Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Mamzerim: When a woman remarries without a Get from the first husband - Rav Sternbuch

 Rabbi Dovid Katz wrote an important article dealing with attempts to deal with the problem of mamzer by using a shifcha. It is available here www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf.     This is page 13 and 30 of the article

==============================================

 Minchat Yitzchak: V 47: In the aftermath of the Holocaust, many displaced persons were unaware of the fate of their spouses and loved ones. Families had become separated, and in the period immediately following the end of World War II, there were cases where survivors believed that their families had perished when in reality they had survived. It thus happened a number of times that a woman, believing herself to be a widow, married another man after the war, had children by him, and subsequently discovered to her horror that her first husband had never died! The chaotic conditions prevailing in those years, especially in the DP camps and Eastern Europe, led many people to marry without consulting a rav or Bet Din, so many people were not even aware of the ramifications of their status.

R. Yitzchak Weiss, author of Minchat Yirzchak, was consulted about such a case. R. Tzvi Elimelech Kalish, Rabbi in Munkatch and subsequently in Bnei Brak, was faced with the situation of an entire group of young men who were the children of mothers who had remarried after the war, only to find out later that their first husbands were still alive. As the offspring of second "marriages" which in the eyes of Jewish law were adulterous, these young men were mamzerim. Two decades after the war, these young men, who had grown up in Hungary, wished to marry. R. Kalish therefore asked whether it was actually possible to convert gentile woman as shefachot kna'aniyot in the twentieth century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Teshuvot Vehanhagot I  764, R. Moshe Sternbuch describes how he was faced with a situation in South Africa of a woman who had had an Orthodox marriage, but had remarried without benefit of a get, a halachic divorce. Her husband had been relucant to give her a get, so she remarried in a Reform ceremony. Obviously, the children from her "second marriage" were mamzerim because in the eyes of Jewish law she was still married to her first husband at the time she had children by another man. Some years later, the woman became a ba'alat teshuva (repentant), sought and obtained a get from her first husband, and even sent her children to Orthodox day schools. She was nevertheless faced with the consequences of her second marriage: her children were mamzerim .

In seeking a solution to this tragedy, R. Sternbuch likewise reasoned that it ought to be possible for a gentile woman to become a shifcho even in modern-day South Africa inasmuch as the entire process would be a legal fiction to which the state would not take exception. In the end, however, R. Sternbuch concluded that if such great authorities as the Minchat Yitzchak and Chelkat Yaakov were unable to sanction such a procedure, in the one case on account of halachic objections and in the other on account of a reluctance to rule absent support from other poskim, then such an option was not practicable nowadays. R. Sternbuch had no choice but to advise the mamzerim to marry converts, knowing, however, that their children would also be mamzerim down to the end of time. As he put it: 


ועל כל פנים אין לנו לפרוץ גדרים בייחוס שלא שמענו מאביתינו כן מעולם אף שהיה יכול להציל פסול זרעו לעולם


In any event, we ought not to "break fences" [i.e. make radical innovations] in matters involving family relations. We have never heard of our ancestors [resorting to such a procedure] even though [the mamzer] would be able to save his progeny [from the taint of mamzerut] forever.

113 comments:

  1. THe Strassberger Rov, head of family issues at the Beth Din of AIdo HaCharedis, sent me to Reb Moshe Feintstein zt"l regarding a problem of a mamzer or rather a doubtful mamzer. To make a very long story very short, I finally met the questionable mamzer and in my life I never saw such extraordinary Yiras Shomayim. I think I said over the whole story at least once on the blog so I won't do it again here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why does the rav kalish case refer to men, and not men and women? (Or is that just oversight / mistranslation?)

    2. I heard that RMF had such a case from south america,

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's see a teshuva on the Epstein case. Without well reasoned teshuvos from known gedolim, your protest will be viewed as nothing more than some blog spouting hot air (even if you are right).

    ReplyDelete
  4. For all you know, this unamed secret heteirim can crack this sort of Agunas as well. Had she known that her husband will not come forth in time after war to continue their marriage, she would have never married him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All this talk is about cleansing a MOMZER today which in the end in today's times is ruled out.and practicably unfeasible.
    But that's for sure None of the above Poskim would ever Contemplate the Thought of allowing an Eishes Ish to create new Momzerim ,!

    Nor would they utilize dubious annulment or doubtful kedushai taus heterim! in the place of a GET.
    And even in a case a true honest 100% verifiable kedushai taus you can see They would hesitate a Never pasken without a long list of true highest caliber poskem joining &agreeing and publicly affixing their names to such a psak
    Also . accompanied with greatest trepidation.and fear of G-D
    and fear for future ramifications of such a psak.

    ReplyDelete
  6. shefachot kna'aniyos can work for a male mamzer to marry. Is there any similar theoretical solution for a female mamzerus to be able to get married and have children who are not mamzeirim?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes ! good joke!
    And so there thats a ketushai tous Philly/Memphis style! !!

