The Halacha of Posthumous Parenthood | Rabbi Anthony Manning | October 29th 2025

Okay, buckets of everybody. Good morning. It's lovely to see everybody back again. Uh hope you all had a good hag. Those who haven't seen since and uh please God uh we should have a gazuna vinta and basur tas and a wonderful year for Israel. Bat hashem. Um just a little bit of housekeeping. I'm here please God. This week and next week we're doing a two-part series. Then I will be away for three weeks after that. November is one of my traveling times. Uh so I will be in uh recruiting in various places including the United States, in Florida and Atlanta and in New York, but also in Berlin uh which is a very interesting recruiting uh ground and also in Mexico City. So uh I might bring you back some uh tales of on the road. Okay, we have a a a two-part series now. Uh sh Yes. Again, I I've been reminded to ask you again to turn off your phone. Uh that's three times now. After three times, who would leave their phone on? We'll see. We'll see you in a few minutes. Um a two-part series, a new series. Uh I promised you a couple of medical ethical shirim. This is a fascinating area on the issue of parenthood. Now, this is a a topic which has been discussed somewhat uh in Shirim. Rabbi Ashi did gave a a shir on this in the toyur shalim. Uh they only gave him about 40 minutes. So he was only able to give the rash praim. Uh so he was very kind and shared some of his ideas and sources with me. But we have uh two sharim. So we have two hours on this and I think we'll be able to really get into some of the issues in in some depth. Now I'm sure you all know what this topic entails. Tragically this has become a very major question. So many young men uh have been killed Rahman alam on the battlefield and the question has been raised by their widows sometimes by their girlfriends sometimes by their parents um that they they want their sperm to be retrieved it's called P um SR postostumous sperm retrieval um they want that to be retrieved and frozen so that they can use it to uh to fertilize uh eggs and to produce embryos and produce grandchildren for the grandparents who've lost their children and children for the widows who've lost their husband. Um and uh this has become a very live issue hakically, hashkafically. Um there's there are a lot of people who are uh have strong views on this and we'll see some of those views coming up. This is not an entirely new issue because people have been for many decades now uh dealing with the issue of uh freezing sperm for men let's say who are having treatment radiation treatment or are seriously ill um for use uh after their death or during their life etc etc. Uh and the difference of course there is that the sperm has been retrieved from a life person as opposed to a person who has already died and we'll see whether that makes a difference. Now the Israeli health health ministry data um shows that between October 7th, 2023 and August 26, 2025, which is the data that I had, there were 240 of these procedures done uh on fallen soldiers. 240, that's a lot. 22% of these were requested by the soldiers partners but 78% were requested by the soldiers parents which reflects of course the fact that most of these young men were single young men who died and were not married and this raises many many uh many many issues um I've written here some of these issues which we're going to talk about uh issues of covert hammace and nlameace how do we deal with uh um mutilating all albeit in a very positive way uh a corp a dead body in order to achieve this. Who owns these samples after the soldier has died? Uh this is a very fraud question. Um in the Supreme Court a number of years ago, there was a case uh where a uh a man died and his sperm had been retrieved. Uh but his widow said that she did not want to carry another child from him. I don't remember if he had children already. I think in this case he did not have children. She said she didn't want to have a child from him and she wanted to move on. And in fact, she got remarried and had a family with her new husband. And the parents of the father of the fall of the the he wasn't a soldier, but the man who died said, "Well, we want to use that sperm in order to uh produce a grandchild from our son." I think he was an only child, certainly an only son. And the widow said, "No, you can't. This belongs to me. My husband would not have wanted to produce children with anyone else except me. I was his wife, and you can't use it." And the parents uh appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court decided it belongs to her and she can decide what is to be done with it. It belongs to the wife and in the end nothing has been done with that. Now some people say that's a terrible outcome. Why can't the parents take this and and produce a grandchild? Other people say no the parents don't have any rights to produce a grandchild. Uh and the widow has the uh the key deciding the decision-making uh factor here. Um and you can definitely see it in both in both ways. So we're going to look at this ownership question. Um to what extent are the wishes of the deceased uh donor relevant here? If he says I want it to be handled in this and this way is that impactful on the hala and should we be proactively asking soldiers to write out their wishes on this like back in the day when they used to write give a get to their wives alsai and this was raised as a question in the modern Israeli army. Should we be getting our soldiers to write a conditional get for their wives in case, god forbid, they were missing an action? And the wife was an aguna and Ravgorin there felt that this was very negative and this would demoralize the soldiers. The idea that god forbid they could die and their wives would be left as widows. Um but what about this? This is a little bit different or is it different? Is this going to give the soldiers more reason to fight, less reason to fight? Is it neutral? Uh people have even suggested maybe we should be taking sperm samples from the soldiers in advance beforehand. That's already more radical because sometimes it's just not possible to retrieve things after death if it's too long. We'll look at the medical side of this. Um should grandparents have any standing here? Do we have an obligation to honor these very very special grandparents who've suffered such loss? These parents I should say who suffered such loss. Do we have a special obligation to them? Or is it no, we don't want to produce, you know, planned orphans, people who are coming into the world with no father or at least no father they will ever meet. Uh and uh how do we regard that uh the impact of that on the on the Jewish family? What happens if there was no girl? It's one thing when there's a widow, but what if there was a girlfriend? Okay, maybe it was a very long-term girlfriend. Maybe that's the same or it's not the same, but maybe it's similar. But what if there was no girlfriend and the woman who is now volunteering to have this baby had no connection at all with the father and the father never met her. He's just a a woman who wants to help these parents to have a grandchild. It was a case like this recently again from the war. Father had a an only son who was killed very tragically in the war and he was totally totally devastated. He was a single man himself. He had no other children. He had no other family. He used to just sit and look at the pictures of his son all day and and he his story went out and there were many many young women who said I will volunteer to have a child to you know enable you to have the grandson that you so want. Do we do we think that's a positive thing? Obviously these young women are who does the child belong to? That's a good question. We know who the mother is and we know who the grand Well let's look at that question for a second. Is this uh man, the deceased soldier who gave the sperm, is he in even the father of the child? You say, well, it's obvious. Why not? But we'll see there are many reasons why he may not be the father of the child. We'll look at that more next week. Um, even if he is the father of the child, is this the mitzvah of pur ravu? And that will be important because if we're saying we, you know, if this is a mitzvah to take this sperm sample, that might help us with some of the other hakic issues. But if it's not a mitzvah then then that that is not present and won't be there if you like >> mitzvah after you die. >> Okay. Can you have a mitzvah after you die? Uh a person who's dead no longer has obligations in mitzvah. How does that work as well? Um and we'll talk about many of these issues. What about yum and khalitita? What about yum? Let's say the soldier has a younger brother and the soldier has now died and the rabbin would say well you know he died childless and we have to wait for the younger brother. He has a he has a four-year-old brother. We have to have a younger brother. He'll he'll become bar mitzvah. He'll do a khalitza. But I don't know, maybe there'll be children. There's a sperm sample here. If they fertilize the sperm sample in 6 months, 12 months, then you won't need to do khalitza. Should they should they wait? Should they not? Do they know? Does what is she? Is she sheamama? Is she not ivam? >> Why would they? What? >> You've already assumed that they won't need to do. Is this in fact is this in fact? >> Well, that's a good question. We need to ask that question. Is this in fact yum? How does it work? etc. So, let's get into some of these issues. Um, I've set out the uh things I've just discussed now on page one. Let's look at page two. What is the law? So, Israel actually has a uh a very interesting law that is much more permissive than other countries. It has the most permissive legal legal framework in the world forumous sperm retrieval. Um, this is no no doubt due to the tragic reality that we have so many soldiers that have died. But other countries have young men that have died. Russia has young men that have died and Ukraine has young men that have died. But we have something else other than just Nebak, these young soldiers who've died, which is a very strong focus on family values. The idea of having a child to uh to to continue the shame hakim shame, a child to say kadesh for this dead soldier. I'm not getting into whether it's a boy saying kadish or a woman saying kades. That's we had a we had a whole series of shirim on that. But the idea I'm sure that Israel is impacted by that idea of being machim of having a child giving merit to the father. And of course then you have to just assume that the child is the child cuz if we say this is not the father then he's not giving marriage to the father. We'll get into that. And therefore, the current law in Israel is based on 2003 guidelines that were given by the attorney general, which basically said that the deceased widow or the long this deceased man's widow, I should say, or his long-term partner, meaning doesn't have to have been someone who was married to him, could request sperm retrieval without a court order. Now, there's a rush to do this because we'll see in a minute, you can't wait more than a couple of days, otherwise it just won't work. So the woman uh the the widow or the partner can do this but the according to those guidelines the parents could not the parents required a court order in order to even do the retrieval which in most cases was not practical because by the time they would get one it would be too late but this was updated just after the war broke out in 2023. In October 2023, um there was a special order made that parents also could request a retrieval of the deceased sperm without a court order, but they still but everybody still needs a court order in order to fertilize it and produce a child. So the retrieval now is relatively simple and doesn't need a court proceeding. uh in fact when uh they deliver news to Nebak to a family of a deceased soldier this is one of the things that they say if it's possible if they're able to do this that there is an option for uh this retrieval and they give the widow and the parents options to do that. So um this is as I say something which people are really grappling with and there's new legislation in the Knesset right now which may change the law on this but in many uh other countries it's just straight illegal. In France it's completely illegal to extract to retrieve the sperm and certainly to produce a baby. They think it's completely immoral which may be and you know an interesting take on the way they see children generally. I think a lot of Western European countries just think it's inappropriate to have any children these days. Um, no matter how you're having them, but in many other countries, France, it's illegal. In Germany, it's illegal. Sweden, Norway, Italy, some states in Australia, uh, in the UK, you need explicit written consent. Uh, that in UK and Spain. In Spain, they only allowed you to do it for up to 12 months after, okay? And not after that. In Brazil, in Canada, you need consent. A few countries like Israel uh allow retrieval with uh or or with with court consent, retrieval without and then fertilization with. Um in the US, it depends which city you're in. There's it's not clear what the outcomes are going to be. In America, it could go this way, it could go that way. It's a little bit uh uh the sort of uh what do they call it? They used to call it the post code lottery, but in America it's the zone whatever they call it, the zip code lottery. you know where you happen to live and which state you happen to be in uh might determine the outcome that you get. Okay. In terms of the medical procedure, I've given you a little bit of uh detail at the bottom and this will be very important for us. The sooner you're able to do this after the death of the person, the better. And within 24 hours, there's a very good chance of retrieving a sample which will be able to produce a child. Although I will say to you that uh any sperm taken from a dead donor is far more difficult to to if you like to use in IVF to actually produce a fertilized embryo. It's much much higher rates of success from sperm retrieve from a live donor which which makes perfect sense because as soon as the person has died then there is a degradation of the sperm. But usually within 24 hours they're able to do something very positive. After 72 hours, there were no cases where this has proved to be positive. And of course, it depends on the state of the body. Sometimes it is possible to do, sometimes it just isn't. But I brought you here 75% of all top of page three uh postumous sperm retrievals with within 24 hours. Uh they do find live sperm cells which are suitable to be frozen and then to be used. Now, how do they actually uh extract them? I'm not getting into all of the details. I'm not sure that you want to hear all of the details, but it is important to know that there are different procedures and some are more invasive than others. If it's relatively soon after the person has died, they can actually retrieve the sperm without any invasive surgery at all. Uh they they apply different electrical circuits and they can actually get the sperm sample. So that's a very noninvasive procedure, but the longer it uh goes on, then the harder it gets. Maybe they'd have to extract through a needle, uh, through a biopsy, through a dissection, or sometimes it requires the complete removal of the testicles in order to get the sperm sample obviously of the of the body. And this becomes a really live issue when we get into in a few minutes. Is this justifiable within the of nlame? There's a big difference between a needle and a dissection, and we'll have to have a look at that. So, with all of that um, uh, sort of introduction, let's have a look at some of the hakahik issues. We are going to do some of them today and some of them next week but hopefully it's going to be a real roller coaster. Let's start with something very important. On whom is the burden of proof on the people who want to say it's permitted and on the people who want to say it's prohibited. Meaning are things allowed until they're not allowed or are things not allowed until they are allowed. This is a very important point as we'll see soon. Look at number one. So let's start with a Mishna. A Mishna in yadine. So the mission is discussing what is the status of a hayaradin of the land on the east bank of the Jordan for the purpose of trumat and massrodat what what is their status what needs to be taken in which year and and here uh razaria wants to say that they have to give mass sheni which is a quite a stricture and they'll require people to bring the mass to yushim not getting into any more of the details than that but rabi Ishmael turns around to him and says in number He turns to him who's brought in this on you is the burden to proof to bring a proof for this because you are the one who's trying to be Makmil. So or maybe here the the the burden of proof is on the person who's trying to be strict says anything in we don't already know a specific reason to say it's prohibited then it's automatically permitted. If you don't know of any reason why it's not permitted, then it is permitted. That the Torah doesn't give you a list of things which are allowed, but things which are not allowed or things which are obligated which you wouldn't have expected to be. The Torah doesn't tell you all the things you're not obligated to do and all the things that you are allowed to do. It's not interested in those. And therefore, if we don't have a source seems to say this mission, then we assume that it's permitted. This is why it's going to be very important. People are going to be looking at this issue of nil hame and covet hame because that's where a lot of the hakic detail is and if you can show it's a problem in nilhame that will give you a basis on which to say it's prohibited even though the reason that many people feel it should be prohibited is because it's you know more hashgraphic it doesn't feel appropriate to build a Jewish family this way etc. But they're looking for a real halakic reason as well which we'll see maybe there and in fact zberg the son-in-law he picked up on this Mishnad and said this is axiomatic in this case on the question of uh the PSR that we're talking about here he says as follows number two I want to make it clear at this point you need a reason to say that It's also and if you can't find a reason why it's prohibited this on this particular issue the the default position is permitted unless you can find a reason why it's now not every postk takes this as axiomatic but ra you did and those postkim who support this procedure will be really starting with this position which is if you can't come up with a good solid reason why it's prohibited then given all the upsides of what we're trying to do for the families then uh that will be uh very persuasive. uh however if there is really a halaki problem then then there is um so let's have a look at some of these issues starting now with nlamese I would also just mention just from last week's share whenever new procedures come in we s we talked last week about what we call the precautionary principle that the postkim are usually slow to introduce new things until it's been become clear how they're going to actually integrate in society IVF was very controversial in the early days many postkin including postkim who were usually relatively lenient. Raakim Rabinovich who was not known as a strict postik on many issues was very nervous about IVF because they were worried things were going to get mixed up etc. We talked about this last week but now as the as the decades have gone on and okay there are still challenges it's become clear that IVF is safe and IVS IVF can be a massive uh you know assistance to people in producing children etc. the postgame even postgame who were originally quite strict like Ra Mosha Sternb have gradually over the decades become more and more lenient so so too here people aren't in a rush to say yeah that's fine yeah I'm sure we should do this they're usually quite careful at the beginning and we'll see how where it goes and how it goes and what happens with these families yes sir organ donation >> uh it is different from an organ donation because um you're not just taking out an organ and saving a life you have piku nephesh with regular organ donation kuak nephesh will give us a lot of leeway to do a lot of different things. It won't give us leeway to murder people. So if the person's not hakically dead, we can't take out their organs. But once they're already hakally dead, then all the issues of nlame and cover will to a large degree be set aside because I'm saving lives, multiple lives here. I'm not saving any lives. and producing a life which is not the same as saving a life and I'm producing a life in controversial circumstances which may not necessarily be the way that we want to produce new lives. >> Yeah. Yeah. There's no guarantee but often there's no guarantee with puakesh either but there's at least a sophicesh is still puakish. I want to go on a little bit. There's lots of questions but we'll we'll we'll hopefully have time for them a little bit later. So let's let's start with number three. Let's look at the mitzvah of burying the dead. says the mishb a person is liable for capital punishment and they're killed by the binita and they're hung on the a tree after they're dead. You may not leave the dead body overnight on the tree. That's the mitzvah of you must bury him on that day because what's hanging up there is not just a is an insult for him or his family. It's a person in the image of God. Whatever the image of God means, not physical obviously, but it's a it's a disrespect for for this human being to be left rotting up there. And of course, this was very radical. Think about this. 3,000 years ago, up to 5600 years ago, if you went into any major European city, the first thing you'd see hanging on the walls were all the people that they'd uh murdered and killed just, you know, this is a warning to you. If you don't want to end up like one of these people, you'll keep the rules. So, this already was very radical that even a capital criminal would be buried. You will not uh you know defile the land. It's also about Eric Israel, although this applies across the world. Just in parenthesis, this is a good example of where the Torah learns a Oh, I just remembered I didn't announce the sponsorship. I apologize. I just saw you Josh and realized I didn't say it. Let me say it now because it still works. That the Shirim for the whole year has sponsored um I'm sorry I didn't mention it before, but we'll bear that in mind. Now, this is a good example of where an extreme case is given in the kash to learn out to a more normal case. How do I know that I have a an obligation to bury great uncle Harry uh in time on the same day if possible? Because even a capital criminal, and certainly great uncle Harry was hopefully not one of those, even a capital criminal who is the biggest lowife, why do I even care what happens to him? Let him rot. No, god forbid. He has to be taken down and buried. All the more so someone who is a regular person. We see this in a few cases. Baltasis, where do we learn that we mustn't waste resources? Even in a battle, you may not cut down fruit trees unless it's absolutely necessary. What? Even in a battle? Yes. All the more so other places. Marriage. Where do we see in the Torah that the Torah um obligates a husband to treat his wife properly financially, emotionally, physically, it's an amma? She's the maid. She's been sold into the family by her father because the the family was penniless. in the hope that someone will marry her. One of the people in the family marries her and the Torah says, "You've got to give her all that a Jewish wife deserves." What her? She's lucky to be married to anybody. He's going to say, "Especially me. She's the maid." The answer is, "No, no, I don't care if she's the maid. She's a Jewish wife." All the more so if you don't marry the maid. Sneas is learned in the Torah from a extreme situation when a soldier is in a battlefield, a stressful environment, and it and the Torah tells him, "You've got to keep your dignity. you've got to use the bathroom in a respectful way etc. Even in a battlefield where you say who cares you know who knows what's going to be in five minutes all the more so so here is brought in and there are negative prohibitions look quickly number four you may not keep any mace overnight unless it's for their honor unless it's for their covert and that's going to be an important idea which we're going to see what does it mean for their covert now what if the person says I don't care I don't mind I give you permission to uh to give my body to medical research. I don't want to be buried or at least not until they've you know seen what they can learn from it. Doesn't matter. Rambam number five. Okay. If if if he says that I don't want to be married buried, I don't you don't listen to him. You don't listen to him at all because this is a mitzvah and you will see soon. You don't own your body when you're alive or when you're dead. You have no ownership rights over your body. Certainly not after death. And you may not uh say to your family that I don't wish to be buried. All of the body has to be buried. Does all mean all? All means all. Look at number six says the shami. All of the body not just part of the body. We learn says if you even had a little bit left over you didn't bury. It's very strong statement. This is why zaka do such a mitzvah and they run around finding every little speck of blood and little bit of tissue because it says every single thing that is with a person after they die um has to be buried if not it says it twice. Yeah. >> So that it somewhere leaves a request that their organs should be transplanted. >> Okay, good. So that again nephesh overrides this prohibition. That's pikuak nephesh because puak nephesh overrides everything. It overrides the need to be buried for sure. But that's puquac nephesh >> there. By the way, things that are removed from your body while you're still alive do not have to be buried. And in other religions maybe, you know, they do uh but in Judaism they don't. Although I brought you in the footnotes, there's an interesting story about the Rambam who apparently one second had his toe amputated uh for medical purposes during his life. And after he died, he came back in a dream and asked one of his Talmudian to find the toe and bring it to his burial and pop it into the grave. And apparently this is what happened. This this this is quoted by Rabad Yosef uh as one of the issues. There's a story of the notion's tooth that was uh buried. But that's that's already not required. It's whatever is with the person when they die. I'm sorry I can't take any questions right now. I've really got a lot to do. Um but whatever is buried when they're uh when they die. So that includes a sperm sample as well, does it not? that is part of the body that needs to be buried. Uh number seven says the Mosha finds he quotes this if you didn't bury something left something out then you didn't do this mitzvah at all you have to you have to put limbs in the grave even if the vast majority has been done and you say like oh it's just a tiny little bit we've seen with the soldiers that have come back you know remains and then more remains and more there's mitzvah to bury every single thing that you are able to bury. Okay, fine. However, [clears throat] we delay burial if it's for cover. Who's covered? So, let's have a look at number eight. So, all all bodies have a mitzvah to be buried. Number eight says you have to bury someone says on that day and he brings the every Jew has to be buried on the day they die if you leave the the ma overnight if it's not for their own honor. So we're going to have to ask a question. Is this procedure that we're doing for this soldier, is it vod? So, some will argue, well, if it's to wait for a day or two till relatives come to the funeral from Los Angeles, then all the more so it's to produce a child or to have someone say kadish and it's definitely in uh for their color. On the other hand, um mainly maybe we don't say that to wait for a day or two is a is a temporary delay. To have a sperm sample frozen for years and years and years and years sitting in a freezer somewhere is a very very long delay. And you might turn around and say, "Yeah, but it's just a tiny little bit." The answer is well, it doesn't matter if it's a tiny little bit. We've just seen then that is um then that is potentially a problem. However, there is an interesting heteron chief rabbi in Israel in the 60s and 70s. He had a ruling about corneal transplants. Now coral transplants when they take a cornea from a from a dead body that is not for viku nephesh. That is to help somebody else see. Now that's beautiful and that's a big mitzvah but it's not the same as nephesh. But Raonsman said, "No, but if you take a part of a dead body and you reattach it to a live body so that it comes back to life, then that doesn't have any obligation of burial because that's not called a dead part of the body. It's the body is now alive again." But he said that for isn't it interesting for corial transplants. Would we apply that for the sperm? Is that what we say? You're taking the sperm and you're using it. Okay, the sperm degrades as it does the fertilization, but that's the normal process. It's it's doing what it was designed to do in a live context, uh, etc. So, that's an interesting question that comes up too. And then there's a debate as to whether you're obligated to bury something even less than a kazad. Um, one of the, uh, one of the suggestions is not, but we don't really pass like that and therefore there will be an obligation to bury. However, as we said, uh the cover issue is a a good issue raman's question is a good question and that comes up when it comes to the sperm sample too. What about nla? We are not allowed to do any bis anything which is uh mutilating the mace. So let's look number nine tash if you left the mace overnight for its own cover for its own honor. Maybe to bring them a proper coffin. You didn't have a coffin right there. To bring them shrouds, then that's not prohibited because we learn this from hanging up a criminal on a tree after they've been executed. It's the the prohibition is learned from that circumstance. That's the whole point. It's meant to be for a meant to be for an insult to be degrading to the personal. But if you're doing it for their honor caven the lace bizion since it's not considered to be a biz a disgrace then you are allowed to mutilate the body. How much how what are we allowed to do to a body and still say it's so look at this very important cha of the rashba go over to page five number 10 we'll look at this in full because it's very very interesting. He says the rashba lived in Spain in the 13th 13th century early 14th century uh I think maybe 13th century but he gives the following sha you ask the following ruin this man who died he gave his relatives a command when he died he wants to be buried in his family plot now of course in those days they didn't have freezing they didn't have a morg they didn't you couldn't put you on a plane and take you to Israel they just carried you And if he wasn't close by then he just wasn't shy. And when the man died, the family for whatever reasons beyond their control were prevented from burying and taking to the plot. They couldn't take him straight away and they put him for a temporary burial. They said, "Look, we can't leave him unburied. We're going to bury him temporarily and then we're going to transport him to his family plot." But how long are they going to wait? Because this is their sh the children want to take it ASAP to the family plot. It's not possible now to transport this body because it's decomposing. Actually, it's until the all is turned to bones. Can they pour lie onto the body when they bury it so it will eat away the body and decompose it very very quickly? Is that just a terrible mutilation of the body or not? Very interesting question because on the one hand they're really interfering with the the process of decomposition but on the other hand they're doing it because they want to honor his wishes to go to a family plot. Look what he says. anything like this to disintegrate to the flesh quickly. Permitted completely permitted. There is no dishonor here whatsoever. People who are inbalmed. Sometimes people had to be in bomb. Jacob was inbalmed. Yseph was inbalmed. They rip the body open. They take out the organs. We're not worried that that's painful. Obviously, the person's dead. There's no pain to the body after death. Then we're not worried that it's a they're doing it for their own honor. But if to clear him, to move him from place to place. But there is a principle that we don't reenter people from one grave to another grave. covered by meaning when we say in a princip you're not allowed to reenter people. Let's say they were in a pretty shabby grave with a you know very bad location. My father would like to be buried in the like the rich people's cemetery across the road. It's this person that he's buried with all the the tinkers and the tailor over here. You can't do that. That's not you can't you can't move it. That says the rash is only when there's no real cover to the mace. It's just that you prefer them to be buried in a nicer place. But if there's a real cover, but there you're not even allowed to do it from a bad grave to a good grave. But here to to bury him in a family plot, then that's fine. That's not just a better plot. That's a whole major upgrade. Yeah. That's through the platinum club to be buried in your family plot. It's very pleasant. It's very reassuring for a person to be buried. You see from says bury me with my fathers. Make sure that I'm in the family plot. All the more so when he gave specific instructions, he was buried on on condition that he was going to be taken there. It's definitely permitted and it's a mitzvah for the children to put this lie onto the body in order to be able to reinterpret. Now he said a few important things here. Um he gives a in this case based on number one it was for the honor of the dead. Number two it's explicitly the wishes of the deceased that this is done and number three was that >> but he that was definitely a kibb to be buried in Israel. He's the ultimate kib. You can definitely reenter somebody in Erit Israel. No question about that. Okay, even if it slept for 40 years through the desert, but of course he'd been inbalmed. So that was uh possible to do. And the third thing he says is objectively we see in Tanakh that there is a a major inyan to be buried in your family plot. So let's just look at these issues one by one for our case here. So is uh producing a child considered to be a major cover that will allow you to um to do a nibble her mace here? It's not so clear. Um if there is indeed a widow and no other children and he was trying to raise a family with this woman then yes indeed that would be more likely to be seen as a a covered her mace. What if it was a girlfriend and they didn't know they were going to be married? Okay, you know there's girlfriends and there's girlfriends. his long-term girlfriends and they were on the verge of getting married and there's girlfriend who he's known for a week and a half where that was a completely different thing. Where are you going to draw the line? What is it a covert for this man to have a child raised by parents that he didn't like? He he was estranged by his with his parents and now his parents say we want to have a child and if you'd have asked him during his life he would have been horrified at the idea. What about if the parents are elderly and the child will be brought up by people who are already quite elderly and by the child the time the child is a teenager he'll be looking after two very old uh parents is that necessarily going to be a covered to the mace that's a very difficult question what if the child is going to be raised in a non-observant background with a non-observant family what if the woman who volunteers to do this is not going to raise the child from he's not going to say k's not going to keep mitzvah is that a covert for the mace >> of the soul told you was >> okay. So he would definitely still want someone to say kash for him. We understand afterwards. Have a look at Raash. Ravash is very against this whole procedure. Number 11. We can't use he's talking about an unmarried man who died as an unmarried soldier, not a husband with a widow necessarily. We can't take uh the sperm from a from an unmarried man. The only way we're only going to be able to do it is to take a single woman because he doesn't have a widow. We have to take a single woman as a volunteer. And how are we going to find a single woman who wants to do this and just have a baby as a single woman? We'll never find a for woman that is prepared to do this. Now, I'm not sure that's true necessarily. >> He wants >> So, so well this is Raise. But it it's it's not so straightforward that we'll never find a formal woman. But he's saying we won't find a woman who shits to do that. We'll find a a secular single woman. Okay. And who was expected otherwise? And even secular women. It's not going to be so easy that a woman wants to become pregnant. We're going to have to go to women who don't care if they just get pregnant in any way. the child will be brought up in a hefka environment with their morals, with their values. Again, I'm not sure you can assume this necessarily. He's making that assumption. >> What's that? >> Surrogate doesn't raise the child. >> How do you know why? A surrogate that she's the mother of the child. She's not a surrogate. She is the mother. A surrogate is someone who takes an egg from another woman and a sperm from a man and carries that child and gives it back. this is the mother of the child. It's her eggs that are fertilizing this child. She's going to say, "This is my child. I'm raising this child and and that will definitely be upheld in a court of law. She is the She is the mother. If we do find a way to maintain this person's children, this this will not be mitzvah. What what merit is it for the father if the son is not from just like a son brings merit to the father when the son is righteous he says so you can't just use this argument of covered to give an automatic now I'm not saying that this is always going to apply in every case maybe you'll find d maybe it'll be a second cousin who's very form and she says I want d was very close but he's saying that this is something you can't just assume because the rashba that he was a covert in that case that it will be a covered in this case. Also the rashbasa was to bury the body. It was to help the burial of the body. It was very specifically related to the issue of but in this case it is not. It's something different. Do we find in Tanakh that the need to have children is objectively identified as something which is something that people definitely want to happen? Of course the answer is look at the top of page six. Rael says to she says she realized she had no children she was jealous of her sister whatever that means I'm not getting into that now but she says to her husband if I don't have children I'm dead I need to have a h I need to have a uh generations after me and therefore you see there that there is definitely an identific ification in of this need no less than being buried in a family plot as a as a as a core need that people have. However, that assumes that the child is indeed the child. Which is why we need to look at next week's sh because if we turn around and say as we'll see is says that this child has noic connection to the sperm donor at all and he doesn't fulfill any mitzvah through it at all. Then where where are we going with this? She's saying I want my children I want children to give take me forward. No, I want children with who are fatherless. And you'll say, well, isn't it obvious that he's the father? You have to come back next week for that and see that next week. The neshkall brings this in a very interesting situation. Um the there is a case and I brought you in the footnotes in the uh in the Mishna ink where this is a well-known case that if a woman Rahman Alan is dying during childbirth uh you're allowed immediately obligated even to cut open the woman which will which will obviously mutilate the body in order to save the baby. So back in those days by the way there was no way to do a ceerian in a way that the mother would live that only we've only be able to do that for a couple of hundred years but this woman had already died nebak in childbirth and therefore we were safe. Why why is that okay? So you could say well it's okay for pikuak nephesh it's not so straightforward as piku nephesh because this fetus is not yet alive. So is there yes we'll break shabas to save the fetus and so maybe it's nephesh but the eshk says a different thing. Look at number 13. Why are we allowed to mutilate the body of the woman who died in childbirth? Even though we're never allowed to mutilate a body and here we are. But for the covered of the mace, it is permitted. So too in this case of the woman and the child, we are allowed to cut her open to save the child. Why not? Because she wants her family to live on. She needs a she wants children who are alive. Not just stamp nephesh. It's her child. And therefore, it may well be a major uh a major benefit spiritually as well, which will allow us to do nla mace. What about the third angle? The rashba said that this man was allowed to have the lie port on his body because he specifically said that he wanted that to happen. How important is the other wishes of the person? We'll see that generally in a few minutes. Um but um there are a few other uh examples of where we have uh uh where we have permission to to desecrate a body. Have a look for a second. We'll do this quite quickly because we I don't want to run out of time. Um look at number 14 15 16. This is a Mishna in in which talks about which um which kaim are tame and which kaleim going to look at scene in a second. First of all um first of all we have we're going to have a look at uh sorry that's the skull. Let's look at first in number 14. We're not allowed to smash the bones of a dead body. We're not allowed to cut the tendons unless they Does that happen um automatically? We're not allowed to intervene in any way to to to to to cut up or to fold or to make smaller the dead body. And the shar brings that down. That's called the nlame. You're not allowed to do this. However, here's the Mishnim that I was thinking about before. If you look at number 16, if you found any vessel in how do I know if it's tahor or tame? People wanted to know is this tahor or tame? Can they use it? Can they if they're tame if they're tahor rather? So Rabio Rabio says all vessels found in are assumed to be obviously the time of the mikdash apart from the basket and the and the rake all these different vessels that are specific to burial they they they they put them in a bag to move the bones. What is this marita? So to cut a long story short, 17 and 18, this maritza was a cle that they used to smash up the bones so that they could fit them into the basket in order to carry them to the oie. Meaning what they used to do back in those days is they used to put people out in a cave in order to to decompose and then after a year or two or whatever they take to decompose, they would bring the bones and they would bury the bones together with in the family sort of box. We found many many of these oiris uh and sometimes you couldn't you know get the body in the basket that you needed to transport it. So you this is a vessel this is a cle that is used dfka to smash up the body in a way that you're allowed to you're able to get it in the into the basket. Now there's no question that this is allowed. The Radvas says why is this allowed? Cover a mace. It's covered a mace. Once it's covered a mace, then it's automatically allowed. There's a story of Ravgorin when Ravgorin was given permission to go behind enemy lines in the 50s in order to retrieve bodies. There was the lam and there was the people, you know, there were there were they were in enemy lines, beyond enemy lines. uh he he did this and he came back and he was very nervous that he'd uh in some way insulted or or disturbed or done anything with the bones that was not appropriate and he was very worried about this and he had a say he used to learn uh gammora I think seven blat a day he used to learn seven daff of yushami a day seven daff of bavly a day and it's like dafomi on speed yeah um but uh and that day when he came back this was one of the garas that he was learning in scalm that you're allowed to move to this this this this meth uh what's it called Again, Marita. This Marita is a clea that Dapka used to smash up the body, but it was permitted because it was for covered her mace. Okay, let's go on page seven. This is a Gomorra that we've looked at before, and I'm going to very quickly look at this. There is a question about autopsies. Are you allowed to perform an autopsy in order to determine the cause of death? And the Gomorrah asked this question. And the Gammorrah asked this question in the following context. I'll explain this outside. Let's say you have a criminal who commits a murder and we're going to inflict in inflict capital punishment. We're going to kill this murderer for having committed murder. But we need to find out whether the victim was any way going to die within a certain amount of time. If the victim was a trafer, a trafer is somebody who has a disease which would in any way cause them to die within a year. Now, it's still murder to kill somebody even if they only have a minute to live. But technically speaking, we will not kill, we will not execute the murderer if the person, if the victim was a trafer. So says the Gmorrah, we need to do an autopsy on the victim to check whether they anyway had a disease because we can't kill this murderer. It's nephesh. Okay, he's a murderer. We're going to lock him up, but it's nephesh to kill him if he doesn't really if he's not liable for the death penalty. And the Gammorian there in the end concludes you won't be able to tell from an autopsy because the person has been murdered and you won't it's just a mess anyway and you won't be able to get the answer because you won't be able to get a clear answer then no you're not able to do nlamese so the not was asked a question about people being left for medical research in the 1800s uh in 1700s in the 18th century and he says you see from this Gomorrah that you are allowed to do an autopsy if indeed It will give information which will help you do nephesh. The gmorrah said there's no point doing it because it won't help. But he says it's clear from this gamorrah that it will help uh if it will help then you're definitely allowed to do it. And therefore he said that we are allowed to perform an autopsy if there is a realenu. There's a real question that in today's world there's a there's a relative that may have a condition that is the condition that the person died from and we need to know is this is there a heart defect? Is there anything? will definitely be allowed to do an autopsy. But he only permits this for nephesh because he says that is clearly covered hame to do a uh to do an autopsy and also is overridden by the mitzvah of nephesh. How exactly that applies to our case is not clear because again we don't have a clear case of nefesanu. Um and therefore the whole discussion about autopsy which I just brought in that you're aware of may not help us very much. But what may help us is Ra Moshi Feinstein. He has a chin number 21 where he says that any procedure that you would perform on a live person that they will be willing to undergo by definition is not a problem of nlamese. Very interesting. He was asked by his uh son-in-law Rav Mosha Tendler, are we allowed to take blood from a body to do a toxology uh report uh in order to see what the issues were? And Rav Mosha says yes because a live person would for sure consent to have their blood taken from them and therefore that's that cannot be considered to be a desecration of a dead body if a living person would have it done to them. But if you're going to cut people open as a dead body, so a living person would not be uh would not agree to be cut open. Now the question is well maybe it depends. Maybe they would agree to be cut open depending on what the outcome is. For example, I heard a a debate about this and somebody said uh a man would allow a needle to be inserted into his body to remove sperm in order to produce a child, but he wouldn't allow his testicles to be cut off in order to produce a child. And therefore immediate intervention within the first 24 hours is not nil hermes but later it will be nil hermes. And my question is well how do you know that a person wouldn't do that? Maybe if you told a person this is your only opportunity to have a child and this is a very major surgery that we're going to have to do but if we do this surgery you will be able to produce maybe more than one child. We'll take sperm and we'll produce multiple children. Maybe a person would agree to do that. So it's very hard to know what exactly a person would or would not uh agree to do. Let's look at a couple of other issues just before we finish. Um I'm going to skip a little bit the top of page eight. Burial is a source of capora. And there's a very interesting question. Do we bury people because uh not to bury them is a biz says the Gmorra or it's delaying their capara? They only really get a full capara when they are fully buried and they've had the time for the body to actually disintegrate. So delaying the burial is delaying their capara. And then we have a a question here. Well, maybe producing a child is the biggest kapar you can possibly give to this dead soldier. Um because you know a child to say kadesh is even better than uh than a normal kapar. And then you get the question that we we understand there is that opinion of the maram of rottenberg that somebody who has killed alkidesh doesn't need any more kapar because they have the highest possible kapar already. So any steps that you could possibly think of taking to make him give him a greater kapar are completely unnecessary because there is no greater kapar than someone who died alkashem and I brought you in the footnote especially someone who god forbid was burnt alkashem that is the highest level of kapar of all and even though we do lice to say kades for people who who died alkesh nevertheless uh this is a factor which is discussed couple of other issues benefiting from the dead are you allowed to benefit from the dead. There is a prohibition generally of benefiting from a dead body. Is using this sperm that's retrieved a prohibition of benefiting from the dead? Yes or no? Is this called a benefit to produce a child? So, a few things. Number one, we normally have a principle of mitzvah. To do a mitzvah is not called benefit. Doing mitzvah is an obligation. It's not called a benefit. Getting money is a benefit. Something else is a benefit, but not this. So maybe if we're doing a mitzvah pur ravu, then it's not called a benefit. There's no problem benefiting from a dead body. But is it purvu next week? If it's not purvu, then you can't say um we said before also maybe it's not benefit. It's not a dead body. It's now been retransplanted into a live um a live use. And therefore we saw before with the cornea. Um there are other debates as well uh which you can look at in your on your own as to as to whether that's considered an issue. Who owns body parts? Rav Mosha Feinstein has a chuvo where he's absolutely clear that the person does not own their body when they're alive and when they're dead. Calv the parents don't own the body. Nobody owns this body. Obviously you have a mitzvah to do mitzvah with your body. You can give kidneys away as a live transplant because that's a mitzvah. But that's not because you own your kidneys. It's because you have an obligation to try to do mitzvah. And therefore, even though it's not obligatory to give a live donation, it's definitely an enormous mitzvah and you're doing a good thing with your body. But you can't own your body to the point, says Raosha, that you want to do something which is prohibited. Again, the Shiloh was of leaving your body to medical research. Maybe someone will find a cure for cancer because of my body. The answer is that's not yours to decide. the body does not belong to you. And the last few sources I'll just mention uh which I think are very important. Let's say the soldier says I insist I want this to be done. I want my parents to have a grandchild. I want my widow to have a child. And they write down explicitly that they instruct people to do this after they die. So on the one hand number 27 says the garraitzvahim. There's a special mitzvah to follow the wishes of the mace. On the other hand, that's for financial purposes. That's not for anything other than financial. Or is it? Can we apply that to this or is it beyond the ambits of that says actually the consent of the deceased is very important. Look at number 28. Are you allowed to take the semen, the the sperm in order to produce a baby and to leave him a son or a daughter, someone in the world who will carry on his name? Without the permission of the dead body of of the person who died rather, it's only if you are fulfilling their wishes. And then he adds very important or even if we don't have explicit permission if we can reasonably assume that this is what they wanted to do. Okay. There is no prohibition. And we we see the the facts in addition to this a person with the Torah gives a lot of focus a lot of weight to a person's wish to have a in the world and he brings what is the whole purpose of that we're going to allow the brother-in-law to marry the widow which is normally prohibited as one of the to marry your brother-in-law we're going going to allow it to to be makim shame you see says how important that is comes along rais and says I'm astounded that goldberg is bringing ideas about yum the the the spirit of the law of yumot and applying it to this he says you can't do that you can't just say this feels like yum it's not yum it's something quite different to yum yum requires a man and a woman and a relationship or a khalita. This is not yum. And he's very very unhappy with the idea that we can start bringing over ideas of yum into this mitzvah which we'll talk a little bit more about last week. And even I'll finish with this and that we are only halfway through this topic says in clearly number 29 on the last page to any anyone else other than the widow the parents in they don't have any standing in this issue because other relatives may have interests in this. Let's say the man who died owned $100 million and he leaves it to his only brother. Okay, but he wants his sperm preserved and it may be in three or four years that there'll be two little boys produced from this who will say actually that's our $100 million. Uncle Harry, please give please give the money back because it never belonged to you. So other relatives get all sorts of conflicts and interests in this as we'll see. So we are only halfway through this topic. There's more to read on the sheet than I gave you. Next week we will continue hashem and we'll finish this topic uh at least to the to the extent that we can.