Page 32 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 32 - 1-Front 21-10-31 1

mitted the emission of semen for the purpose of testing in the case
of a man who had been married for over ten years without children,
after physicians had told him that it seemed that cause lay with
him. [It’s possible that according to the Yaavetz, a man who had
become engaged to his cousin would be allowed to emit semen for
naught i.e. for testing, in order to avoid having to part from his fian-
cée.]

Fourth Approach – Emitting infertile semen: The Divrei Malkiel
(Vol. I, 157) advances the novel rationale that the prohibition of emit-
ting semen for naught only applies to a man whose sperm is capable
of siring children but if his sperm is infertile the prohibition may not
fully apply to him. A person with a hole in his male organ is therefore
allowed to emit semen in order to see if the hole has closed, for until it
has been proven to have closed he is presumed to be a kerus shufchah
and retains his former status of having a hole in his male organ and
being unable to sire children, therefore he is allowed to emit semen
for naught.

According to this explanation of the gemara in Yevamos, the Divrei
Malkiel prohibits medical testing of semen for a couple who do not
yet have children, because it has not yet been established that the hus-
band’s sperm is infertile. Some temporary factor may be responsible
for their present childlessness, as happens in many cases where chil-
dren are born only after a number of years. [According to the Divrei
Malkiel, the test permitted by the Beis Shmuel (above) when blood is
found on the sheet, will also be forbidden.]

The Shevet Sofer (1) gives a similar rationale to that of the Divrei
Malkiel regarding the case of a childless woman who underwent
surgery, following which the physicians decided that the problem lay
not with her but with her husband. In order to start medication her
husband had to emit semen for testing. The Shevet Sofer permitted
this for since it had been established that the husband’s sperm was
infertile there was no prohibition of emission of semen.

It should however be pointed out in regard to the Divrei Malkiel’s
approach that his understanding of the gemara in Yevamos accords

16 1 Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein