update - limitation on non revealing the information
The issue was raised regarding the producing of mamzerim through the giving of an invalid Get. Isn't this really a non-issue since if the mamzer is not revealed - there is no prohibition of marriage and therefore everyone is presumed to be kosher?
The issue was raised regarding the producing of mamzerim through the giving of an invalid Get. Isn't this really a non-issue since if the mamzer is not revealed - there is no prohibition of marriage and therefore everyone is presumed to be kosher?
I am presenting the Rema which is the source for this view. It is clear that if in fact the information can definitely be concealed then there is no problem. However it seems obvious that with a growing awareness of the regularity that invalid Gittin are being given - that the chezkas kashrus of divorced people disappears. As Rav Sternbuch has noted, at some point when there is a systemic problem there will be a need to investigate each case of the offspring of a divorced couple. The only issue seems to be whether we have reached that point or will reach it in the near future. The leniency of the Rema applies when there are only isolated cases. In addition - even when in general the information can be concealed - but there will always be cases where the information is inadvertently revealed and then the problem of mamzerus spreads through the family like a nuclear chain reaction.
Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 2:5): If a family of cohanim has a definite challel amongst them then every woman of that family is prohibited until she is checked and if she marries she must be divorced. The same applies if there is a family that a sofek mamer or definite mamzer. Rema: However all of this applies only if it is definitely known to be true. However a family that has a person who is invalid for marriage – but it is not public knowledge- since he has been successfully mixed in then let him remained so. Someone who knows about this invalid person – is not allowed to reveal the information but the family members are to be left with their presumption of validity (chezkas kashrus). That is because all such families which have an unknown invalid person amongst them will be declared as fully kosher in the Messianic Era. Nevertheless is appropriate to reveal this information to those who can keep a secret (This is implied by the Ran). However this ignoring of the information is only when the invalid member is successfully mixed in and concealed from public knowledge. But as long as he is not mixed in then we reveal the invalid members and publicly announce it so that unblemished people will avoid marriage with them. See Choshen Mishpat 25 as to who is believed to testify about a families pedigree.
Edios (8:7): Rabbi Yehoshua said, I have received a tradition from Rabban Yochanon ben Zakkai who heard it from his rebbe and his rebbe heard it from his rebbe as a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai (Tradition given from Sinai) that Eliyahu will not come to declare unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. But rather he will put away those brought near by force and to bring near that who have been put away by force. The family of Beis Zerephah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Tzion put it away by force. And there was already another family there and Ben Tziion brought it near by force. For such people Eliyahu will come to declare unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said Eliyahu will bring near but not put away. Rabbi Shimon said that will come to resolve disputes. The Sages disagreed and said that Eliyahu will neither come to put away nor to bring near but rather to make peace in the world. As is stated in Malachi (3), Behold I will send Eliyahu the Prophet to you... And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children their fathers.
Bartenuro (Edios 8:7): It is a halacha L'Moshe m'Sinai that G-d showed Moshe at Sinai... that Eliyahu will not come to declare unclear or clean or to make distant or bring close to clarify doubts concerning which individual are problematic who have been mixed in the family - but these doubts will be left and they will be kosher in the future. The halacha is that a family which has posul individuals successfully mixed in and unidentified- they will remain unidentified as posul. ... those families where posul individuals have been successfully mixed in and they are not know as posul individuals but are presumed kosher - Eliyahu will leave them that way.
However the following claims that the prohibition of revealing information is only when it is based on rumors - but not on the testimony of two witnesses.
Chelkas Mechokek (2:5.9): One who knows that there is a mamzer is not allowed to reveal this information – But it is stated in Shulchan Aruch (EH. 2:3) that two people had testified that a family has a mamzer or challel. How can they do this since they are violating the halacha of not revealing this information? However saying they shouldn't testify also presents a difficulty since we pasken in this sif that if there is a doubt whether there is a mamzer in a particular family that someone who marries a member of that family needs to get divorced – so why isn't it a mitzva to reveal this information because today or tomorrow witnesses will come and testify that there is a mamzer in the family and consequently the children of this family will be considered sofek mamzerim? A possible answer is that concerning the Ran on which the leniency of the Rema is based, he could be talking about a case where it is not clear that a member of the family is actually a mamzer – but merely that there is a rumor. Perhaps it is only such a case where the Ran is saying that there is no need to reveal this information except to modest people [who won't spread the information]. However when two witness know for certain that a mamzer assimilated into this family it is very difficult to claim that they should not testify since the children of this family - once the information becomes public that there is a mamzer who is mixed into this famly –will henceforth be sofek mamzerim.
Edios (8:7): Rabbi Yehoshua said, I have received a tradition from Rabban Yochanon ben Zakkai who heard it from his rebbe and his rebbe heard it from his rebbe as a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai (Tradition given from Sinai) that Eliyahu will not come to declare unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. But rather he will put away those brought near by force and to bring near that who have been put away by force. The family of Beis Zerephah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Tzion put it away by force. And there was already another family there and Ben Tziion brought it near by force. For such people Eliyahu will come to declare unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and said Eliyahu will bring near but not put away. Rabbi Shimon said that will come to resolve disputes. The Sages disagreed and said that Eliyahu will neither come to put away nor to bring near but rather to make peace in the world. As is stated in Malachi (3), Behold I will send Eliyahu the Prophet to you... And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children their fathers.
Bartenuro (Edios 8:7): It is a halacha L'Moshe m'Sinai that G-d showed Moshe at Sinai... that Eliyahu will not come to declare unclear or clean or to make distant or bring close to clarify doubts concerning which individual are problematic who have been mixed in the family - but these doubts will be left and they will be kosher in the future. The halacha is that a family which has posul individuals successfully mixed in and unidentified- they will remain unidentified as posul. ... those families where posul individuals have been successfully mixed in and they are not know as posul individuals but are presumed kosher - Eliyahu will leave them that way.
However the following claims that the prohibition of revealing information is only when it is based on rumors - but not on the testimony of two witnesses.
Chelkas Mechokek (2:5.9): One who knows that there is a mamzer is not allowed to reveal this information – But it is stated in Shulchan Aruch (EH. 2:3) that two people had testified that a family has a mamzer or challel. How can they do this since they are violating the halacha of not revealing this information? However saying they shouldn't testify also presents a difficulty since we pasken in this sif that if there is a doubt whether there is a mamzer in a particular family that someone who marries a member of that family needs to get divorced – so why isn't it a mitzva to reveal this information because today or tomorrow witnesses will come and testify that there is a mamzer in the family and consequently the children of this family will be considered sofek mamzerim? A possible answer is that concerning the Ran on which the leniency of the Rema is based, he could be talking about a case where it is not clear that a member of the family is actually a mamzer – but merely that there is a rumor. Perhaps it is only such a case where the Ran is saying that there is no need to reveal this information except to modest people [who won't spread the information]. However when two witness know for certain that a mamzer assimilated into this family it is very difficult to claim that they should not testify since the children of this family - once the information becomes public that there is a mamzer who is mixed into this famly –will henceforth be sofek mamzerim.
Thank you, Rabbi Daniel
ReplyDeleteEidensohn for this post.
“Someone
who knows about this invalid person – is not allowed to reveal the information
but the family members are to be left with their presumption of validity
(chezkas kashrus). That is because all such families which have an unknown
invalid person amongst them will be declared as fully kosher in the Messianic
Era.”
Good
that Rav Moshe Sternbuch strongly condemns prenuptial agreements, fine, but we
don’t dare go around and raise suspicions on the women divorced through
coercion or pre-nup when they have more children from another man. Life moves on. Everyone should just mind their own business.
I quote the Malbim on “A passerby who gets
embroiled in someone else’s quarrel Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears” (Proverbs
26:17):
“If
a dog is walking along quietly and someone seizes it by the ears, he will have
it barking furiously and biting him.
Similarly, if he grows furious about some rancorous argument that does
not concern him and decides to interfere, he will find himself calumniated and
even “bitten” verbally.”
@Gerald Aranoff - you correctly got the first half of my post - but you missed the message of the 2nd part.
ReplyDeleteIt is like saying that one does not have to be overly concerned with the mercury in fish -except when it is eaten frequently or for pregnant women. You got the "not to overly concerned part" but missed the statement that past a certain level there is clearly what to be concerned about.
When posul Gittin are not unusual then Rav Sternbuch and others state there is a need to check every divorce. The question is whether we have reached that state yet.
Mamzerus - is in fact important for all of us
"However this ignoring of the information is only when the invalid member is successfully mixed in and concealed from public knowledge. But as long as he is not mixed in then we reveal the invalid members and publicly announce it so that unblemished people will avoid marriage with them."
ReplyDeleteThis seems to indicate that this point of keeping quiet is only applicable if a mamzer was already born and people are unaware of his status as such. But if a couple are living in a forbidden relationship that will produce mamzeirim if children are born of it, it should be revealed to the public before children are produced. The Rema's provision does not apply to keeping quiet about forbidden relationships but rather only about mamzeirim already born.
So if a wife receives a Get Me'usa, an invalid Get due to her husband having been unhalachicly pressured to divorce her or invalid for any other reason, this Rema would not protect her from this fact from being revealed as she has not already produced mamzeirim yet. This Rema wouldn't protect such a wife even if she already "remarried" a new man after the invalid Get with her first husband, if she hasn't produced yet offspring from her second relationship. In such cases their forbidden relationship should be publicly revealed so that they break it up.
Rabbi Moshe Heinemann wrote a letter encouraging support for ORA because they made public demonstrations against 150 husbands who refused to give a GET. The dozens or hundreds of protesters surely knew who the couple was that was forced into a divorce. And since the Shulchan Aruch and the Gedolim and major rabbonim feel that a coerced GET makes mamzerim, we have 150 known women who are probably remarried and producing children today. These women and these children are not "swallowed up" quietly into a family, but known, through the advertising in public media by ORA and by the public demonstrations that went on for long periods. Are we to ignore the problem of mamzeruth from these 150 women?
ReplyDeleteThe letter from Rabbi Heinemann is on this blog and on my blog at torahhalacha.blogspot.com .
If two witnesses come forward and testify that so and so is a mamzer, or if we know that the GET given the mother was invalid by two witnesses, may we marry that mamzer? Does Eliyohu intend to come and dismiss testimony of two witnesses and especially in cases where everybody knew that it was true, such as when ORA assembles mobs of people to stand and humiliate a husband in public?
ReplyDeleteSee Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Dayah 265:4"We publicize at the time of the Bris Milah that the baby is a mamzer." The Shach there says that mamzerim are not given Bris Mila inside the shull like kosher children are, but outside the shull. The Gro quotes a gemora Yevomose that the source for publicizing that the baby is a mamzer by the Bris is a gemora in Yevomose 78b. There is says that a Rov publicized the fact that a somebody was a mamzer. The person came to the Rov to complain and the Rov said that if I had no publicized this, you would have died.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, we see that those known to be mamzerim are publicized at birth, in public.
The argument is that it is now "ok" to violate the shulchan aruch. This is actually something that R' Aaron Rakefet brought up, and he was using a counter argument, ie that in the Hareidi world, they no longer observe the SA for precisely this reason.
ReplyDeleteI
ReplyDeletelove what Rav Moshe Sternbuch is doing to stop the prenup. Incidentally I strongly support Rabbi Riskin
in his efforts to fully converts Russian immigrants.
The
re’ma says: “Someone who knows about this invalid person
– is not allowed to reveal the information but the family members are to be
left with their presumption of validity (chezkas kashrus).” I interpret that an individual who has
personal knowledge that a man gave a get to his wife solely because of Mendel
Epstein’s methods or because of the penalties of the prenup and now this אשת איש marries another
and has children from the other (real ספק ממזרים)---this individual should mind his own business. He should not reveal the information he
knows. How much more so, outside
observers who get twisted and wrong information, should mind their business and
not reveal what they think they know.
