Don't Use Dead Man's Sperm, Rabbi Says

Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, head of the Petah Tikva hesder yeshiva, says frozen sperm must not be used for insemination purposes if its owner is no longer alive.

 

Rabbi: Don't use dead man's sperm
Head of Petah Tikva hesder yeshiva says deceased should be commemorated in variety of other ways, but not by generating fatherless offspring
Ynet

Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, head of the Petah Tikva hesder yeshiva, says frozen sperm must not be used for insemination purposes if its owner is no longer alive.

According to the rabbi, the deceased should be commemorated in a variety of other ways, but not by generating offspring who will be born fatherless.

Cherlow, who is considered an expert on ethics and Halacha, in the medical field as well, and is a member of different committees dealing with these issues, was asked by a reader on the Petah Tikva hesder yeshiva's website: "One of my relatives died at a young age, without having children. We know he had his sperm frozen. What should be done so that his name is not erased?"

The rabbi replied, "It's a real pity, (but) I believe it won't be right to use this sperm. His name can be commemorated by naming other newborns after him, by studying Torah and by doing justice for the transcendence of his soul."

Cherlow stressed that this was his own stance and that "there is a possibility to think differently". He explained why using a dead person's sperm for insemination was "wrong" in his opinion.

"My fundamental halachic and ethical stance is that medical technologies are there to deal with defects found in nature but not to invent new realities. Thus, I see no room for using a person's sperm after his death."

Comments

[phillip]

Rabbi.... mind your own business.
It has gotten to the point that I could
care less what these clowns have to say.

[R. Wisler]

Ethics? Halacha? Anyone see a paradoxical comparison here?

[ah-pee-chorus]

the rabbi should at least have asked for more information. was the man married or in a long-term relationship at the time he chose to freeze his sperm? was the decision to save it made jointly with his significant other in contemplation of his death? who is now looking to make use of his sperm? was the relative who questioned the rabbi being purely hypothetical or is the dead mans wife looking to use it to have a child as per some agreement she had with her late husband?
to have answered the question without ascertaining the details is an overly simplistic response.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Ethics? Halacha? Anyone see a paradoxical comparison here?

Posted by: R. Wisler |

yes. if the two arent completely oxymoronic, they are at least two highly disconnected concepts.

[Maple Bacon]

If "the deceased should be commemorated in a variety of other ways," I'm surprised this rabbi hasn't brought up levirate marriages in general....

Next thing you know, the rabbis will be debating if the toilet paper should go over or under the holder!

[A. Nuran]

If you can have his brother fuck his wife to produce a child why not use his actual sperm, which is a much better genetic match?

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

"One of my relatives died at a young age, without having children. We know he had his sperm frozen. What should be done so that his name is not erased?"

The rabbi replied, "It's a real pity, (but) I believe it won't be right to use this sperm. His name can be commemorated by naming other newborns after him, by studying Torah and by doing justice for the transcendence of his soul."

This is an interesting issue, but based on the facts presented in the article the rabbi is clearly an idiot.

He did not even bother to mention Deut 25:5-10.

I know why! He never read the Law of Moses! What a "rabbi"... he is most certainly from בית חלוץ הנעל

[Larry Rabinovich]

The person who asked Rabbi Cherlow the question clearly was interested in hearing the rabbi's response, so I am not sure why, Phillip, the rabbi should have minded his own business. Halakhic concerns permeate even the most sensitive and private issues. Obviously if one does not buy into the system this all seems very amusing but the people that write to Rabbi Cherlow ( a young, plugged in and rather liberal scholar of the highest caliber) have a different world view.

[Adam Neira]

The best conception is obviously between a living, loving man and woman in a natural method. But if a soldier who was sent to war decided to preserve his sperm for his wife was to die in battle and she decided to have the child after artificial insemination then this would be ok. Best scenario is no war and lots of healthy loving relationships on the Planet. It is called Ganeden I think.

[WoolSilkCotton]

The frumma spend a lot of time contemplating sperm. It's part of the life style.

[ergo proxy]

@ phillip...

Can you freaking read? Let me refresh your memory..."Cherlow, who is considered an expert on ethics and Halacha, ... was asked by a reader on the Petah Tikva hesder yeshiva's website"

Most likely he was minding his own business until the point he was asked a valid questioN and he gave AN answer according to his expertise. Did you missed that, let me write it down for you, in caps, since maybe you have a problem reading small foonts... HE WAS ASKED A QUESTION.

You must have failed reading comprehension several times and then took a GED exam.

[Adam Neira]

To ergo proxy,

Yes you are right. If someone asks you a private question and you answer you should not be accused of egocentric public prosletysing. A lot of things get taken out of context in this day and age.

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Yes, and some of you should also understand that just like a quack doctor w/o a license he gave an advice that may lead to some bad consequnces. Not to mention that he probably posted that question on his web site for publicity.

You must understand, that this "rabbi" pretends to have "an expertise" in the field that he clearly knows nothing about. And I'm not talking about medicine...

[Sparky the Wonder Dog]

What woman would try to be impregnated by a corpse? And why is the dead guy's pupik frozen like a popsicle?! What is wrong with those orthodox jews? What? Ohhhhhhh.

Never mind.

[Seraphya]

The question was asked in a public forum asked here: http://www.ypt.co.il/ask.asp
and answered here:
http://ypt.co.il/show.asp?id=44892

Aleks: As for Yibum, of course he knows about it. When I was learning in his shiur about asufi and shtuki someone raised a point about halitza and he answered it with reference to the gemara and rishonim. From his morning shiurim on Tanakh, I can say that I think he knows Tanakh by heart, and at the very least the Chumash. (side point, a friend of mine had a professor who if you gave the niqqud and taamei hamiqra for a pasuq could figure out the pasuq... just pointing out that it isn't that uncommon to have a great mastery of a text).

Also, what can you possibly be angry about here? He says that this is his opinion, but that there is plenty of room to disagree!

If you find Rav Cherlow objectionable then there is more likely than not some hate that you have towards orthodoxy that is beyond any rational explanation. He gives shiurim about existential philosophy using "goyish" philosophers as the sources. He tells his talmidim to go and read the story of gilgamesh. He has called his talmidim chuavinist pigs for rejecting the idea of female rabbis out of hand.

He is talking in Jerusalem at a philosophy festival alongside leading professors of philosophy in Israel:
http://philosophy.mouse.co.il/en/default.asp?p=622&s=659

[.]

He meant not to swallow

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

From his morning shiurim on Tanakh, I can say that I think he knows Tanakh by heart, and at the very least the Chumash.

You will be surprised, but many Christians and Muslims(yes) know at least a Pentateuch by heart. Sometimes even in the original language.

Also, what can you possibly be angry about here? He says that this is his opinion, but that there is plenty of room to disagree!

This is not "an opinion", but rather a politically correct way to avoid answering the question and taking any responsibility for the answer provided.

He tells his talmidim to go and read the story of gilgamesh. He has called his talmidim chuavinist pigs for rejecting the idea of female rabbis out of hand.

How is that relevant to the issue we discussing here?

[Western Jew]

Sorry folks. I can not personally think that Torah would forbid a sperm donation which is living to be unused if considered for procreation after the donor is niftar. I just don't think that after all the torah I am knowledgable in is considered that this is what Torah actually calls for. This guy is a new age revisionist and he really just wants to make a murky water out of Godly activities.
So best wishes if you are in this situation, may it be far and few. But if you have that seed to inseminate your eggs,by all means, this Doctor (myself) and Torah Scholar (well I have a ton of books and read alot and study daily) would say that your Creator is not going to be unhappy at any length. The child is still in wed lock and you can indeed continue to have your husbands family even after his death. If that is how you can have a child, there is no need for levirate arrangements. But that said, who am I but a voice in the jungle of Humanity that is not going to dance with the first rabbi on my computer screen to abolish a medically and I personally think spiritually relevant and useful and orthodox (IMO) procedure. Thats it guys. Every day I get a new "priority" from the "orthodox" "right minded" "/Totally observant/"(italics) Jews that parade on the internet web sites and dictate decorum to our entire nation regardless of their own personal situation or experience. But that said, I just lay my head down and night and put my trust in God. Not the "rabbi" that wants to authorize my lifestyle or right of passage into the world to come. Thanks.

[catcher50]

I very seldom agree with these ultra-Orthodox Rabbis, but in this case, there is more than an ethical question.

1. There is a legal question. Maybe not so much, in Israel, but I can just imagine the potential court clogging lawsuits that would be developed.

2. While not directly applicable, at least this Rabbi is coming from a position of being concerned with ethics (whether or not you may agree with him and his orientation). In the U.S., most of these life affecting paths are determined by state legislators, who are part-timers and, in many cases, just not smart enough or good enough to run for national office.

[Seraphya]

Yes, that was my point, that pretending he didn't know about yibum is silly.

He did answer the question, just by the point that you didn't like his answer, you yourself realize he answered the question.

His point was that it isn't black and white and that there is legitamate reason to disagree with his ethical and halakhic opinion. What is your problem with that?

My point was that he in educated and knowledgeable and that the people here calling him ultra-orthodox or pretending that people do not realizing that halahka and morality don't always easily interact is just plain silly