Torah Yerushalayim: Posthumous Insemination & Progeny for Israel's Fallen Heroes | Rabbi Aschi Dick

Okay, it is my incredible to be able to introduce Rabbi Ashi Dick. Raashi is a popular Jerusalem based Torah educator whose ou classes including the from haka controversy to contemporary norm series and weekly presentations to the modin koboker and modin area lunch and learn focus on contemporary ala and Jewish thought. He's the author of of respons published as sh is which has been cited by rehearsal has the at least the most recent volumes of his recorded address topics such as brain death all the very simple and raashi as he will not disappoint this evening is going to take on yet another complicated and very sensitive topic ina and that's a topic of postumous insemination and progeny for Israel's fallen heroes. Rabbi Dick Shir this evening has generously been dedicated anonymously in honor of the tireless work of the U staff and the outstanding U Mid Shirim. It is a great skill to introduce Rabbi Ashi Dick. >> Good evening everyone. Thank you, Rabbi Sam, and the incredible staff of the OU. Uh, if I had more time, I would try to do that. Thank you justice. Good evening, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. Pleasure to see all of you. Some familiar faces. Uh, Rabbi Sam, you're absolutely correct. A very complicated, technical, and very sensitive topic. Um, this reference sheet that you have before you has approximately 100 sources. Um, I have to confess that when I put together the source sheet, it came out to 200 sources. I said, I can't do this. Uh, I'm going to obviously have a wide ranging uh audience, different levels of scholarship. Some people have had a yeshiva education, some people have not. Um, I will try my best to make it inspirational and uh try to draw some conclusions despite the technical difficulty and the sensitivity of this topic. Uh, it's a very appropriate title for this year, our fallen heroes. I want to just preface by quoting the Shut Hamil. The Maril was the leader of of German jewelry 14th century. He quotes Rudenberg. Moram Murenberg you may be familiar with um he the he was rans he was put up for ransom and he refused to be taken out of a prison he died alkashem so the maharil quotes the marami rutenberg as having given the if somebody dies al-qashem dying to sanctify the name of hashem no kadesh is necessary the marel writes Presumably the reason is is because since they're so holy no kadesh is necessary. The kadesh is to uplift the soul to sanctify the soul but if somebody diesem there's nothing greater than that and there's no way that kadesh could be said. I would not say that this is I wouldn't say that we should now not say kadesh for anybody who died alkashem the maril disagrees. He says there's always greater greater levels that the nishama that the Jewish soul could rise to. However, I think that the opinion of the Mamamei Ruenberg definitely illustrates a very moving point. Often times people will begin this year by saying this is leu nishmas. This is for the elevation of the fallen soldiers. For me, I rarely say that not because uh the thought and the sentiment doesn't resonate with me, but because I feel that these soldiers are so great. I don't think that they need an uh if anything, we should be thinking about the heroism that we should have in that we can learn from their ways and that we the living could elevate our nishas. Like I've used to say to people, oh you're making aliyah. So he says, may the aliyah have an okay so that's just a bit of a preface. Now um part of the issue that illustrates the tragedy is the issue tonight insemination. A lot of these soldiers are dying childless. It's absolutely heart-wrenching. I have mentioned to the attendees of my various shirim that it's difficult for me to make the trip from Har to Talbia or to Raavia or wherever else I'm giving this year because along the way I am seeing pictures of hostages and pictures of fallen soldiers. So we're living in very difficult times. it. There are many mixed emotions because Rabbi Goldam used to say that if I want to see Hashem I go to Mahud is coming alive but there are a lot of birth panges. Okay, we're in the process of the birth of the gula of the redemption. All of Israel is coming back but the birth panges are difficult to deal with. So a lot of mixed feelings. This issue again as I said highlights the issue of young soldiers dying leaving young widows and there have been cases already where the widow requests to be impregnated prostimously uh using the seed of her late husband and this has raised a stormy controversy. The newspaper Bashva has already run at least three or four articles. Some rabbis are saying that this is a good thing. Some rabbis are saying that this is something problematic. Some of the popular arguments is that how can you bring a child into the world if he's going to be born an orphan. One rabbi that thought that this was a compelling argument was Rabanovich Goldberg. All of a sham rejected the argument. He said, "We don't make up prohibitions that have not been codified in Jewish law or that do not find a solid source in Jewish law." He gave a very humorous mushel from the Dubna Magged. The Dubna Magged quotes the Mishna in a we know. You are born without having chosen to be born. You will leave this world whether you like it or whether you don't against your will. You're going to have to give an accounting after your passing. How did you live your life? Were you a good person? Were you an honest person, a loving person? So the mag gives a marshall a parable. you in town in the you had a blind man and a deaf man and a renowned doctor came to town. It was told that this doctor could cure the blind and could cure the deaf. So these two men ran to the doctor. But here was the catch. The blind man had a wife who was not very pretty. Okay, she had other qualities but that was not her quality but she was a sweetheart. Okay, and the blind man was very happily married. The deaf man had a beauty queen as a wife but she used to scream a lot but he was very happy couldn't hear her. The blind man is cured now we can see. The deaf man is cured. Now we can hear and their lives become miserable. Because the blind man is looking at his wife and says, "Oh, who did I marry?" The deaf man starts to hear his wife's screaming all the time. He says, "O, I can't handle this." So they take the doctor to a diner and they say, "Look, you cured us, but you turned our lives into hell, so we don't want to pay you or we want a refund." So the doctor said, "Fair enough. No problem. I'll give you a full refund, but you the blind man, I'm going to make you blind again. And you, the deaf man, I'm going to make you deaf again." And they said, "Oh, no, no, no, no, no thank you." So the rabbi said, "Okay, thank you very much. You pay your dues." Okay. In other words, basically, you prefer to be able to see. You prefer to be able to hear. And uh Rabbi Zman Goldberg uses this marshall uh to explain why if somebody's born and wants to live, you can't say that his birth was not meaningful, that his birth was not desirable just because he is born into circumstances that are not ideal. The fact is is that if any of these orphans were born, surely they would wish to live. I mean under normal circumstances. So Zalma Goldberg does not find merit in that argument. There have been other issues that have been raised regarding the issue of cav is respectful to the body if they need to extract extract the seed the sperm posimously. Is that a disrespect to the body of the mace? Some people argued it's disrespectful. Some have argued it's not disrespectful. Uh again there was a story uh written in Rabbi Gorin, Rabbi Schlomorin the unforgett forgettable chief rabbi of Israel and chief rabbi of the IDF. He has a a beautiful book of memoirs called Bugv. I encourage everybody to go out and buy the book if you haven't yet done so. It's a very nice work. And in one of the chapters there, he describes how uh shortly or actually in the midst of the 1948 war of independence, he managed to attain permission from the Jordanians to go behind enemy lines to retrieve the bodies of the Kadoshim, the fallen soldiers from Gushkatif, the Lamv, those great soldiers. And uh Rabbi Gorin said he managed to get behind the enemy lines and there was a lot of work. He had to get the soldiers of the bodies of those fallen soldiers and put their bones in the caskets and he tried to line up the bones as respectfully as he could. And uh he saw that the coffins were being shifted were being moved around and the bones got jumbled. And as the day came to the end, he broke down crying because he felt that he may have disrespect. He may have acted in a way that could have accorded more respect to these fallen soldiers. He said that he had a min. Rabbi Goran used to learn a seven da or seven and a half da from the Talmud Bavi another seven and a half daff from the Talmud Yoshalami so that he could finish all of Shas every year. Now he was a busy man. He was going behind enemy lines trying to get back bodies of soldiers. Uh he was a general in the army. He had the entire IDF to run. So he says he had a little garum a bi and your shami and when he was on the jeep he would learn those garumaras those black garumaras if any of you think the dafomi is too challenging okay he used to learn seven daff of babi seven daff of your shami and uh that day was no exception after having worked the entire day to get the bodies into the coffins he sat down to learn his seven daff of babi and his seven daff of yalmi and then he was learning Uh now the it's quoted in the reference sheet I think uh if you want to see I will apologize that the referee will be jumping around a little bit tonight because we don't have time to go through all the references that will be your homework. uh 71 in the reference sheet, the mission inculum talks about which vessels found in Jerusalem could be assumed to be tahor, could be assumed to be ritually pure and which vessels have to be assumed as being non pure. Okay, as being uh impure and um the garra says all vessels you can assume they're pure. Again, purity and impurity was a major issue in those times. If you go to the southern excavations or almost anywhere else in Israel, Msada, you name it, you will see mikvahot ritual baths everywhere because everybody needed a ritual bath if you wanted to eat uh from the carbonote. If you were a cohen, you needed to be pure all the time so that you can eat from trauma. And anyways, anybody who was considered a who was considered a pious religious person would always try to be pure whenever he could. So that was a major part of life. Today obviously it is not such a central part of our lives but back then it was. So you can assume that any vessel that is found you can assume that it had been into it been uh immersed in a mikvah. You can assume that that vessel is pure. that people don't allow non-pure utensils lying around. So the exception is these three vessels, the s the basket, the mraa and the marit. Now these are utensils or vessels that are used for transporting the bones of the deceased. Uh the Oshami tells us they used to bury the deceased in one location and then when the body decomposed they would take the bones and transported to the ancestral burial plot. So these were vessels that were used for transporting the bones. The sal is a basket. They used to carry the bones in the basket. A graphi is a kind of a shovel that they used to use for moving the bones from one vessel to the other vessel. And the marita now there's a little bit of ambiguity. What does the marita mean? And we'll quote the opinion of the Rambam in this parish of Mashia which is number 72 in the reference sheet where the Rambam describes how this Marissa would be used for breaking the bones of the deceased so that they could get into the basket. That is also the explanation of the miri number 73 and number 74. Rabbi Oadar Turo the two Pharisees scroll number 75 in this reference sheet finds this explanation extremely perplexing he says you're not allowed to break the bones of somebody who's passed away that's not respectful to the mace it's not respectful to the corpse why on earth were they breaking the bones of the deceased so number 76 in the reference sheet which is the Radvas Rid Iban Ezra who was the head of the B in Alexandria approximately 500 years ago. He says the reason why it's permitted to do so again the two Pharisees lived uh three centuries after the so he didn't see the but had he seen this radvas he would have not had this difficulty the and I'm put that point I put those points in bold he says we're allowed to break those bones to take them from one location to the next we can assume to you. They wouldn't do so just because it was necessary to give to give honor to the deceased because it is the honor of the deceased to be able to be buried in his ancestral plot. So therefore, we have permission to even break the bones if that's what gives honor to the deceased. Rabbi Gorin learned this Mishna. He came across this a piece of Talmud on the evening after he had spent the day transporting the bones of these fallen heroes after having broke after having broken down crying because he felt that he maybe didn't treat them with enough respect. And this is the Mishna. This is the piece of Tamil that Rabbi Goran came across and he said that was a sign from heaven that told him what you're doing is approved of in heaven that you're doing the right thing and the fact that the bones shifted around or may have been not treated with as much respect as had hoped for there's nothing to worry about. He was doing this work shayim. So how does this relate to our topic tonight? Um sometimes according to certain claims sometimes uh maybe even a certain body part of testicle might have to be removed from the deceased soldier in order to improve the chances of inseminating the deceased. So some people say that's not allowed. You're not allowed to do that. Well, if it gives honor to the deceased, then it's okay. The eshkal says that the greatest honor that you can give to a person is by giving him progeny. Okay? Okay. And that's the title of tonight Shir um right progeny and legacy for Israel's fallen heroes. Okay. Yeah. Insemination of progyny for Israel's fallen heroes. So we have a lot of talmudic sources. I can provide them with you but we don't exactly have the time. But it's certainly logical that to give somebody who has passed away to give progeny to give him continuity so that his name will carry on. That is the cavod. That is the honor of the mace. And we have a very compelling case coming from this Mishna that we learned about breaking the bones of the deceased in order to give them honor. By that same token, we should be allowed to even remove a body part if necessary in order to give honor to these great people. So I think that this issue is really a non-starter. Um I've written to postkim they accept my argument. They agree and there are many more proofs to this. So one issue that was raised about bringing a child into the world uh as an orphan that's something very subjective it should be the choice of the parent should be choice of the mother we don't have any source for that goldberg rejects that argument with his humorous mshel which actually explains the mishna which says you are created against your will you pass away against your will and you're going to have to give a den Why? Because a person could get get up there and say, "God, you didn't ask me if I want to be born. So you can't hold me accountable for uh my actions." He says, "Did you want to live?" Every said remember us for life. Most people do want to live. So if you wanted to live, you can't claim Hashem, you didn't give me a choice about being born or not. You wanted to live. So therefore, you also have to give an accounting for your actions. the same way that these two people, this deaf person, this uh blind person would have to pay the doctor because that's what they wanted. If you wanted to see and you wanted to hear, you can't complain that your life deteriorated as a result of being cured. Okay? Now, there's one, and this is going to be the most technical part of the shar. So, I'm going to try to simplify it as much as we could, but bear with me. Okay. Number one in the reference sheet, this is a very bizarre account in the Talmud. Uh as we know the kong needs to marry a bata, a virgin and the Gmorra discusses the bizarre case in Bett in the bath. Okay. Now scientifically that's probably close to impossible. Um I don't know if there is any uh recorded medical case of a woman getting pregnant in this way. Um the Rashbates who was the chief rabbi of Northern Africa 800 years ago claims that this did happen in his community. He was even asked about it. So it's probably extremely unlikely. But actually the discussion has great ramifications for the whole topic of uh IVF in vitro fertilization and the topic that we're addressing tonight. Um the Gumar discusses about a woman getting pregnant in the bath but she's still a virgin. Can she marry a coal? The conclusion of the garumar is that she's still a virgin. She's allowed to marry the high priest the coangut. Okay. Number two. Okay. I know this is going to get a little bit more bizarre. the Bach intu parrot. Raenu Paris was a French scholar from the reishonim at the end of the period of the rishonim and he says that a woman should be careful about lying about lying on a bed sheet where another man lied because she might get pregnant. Okay, I know this sounds even more bizarre than the previous case. Now forget about the scientific probability of such a thing happening. It carries great import and this is why says Rabz if a woman gets pregnant and she's under the assumption that she got pregnant from her husband but she really didn't get pregnant from her husband she got pregnant from another man because she lied on his bed sheet. Okay, excuse the bizarre insensitive uh nature of this topic. We have a problem. She's going to give birth to a child. Let's say a girl. Comes time for shidim. She's gonna find a nice boy. They're going to get engaged. She may not be under the impression that that boy to whom she got engaged is actually her brother. Why? Because that is the son of that anonymous sperm donor. Okay? Who actually unintentionally impregnated this woman's mother. So this uh boy and girl who are brothers and sisters are going to get married. Okay, that's the unbelievable proposition coming from the Rabu parents. Now, why does this have relevance? Because it tells us the first step in understanding this complicated issue. That is that a person is considered the father whether he impregnated his wife through uh natural means the common way of impregnating a woman or if it was done in vitro or not through a unification not through relations between a husband and a wife. So he still has the the status of aik father. Um why? Because this point was debated, right? Because some rabbis did come along and say, "Hey, we know biologically the father is whoever provided or from the the the person from whom the sperm was extracted." That's we don't have any questions about who the biological father is. But who is the father? Maybe in hala you need to have a child through the common way of having a child, a unification between a man and a wife. Uh maybe that's what you need in order for somebody to have the status of the father comes per through this very bizarre case and tells us no you have the status of the father even if it didn't come even if the pregnancy did not come as a result of intercourse. Okay is that clear so far? Okay, let's move on. Here we get a case from the no to be huda. Tragic case number three in the reference sheet. There was a woman from the Kahila of Gdong. I don't know where that is. Not relevant for tonight's discussion. Uh unfortunately her husband was ill uh and passed away. Now the child was this was a young couple married for seven years. They did not have children. And then after her husband dies, she gets pregnant. And nine months exactly after her husband's death, she gives birth to a beautiful baby girl. Okay. Now rumors start to arise. How did this woman get pregnant? So she says, "Well, I went to mikvah. I had relations with my husband on the 28th day of ER. He passed away on the 29th day of ER." So rumors started to people were whispering. He was on his deathbed. He was surrounded with people. How did you have a a moment to be intimate with your husband? and you weren't able to get pregnant for seven years and all of a sudden you managed to get pregnant and not only that we saw you go into the carriage the agala and there was a young man there and maybe he was the one that made you pregnant. Now why was this so important? Not just because you want we wanted to know if the daughter was the daughter the biological daughter of this deceased man because this man died and left one brother who was three years old. Now as we know there's an obligation of khalita that if a man dies childless there has to be a khalita or a yum performed by the brother of the deceased childless man. Okay. Now, there's one brother. He's three years old. In order for him to perform a kosher khalita, you have to wait to the age of 13. That means this poor woman is going to have to remain an auna for 10 years until her husband's only brother grows up so that he can do khalita. So, she says, "I don't need to do khalita because my late husband gave me this beautiful baby girl." And they said, "Well, I think you do need to do khalita because your husband doesn't have offspring. That little girl came from the boy in the carriage." Okay. So, they send the Shilah to the Behud. The Buddha says, "Leave this woman alone, right? She's innocent. Uh, all those claims made against her are totally unfounded." So, she went into a carriage with a boy. For heaven's sake, you're not going to question the the presumption of innocence just because a woman once went into a carriage where there was a guy there. So, forget about it. He says he was on the deathbed. So what? Okay, that doesn't mean that he could not have impregnated her, especially if she want if she made efforts to become pregnant so that she shouldn't have to wait 10 years for her husband's only brother to make her pregnant and excuse me, for her husband's only brother to either perform even more. So the um no says this woman is innocent leave her alone. Anybody who makes any claims that this little girl of hers did not come from her deceased husband is being multi-ishra. We talked in the previous sh about the importance of lashhara and how words can damage and as you can imagine this woman after having lost her husband right is obviously griefstricken and now she has to deal with liel. So the bihuda says I want these rumors to cease immediately. says the however I have another issue. She went to make she had relations with her husband on the 28th of ER. The husband dies on the 29th of ER. She says the inception may have occurred only after the death of her husband. Okay. Uh a sperm could remain viable for up to three days. According to the rabbi science says three days, maybe in rare circumstances up to five days. She may have had her ovulation even after her husband died and there may have been unification by with the oam and the sperm after her husband was dead. That means that when the husband died there was no offspring. Now he says I have no doubt that this girl is the child of the deceased man. In other words, she's entitled to her father's inheritance or her inheritance. She's entitled to her father's estate. that I have no doubt about. She is definitely the child. He says that I have no questions about. But maybe there still is an obligation to perform because at the time of the death there was no offspring. Are we following this? I see some faces. >> Rabbi, I need a a a watch. I don't know. I don't have I don't know what time it is. I have 10 minutes. >> 15. >> 15 minutes. Great. I'm going to give the most complicated topic in Allah I ever gave in 15 minutes. Yeah. >> Correct. Says the it was a very nice theory of mine, but it's wrong. Okay. Because the only thing that the Torah really cares about is when you get to the final chapter of this story when you look at the end result. Has this man left offspring? Yes or no? So even though when he died, he was totally childless. But the fact is that eventually we come to know that this man has offspring. So therefore there is no obligation of yum and khalita and that has been the unanimous opinion of alaposkim. Everybody accepts the final ruling of the meaning to say everybody agrees that the bura's clever argument or his clever havina is incorrect. Okay. So therefore the Torah cares does this man have offspring? Does this man not have offspring? We don't look at the time of the death, but we look at what eventually happens. Okay? And uh there's a lot of proofs to that. They're very complicated. Maybe I'll try to illustrate one of the proofs. Okay? Uh I'll bring one proof that isn't very compelling, but it's a very clever proof. Um we know that uh Boas lifts with root. Uh, right. The medish tells us that Boaz died the very night that he lived with root. And the Torah tells us Yehuda, the king of Judah has to be from the offspring of of Yehuda. >> What >> the Torah tells us that the king of Israel has to or the king of Judah has to come from the offspring of Yehuda. Okay. So David had to be from the offspring of Yehuda. Boaz was a descendant of Yehuda. David was a descendant of Boaz. Again, Boaz lived with Roose. They had the child oved who had the childish who had the child Davidid. So you see that even though the conception uh may have happened after Boaz's death, Boaz lived with Rouse and died that very night, you still see that Dovavid is considered the offspring of of Boaz. And you see there was no obligation of Khalita. Okay, so that's a kind of an interesting proof. It's not the best proof in the world, but it definitely is a very interesting proof. Okay, now I want to move to part three of this year. Okay, this is going to be the most difficult part of this year. I hope so far things have been clear. Uh number 17 in the reference sheetto if the yum right is actually performed somebody marries the widow of his deceased brother. So he's entitled to the entire inheritance. Okay, that's what the Mishna tells us. It says, the Torah tells us, which means to say, not only does he take the widow to build the legacy of his deceased brother, he also is entitled to the entire estate of his deceased brother. The Gomorrah explains as we said now that was the argument of the daughters of if you recall Rash quoting the Gomatra that said look if we're considered offspring to uh exempt our mother from having to perform meaning to say our father is considered to have left offspring because we're alive because we live so therefore for we should also receive the inheritance. That's what they're saying. We should also get a portion in the land of Israel because of our father. So what's coming very clear is that the whole issue of taking the inheritance of being an heir being a a child being child and the obligation of are mutually inclusive they are completely interdependent. uh you cannot have a reality where somebody has aic offspring and as we said it's unanimous and even the agrees that even if a child is conceived after the death of his parent he's still considered the hakik offspring and he will be entitled to inherit his late father who he never met. In fact he was conceived after his father had passed away but he's still the uh heir. He's entitled to his father's inheritance. That means that he must also have the capacity to exempt his mother from the obligation of Imal because inheritance and the obligation of Imah are two realities that are completely mutually inclusive. Which means to say that if the woman conceives after the death and um she gives birth to a child, this child is the offspring of the light man. the child is going to inherit his late father. That means he also has the capacity to exempt his mother from khalita. So therefore I make the argument and a number of rabbis have agreed with me, a number of rabbis have disagreed with me that if a woman is posostimously inseminated which is an issue that we deal with today because there has been a number of requests coming from the widows of fallen IDF soldiers to be impregnated with her husband's sperm that have been frozen that have been uh preserved. So just as those children will inherit their father, those children will also exempt their mother from khalita. Okay, that's the argument. I may I'm giving you just a few proofs, but there's a very long discussion we can get into, but we don't have the time. Is this clear so far? Would anybody like to ask any questions? >> Organ donations. >> Correct. Why couldn't be allowed to donate this sperm as a quot organ? >> Yeah, we have no issue. I I I maintain the humble position that it is permissible to to impregnate the one posimously if if that was the express wish of the deceased soldier and that is also the wish of the almana. Zam Goldberg says as long as we can establish a a compelling case that this fallen soldier would have liked his seat to be usedly and that is also the desire of the widow. So there is problem with that. We don't have any alic issues with it. Some people raised the issue of a child being born into orphan orphanhood. We already discussed that. That's not an issue according to Goldberg. We discussed the problem of hame. Is it considered disrespectful to the body to extract the sperm posimously? We'll get into that discussion if we have time. But we're saying that no, anything that's done to give honor to the deceased is something which is permissible and encouraging. Okay, here comes the issue. Until now, we've discussed a case where the soldier donated his sperm while he was still alive, which means to say that the sperm came from a living body. Are we going to distinguish that with a case where the sperm was taken from a dead body, where the sperm was extracted after the man died? There are a number of host that would like to make that distinction and I heard that I think Rabbi Yakob Ariel wants to make that argument that yes I will acknowledge that if the sperm was donated during the man's lifetime I will agree that that child is the offspring we're making the argument here tonight that he would also have the capacity to exempt his mother from the obligation of khalita uh the question is do we distinguish that with a case where the sperm was taken from a dead body now say no if it was taken from a dead body. So he wasn't alive. So as a person who was not alive, he didn't have that capacity to confer his uh his offspring or his status as the father to the sperm. Is this is this argument clear? Okay. Um I wrote to a po I made the argument that there is no such distinction. I wrote to a very important post who lives in London. He's the author of the ARI. He agreed with me that there is no such distinction. I brought a proof. Some people very strongly disagree with his proof including my own rasha. But I'm going to present the proof right here. A girl if she was seduced, excuse the sensitive uh nature of this topic. I try to say it in the most respectful way but if a girl was seduced under the age of 12 and a half so I know bit controversial in today's terms but back then the Torah considers the age of majority 12 and a half so she was seduced the seducer has to pay a penalty now if the if the penalty is collected before the age of 12 and a half since she is under the jurisdiction of her father she her father is her guardian so therefore the father takes the kass the father takes the penalty but if the penalty is paid after the age of 12 and a half the girl is entitled to the kass now the garra raises an issue what happens if the girl died okay so uh and had she been alive she would have reached the age of 12 and a half okay so in other words by the time the penalty was leveled and collected the girl is no longer alive but had she been alive she would have been 12 and a half so that's the