Selected Reform Responsa 185

(procreation) if his wife was impregnated in the bath, and whether the resulting child is his child in every respect. Instead of giving a clear answer, Helkat Mehokek cites an incident from Likutei Maharil. According to this incident, Ben Sira was the result of a bath insemination (vet no blemish is attached to him).

3. Beit Shemu-el(Samuel ben Uri Phoebus), ibid., note 10, cites Helkat Mehokek's question and answers it by referring in brief to Hagahot Semak, a note by Perez (ben Elijah) on Semak(Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil ). This note is related fully in Bach(Joel Sirkes ) on Tur, Yoreh De-a 195, and tells us the following: A menstruous woman may lie on the sheet of her husband but not on that of a stranger lest she become pregnant from the seed of a stranger(emitted on the sheet). But why should she not be afraid of becoming pregnant from the seed of her husband while she is menstruating and thus producing a ben hanidah (child of a menstruous woman), which is prohibited? The answer: Since there is no prohibited intercourse, the child is entirely kasher(no stigma attached to him), even if she became pregnant(in such a way) by a stranger, since Ben Sira was kasher (see above). Yet, if it is a stranger, we have to be cautious(i.e., she must not lie on his sheet), because of the possibility that the resulting child might marry his own sister by his father (whose identity is unknown). Beit Shemu-el concludes from this note that the child resulting from such an insemination is that of the emitter of the seed in every respect.

This conclusion, needless to say, is irreconcilable with the

fundamental rule of artificial insemination, requiring that the child belong to the mother's husband, not to the donor of the seed. 4. Mishneh Lamelekh(Judah Rosanes ) on Maimonides ’ Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ishut XV 4. besides citing(see above), remarks:“Ein safek dela ne-esra leva-alah mishum de-ein kan bi-at isur”(“There is no doubt that she does not become prohibited to her husband because no prohibited intercourse took place”).: je

What Mishneh Lamelekh clarifies is that accidental insemination in a bath or on a sheet(i.e., without direct contact with a man) cannot be considered as adultery, which would make her prohibited to her husband (rape of a Kohen's wife would have the same result). For our problem, this does not reveal any clue, since we are not trying to solve the question