SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

sound and provides at least some justification for his hesitant conclusion(cf. also Responsum 5, ibid.).

Let me sum up the problem of artificial insemination considered from the viewpoint of historical Judaism , as follows:

Artificial insemination, as understood and practiced today, is not mentioned in Rabbinic literature. What we find here is merely accidental, indirect insemination. We must also keep in mind that the bath insemination of the Talmud is not merely an ex post facto case, but it also involves the concept of Ones, meaning accident." Jewish law mostly, though not always, clearly distinguishes between accidental and premeditated deed. 1 do not believe that we do justice to Jewish law or to Judaism by disregarding its concepts and principles in an effort to force certain conclusions, one way or the other.

Also the fact that the laws and discussions of the Rabbis with regard to bath insemination are of a theoretical nature, is of importance. Not

one incident of actual bath insemination is attested to in Jewish literature. What we find, including the Ben Sira case, is mere Agada. Had such an incident actually occurred, the Rabbis might have found a solution entirely different from the known theoretical considerations. Noteworthy is the fact that the Sages never recommend bath insemination, even if this were the only means of saving a marriage, which ranks very high with the Rabbis . A case in point is an incident in Yevamot 65b(see ibid.).

I do not claim that the last word has been said on artificial insemination in its relation to Jewish life and practice. It is hardly possible to draw safe conclusions from the theoretical accidental insemination found in Jewish sources to the artificial insemination of our day. While indications strongly point to a negative answer(particularly if the seed of a stranger is to be used), other aspects of Judaism must be explored as well, in order to arrive at a conclusion reflecting Judaism at its best.