kakira the Talmudic discussion of y beggar bever how do you define broo how do you define reaching the age of majority does that mean that you have been born 12 and a half years ago or does that mean you have been alive for 12 and a half years and then kamina it would be if this woman if this girl was born 12 and a half years ago but she's not alive so she hasn't lived for 12 and a half years it's a discussion how do you define broo but one thing is certain and I extract the following principle even if somebody's not alive anymore that doesn't mean that his reality doesn't affect what's going on in this world and doesn't mean that his status doesn't have relevance in this world. If a girl if the gumar entertain the possibility that a girl could be considered to have reached the age of majority even though she's not currently alive but had she been alive she would have reached the age of 12 and therefore therefore it's considered her kas and not her father's kas. So therefore, even if a man has passed away, there's no reason why he should not be able to confer the status of fatherhood or receive the status of fatherhood. Are we following the argument? Okay. So that's uh that's the argument I make. In my humble opinion, I don't think there's such a distinction to be made. I'm going to figure How much time do we have? Huh? >> Okay. So I'm just going to figure out there's a major issue in in teaches us an important principle that is invalidated until you know the final verdict until the final result is known. Meaning to say until you know with absolute certainty whether this man is going to leave offspring or not the khalit is pul. So therefore if a woman was pregnant and we the whole situation was pending her husband dies childless but she's pregnant okay and we don't view a fetus as a nephesh okay abortion in Judaism is forbidden because it's a form of self-injury we agree with the progressive argument that it's a woman's body a fetus is a woman's body we agree with them where we disagree with them is that they say if it's a woman's body she can do what she wants our argument is is that you can't do what you want with your own body and abortion is a form of self-injury. So, it's your body, but if you abort, you're considered to be engaging in a form of self-injury. So, we don't view a fetus as a nephesh. So, therefore, fetus in a woman's womb should not really have the status and doesn't really have the status to exempt her mother from khalisa. The fetus is not considered to be causing the late father to have left offspring. But the situation is pending. We have to wait and see. Is this child going to be a viable child? Is this m is this woman going to carry out with a full pregnancy? And teaches us a principle in Islam that so long as the reality is pending. We don't know yet is this uh person going to have offspring in the world or is this person not going to have offspring in this world. We need to wait and see. The Torah teaches us a love. There's a special scriptural uh understanding that teaches us you have to wait until there's finality until you know exactly whether this person is going to leave offspring. And therefore, I'm making a very provocative argument tonight, and a lot of people disagree with me that as long as there's a sperm sitting in a freezer frozen that continues to have this situation pending, it keeps us in a situation of doubt. We don't know whether or not this man is going to have offspring or not. There's a sperm in the freezer. We might take that sperm and we might impregnate his widow. We don't know if this man is going to have offspring or not. That would invalidate the khalita. In ancient times, it took nine months at most to know if this man was going to leave offspring. Today, thanks to modern medical technology, it could take years until we know if a man is going to leave offspring if his sperm is somewhere in a freezer. We follow that. So, this is a major issue. Nobody has raised this issue and I'm uh I'm I'm engaged right now with written correspondences with the Galia Poskum about this issue that in ancient times we said we have to wait until we know with absolute certainty and until we know irreversibly that this man is not going to leave offspring that took nine months in ancient times today it could take years this is a major issue that I'm raising tonight and uh there's a lot of discussion about it I'm just raising a new issue here uh it's up for discussion and I'm happy to do so if any of you are interested in any in any case um again as I began this year in my humble opinion the fallen soldiers are so holy uh I'm moved by the argument of the Rudberg that if somebody dies he doesn't need kadesh we don't but that was the position of the so the soldiers don't need an ilama as much as anybody they are the ones that that need that ilama less than anyone else because their souls are so holy. But I will dedicate every word of Torah that's learned tonight and uh and every prayer that's made that we should not hear anymore of any fallen soldiers. Okay, that is my most heartful prayer and the prayer of everyone in this room that we should not hear a single case of any more soldiers. That is enough. We've we've seen there will be no more fallen soldiers and we'll see the hostages and all of Amish will have every Yeshua that they need. That's our heartfelt prayer. Ashva, thank you.