Half and half

Perhaps we could say that if there is no one woman with an egg and a uterus who raised the fetus, then no one is its mother, and in any case it is a son without a mother, and therefore cannot be Jewish. The additional assumption here is that a son of a Jewish mother is a Jew, not that a son of a non-Jewish mother is a Gentile.

Why is this a strange explanation? It simply makes things worse for both sides and requires a conversion to severity.

He did not mean a serious situation, but a certain situation.

From what I know of the issue, this is Rabbi Asher Weiss' position and he is strict on both sides. It is possible that the questioner did not mean to be strict, but that is what Rabbi Asher Weiss meant, according to what I know.

Thank you. The logic I came up with in the non-Jewish position is that Judaism is concrete or dependent on the mother: the mother passes on to her son the attribute of being her son and therefore he is Jewish, and here he is not the son of either of them and therefore is not Jewish. The one who throws and runs and breaks it is if the mother who owns the egg also has the honor of being a surrogate. Here it is perhaps more similar to the situation where my bull threw the utensil from the roof (the latter is prone to throwing utensils) and my rooster came (also prone) and broke it, is it clear to you that he must?

Oh, you already wrote that and you've already raised your hand to be precise in your assumptions. All that remains for me to ask is the ruling on the gang of an ox and a rooster that made a single hand to break the vessel. Is half the obligation of a man of Dalit and two half-rates not added together or is the obligatory horse one and the same? I vaguely recall that you have an article by Rabbi Greentz (something I've heard from several others as well) that the obligation extends from the property to its owner, and that's why I asked about an ox and a rooster.

I don't see why there would be an exemption.

George, it's the opposite of what you understood (at least how I understood you). The child is the son of both mothers and not of either of them.

Yishai, a priori or from sources? I did not deal with sources but with theoretical possibilities. Why is it not possible from a halakhic perspective that there are two conditions/reasons for the name ‘mother’ to be ill, so that neither of them is a complete mother (and Judaism is the result of mothers)? No need for examples, but for example in Yevamot Kad: two things that permit, one does not raise one without the other, the law of the assembly lambs, the bread is not sanctified except by slaughtering it, etc. R’ Elazar bar’ Shimon says, it is never holy until it is slaughtered for oil and its blood is poured into oil.
Incidentally, another possibility is that every Jewish woman holds a unique ‘Judaism’ card of her own, and through this card she creates new and unique Judaism cards in her descendants (which are a function of her card and the global situation). But a son of two mothers is not a Jew of the type of mother 1 or of the type of mother 2. I think the assumption here throughout the discussion was that Judaism is one and only and common to all Jews, while it is apparently possible (what I called concrete Judaism above) that the number of Jewishnesses is as many as the number of Jews, and just as their faces are different, so are their Jewishnesses.