    Then after the war she would have continued her new life with her new husband and their now so called 'koshered', kids !!
    But unfortunately of course that's not what transpired,

    only when the first husband surfaced there was an order for immediate GET from the New husband.
    and their kids now became full Momzerim. for ever on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jews have been observing Jewish Law (Halacha) for over 3,000 years. Over these 3,000+ years we unfortunately have produced mamzeirim probably in every generation. Small numbers, no doubt, in each generation but it certainly has happened. Being that we haven't kept track of the yichus of mamzeirim from 3,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or even 500 or 250 years ago, it seems virtually certain that over the thousands of years some of the mamzeirim (and I mean mamzeirim that were officially recognized and halachicly determined to be mamzeirim during their lifetime) had children and grandchildren.

    And at some point the children, grandchildren and/or great-grandchildren of officially recognized halachic mamzeirim got lost in the crowd and had children and grandchildren of their own who didn't know they were mamzeirim and moved to new communities and no one kept track. And over thousands of years married into kosher families.

    And since it this scenario started occurring thousands of years ago, and repeated itself since, some of these "forgotten mamzeirim" may C"V be the forefathers and foremothers of thousands of Jews today.

    Is this not a concern?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unfortunately not. Its explicit in the gemara at the end of kiddushin.

    ReplyDelete
  10. a person born from incestor adultery who gets lost in the crowd - is considered kosher. Eliyahu hanavi will not reveal who these people are.

    In short a person is a mamzer only if he is known to be a product of incest or adultery.

    So potential mamzerim who were never identified as such are not t a concern see Igros Moshe EH 4 #9

    The problem is if it is still a possibility that they might be discovered and be declared mamzerim.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But I'm not talking about someone born today from an incestuous relationship that technically makes him a mamzer but people didn't realize it was incestuous or couldn't prove it so no one ever knew the baby was a mamzer.

    I'm talking about a situation thousands of years ago or hundreds of years ago where a baby was born and officially and halachicly deemed to be a mamzer. And everyone knew and recognized him to be a mamzer.

    But then this official mamzer had children. And the children had children. All mamzeirim of course. But at some point they moved around to new communities or countries or for whatever reason over the hundreds of subsequent years the community and Jewish people lost track that one or some of these grandchildren was a mamzer. And his children didn't know they were mamzeirim and married someone who wasn't a mamzer. And the kosher spouse didn't know the spouse descended from mamzeirim.

    And since this mistake occured a thousand years ago, they have had a line of unknown mamzeirim for a thousand years that today numbers in the tens of thousands or more.

    But if a "yichus brief" was made even today all these tens of thousands of Jews can trace that their forefather from a thousand years ago was Shimon the Mamzer. So while Eliyahu Hanavi will not reveal who is a mamzer, people will know who their father is, and their father will know who his father is, and his grandfather and great-grandfather, and eventually it will be seen that way back one of their zeidas was a mamzer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I remember a source which says that a known mamzer was told to travel to another place where he wasn't known and assimilate into the population. Thus he could lose his status when it became unknonw to his environment.

    If a known mamzer "disappears" then he is not a halachic problem.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I also heard that theory. But when I heard it, it was offered as a boich svara rather than a written halachic source. I think it is one of those svaras that some random rabbi proffered but it isn't actually given as a real halacha with attribution to rishonim or achronim.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @David - obviously there needs to be a source - I simply don't remember where I saw it

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think you need a halachic source that he loses his status simply by moving away to a new community that didn't know he was a mamzer, even though his old community knew. I never saw that purported to be actual halacha.



    Such a case would be realized even without Eliyahu Hanavi telling anyone by the redemption, since his father was a known mamzer. Even if the son of the mamzer moves to a new country where the new community didn't know his father and that he was a mamzer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. True, granted. But had these secret rabbis experienced the after war Agunos, they would have had no scruples in a clandestine heter of mekach toches. Why discriminate bein dom ledin, ubein lekach lemekach. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, seriously. In any which worst case, Kessef metaher mamzerim, Kidushin!

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is not a boich svara. I heard it as an manifestation that there is absolutely know prohibition involved if the mamzer is unknown. Meaning it doesn't matter if he was once known but that that he is unknown there is no issur to marry him.

    Anyway still looking

    ReplyDelete
  18. Its a gemara in yevamos and its not about a mamzer its about stam a person whose father was a goy. For the hakachic ramifications if it see the kehilas yaakov to yevamos siman mem dalet.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think it daf mem hei amud aleph in yevamos or a nearby amud aleph

    ReplyDelete
  20. It is 45a i just looked it up

    ReplyDelete
  21. Question. Should someone recognize him from before his moving, what happens to his current marriage? Is it considered a mekach taus since he didn't disclose? Isn't he mechuyev to disclose because of "Veohata lereacho kamocho?" It is quite clear that without exception, no one would want to marry a mamz.. and having his children be mamzerim leolam vaed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I remember seeing that svara as well. However, I also remember seeing that Mamzeirim who are 'lost' among the general populace cannot have children. i.e. Hashem does not grant him offspring. In this way, the line of Mamzeirim die out quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://koltorah.org/ravj/Blood_Tests_and_DNA_1.html
    "An explanation of this approach is that a problem of Mamzeirut exists
    only when one has knowledge of the Mamzeirut, but one has no obligation
    to reveal such knowledge. This approach is based on Kiddushin 71a, the
    Ran (Kiddushin 30 in the pages of the Rif s.v. Tannu Rabbanan) and Rama
    (E.H. 2:5; see the comments to this Rama summarized in the Otzar
    HaPoskim ad. loc.). Indeed, in 1989 Rav Hershel Schachter showed me an
    article written by Rav Elchanan Wasserman supporting this approach, and
    he issued a ruling based on it in 1992. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein told me
    (also in 1989) that the practice of many Rabbanim in pre-war Europe was
    to leave a locale when they heard that someone they knew to be a Mamzer
    was about to be married. Indeed, my father-in-law Rav Shmuel Tokayer
    told me that Rav Moshe Feinstein advised him to conduct himself
    accordingly in a similar situation that he encountered when he served as
    a Rav in the 1960's. The Gemara
    refers to this lenient approach to Mamzeirut as a
    Tzedakah that Hashem does for Am Yisrael."

    ReplyDelete
  24. yes, or at least her sons can do this, until her daughters only have sons....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Those were advised, tseu ufarnessu zu mizu, and for the rest not to talk about it. ved"al

    ReplyDelete
  26. If it is not about a mamzer, but rather about a goy, how could anyone extrapolate the din from a son of a gentile father to the din of the son of a mamzer father?

    ReplyDelete
  27. This seemingly would apply to a newly born mamzer who was never officially recognized as a mamzer. But not necessarily to someone who was officially recognized by the community to halachicly be a mamzer but then went away to someplace else where they didn't know he was already ruled to be a mamzer.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Good question youd have to ask them. There are however a number of gemaras in the beginning of assara yuchasin from which it may be possible to perhaps infer a similar idea. But its complicated and there are conflicting mashmaos. Learn through the couple of daf and you'll see what i mean. This is exactly why shailos like these have always been exclusively in the purview of only the greatest poskim.

    ReplyDelete
  29. How can the mazer cause someone else to be oyver the aveirah?? He knows the truth?!

    ReplyDelete
  30. All this talk of Mamzerut is irrelevant.
    It is a know halacha that if a member of the Moetzes allows a woman to get married there is no Mamzerut.
    I dont remember the source. I think its in the Aguda regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There is no sin unless the mamzer is publicly known. The question is if a mamzer was publicly known in one population but he succeeds in assimilating into another population - does the sin get removed also.

    the existence of sin is not dependent on his knowledge

    ReplyDelete
  32. The issue of chozer veneur presents a great problem.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Meyheicha teisi. The gemaras talking about a mamzer in a population that doesn't know about him are always when the mamzer himself also isn't sure he's a mamzer.

    ReplyDelete
  34. is it not the case that there was discussion in Chazal (somewhere) about what Mamzer actually means, and one interpretation was a mixed marriage, eg the father is a nochri? they didn't pasken this way, but several definitions were discussed..?

    ReplyDelete
  35. You are correct however it's not a "chazal somewhere" it's a befeirush man deamar in the gemara that comes up in many places. But it's irrelevant to the topic at hand since as you said e don't pasken like it and the gemara in yevamos under discussion also explicitly is not going with it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I strongly recommend you (and all else interested in this inyan) learn through the first few daf of assara yuchasin. The Gemara is not that difficult and you will get a pretty good overview of chazal's approach to this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  37. wow Huge chiddush! so why would mamzerim ever ask a shaila? And why would it ever be an issue?

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Dov - please provide the source where it says that the lack of knowledge means that the mamzer himself isnt sure.

    we do agree that the issur is dependent on knowing. But clearly Eliyahu knows but his certain knowledge does not create an issur. Rav Moshe indicates that it requires 2 witnesses to create the issur.

    That would indicate that the knowledge of one person - even the person himself does not create an issur.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Done that, been there, long time back.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Klum nechtam me'eid al isosoi?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Two witnesses to what act?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just reported what Rav Moshe Feinstein says in EH IV 9.
    Possibly that the mother remarried without a get from the first husband and lived with the 2nd husband.

    ReplyDelete
  43. All the gemaras are always when the person himself doesn't know and neither does the one marrying him or his neighborhood. Even more than eliyahu hanavi which may be different for a variety of reasons the Gemara tells a number of cases where the rabanan knew about a certain family etc and still didn't say anything. There are other cases where it says a single amora went out and announced. But there is no indication anywhere I can recall that if one of the involved parties knows that he or she is allowed to get married. Il have to go through r moshes teshuva again and if he says what you claim then I guess that's a valid source but it would be a very big chiddush that to my knowledge no one said before him and has no direct support from a Gemara. I may be wrong but when I get my hands on an igros Moshe a little later today I'll know for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Dov tell me where it says in the gemora, Rishonim or Achronim that all the cases discussed are always where the person himself doesn't know?

    In fact where does it talk about self knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's exactly my point it doesn't therefore we have no right to arbitrarily extend it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. How can you confidently make an assertion which you acknowledge is not mentioned anywhere?!

    Why not say you don't know or it is an interesting question?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have not learned all the rishonim or acharonim on this or any other sugya so I can't for sure tell you it doesn't exist but I can say that to my knowledge all the times in the gemara there's no inkling that if the mamzer himself knows he's still fine. I am not confidently saying it's not true as I said earlier I have to go reread that r Moshe All I'm saying is that what you're saying is a chiddush and while it may be true alecha lihavi raya.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Of course it's an interesting question and like you said we are in agreement that the knowledge itself has an impact on whether he is a mamzer I'm just not sure if it's to the complete extreme as your setting it out

    ReplyDelete
  49. I know for sure that there's a svara kivan dinitmaa nitmaa which seems to indicate the issur is paka but the Gemara also says that an unknown mamzer hashem will make sure he/his kids dies out

    ReplyDelete
  50. Also, a basic premise of gemara lomdus and Halacha is we don't assume ukimtas.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I have no expertise in learning this, but there could be a parallel with this Gemara and mamzerus. As you say, it is complicated, but there is some commonality.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I notice that Rav Shternbuch has not issued a psak that Tamar Epstein is an eshes ish and her future children will be mamzerim. Nor has any other 1st class posek. I think you have so far only quoted 2 Rabbonim from Monsey. We are still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  53. A couple that lives together in the same house and or representing themselves to the public as husband and wife (and i may add taking the husband's name http://www.balacare.com/tamar-fleischer.html) do not require two witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Not really because by a Ben nochri there's no issur at all just he's just a "pagum" which some people may not want to marry just for yichus reasons thus the only shaila is the genivas daas onaa etc. see the kehilas yaakov to yevamos siman mem dalet that I quoted earlier who fleshes this out in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ok I just skimmed that teshuva from r Moshe and bemichilas kivodcha I think you either misremembered or misunderstood what he's saying. In section gimmel he basically says word for word what I've been saying and he's mash a lihedya that if someone knows with specificity that he's a mamzer he'd be assur (altz himself it's still gantz shayach that the other person in the marriage is still heter gammur and there wouldn't even be lifnei iver). It's section dalet he explains that even though eliyahu has a clear and trustworthy yediah it's not the type of yediah that can assur since its al pi nevuah. And in section hei he explains why we don't identify the family even if we know for sure a mamzer is mixed in. I assume this is whew you got the idea of two did im necessary to create the issur but if you read it carefully all he's saying is the two eidim are necessary to create a yediah for beis din which mimeila will create the issur for those with the yediah. And as for your other pint the hanacha underlying the entire teshuva is that even if a mamzer is known at one point with berirus the issur will be paka when he's nitmaa-that's the whole reason you need nitmaa - if there was no vadai yediah first he would never have been assur in the first place that you would need nitmaa to take it off.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's not even 100% clear that you only can know with two eidim r moshes Lashon is af im ye'idu shnayim

    ReplyDelete
  57. Just for the sake of intellectual honesty I will reiterate again that your brother r David eidensohn has still not responded in any way at all to the sources you posted on following rov poskim bazeman bazeh- I don't mean to beat a dead horse but if he wants us to trust his knowledge and views of Halacha especially in this area of even haezer then the minimum he has to do is not so the same exact things that he accuses his opponents of when he quotes them sources.

    I actually feel this is of extreme importance and he has lost at this point much of his credibility in my eyes. either he must admit he was wrong or offer some response but all we get is radio silence.

    ReplyDelete
  58. And how does that establish it's not in the makings? According to your logic, why hasn't R S come out that all is well, and within Halacha, Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Two witnesses that she was living in the same house with another man. And going around saying husband and wife.

    But being intimate with another in privat (without claiming to be husband and wife, and or living together in same house) requires two witnesses to the intimacy , etc.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Dov - I understand how you are reading it but I don't agree that it must be understood that way.

    Rav Moshe simply needed to state if it is known - even by the mamzer himself - than marriage is prohibited.

    A related question - the wife of a Cohen was raped. Chazal say she is not to be believed - but she knows she was raped and yet she is still permitted to her husband.

    Similarly a wife claims she committed adultery - but the husband is told by the rav not to believe her - she is not prohibited to the husband.

    ReplyDelete
  61. MeMedinat: Is that your interpertation or Rav Moshe's interpertation?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Forgive me, but there is no such gemora. You are thinking of Yevomose 45A where somebody asked Rav what the din is if a Jewish woman had relations with a non-Jew, if the child is a mamzer. Rav said that the child is not a mamzer. But others disagreed and in general people were stringent.


    The person was such a child born from the union of a Jewess and a gentile, and nobody wanted to marry him. And here Rav permits it. So the person asked Rav to marry him to Rav's daughter. Rav refused. The person then asked, so what should I do? If you refuse me, surely everyone else will. Rav told him, "Go somewhere that people don't recognize you and marry there." Rav permits such a marriage and the person was permitted by Rav to marry. But he was somebody Rav permitted to marry. Rav would not permit a mamzer to go and hide and marry because a mamzer is a sinful union.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I think it's pretty clear that the pshat is how I said it and especially taken together with section gimmel where he doesn't mention eidim at all.

    As to your second point- Rav Moshe in section hei is talking to beis din and the hamon am not an individual and in section gimmel where's he's talking to an individual its clear that the mamzer himself is included. If you can point to a line or lashon in the teshuva that you think is mashma like you I'd be happy to explain it but otherwise I feel without sitting down together and learning we won't get anywhere.

    And the halcha that the isha a is muteres libaala in the two cases you brought is for a different reason(s) that are totally different and inapplicable to the case of mamzer. See the ran and tosafos on nederim 90b, tosafos yevamos 25b d.h. Amat rebbi, and tosafos kesubos 63b d.h. aval.

    ReplyDelete
  64. In today's world with modern communication it is difficult to get away with kivan shenitmeu nitmeu. On the other hand, you cannot point any fingers at anyone, since you become guilty of kol hapoisel posel. All you have left, is the siman muvhak of midechotsif kulay hay, shma mina demamzer hu.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The woman has a "chazaka" of "eishes ish". The burden of proof lies on the person who says that she's not an "eishes ish"

    ReplyDelete
  66. The burden of proof lies on the person who says that she's not an "eishes ish"

    ReplyDelete
  67. @Dov - your understanding is more likely to be true. I am still bothered by the fact that Rav Moshe does not explicity state - if it is known - even by the person himself.

    The next question is to clearly establish what has to be done to bring about the status of mamzer. It would seem that beis din is involved. The testimony of the father is enough or two witnesses that she remarried without a get.

    Rav Eliashiv in volume 4 has a case of someone who was told by his grandfather that he had fathered him through his daughter. Rav Eliashiv notes that halachically the mother would not be believed in court nor would the father in this case. Nevertheless he said that the person could not marry because he accepted the testimony as true.

    Perahps the case that I am looking for is where someone was told by his mother that he was a mamzer and he wasn't sure whether to believe it - the solution would be to go someplace and assimilate.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Huh? What is the relevance of that to anything I wrote?

    ReplyDelete
  69. That teshuva from elyashiv seems to fit exactly with the mehalach I said.

    If the person doesn't fully trust the mother then why would he need to even assimilate and what would it even accomplish -if there's no yediah he's not assur this no need to try find a heter. The case you propose is very similar to the case involving rebi chiya's wife no less! See kedushin youd beis amud beis on the top.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I would like to clarify something:
    how does a male mamzer escape the problem for his offspring? Does he have to intermarry and have non Jewish children, then convert them? Or can marrying a convert do the trick?

    Rav Rakeffet gave a shiur on the YU website, about someone in a Yehsiva who found out he was a mamzer - the Rav in his yeshiva tells him to marry an Italian non Jew, but I cant remember how the kids would be free and Jewish.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Eddie read the article about marrying a shifcha.

    If he marries a convert the children are mamzerim

    If a Jew marries a non Jewish women the children are not Jewish and they are not mamzerim. If they convert they are Jews without the blemish of mamzer.

    ReplyDelete
  72. It was a good story, can you tell it again?

    ReplyDelete
  73. I am curious about how the Yeshiva and Hareidi world relate to the "shivim" or Septuagint? Although Modern and academic scholars love writing about it and learning new meanings from it, it does vary from the Masoretic text.
    In the wikipedia article on mamzerus it says the following:
    "The Septuagint translates the term mamzer as son "of a prostitute" (Greek: ek pornes),"
    Is the Septuagint the same text that was translated by Knsset gedolah / Chazal into Greek?

    ReplyDelete
  74. The Gemora talks about the Septuagint and how and why it differs from the true text of the Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Why should we take zil gli unsiv as a heter more than yilbosh schorim veyisatef schorim veyelech lemakom she'ein makirim oso? If min hatorah Lo yavo mamzer bikhal H' why do we say kivan denitmeu nitmeu, indeed we even provide them ideas, while that is very iffy since every once and then, people still do remember history. There are many sources that quote the history and presents a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dov,
    I believe you are talking about my sources to forbid negating a marriage. I mentioned that Gedolei Oilom were universally opposed to it, as is taught in gemora Kesubose 73b. Furthermore Noda Biyehuda II:80 is very strongly opposed even in very extreme cases of Igun. The Beis HaLevi Rov of Brisk and father of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, the Kovneh Rov who was gadol hador, oppose negating a marriage without a GET. Yes, Reb Moshe in extreme cases when it is impossible to get a GET permits this, but his gabei told me, and I heard this from Rav Avigder Miller, that some of Reb Moshe's teshuvose about Gittin should not be used, but his own decision.


    The question then came up what about a ruling of a minority? The answer to that is in the sefer Mahari ben Leib, considered by some the rebbe of the Bais Yosef, who writes in II:IV:19:3 "we are stringent in a argument of rabbis regarding a woman remarrying to forbid it even if the majority permits the remarriage and the minority forbids it." This is based perhaps on a Tosfose Kesubose 2A that even when in ordinary questions we possess reasons to be lenient, when the question is a person being with a woman forbidden to him, that he will commit many sins if we are wrong, we are stringent.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ben,
    You are not the only one. Two prominent Gittin rabbonim called me over the last few days. They both reported that there is a strong impetus in the communities of Torah Jews to protest the abomination of marrying without a GET. They also told me that my blog and my brother's blog have been accepted by many people, although in one area they wanted me to modify a statement, which I refused to do.


    I know of prominent rabbonim who are putting a lot of time and effort into getting signatures, and within this month I am sure that something will come out. I am sure because I know who is working hard and where they are holding, but more than that, the anger in the street is going to force some signatures. And if not, my brother and I will keep up the pressure. People are reading the sources, and the senior rabbis are feeling the heat.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The acharonim that you quote in your first paragraph while impressive do not have an impact on whether a posek today is ALLOWED to disagree with them and pasken differently if he is a bar hachi and confident in his position. Rav Moshe in his hakdama to igros moshe talks about this exactly. Every posek hador worth his salt over the ages including all those in your list has been michadesh things that went kineged those before him some which were niskabel by klal yisrael and some that were not - that's the nature of how Halacha works. Also we don't throw out teshuvos because of third out hearsay reports. Rav Dovid Feinstein is well aware of which teshuvos his father was chozer from and to my knowledge has never breathed a word about the one under discussion. If you would like to claim that r Moshe was chozer on this or any teshuva ha orzo mechavero alav haraya.

    The only source you quoted that may be relevant is the Mahari ben lev. First of all he was not the bais yosefs rebbe, he just happened to be AV bais din in tzfas when the bais yosef showed up there. Second of all I think a cursory perusal of the shu"t on agunos and mamzerim of the last millennium conclusively shows we do not follow the mahari ben lev. It's one thing for you to do so for yourself but how can you say no one else has a right to go against it. That teshuva itself is a chiddush that we don't find in years previous. In fact it's clear from numerous gemaras that we do follow rov even in cases of repetative issur. Thank you for your response though, I appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Have any prominent rabbonim already signed the kol koreh your referring to that is still in the process of getting additional rabbinic signatures?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Do you hold that the children of all those who remarried based on Rav Moshe's civil/reform marriage psak are mamzerim. (Rav henkin STRONGLY disagreed with it as did many many others- I believe I once saw there was a whole Sefer put out in the early 1900s collecting the opinions of the gedolim against it)

    ReplyDelete
  81. You're a few days late on this.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I just remembered a potentially relevant gemara-I'm not certain it's a good tzu shtel but it's kedai to bring up: the gemara says there's a halacha limoshe misinai that teaches that in chutz laaretz vadiai arlah is assur (midiorais) but safekeeping arlah is mutar. The Gemara says its mutar to bring about a situation where you cause vadai arlah to become a safek towards you and then eat it. There's a machlokes how involved the eater is allowed to be in the creation of the doubt but I think for sure is mutar to do and afterwards is mutar lichatchila. The gemara even records that certain amoraim would tell other amoraim to go be mesapek the arlah for them i.e. go into the kerem where the arlah is and pick it for them and not tell them which it is so it would be mutar to eat. I think there was another amora there (r yochanan (?)) that was opposed to this practice but it was for "ein dorshin berabim" type reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  83. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/10/rav-sadiya-gaon-mistaken-imperative-to.html#comment-2328404453

    ReplyDelete
  84. Which Gabbai of Rav Moshe and which teshuvos?
    When I first published the Yad Moshe - I was told by Rav Moshe's gabbai that Rav Moshe was opposed to an index of the Igros Moshe.
    He cited Rav Moshe's teshuva against translating the Igros Moshe. When I pointed out it was not referring to an index - he replied that the intent was anything that made access to the Igros Moshe easier. A number of poskim I spoke with about this said that interpretation was absurd. The point is that the gabbai had no problem of interpreting the Igros Moshe and claiming that his deductions and generationalizations were what Rav Moshe had said. And he was wrong.

    I was told to speak with one of Rav Moshe's close talmidim who told me that in fact Rav Moshe was not against an index and that Rav Moshe had encouraged him to write one.
    In short - what you hear from a gabbai has no impact on what Rav Moshe approved for publication.

    Similarly - citing Rav Miller - is largely irrelevant. He was not viewed as a significant posek - and surely not one to decide which psakim of Rav Moshe should be used. If he claimed that Rav Moshe regretted his rulings - without a written or some public statement from Rav Moshe the retraction has no significance. Besides that fact that Rav Moshe very rarely retracted his psakim.

    As I mentioned before Rav Feinstein disagreed with Rav Henkin - and did not retract his views because Rav Henkin disagreed - e.g., the disagreement about the validity of civil marriage. Rav Moshe - with the support of the major rabbonim and roshei yeshiva superceded Rav Henkin as the highest

    ReplyDelete
  85. @RaP the common assumption is that one will be strongly be attracted to ones beshert - as Rav Saadiya Gaon points out. If it is a predestined relationship then it obviously will be attractive. Thus strong attraction is taken as a sign of beshert.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Kivan denitmeu nitmeu is mashma, bedieved and doesn't seem to be an advice doing so lekatchila. In addition, this reasoning is also metaher the original ones those that knew bevaday thery are mamz... The illegitimate children have been officially registered as such for generations in the official records by law, as well as by the Rabiner's register book, by law of the land. From whence is the heter of sending someone to a different place lekatchila, especially today when there is public access to almost all public records to anyone. Can such be called Nitmeu?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Did Rav Henkin hold that the children of those remarrying based on Rav Moshe's psak, that Rav Henkin strongly disagreed with, were mamzeirim?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Why is that "the better question" it's completely irrelevant unless you for some reason insist on paskening like Rav henkin and reject Rav Moshe.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I don't follow are you asking a practical question or a halachic one? As to your first point kivan dinetmau is describing a Halacha/metzius it's not a directive of what to do so I don't that the categories of lechatchila and bedieved can be inferred from it. But even so there's a klal gadol in halach-ans especially in these types of cases-sha'as hadchak kidieved dami.

    ReplyDelete
  90. If Rav Henkin held the children are mamzeirim despite Rav Moshe's psak to the contrary, how is anyone commenting here holding "more from Rav henkin's psak than Rav henkin did" if Rav Henkin himself held them to be mamzeirim?

    ReplyDelete
  91. This is a heter to intermarry as of today lekatchila, kivan denitmeu. The dynamics of nitmeu starts and applies from generation one and on. The first mamzer knows that he is a mamzer, the marriage is beissur. The same goes for the second, and since he knows, same thing over again. As long as the mamzer knows, he is not nitmeo. The question is, does the issur of first generation disappear all of a sudden retroactively? The loshon in and of itself is mashama, kivan denitmeo, go ahead and intermarry as a directive. At which point does the mamzerus get lost? Or does it? In our times, it is not the same as in Talmudic times, since mamzerus gets registered officially, the knowledge never disappeares or gets forgotten, kivan delo noda never happens. Just because the mamzer acts like an ostrich, why should he not reveal that he is beissur, what happens to lifnei iver lo siten michshol, along with a whole host of other issurim. This is a mum godol, and it is obvious no one is mevater. Sha'as hadchak applies to who? After all, they are mutorin lovo ze boze when mamzerus is on equal level. The follow up question would be, since it is bound to be found out at any moment for any generation in any location to end of times, is that considered lo noda?

    ReplyDelete
  92. you can't just brush off a major Posek and Gadol hador like that! Even if there was opposition, we have to assume that RMF was a serious Posek haDor that the whole orthodox world looked up to. Yes, there were some controversial leniencies, but the way this discussion is going, is quite ironic - the machmirim are effectively calling Rav Feinstein another Rav Goren or Rackman. depending on one's viewpoint, that is either a great disaster for Hareidim or a great victory for MO and radical MO.

    ReplyDelete
  93. What the heck are you talking about? No one brushed off anyone. We are clarifying a detail. Please read carefully before getting ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  94. You are conflating several different issues and your writing style is not clear so I have trouble understanding the point you are trying to make.

    First of all only in Israel do they register mamzerim. Second of all in almost all cases the person himself is not sure if he is a mamzer. After all everything happen before he was born and he is relying on other people and rabbis for his information. Whether or not even if he knows he can lose his status was discussed elsewhere in the comments here I personally think that he cannot. Also if the one marrying him has no idea then as I said in other comments there should be no problem from his end there wouldn't even be lifnei iver.

    ReplyDelete
  95. The Mishnah lists 10 distinct different kinds of yochsin. Only Shtuki and Asufi are sofek mamzerim (see rashi in the mishnah), all other psulim are known to be of which kind psul they happen to be, even if when it happened before their birth. How else is there a difference amongst the psulim? How else can you ban them from marrying each other and the rest of the population? If he is not himself sure whether he is a mamzer, sheal ovicho veyagedcho, zkeinecho veyomru lach. Ve'ein odom morish sheker lebonov. Unless he suddenly moves to a different place for the sole reason in order to assimilate where he isn't yet known, but he himself is still aware why he moves away to begin with. In Europe, at least some of the countries if not all, are known to have registries of illegitimacy, from well over two centuries ago, for inheritance purposes etc. Now, how long do you think he can keep it a secret before it catches up with him. Having said that, once it is officially recorded and becomes public record, how does it become safek mamzerus? Meila in Talmudic times, if it was not public record, you can have it happen kivan denitmeu nitmeu as rashi specifies "machmas shelo nodah psulah nitmo'oh", especially, should he get married before it caught up with him. However even then, if it is known to him, of which it is, he is 'Oiver' of veohavta lereiacha kamocha, lifnei iver lo siten michshol etc. and kidushin is not tofes, how can he ever marry to the unsuspected? Ve'ein lecho mum godol mize? I hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Shtuki and asufi are not the only type of safek mamzerim, they are just examples. The actual paradigm case of safek mamzer is a case of actual practical doubt (whether based on metzius or Halacha) of if the child is a mamzer.

    ReplyDelete
  97. David,
    You are along with others here, missing the main point in Reb Moshe's teshuva about marriage to a homosexual. He says that he only permits the woman to remarry if it is absolutely impossible to get a GET. Tamar's husband Aharon wanted to give a GET if she would give him proper visitation with their daughter. To avoid allowing him this visitation, she played the no marriage card. And it will destroy her. Again, Reb Moshe forbade Tamar Epstein Friedman to leave her husband without a GET. Nobody was matir except Rabbi Greenblatt. And he did this only because he relied on Rabbi Kaminetsky. So some more mamzerim will come into the world chas vishalom.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Eddie,
    I am a Talmid and musmoch of Reb Moshe Feinstein. I spent hours talking to him privately. All I said was that Tamar was never permitted to remarry by Reb Moshe because he made it clear that he negated marriages only when the husband would not give a GET, something that must be obtained at any cost. All Aharon asked was better visitation rights. He could have asked for much more. He could have demanded a million dollars because Tamar's mother paid a gangster sixty thousand dollars to kidnap Aharon and torture him until he gave a GET. But he is only asking to see his daughter. Maybe he will change his mind and ask for money, I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Tosfose Kesubose 2a says basically what the Mahri ben Leib says, that in questions of a forbidden woman we oppose the remarriage if even a minority of rabbis or if we have tools in halacha that usually resolves things leniently. These tools don't apply when a woman will be sinning with her husband for years. I don't say that this is always the case, I just mention that Mahari ben Leib wrote that this is how they did things in Tsefas in the time of the Radvaz Beis Yosef and Ari z"l. I also added a Tosfose in Kesubose 2a who seems to say the same basic idea.
    What you say about who the Mahar ben Leib was is a machlokess. see the Chido. Somebody holds that he is the rebbe of the Beis Yosef.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Moe,
    Yes. We have now the revelation of Reb Shlomo Milller on this blog, and I know that is true. I know of two prominent rabbonim in B who signed. And I forgot where B is maybe in outer space. They are older rabbonim and they really worked, really sweated for this, and they broke through. They got the facts. Hurray for them. ANd once they did this, other Beth Dins joined and signed. Signing doesn't just mean scrbling a signature. Signing means sometimes that the person wrote a few lines of fury at what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  101. ..."and there are many svaras in Halacha at that point to create sfeikos". Can you please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Reb Dovid,
    I am in agreement with you. Even if we hold by Rav Henkin, it is dangerous to consider the results of RMF as being mamzeirim. I am not addressing the Tamar case, that is outside of the "box".

    ReplyDelete
  103. Why is it "dangerous"? Rav Henkin himself held the children were mamzeirim despite Rav Moshe disagreeing.

    ReplyDelete
  104. There are far too many to list. Read through any teshuvos on mamzerim or agunos. The poskim get very creative sometimes. The first stop is always whether the eid talking has neemanus how sure we are of the facts what other scenario could have possibly happened was the first marriage kosher etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I understand that they work very hard in order to kasher them, but WHY? There are so many issurim shebetorah, why is this so different. Vehitzilu hoeido, they give all possible opportunities to acquire truthful eidim, but nowhere do we find to cancel each and all, at all cost. BTW, I gave you a simple example where there is no safek, but it has not been published. This also creates problems with Pidyon haben of which is deoraysa, as well as many others. Why not have them just intermarry amongst themselves with each other?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Dov,
    I am a few days late. I am seventy three years old, and I am working very hard on my posts about Tamar Epstein. I can't reply to everyone immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  107. That was not my intention. I only meant to inform you that what you wrote was already stated by the other commenters here days earlier and had you read them you may have saved yourself some time that you could have spent on more informative comments and posts. Don't get me wrong although I may disagree with some of what you write I tremendously respect the fact that you pull no punches and stand strong for what you think is right. If only we had more such people.

    ReplyDelete
  108. The reason that we try so hard to find heterim for mamzerim and agunos (and have a mesorah to be somech on shitos dechuyos that in other areas of halacha we would not use) is because of the unparalleled human tragedy involved. We are dealing with someone who through absolutely no fault of there own in considered a pariah by society and is condemned to live a life of utter loneliness with virtually no chance to participate in what in frum life is probably the most fulfilling experience. I remember seeing once that Rav Yosef engel brought a yerushalmi that bietzem we would be matir the issur of eishes ish for an agunah to remarry since it is considered a shaila of pikuach nefesh for her if not for the fact that it is yehareg vial yaavor. The medrash also refers to the plight of mamzerim as "dimaos ashukos". I don't think you are a callous individual but if you meet one mamzer or agunah in your life and listen to his pr her plight all you questions will melt away in an instant

    ReplyDelete
  109. I mean it is dangerous today. Rav Henkin held a valid position, and so did Rav Moshe. But if today one claims that those who rely on RMF are making mamzerim, or on RSZA are mechalel shabbos, that is dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Thank you. Nichamtani b'ni. Can you please explain me why by Kiddush hachodesh we also confuse the eidim so as not to be mekabel eidus although it is not a pikuach nefesh.

    ReplyDelete
  111. What's difficult about that? In the Gemora you have cases where Beis Shammai held a child is a mamzer whereas Beis Hillel held the child was not a mamzer.


    So when the child got older Beis Hillel would tell Beis Shammai not to marry that child since they held the child was a mamzer. Instead, they would marry the child themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  112. That you don't need me for. The gemara on Rosh hashana talks about this explicitly. Zil gemur!

    ReplyDelete
  113. I know that was said. I'm asking to understand how that works? Usually when there's a din that's asur you stay away from it, and if you know you try not making others nichshal.
    ( Like if I know my friend is eating treif I'll warn him not to eat it and not say it's only asur to me and only if and when he finds out. )

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.