The Torah has a case of a married man who dies without children. In this case, the brother of the deceased can marry the widow, in order to keep the dead man's name alive. Now, an even better solution is using the living sperm of the dead man. This technology was not available 3500 years ago, but today it can be done. Sorry, but this rabbi is a fool.

It clearly looks from your comments that you don't have a clue of religious, ethical or even the medical issues involved here. Why do you allow yourself to do such ridiculous comments? The article clearly states that this Rabbi is considered an expert on ethics and Halacha in the medical field. How can you come up with such stupid comments? To #4: You cannot even dream of finding a connection between Torah levirate and post mortem in vitro fecondation. What are you talking about ?? These issues are very complicated and require a long thinking process bases on a large amount of knowledge. If you really want to post a comment, please at least ensure you know the basics.

No, Eddie, the Rabbi is not a fool. It's a tragedy when one's father dies during a child's upbringing. But to not have him there at all is a greater tragedy. We shouldn't be encouraging single motherhood or fatherless offspring.

A baby without a father is a better solution than one with a father?

extremely wrong in his thinking. However, I think the Rabbi should not allow artificial insemination at all. The whole entire concept of ejaculation outside the woman's womb is wrong. In Hebrew it is called ASUR!

that some of us have lost our husbands before our children are born. I myself was 2 months pregnant when my husband was killed in a terrorist action. If I think about what this rabbi is saying and extrapolate it out well then in his view I should have had an abortion. I don't think this is what the rabbi meant. With all due respect to the rabbi I agree with #4 IVF in this case is modern YeBum and I for one think it is fine right and good to bring the child into the world even if it is from a living sperm donation requiring IVF.

"The whole entire concept of ejaculation outside the woman's womb is wrong" LOL !!!

son as have others. When a soldier is killed or an only son dies in an accident, if there is sperm that is frozen available, the parents who can no longer have a child should be given the option of paying a surrogate to give birth to a child of their deceased son for the grandparents to raise. When I lived in Norfolk, Virginia, a woman told me the Jewish parents of her daughter's boyfriend who was their only child died in a car accident in France. The Jewish parents were devastated that their only son and only child died in France where he worked at the U.S. Embassy. Their hearts were broken and nothing could comfort them in their loss until their son's girlfriend who was an American who also worked at the U.S. Embassy and was also in the U.S. military as was the deceased, was pregnant with his child. The Jewish parents's hopes came alive to know there would be a grandchild and they begged to be allowed to raise the child. The expectant mother said they would be a part of the child's life, but she would raise the child herself. So the Rabbi needs to understand that the hope of one's seed not being cut off is a good thing. It is not evil to want a grandchild when the only child has died and a surrogate with the son's seed is the only option to have that hope.

First, the fact that you think differently doesn't make a fool of the rabbi. For sure you can't claim so that he's contradicting Jewish law. Secondly, there's a clear distinction between the cases. A living brother will be able to raise the offspring he'll have with his brother's wife. Thirdly, the fact that the Torah has been given 2500 years ago, doesn't say it looses it's legitimacy in modern days. According to judaism, the laws of the Torah don't change overtime.

Yochonon, learn some science, seriously. What #4 is trying to say is that the brother is genetically the closest thing to his brother. Hence, his sperm will be a really close match. So #4 makes a point in that respect. Raphael makes an even better point, which is the point I guess the Rav is making. The dead cannot raise the child. How do you explain to the child their father did not decide to have them? I mean you can't even say the offspring would be a mistake, as the father never even had sex with the mother to impregnate her in the first place, whether he intended to or not (accident). I agree there is artificial insemination, which again, the sex is divorced from the equation, but in those cases the father is living. I think it is the combination of artificial insemination and dead father that is what the Rav is against. Then again, the truth is, we all came from the stork so enough of this meshuganah nonsense. My stork was first class V.I.P. by the way ;)

I think the rabbi makes an excellent point and I like that he stresses it is just his opinion and he is not ruling. But think 25 years after the fatherless child is born, he can then have kids of his own etc.

Thanks for your views mr Lieber The living brother can still contribute to his dead brother's son. Isnt that the desire of the wife, to have her dead husband's son? Actually , I did not say the Torah loses its legitimacy ,quite the opposite. The Levirate marriage had the purpose of raising the seed of the dead man. Hnece the insemination of the dead man is the greatest fulfillment of this Law. And by the way, I agree that the Torah laws don't change over time. sadly, the rabbis felt fit to add and add and add...

