Below are this week's Kashrut and other alerts:

The following allergy alert was received from the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network on August 20, 2001.
Bake-Line Products, Inc. has initiated an allergy alert and a voluntary market withdrawal of a limited number of 14 oz. packages of Oatmeal Cookies. This product may contain a trace amount of undeclared egg, as it was manufactured on equipment that also manufactures products with an egg ingredient on a day on which there was an inadvertent variation in our normal sequence of production. No other cookies marketed under the labels named below are involved. The cookies are packaged under multiple label names with a manufacturing code of 090501B4 or 090501C4. These products represent a limited number of 14 oz. Oatmeal Cookies that were primarily distributed in the Eastern and Midwestern regions of the country.
The specific cookies include:

Brand Name UPC
Best Choice Old Fashioned Oatmeal Cookies70038 31030
Best Yet Oatmeal Cookies42187 52231
Big Y Oatmeal Cookies18894 20299
DeMoulas Old Fashioned Oatmeal Cookies49705 45027
Flavorite Oatmeal Cookies41130 05596
Food Club Oatmeal Cookies36800 10086
Giant Eagle Oatmeal Cookies30034 02011
IGA Oatmeal Cookies41270 01412
Shaw's Old Fashioned Oatmeal Cookies45674 26261
Stop & Shop Crispy Sweet Oatmeal Cookies21120 39011
Sweet Life Oatmeal Cookies72500 05533
Wegmans Oatmeal Cookies77890 75027
Consumers who have questions regarding the 14 oz. packages of the above mentioned Oatmeal Cookies with a manufacturing code of 090501B4 or 090501C4 printed on the side of the package should call (toll free) 1-877-875-3182 between 8:00 am 6:00 pm, Central time, Monday through Friday.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kosher clarification was received from a reader and confirmed by the Orthodox Union on August 21, 2001.
Nestle's Liquid Tea Concentrate bearing an OU-D symbol is pareve.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kosher Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on August 20, 2001.
Grimaldi Baked Goods, Grimaldi Bakery Corp., Ridgewood, NY distributed assorted baked goods bearing an unauthorized OU symbol. Consumers finding these products with an OU symbol are requested to call the OU Kashruth Hotline at 212-613-8241.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kosher Alert was received from Kof-K on August 14, 2001, repeating an alert from February 14, 2001.
Dairy Delite and Yolover Yogurt produced at Noga Dairy, Inc. located at 175 Price Parkway, Farmington, NY, 11735 are NOT certified by the Kof-K even when bearing the Kof-K symbol. Products produced by Noga Dairy are not certified by the Kof-K Kosher supervision.

Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.


The Following OU Kosher Alert was released by the
Orthodox Union's Kashruth Division on the date indicated.
August 21, 2001 Brand: Sally Sherman Product: Cole Slaw & Health Salad
INSTITUTIONAL SIZE ONLY! Company: Sally Sherman, Mt. Vernon, NY Issue: Product is no longer certified as Kosher and should have the OU symbol obliterated. The consumer size will
remain certified.

Below are this week's Kashrut alerts:

The following health Alert was received from Safetyalerts.com on August 11, 2001.
RPF Inc., Inglewood, CA also doing business as Royal Palate Foods, is voluntarily recalling approximately 650 pounds of frozen, kosher chicken chow mein entrees that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.D.A's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today. The products subject to this Class I recall are individually wrapped trays of "Chicken Chow Mein Entree." Each 48-count case of entrees is marked with a lot number of "F-H2048" and bears establishment number "P-18465" inside the USDA seal of inspection.
The entrees were produced on August 1 and distributed to correctional facilities in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, and Washington.
Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Bill Pinkerson, president, RPF Inc., at (310) 330-7701.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashrus and allergy Alert was received from FOOD ALLERGY & ANAPHYLAXIS NETWOR on August 9, 2001.
Frito Lay wishes to notify Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network members that they have initiated an allergy alert and voluntary recall of a limited number of 12 1/4 oz. packages of Ruffles brand Potato Chips with a manufacturing code of 411220770 and a code date of Sep 25 printed in the upper right quadrant of the front of the bag.
A limited quantity of 12 1/4 oz. Ruffles brand Potato Chips packages, distributed in IL, WI, IA, and MN., contain Cheddar and Sour Cream Ruffles brand Potato Chips. This product is being recalled because we realize dairy products may cause a serious allergic reaction in some people.
Consumers who have a 12 1/4 oz. package of Ruffles brand Potato Chips with a manufacturing code of 411220770 and a code date of Sep 25 printed in the upper right quadrant of the front of the bag should call Frito Lay at 1-800-352-4477 for a replacement coupon.
ed. note: The plain Ruffles Potato Chips are certified by the OU.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following allergy Alert was received from FDA on August 8, 2001.
Waffles in the following varieties under 8 brand names: Stater, Roundy's, Sugerencia, Food Club, Spartan, DeMoulas, Super G, and Stop and Shop. The waffles come in either an 8 count, 10 count, 12 count, or 16 count package. All lots distributed prior to June 1, 2001, were subject to recall because they contained undeclared FD&C Yellow No. 5 and FD&C Yellow No. 6:
F-450-1 Homestyle Waffles (may be labeled as "Homestyle", "Old Fashioned Round" or as "Waffles" - no variety)
F-451-1 Buttermilk Waffles
F-452-1 Blueberry Waffles

The manufacturer Lakeshore Frozen Foods Inc., Lake City, PA a recall letter to their brokers on 6/1/01.
FIRM INITIATED RECALL: Completed;
DISTRIBUTION: CA, IL, IN, MA, MD, MI, OH, TX, VT, and WI.
QUANTITY: 136377 cases/6 units per case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashrus Alert was received from a newspaper advertisement on August 3, 2001.
Please be advised that as of Friday, July 27, 2001 the Vaad Ha Rabonim of Flatbush is no longer responsible for the Kashrus of Crawford's Cafe, 1209 King's Highway, Brooklyn, NY.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashrus Alert was received from a newspaper advertisement on August 3, 2001.
Effective August 1, 2001 Kehilah Kashrus will no longer certify Bella Sole Restaurant located at 904 Kings Highway Brooklyn, NY
As of Aug. 1st, Belle Sole is under the supervision of Rabbi Yisroel P. Gornish.



Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.

Interesting speech by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the British Chief Rabbi. It's obviously current in view of the debate about stem-cell research. - EBS


Ethical Issues at the Start of Life. The Samuel Gee Lecture - Royal College of Physicians
19th June 2001
Mr President and Fellows of the College: it is a great honour to be invited to deliver this year's Samuel Gee Lecture. Indeed for me it is more than an honour - it is the resolution of a long-standing family conflict. As you surely know, it is the dream of every Jewish mother to have a doctor in the family. I recall a splendid spoof announcement in the American Jewish press. It read: "To Mr and Mrs Irving Greenberg, the birth of a son, Dr Max Greenberg." By that criterion, my brothers and I have been a deep disappointment to my mother. Tonight's lecture is the next best thing.
In it I will be consciously entering a territory not my own. My late revered predecessor Lord Jakobovits was a renowned expert on Jewish medical ethics. I am not; yet I welcome this opportunity to make an acquaintance with issues that will increasingly concern all of us in the course of the 21st century.
Fateful choices
There can be no doubt that new techniques in the treatment of infertility, that have arrived with such breathtaking speed in the past half-century, have transformed the situation at the inception of life more than at any time since Homo sapiens first walked on earth. In particular, the mapping of the human genome is possibly the single most fateful scientific achievement of all time. Let me add, parenthetically, that I regard it also as one of the most poetic. Centuries ago, the Jewish mystics said that the diversity of creation was due to the different permutations and combinations of the letters of the Divine script. Since "God said, Let there be . . . and there was," it followed that existence must be a matter of language. In Judaism we speak of "the book of life." It now turns out that this mystical metaphor is no mere metaphor but the literal (in both senses) truth. The human genome, with its 3.1 billion letters of genetic code, a double copy of which is to be found in every cell of the human body, actually is a book whose precise combination of letters give the human body its shape and complexity. The mystic intuition was correct.
So too is our sense of awesome responsibility for the choices we make in the light of this discovery. The Harvard scientist E. O. Wilson is surely right when he says that "The prospect of . . . 'volitional evolution' - a species deciding what to do about its own heredity - will present the most profound intellectual and ethical choices humanity has ever faced." Two weeks ago, in anticipation of this lecture, I went to see the new genetic research facility at the Hammersmith Hospital, and I found it an enthralling experience to view some of this work, and to sense also the great seriousness with which those engaged in it are concerned about its ethical implications.
A Jewish Perspective
The question, therefore, is what an ancient faith like Judaism can bring to this conversation. The answer is two-fold. Firstly, there is a long tradition, stretching back now more than two thousand years, of what we call the 'Oral Law,' namely the process by which, in each generation, we try to apply biblical ethics to everyday life. The London Beth Din, the Court of the Chief Rabbi, deals on an almost weekly basis with practical questions about in vitro fertilisation, surrogacy, stem cell research and so on. We have to weigh up the circumstances of each case in the light of our ancient ethical and legal traditions. These are immensely detailed, because we believe - in the famous words of architect Mies van der Rohe - that "God is in the details."
Secondly, and of wider interest, is Judaism's broad vision of the nature of human life and of our place in the scheme of things. That is an essential part of the ethical enterprise. In contradistinction to much contemporary academic thought, we believe that one cannot divorce ethics from some fundamental view of humanity - by calculating consequences, for example, or attempting a mere cost/benefit analysis. Though ethics must be guided and informed by science, it cannot be reduced to science; nor, indeed, can humanity itself.
In 1997 a distinguished group of scientists signed a declaration in favour of the permissibility of human cloning. Among their remarks was the following: "Humanity's rich repertoire of thoughts, feelings, aspirations and hopes seems to arise from electrochemical brain processes, not from an immaterial soul that operates in ways no instrument can discover . . . Views of human nature rooted in humanity's tribal past ought not to be our primary criterion for making decisions about cloning."
That is scientific reductionism at its worst. As I have written elsewhere: "If human aspirations are no more than electrochemical brain processes, then a Rembrandt is no more than a mix of pigments on canvas, and a Beethoven quartet mere marks on paper." We are both physical beings whose movements can be described in terms of cause and effect, and intentional, self-conscious agents whose acts can only be understood in the language of purpose, meaning and imagination. In that still compelling biblical metaphor, we are "dust of the earth," but also within us is the "breath of God."
Languages of Ethics
Therefore, the pre-understandings we bring to bear on our scientific and medical work are important. In the case of Judaism, it is not difficult to say what that vision is. It originates, in the first chapter of the Hebrew Bible, in one of the most influential sentences in Western civilisation: "Let us make man in our image, after our own likeness." Every human life is sacred and irreplaceable because each of us carries within us a trace of God's presence in the world.
