The Halacha of Posthumous Parenthood (PT II) | Rabbi Anthony Manning | November 5th 2025

answer. >> Thank you, Josh. Um, >> good morning everybody. Welcome to the share. Uh, I'd like to uh remind everybody please to turn off their phones. I'd like to thank our sponsors for today's sharing for the uh year are sponsored anonymously. Uh, Leilu Nishma Benalman and Braas branded. We're very grateful for that sponsorship. Okay, we have a roller coaster ride today. Um, some really interesting topics. Uh, and some slightly unusual ones. I apologize in advance for the slightly unusual nature of some of the sources today. But, uh, you know, the Gammorra deals with everything, everything and everything. So last week we started uh to look at this extremely sensitive topic of uh postumous sperm retrieval from young men usually soldiers who fallen in battle and and I as I mentioned hundreds literally of soldiers have had their sperm removed and retrieved over the last couple of years uh with a with a possibility of them using that to produce a child at some point. In some cases there's a widow uh with no children. In some cases there's a widow with other children. In some cases, there's no widow, but there's a long-standing girlfriend. Uh, or if single men, there are parents who are interested in doing this. We talked about this last week, and we started off last week with a general principle that some postkim put forward, which is, well, if there's no hakic reason to prohibit it, then it must be permitted. The assumption is that things are permitted until there's a good reason why they're not. We saw that Rav Zami Goldberg pushed that very strongly. It's based on a Mishna in Yadime. And therefore, we looked last week at what could be some of the reasons why this really could be prohibited. We looked at Hamemed. To what extent are you allowed to interfere with a corpse and mutilate even for positive reasons a corpse? Yes, for nephesh. Sure. But this is not nephesh. Is it okay? And it depends on the procedure involved. What about the issue of benefiting from a corpse? Is this called a benefit? Um, we also talked about the question of who might own these samples going forward. Is it the wife? Is it the parents? And we looked a little bit at the issue of consent. To what extent does the do they express explicit wishes of the soldier or the person involved, the man involved? Because of course it's not just soldiers, also people who have been sick who've had that uh procedure done. To what extent does their consent make a big difference in hala? Today I would like to look at four or five other issues which will be I think very interesting. The first one is is the child produced by this uh procedure really the child of the donor of the sperm. Now you might say well it obviously it is. Well who else's child could it be? And the answer is correct. It couldn't be anybody else's child. There is no doubt as to the possible contenders for who is the parent, who is the father. But the question is, is this enough of a connection with the father or the donor of the sperm, let's say, to create parenthood? Unless you say, well, of course, he's the biological parent. You and I know that biological parenthood doesn't necessarily create hakic parenthood or indeed legal parenthood. Even in modern law, somebody can adopt a child and become the legal parent of that child in American law, British law, but not be the biological parent of the child. So too in a famous case of a ger someone who converts to Judaism may have biological parents who are non-Jews but they're not their haki parents at all even if the parents convert to Judaism and they all convert one happy family you know Roger and Christine and Patrick and Mary their kids all convert to Judaism and now there's Ruven and Khan and Pinas and who whatever not none of them are related to each other not one of them on a Torah level they could all marry each other, parents, children, da da da. We don't obviously allow that, but they're not related. So, so too, just because somebody is the biological provider of the sperm, does that mean they're hakically the parent? Even if they are hakically the parent, did they do the mitzvah for a puru? Now, why is that important? Because when we're trying to analyze why might it be justified to intervene and take this sample and rep and produce a child, the existence of a mitzvah is obviously relevant. It might not be the same as piku nephesh. Piku nephesh overrides almost everything. Whereas a mitzvah is not a justification for doing something which is an ara on the contrary. It's usually what's called mitzvah a and we'll talk about that. Um nevertheless if there is a mitzvah here that's going to be very important. Uh and then we're going to look at a little bit at the issue of yum. To what extent is this whole procedure like a kind of in the spirit of uh yum? and then we'll look at some of the general ethical questions of producing a planned orphan. Uh is that is that itself a problem? We'll have a look at that today. So let's start uh in source number one and look at the question of artificial uh conceptual insemination. Does the Gammorra talk about the status of a child produced by artificial insemination? And the answer is yes it does. Even though this was not a normal or regular procedure. Look at the following case. Number one says the Gmorrah Ben. They ask Ben Zoma the following question. A virgin who is pregnant. Can she marry the Cohen Gadal? Now, how do you get a case of a pregnant virgin? Uh, a woman who is a virgin who has never had a relationship sexually should not be pregnant. And if she says that she still is a batulla, then most of the time we'd say, "Well, I think that you're not telling us the entire story." What's that? >> Unless they're Christian. Okay. And and we'll talk a little bit unless they'll talk a little bit about that. Um uh so the Gammorus says, "No, it could actually be that she is a batula and she's still pregnant." Now, we know a coal is only allowed to marry a batula, but she might be, but she's still pregnant. How? Says the Gmorra. Do we are we concerned that what might have happened here is the case of what's the case of the amor not the prophet the amora saysam he had a way I'm not getting into all of the anatomical possibilities of having a sexual relationship with a woman without disturbing her virginity her bulim and there could be a case maybe she'd slept with a man who could do this and therefore she had indeed slept with a man and she was not able to marry But for whatever technical reasons that didn't disturb her or maybe we're not worried about someone who might have been able to do this. You know, one in a million people could do this. Who could do this? Says the Gmorrah. No, maybe. We we're not worried about that. She's not likely to have had a relationship with a man who could do this very unusual thing. But we are worried she maybe she became pregnant through a bath says Rashi because what could have happened is a man might have deposited sperm for whatever reason in that bath and then she innocently uses the bath afterwards and she gets pregnant from this sperm. Is this phil philosophically possible? Yes. But very very very unlikely a woman who says I'm pregnant but it's from above not likely to stand up in court but it is possible and the and the Gmorra says since since this is possible maybe we take this seriously. Um on that on the basis of that case we'll see soon that this is actually based on a a story which is brought down about Yumyahu Hanavi which we'll see in a minute and we are going to see that actually even though this sperm was deposited by some unknown male we are going to say that he is the father of the child. Now this young woman actually can marry a coal because she is pregnant as it were by accident and she didn't have a relationship with anybody else. But this is the case brought in the Gomorrah of if you like the artificial insemination and we'll see soon that paternity is established through that according to most postkim not all most look at number two this is brought into a more sort of modern case where the bach brings down on the Torah the following questions he brings down from the safer mitzvat katam from the middle ages mareno harav per one of the balat so We're talking the back himself is in the the 16th century there the smack is in the 13th century he writes the following warning a woman who is she's allowed to sleep on the sheets of her husband now they might be sheets that were used and they might have had a marital relationship and they may be some zera some semen on the sheets but we're not worried about her becoming pregnant even though she might become pregnant this way that's not called a relationship. She didn't have a relationship when she was nida. That was an accident and there's no problem there. Even if that were to happen, highly highly unlikely. But even though even though it's still possible, but we're not worried about that. She can do that. But she the women are concerned and are warned. But if she goes to a hotel, I'm sure hygiene standards were not what they should have been. And there's a bed sheet that's been used by another man in a relationship that he had with a woman. And there might be some kind of on [snorts] the sheet. And here she is an innocent woman sitting on the sheet. Not a husband. We might she might get pregnant. Second line. So the Gmorra here says, sorry the rather why are we worried if she's with her own husband? That's also not good. and the and the and you might argue that the son might have some the child might have some kind of stigma that he was born from a mother who had not been to the mikvah. I'm not getting into that now. And the answer is there is no relationship. There's no physical relationship going on here. There is no problem with the child. And by the way, later on Mosha Finstein passing us this way that if there is no physical intimacy, there is no stigma or problem with the child. In an artificial insemination, a woman could be inseminated from her husband's sperm. Even when she's a need in a hospital procedure, the child has no stigma. She could even be anti inciminated by artificial insemination by a donor and the Rav Moshia has a very famous landmark chuva where there was a woman a family where the the husband was unable to fertilize a child the only way they could raise a family was by aid she had to have a sperm donation and Ramosha says since there's no physical intimacy or relationship it's hakically permitted this was a very interesting chuver because a lot of people got very unhappy with very upset with Rav Mosha including uh many of the uh postkim who are more on the mahme side and rayakov brch you say satme could be I know ravyakov bich from switzerland wrote a response to rav moha who said this is a disgrace that we are allowing Jewish families to be made by aid he said even the catholics don't allow this and and and and raha raosha wrote back this very famous letter says likely the catholicim you know why do I care what the catholics allow and he writes I believe in Torah and only Torah and Torah is is everything and you read this out of uh context the statement I believe in Torah and Torah is our lives that and you think he's talking to I don't know the reform temple up the road he's talking to a kidosik from Switzerland saying that of course this is not the ideal way to create a Jewish family but this family is not in an ideal situation and it's permitted so the Bach says yes there's no relationship we're not worried about the child being some kind of stigma because there is no intimacy however um even if she gets third line still a number two even if she becomes pregnant from the sperm of somebody else um it's still not a forbidden relationship we're not worried that she's committed adultery God forbid and he now he brings in the case Ben we'll see who this was in a minute was a kosh and he was a product of something like this but if it's a sperm of another man, an unrelated man. We are concerned there. Why? We worry because we need to know whose child this is. Because we're worried that even though it's unlikely, this child may be the the child of a man, a man she doesn't know who she got pregnant from this thing on the sheets. And then this child will grow up and it'll get up married to his step half sister, half brother. They won't have a clue who their parents are. And therefore, that we are worried about. And you see by the way from there that there is paternity. This child is indeed the child of the sperm donor in this case that because we're worried that they might get married to a half sibling. So clearly there is paternity there. So all the sources are pointing in the direction that this is indeed the child even though there was not a regular relationship. Go over the page. Let's have a look at Ben. Who is Ben? This is fascinating. Let's look from the shor just talking very briefly about pu ravu. What happens if a person has a child who is a mamzer? A person has a relationship with a married woman. Man has a relationship with a married woman. He has a child and it's a mam was a terrible prohibition on their both their parts. But did he fulfill the mitzvah purvu? He left the Jewish child in the world says the remitz. Okay. So he did the mitzvah. So then we get into a question says the cake not so fast not so fast in brackets in number three the topic I have a question what if a woman got pregnant in a bath we saw this just now invu asking a different question okay maybe it's the father maybe not but did he do a mitzvah he left this in the bath and now you're going to say you you perform the mitzvah rev you left the child in the Is he really the son of that donor for all purposes even for au Ben this second temple character was the son of Jeremiah the priest and he'd been in a bath yumyahu and had left his seaman in the bath we'll see what happened kira and he'll prove it one of the things they The word sir is the gumatria of yumyahu. >> Now what's going on there? There is I'm not getting into this in too much depth but it's very interesting. There is a book in the apocrypha called the wisdom of bener. It's sometimes called the uh the ecclesiasticus to be compared with ecclesiastes which is cohellet. And there is a a discussion if you like between the book of vans and cohellet. And there's an academic debate as to whether they're in dialogue with each other to some degree. But what's interesting is this book of Ben never made it into the Tanakh. It was too late. It made it into the Apocrypha, these kind of twilight zone books between uh well well between let's call it in Christian terms the new and the old testaments let's say. But certainly they didn't get into the uh to the Tanakh. Um but they are included by some by the Catholics in in the cannon. Uh what's interesting about the book of Ben Sira is Ben Sira is quoted in Khazal many places and therefore Khaz clearly were aware of Ben Sira took it very seriously and actually the Sukim from the book of Ben brought in a number of different contexts. Interestingly, this man Benira according to legend was the was the um was produced by this relationship that Yurumyahu went to a bath house and for whatever reason was forced to leave seaman in the bath house and his own daughter Yumyahu's daughter came to the bath house became pregnant and then gave birth to Benira who was the son and the grandson of Yurumah. Now there are those who want to suggest that this whole story which emerges in the time of the ownim is part of the palemic against the virgin birth. Uh there is a whole genre of literature called the told us Yau where a lot of the stories about Yeshau Hanotri and uh you know when I was a kid they call him Yoshki Pandera all the time it was always pander all that all comes from told us Yau um there is a suggestion that this is actually all a parody on this you know virgin birth and by the way if you're interested in the difference between the virgin birth and the immaculate conception I brought you a sort of note on that as well just in case just in case that's bothering you. Okay. Yes. >> Interesting. >> Yes. This is interesting, isn't it? Yeah. >> Right. So, look, you can look that up. And raises that and says, "Look, no one suggested that this man who was the product of an an incestuous relationship. He's the Kasha Jew. He's not a mam." Because artific artificial insemination doesn't create the same kind of relationship. Therefore, he raises a question as to whether it does indeed form the uh fulfill the misra purau. I brought you a few other sources. I'm not getting into all of them, but uh bottom line, most of the Maporium say that the product of an artificial insemination is definitely the father of the child. Whether uh it is purvu, we'll see soon, but definitely there's paternity according to almost all. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> Yet her husband is not the child is a Cohen. >> No, the child will not be a Cohen. If the Oh, the donor. If the donor is a Cohen. So, that's a good question. I'm not sure that they asked that question. If the don if the sperm donor was a com, would the child be a cohen? That would be a I don't know. I don't know. Uh if it's if it if it establishes paternity, does it establish kahuna in the shave in that way? Good question. I don't know the answer to that one. Answer us on a postcard, please, if you still have any postcards at home. uh and uh we can look we can talk about it next time. Let's go on a little bit. I just want to bring you one last source on this topic um which is number nine or number six, excuse me, I just uh saw that wrong. Number six um on the bottom of the sheet here where there is a reenuan that says this is called a nace. If a woman becomes pregnant from an ambati from a bath, this is not a normal way of getting pregnant. And there are those sources that just dismiss this entire suggestion and say no no no the Gmorra raised that as a possibility but it's not realistically something that we'reish for. Um one of the proofs for that by the way is the Mishna brings down I think it's the if a woman who is an arouser this is not directly related but she's already betrothed and therefore hakically married. If we dis but not together with her husband. If we discover that she's pregnant, the says for sure she had a relationship and the child is a mamar to the point that the child is allowed to marry another mam mam. So he says if we're worried about people getting pregnant in the bath, why are we so quick for to say that the child is a mamar? It's clear that we're obviously not worried about that because otherwise we'd say, "Oh, who knows? Maybe she had, you know, the bath experience." But says it's a it's a mism. Look at what he says. She's not even when she gives birth to this baby, this baby is an is is a magical baby is a miraculous baby. She doesn't even become tumor because the whole issue of tumor when a woman gives birth is related to the question is she was she had a normal conception and this not why is that important? So if you remember we had a number of shim about Brits mil and there is a major question as to whether you can push aside Shabbat for a Brit for a Brit on Shabbat for a baby that was born on Shabbat. If the baby was born from artificial insemination or conceived from artificial insemination because if the woman did not become Yolt then you cannot push off the Brit uh you cannot push off Shabbat to do the Brit Shabbat because the two things are related. And if you remember, we had a discussion about that and this has been a real question in the posting, but we're going a little bit off the topic. Let's move on with our own topic. So yes, let's assume that there is paternity. Um, but that's when the father is alive. Is it possible to hackically father a child after the father is already dead? This is a new question. This is a new stage beyond everything that we've talked about so far. Normally with IVF the father is very much alive and the child is conceived. Um but in this case we're talking about a couple a child rather where the father had passed away. So let's have a look for this we need a tu of the not huda. This is a fascinating chuver. Let's look at this in detail. Number seven says the nib huda alavaisha there was a woman kadosha gdong. I'm not sure where gdong is. I assume it's in eastern Europe somewhere. He's in the 1700s in in Eastern European. She lived with her husband for seven years. They had no children together. When he the husband became sick, deadly sick. And this was the sickness he eventually died from. She went to the mikvah. the the woman went to the mikvah three days before the husband died. He was already very sick and he wasn't even so lucid because he was so sick already. The husband passed away and he left all other living creatures. He went to the next world, excuse me. Thank you. Very important. He left a a brother, a younger brother who was three years old. Okay. Now, you know what's coming next, right? There's going to be a yum shila. This woman has died. The husband had no children. There's a little brother. He's only three. She's got to wait 10 years until the brother can grow up to do. So, what's the question here? We assumed when the woman died that she's going to have to wait for the brother. She died without children for this little brother. And indeed a couple of weeks after the husband died, Pearson her period came again. So let's you know that's the end of that. But then the next she had a little girl and the girl was was a she was a um a child that actually survived. Okay. Okay. So, sorry. So now we turn around and says, "Well, one second. This woman is not waiting for a yavam. This woman is not waiting for the little brother. Hashem, the dead husband has a child and therefore she can go off and get married. We thought there were no children, but look, she has a child. Where else could this child have come from?" >> Okay, so you could turn around and say, "Well, maybe the woman was was uh, you know, unfaithful to her a husband or not unfaithful. The husband had died already. Maybe she had a relationship with someone a few weeks later and the baby was premature. >> What's that? >> From the bed. >> Oh. Oh, good. So, we're going to see. He's not He's not asking about the bath. He's not asking about the bath. So, [clears throat] let's just in the middle of this cha just take a pause for a second and and raise a look at the number eight. This is just in the middle of this cha says a woman who is left as a husband died, no children. She doesn't do the and she doesn't do yum. We don't do yum at all these days mostly, but she doesn't do either. We wait for 90 days after the husband died. Aside from the day that he died, aside from the day of the Why are we waiting 3 months >> to see if she's pregnant? Maybe she's already a month or so in pregnancy and we'll only know 3 months later if she's pregnant. And if she's pregnant, then the husband has a child. She can bear the child and then in due course she can marry somebody else. Okay? You may have to wait still, but not for the yava. So it goes on the no. He says, "But I've got a problem with this 90-day rule." And here is the kicker number nine. How could we allow this woman to go and get married only 3 months, 90 days after her husband died? Zera at Yamlishi. Maybe she had had relations with her husband just before he died and she hadn't yet become pregnant. There hadn't yet been conception. >> Conception can occur a number of days after they have a relationship. Maybe that was in the works if you like and it's actually it's 90 days is not enough because it's not 3 months because the actual conception happened 3 or 4 days after he died. So we should be waiting 3 months plus 3 or 4 days and we don't know if she's pregnant. 3 months is not enough. How can we allow her to go off and get married to somebody else? Because we say, "Oh, she's not pregnant." We don't know. You didn't wait long enough. You waited 30 days, 90 days, 3 months. Should have been 93 days cuz maybe there's just that little chance that she got pregnant after the husband died from the husband. She should have waited 93 days. He said, "I'm really bothered by this question." And in a minute you'll see he's really bothered why he thinks he's the first person to ask this question because how can I he says in the 1700s be the first person to raise this question. But isn't it a question? How can a woman um uh get uh be be released to to get married if we don't know she conceived after the husband died? And he's going to suggest that it may be that a baby conceived after the husband died doesn't count. That's not called a child for the purposes of yum. So how did they know after 90 days that she was pregnant? >> So you the assumption was after 90 days we would see that she would visibly pregnant etc. That was the draw. Hazal made a rule of 90 days. Okay. Some women show earlier, some women show later. They made a rule of 90 days. After 90 days if she doesn't know she's pregnant we assume she's not pregnant. >> In menstruation >> menstruation is not necessarily the key here. There are women who menstruate and they are pregnant. The women who don't menstruate and they're not pregnant. Menstruation is not the key here. And they wait 3 months. So now let's have a look at what he what he answers. Look at number 10. I said to myself the following. Doesn't it say in the Torah and the the the brother the husband dies, one of the brothers die and he doesn't have a child. We know that if he leaves his wife pregnant, this deceased brother that's called he does have a child. Just because the woman's pregnant, we don't say, "Oh, no children." No, there's a there's a child. You wait, she's going to give birth. We'll see if the baby is a viable baby and then we'll know the dead brother had a baby. We wait. Even though there is a pregnancy, she's not yet given birth. If she then gives birth, we know in retro retroactively the dead husband had a child. But if she's not pregnant when the husband dies, let's say she went to a novi, we had a, you know, a local orthodox prophet and she went on the day of her husband's death after he died and she said to the Na'vi, "Am I pregnant?" Meaning the only reason we wait 3 months is because we don't have Naveim. If we had Nvim then, you know, we wouldn't need to wait three months. Now you are saying we have blood tests today. Do we still need to wait three months? That's a different That's not today. The man, the prophet would say, "She's not pregnant. I can tell you from prophecy." Then she would be allowed to um Yeah, she would be perfectly permitted. Okay. There's no child. She'll be allowed to do yam right away. We wouldn't be worried she's pregnant. We wouldn't be worried that she got pregnant later. She's not pregnant from her husband except for the we say we have to wait 90 days because we don't have a novi. We have to wait and see. But if there was a novi, he would tell us she's not pregnant. I want to claim he says that a woman who has not yet conceived before the husband died even though she conceives after the husband dies. And like we just said before, it is his son. He is the father. Just because he conceived in an unusual way, he is the father. He wants to say even though he's dead, I want to claim that might be different. We already call this case Ben. He doesn't have a son and she has to go to the so interesting. She has to do yum and yet it turns out the husband had a child. He said the two things in this very unusual case don't go together. Just need to go on a little bit. Got a lot to do here. We're already on page three. And therefore, we I'm going to tell you if the child was born after 9 months, we have to be concerned maybe the mother still has to do. There's a living breathing child, but maybe she had relations just before the man died. And we have to be concerned that it's not a child forum. Okay, I'm going to say most women don't have relations with their husband on the day that the husband dies. Okay, if if the husband's sick, but you know, it could happen. You're right. It could happen. God forbid there could be an accident. It wasn't expected. Could happen. Even if she had relations on that day, the day before she had relations before that generally. We don't assume that the pregnancy was from this last little relationship but let's say a woman says I I had relationship with my husband on the 28th of on the 29th he died and before the 28th she hadn't had relations with him at all for weeks >> there was the only possibility is that he came from this relationship just before he died what are we going to say so he says at the end of the line therefore I really am worried Maybe the fertilization happened, the conception happened after the husband died. And it's not a child for yum. It's his child, but it's not a yum child. I want to separate the two. He says, but this is a very new idea. The sh and I've never seen it anywhere else. It actually is somewhere else. It's in the marasha tucked away. Maybe he didn't have that marisha. who discusses it before him because we can make up new cases. We're going to make a new we're going to make a newra. This is ara there's a husband who died and left the child and he says but still the wife needs to do the husband has a child. It was aostumous conception child and therefore I'm not going to make new and also it could be that she even if she had relations the day before maybe conception was more or less immediate it could happen as well and therefore I'm going to set my aside and he's going to say bottom line he said I'm not going to be I only raised this as a as a a question as a as a as a theoretical question. I'm not going to make her do khalita. Okay. And she's muted to marry even a cohen even without khalita. But this got everybody thinking it what does this mean? How does this impact on our case? It could be according to this that a woman who conceives after the husband has died. It's not actually in for all purposes the child for Huda wanted to say you know maybe it's not a child for Yibong but he was concerned well maybe she did conceive maybe she didn't but if we have a case of postumous sperm retrieval the woman conceives years after the husband died it's it's night and day so this this kush of the noa could be very important yes very quickly sir >> um we started right away that [snorts] the husband was sick They couldn't have relationship with her divorce. >> We thought, we didn't know. We assumed. >> So therefore, Rap say go through it and figure out what the story is trying to tell. It's not always exactly the story, but the initial definition that he couldn't have. >> Yeah, but we No, we thought that he couldn't. It turned out maybe he could. We never know. Maybe she did. Maybe she says she did. She says she did, and we believe her. We don't assume that she's lying. Let's go on a little bit. So can things happen after a person dies that that affect their hakic status? Can you become a father after you die? Uh how does that work? Um there is an interesting case which I'm going to just uh talk about very briefly uh in the middle of page four uh sources number 13 14 and 15 or 13 and 14 I should say um where um the again an unusual case let's say a man Rahman raped a young girl he says that Torah has to pay her a penalty fine if the girl dies before she's uh if the girl is less than 12 1/2 it goes to the father if the girl is over 12 and a half it goes to the girl. So what happens? He said if there was this uh this attack and the girl was god forbid raped and then she died before she was 12 1/2. So the gammorra raises the possibility that even after she's already died we still keep counting the calendar to 12 1/2 even though she's never going to reach 12 and 1/2 now. She died when she was 12. But when she reaches 12 1/2 we say oh she would have she would have got it now. So it goes to her other relatives not to the father. Maybe she had a child from before that she inherit that inherits from the mother. And therefore there is this whole discussion in the the gammorra here as to whether the clock remains ticking even though a person has passed away. Are there hakic realities that can be formed? In this case the issue of who gets this fine um after the girl has already died. So you see there are interesting cases there as to as to how far uh indeed we take this. Let's talk a little bit about evil. We go over to page five. The Gomorrah says when it comes to yum and there are interesting implications here look at number 17 someone who marries his sister-in-law because of yum inherits all the brother the brother-in-laws the dead brother-in-law's uh property goes to this new husband who has come in to do yum why number 18 says my timer Shame he is stepping into the name of his brother-in-law of his brother I should say the what the wife the the the dead husband that the wife was married to had no children and therefore the terror at Sorah says okay he has to step into the to the to the brother's shoes the haram and now he's stepped into the brother's shoes and he's perpetuating the name of the brother what happens if the wife is pregnant so then we wait we said before looking number 19 let's say the jumps the gun and he says, "I'm not waiting. Okay, I'm not waiting to see if the widow is pregnant. I'm going to do right now. I want to get on with it." Says the turns out she's pregnant and she has a child. So, she never needed the she could have got married to somebody else. as a child if it's a viable child the was a nothing he didn't we don't say oh well you performed khalita maybe there areic implications to that no no you jumped the gun you did a khalita it wasn't necessary it turns out the woman's pregnant the thing just basically is a non- entity well I pass she's not in any way invalid to koha she didn't do anything wrong he didn't do anything wrong or he did something he didn't need to So, Ana Vladka, but what if we don't know if the child is viable? How long are you going to wait to check? Let's say she has a baby, but the baby's sickly. Oh, I don't know. The baby's on an incubator. The baby's still sick. The baby's still sick. H how how long are we going to wait to see if there is indeed a case of khalita that's needed here? So, let's see what it says. So if we if the child turns out in the end not to be viable then then the was a was a valid even though he jumped the gun there was a khalita necessary. So the Gmorrah says what is the reason for this number 20 buried for let's say that uh she he does to this pregnant woman but she never has a miscarriage says no she needs another because she says and here's the key the says she's only exempt if there is no child says the gammorrain he uses this word a with an alf and says as if it's been written with an I in because it could have been written without the yud. You can look into why the dr happens. We need to do some we can't just jump the gun on this. We need to do proper what's proper. Look into 21. She shouldn't do the she marry anyone else bes if there's still a suffic because there's a sophic. And we need to find out the baby's sick. Will it live? Will it not? Says the Ramban at the end number 22 says she can't do anything. What's going to be in the end? In the end, if we still have a situation which is hanging, we don't know what's going to be in the end. So now let's go back to our case. We have a sperm sample stored in a hospital and the husband died and there were no other children. and she says, "Well, you know, what do I do?" So, there's a brother waiting to do khalitita, but but maybe she doesn't need khalitza because she says that she could have a child. How long are we going to wait? And in fact, there are those who want to suggest that Ramos Mosha Sternb says this and raashu said this uh that indeed is as long as there is a sperm sample in the hospital, she is in limbo. There's nothing she can do. She can't get married. She can't do khalita. She doesn't know what's going on because we just don't know what the situation is. And obviously, this is a very negative situation for the woman to be in. How long are we going to wait? How long do you come to? I spoke this week to an embryologist. And uh and I said, "How long can they freeze these samples?" She goes, "They can freeze them forever." But there comes a point when it starts to cost a lot of money and the hospitals are going to say, "Either you pay a lot of money or we're going to, you know, throw it away." And the person, but if the person's prepared to pay, they'll go forever. On the other hand, other person can say, "No, no, no. You can't leave a woman." an auna forever. How long are you going to wait? There is a parallel case in the Gomorrah which is in number 23 which I'll just mention which is let's say a woman uh the husband died and he leaves a child and she says okay there's no necessary there's no khalita necessary there's a child but then 10 years later the child dies do we turn back the clock and say ah well it turned out the child died and therefore you did really need to do khalita because there is no child now and the garra rejects that and it says why Because then you'll never you'll never know your status. >> Good. But that's not what the Gmorrah says because because they got again means. We have to investigate. We can't be too quick. We have to know is there going to be a child? Is there not going to be a child? The Gmorrah says no. Because there's a pos that says the ways of the Torah are pleasant. Shalom. We're never going to leave a woman hanging that she she's waiting all her life in case God forbid the child that was left dies and then retroactively she has to do. We're not going to allow that. And therefore, there are many postings that say this will apply here, too. We're not going to allow her to be in limbo just because there's a sperm sample in the hospital. She's never going to know, am I allowed to get married? Am I not allowed to get married? Do I need to do? Do I not need to do no am I do need to go on? I don't want to lose so much time. But that's a that's a very important point. So there we have a we have a dispute amongst the postkim. If a woman has a situation where there is a preserved sperm sample of a husband and yet there is a brother who could do khalitza what do we allow? Do we say that she has to wait until we eventually know what's going to happen with this sample? So says a minority of postkim majority of postkim I think is a majority say no no we're not going to leave her in limbo if as you said if there is not a child right now we're going to say that she's not going to be in a khalisa situation or rather she is we can do a khala and we can move on there is no child right now and we can get on with it. What about inheritance? I mentioned this at the end of last week. What happens if the uh the man dies, the soldier dies, a millionaire, and leaves all his property to his little brother? Okay, there's no one else. It's just a little brother or a big brother, any brother. >> Okay, and then there are these sperm samples sitting in the hospital. And then 5 years later, the wife says, "You know something? I want to go ahead with it." And they produce twins. And now these two little boys come along and say, "Well, that's actually our money. Our money that you took 5 years ago, the million dollars belongs to us. Half a million each." And the brother says, "Well, I'm sorry. I spent it." You know, are they going to are they going to sue him? Does he have to give it he has to give it back? Um, and actually, you'd be surprised to hear that many many posts say, "No, this child that is born later is indeed the child for all inheritance purposes as well." Rashma Albak and I brought you some pakim here and I'm going to read them all inside. You can do this for your homework. In number 24 of Schlomma Zaman and this is uh this is underlined by Rob Halperin who ex who explains this exact this way too says that no if a baby is produced from PSR from this sperm retrieval they are the haki child of the deceased definitely and they do inherit from the husband but he says but for technical reasons they're not the child for yum and therefore the woman can go along and do what she needs to do at the time she doesn't have to wait but he separates the two however you should know and I brought you Page page page number seven in source 26. Rashaul Israeli Rash is Ali was a very major post. He was the Rash Shiva in Meazar. He was the head postig for Erosa. He ruled differently. And he said, you know something, I actually hold that these things cannot be separated. You cannot be a child for inheritance and not a child for Yib. It's all or nothing. And he actually ruled that the child of a postmortem insemination, this postmortm was not the halaki child on any level of this person who gave the sperm. Not for inheritance, not for yum, and not even for forbidden relationships. Meaning this child was completely hackically unrelated to the soldier or whoever gave the sperm to the point that they could even marry the soldier's relative because they were not hakically connected at all. And Rah Mosh Sternbuk agreed with that and he says that only a living person can acquire a new halaki status. You can't become a father. You can't become a child. You can't become something new in alka after a person has died. And therefore there were many post that took this view and that actually held and if that's the case according to Israeli and people are taking these samples and saying well I want to produce a child who can you know give a hemshak etc. It it's not the child. Interestingly, in British law, when this was first permitted in 1990, the the courts or rather the legislation in the UK ruled that the child of the sperm donor was not the child >> the way the sack of Ravi is and that was changed around 5 10 years ago and now the law in England is that they are the child they are allowed to be raised as the child. So there's been a kind of flim flam. There's been a back and forth in the legislation there. But you see this two laval in the um in the issues here with Ravi Israeli who says that they're not the child and Rav Schlma who says that they are the child. And therefore there is a really major debate in on this in the hal what about puru >> can they can do they have to be the child in order to do puru and the answer is not so simple. I brought you a few cases here. What about a convert who converts to Judaism and they already have a child? Look in K look in source number 28im. This man has a child and he used to be a non-Jew and then he becomes a Jew. Does he fulfill the mitzvah? He's done the mitzvah says he's not done the mitzvah [clears throat] because he has the there are human beings in the world now because he produced them. Okay, they're not Jewish and he is Jewish and they're not his children. Everybody agrees that they're not his children because he's now like a newborn because he's converted. Doesn't matter. Raban says they are uh nevertheless if you leave people behind they are you fulfill the mitzvah pu or even if they're not your children. So even if we say that the sperm sample produces a human being who is not the hakic child that doesn't mean that they didn't do pu ravu. Have a look at number 30. The Rambam brings this down. Let's say he has children when he's a non-Jew and then he converts says but they have to convert too. Then he did the mitzvah meaning is the mitzvah to leave children is it to leave Jewish children? Is it to leave your children? So the ram says it's to leave children. They don't have to be your children but they do have to be Jewish. Other people say, "No, I brought you the imil that says, "No, no, no. Even if they're not Jewish, but they not only do they not have to be your children, they don't even have to be Jewish children." So, you see, when it comes to purvu, there is a a very major debate here as to whether you need to actually be connected with the children to do pu purvu and that really impacts on our case. What about in our scenario? Um, Rav Bakshi Dan said, uh, for example, let's say you have an unmarried soldier that passed away and you say, we'd like him to do the mitzvah of Purvu. >> Can a dead person? >> First of all, can a dead person do the mitzvah purau? And second of all, was he obligated in the mitzvah of purvu? When is a person obligated to do puru? A man to do puru, a woman in the rabbitic side of the mitzvah when they get married. Meaning in theory a child aed 12 age 13, a little boy age 13 is is is obligating the mitzvah purau. Why don't we say to every bar mitzvah boy shak enjoy your bar mitzvah presence but clock's ticking purvu. Okay, you got to produce children. I mean he'll probably be quite happy with that but but the we but we we're not we're not going to allow that. We're not going to allow that. Why? Because we say that the mitzvah appu only comes about when a person is married. Why? And this is actually very important because according to many murin says the mitzvah of puruvu is not to actually have children. It's to be in a Jewish marriage and to try to have children. That's the mitzvah. And I brought this the chuva rah is very famous chuva. He says no one's obligated to actually leave children. They're obligated to try. Look at number 33. I brought you the garra that is very very much but germaine here. I'm a ra. says Adam when they bring you in for they're based in Shal after 120 years they say to you they don't say did you have kids did you leave kids they say did you try and that's the mitzvah and therefore there are many postkim that will say we're not trying to help this dead soldier Islam to do purvu he didn't have the mitzvah now maybe it's different if he was married with a wife and they were trying to do purvu Ra Mosha will say he already did the mitzvah. You don't need to help him do the mitzvah. He did this mitzvah already because the mitzvah is to do the best you can to have children. There are interesting uh there's an interesting discussion of the says that mitzvah puru actually he doesn't hold like from he says is to leave children when a person dies to leave children behind. You don't actually have to do a miser to have the children and therefore it may could be the posumous children would work according to the min but I'm not getting into that too much now there's also a gammorra that talks about yuma na'vi I brought you in 34 when uh when when not Yeshua excuse me Yeshua bin not yumu when he uh he brought the army together overnight unnecessarily and the angel remember with a sword appears to him and says you've done a terrible thing and says what have I done what have I Kazali says that the angel told him you have stopped people for a night unnecessarily from doing the mitzvah of purvu. So according to that like Moshi says what's the mitzvah of purvu? He didn't necessarily stop people from having children. He stopped them from being in a relationship with each other and therefore that is what we call the mitzvah of puvu. And therefore, before we start getting into a discussion as to we're trying to help the soldier, whoever it is to do Peruv, we have to ask ourselves what really is the mitzvah of Peru? Is it just to have children? Is it to try to have children? Does there needs to be a miserit or does there not need to be a miserit etc. The actually raises the case if you if it needs a m if it needs an action to do purvu then why if a person has a mam is that still called purauvu? Why don't we say to mitzvah and it doesn't count? Says you see you don't actually have to have a miser the person hasn't doesn't have to actually do an act to produce the child. It could be the insemination works as well. Raash you should know 36 he says there is no question whatsoever that even if you produce a child from the sperm he does not do the mitzvah. There is no mitzvah here. Look what he says number 36. He's talking about a single man. chemotropia and he'd had chemotherapy to our great sadness didn't work the treatment didn't work he asked he requested his relatives to use his sperm well and to take an ishap to find any woman like he wasn't married he was a bahur he asked to find a regular single woman on a or even a married He wanted to leave a child. He wanted to have a child after him. Should we uh should we do what he asked? So he says, "It is so obvious. What's an egg in milk?" It's an expression in the garra that is seen as being the most obvious shila in the world. Am I allowed to boil an egg in milk or is the egg fleic? You don't have to be a great tab to know that eggs are par. Okay. So, so that's the example given in the garra of the most basic hak question in the world. Okay. There are those who want to say that it can't be so basic like every everyone knows that eggs are par could be if you kill a chicken and you open up the chicken and you find an egg inside the chicken like a fully formed egg. Is that par? Okay, that's a different question. But he says this is as obvious as obvious can be mimazu. He did not fill a mitzvah. Why? Because once a person dies and this would apply across the board to all our cases. When a person dies, they no longer have any connection to mitzvah. You cannot do a mitzvah after you die. It doesn't matter whether you say is the act of the of the relationship or or the fact that you left children behind. That's a nice question. It's irrelevant. A person has died. They do not have any ability to do mitzvah anymore. It's absolutely clear. Even if you want to argue that a person does the mitzvah of by leaving children, not by having children, that's only when they're alive. A child born after the person died is not relevant. I don't even need to uh tell you anymore because it's so obvious. So again, not at all obvious that you did a mitzvah. Not obvious that he's the child of the father. Not obvious that it's puru if you produce aostumous child. A few other issues and then we'll draw to a close. What about people getting pregnant when they're not married? Are we worried that that's a problem? Women who are getting pregnant and they're not married because they're having an insemination uh from this uh sample. Uh there is a discussion about this. There are various suggestions. There are robot that say this is a concern. We'll be will be concerned that people might become more immoral etc. because people will say well it's fine she got pregnant in a in a way which was okay. Other pre other people will get pregnant in a way which is not so okay. Okay. That's not clearly there are specific cases in the garra. For example, it says a man may not sleep with his wife after he's written her a get even if he didn't deliver it yet. Why? Because he may sit in the cupboard not delivered for 3, four, 5, 6 months. And then eventually and then they'll have a baby and then he'll deliver the get and they'll assume the date on the get was when she really got divorced and not realize that actually the divorce only happened later. And we don't want people to to raise questions as the legitimacy of the child etc. So that's a specific case to apply that across the board in all cases not so straightforward and many posts can say you can't just use that as a general rule and say that we're not happy for single women uh to become pregnant because there's more to it than that. What about the mother's state of mind? Do we say well a mother should not be allowed to make that decision or a grandparent should not be allowed to make that decision because they may come to regret it? Do we say that we uh we wait until people have had a a kind of cooling off period? Rav Bournestein the uh the Rash Shiva of Pua says he had a case to discuss discuss with Ra Yao uh of a woman who had sperm from a husband who died from an illness and after the husband died she asked him should I have a baby from the child from from the husband and he said wait two years wait two years to decide if you really want to meaning if she does it now she's a young woman she has no other children maybe she'll regret it maybe she'll say I should have moved on I should have realized that my husband died Nebak and I needed to start a new life. Now I've got this child and and now I regret. So he told her to wait 2 years. Is that a hakic requirement? No, it's not a hakic requirement. But it may be it may be relevant that a person may come to regret things afterwards. And I brought you various other cases. Um there are haki precedents for ignoring a person's immediate wishes on the basis that they'll regret it later. Uh, for example, we say that if a person um needed a um needed an amputation and they opposed it and they said they'd had a horrendous accident, god forbid, and they said, "You can't do I won't let you. I'd rather die." We put the person under do the amputation and and they'll be saying because you weren't thinking straight. you know, you will afterwards you'll thank us for having done this because at the time you weren't able to make that that doesn't necessarily carry over into our case uh in all respects or maybe even in any respects, but that's a question. What about planned orphanhood? Some people turn around and say, look, it's a terrible thing to be an orphan. We say the Gmorra that the number 37 says do you're not allowed to afflict or to oppress orphans, widows. Rashi explains because orphans are in a very uh you know compromised position. They don't have people to fight for them. They're often uh they're of they're often abused by other people. They're taken advantage of. Why would you bring an orphan into the world? Okay. If there is a sad case, we have enough orphans in the world. And and even if you know that the person's going to be an orphan, if there's a marriage, you wouldn't say you can't bring a child. For example, some people say tokim, what if the husband and wife knew that the husband would only live another month or two? are they allowed to have relationships in order to bring a child into the world? And they would say yes, of course they can. I mean, they're a husband and wife. They're allowed. Isn't that a planned orphan? What can you do? They're a married couple. They have a mitzvah. You know, God runs the world. But here in this case, to bring an orphan into the world, knowing that there will be no father living with the child, is that allowed or is that not allowed? And I actually brought you three Datinum Rabon in here. Number 38, 39 and 40 which I'm not going to read specifically. Um Rav Ariel, Ravak of Ariel, Ravior and Ravnak Rabinowitz. Maybe let's look at Ravnakim Rabinowitz known in many ways as a Mel in many areas. Look at Ravnakenitz in number 14. He says to bring a child into the world who has no living father maybe even no father because we don't even know if the father is the father we saw before even if we think he is a very bad it's a terrible thing to do to someone you find that a father is never killed there's enough orphans already in the that we can't do anything about people. That happens. It's a terrible thing to do to a child. On the other hand, there's always another hand. Maybe if you ask the child 50 years later, 20 years later, are you happy that you're alive? What's he going to say? I mean, there are always people in the world who are not happy about anything. But we assume that a person would say, you know, looking back on it, would you rather not have existed than rather exist? Don't would you rather not have been born? It's a strange question to ask. The garra, don't forget, says, "No, it would have been easier not to have been born." It's an often misqued garra. People said, "It would have been better." No, that's not what it says. Said it would have been easier. Yes, it would have been easier. Life is a big struggle. It would have been a lot easier not to have had to do the struggle, but would it have been better? So, how are you going to I've just a minute left. I'm sorry. I'll take a question afterwards. Um, how are you going to argue that? It's it's very difficult to know. So, um, you can't come down one way or the other on that question. Uh, it really depends on the particular case. On the last couple of pages just to show you what's there and we can you can look it up on your own. I brought you in f the spirit of yam or a departure from Jewish family values. Some people say, well, this is like yum, right? We bring a child into the world to step into the shoes of the dead relative. Okay, that sounds nice. That sounds very noble and it's done obviously the shame shine by the people who are doing it. But it's not the same as yum. And I brought you four or five differences. With yum, the child grows up with two two parents, two biological parents, a mother and a father who brings them up. And in this case with the the sperm retrieval, the child will never have a living biological father. In yum, the widow is able to marry and have support from her new husband, from her parents-in-law, from her first husband and for her second husband, the same parents-in-law. There's emotional support, etc. In this particular case, there may not be in the same way. In yum, there's a real connection with the deceased because the child is raised by his brother and his widow. In PSR, it could be the child is raised by a random woman who says, "I agree to have this soldier's child. What connection does she have with the deceased?" In yum a child is born through a kadusha through an intimate relationship between a husband and wife which is a mitzvah with psr that mitzvah is lacking and also in yam mystically the child steps into the if you like a gilgal as the ramban explains he's a reincarnation of the dead brother who was unable to perform mitzvah in life because he died young in our case who says that this child is a gilgal of the dead soldier and who says that they needed to perform anymore more mitzvah. The reason we allow yibbum is because the dez's husband died before having been able to fulfill their potential. And as we said last week, a soldier who diesem, there is no higher level of fulfillment of a life's purpose spiritually than that. They don't need our help. They don't need a gilgal mystically speaking. Um, is that a reason which is relevant either? Um, I brought you a little bit on soldiers giving consent. And in case you wanted a a bottom line, I gave you on page 12 some conclusions. Okay, as you would expect, they all say different things. Um, I brought you Raf Steinberg uh 10 years ago who gives his outline. I brought you Rav Yuval Sherlo who brings his outline. Uh, I brought you here from Tumim a very interesting article there uh by Ravi Risman who brings his criteria. What's might be interesting to end on is Rav Vitman. Rav Vitman is a very major pisk. He's the rav of Tnuva and therefore a major cash pos he's also the rav of Aishu of alenvot and in alenvoot we had a family it's very public family that had a soldier a son who was nebak killed a kiddos hashem in Gaza h and there was a very long-term girlfriend of the uh of the soldier they weren't married but they were on the verge they had a ring already he was going going to propose to her and he and he died and she spoke at the funeral that they were going to get married and they never got round to getting married Um, and she indeed uh did agree to have the child. Uh, and the child has actually been born. There is now a a living child, the first one, as far as I'm aware, the only one so far from this procedure. And they asked a number of different people and people said different things. And Vikman gave a share. Ravimman was in favor of it. It must be said but he gave a shir to nish and he said um even though he was permissive in that sense he stressed that there are many many postkim out there who remained opposed to it and the matter is absolutely not as simple as some people sometimes suggest like how could you say no to allow the family to do this of course the family is beloved to the yeshu and supported in every way um and there is now a grandchild uh who is being raised by that family I'm sure in a wonderful loving environment but this is a this is a difficult question on which there are no clear answers. I spoke this week I was at a wedding and I bumped into an embryologist. I mentioned that before who and I asked her where where are we heading on this? So she said well while the war was in progress there was a lot of pressure in the Knesset to bring in clear legislation because this was really pressing. Now that the war's finished she said it's been kicked down the road like you know okay there are other things that are bothering everybody now. So she said it's a little bit been dropped uh in terms of the pressure has gone out of it. But as I said at the very beginning of the last week's share, this is an issue that Israel takes very seriously. We believe in family and children etc. And uh therefore we will continue to think about it. Okay. I will be away please God for 3 weeks now. Uh and therefore I will be back a month from today. Please God. In the meantime there will be some excellent shim. I'm quite sure of it. So I hope to see you in a month and we will be near to Kaneka at that point.