GEN163 Are GMOs (generically modified organisms) a Jewish issue? The steadily increasing presence of genetically modified foodstuffs on our supermarket shelves raises a number of important and difficult questions … most definitely worth asking because they touch upon some of the most central elements of our relationship as religious Jews to our tradition and to the natural world around us.  1. Are We Playing God?  Does genetic modification of existing species of plants and animals constitute an improper interference with the order of the universe (sidrei b’reishit)?  By engaging in these procedures, do we usurp the authority of God or of nature, arrogating too much power to ourselves? This is the sort of question that any religious tradition might ask, and ours is no exception.  We find a classic expression of this view in the commentary of Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, or Ramban) on the Torah’s prohibition of kilayim: “You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind [kilayim]; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seeds” Leviticus 19:19.  This commandment teaches us, he writes, that God’s creation is perfect and that we deny this perfection when we engage in the mixing of the distinct animal and plant species. [Ramban, Commentary to Leviticus 19:19.] One could rely upon this insight concerning our relationship to the natural world in order to prohibit the new technologies of genetic engineering that blur the lines between existing species and that create new ones.  Yet Jewish tradition, in the main, does not take that step.  Most contemporary rabbinic authorities read the kilyaim texts strictly.  In their view, the mitzvah forbids only the actual physical mating of animals and the sowing of seeds, and it does not cover the sort of “mixing” that takes place in a laboratory and that we call genetic engineering or genetic modification. [See the CCAR Responsum no. 5768.3, "On Human Genetic Modification." Note, too, that Rashi, in his commentary to Leviticus 19:19, writes that the prohibition of kilayim has no discernible rationale (Taam).  Thus, not everyone agrees with Ramban that the prohibition has a specific “purpose” that we might use as a basis to oppose the genetic modification of species.]  This more restrictive reading of the text coheres with another traditional Jewish understanding of our relationship to nature.  That understanding is classically exemplified by none other than Nachmanides himself, in his commentary to [this verse], a verse in which God grants dominion over the earth to humans.  Nachmanides explains this “dominion” as the right of humans to “do as they wish” with the animals, “to build up, to tear down,” and to exploit the resources of the physical world.  His comment reflects an instrumental conception of the world-that is, that we are entitled to make use of nature and bend it to our purposes.  Such a conception is of pivotal importance in the history of our culture for if we did not view the world in an instrumental manner, we humans might never have felt entitled to pursue science and technology, activities that suggest a sense of mastery over nature.  With respect to our particular concern here, we should note that some contemporary authorities cite this latter comment of Nachmanides as evidence that Jewish tradition would permit us to engage in the processes of genetic modification. These two conflicting viewpoints present us with an interpretive dilemma.  Does Nachmanides to Leviticus 19:19 contradict Nachmanides to Genesis 1:28? Is there a way to accommodate both points of view in our Judaism, or does consistency demand that we choose one approach and reject the other? However we resolve this conflict, its existence indicates at the very least that Jewish thought does not obviously prohibit genetic engineering. There may be other reasons to worry about these technologies. … Perhaps even if we are entitled to manipulate the natural world for our own purposes, it is a good thing to do so in a spirit of humility, remembering at all times that it is God’s universe that we are manipulating.  Nonetheless, there is no convincing proof that our tradition rejects the genetic modification of existing species as an unwarranted transgression of the line that separates human action and divine prerogative. (By Mark Washofsky, "On High-Tech Science and Our Food: Three Questions") SACTAB 183-4