids the horrifying
possibility of humans being farmed for their parts, humans of no value because
they were raised from throwaway cells. You will say that this is not ethical,
but it will surely happen if we don't put the brakes on now.

(71) Sarah, April 19, 2009

To Savannah - - - - -

Savannah, I do not agree with your statement. The seed carries life. It
just needs a little support to help it get going just like an embryo. You're
pretty much saying that a sixth month old isn't a person because it can't feed
and change itself.

(70) Joe, March 19, 2009

In response to Elisheva

Dear Elisheva, I need to make a point about biology. The fetus does not
magically develop into a baby without effort just left on it's own. I am
surprised at your use of the word "ACTIVE" in capital letterss in your
response to me. While a pregnant woman does not do any of the the things she
does for the fetus consciously, she is most certainly very actively providing
for the fetus every minute. She breathes for it, eats for it, digests for it,
processes it's metabolic waste, and provides a protection from the outside
world with her own body. It iakes a lot out of her and is a tremendous
expenditure of energy on her part. Any mother will tell you this is so. She is
most certainly extremely active. She is not just an incubator. The fact of the
matter is that if she stopped doing any of these things, the fetus would die.
Now, I am not saying that implantaion is completely irrelevant. I am saying
that if the standard is viability, it is not consistent with the other
argument posed by the author. Further, all of this specualtion about the
future is not the way that halacha works. We judge in the present. Consider
Ishmael. Why did Hashem rescue him in the wilderness? He knew that Ishmael was
going to grow up to be unpleasant and that his descendents would cause a great
deal of problems for the house of Israel. What does the tradition tell us?
While Hagar was busy crying that Ishmael might perish, Ishmael did Tsuva - and
here is the important point - and Hashem judged Ishmael *as he was then*. Much
rabbinic ink has been spilled over this point about the way judgement gets
done. So, to carry that through, what is the zygote in the present? What is
the embryo in the present? What is a baby about to be born in the present? The
important question, once again is which is a full fledged person? All other
questions - as far as halacha is concerned- are secondary.

(69) Elisheva, March 18, 2009

Response to Joe

Joe, interesting thoughts. However, I think the point about the zygote in
the test tube vs inside the mother was just that if the zygote were left alone
inside the mother, nothing need be done ACTIVELY to end up with a live baby.
(Prenatal care is necessary in this day and age, but it is certainly possible
to have a child without it!) On the other hand, if a zygote is left alone in a
test tube, it cannot possibly grow into a viable baby. Of course, if you
remove the 1 month old embryo from the womb, it will die. But the point, as I
understand it, is that the implanted zygote has the potential without any
human intervention to grow into a live being, whereas the test tube zygote
does not.

(68) Joe, March 17, 2009

In response to Avram

I appriciate your response, but I believe you missed my point. What matters
is that the halacha are consistent with each other. The reason why the moment
of personhood is so important is very simple, before personhood is reached you
are not killing a person, afterwards you are. Honestly all other questions a
secondary to establishing this point. If you are not killing a person, then
the injunction to live by Torah and not die by it takes a very strong position
in order to save lives. If you are, then you have a totally different case. As
to the issue, we need to look at the significance of 40 days vs. heartbeat. I
was very surprised that the article did not go into this. Now as to the cases
you have brought up: 1. We have no time travelers. If we did, your analogy
would still be faulty. It is based on the assumption that the embryo will grow
up to be a sweet person. Jack the Ripper was an embryo too at one point. I am
actually not trying to be too flippant here with that analogy either. In a
very deep sense, we are not the ones to judge. We can only follow the mitzvot
of the Judge. Perhaps the embryo that would have been the next Jack the Ripper
now saves lives... 2. As to preventing future human life, there is the rub -
future is not present. If a pregnant woman is injured and miscarries, is the
offending party charged with murder? The answer is no. By your reasoning it
should be yes.

(67) Michelle J., March 15, 2009

Cord Blood and embryos

Firstly, to address the point of using umbilical cord blood stem cells in
lieu of embryonic stem cells, cord blood stem cells only yield blood cells.
While this has been used successfully to produce blood cells, this cannot be
used to help our poor liver patient. The benefit of embryonic stem cells lies
in the fact that they are pluripotent, undifferentiated cells, which have the
potential to produce any type of cell, provided certain factors are
manipulated. The potential is immense. Thus far, the limited research
conducted with embryonic stem cells has not had success, but this is not
sufficient reason to write it off. The potential is there, and with more
research, amazing things may yet come from it. As for the ethical concerns of
experimenting on embryos, these are embryos that have been produced through
IVF methods, but have not been implanted, nor are they going to be implanted.
They are sitting in a freezer because they cannot be left to die (which is
what would happen if left alone), but they are also not to be implanted. These
embryos are in "limbo" so to speak. The ethical concern seems to lie more in
the first formation of these embryos that were not implanted, rather than in
their use for research. Should they remain in the freezer indefinitely? If the
potential to save lives exists, this does not seem to be a good choice.

(66) Savannah, March 14, 2009

Stem Cells

I am not a doctor nor a member of any medical community, my opinion is a
stem cell is like a seed. Until it is planted it has no life, no branches, no
leaves, no life giving properties. A stem cell is given life when it becomes a
part of that human being regardless of where you planet it.

(65) Avram, March 13, 2009

RE: #60 Joe

Joe, I think the "ikar" of the ruling of the zygote in the test tube vs.
the zygote implanted in a woman is in the phrase "left undisturbed." There
most certainly is a difference between an embryo left undisturbed while
implanted in a womb and an embryo left undisturbed outside of that
environment. You declare anything other than defining the moment that the
zygote/embryo/fetus attains "human" status as a waste of time. I disagree.
Judaism works in every dimension, including time. Therefore, its answers may
seem like pretzel logic to someone only looking at a temporal snapshot. Here's
a question: If you walk past a large plank, and standing next to the plank is
a time traveler who says, "thank G-d that plank is sitting right where it is,
because in two days there will be a flash flood and a child swept up by the
water will be saved by grabbing onto this plank." From an ethical standpoint,
if you then went and removed the plank, wouldn't that be wrong? You're not
actually killing a person, but you are taking an action that will prevent a
life from being saved in the future. Similarly, if you remove an embryo that
is implanted in a woman, you may not actually be destroying a "human" in the
process--whether you are or not is beyond my pay grade--but you are taking an
action that will prevent a future life. Isn't that wrong?

(64) Linda Wolfe, March 13, 2009

EMBRYONIC stem cell research

It is my understanding that until this very day there has been no embryonic
stem cells that have grown into usable tissue. Thus far, all of the cells have
resulted in cancer. All of them. On the other hand, umbilical chord stem cells
and adult stem cells have had some very promising results. The news media has
been very thoroughly overlooking this fact. If we would simply follow the
areas of research that have shown the most promise, embryonic stem cells
wouldn't have to be used and this would be a mute point.

(63) Tova saul, March 13, 2009

Thanks

Thank you. I've been curious about this, and now I know the answer and the
logic behind it.

(62) Chandler, March 12, 2009

Ethics

I question the validity of what is defined as a "complete human being". If
a new born baby is smaller and lessed developed does that make it a "less
complete human being"?..or is it just at a different stage of life. The next
question is who is competent enough to define that? In a situation where the
mother must chose between the life of her unborn child and possibly her
own..it is exactly that "her choice". Just as any parent would have to make a
choice to save their childs life knowing that they will in turn loose their
own. It's my belief that as soon as the egg has been fertilized the human
"divine" spark has been ignited.

(61) Jeannette Zipes, March 12, 2009

Agree with some

No way can you take any life that G-d had a hand on.They are using Adult
Stm cell and are finding out it works so why use destroy a life and choose who
gets well. Leave G-d plan alon . i agree with the Rabbi's who honour life. G-d
Bless you and let us keep praying and be able to confornt evil even if it is
convient to be a god.

(60) Joe, March 12, 2009

There were bits in this article where a little more science needs
to be applied.

Let's start from some first principles. A zygote does not have a human
heart, because it does not yet have a heart. A zygote does not have a human
mind because it does not yet have a brain. The real, and only important
question, which this article does not adress, is at what stage of development
does a collection of cells that has human features recognizable only to a
genetic analysis stop being a collection of cells and start being a human
being? That is the real question. All else is a waste of time. The rational
that a zygote takes a different status once implanted is interesting, but on
the basis of viability (as presented here) is not logical. A zygote in the
test tube would indeed die on its own -so would a one month old embryo if
removed from the womb. No present technolgy could save it. Therefore, if
viability is the standard, then there should be no issue with an implanted
embryo either. It is implied by this article that Torah would consider the
implanted zygote to be a full fledged human. Again, it has no heart and it has
no brain. I am bringing up heart and brain purposefully, because of the
halachic significance of when when we consider someone dead. One might argue
that if one does not have the equipment to be considered alive, (halachicly)
then one might be in a different halachic state than a viable human with a
heart and mind. I am not trying to get into a deep halachic argument per se.
However, I do want consistency in what I am told is halacha. I am absolutely
glad that the rabbinate is interested in using science to save lives - and
thus permits the notion of stem cell research. However, as a scientist, I
sometimes cringe at rabbinic pretzels that overlook clear application of
scientific principles in favor of of fitting a square scientific peg into a
round halachic hole.

(59) Esther, March 12, 2009

This article presents too narrow a view of Orthodoxy's allowance of
abortion.

Dr. Eisenberg muddies the waters when he writes that once a fetus is
partially-born it is considered a person and one may not abort it even to save
the life of its mother. But luckily, a situation like this almost never
arises. In reality, those rare situations in which a woman's health is
compromised by being pregnant usually arise well before the moment of actual
birth. Jewish law not only permits but mandates abortion when a pregancy
threatens a woman's health. He also doesn't state strongly enough that IVF and
stem cell research ARE allowed by Orthodox Jewish authorities (in the case of
IVF usually with supervision from a religious expert). This is a fascinating
and well-written article, but I don't want readers to come away with a false
impression that Judaism is equivocal on these matters.

(58) Simcha Mendel Freedman, March 11, 2009

STEM CELL RESEARCH IS PERMITTED

I saw a very reliable interview with a man who worked in the scientific
field. Many years ago, he met with the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In their discussion,
the Rebbe asked him why they are not doing stem cell research. The Rebbe spoke
very highly of stem cell research.

(57) Chaya K., March 11, 2009

Masters of creation...?

What I am actually more worried about is, whether as Jews and as humans it
is allowed for us to "create" human organs, parts of humans and whether itis
"unfortunataly", as stated in the text, or luckily that we have no idea for
now how to clone humans. Isn't G-d the third partner in the creation of a new
person?... And isn't life and death the way they are and their occurance the
way they have to be due to Heaven's decision?....

(56) Chana, March 11, 2009

Umbilical cord stem cells can be used with no threat of life to mother or
child

(55) Thomas Beck, March 11, 2009

Embryos not created to be destroyed

I would not support creating "pre-embryos" merely for the sake of research.
But most come from fertility treatments and are going to be destroyed anyway.
They exist already - we should be permitted to use them for research that may
save lives in the future.

(54) Keith C, March 11, 2009

There is no justification

Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.." These so
called PRE-EMBRYOS are known by G-d. Just because man took the eggs out of the
mother and fertilized them outside the womb doen't mean they are not known by
G-d. There is NO justifiable excuse that these innocent existing babies can be
destroyed to provide possible future cures for people.

(53) Anonymous, December 15, 2008

Read the whole thing..

..and thank you so much! This helped me greatly on my social issues
artwork.

(52) aanchal, November 23, 2008

thanks! it helped me to prepare my assignment on stem cells-ethical
concerns

(51) Masha, February 28, 2008

Helped me lots

Thanks for this. This helped me on my Stem Cell research people, opposing
viewpoints.

I greatly appreciate this.

Thanks.

-Masha

(50) Sam, January 17, 2008

well done info

ive read alot on stem cell research and you only get bits and parts of it
this site has by far coverd the issues that most people have wonderd, thank
you this will help me a lot in my schooling

(49) DreaaBaby, January 6, 2008

Wow. I actually bothered to read the entire page.

I loved the insight on some other cultures religions. Very
interesting.

(48) bob, October 24, 2007

I LOVE THIS

this is good info. LOVE IT

(47) Power-Puff Girl, October 20, 2007

Best Ethical Article

This is a very comprehensive and informative article. I am glad to say that
you have enlightened me and informed me of the ethical issues surrounding stem
cell research. This article has also made me think about where i stand in this
ethical debate and what i believe to be right. Thankyou very much for this
thought provoking article!

(46) mariel, April 18, 2007

thanks

this artical really benefited me ; i'm giving a speech over stem cell
research and your article enabled me to understand everything in detail.keep
up the good work!

(45) Anonymous, March 29, 2007

Use for the info

i really liked this article, it explained to me a ton of things i did not
understand!!! But my question is if i could use some of this information for
the debate im doing (i know everything about the piracy stuff, thats why i
need to ask) Well e-mail me so i can find out.

just to be sure that i
wont copy, paste anything, ill tell u that im in 8h
grade.

thnx
diego

(44) iftekhar, August 12, 2006

very comprehensive material

i liked your materials.please mail me more history of research , ethical
issues ,potential uses of stem cells regarding the topic.

(43) Manasseh, September 27, 2005

Pre-Embryo cells - The demand is so great

I think that for medical science to advance, research should be allowed on
pre-embryo cells. Hashem would not have allowed it if He didn't think it would
have helped the millions of people who need this life saving treatment. Think
about it. When you look at the virus, what do you see? A one cell wonder.

Very tiny. Almost useless except for one thing. This thing is alive. So
for the pre-embryo cells.
In the past, research used to be restricted to
things that we can see, hear, and experiment with.
Now, we have this
ability to research the tiniest organisms. I am all for it because of its
ability to cure people with diseases known to kill many more people.

Pre-embryo cells are not people who need to be kept alive simply because
they are and should be considered cells with one redeeming power. That is the
power to cure other people. Hashem would not have allowed this to continue if
the researchers are destroying the cells with impunity. Why are we so afraid
of using them for the benefit of humanity? The suffering is tremendous. We
should be using this powerful miracle to save more lives.
Thank you.

(42) Toshi Shimada, April 26, 2005

The big question

Hi. I think I agree with the comments and discussions that you have made in
this web page. I personally believe that the big question to consider, is
whether or not a pre-embryo can be considered 'a human life'. It is indeed a
'life', but you could debate on and on about whether it is morally correct to
destroy a life to save one. Thus, the question to be raised is; how could you
consider a pre-embryo a human life, before it has even moved on to the natural
stage in life within the mother's womb?

(41) kevin brennan, January 31, 2005

thank you so much

my name is kevin brennan and I am a student at Mc Clintoch high school in
Tempe Arizona. in biology my class is curently holding a debate reguarding the
m,oral and ethical issues of stem cell reaserch. several points that i have
made in this debate have gone unnoticed because i simply did not have a
source. but I have found them heere and when the information came from an MD
then people listened and we won the first two days because of it. Thank you
sir.

(40) Anonymous, January 15, 2005

Interesting

I liked this article. I always wondered what the Torah's take on stem-cell
research was. Now I know!

(39) nurina, January 4, 2005

Useful

useful links for a student who needs research on ethical issues on stem
cell research

(38) Karen, December 3, 2004

liked the site

this web site helped me a lot when I was doing a research on ethical issues
on stem cell research

(37) leo, November 16, 2004

fascinating

very interesting article. I was wondering about this myself and am happy to
learn the Jewish take on it.

(36) CHAYA, October 31, 2004

REALITY

It is always good to philosophise about topics such as these , and having
the luxury of beeing righteous .

But when you are 25 on a transplant
list and wont know if you will make it , everything becomes much more
realistic.

I would like to bring to people's attention that in the
late 90's there was a popular drug prescribed to teenagers that would help
them , given by dermatologists . Today it is a known fact that it destroyed
many young lives , and damaged their vital organs .

Having a
transplant is not a walk in the park , that is if you are lucky to have one .
Secondly the medications that have to be taken slowly begin to do their damage
.

Stem cell research could lead to the ability of growing organs that
would belong to the person , there would be no rejection , or medications .

People have a full right to save their lives , especially when they
suffered at the hands of the greedy pharmaceutical industry .

(35) Earl Litz, October 25, 2004

stem cell research

From what Dr. Eisenberg has shared with us, I remained unsure what G-d
would require in this matter. Isaiah told us that G-d knew us in the womb, but
I'm sure Isaiah never envisioned what technicalites would be created through
modern science. At this point, personally, I am against tampering with what
G-d has created.

(34) Eliezer, October 24, 2004

Response to Mr.White's point

In response to John White's objection that humans might become slaves if we
are able to grow pre-embryos for 9 months with machines - if you read the
article's wording carefully you'll see it says:

"[...] But the
pre-embryo created by IVF, if left untouched in its 'test tube,' will die. The
pre-embryo requires active intervention to even reach a situation which we
consider to be true potential life. "

Now if we ever reach a situation
where an embryo that's left untouched will not die but will indeed develop
into a human (through the use of machines, etc.), then yes - such an embryo
should be considered a potential life and can not be used for research. But
until it is placed in that situation [being hooked up to a machine, being
placed in an incubator, etc.] where if left untouched it will automatically
develop into a human, it is an entity that will die if left on its own.
According to the article's logic, this would be a reason to allow its
destruction through research.

(33) Miryam, October 22, 2004

Hum!!!

Who are we to say if a preembyo may become an embryo or not? isn't that
like trying to play the role of G-d? What about the umbilical cords that are
left after a baby is born? aren't those cords disposed? why can't we use the
stem cells of an umbilical cord left over after the birth of a child for this
kind of research? some people choose to have the umbilical cord frozen in a
cord bank but not everyone chooses that because is so expensive, so why can't
we use those stem cells to do this research? why destroy another life when we
can use the stem cells of left over umbilical cords without destroying another
life Dr. Eisenberg? or are you going to tell me this cannot be done when these
stem cells obtained from frozen umbilical cords have been used to cure people
with some forms of cancer and other illnesses.

(32) Dwayne Jones, October 21, 2004

An abundant source of Stem Cells

From what I understand only Adult Stem Cells are used in treatment.
Embryonic Stem Cells are not safe to use because they have caused tumors and
their development into an undesired type of cell is extremely unpredictable.

On the other hand, what if there was a way through natural nutrition
(Hashem's provision of food) for a person's body to produce an abundance of
Stem Cells within their own body ?

This has been observed in FAS
children and Type I Diabetes people to name a few. Stem cells can also migrate
to the brain to become new brain cells. (JAMA Feb 19, 2003)

The
abundance of Stem Cells produced internally is enabled by the availability of
a new category of necessary nutrition called glyconutrients, specific
carbohydrates that are not used for energy.

Research with
glycoproteins is exploding. I suggest researching PubMed, the Library for NIH.
There are over 400,000 articles on this and related topics. MIT Technology
Review magazine has stated that this discovery will change the world.

Perhaps this offers hope to many who can not afford or do not agree
with operations involving Stem Cells from other sources.

(31) Dr. Jose Nigrin, October 19, 2004

killling embryos for life?

The stem cell research is still, in the category of achieving the formation
of tissue organs, for transplantation. Until this becomes a reality, and
practical cure, we can regard this as an unethical way of experimentation,
without unknown results. We have to give the stem cell research the benefit of
the doubt, and go ahead, but accepting the fact of killing a potential life in
formation.

(30) Miriam, Pittsburgh, PA, October 19, 2004

Partial-Birth Abortion, Exactly what does this mean?

What exactly is partial-birth abortion? Does that mean part of the baby has
already emerged and therefore an abortion cannot be performed at that time to
save the mother's life?

(29) Anonymous, October 19, 2004

Thank you

I knew I could count on Aish.com to take a complicated raging contemporary
issue and make it understandable, meaningful and relevant from a Jewish
perspective. Thank you!

(28) Anonymous, October 19, 2004

Dr. Eisenberg:

What a sensible discussion of a very difficult and
yet crucially important series of complex medical issues confronting those of
us in health care and those without.

You presented a splendid series
of logical arguements regarding the potential involved in the circumstances
for both good and the obverse results inherent in unchecked or unethical
experimentation.

Compelling and cogent.

(27) Daniel Eisenberg, MD, October 19, 2004

The question is not when life begins

Mr. White raises a very important issue regarding the term "pre-embryo."
Too often, euphemistic terms are used to obscure the ethical significance of
patently unethical actions. But, from a Jewish perspective, the terminology of
pre-embryo is irrelevant and is only used because it describes the time after
in vitro fertilization is performed and before the placement of the embryo in
the uterus.
The question from a halachic perspective is NOT "when does
life begin," but "when does HALACHICALLY PROTECTED life begin." That is,
potential life of the human being begins before conception, in the form of the
sperm and the egg. Put another way, if I could potentially take a cell from
the inside of someone's mouth and clone a person from it, is every mucosal
cell a "potential life," deserving legistative protection? Surely not!
The
opinions brought in my stem cell article merely argue that these "pre-embryos"
are not covered by the Biblical prohibition of murder. This does not in any
way minimize the status of the pre-embryo. They are potential lives and since
the there is not unanimity regarding the stem cell research question, it is
best to err on the side of caution and not create these pre-embryos merely to
be destroyed. But, once they are created as part of the in vitro fertilization
process, then we must go after the great decisors of Jewish law, several of
whom have allowed the destruction of pre-embryos.

(26) Don Gambill, October 18, 2004

That which is right in our own eyes

It is amazing what we can rationalize in our own minds in order to soothe
our consciences. My question is this, where will it end? If you allow research
on the IVF "leftovers" what happens when the scientific community comes back
and says that the sample isn't large enough, or that in order to procede they
need samples from a broader cross section of society? What will be the next
line we cross? Will the industry then pay for eggs and sperm in order to mass
produce the quantity and genetic sampling needed? Where will it end?
And
the serpent said, "...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods..."

(25) Jon White, October 18, 2004

Idea of 'pre-embryo' invented for political reasons only

To paraphrase a bioethicist teaching at a major university: The term
pre-embryo is used carelessly as is the concept fertilized ovules.
In
fact, the term 'pre-embryo' has had very little to do with scientific rigor
since its appearance.
It was coined in 1979 by embryologist Clifford
Grobstein, a specialist in the study of frogs, who admitted that in this way
he wanted to 'reduce the status of the early human embryo'.
At that time,
the birth of the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown in 1978 caused a
proliferation of centers of in vitro fertilization.
Because of this, the
then U.S. secretary of health, Joseph Califano, arousing ethical concerns
about what was presented as human experimentation, called publicly for
research on the early human embryo.
Then, Grobstein tried to resolve the
concerns by declaring the early human embryo a 'pre-embryo,' namely, a
non-person. (We should remember that, in the recent past, millions of Jewish
persons suffered horrendously when burdened with the same libelous
'non-person' label.)
Subsequently the term was used in two important
international venues: the Warnock Commission in Great Britain, directed to
establishing the licit realms of human experimentation and techniques of
assisted reproduction, and the Ethical Committee of the American Society for
Fertility, of which Grobstein himself was a member.
Then, the scientific
literature, both the specialized as well as the popular, appropriated the
term, which soon became a most useful persuasive instrument of public opinion
on the ethical innocuousness of embryonic manipulation.
In fact, in all
the documents favorable to manipulation of the 'pre-embryo,' one can identify
some criteria that justified its distinction from the 'real embryo,' which
would appear magically on the 14th day of life and after.
Such criteria
were based on the observation according to which around the 14th day of life
some substantial novelties would occur in the development of the tiny human,
such as the completion of implantation in the maternal womb, initiated around
the fifth, sixth day after conception, or the increase of cellular
differentiation.
But, in reality, biological research itself has
established with certainty that such 'progress' in embryonic development does
not represent substantial novelties, but is part of the uninterrupted
evolution of the organism from the first instant, the fertilization, until the
last, the person's death.
From the moment of fertilization and after, the
human being has some fixed biological properties: coordination -- namely, the
fact of presenting a functionally organized unit according to an established
object and autonomously pursued by the organism's genetic program; gradualness
-- namely, the progressive constitution through different phases of
development of the final form of the individual, according to his own
identity, individuality and uniqueness.
These arguments have met with
broad consensus in the scientific community, to the almost total prohibition
of the ambiguous expression.
Yet, in recent years, the attempts at massive
distribution of the morning-after pill on one hand, and the interest in
furthering research with embryonic stem cells on the other, have
re-established the old debate on the human individuality of the early embryo,
this time not strictly at the scientific level, but cultural and political as
well.
In other words, we are before a great and conscious lie.
As C.W.
Kisher states: The so-called pre-embryo is a false stage of human development
invented by an amphibian embryologist for political reasons only. It has no
credible scientific justification. Thus, the inclusion of this term into the
language of human embryology has become a hoax of gigantic proportion.

(24) Debby Parent, October 17, 2004

Excellent Article

This has made many things clearer to me and our family is going through a
medical situation now. One life will not be put in danger to help another,
only to give the other life. I feel more comfortable.

(23) Elisa, October 17, 2004

Very good article, it really opened my eyes about this complicated subject.

(22) Morry Levin, October 17, 2004

Thanks for the article. It helped clear and my confusion over stem cell
research.

(21) John D. Miller, October 17, 2004

Great article!

Thanks indeed for such a well written article that even I can understand!

(20) Anonymous, October 17, 2004

This email gave me much needed information

Thank you for this information.

(19) gabriello marchetti, August 2, 2004

great!

This is a great point of view, where jewish ethicism,Torah, and humanism

(scientiphic research and progress)are togheter for human life .Great!

(18) Rabbi Krustolzky, July 27, 2004

We cannot play God

God has put us on the earth to enjoy life, in all its pain. To do such
things is to insult the processes he has put in place and make our value much
less.

(17) JESSICA KELLY, January 12, 2004

THANK YOU THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED ME WITH HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL
TO ME EXPECIALLY IN MRS.BOWMANS CLASS

(16) Billy the Kid, December 11, 2002

Stem Cells are good

How can we judge the destruction of something does not yet completely exist
as bad. If these have the potential to cure devastating diseases and save live
why are we even arguing. The debate should be no more magnified than that of
abortion. To create stem cells you destroy the fetus, just as you do when you
have an abortion, and the fetus is not a human. I personally value a human
over something that is not yet A HUMAN

(15) Anonymous, November 5, 2002

I needed this exact information for a term paper. Thank you so much!

(14) miguel sanchez, May 13, 2002

your website gave me so much great info thankyou very much!

(13) marcia cooperman, November 18, 2001

excellent article

the article gave me information which i wanted regarding the jewish view of
stem cells & stem cell research.

(12) Gloria Filkoff, November 17, 2001

It seems that if the present supply of pre-embryos is going to die on its
own or be destroyed because their owners no longer need or want them, then
they absolutely should be used to restore the health of living persons.

(11) Janet Miller, November 17, 2001

Blessed are you G-d master of life and death.

I agree with the person who believes that life should not be conceived in a
test tube and with the person who favors research with cord blood. What ever
happened to the part of the AMIDAH that states "Baruch atah adonai m'chaye
b'hameytim"? It is my belief that G-d alone should decide who conceives and
who does not. If my genetic material is meant to be passed along to another
individual, it will happen in the natural manner. If potential parents were as
selfless as some claim to be, in the case of infertility, they would at least
try to adopt. There are couples at my synagogue who have adopted foreign born
and hard to place children.
Is there no more to Judaism anymore than the
mitzvah of pru'urvu? I have known personally women who have been 'treated' by
IVF--one who had an apple shaped body type which, at best, is a body with
hormonal imbalance; one who smoked cigarettes and sat on abdominal pain which
turned out to be gallbladder disease and was over 35 at the time--you get the
picture. Isn't respect for human life or knowledge of the identity of the
baby's father also part of Jewish teaching (if an anonymous sperm donor is
used, it is very hard to break this anonymity)? I believe IVF itself is wrong.
Therefore, I am against stem cell research from embryos, but not with adult
stem cells or cord blood.

(10) Anonymous, November 14, 2001

"Excellent appraisal of halachic issue"

I've been looking and waiting for a clear explanation of the halachic
issues surrounding stem cell research. Thanks for the effort.

(9) margie eisenberg, November 14, 2001

All medical procedures were new once.......

Excellent article....while stem cell research is new, it offers great hope
in the saving of lives....you say: "thanks to Caesarian sections."...I'm sure
there was plenty of controversy surrounding that too in the beginning...God
has given us all we need..we just need to LOOK harder!!

(8) Anonymous, November 13, 2001

"test-tube babies"

In response to the reader who said "We should not be playing around with
conception via tubes" - Great torah leaders urge us to use all the technology
available for help with infertility problems. Having a baby through IVF is
also a direct blessing from G-d. Infertility problems is comparable to any
other medical problem. When you are sick, you go to the doctor. You don't sit
at home waiting for heaven to heal you - you have to do your part, and G-d
will do His. There are many beautiful Jewish children born using IVF.

(7) John White, November 13, 2001

Your Reasoning Could Lead to Human Slavery...

Your reasoning in the article "Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?" will lead to
acceptance of human slavery when science is able to keep the "pre-embryo"
alive and growing for 9 months with machines and without implantation into a
woman. At that point, a living creature appearing to be a fully-formed human
baby would exist. But this creature would not be a human being according to
the Jewish law you quoted in your article, because the creature would not have
emerged in any way from a woman's body. Hence, it would have no human rights,
and therefore could be used by its owner as a permanent creature of servitude
(slave.) This ugly conclusion shows (I hope) the fallaciousness of your
argument. In your article, you even referred to the fetus prior to emergence
during birth as a "baby" (which is accurate). The problem here is caused by
the adult humans' postulating an arbitrary point in the continuum of human
life prior to which it is not human and after which it is human. The
fundamental reality is that it's a human being from conception, with a its own
human DNA sequence. Treat the pre-embryonic human being with the respect due
it, and the concept of human life will be that much less easily cheapened by
those worshipping the god whose name is "Usefullness."

(6) , November 12, 2001

What if we do not need stem cell research and alike? There are alternatives
as natural hygiene etc. that helped me personally to avoid loosing my uterus.
Many illnesses are the result of bad eating habits and not a misfortune. New
treatments are not looking for the real causes (new treatments pay better).
Baruch HaShem, I learned about these alternatives in time, so I do not have to
live my life without children.

Besides, hospitals often create the
complications that lead too often to Caesarian sections.

There are now
many interesting web sites, e.g. about natural hygiene, unassisted birth
etc... they are worth to take notice of.

Shalom from Israel

(5) Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Very, very intersting!!! Thanks!

It is interesting to view the Torah perspective on new technology.

(4) Lin Pyles, November 12, 2001

embryo's to save life

Why is this an issue at all? We should not be playing around with
conception via tubes to begin with. I think HaShem made it very clear that He
would bless us with children. Throughout Tanakh He opened and closed wombs.
Sara took having a child into her own hands and convinced Avraham to concieve
through Hagar. Ishmael, to this day, is still a thorn in his brother's side.
Perhaps if we were not playing around with test tube babies the issue you
discussed would be a non issue.

(3) Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Other options

What about using the stem cell is cord blood (blood from the umbilical cord
attached to the placenta)? I know they use this with certain types of cancer
patients with good results. This does not risk the life of a pre-born child.
This utilizes something that is usually just discarded. I have much less of an
ethical issue with this type of research.

I am very concerned when we
start to devalue any life. I look at our nation in despair. We've gone from
abortion to save the mother's life to abortion for convenience and birth
control. Now we are seeing more children abused and elderly abused. Not even
to mention the push for the right to "euthanasia". Where will we stop?

Only HaShem gives life. Who are we to try to control this gift?

(2) Robbie Scott, November 12, 2001

I believe that life starts at the moment the egg and sperm are united. A
reproductive scientist said he could always tell which embryos took, because
there was a minute, brief flash of light that occured in the sucessful ones.I
believe it better to be over cautious than not. Let Hashem decide if the sick
person is to live or not.

(1) Anonymous, November 11, 2001

Stem Cell Research

Thank you very much for your thougtful comments. Although your statement
about Burr/Hamilton is incorrect, your halachic insight was very helpful.

See All Comments Add Comment

Submit Your Comment:

Name:*

Display my name?
Yes No

Email:*

Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we
have a question about your comment.

One Line Summary:

Comments:*

* required field2000

Submit Comment

About the Author

Daniel Eisenberg, M.D.

Dr. Daniel Eisenberg is with the Department of Radiology at the
Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, PA and an Assistant Professor of
Diagnostic Imaging at Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine. He has
taught a Jewish medical ethics class for the past 15 years. Dr. Eisenberg writes
extensively on topics of Judaism and medicine and lectures internationally on
topics in Jewish medical ethics to groups of all backgrounds. Obtain more
information on scheduling a lecture or learning more about Jewish medical ethics
by visiting Dr. Eisenberg at http://www.daneisenberg.com/

Related Articles

Most Popular In:

Current
Issues

aish.com

1.Our
Biggest Problem

What is the biggest problem facing world Jewry today?

2.In My
Boots

What's a nice Jewish girl like me doing in a place like this?

3.The
Jewish Ethicist: When In Doubt, Apologize

Sometimes it's good to apologize, even if offense was not taken.

4.Is Stem
Cell Research Ethical?

Is the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos permitted for stem cell
research?

1.Zacharia’s Beautiful
Mystery

The worldwide release of a hot new CD – right here on Aish.com.

2.Marriage
in Crisis

Don't ignore the warning signs. Get the help you need.

3.Ani
Yehudi

One American family united the people of Israel through song.

4.Jtube:
General James Jones' Joke

Many people, including Abe Foxman, found this joke offensive. Do
you?

Society

Business Ethics

Salomon Says Weekly Video Blog

Arts

Science & Medicine

Women

Sponsors

Aish.com Features

See all RSS
feeds

Aish.com - Your
Life. Your Judaism.

LANGUAGES:

Hebrew

Spanish

Russian

French

SECTIONS:

Jewish World

Current Issues

Spirituality

Family

Dating

Jewish Literacy

Holocaust Studies

Torah Portion

Videos

Ask The Rabbi

Shabbat

Holidays

Western Wall Cam

RSS

Mobile
version

EMAIL LISTS:

http://emaillists.aish.com/

Spirituality

Daily Email

Dating Wisdom

Shabbat Shalom

Torah Portion

Kabbalah

Israel Update

Calendar & Holidays

48 Ways to Wisdom

Jewish History

Jewish Ethicist

Aish Promotions

Jewlarious

ABOUT:

Programs in Israel

Online Seminars

About
Aish.com

Donate:
Aish.com

About Aish HaTorah
Intl.

Donate: Aish
Intl.

Contact Us

Submit Articles

Advertise Here

Your Privacy

AFFILIATES:

Pathways

Jewlarious

MP3 Audio Site

Aish Shopping

Online Jewish
Dating

Learn Hebrew
Online

FOLLOW US:

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube

RSS

©
2010 Aish.com - Your Life, Your Judaism

Our
Privacy Guarantee: Your information is private. Your transactions are
secure.