From this follow a number of consequences at odds with today's secular culture. Firstly, life is not ours. We do not own it. We hold it as trustees of behalf of God, the source of life. Therefore the voluntary relinquishing of life - whether by euthanasia, abortion or infanticide - is forbidden; or, to put it more precisely, it is governed by considerations other than that key word of contemporary culture, autonomy. Jewish law respects the wishes of the patient. In the case of a child, it respects the wishes of the parents. However, those wishes are set within objective ethical restraints, one of which is that we are the guardians of life, not its owners.
Secondly, Jewish ethics is classically constructed in terms of responsibilities, duties and obligations rather than in the language of rights. Rights are important, but as a way of resolving ethical dilemmas they are worse than inadequate. They tend to render difficult choices insoluble. The most famous example is the abortion debate as it has played itself out in the United States in the past quarter-century. It has been presented as a clash of rights - the right to life of the foetus on the one hand, the right to choose on the part of the mother on the other. There is no way of negotiating a resolution to a conflict presented in these terms. Rights are non-negotiable. They are what Ronald Dworkin calls "trumps." A conflict of rights is one in which neither side can or may compromise; can or may recognise the legitimacy of competing claims. A conflict of duties, on the other hand, is something with which we are familiar on a daily basis: a doctor's duty to her patients, for example, and her duty to her family. How much time do we spend on the one as against the other? We juggle with such competing claims all the time. They are not easy, but they are not insoluble. That is why abortion is better seen, as it is in Jewish law, as a conflict of duties to the mother and to the unborn child.
Nature is not sacrosanct
Thus far, we are on familiar ground. However, the Jewish view has other consequences less well understood. As historians of ideas have long pointed out, the revolution of monotheism and the rejection of myth meant that, for the first time, God was seen not in nature, but as radically transcending it. That means that for Judaism, nature is not sacrosanct. This is important for the way we see medical research.
Yesterday, one of Britain's daily papers carried an op-ed article about the surviving Siamese twin Gracie Allard. The headline read, 'So who are we to defy God's will?' Now there was much in the article with which I agreed; and its author was not responsible for the headline. It does, however, encapsulate a view, commonly attributed to religious believers, that such techniques as in vitro fertilisation and genetic research constitute 'playing God' or 'defying God's will.' That is emphatically not a Jewish view. To the contrary, Jewish tradition interprets the phrase which speaks of humanity being 'in God's image and likeness' as meaning that we have been given the gift of being able to understand and discern. According to the 12th century sage Moses Maimonides, himself a doctor of distinction and author of many medical texts, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is itself one of the ways in which we come to love and fear God. We come to understand the Creator precisely by deepening our understanding of creation.
One of the principles of Jewish belief is that the physician is given the mandate to heal. In the ancient rabbinic literature there is a fascinating dialogue, attributed to the early 2nd century, between a rabbi and a Roman on certain medical procedures in Judaism. The Roman argues that such procedures are impious. If God had wanted us to be a certain way, He would have made us that way. The debate turns on the question: which are more perfect, the works of God or the works of man? The rabbi breaks off the conversation to give the Roman some bread to eat. He then gives him ears of corn. 'Which,' he asks, 'do you prefer eating?' 'Bread, of course,' replies the Roman. 'Did I not tell you,' says the rabbi, 'that the works of man can be better than the works of God?'
In this gently humorous anecdote the rabbi intimates one of the more significant beliefs of Judaism, namely that in giving the universe to the guardianship of mankind, God invites us to become, in that striking rabbinic phrase, His 'partners in the work of creation.' This view derives from the first recorded command of the Bible, in which God tells mankind, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." There is, in other words, a duty to master or conquer nature - a duty balanced by the phrase in the 2nd chapter of Genesis that says that man was placed in the Garden "to serve and protect it."
It is important to be able to say, in the name of an ancient and influential faith, that there is religious value in much of the work currently being done in the treatment of infertility, research into the human genome, and experimentation to find cures for genetic disease. To the extent that we are subjects not objects, masters of our environment not its slaves, there is a gain in human dignity, perhaps the most fundamental value of the Hebrew Bible.
There can be no doubt that the effect of scientific research in respect of birth, infant mortality and even our genetic makeup, represents a transition from fate to choice; and that, in Judaism, is a positive value. Homo sapiens is the choosing animal - the only being in the universe known to us to be capable of considered choice, and thus of moral agency and thus of moral responsibility.
There is a lovely passage in the Talmud about the meaning of suffering. In the course of a long and complex theological discussion, a story is told of how R. Hiyya bar Abba became ill. R. Yohanan came to visit him, and asked him, "Are your sufferings precious to you?" "Neither they nor their reward," replies R. Hiyya. R. Yochanan thereupon heals him. It is one thing to find meaning in suffering, another to accept it when it can be prevented. What can be cured is not precious: that seems to be the rabbinic view. In Judaism faith is not passive acceptance of the world. It is not the belief that nature is sacrosanct. To the contrary, God has made us guardians of His world for the sake of future generations, and in making us in His image, He has made us not merely as creations but also as co-creators.
Treating infertility
Turning now specifically to the beginning of life, Judaism attaches great significance to childbirth. The first command, "Be fruitful and multiply," is the command to have children. Time and again in the narratives of the Bible we experience the anguish of women unable to have children - Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah, the Shunamite woman and others. I cherish the comment of one American Jewish parent who said, "I find that now I have children, I can relate much better to God. Now I know what it is to create something you can't control!" I once said that Stephen Hawking was quite wrong in the famous closing pages of A Brief History of Time. To understand the 'mind of God' one does not need to be a theoretical physicist. One needs to be a parent.
Judaism has a marked pro-natalist orientation. This, combined with its desacralisation of nature, has meant that, by and large, Jewish religious authorities have welcomed AIH (artificial insemination using the husband's sperm) and in vitro fertilisation, if these are the only ways in which a couple can have children. It is possible that the same will apply to cloning, or nuclear replacement, though it is too early to speak of a consensus on this point. Specifically, there are no religious objections to the techniques as such, as being unnatural, or 'playing God' or 'defying fate.' The concerns of Jewish law lie elsewhere.
The first is the protection of the marital bond. We do not believe that the institution of marriage evolved by accident. It is the best way known to mankind of bringing together the biological drives of sex and procreation, and the ethical-cultural imperatives of nurturing children, caring for them during their years of dependency, and socialising them into emotional literacy, the give and take of reciprocity, and the memories and narratives that constitute the legacy of the past -education as the conversation of the generations.
It is our duty, as individuals and as a society, to protect as strongly as we can the precarious connection between parenthood as a genetic fact and parenthood as a social practice. That is why we have grave reservations about artificial insemination using donor sperm (AID), and in vitro fertilisation using either donated sperm or eggs. Indeed we view with deep concern the fragmentation of parenthood into its genetic, gestational and childrearing components - the phenomenon that is already testing to the limits our concepts of motherhood and fatherhood. I do not wish to suggest that it is medical science alone that is weakening the institution of the family. Clearly there are many factors at work, economic, sociological and cultural. However, our profound humanitarian commitment to the integrity of marriage means that the impact on it of any medical technology is a matter of fundamental concern.
[I did not expect so swift a vindication of this concern. On 21 June 2001, the day after the lecture, it was reported that a 62 year-old French woman, Jeanine Salomone, had given birth to her brother's child. Using an egg from an American donor, she had it fertilised with her brother's sperm and then implanted. Her motive, apparently, was so that an expected inheritance should not pass outside the family. A member of the French national committee for medical ethics was reported as saying, "My hair stands on end." The case exemplifies the ease with which controls can be circumvented by those with sufficient resources. The operation was performed in the United States. The woman and her brother merely told the fertility clinic that they were man and wife.]
On the other hand, where the use of any technology will enhance the family, we are inclined wherever possible to rule in its favour. To take one example: our rabbinical court has permitted surrogacy in the case of one young woman whose uterus was removed but who was still capable of producing eggs. Her eggs were fertilised, using her husband's sperm, and implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother who eventually gave birth to triplets. Our only question in that case was this: since the genetic mother was Jewish but the surrogate mother was not, did the children require a formal act of conversion to be Jews. The answer was that since there exists a doubt in Jewish law as to whether motherhood is defined in terms of genetic contribution or gestation (or both), the children would require conversion to eliminate the doubt.
No less real is our concern at the lack of knowledge, in the case of either sperm or ovum donation, as to the identity of the donor(s). It is fundamental to human identity to be able to know who one's parents are. The first question Moses asked of God was not 'Who are You?' (that was his second question) but 'Who am I?' Of course the plain meaning of the verse is, 'Who am I to be worthy of the great task of leading the Israelites to freedom?' But beneath the surface is a sense in which Moses is asking about his own identity. He was, we recall, raised as an Egyptian prince and adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh. There was, in his mind, a fundamental existential doubt. 'Am I a member of the royal family that rules the most powerful empire of the ancient world, or am I a Hebrew, a member of a nation of slaves?' There can be no more fateful question than 'Whose child am I?'
Each of us has an inalienable right to know whose child we are. This is so not merely in order to avoid a possibly incestuous relationship (in Judaism, a major concern), but also because - as we see in so many cases of adoption or absconding fathers - a failure to know who one's parents are is a lacuna at the core of our identity. For that reason we cannot give our approval to any fertility treatment that uses donor sperm or eggs.
The status of the embryo
What then is our view of the status of the embryo or foetus prior to birth? This will, of course, affect our views on abortion and the use of embryos for research. There is a large literature on the subject; therefore I will mention only one fascinating detail - a point at which, rather like seeing a cell divide, we see a civilisation divide. In Exodus 21: 22-23 we find the following law:
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she miscarries but there is no serious injury (ason), the offender is to be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. If, however, there is serious injury (ason), you are to take life for life.
What this passage shows is that causing the death of a foetus is not the same as causing the death of a person. The first verse specifies that if the foetus dies, the offender must pay financial compensation. The second states that if the woman dies, the offender is guilty of a capital crime, namely murder. Foeticide therefore - though wrong and forbidden - is not homicide, because the foetus is not a person. Personhood, in Jewish law, begins at birth, defined as the emergence of the head during the birth process. Until then, the foetus is life, human life, a potential person, but not an actual person. We therefore have duties to the foetus. Abortion is forbidden in Jewish law. Indeed, with very few exceptions, Jewish authorities will not permit abortion even when we know that the foetus suffers a genetic condition such as Tay Sachs disease. There is no concept in Judaism of a life not worth living. Even a brief restricted life beset by handicap is a gift not to be refused. However, because the foetus is not a person, our duties to it may be overridden by our duty to an actual person, namely the mother. Abortion is therefore permitted to save her life, and in some cases to protect her health.