I agree with you. The seed is still part of that man and the children are still a blessing for that man even after death. When we read about characters like lot's daughters or Tamar, we see that the seed takes on an obligation and is by no means taken in the light that the Rabbi here is trying to label it with.

Please note that he is speaking about a very delicate matter, and he shows to be very sensitive. As the article said "Cherlow stressed that this was his own stance and that "there is a possibility to think differently"."

What right has anyone, let alone a Rabbi to decide what one should do with their sperm? I wonder if one could deem this beyond stone age thinking.

Though the rabbi's word was the final say in the Shtetel tradition. There are so many lovely strories about Rabbies which were utterly fools. Perhaps the following one is a good example: A poor woman, saved all week to buy a chicken for the Sabbath meal for her familyl. The Shochet found the chicken not Kosher (A shochet mind you, is also well versed with the Jewish ksherut laws). The desperate woman went to the Rabbi, cursing her religion, which was so unjust to her. Don't curse your religion , said the Rabbi, blame me, for not being learned enough to find the right dispansation, according to the law. In our case, this Rabbi, which no doubt heard this story told in infinite variations, and infinite cases, should concidered himslef also not learened enough. The laws maybe chisled in stone and unchanagble, but they are subjected to interpretations, as times and cicumstances chang ,as they should. If Judasim would not change with time, and adopt itself to the dynamics of life, it would be ossifioed by now. Fortunately it did and does all the time. In my humble opinion our esteemed and learened rabbi is an ossified specimen. As for the old law of Yebum. Cosider the possibility that one of the reasons for it was to have someone to support the widdow which otherwise would be desitined to destitudeand not just for the purpose of carrying on the name. But what if the dead man didn't have a brother? What if the brother could not have an offspring?. And not the least is the fact that if the brother is already married, he would be a bigamist according to nowadays law? You say, the law can't change? Perhaps the term "adaptation" in tims, due to new circumstences unforeseenat the time the laws were promalgated, would ve moer eeasy for you to accept!!!!

He said this is his opinion, he is leaving it up to the family to choose. Before you answer this question you should put yourself in the dead mans shoes and think about it, if you want your children brought into this world with out you to look after them.

The Ibum dinim are far from justifying ani post mortem insemination. A few remarks: - When a man marry his sister in law (the Ibama), the son will be attributed in some way to the deceased brother, but "physically " speaking, the son is born from the union of people "alive". - A man can conceive a child with his wife and die later (chasve shalom) before the child is born. This is not an argument for putting down the foetus, even before the 40 days.. Again, the child has been generated through life. - In today world, no modern country will allow post mortem fertilization according to its own ethics. Are they all foolish or maybe only Rabbis, which sometime may well have learnt much more than these country ethics comitee are? I have been into some of these issues for a long time. I state again: only silly people insult and make stupid critics regarding complex issues they are completely not aware of. Shabat shalom

You'll be surprised that 99% of rabbanim think that artificial insemination it's a great think. Far from being assur! And your way of just resuming it to "concept of ejaculation outside the woman's womb" is extremely outrageous. I suggest you take some time to understang the underlying process of artificial insemination as well as the halacha issues raised here. But surely, if you were married only a few years without children you probably won't speak like this. Shabt shalom

Life is difficult and I hope this will remain a theoretical discussion for everyone here. When confronted to real life, our feelings often bring us to reject anything that will go against them. So, parents or a wife that lose a son or a husband, might really be relieved by the possibility of post mortem conception. But the Rabbonim also consider these aspects up to the very limit of what is possible according to the teaching of our Torah and the technical aspects of every problems involved. But at the end, they're only here to try guide us in the best way. And all will depend on our will to live according to the standards of the Torah or not. On this a lot can be discussed. Needless to say, if we really want to follow Torah teachings, then there is a requirement of deeply understanding the issues raised here from a medical, ethical, psycological, halachic (and some will say spiritual) point of view. Eventually Rabbonim/Doctors might reach a conclusion that may not please us. But again, there are many things we can't do in life.. Notice that here this Rabbi only indicates a few arguments, without even suggesting to rule. Probably because after all the years he spent researching into the matter, he still thinks the matter is so heavy it will require even more understanding. May Hashem soon comfort all who have suffered. May Hashem protect the Am Israel from sadness and death, and fill our house with happy families, children and joy. Shabat Shalom,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVcXQLgYcoA