Hello,
Creating a digital representation of a deceased person involves a wide range of topics in halachic ethics. This is not merely a matter of memorialization or eulogizing—which are highly positive things—but rather of creating a false representation, which, with the increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence, will come to more closely resemble actual reality. This poses a risk of deception, misleading others, and placing a stumbling block before the blind, etc. This is just one of the aspects that must be addressed, and a clear distinction must be made between meaningful storytelling and misleading digital simulation.
Another aspect is the harm to the deceased himself. While one might argue that since a person has passed away and is no longer among the living, they cannot be harmed, halacha addresses the dignity of a person even after death, not just prohibitions against physically damaging the body. For example, the Rema rules that speaking lashon hara about the dead is forbidden:
“One who speaks ill of those who dwell in the dust must undertake fasts and repentance and may also face financial penalties as determined by the court. If the deceased is buried nearby, the offender must go to the grave to ask forgiveness; if the grave is far away, a messenger must be sent…” (Rema, Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 420:38)
Elsewhere in halacha, we find the requirement to seek forgiveness from someone after their death if one wronged them without having previously asked their forgiveness:
“If the person one sinned against has died, one brings ten people and stands them at the grave and says: ‘I have sinned before the God of Israel and against this person whom I wronged…’” (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 606:2)
And further in that section:
“Our ancestors instituted and even declared a ban against speaking ill of the dead.” (ibid., 606:3)
This approach teaches that the dignity of the deceased is a key ethical consideration. In fact, this sensitivity extends to other areas—even to certain halachic opinions (though debated) that prohibit harvesting organs from someone who is brain-respiratory dead to save lives without their prior consent or that of their close family, despite the significant justification for doing so based on the halachic imperative to save lives.
Therefore, what is forbidden to do to a person in life is also forbidden after death.
Is there an additional consideration: avoiding the risk that the deceased will be forgotten from the heart? This is not a halachic consideration. The Rambam’s statement is a psychological or perhaps theological observation, but it is not a legal directive. On the contrary—we undertake many actions specifically to nurture and grow the seeds planted within us by the deceased, and we actively engage in memorialization. Thus, this concern should not influence the halachic ruling.
All the best,
Rabbi Yuval Cherlow
Rabbi Cherlow is the Head of the Ethics Department at the Tzohar Rabbinical Organization