Of great historical interest, however, is that the Septuagint - the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek in the 3rd century BCE - renders the word ason not as 'casualty' or 'serious injury' but as 'form.' This gives a completely different meaning to the passage. The first verse, in which there is compensation, refers to the miscarriage of an 'unformed' foetus. The second, which speaks of a capital crime, refers to a 'formed' foetus, in other words one sufficiently developed to have a recognisably human shape. This, then, is the source of the teaching of the Church, from Tertullian onwards, that at a certain stage the foetus is a person and that then, abortion is a form of homicide.
The Septuagint precedes the birth of Christianity, and appears to represent a divergent strand of Judaism, one that had no influence on the mainstream but which did have considerable influence on Christianity, namely the 'Alexandrian' tradition that developed among the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria in Egypt. Its most famous representative was the 1st century philosopher Philo, whose own interpretation of the passage anticipates the Christian reading:
But if the child which was conceived has assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he [the man who caused the miscarriage] shall die; for such a creature is [already] a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, which had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor's workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent into the world.
Here, then, is the origin of the early Christian tradition. Not for the only time in history, a parting of the ways turned on the translation of a single Hebrew word.
Opposition to abortion in Judaism is thus strong but not total. It is not permitted for mere convenience; nor for reasons of family planning; nor (according to most authorities) because the foetus carries a genetic handicap or disease. However, some authorities are more lenient in the early stages of pregnancy, especially within the first forty days, during which it is, according to one talmudic statement, 'mere water.'
This brings us to the question of the status of embryos created in vitro, or in a petri dish - a crucial factor in the permissibility of the use of embryos for research purposes, such as current work on stem cells. A pre-implanted embryo is a form of human life, and we therefore owe it the respect due to human life. However, it is not a person, and our duties to it are not those we owe persons. Jewish law would therefore not permit the creation of embryos specifically for the purpose of research. It would, however, permit the use of embryos for research if they were created for a legitimate reason - for example, during the course of in vitro fertilisation - and would otherwise be destroyed.
I want to be quite explicit on this point, because some months ago my support for a committee of the House of Lords to consider the question of stem cell research was construed in some circles as opposition to that research. That is not the case. [Subsequently to the lecture, the Court of the Chief Rabbi gave written and oral testimony to the Lords committee, indicating our support for stem cell research, provided that embryos were not created specifically for research purposes.] We welcome this research as heralding the possibility of identifying and ultimately treating genetic disease. The Jewish voice is therefore an important one in the current debate, because it that the biblical concept of the sanctity of life - one of the most humanising propositions in Western civilisation - is a nuanced one. It does not categorically oppose embryo research. It views the decoding of the human genome and the prospect, however distant, of treating genetic disease as a momentous enhancement of human dignity. If we are bidden, as we are, to care for the handicapped, how much more so are we mandated to cure handicap if we can. Opposition to abortion does not depend on viewing the foetus as a person, nor do the relevant biblical texts - as understood by Judaism for more than 2,000 years - bear this interpretation.
Genetic intervention
What then of genetic intervention and cloning? Here we come to some of the most fateful questions in the future of medicine, indeed of human life itself. There would, I think, be widespread agreement that there is an important line to be drawn between therapeutic and eugenic interventions. It is one thing to aspire to a cure for conditions that will prevent a child from having a normal life expectancy and the full use of his or her faculties. It is another to contemplate designing a child to order as it were - to provide compatible tissue for transplantation, for example, or to replace (by replicating) a child who has died, or to approximate to its parents' vision of an ideal child (blond, blue-eyed, and brilliant). The real question will be: Can we draw such a line in practice? How will we distinguish between curing disability and improving ability? Or between remedying impaired intelligence and enhancing merely average intelligence?
Even if we find it possible to draw such a line, will we be able to implement it? Are we faced with the so-called slippery slope? Is it inevitable that once something can be done, it will be done? Will purely market forces drive research in eugenic directions? If individuals are willing and able to pay for such a procedure, will they find someone willing to perform it? Given the Internet, mobility and globalisation, will all attempts at regulation fail, because though something may be generally forbidden, somewhere in the world, however covertly, it will be taking place?
These are difficult questions. What matters at this point is that we reach as much clarity as possible on basic parameters. As I see them they are these: Firstly, to repeat, nature is not sacrosanct. It would be absurd not to attempt to find cures for diseases that have a clear genetic basis. That is part of the physician's mandate to heal, and of the human mandate to 'perfect the world under the sovereignty of God.'
Secondly, again to repeat: we are the guardians, not the owners, of creation. One of the wisest elements of biblical ethics is its sense of limits. We find this in the concept of the Sabbath - the one day in seven in which we are commanded to rest, and the one year in seven in which we are bidden to let the land rest. This tells us - not merely tells us, but also bids us to live the truth - that there are limits to our exploitation of natural resources. There is also a series of biblical laws - among them the prohibition of mixing milk and meat, of sowing a field with diverse kinds of grain, and of wearing garments of mixed wool and linen - which are clearly designed to protect the integrity of nature: warnings, if you like, against 'transgenic' life forms. The non-Jewish philosopher Roger Scruton makes an interesting observation in his book Animal Rights and Wrongs about BSE or 'mad cow disease':
The Jewish law which forbids us to seethe a young animal in its mother's milk may have little sense, when considered from the standpoint of a hard-nosed utilitarianism. But our disposition to hesitate before the mystery of nature, to renounce our presumption of mastery, and to respect the process by which life is made, must surely prompt us to sympathise with such an interdiction. And these very same feelings, had we allowed them to prevail, would have caused us to hesitate before feeding to cows, which live and thrive on pasture, the dead remains of their own and other species.
There is a fundamental difference between linear time as it appears in the Bible - as the long journey to redemption - and as it was secularised from the 17th century onwards, with the rise of science, into the concept of 'progress.' They are different narratives; they give rise to different emotions. The story of redemption creates hope. The story of progress creates optimism. The difference between them is the concept of limits. The religious mind is always conscious of limits. The universe is not ours; our will is sovereign only within the arena of the permissible; we are guardians of the world for the sake of generations not yet born. The Enlightenment, driven by the early achievements of science, was predicated on the idea of virtually limitless possibilities. Only relatively recently have we come to realise that such an attitude, unchecked, can lead to disaster.
The history of the human presence in the natural world is marked by devastation on a massive scale. 108 bird species have become extinct since 1600, and the rate is rapidly accelerating: some 1,666 of the 9,000 in existence are currently listed as endangered. Another estimate is that one half of the world's total of 30 million species of life will become extinct in the course of the 21st century. These facts should certainly give us pause for thought in considering the genetic engineering of life forms, if not as a prohibition, then certainly as a warning. An ancient rabbinical comment on creation has become highly germane. When God created the world, they said, He told the first humans: "See how beautiful are My works. All that I have made, I have made for you. Therefore be careful that you do not ruin My world, for if you do, there will be no one to restore what you have destroyed."
The third parameter I wish to express by way of a radical reading of one of the most enigmatic passages in the entire Bible, the story of the binding of Isaac. We recall that God commands Abraham to offer up his son, and then, as he is about to do so, says 'Stop.' Hundreds of interpretations have been offered of this strange episode, but for reasons that go beyond the confines of the subject at hand, I found myself compelled to give a new one, one that I believe best accords with the Jewish tradition as a whole. We recall that Abraham and Sarah longed for a child. Abraham's first words to God are, "O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me seeing that I remain childless." They wait, and time and again are disappointed. Finally in old age the child, Isaac, comes. What God is saying to Abraham by way of the trial is this: I want you to offer him up to Me, not to kill him but to renounce ownership in him. Once Abraham acknowledges that Isaac belongs to God, then God can give him back. We do not own our children. That is the point of the story and the crucial fact of parenthood. Even though we bring our children into existence, we may not design them to our tastes, produce them to our specifications, impose on them our image of what they should be. In order to preserve that essential space of independence and integrity, there must be some non-volitional element in conception and birth, something that constrains us from genetic intervention other than to cure disease.
Judaism's early sages gave a remarkable definition of gevurah, the word that in Hebrew means might, or courage, or strength. The conventional definition of might is the strength to overcome one's opponents. The rabbinical definition is that it is the strength to overcome oneself. The strength of a civilisation lies not only in its ability to conquer opposition, but also in its ability to practise self-restraint: in what it can do but chooses, for ethical reasons, not to do. That is the case in our ability, present or potential, to change the genetic constitution of our descendants.
Covenantal Responsibility
Let me therefore close by citing two authors, one an American Methodist, the other a self-professed atheist, both of whom, however, are drawn to the moral power of a single word that lies at the heart of the Jewish view of the relationship between humanity and God. The Methodist is an American scholar, William May, who recently published a book called The Physician's Covenant , subtitled, 'Images of the healer in medical ethics.' In it he analysed three images or metaphors which have shaped the self-understanding of the medical profession. The first is the physician as parent, caring paternalistically for the patient. The second is the physician as fighter, fearlessly battling disease. The third is the physician as technician, master of diagnosis and cure. He, however, prefers a fourth, namely the biblical concept of covenant. The physician, he suggests, should see him- or herself as a partner in a collaborative enterprise, involving the patient, fellow members of the profession, and God. The biblical ethic of covenant, he says, "does not deny the reality of disease, suffering and death or our tremor before them but puts them in the context of a power that encompasses them."
Every technological advance brings in its wake two opposing dangers. One is caricatured in the Bible in the story of the tower of Babel - the hubris that says, we have godlike powers, therefore let us take the place of God. The other is the paralysing fear that says: in the name of God, let us not use these godlike powers at all. Both, I believe, are wrong. Every technology carries with it the possibility of diminishing or enhancing human dignity. What matters is how we use it. The way to use it is in covenant with God, honouring His image that is mankind.
The professing atheist, E. O. Wilson, is drawn to the same word. He ends his book Consilience with this judgement: "[I]f we should surrender our genetic nature to machine-aided ratiocination, and our ethics and art and our very meaning to a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress, imagining ourselves god-like and absolved from our ancient heritage, we will become nothing." He precedes it with these arresting remarks: "In the course of it all we are learning the fundamental principle that ethics is everything . . . We are adults who have discovered which covenants are necessary for survival, and we have accepted the necessity of securing them by sacred oath."
We need what I call the three Rs - reverence, responsibility and restraint. If we have these, we will achieve great things.





