A man has the obligation to procreate. Is it permissible for a single man to fulfill such a mitzvah by renting a womb, i.e. employing a surrogate mother who would also be the egg donor. Of course, she would be a single Jewish woman who would be handsomely compensated. Is the product of a such an arrangement kosher and does it fulfill the mitzvah of procreation.

Moshe - may I ask what mechanism of fertilization you imagine would be used? If in the usual way, then I think a "rented womb" gives a connotation of something else unbecoming.

And if you had something unusual in mind, why not inquire whether halacha would prohibit a married woman from taking part?

Perhaps there might even be a childless couple with an infertile or genetically incompatible man where in some odd way a 3-way arrangement could be beneficial to all --- the unmarried man, if his genetic contribution with the intent to fulfill his procreation mitzvah, and for the mother, and her husband, who would most likely be raising the child (surely a child should be close to its mother, and the mother in such a case cannot be even alone with the genetic father, will likely remain close with her 1 husband).

Does this scenario match your approach?

Is it possible then that this child has two fathers -- two men who each fulfilled their procreation mitzvah?

Has it ever been said that a child of yibum has two fathers???

If the established halacha says that in my secenario above only the woman's husband fulfills his mitzvah, and not the unmarried man donor, would that lead us to an answer that no, a man cannot fulfil his mitzvah this way?

And if so, would this be a useful precedent to answering in your scenario?

I'm not trying to make a straw man argument, I'm just expounding on the ramifications of your question in a way which might already have a precedent case.

He's not interested in married women....just single ones; halacha or not. He wants to rent the womb exclusively.

Would he do the mitzvah au naturale? He would have to have to give her a ketuba to accomplish that, and I doubt any rav would allow it. Nor do I think she would accept it, otherwise she would be marrying him if she thought he was the cat's meow. But in the rental plan, the compensation would be MEOW! and he would become irrelevant. It would be a business transaction for her and a mitzvah for him.

BTW, I've heard of forefathers...so I guess two fathers is on your way to fore.

I am considering that wemon are not obligated to have children, as it comes natural to them to want them. Whereas, it does not come naturally for all men to want children and it may be for this reason that the obligation is place on men, otherwise there would not be enough children to continue a functional community...just a thought I had after reading the posting.

By the way...I would imagine that the situation you speak of would not be as easy as it sounds, the woman would most likely want to raise the child...would the male be present for this, yet simply not engage in what normally happens in a marriage?

p.s. is this a real situation, or just a scenario?

BS"D

Cute jokes, but making a married woman pregnant of some-one else but her own husband makes Mamzerim.
Second one: Making love to a single not married woman makes a second wife.
Simple Halacha.

quote:

Cute jokes, but making a married woman pregnant of some-one else but her own husband makes Mamzerim.
Second one: Making love to a single not married woman makes a second wife.
Simple Halacha.

Daniella, this is the reason He insisted on a single woman and also the reason why I said if he does the procreation "au naturale", she'd need a ketuba.

Katja,
This is a scenario.

The Rabbanut in Israel has recently established guideline for pundakaim (surrogate wombs). This is for couples who can make a fertilzed egg, usually in vitro, and the surrogate carries it to birth.
If a woman contributes her eggs, similar to a man contributing sperm, then the egg can be fertilized with the man's sperm and the wife can carry it to term.
As for single males, cloning will be available shortly.
If any of this is considered fillfulling the mitzveh of be fruitful and multiply is debatable, anymore than adopting.

the basic problem is that a child born from a mother is considered the mother's child regardless of the DNA of the blastocysts.

In any event, I think non-jewish sperm, eggs and wombs are preferable because then we do not have to worry about forbidden marraiges for the child.

Aryeh Shore

Now the gemara dealing with

Aryeh,
If we go strictly Torah, are you saying the man has the obligation but the woman has the ownership? In that case a man never fulfils his obligation because he helps create babies that don't belong to him.

quote:

are you saying the man has the obligation but the woman has the ownership?

Moshe: could what you are quoting not support the notion that at the basic level of the obligation to procreate, men have it easy, that we fulfill the obligation so long as a live child is born, even if we would be an absent parent?

Perhaps the next question is how to reconcile where does a father's obligation end in this scenario?

quote:

(surrogate wombs). This is for couples who can make a fertilzed egg, usually in vitro, and the surrogate carries it to birth.

Where their genetics are carried by a surrogate, and a live child is given to them at birth....

Does anyone hold that he has married the surrogate as a second wife? the opinion above....

Does anyone hold that if the surrogate is Jewish and the couple perhaps is not, that this is a Jewish child? Does the principle of learning Torah in the womb apply?

Is there any lacking in the first few hours after fertilization before implantation? Or is this not really any longer than the time with natural fertilization?

And if the couple is Jewish, is this any different than an adoption? If the surrogate is not Jewish, is conversion at birth required?

Aryeh: are they are any published experts in these issues who you could recommend to tell us about these types of questions?

Rob;
You said;
________________________________________________

Does anyone hold that if the surrogate is Jewish and the couple perhaps is not, that this is a Jewish child? Does the principle of learning Torah in the womb apply?
________________________________________________

I would suspect such a child would be Jewish by birth.

________________________________________________

And if the couple is Jewish, is this any different than an adoption? If the surrogate is not Jewish, is conversion at birth required?
________________________________________________

If the couple is Jewish and the surrogate is not Jewish, then it is an adoption. Conversion at birth would be required.

If the single Jewish surrogate carries and births the baby that's probably the simplest way. Even the issue of the baby eventually marrying brother and sister is really moot because this would not be a secret anonymous surrogate. If that were the case, yes mamzerim would be an issue. In this situation the child would know its mother and she would be part of the child's yichus.

Oh well. Lets do the sugiah.

1. If a pregnant non-jew converts, the child is jewish. This is the halacha brought in the gemara. From this we learn that it doesn't mean anything that the blastocyst wasn't jewish, the child is born jewish.
2. There is an extremely strange gemara in bechorot that a fetus passed vaginally from a bachor to an non-bechor is still a bechor. From this some people want to learn that we have to worry about the blastocyst as well.
3. A man fulfills his obligation with any child born to a women he impregnated naturally, including a mamzer.
4. Semen from a sheet (another sugiah) does not have a problem of mamzer, our basis for artificial insemination.
5. There is another discussion dealing with Jerimiyahs daughter from a dubious source. Some
want to learn from this that there is no problem of yihus with artificial insemination.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
5. There is another discussion dealing with Jerimiyahs daughter from a dubious source. Some
want to learn from this that there is no problem of yihus with artificial insemination.
Aryeh Shore

Aryeh,

Without arguing the halacha, the source as you mentioned as being "dubious" is actually an ancient Midrash called "Alpha Beta de Ben-Sira." From this source we learn that Ben-Sira was the son of Jeremiah's daughter, who became pregnant from her father, by way of an accident in a bath-house.

David

quote:

If a pregnant non-jew converts, the child is jewish.

I am not sure if this is accurate.

I understand that a single woman who converts is required to not get married for 3 months because if there is a pregnancy right after marriage they want to be certain that this was conception after marriage.

I had the occasion to attend a "bris" shortly after a married woman converted. In her case it was known (readily apparent) that she was pregnant while completing her conversion. I am told that technically this was a conversion on the boy's 8th day, that it wasn't a standard Bris on a boy born Jewish. Surely this must be at least a recognized opinion, and the halacha is probably not as cut and dry as the source you quoted. Alas I do not right now know the source for the opinion which was shared with me at the time.

Also I would point out that I have heard a rabbi give the following profound explanation as words of comfort to a woman who had suffered a miscarriage...

Why in Hashem's Justice is there a need for miscarriage?

Sometimes there is a Jewish soul born to a baby who did not get the full experience of 40 weeks in a Jewish womb. It could be that at some past [or future!] lifetime this Jewish soul will be missing out on just that experience. And thus it doesn't need a full lifetime to be complete.

The Jewish mother entrusted to provide this missing experience is serving a critical need for this soul.

In what circumstances could a Jewish soul born in a Jewish baby to a Jewish mother? One way is that a woman converts while pregnant - for example she didn't know she was pregnant when she converted.

...

Continuing with my thoughts...

Perhaps if we measure an increase in number of miscarriages along with the more widespread use of in-vitro fertilization, perhaps there is a spiritual void due to any delay in implantation which can only be made up for with a miscarriage?

Perhaps in times past before neo-natal intensive care, and thus higher rates of infant death, whatever spiritual need for late stage miscarriage was fulfilled within this other unfortunate occurance.

Perhaps just like we have a tradition that we traded away prophecy in return for being relieved from a craving for avodah zora, it could be that at some level women decided that the emotional pain of miscarriage was less bad than the emotional pain of still-birth or infant death?

Which is also to say that ideally if we had Faith in Hashem's original plans for the world we would all have the ability to withstand AZ cravings beyond that which we can even imagine today [quoting a tape - probably from Aish] and could have maintained prophecy?

And similarly if we had the spiritual strength to be able to endure these traumas we could see as a benefit the bringing of a new life through the rite of passage of naming and no further as an opportunity... and miscarriage would not be seen as better.

And given the parallel above, here's another loose connection...

It is said that one of the two remaining lowest forms of prophecy is when a baby is named (the other being womens' intuition).

Thus it could be that we traded away two aspects of prophecy in return for two separate emotional weeknesses, each types of lacking in our Faith at some levels.

quote:

3. A man fulfills his obligation with any child born to a women he impregnated naturally, including a mamzer.

Some hold that there is no such thing as conversion... any Jew who goes through conversion was actually born a Jewish soul to a gentile body, and thus at some level was Jewish all along?

Could we apply this principle to say that a gentile man with children who converts has in fact already fulfilled his mitzvah of procreation at some level?

Quote "If a pregnant non-jew converts, the child is jewish.



I am not sure if this is accurate."

This is a Gemarah in Yevamos 78a and in YD 268:6. But see the Dagul Mervavah (the Nodah B’Yihudah) that says that’s only that Beis Din knows that she’s pregnant. If they don’t, then it’s a big Machlokes in the Rishonim (I think if the reason is that the child is considered part of the mother or that it’s considered as the child, as a separate entity, also Toiveled.) This can also shed light on this question. If the child is considered a separate entity, then he may not be considered Jewish.

Also, I would like to raise the question, if the reason to make the fetus Jewish is because it becomes annulled it's identity to the body of the Jew, then we may not permit it as all time we forbid to annul anything.

Rav Chaim,
Could you please explain your last statement? I don't understand it.

I think that Rav Chaim is referring to the principal of "Ein Mevatlin Issur L'Chatchila", that we are not permitted to mix up a fobidden substance with a permitted substance in circumstances that the forbidden substance will become nullified and disappear. If it happened by accident (e.g. a drop of milk fell accidentally into a meaty chulent which was at least 60 times greater in volume than the milk) then it is permitted to eat/use the permitted substance.

Now, what I think Rav Chaim is saying is that the reason for the foetus of a non-Jewish woman who converts being treated as Jewish is because the foetus becomes nullified in the body of the mother. So this nullification arises only when the Beis Din convert the mother. Since one may not nullify Issurim, forbidden substances, in the fiurst instance, how can the Beis Din convert this woman while she is pregnant?