Page 84 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 84 - 3-Front 21-10-31

not [subsequently] divorce her with that get, lest people say that her
divorce preceded [the conception of ] her child.” The source of this
ruling is maseches Gittin (79b) where Rashi (s.v. gitah) explains, “Lest
the husband wait with the divorce two or three years after its writing
and she bears him children during that time and he later he divorces
her with it and eventually, when matters have been forgotten, people
will see that the date on the get precedes the birth of her child and
they will say that the child was born to a single mother, after her di-
vorce and its lineage is tainted.”

In our case too, they may gossip about the woman and say that her
child is tainted – and [even if the specific gossip about the mother
is untrue,] the child may indeed be tainted [as explained earlier in
#2] – and the husband’s testament will be in effectual in rendering the
child’s lineage above suspicion. [This is a further reason why the wife
is under no obligation to carry out her late husband’s wishes – she
need not enter into a situation where she might become the subject of
unfounded rumor.]

To question two: If she swore to him to be fertilized by his semen,
the oath is effective. Although we learn in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh
De’ah 239:6) that an oath to violate a negative mitzvah of rabbinic
origin is not effective, our case doesn’t seem to involve any specific
rabbinic prohibition, rather it is an improper practice.

As for the prohibition against divorcing one’s wife using a get that
was written earlier, out of concern that gossips will claim that the
child’s lineage is tainted [and by the same token maybe, since it too
can lead to unfounded rumor, posthumous artificial insemination will
also be forbidden, thus rendering the woman’s oath ineffective] -- and
here it seems likely that the child is indeed tainted – it is different in
the case of a get written at an earlier time, for there it is forbidden to
allow a situation where a child whose lineage is truly untainted to be
rumored as tainted. Here though, the child will in actuality be tainted
from the outset and the woman’s actions do not involve tainting or
casting aspersion on the untainted lineage of a regular child. [It is
thus hard to argue that for the same reason that divorcing with an

68 1 Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein