There’s been quite a media buzz about the ethical propriety of using the newly FDA authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Two Catholic bishops have called on their followers to avoid it, as “it is morally comprised” since it used cell lines that were originally derived (more than 30 years ago) from cell tissue of an aborted fetus. It’s created somewhat of a stir in the Jewish world as well (and even in the Catholic world, the Vatican disagreed), as generally speaking–and requires a much further and nuanced analysis–Judaism does not condone non-medically indicated abortions. Additionally, Halakhah forbids any benefit from a dead body (הנאה מן המת), meaning, that even if there were no issue with how the original tissue was obtained (if for example, it came from a person who had died), it may still pose a problem of benefiting from a corpse.
These concerns are not warranted at all. The best vaccine for you is the one you can get the soonest. (And yes, this is true even despite the slight differences in efficacy of the various vaccines that are currently authorized in the US. See here for a more detailed epidemiological explanation.)
What is a Cell Line?
Wikipedia: An immortalised cell line is a population of cells from a multicellular organism which would normally not proliferate indefinitely but, due to mutation, have evaded normal cellular senescence and instead can keep undergoing division. The cells can therefore be grown for prolonged periods in vitro. The mutations required for immortality can occur naturally or be intentionally induced for experimental purposes.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine utilizes an adenovirus vector to deliver a fragment of the viral DNA to the human white blood cells. Producing the vector requires PER.C6 cells, immortalized cells derived from the retina of an aborted fetus in 1985 that were subsequently transformed with an adenovirus. They were initially established as an industrial production platform and are used in many different pharmaceutical applications.
For those who’ve worked with cell lines it may be obvious, but it’s worth stating that the original fetal retinal cells died a long time ago. In the past very many years, these cells have divided millions of times and the cells that are being used in any scientific application are many millions of generations removed from the original fetal cells.
Cell Lines as a Halakhic Continuation of the Progenitor Cells
Rav Yaakov Ariel (באהלה של תורה א יו”ד סי’ נח) argues that cells lines continue to have the halakhic status of the cells from which they were derived. He analyzes their stance from the perspective of זה וזה גורם — halakhic entities that are brought about by two different causes. Even while the cells in use today are thousands if not millions of times removed from the original fetal cells from which they were cultured, ultimately, it’s indisputable that without those original cells, nothing would exist today. At the same time, on their own, those initial cells wouldn’t have amounted to anything at all.
Rav Ariel demonstrates that the rules of זה וזה גורם even apply to situations in which the original ’cause’ disintegrates or otherwise is no longer physically present in the final product – such as planting a fruit of orlah from which a new tree grows. Although the original fruit / seed is no longer extant, the resultant fruit of the subsequent tree are forbidden.
What is Considered Benefiting from a Corpse?
If we are to assume that the entire cell line takes on the halakhic character of the progenitor cells, PER.C6 cells should carry both טומאת מת as well as an איסור הנאה מן המת. Leaving the tum’ah issues as they may relate to Kohanim aside at this time, the concern of הנאה מן המת is relevant to everybody. And even while it’s true that pikuach nefesh likely sets aside the prohibition (and even that is subject to debate, ואכמ”ל), considering that other vaccine options are available, it may be hard (but not impossible) to argue that obtaining this particular vaccine is a matter of pikuach nefesh (at least not as it appears currently in the US).
However, there is significant halakhic debate as to what qualifies as prohibited הנאה, with many Poskim arguing to limit it far more severely than what we might otherwise categorize as a benefit. Rav Ariel notes that his analysis necessarily precedes this one — meaning, the first question that must be asked is whether the cell lines are considered to be halakhically connected to the progenitor cells. Only after answering that question affirmatively, is the question of defining הנאה relevant.
While everybody would agree that the vaccine is beneficial, the question of הנאה is categorically different and discussed extensively in other contexts. Rav Ovadiah Yosef famously ruled (Yabia Omer 3 YD 20-23) that cornea transplants do not present a problem of הנאה מן המת even though they unquestionably derive from a corpse. The prohibition of הנאה generally includes a more direct physical benefit. Along the same lines there is significant debate as to the propriety of visiting the “Bodies” exhibit, which displays expertly and artistically dissected human bodies posed in various shapes, with many arguing that viewing or even learning does not constitute a form of forbidden הנאה. At the very least, this would be considered an unusual benefit (שלא כדרך הנאתו), which is of a far lesser level and likely not universally prohibited.
Cell Lines Should Not Be Halakhically Considered as Part of a Corpse
From a broader perspective, one not considered by Rav Ariel, there might ample reason not to consider cell lines as being halakhic continuations of the progenitor cells.
Cell lines are living cells. That’s the whole point of using them. It would be somewhat counterintuitive, if not absurd, to then halakhically describe these living cells as dead. But just because something isn’t intuitive, doesn’t make it halakhically inaccurate. However, there is ample precedent to treat these cells as alive and therefore obviate any concerns whatsoever.
Similar questions arose in the past with regard to post-mortem organ transplants. Do organs harvested from dead bodies maintain their status as “from a dead body” insofar as הנאה מן המת and even טומאת מת are concerned? Practically, since organ transplants are almost exclusively used for life threatening conditions, the overriding concern of pikuach nefesh would render any of these considerations moot. That said, the general consensus of the Poskim has been that despite an organ’s origin, once it’s transplanted into a person and functioning like a healthy organ, it can no longer be considered tamei from טומאת מת. Tosafot (Niddah 70b ד”ה מתים) makes it clear that a person who died and then miraculously came back to life cannot be considered tamei since he is alive. Rav Isser Yehudah Unterman (and later many others) extended that idea to parts of a human body as well. So long as the organ is ‘alive,’ it cannot be considered to impart טומאת מת. He then argued that disappearance of טומאת מת inevitably leads to the disappearance of the concomitant prohibition of הנאה מן המת. As such, living cells originally derived from an aborted fetus are neither tamei טומאת מת nor carry a prohibition of הנאה מן המת.
Additional support for this idea might be found in a somewhat more perplexing Mishnah. During the times of the Mishnah and for quite a while thereafter, theories of spontaneous generation were widespread throughout the world. As such, we find numerous instances in which Chazal discuss spontaneous generation or its ramifications. And even while modern science has convincingly disproven spontaneous generation as false, there is still value in analyzing how Chazal related to it. Not so much so as to derive normative Halakhah (a topic for another time), but rather to understand, given Hazal‘s assumptions about how the world works, how they implemented the various relevant halakhot.
With that framing, Mishnah Ohalot (2:2) becomes highly relevant:
כזית רמה בין חיה בין מתה, רבי אליעזר מטמא כבשרו; וחכמים מטהרים
A kezayit worth of rimah (putrefied flesh that generated insects), whether alive are dead: Rabbi Eliezer says are tamei like the flesh from which they derived and Chakhamim declare them tahor.
Mishnah Acharonah explains that the debate is about whether living creatures can engender טומאת מת, with the Halakhah following Chakhamim. Rambam (Tum’at Meit 3:10) concurs. If so, normative Halakhah acknowledges that living substances, cells, and creatures cannot be tamei with טומאת מת. As such, even if Halakhah were to acknowledge that the cell lines in question still have a relevant connection to the aborted fetus from which they were derived, they would nonetheless not be tamei and as such, not engender any איסור הנאה either.
[There are interesting ramifications from this perspective regarding meat stem cell produced ‘meat’ but it’s potentially possible to distinguish between the species’ identity and other more incidental descriptions of meat (such as neveilah or ever min ha-hai) in that the former would devolve upon future living offspring, while the latter may not. ועוד חזון למועד.]
