SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

1. the child and biological mother were part of the same household and family; and

2. the biological mother continued to play a major role in the life of the child.

There are also some problems with an apparent Talmudic parallel, i.e., the situations of a concubine, whether of a temporary or permanent nature(see the responsum"Concubinage, " W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa,#133). These women bore the children of a man who usually was already married to another woman as his primary wife, but the concubines raised the children themselves.

There is nothing then akin to our problem in the literature of the past. A vague example in Noam(vol. 14, pp. 28ff) actually deals with organ transplants, in this case ovaries. The midrash which dealt with the transfer of a fetus from Leah to Rachel and vise versa(Targum Jonathan to Gen. 30:12; Nidah 31a; Ber. 60a) is also not relevant, as the parents seemed unaware of

this.

We would, therefore, have to treat the use of a surrogate mother as a new medical way of relieving the childlessness of a couple and enabling them to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation. It should cause us no more problems than modern adoptions which occur frequently. There, too, the arrangement to adopt is often made far in advance of birth, with the complete consent of one or both biological parents. Here we have the additional psychological advantage of the couple knowing that part of the genetic background of the child which they will raise as their own. This may prove helpful to the adoptive parents and, at a later stage, to the child.

If we were to treat this child as the offspring of a concubine or the result of a temporary liaison between a man and an unmarried woman, there would be no doubt about its legitimacy. The issue of Biblical and Rabbinic grayot does not arise.