Page 23 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 23 - 1-Back 21-10-31

to whether the child is considered his father’s child in all
respects.

2. The view of the Beis Shmuel, that the child is considered
his father’s son in every respect. In Igros Moshe (Even
Ha’ezer, Vol I, 10) too it is clear that reason is more inclined
towards saying that he is considered his father’s son.

3. The view of the Taz and the Birkei Yosef, that where it
leads to a stringent ruling he is considered his father’s son
but not in regard to leniencies.

4. The view of Bar Livai, according to which the child is not
considered his father’s son at all.

Now, the opinion of those poskim who say that the child is not con-
sidered his father’s son apparently require some explanation. Why
should such a son, who was born from [his father’s] sperm that be-
came embedded in his mother’s womb, not be considered a son of his
father? The child was not born through a miracle but from his father’s
semen, so why should he not be considered his son with absolute
certainty?

The explanation seems to be as follows. We find that Chazal raise
the question of whether or not“We concern ourselves with the sperm
of the father,” as is evident in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 16:2).
To explain: the Torah forbids slaughtering “it and its son” (Vayikra
22:26) [i.e. a mother animal and its offspring] on the same day.
Opinion is divided over whether the concept of paternity applies to
animals [and therefore whether this prohibition also applies to a male
animal and its offspring]. The reason for this doubt is that the fetus’
main relationship is with its mother, who plays the principle role in
bringing it into the world, as opposed to the father who only plays a
causative role in the fetus’ formation [not nurturing it like the moth-
er does]. We find similarly in the gemara (Bava Metzia 101a) that a
person who plants a seed in ground belonging to his colleague does
not own the resulting tree, which belongs to the owner of the field.
The planter is entitled only to compensation for his efforts, like a
sharecropper. Logic therefore dictates that a child should be regarded

Artificial Inseminatio 2 7