Halakhah Meets DNA Fingerprinting.

INTRODUCTION

The genetic code is stored within the sequences of nitrogenous bases (i.e., adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine) on DNA of nuclear chromosomes and on mitochondrial DNA. Except for isolated mutations, an individual's DNA remains constant throughout life and forms that person's unique genetic code, controlling biochemical reactions, growth, and development. About 99.9 percent of the human DNA sequences are similar in every person, with only a very small amount of DNA differing from individual to individual. These relatively minor differences serve as genetic markers and are of sufficient quantity to allow forensic scientists to distinguish one person from another. Genetic markers, the DNA sequences used to identify (i.e., to mark) a specific location on a chromosome, include single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and copy number variants (CNVs). An SNP is a single-base pair that differs among individuals. For an SNP to be a genetic marker, it must be present in at least 1 percent of the population, thereby excluding those genetic variants that are too rare for general usefulness in genetic analyses. There are millions of SNPs in the human genome. Consecutive SNPs on the same DNA are correlated, as each arose in history as a single point mutation which then was transmitted, surrounded by earlier SNPs, to descendants. Such a cluster of SNPs, when located near enough to each other on a chromosome, are transmitted as a unit (or a haplotype). CNVs are tandemly repeated DNA sequences present in different numbers of copies in different individuals. CNVs can range in size from one a kilobase (a thousand base pairs) to a megabase (a million base pairs). CNVs vary in number from person to person. A genetic marker is identified by a probe, usually a short fragment of DNA that is a few or a few dozen nucleotides in length. Both the genetic marker and the probe are made single-stranded, with the genetic marker detected by pairing (termed "hybridization") between the complementary base sequences on the genetic marker and on the probe (HARTL and RUVOLO 2012; LACHTER 1997).

Basically, the technique of DNA fingerprinting is as follows. DNA is obtained either from blood, a root hair follicle, a buccal swab, or (in cases of rape) semen. Once isolated and purified, the DNA is cut with restriction enzymes, thereby generating thousands of DNA fragments which are placed into wells of an agarose gel for electrophoresis. An electrical field is applied and the DNA fragments (which carry a negative charge) migrate towards the positive electrode, with the smaller-sized fragments moving faster than the larger-sized fragments. This process is termed "DNA gel electrophoresis." The double-stranded DNA fragments, now separated according to their sizes, are transferred from the gel (which can easily break) to a nitrocellulose or nylon filter. The double-stranded DNA fragments then are denatured to single-stranded DNA fragments. This transfer process is termed "Southern blotting." Specific DNA sequences are identified by their interactions with radioactive single-stranded DNA probes. Those DNA probes that are complementary to sequences in specific DNA fragments hybridize on the filter; the excess, non-hybridized probes are washed away. The filter is exposed to X-ray film and those fragments of DNA that have bound the probes appear as dark bands on the film. The developed film, called an autoradiogram, shows the pattern of a DNA profile. To eliminate the chance of mistaken identity, forensic scientists use several different probes. Although more than one individual might have a particular DNA fragment, it becomes less likely that multiple individuals will have several sequences in common. The multiplication rule is applied, in which the chance of two independent events happening simultaneously is their product (HARTL and RUVOLO 2012; LACHTER 1997). For example, suppose that the chance of having fragment number 1 is 5 percent; of fragment number 2 is 10 percent; of fragment number 3 is 5 percent; and of fragment number 4 is 10 percent. The chance of having fragments numbers 1 through 4 is 0.05 times 0.1 times 0.05 times 0.1 = 0.000025 (0.0025 percent or 1 in 40,000.). In actuality, many more probes are used, so that the likelihood that the DNA profile of one individual would be an exact match to that of someone else is so remote that it is virtually nil. As a DNA fingerprint pattern could only fit one person out of myriads of people, according to Jewish law a specific DNA fingerprint pattern falls under the category of umdenah demukhha (a totally obvious and logical assumption which is so overwhelmingly apparent that we accept it as fact) (COHEN 2000). Rabbi Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg noted that the chance of error regarding DNA evidence ranges from a billion to one to a quintillion to one, putting it in the category of a siman muvhak (uniquely identifying evidence) for victim identification (JACHTER 2006).

DNA FINGERPRINTING IS APPLIED IN IDENTIFYING HUMANS, ANIMALS, AND PLANTS

Humans

Identification of cadavers and human remains and fragments after natural catastrophes, military actions, and terrorist attacks is essential for the completion and certification of legal documents, such as death certificates and wills, and for the distribution of benefits and insurance claims. Victim identification is important regarding the remarriage of the surviving spouse. According to halakhah (Jewish law), a Jewish woman presumed to be a widow cannot remarry unless she has definitive proof of the death of her "missing" husband. Without such proof, should she remarry, this latter association would be considered adultery and any child from that relationship would be designated as a mamzer. Mere presumption of the death of her husband is insufficient in halakhah to allow the woman, now termed an agunah ("chained woman"), to remarry. Also, in halakhah, a man is not permitted to be simultaneously married to two sisters. To allow a presumed widower to marry the sister of his decreased wife, mere presumption of the death of his wife is insufficient to allow him to marry her sister (LEVINSON 2001). DNA fingerprinting, performed on the DNA removed from a disfigured cadaver or from human remains, may provide the evidence needed to change the presumption of death to the certainty of death, since "currently the chance of error in a properly administered DNA test is greater than 10 billion to one" (JACHTER 2007).

In Israel in the 1990s, Moslem terrorists carried out numerous suicide bombings in crowded public places, including on buses and in a pizza restaurant. The identification of human remains and fragments after these attacks was a forensic nightmare. Halakhah requires immediate burial, so victim identification and reconstruction of the human remains into a complete body for burial needed to be accomplished as soon as possible. In instances of suicide bombings, body parts were scattered throughout wide areas, making reconstruction of the bodies a complicated process. DNA fingerprinting was applied to the identification of these human remains, thereby allowing for the piecing together of the body fragments into a complete human body. Victim identification was carried out by the Division of Identification and Forensic Science of the Israel National Police Headquarters in Jerusalem, which developed laboratory protocols whereby the extraction of DNA from cadaveric fragments was accomplished in one hour, followed by DNA amplification by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method, and subsequent DNA typing within two hours, thereby yielding results in two to three hours. DNA technology, coupled with visual recognition, fingerprint analyses, and dental data, allowed for identification of 86 percent of the cadavers within twenty-four hours (KAHANA et al. 1997).

Forensic science technology, which included the usage of DNA fingerprinting, was employed to identify the human remains after the September 11, 2001, Moslem terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, World Trade Center in Manhattan. As with the suicide bombings in Israel, many of the bodies of the victims were never recovered intact, leaving married women in doubt if their marital status was that of widow or of agunah. Rabbi Yonah Reiss, of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University, then recently assigned the director of the Beth Din (rabbinical court) of America, assumed the main role in assisting these presumed widows. A working relationship was established between the Beth Din of America and the New York City Medical Examiner's Office, the unit charged with identifying body fragments. Rabbi Reiss and his colleagues developed expertise in DNA analyses and concluded that DNA fingerprinting was a powerful tool in victim identification (ANONYMOUS 2009). The NYC Medical Examiner's Office tested the DNA from body parts found near the World Trade Center and compared them with the DNA from personal belongings of the missing people, which were brought in by relatives. The laboratories tested thirteen different genetic markers in each DNA sample that was received. The odds of a DNA sample belonging to someone else other than to the matching sample was less than one in a trillion, or fewer than all the people who have ever lived. Such data were sufficient for the rabbinical judges of the Beth Din, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz and Rabbi Mordechai Willig, to permit these presumed widows to be freed from agunah status and permitted to remarry. Whereas in the case of 9/11, DNA evidence was considered sufficient for victim identification, some American and Israeli rabbinical courts prefer to couple DNA evidence with other data, such as dental records (ANONYMOUS 2009; GREENWALD 2005).

The Medical Examiner's Office is located on First Avenue and East 26th Street, near the New York University Medical Center and relatively close to Stern College for Women (SCW) of Yeshiva University. In an empty lot adjacent to the East River were a dozen refrigerated trucks, loaded with body parts of the victims of the 9/11 attack. Jewish volunteers, including many undergraduates from SCW, came to take part in around-the-clock recitations of Psalms. Shifts were established, and this prayer vigil ran without stop for twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, from September 11, 2001, until April 30, 2002 (HEILMAN 2011). "But on Shabbat, when the volunteers--who came from as far as New Jersey and Pennsylvania--couldn't take trains or taxis to reach the site, students from Yeshiva University's Stern College for Women, which was within walking distance of the morgue at 30th Street and First Avenue, managed the vigil" (GROSS 2001).

In addition to DNA fingerprinting being used for victim identification, DNA fingerprinting has other important uses in the court system, most often to establish paternity in custody and child support litigation. Parentage testing cases are numerically the largest users of DNA testing. Most paternity testing is done for financial reasons, i.e., to establish legal responsibility and provide for financial support (LACHTER 1997). DNA fingerprinting has the potential to ascertain if an offspring has the status of a mamzer, i.e., that the husband was not the biological father of the child. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef regarded DNA evidence of parentage as inadmissible proof for a rabbinical court. Also, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv avoided accepting DNA evidence to reveal the identity of a mamzer, although he apparently believed that DNA evidence was admissible in the rabbinical court (JACHTER 2006). Rabbi Shmuel Ha'Levi Wosner and Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, major adjudicators in Bnei Brak, ruled that DNA fingerprinting analyses do not constitute evidence for mamzer status, but do have relevance for allowing an agunah to remarry (JACHTER 2007). The approach of the rabbinical courts, apparently, is that there is no obligation to be proactive to reveal the mamzer status of an individual.

No technique is 100 percent perfect and, apparently, there is at least one instance in which DNA fingerprinting may provide misleading data. Consider the case of Lydia Fairchild, a pregnant mother of three who applied for public assistance. DNA analyses for paternity tests unexpectedly showed that she was not the biological mother of her three children. Taken to court and accused of fraud, the court appointed a witness to be present at the birth of her fourth child. DNA analyses of Fairchild's blood, skin, hair, and saliva did not match with that of her newborn. The initial thought was that, perhaps, she was a surrogate mother. Her attorneys requested additional DNA analyses. DNA taken from her cervix, finally, did match the DNA of her four children. Lydia Fairchild was a tetragametic chimera, formed in utero by the fusion of two zygotes or of early-stage embryos (which should have developed into fraternal twins), containing two genetically distinct cell lines. Thus, Lydia was two females in one, with each cell line forming distinct organs of her body. The cell line that eventually produced her ovaries and, apparently, other organs of her reproductive tract was a genetic match to her four children. The other cell line, which apparently formed her blood, hair, skin, and salivary glands, upon DNA analyses did not match the DNA of her children (KAYE 2013). Such cases of tetragametic chimeras are rare and, as they can be handled successfully by forensic DNA laboratories, should not be an impediment for halakhic issues of victim identification.

Animals

The same technology used to fingerprint human beings is applicable to identifying animals. As cattle were disappearing from Israeli farms, Bactochem, an Israeli company, developed a database of cattle DNA to be used to identify each animal in case of theft. The database provided sufficient evidence to build a court case against the thieves.

An outgrowth of this DNA technology is being considered for issues of supervising kosher meat. A cattle processor would send meat samples from each slaughtered animal to Bactochem, which would then generate a DNA fingerprint profile for that specific animal. The DNA profile would be encoded on a bar code, attached to each package of meat that the processor produced for that animal. If the meat was further cut or repackaged at a supermarket or at a warehouse, a copy of the bar code would be attached to each package. When a customer wanted information about a cut of meat selected in the store refrigerator, a photo of the bar code would be uploaded on a smartphone developed by Bactochem and data about the particular slaughtered cow would be at the fingertips of the customer (LEV 2011). Rabbi Moshe Tendler, of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and the Biology Department of Yeshiva College, suggested that DNA fingerprinting could be applied to spot-check fish to ensure that they are of a kosher variety. This potentially could be used in place of sending kosher supervisors to foreign countries, thereby saving unnecessary expenses (COHEN 2010). DNA fingerprinting could also alleviate the concern of whether dolphins were inadvertently processed along with tuna fish.

Around 2010 it was becoming more and more apparent that parasitic marine worms, or nematodes, were noted in the flesh of wild salmon, thus triggering concern that consumption of such fish impacted on the halakhah forbidding the consumption of worms. Soon after, worms were noted in canned sardines. This halakhic issue is most complicated and ignited much debate among rabbinic authorities. I discuss here only the aspect of this debate that is relevant to DNA fingerprinting. Parasitic worms associated with fish are not a new halakhic issue, as the Talmud Hulin 67b noted cases of fish infested with worms. An interesting conversation was recorded between Ravina and his mother. Apparently, Ravina observed worms in the fish being prepared by his mother. Repulsed by the worms, he requested that his mother mix the worms with the fish and then he would consume it. A factor in the permissibility of consuming fish infested with parasitic worms is the location of the worms. The Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 84:16 noted that worms identified in the internal organs (e.g., stomach and intestines) of a fish are prohibited for consumption, whereas worms found within the flesh or between the skin and the flesh are permitted for consumption.

The marine parasitic worm noted in the flesh of salmon was Anisakis, a nematode with an interesting and complex life cycle. Adult worms mate within the stomach of a host mammal (such as a dolphin, seal, whale) and produce unembryonated eggs which are excreted from the host's intestines into the aquatic environment. The eggs settle to the ocean floor, embryonate, and develop into free-swimming larvae. These larvae are ingested by crustaceans (such as krill, a type of shrimp), and mature within their host. The crustacean is then consumed by a predator fish, which, in turn, is consumed by larger fish, such as salmon, remaining viable in the latter's digestive tract. Upon death of the host fish, the larvae migrate from the intestines and penetrate and then encyst within muscle tissue. These encysted Anisakis ignited the halakhic issue of the prohibition to eat worms regarding their occurrence in salmon, halibut, sea bass, scrud, and sardines. The life cycle of this worm is continued within the mammalian host (which, possibly, could include a human being who had eaten sushi). Within the mammal, the encysted larvae emerge as adult worms, mate, and produce eggs, which are released with the excreta of the mammal into the marine environment (BLEICH 2011; LEBOVITS 2010).

Initially, when evaluating the life history of Anisakis, there was some confusion as to whether the worm noted in the digestive tract was capable of boring through the intestines of the host fish to encyst within its musculature. Perhaps the encysted worm within the flesh was not the same worm identified in the intestines. Rabbi J.D. Bleich (2011) suggested that DNA fingerprinting of the free larvae and of the encysted larvae would solve this dilemma. Subsequently, parasitic worms were noted contaminating canned sardines. "The presence of worms portends of improper handling during which intestinal contents have been allowed to co-mingle with sardine meat... in a manner that would compromise kosher certification. Fish can harbor nematode life history stages in musculature and elsewhere besides the intestinal lumen; the difference in tissue location is predicated on the nematode species in question and its life cycle."

The OU commissioned Dr. Mark Siddall, a parasitologist at the American Museum of Natural History, Manhattan, to perform DNA analyses of worms observed in canned sardines. The research clearly showed that the worms in the canned sardines were species of Anisakis and were the type noted in muscle tissue, thereby permitting the sardines for consumption (COLLINS 2012; SIDDALL 2012).

Plants

Halakhic use of DNA fingerprinting of botanical species has focused on the etrog (Citrus medica), as there were concerns as to its purity, particularly, whether it was grafted to a lemon tree. Grafting of a tree branch from one species to that of another species is forbidden by Jewish law. The Mishnah lists forbidden grafts among fruit trees (Kilayim 1:4), without reference to the etrog, which can be grafted only to a lemon tree. This lack of recognition by our Sages of grafting an etrog branch to a lemon tree was because in the era of the Talmud the lemon tree was not yet indigenous to the Middle East. Lemon trees were introduced into the Middle East from the seventh century and onwards (KAHANA et al. 1997). This explains the lack of Talmudic discussion on an etroglemon grafted hybrid.

Today, however, there are concerns about a hybrid etrog-lemon. Elisabetta Nicolosi and co-researchers obtained etrogim with differing phenotypes from different environments and conducted DNA fingerprint analyses on them (NICOLOSI et al. 2005). The etrogim studied included those from Israel (five varieties), Italy (two varieties), Morocco (two seedless varieties), and Yemen (three varieties of extremely large fruits). The results showed no introgression of lemon or other citrus genomes into the genomes of the etrogim that were analyzed. However, Rabbi Yechiel Stern consulted with botanical experts and concluded that even the kosher etrogim have some genetic traces of lemon genome (STERN 2003). Apparently, cross pollination, not grafting, was the cause of concern: bees transporting pollen from stamens of flowers from lemon trees cross-pollinated pistils of flowers on etrog trees. However, no scientific data were presented. In addition, it is difficult to understand why only traces of lemon genome were noted in these etrogim. If the lemon genome was introduced by cross pollination to an etrog, then 50 percent of the resultant fruit should be etrog DNA and 50 percent lemon DNA.

DNA ANALYSIS FOR DISEASE PREVENTION

Our brief discussion above focused on DNA fingerprinting. However, other advances in DNA technology have provided the means to improve the quality of life. For example, most religious Ashkenazi Jewish young adults understand the need for DNA analyses in premarital genetic screening for genetic diseases. Thanks to genetic screening, Tay-Sachs disease is virtually non-existent in the Torah-observant community.

DNA technology also plays a key role in assisted reproductive technology regarding preimplantation genetic diagnoses (PGD) of pre-embryos for genetic diseases, as well as for gender selection. Although rabbinical authorities frown upon pre-embryo gender selection for frivolous reasons, an interesting case was reported in which it was permitted. The potential father was a kohen (descendant of the priestly class) who could not produce sperm. The couple received rabbinic permission to use donor sperm and to use PGD to specifically select female pre-embryos for implantation. Because kohen status is passed down from father to son, producing a female rather than a male child would eliminate the question of the kohen status of the child, which would arise when the boy would be called up to the Torah in the synagogue (COHEN 2010).

Recently, the complete genetic sequence of Ashkenazi Jews was deciphered. These data will serve to better understand genetic diseases and as a vehicle for developing personalized medicine (CARMI et al. 2014). Beyond the scope of this article are the halakhic issues raised by creating genetically engineered foods, both plant and animal (BLEICH 2003; OPPENHEIM 2009; RAPPAPORT 1997; WAHRMAN 2006).

This increased knowledge enables human beings to partner with G-d in perfecting the world, thus fulfilling the command of Genesis 1:28 "to fill the world and conquer it."

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to Rabbi Elisha (Ely) Bacon, Mashgiah Ruhani and Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Torah Studies, Yeshiva University, and to Rabbi Yitzhak Grossman, Rosh Haburah, Senior Lecturer, Greater Washington Community Kollel, for reviewing the halakhic contents of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

ANONYMOUS. 2009. "The Double Helix in Torah and Madda." YU Review. Spring, pp. 18-23.

BLEICH, J.D. 2003. "Genetic Engineering." Tradition. vol. 37, pp. 66-87.

BLEICH, J.D. 2011. "Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Piscatorial Parasites." Tradition. vol. 44, pp. 65-101.

CARMI, S., et al. 2014. "Sequencing an Ashkenazi Reference Panel Supports Population-Targeted Personal Genomics and Illuminates Jewish and European Origins." Nature Communications. vol. 5, article number 4835. DOI:10.1038/ncomms5835.

COHEN, A. 2000. "Scientific Evidence in Jewish Law." Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society. vol. 39, pp. 51-94.

COHEN, D.N. 2010. "Rabbis and Halacha Grapple with Advances in DNA Technology." Forward. Aug. 11. http://www.forward.com/articles/130027. Accessed Oct. 27, 2015.

COLLINS, G. 2012. "DNA Results Are in: Canned Sardines are Kosher." New York Times. Feb. 13. http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/dna-results-are-in-canned-sardines-are-kosher/?_r=0. Accessed Oct. 27, 2015.

GREENWALD, S. 2005. "DNA Analysis May Help Free Agunot" The Jewish Press. Sep. 9, p. 99.

GROSS, J. 2001. "A Nation Challenged: Vigil; Stretching a Jewish Vigil for the Sept. 11 Dead." New York Times. Nov. 6. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/06/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-vigil-stretching-a-jewish-vigil-for-the-sept-11-dead.html. Accessed Oct. 27, 2015.

HARTL, D.L., and Ruvolo, M. 2012. Genetics, 8th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

HEILMAN, U. 2011. "Dept. of Remembrance: Watching over the 9/11 dead with Shmira." Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Sep. 1. http://www.jta.org/2011/09/01/life-religion/dept-of-remembrance-watching-over-the-911-dead-with-shmira.

JACHTER, C. 2006. Gray Matter, vol. 2. Brooklyn, NY: Yashar Books.

JACHTER, C. 2007. Gray Matter, vol. 3. Brooklyn, NY: Yashar Books.

KAHANA, T., et al. 1997. "Suicidal Terrorist Bombings in Israel--Identification of Human Remains." Journal of Forensic Science. vol. 42, pp. 260-264.

KAYE, D.H. 2013. "Chimeric Criminals." Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology. vol. 14, pp. 1-10.

LACHTER, K. 1997. "Science and the Law: the Implications of DNA Profiling." https://www.dartmouth.edu/~cbbc/courses/bio4/bio4-1997/KatieLachter.html. Accessed Aug. 30, 2015.

LEBOVITS, D.M. 2010. "Worms in Fish--the Recent Tumult." Halachically Speaking. vol. 6, no. 9 (monograph).

LEV, D. 2011. "Using DNA to Beat Cattle Thieves--and Kashrut Fraud." Arutz Sheva. Nov. 19. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149903#.VDvgmPldWSo. Accessed Sep. 1, 2015.

LEVINSON, J. 2001. "An Halakhic Reconsideration of Victim Identification." Journal of Jewish Medical Ethics. vol. 4, pp. 55-57.

NICOLOSI, E., et al. 2005. "The Search for the Authentic Citron (Citrus medica L.): Historic and Genetic Analysis." HortScience. vol. 40, pp. 1963-1968.

OPPENHEIM, M.I. 2009. "A New Set of Genes: Halachic Issues in Genetically-Engineered Foods." Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society. vol. LVII, pp. 5-26.

RAPPAPORT, S.A. 1997. "Genetic Engineering." Journal of Jewish Medical Ethics. vol. 3, pp. 3-4.

SIDDALL, M.E., et al. 2012. "DNA Barcoding of Parasitic Nematodes: Is It Kosher?" Journal of Parasitology. vol. 98, pp. 692-694.

STERN, Y.M. 2003. Halachos of the Four Species. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.

WAHRMAN, M.Z. 2006. "Kosher Pork and Treife Tomatoes." B'Or Ha'Torah. vol. 16, pp. 33-55.

HARVEY BABICH, PHD

This article originally appeared in slightly different form in Derech HaTeva: A Journal of Torah and Science, volume 19 (2014-2015), published by Stern College for Women of Yeshiva University.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

DR. HARVEY BABICH received a BA in biology from Yeshiva College of Yeshiva University (YU), an MS in microbiology from Long Island University, and a PhD in biology from New York University (NYU). Subsequent appointments included Senior Research Scientist in the Biology Department at NYU, Senior Staff Scientist at the Environmental Law Institute, and Senior Research Scientist at the Rockefeller University. He served as a committee member for the National Academy of Sciences. Research interests have included the effects of pollutants on microbes, the development of short-term toxicity assays with fish and mammalian cell lines, and, currently, the comparative responses of human oral fibroblasts and carcinoma cells to nutraceuticals. His research has appeared in over 130 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Babich joined the Biology Department of Stern College for Women (SCW) of YU in 1987 and is a professor and the chair of that department. He is the originator of the SCW publication, Derech HaTeva: A Journal of Torah and Science, published since 1997 and available online at YUTorah.org. His communal activities have included involvement with the Young Israel of Ocean Parkway and the Young Israel of Homecrest, and currently with Agudath Yisroel of Madison (all in Brooklyn), in which his favorite activity is "shul candy man."

babich@yu.edu

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:	Babich, Harvey
Publication:	B'Or Ha'Torah
Date:	Jan 1, 2016
Words:	4428
Previous Article:	Death of the Whole by Death of the Parts.
Next Article:	Jews on Campus: A Crisis and an Opportunity.
Topics:	Use-wear analysis