- This topic has 24 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
This was mentioned tangentially on a different thread.
I would thank whomever has some more sources to learn on this topic, as well as anyone who could give a synopsis of the issues. I am particularly curious regarding how this fits with the concept of “Yakir” – ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? (BB 127B), and how once there is a Safek, a (supposed) father is Ne’eman regarding their paternity. Also does it depend on the type of testing done? I would imagine that at some threshold of certainty, an “Umdinah” is created, which is the same as witnesses.
Thanks,
GAW: The Tzitz Eliezer has a T’shuvah (in Chelek 14, I think) about using blood type for paternity. He knew the medicine, but rejected it based on the Aggadta that a man gives the white part of the baby (bones and skin) while a woman gives the red (blood), thus blood type can’t prove paternity. R’ Moshe Shternbuch has a T’shuvah (chelek 4 in the middle, I think) that says that blood type and DNA can’t prove paternity because maybe the doctors will realize 50 years from now that this really doesn’t work.
Both of these Rabbonim know the Metzius. These are just more examples of where we reject any new way to create Mamzerim.
There were a few articles published post-9/11 with the concern that if we use DNA as a S’nif to be Mattir an Aguna, then it would mean we have to be Chosheish for it for Mamzerus issues. Poskim still came out (I think R’ Elya Svei was one) and made a Chiluk that you can use DNA to prove that a person is this person but we don’t know enough to use it for paternity.
Do you mean DNA testing to:
1) Determine who the mother is? (e.g. a child put up for adoption but who suspects a given women is his/her mother, a not uncommon situation in Argentina where some Jewish babies were adopted by non-Jews after their mothers were disappeared)
2. Determine if a woman became pregnant by someone other than her husband?
3. Determine some sort of more distant relationship?
I believe the first would probably allow DNA testing to prove someone is Jewist. I believe the third would have no halachic significance ever. I don’t believe the second would be accepted to prove someone to be a mamzer absent more significant evidence but I’m sure there is debate over the matter (with the more traditional being the least willing to accept scientific evidence).
I know I read a Teshuva in the Yabia Oimer where a rov from America sent a shaila where a father said that child was not his and his clam was supported by a DNA test. The response was that lhalacha we do not rely on a DNA test to pasul the child.
I do not remember the siman, I do remember who asked the shaila.
You can use Blood type to “Disprove” paternity, not to prove Paternity.
The main Blood group is the A-B-O blood Group
O is recessive and A-B is dominant.
In the following example the Husband cannot be the father. If the Mother has O type and the Father has A Type and the Baby has B Type, Since neither the Mother or the “Husband” had B type it had to come from somewhere else
to zahavasdad: Unlike blood testing, DNA testing can prove paternity and maternity with almost certainty, and even so ancestry for multiple generations – assuming you have good DNA samples. That’s why it might be valid to prove someone is actually Jewish based on the maternal grandmother’s DNA (the situation of a child of a disappeared woman) since all that matters for determining Jewishness is maternal descent. It gets more complicated if you are trying to argue that someone is a mamzer since the laws are more complicated and there are virtually irrebutable presumptions in place to minimize the liklihood of someone being a mamzer.
It wouldn’t prove mamzeirus, because of the possibility of IVF or other technology.
zahavasdad- theoretically, that would be correct, but it’s been found that this is not true 100% of the time. If any of the parents has more than one set of DNA, it can lead to such impossible results. This was seen when a womans children seemed not to be her children based on blood type… It was then discovered that the mother had two sets of DNA.
I know DNA testing is better. The blood type only disproves not proves. I was only explaining about Blood type testing.
I can also say with 100% certainty that the father can influence the kids blood type. There is a even a pregnacy problem when the mother has A type and Baby B type or the mother has Negative and the baby positive (I think its calls RF factor)
DNA testing is 99.9% accurate, It cannot for example always tell which brother is the father
zahavasdad- You are thinking about a situation in which a mother that is Rh -ve and pregnant with her second baby that is Rh +ve (due to genetic information for the Rh factor being inherited from the father). The mother’s body will recognize the first baby’s Rh as a foreign antigen and immune memory will be established. When the second baby’s Rh antigen presents to the mother, an immune response will be mounted, with B-cells differentiating into plasma cells which produce IgG antibodies (The smallest of the immunoglobulins and therefore able to cross the placenta) against the red blood cells of the baby leading to a condition known as hemolytic disease of the newborn.
I think he just meant what he said, for example, I have O and so does my husband. It is not possible for our kids to be anything but O. If one turned out to be A or B it would indicate different paternity.
Syag Lchochma- If one of your kids would be a different blood type, it can also be an indication that either you or your husband have two sets of DNA. This is rare, but it does happen. Look it up… a set of twins that merges completely prebirth will appear to be one person in every way other than the mixed DNA of two people within the same body. It can even give false negatives for DNA tests.
GAW: The Tzitz Eliezer has a T’shuvah (in Chelek 14, I think) about using blood type for paternity. He knew the medicine, but rejected it based on the Aggadta that a man gives the white part of the baby (bones and skin) while a woman gives the red (blood), thus blood type can’t prove paternity.
It’s fairly obvious and proven that when the Gemara says that the “red portion” of the blood comes from the mother that it cannot mean blood type. Were that to be the case, then you could never have a case of maternal (or full) siblings with different blood types.
While all of my kids have my wife’s blood type (and not mine), I also know that my sister and I (and we’re full siblings) have different blood types.
R’ Moshe Shternbuch has a T’shuvah (chelek 4 in the middle, I think) that says that blood type and DNA can’t prove paternity because maybe the doctors will realize 50 years from now that this really doesn’t work.
WADR to R. Shternbuch, the possibility of this is highly unlikely, since it’s been proven over and over again.
The Wolf
R’ Moshe Shternbuch has a T’shuvah (chelek 4 in the middle, I think) that says that blood type and DNA can’t prove paternity because maybe the doctors will realize 50 years from now that this really doesn’t work.
WADR to R. Shternbuch, the possibility of this is highly unlikely, since it’s been proven over and over again.
I think that as much as DNA can prove paternity, it can’t absolutely disprove it for a female child. There’s always the rare case of the DNA of the blood being different. Less rare is if the father was a bone marrow recipient in which case if they took the DNA of his blood it will appear that none of his children are his.
Wolf: That was my (and their) point.
I think that as much as DNA can prove paternity, it can’t absolutely disprove it for a female child. There’s always the rare case of the DNA of the blood being different. Less rare is if the father was a bone marrow recipient in which case if they took the DNA of his blood it will appear that none of his children are his.
To be fair, I was really more thinking about blood typing than DNA.
In any event, even for DNA, it’s really been well-proven. Yes, you may have the oddball case (identical twins, bone marrow recipients [will that overwrite the person’s natural DNA? I wouldn’t think so, but I don’t know for sure] and the like), but for 99.99999% of humanity, it’s proven and unlikely to be overturned in 50, 100 or 1000 years. It’s likely to be refined, but proven wrong? No.
The Wolf
Wolf: That was my (and their) point.
Ah, sorry… I guess I didn’t read carefully enough.
The Wolf
To think anything but the fact that DNA can prove ancestry is completely without foundation. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms are very conserved within families.
I read an article recently, I think it was in this past week’s Time magazine, that a lady sent her DNA sample (cheek swab IIRC) to different companies. Each had a different set of results. For example, one said that she was like 4% Scottish and another said 15-20% Scottish.
It seems to me that DNA testing may still have a ways to go to be as definite as many of us had been lead to believe.
WolfishMusings- Bone marrow recipients for the rest of their lives have the DNA of their donor rather than their own in their blood. The rest of their body continues to have their own DNA, as would be expected. This actually complicated a criminal investigation a few years ago. I was thinking more along the lines of chimeras, which it’s unknown how many there are. Since there are almost no symptoms, most people with more than one set of DNA will never find out about it. I mentioned previously the case of Karen Keegan who was told that genetically her children were not hers until it was found that she was a chimera and didn’t know about it. Yes, this is very rare. To be matir a mamzer though, you go to great lengths.
MDG- That in no disproves anything regarding the legitimacy of DNA testing, that is only an indictment of those specific companies performing those tests.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.