In my opinion this lady is entitled to use her frozen Embrios, these were conceived with the huband's conscent to begin with, so nothing should stop her from developing them in her uterus. On top of that, this bastard refuses to grant her a divorce, which should be a reason enough for the clinic to go ahead. It's a moral problem to produce embrios and not to use them eventually (for reasons other than health-related). And here comes a clinic who is "lacking another signature" and leaves these almost human beings in an unfished state. Wasn't his consent in the beginning good enough? I don't quite understand this legislation: once the embrio is formed IT SHOULD BE USED ! My Gosh these are not tomatoes, we are talking about people here! My best wishes for this woman

All of this nonsense about illegitimacy is really infuriating. This woman had a husband who should have been strung up by his testicles, and while I'm not a big fan of single women having children, after what she's had to endure, I think she's entitled to have a child without having to worry about it being "illegitimate." Israelis really need to get the rabbis out of their bedrooms.

All sperm of Mankind has the ability to produce HUMAN babies.

it's Torah that puts G-d in yours.

I'm so upset to hear about scumbags like that. Can't anybody do something? It's time to reform the laws of marriage in Judaism and in the State of Israel. At least make a law in the State that can punish someone severely who refuses to give a get. Btw, I hate the world goy because it's a word too connected to the racism of the Orthodox. YNet should be careful to write non-Jew.

Actually in all cases of donated sperm, where the woman is halachically validly married, and husband's sperm can't be used because of defects, the orthodox rabbis only allow the use of a non-Jewish sperm donor. The ruling goes back to Harav Moshe Feinstein. Harav Joel Teitelbaum wrote a very passionate disagreeing opinion [he was against using any donor who isn't the husband], but most rabbis accepted the ruling of Harav Feinstein. The reason is that back in the Talmud, it was decided that the Jewish child of a non-jewish father is not a mamser. In parentheses, there was a minority opinon that such a child is a mamser, but that was the minority opinion. Since sperm donation does not involve sex, through the kal wehomer argument the resulting child would definitely not be a mamser, and could therefore marry normally. There is of course a debate amongst the orthodox, if this prescription to use non-jewish sperm would also hold if the woman is not halachically married. But yes, if a married woman undergoing the fertility treatment were to be implanted with the embryo produced with non-Jewish sperm, the child wouldn't be a mamser. Interestingly enough, her husband could still divorce her for that if that happened against his wishes [I guess she would be more than happy with that]. But it wouldn't count as adultery, just as a divorceable offence, and the child wouldn't be a mamser.

B"H This article is very biased, not interviewing the husband at all to find out why he is not granting a divorce. It is suspicious that he has reportedly had a child with a woman whom he did not marry with a katubah. Of course the bias in the story is that he had no word on confirming that. But I do not know why he did not offer a divorce to this one. In other words his reported taking on additional obligations with another woman does not explain why he is unwilling to take on additional obligations with this woman. Whether he hates her or loves her has nothing to do with whether he is obligated or not with her in his marriage. Usually, a divorce is given if there is a matter of immorality found with the woman by the husband, something that is not pleasing. A piece of paper is written stating what immoral act led to the breaking of the contract of obligations that he has towards her, the mariage contract. What becomes murky is if she has another child, is she expecting him to provide for that second child whom he did not authorize, under his marriage contract with her? Or is he barring her from having children because he is unable to support these children with her at this time? Child support is not just money. It is also someone to raise the child, and I am not sure he thinks she is able to raise the child properly. She married him to make that decision for her. Did she ask him through the courts for a divorce, stating the reasons clearly? I see this piece as provoking, but not very informative.

I am truly horrified and apalled that this poor unfortunate womans legal husband has not been thrown into jail! He should not be let out until he has given her a get! I also do not understand how such a foul human being isn't being totally ostrasized by society? The other woman who had his child must be a complete immoral mental case as well! What kind out nut would want to give birth to a child from a man who is married to someone else, cheating, and refusing to give her a divorce? What does this other imbecile expect will eventually happen when this b****** tires of her too? The Rabbis themselves should be taking serious action against this kind of behavior! A married man is not even allowed to look at or fantasize about other women, much less sleep with them. He has committed a very serious spiritual offence and will receive his due, don't worry :-) He cannot escape the spiritual court!!!!!!!

I agree with you, but the article said that the woman has frozen eggs, not frozen embryos. The frozen eggs have not yet been fertilized, and so they are not considered "almost human beings." There has been no conception. They're simply eggs that were retrieved during IVF, and frozen for future use. The eggs belong to her and her alone. What she decides to do with them is her own business.

Hi! I generally enjoy your posts pretty much. A have a little point here. S " Usually, a divorce is given if there is a matter of immorality found with the woman by the husband, something that is not pleasing" Absolutely not. For the tens of divorces I've heard of, read about etc, the oposite is almost always the case, mainly the man cheating or abusing the woman. Statistics aside, regarding this article, whether the man has a "good reason" for divorcing her , or not, does not make him any lesser a pig as long as the get is not granted. It's inmoral, it's even unhalachic to even delay a get for even one day ! Whatever the technicallities are, the only thing in our scope would be to defend her right to mother kids, alimony was not the issue as presented to us here. And on top there isn't one single day to loose here, since her clock already went off quiet a while ago. A pity that rabbis are SO lazy in implementing halachic procedures that would ease the existance, of G'd knows how many an aguna

IN the torah, goy just means nation. Jews are often reffered to as goyim as well. People have made it an offensive term, but there's no reason here to blame the torah or orthodoxy. A little information to help disseminate stereotyping, i hope...

There is NO issue of legitimacy of the child with artificial insemination. Nor does it make any difference at all whether the sperm comes from a Jew or non-Jew. Maybe the woman involved, or the reporter, is misinformed, or has made incorrect assumptions. But it is simply false to say that there is a halachic issue here.

The child would not be a mamzer in any case if conceived via artifical insemination, since no illicit sexual act has taken place. The reason for the preference for non-Jewish sperm is to avoid potential issues of the child marrying someone they are forbidden to marry, which could lead to issues of mamzerut down the road. But nobody holds that a child conceived thru AI is himself a mamzer under any circumstances.

To all of you who are squealing and whining about the use of the word "Goy", get over it. The word is not offensive, it simply refers to non-Jews. It literally means nation, so it is not a derogatory term, although it has been used that way.

Biblical texts called the Hebrews a goy kadosh - a holy nation. Non -Jews should therefore not be offended.

the nazis had the aryen and then everything else, the jewish orthodox community has jewish and everything else is goy, illegitimate? and you people really believe yourselves superior???i'm not saying you are inferior but you really believe yourselves superior??? and again what year are we living in? sick bastards

I totally agree. To even think that a non-Jew's sperm might be illegitimate makes Jews look like gigantic racists. I am Jewish and disavow this bullshit.

According to the Torah, everyone who adheres to the Jewish religion is Jewish, even if he comes from a non-Jewish background. In the latter case the Torah calls him (or her) Ger Tzedek. On the other hand, Jews who convert, while remaining Jews become dead as long as they are spiritually dead, and as such incapable of doing mitzvot. This is why they are not counted towards the minyan - they can't do the mitzva of joining in the minyan - after all they are dead. So this is all about religion, not genes primarily. Even though genes do come into play, as Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted exactly the nation that he chose and that descended from exactly the people that it descended from. Reuven (#14) brings up the argument that a donation from a Jew to a married woman would be legitimate since no sex is involved, and that the only problem are problems down the road, if the child marries a half sibling (or aunt, or sister-in-law, whatever). However, if that were the case, one could easily use a known donor. I know of absolutely no halachic ruling that accedes to this line of reasoning. Instead most poskim see sex ALSO as a means to an end - ie procreation, and the potential for prohibitions accordingly. So the shadow of mamzerut is there. To explain the thinking in our case: What the frum are particularly also concerned about is that if a capital crime is committed but no human court carries out capital punishment (declaring mamzerut is akin to carrying out capital punishment), this punishment will be dealt out by a heavenly court. So a proactive action prohibiting the use of a Jewish donor for a married woman could prevent such heavenly punishment further down the line. People who don't believe in heavenly punishment need not comment, *smile* The only open discussion at the moment is whether it is halachically safe to use a Jewish donor for someone who is unmarried (single or lesbian), if the donor is known.

Read it a bit more carefully, Howard. The point is that using sperm from a non-Jewish donor ensures that the baby would _not_ be illegitimate. It was then commented that, halachically, any child from A.I. is legitimate, as no forbidden sexual contact takes place. The point of a non-jewish donor is to avoid the risk of the child marrying a close relative without their knowledge.

Phil, The big difference between Reuven and my point of view is that for Reuven it is just a matter of problems further down the line. Here, I have to disagree. For example, using a Jewish donor could avoid the dire consequences of Dt 7:4 [having a non-jewish father will make the child go astray]. As it is unclear if the non-Jewish father will exert his (negative) influence only if he is physically there, or simply by contributing the genetic material. But basically, Dt 7:4 is a prophetic statement, that is as true as the whole Torah. So if there is such a considerable argument against using a non-Jewish donor, the argument against using a Jewish donor must be even weightier. IE the potential for the shadow of mamzerut Particularly as one could always avoid problems with the child marrying someone inappropriate by using a known Jewish donor.

To quote you: S " Usually, a divorce is given if there is a matter of immorality found with the woman by the husband, something that is not pleasing" Absolutely not. For the tens of divorces I've heard of, read about etc, the oposite is almost always the case, mainly the man cheating or abusing the woman. Statistics aside, regarding this article, whether the man has a "good reason" for divorcing her , or not, does not make him any lesser a pig as long as the get is not granted. It's inmoral, it's even unhalachic to even delay a get for even one day ! Response: What is not clear from the article is if the woman asked her husband for a get or not, based on that she understands he wants children but not through her and so there is no point in him staying obligated to her to have children which is a big part of marriage. There ought to be a resolution to this that can be talked out with the husband if the facts are as presented. I see no reference to the rabbinate being asked to impose a divorce either. It seems from the information presented that she does not consider herself pleasing to him for bearing children. But how would a divorce change the core issue of her bearing children? In other words, the article quotes: "Meanwhile, she discovered her husband was cheating on her, after which he informed her that he no longer wished to have children with her." I am just understanding why he cannot either write this out or be asked to testify on this matter to verify that statement so that the courts can impose the get. If he no longer wishes to have children with her, why is he imposing the obligation to have children with her formally upon himself? Is he starving and unable to care for his children, or what is the situation? Is it a problem with child support, community property, or what exactly? What is keeping him in this "marriage" where he is accused of not wanting children? That is key missing information. I think what you are getting at is: "Whatever the technicallities are, the only thing in our scope would be to defend her right to mother kids, alimony was not the issue as presented to us here. And on top there isn't one single day to loose here, since her clock already went off quiet a while ago." I cannot see how the topic of her divorce relates to her ability to have kids. It seems like a tangent to me.

In my opinion the child would not be in a good family. Eventually the father will bail out and live his irresponsible life and the child is the one who will suffer. The man needs to grow up and do the right thing; let the wife go I see a mess in progress; a child who eventually will not have a father.

how do they manage to make such an embarrassment of what is considered to be god's law? did god misspeak when transmitting the 'oral torah', or did the rabbis somewhere along the line? who knows? makes you wonder what else they screwed up.

Thanks for your response q: S: What is not clear from the article is if the woman asked her husband for a get or not, In the article it says " After the husband left her, REFUSING to give her a divoce." 2nd part. So I asume that since "refuse" means: to deny someone what she asked for , she therefore asked There ar PLENTY of these most nasty individuals denying the get to their wives, for dark, egoistic and sadommistic motives, never underestimate this phemomenon q:S:But how would a divorce change the core issue of her bearing children? S:I cannot see how the topic of her divorce relates to her ability to have kids. It seems like a tangent to me. Not at all tangent from my point of view. . Since he is not interested in having children with her, then after a divorce, she would be free to find another husband, someone to share her life with and bring up children in love and family. Since this does not seem as an option so far, as long as the pig keeps denying her a get, she is halted from realizing her rights. The only option would be A.I. from a goy , accompanied with all the hallachic implications here presented. Even though she may parent children this way, everyone agrees it falls short of being ideal. Good luck

Hopefully, it will work and this way her child will still be a Jew (because she is) and he/she won't be a mamzer because the father isn't.

If the Rabbinic Court would force all couples to sign a pre nuptial agreement and enforce it - cases of women being refused a divorce like this would be far rarer... In the US and UK couples have to sign a pre nuptial agreement before they get married...It should be mandatory in Israel too. for more details see www.kolech.org It is scandelous that this woman is "chained" to this man who has cheated and started a family with another woman.