(c) Copyright Office of the Chief Rabbi 2001 - all rights reserved. Reproduction of this Web site, in whole or in part, in any form or medium without express written permission from the Office of the Chief Rabbi is prohibited.

Below is this week's Kashrut alert:

The following kashrus Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on August 6, 2001.
The following products from Desert Rose, Tuscan, Arizona bear an unauthorized OU symbol:


Enchilanda Sauce
Barbecue Sauce
Southwest Mustard
Salsa Verde (Medium Hot)
Red Salsa (Mild, Medium Hot)
Commemorative Salsa
Consumers finding these products with an OU symbol are requested to call the OU hotline at 212-613-8241.


Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.

Below are this week's Kashrut alerts:

The following kashrus Alert was received from the Kof-K on July 31, 2001.
Super G In-Store Bakery Bake Shop Hot Dog Rolls, bear an unauthorized Kof-K. This product is NOT certified by the Kof-K, even when bearing the Kof-K.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashruth Alert was received from the Kosher Consumers Union and the Orthodox Union on July 31, 2001.
Delight Hungarian Morello Cherries, Delight Foods, Inc. A shipment of these cherries has become infested with white worms which are visible to the eye. All cherries should be checked prior to use or they may be returned to point of purchase for a full refund.
The Orthodox Union strongly suggests not using this product.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashruth Alert was received from the Chicago Rabbinical Council on July 31, 2001.
The Aspen Mulling Company's Fudge Mix sold in small "milk-carton" shaped containers bears a plain cRc. The product is actually Dairy. Containers will be corrected to include the "D" along with the cRc symbol.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashruth Alert was received from a newspaper advertisement on July 27, 2001.
Gragnanese Brand Merria di Seppia Spaghetti, distributed by Via Vento Imports, Garfield, NJ bears an anauthorized Star-K and is NOT kosher. This product is being recalled.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashruth Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 25, 2001.
Run-A-Ton Assorted Mini Donuts, Run-A-Ton Group, Morristown, NJ is certified as OU-Dairy, but the "D" was inadvertently omitted. Corrective action is being taken.



Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.

开云体育

TISHA B'AV NOTES:

Remember to bring your sneakers to shul Erev Shabbos.

The Daf Yomi, this Shabbos, will be after the 1:45 P.M. Mincha.

This Shabbos, we will be beginning a new Masechte - Bava Kama.

The second Mincha will be at 6:00 P.M.

The fast begins at 8:16 P.M.

Shabbos ends and Maariv at 9:05 P.M.

The Fast ends Sunday at 9:00 P.M.

For the complete schedule consult our web site at:
www.yimidwood.org

The Gabbaim

Below are this week's Kashrut alerts:

The following kashruth Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 23, 2001.
A limited amount of Cabot Creamery New England Clam Dip, Cabot Creamery, Cabot, Vermont mistakenly bears an OU symbol. Affected product is being withdrawn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following information was received from the Rabbinical Council of New England on July 23, 2001.
The following Baskin Robbins Ice Cream flavors are NOT certified as kosher:

Rocky Road
Pink Bubble Gum
Cherry Jubilee
Rum Raisin

Shrek is kosher but the gummy worms are not kosher.
Shrek Malted Fizz is NOT kosher.
The other Baskin Robbins ice cream flavors are certified as kosher by the Rabbinical Council of New England.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following information was received from a reader and confirmed by the Orthodox Union on July 18, 2001.
A new cereal,Wheaties Energy Crunch, is kosher-dairy, under the supervision of the Orthodox Union, even though some of the new packaging does not yet display the O-U symbol.



Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.

Interesting article

THINK AGAIN: The judges in charge
By Jonathan Rosenblum

(July 19) Few legal issues in Israel today are so much discussed and so little understood as the proposed constitutional court. Supreme Court President Aharon Barak has called the proposal to establish such a court - a proposal which has already passed a first reading in the Knesset - "a dangerous cockroach that must be exterminated in infancy."

Click here to read more:


For more news from Israel, please visit

Hear our Internet radio reports on
--------
(C) Copyright Jerusalem Post

Below are this week's Kashrut and other alerts:

The following kashruth Alert was received from the Organized Kashruth Laboratory on July 17, 2001.
Please be advised that Season's Best Tropical Harvest Juice manufactured by Tropicana Products, Inc., Brandentown, FL has been mislabeled with a OK symbol. Thsi product has non-kosher grape juice and is NOT certified as kosher. Labels are being corrected and the product is being recalled.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashrus Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 16, 2001.
The following products are OU-D certified and list dairy ingredients on the package. The D symbol was inadvertently omitted. The error is being rectified.

Stuckey's Angel Hair Pecans
Stuckey's Butter Toffee Peanuts
Ultimate Choice Peanut Squares.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashrus Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 16, 2001.
Del Monte Fruit and Nut Snacks-Sierra Trail Mix, Premier Valley Foods., Inc., Fresno, CA contains non-fat dry milk as listed on the ingredient panel. The D was inadvertently omitted. New packaging is being printed.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashrus Alert was received from the Kof-K on July 12, 2001.
Please be advised that Nature's Answer Grape Seed V-Caps were labeled with the Kof-K logs. THESE CAPSULES ARE NOT KOSHER. The product is being recalled and may be returned for a full refund or exchange at their point ot purchase.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following kashrus Alert was received from the Kof-K and the company on July 12, 2001 after receiving information from a reader.
Starting July 15, 2001 the Dunkin Donuts at 20 Boylston St., Brookline MA will NO longer be kosher. If you are a consumer affected by this, You can reach them at 866-987-6757.
The 1671 Beacon St., Brookline, MA Dunkin Donuts will continue to be kosher certified by the Kof-K.

Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.

Reminder: On July 22, the Manhattan Bridge construction project begins. The (D) and (B) trains no longer run in Brooklyn and the (Q) train will run over the Broadway line.

Below are this week's Kashrut alerts:

The following kashrus Alert was received from the Kof-K on July 10, 2001.
Dunkin Donuts, located at 2630 86th St., Brooklyn, NY amd 1410 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY are NO longer certified kosher by Kof-K Kosher supervision.

Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.

Dunkin Donuts is now under the supervision of Rabbi Aaron D. Mehlman,
Rabbi of Congregation Ohav Sholom, New York City, 212-721-8320.

The Following OU Kosher Alerts were released by the
Orthodox Union's Kashruth Division on the date indicated.

July 11, 2001 Brand: Durkee Grill Creations Product: Beef Seasoning Company: Tone Brothers, Inc., Ankeny, IA Issue: Mistakenly bears an OU symbol and is not Kosher. The product is being withdrawn.

July 11, 2001 Brand: Blueberry Hill Foods Product: Circus Peanuts Company: Blueberry Hill Foods, El Paso, TX Issue: A limited amount of this product was distributed while bearing an unauthorized OU symbol. This product is not Kosher certified. Corrective action is being taken.

Below are this week's Kashrut alerts:

The following kashrus Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 3, 2001.

Durkee Grill Creations Grill Seasoning, Tone Brothers, Inc., Ankeny, IA mistakenly bears an OU symbol and is NOT
Kosher. The product is being withdrawn.

The following kashrus Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 3, 2001.

Quaker Instant Oatmeal Express-Cinnamon Roll, The Quaker Oats Co., Chicago, IL contains dairy components that are
botel (nullified), and should bear a dairy designation, which was inadvertently omitted. Future production will correctly bear an
OU-D

The following kashrus Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 3, 2001.

Ranaldi Bros Foccacia Board (All Flavors) Company: Ranaldi Bros. Issue: The manufacturer is no longer Orthodox Union
supervised. All product even when bearing the OU symbol should not be eaten.

The following kashrus Alert was received from the Orthodox Union on July 3, 2001.

The following products are OU-D certified and list dairy ingredients on the package. The "D" symbol was inadvertently
omitted. The error is being rectified:

Party Mix Southern Home
Laura Lynn
Our Family Peanut Squares Southern Roasted
Crown
Country Fresh Party Snack Crown


The following kashrus Alert was received from Kosherquest.org on June 17, 2001.

(from the RCC) Please be advised that effective immediately the RCC has removed its Kashrus supervision of Le Palais,
(8670 W. Pico Blvd. and Palace (17928 Ventura Blvd. in Encino) bakeries, for cause.

The following kashrus Alert was received from newspaper advertisement on June 29, 2001.

Please be advised that Pita Place located at 1483 First Avenue, New York IS NOT under the Vaad Harabonim of Flatbush.
Any use of the Vaad name is unauthorized. For further details contact the Vaad at 718-951-8585

The following kosher Alert was received from Organized Kashruth Laboratory (OK)
on June 22, 2001.

The Organized Kashruth Laboratory is no longer responsible for the kashrus of THE GRILL HOUSE (formerly Goldenglatt),
100 Route 9 North,Manalapan, NJ 07726


Thank you to K A S H R U T . C O M
The Premier Kosher Information Source on the Internet
for supplying this information.

开云体育