Sterilizing Husband

You ask in behalf of a physician who wants to know whether, according to Jewish law, it is permitted to sterilize a husband in order to prevent his wife from becoming pregnant, since a pregnancy would gravely endanger her health. (To Rabbi Leo J. Stillpass, Galveston, Texas)

As for the general right of birth control, that has been discussed fully in the well-known responsum of Dr. Jacob Z. Lauterbach. (See Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook, Vol. 57.) Although, of course, some later Orthodox authorities would object to the use of any contraceptive on the ground that it constitutes “wasting of seed,” Dr. Lauterbach proves very clearly that, according to the main decisions of Jewish law, birth control is permitted, especially if the husband has already fulfilled the duty of having children. This means that if he has had two children, he has fulfilled his obligation to the commandment, “Increase and multiply.” Besides, it is permitted to a man to marry a woman even if she cannot bear children. See Shulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer I, 3 (Isserles), 4, 5.

However, there is a principle in the law that concerns this case more closely than the permissiveness of birth control: the important fact that there is a difference in status between husband and wife as to marital duty. The basic law is that the commandment to “increase and multiply” is a commandment that is incumbent upon the man, not upon the woman (see Mishna, Yevamos VII, 6). That is why the law permits a woman (since the commandment to “increase and multiply” is not incumbent upon her) to take medicine that will make her sterile (Tosefta Yevamos VIII, 4). Moreover, your inquiry raises an even graver problem than that of taking a medicine that might make a man sterile. It involves an operation that might in all likelihood make him permanently sterile.

I have made inquiries of an expert in this field of medicine, and he has informed me that recently operations have been performed in America upon Jewish refugees from Germany who had been sterilized by Nazi physicians. The American operation was for the purpose of restoring their fertility, but only infrequently was this operation successful. Therefore the sterility operation suggested in this case may be taken as meaning, with strong probability, permanent sterility. This makes the man, according to Jewish law, a “Saris” (eunuch). In the definition of eunuch discussed in the law, the law goes beyond the Biblical description of mutilation (Deuteronomy 23 : 2) and says that the crushing of the channels or ducts (“chutin” or “shevilim”) that prepare or carry seed is also included among the definitions of the man being made a eunuch. (See Yad Hil chos Issure Biya XVI, 2, 6; also Shulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer V, 2.) This is clearly an action prohibited by Jewish law. It is counted as the negative commandment #559 (see Minchas Chinuch).

There is only one mitigation of this firm prohibition, and that is if such an operation were performed for the sake of the man’s health; then, according to Maimonides (ibid., #8), that would be permitted, but even in this case, Maimonides’ opinion is disputed by Rashi and Asher ben Yehiel. For, after all, suppose the occasion arises for the man to marry again. Why should he be prevented, presumably forever, from having children from that union?

Since this special case concerns the wife’s health, however, there is no doubt that she may use any contraceptive that may be effective, or may undergo any operation that is deemed necessary. Of course, it may well be that this particular woman may have, for example, a weak heart and so cannot be operated upon, or that pregnancy would be so extremely dangerous that the doctor would not want her to take the risk of ordinary contraceptives proving ineffective. I have no doubt that there are many good reasons in the doctor’s mind, but even the medical profession is hesitant about the procedure of sterilization; as for Jewish traditional law, there is no way in which sterilization can be permitted under the circumstances in this case.