What i do not get is, do you really think these rabbonim are ignorant on simple halachos of shulchon aruch? Or is it possible that they have a different understanding of the shulchon aruch than you, a blogger? Even if there are rabbonim in EY that share your opinions, does that make your opinions correct?
ReplyDelete@Gerald Aranoff - again - where it is an isolated case then we are not to tell. The problem when is systematic. Whether Eptsein's divorce cross the threshold is not a question of wishful thinking but rather psak from qualified poskim. It seems that if there are two witnesses who can testify that a previous unknown person is a mamzer - the rule of the Rema does not apply.
ReplyDelete@Eddie - I don't think understood what I said. We are not talking about when is it ok to violate the Shulchan Aruch. From the Shulchan Aruch there is no leniency stated to keep quiet. You have a tendency of taking part of an argument - turning it wings and trying to fly. Unfortunately the argument is not sound enough to support you.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the halacha if the wife's husband publicly announces that he was forced or pressured to give a Get? Does his making this announcement either to the public or to a Beis Din have any halachic impact on how we assume the kashrus of the Get?
ReplyDeleteI agree, Rabbi Daniel
ReplyDeleteEisensohn: “It seems that if there are two witnesses who can testify that a
previous unknown person is a mamzer - the rule of the Rema does not apply.”
I heard from different rabbis a wonderful story about the leading rabbi of
the previous generation, Rabbi Feinstein, z”l.
Rabbi Feinstein was holding the wine cup, standing under the
Chuppah. The prospective mother-in-law whispers
to Rabbi Feinstein, that she can no longer keep her secret, she must confess,
that her son, standing there under the Chuppah, was the result of her cheating
on her husband, an extra-marital affair. Rabbi Feinstein immediately said אינה נאמנת and proceeded with the marriage blessings.
While, in many cases, we do not seek to expose the unknown mamazer - the question should still remain as to whether we would want to marry this type of person.
ReplyDeleteWhy should an individual not investigate a potential spouse for mazeiruth? When we consider that over the past 200 years approximately 80% of our brethren unfortunately dropped Torah and Mitzvoth; we should realize how fortunate we are to be Torah-true Jews. On the other hand, can we feel confident about offspring who may have the major blemish of mamzeiruth to be able to swim upstream, and remain Torah-true?
When a person has permissble marital relations with his wife, yet they are not ethically correct, it can have dire consequences on child concieved of such relations. Would being married to a woman who has not gotten a proper get, or the offspring of such a union cause at least the same type of damage?
וברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי אלו בני תשעה מדות בני אנוסה בני שנואה בני נדוי בני תמורה בני מורדת בני שכרות בני גרושת הלב בני ערבוביא בני חצופה:
My point is that there are many examples of extremism in halacha, which seems to be innovation rather than based on normative halacha. Thus the lenience of R' Hoffman, in geirus, is deemed as totally illegitimate to the point that anyone who relies on this is excluded from the chizkat kashrus for dayyanut.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.koltorah.org/ravj/The_Geirut_Controversy__2.html
@Eddie your point being? You claim that "there are many examples of extremism in halahca which seems to be innovation rather than based on normative halacha and yet you give an example of this in the extremism of Rav Hoffman which was rejected as not being normative?!
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point you raise - except that Rav Hoffman was a leading posek over 100 years ago, and the mainstream poskim of later generations, may have disagreed with him, but did not posul him or a BD that relied on him. or are you arguing that extreme leniency is met with counter-extreme stringency?
ReplyDelete@Eddie - please cut it out. You made an assertion - I showed you that your proof to you assertion actually refuted your position. To claim that a particular halachic position was not condemned so strongly 100 years ago - is meaningless. Times change and the significance of deviating from was has developed as normative halacha can also change.
ReplyDeleteIn short your attack on the chareidi position was totally unsupported by the example of Rav Hoffman and thus should be retracted unless you can bring some genuine support that the chareidi view is that normative halachic position is often ignored and many extreme innnovation are accepted instead
It depends what you define as the chareidi view. Since mainstream poskim did not disqualify batei Din who relied on R' Hoffman, the extreme version of Chareidi viewpoint is the outlier. hence, they posul all Batei Din that rely on previous poskim, eg R' Hoffman & R Uziel.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe and Rav Ovadia did not posul such Batei din.
The argument was even that a giur which was done totally with intention to keep mitzvot it batul, since the Dayanim have in other cases been lenient. This si despite the fact that in the Rambam (and correct me if I am wrong -also in the SA), a BD of regular men can convene a conversion!
@Eddie - you made an assertion. Then you start twisting things - 1) suddently you raise the issue that the term chareidi in your original assertion isn't defined and how you define it is significant. 2 ) you are pushing a major thesis about chareidi deviation from normative halacha - without actually showing that there is such a thing. 3) your understanding of the halachic process does not correspond to reality 4) you are cherry picking aspects of geirus as if it somehow representative of this alleged Chareidi deviance of normative halacha - without in fact showing that this is at all relevant
ReplyDeleteIn short Eddie- instead of cherry picking items to try and prove a major thesis - either acknowledge that you are not prepared to prove you allegations or produce evidence which clearly supports your thesis. Your interpretations of what you think is normative halacha in geirus simply is not relevant to this discussion. I am not publishing any more of your comments. If you want to write a guest post regarding your hypothesis - I will consider publishing it But only if it is significantly more scholarly than your present efforts.
It would be greatly appreciate if you stick to those views that are generally accepted or for which you can provide solid proof. your wild allegations - presented as if everyone agrees with them if they weren't biased(i.e., chareidi) - really is not helpful to advancing the discussion.
Bli neder, I will try to put something together, thank you for the kind offer!
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Those Epstein cases can't be ignored, especially the contested ones. I just wonder, with the increase of divorce, if it is wise to cast aspersions on all children of divorce. True, many rabbanim will perform divorces in a way that they don't follow all opinions. However, the idea of not trying to find mamzeirus should at least apply to cases where there is no strong raglayim l'davar.
ReplyDeleteA few points about mamzerus:
ReplyDelete1) The English word often used to translate this: "bastard" is actually much milder than a proper mamzer. A bastard, in English law is only someone whose parents were unmarried when the child was born, but not assur for them to be married.
2) I once had a conversation with a very frum rabbi, who was close to Rav Soloveitchik and looked down on "Modern orthodox". It was around the time of 9/11. He expressed concern that in New york there were chas v'shalom Yeshiva bochurs who might have been involved in the tragedy. I used the English term "Bastards" to descrie the murdering terrorist rodefim. The rabbi was very angry with me for using this word!
So let us analyze the problem here:
a) Rashaim of the worst order murder thousands of innocent Americans, including many Jews.
b) Whereas in Yiddish parlance, the term "mamzer" is used for wicked people as well, in English the term "bastard" is used.
c) The Rov, who was quite learned, expressed his deep concern for chas v'shalom frum bochrim who might hav fallen victim to the terrorist rashaim attack. But, he suddenly felt that my use of language was unhalachic. Is the smae man who was almost in tears about Jewish korbanot, suddenly more concerned about the lineage and kashrus of the rashaim-murderer-terrorist-scum who may have killed 500 Jews in their attacks, because of an off the cuff remark I made? Is there not a Talmudic dictum about those who have mercy on the cruel, will one day be cruel unto the merciful?
So the people who protest are violating the halacha l'chatchila, then turn around and say "see, it is public knowledge ([due to them outing each mamzerim on mamzer watch and other blogs] so we are under no obligation to keep quiet.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of a systemic problem is a chiddush.
ReplyDeleteRema says those who are successfully integrated should remain that way.
so is Mamzer Alert and other such groups violating halacha?
ReplyDeleteNope read above
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that if in fact the information can definitely be concealed then there is no problem. However it seems obvious that with a growing awareness of the regularity that invalid Gittin are being given - that the chezkas kashrus of divorced people disappears.
I don't see anyone discussing gittin
ReplyDeleteThe Ran is talking about 2 witnesses coming forward.