Vayikra Rabbah 32.8): But I returned and considered all the oppressions (Koheles 4: 1). Daniel the Tailor interpreted the verses as applying to bastards. And behold the tears of such as were oppressed (Koheles 4: 1). If the parents of these bastards committed transgression, what concern is it of these poor sufferers? So also if this man's father cohabited with a forbidden woman, what sin has he himself committed and what concern is it of his? And they had no comforter (Koheles 4: 1), but On the side of their oppressors there was power (Koheles 4: 1). This means, on the side of Israel's Great Sanhedrin which comes to them with the power derived from the Torah and removes them from the fold virtue of the commandment, A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord (Devarim 23:3). ’But they had no comforter.’ Says the Holy One, blessed be He: ' It shall be My task to comfort them.’ For in this world there is dross in them, but in the World to Come, says Zechariah, I have seen them all gold,
why should they be all gold in the olam haba? Doesn't that depend on their deeds?
ReplyDeleteThe point is that G-d will fully accept them in Olam Haba despite their status as mamzerim
ReplyDeleteWhich assumes they were righteous otherwise
Beyond the prohibitions of marriage that apply to the “Mamzer” (and his descendants), there are no additional restrictions on him, and Halacha considers him an ordinary Jew, who is bound by the mitzvos for everything.
ReplyDeleteThe Mishna (Horiyos 3:8) posits:
"A ‘mamzer’ who is learned in Torah, precedes a Kohen Gadol (high priest)”.
The Sages thereby emphasized, that genealogy is not everything. There is also a person's self-virtue. This is underscored by the fact that the knowledge of the Torah is the central parameter for determining the status of man; even more important than his
pedigree.
Theoretically, a mamzer can purify his offspring - by intermarriage, and then converting the children back to Judaism.
ReplyDeleteIt should be emphatically noted, that it is Halachically prohibited for a Jew to marry a non-Jewish woman. This prohibition applies equally to a "mamzer". The fact that the "mamzer" has limited matrimonial options, does not give him license to sin in this manner.
ReplyDeleteChildren born to a male "mamzer"; by a women who isn't Jewish, are considered non-Jews. If the children convert, they are considered converts, and have no Halachic relationship with their biological father.
I heard that in a lecture of rav Rakeffet. He told a story of a chareidi yeshiva boy, who for some sad reason was a mamzer. His rosh yeshiva told him to go out, and find an Italian woman, and marry her. Why Italian? They are darker, and are good at raising families.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is a great rabbi has to balance factors, whereas you just look at texts and come to your own conclusions
What level of prohibition do you think it is today? Outside of the 7 nations?
ReplyDeleteThere is a prohibition against inciting a person to sin, which is referred to as מסית לדבר עבירה.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the phantom unnamed "rosh yeshiva" incited his student to sin with a "shiksa"?
The question is moot.
ReplyDeleteWasn't Yushke a a mamzer?
ReplyDeletesources are very unclear on this issue?
ReplyDeleteWow! Such amazing stories.
ReplyDeleteAlways anonymous and no sources provided so they must be true?!
A lot of questions are moot. I stated quite clearly that the exit mechanism was theoretical, and hence moot.
ReplyDeleteIn Halacha, there are leniencies and heterim. So, for example, heter isska. No, that's no typo , it's not heter shiksa. Ribis is heinous crime, but in Israel everyone who has a bank account can fall foul of it.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, not me, but rosh kollel made the suggestion.
How about the one where the Ohr Sameach allowed a band to play on 2nd day yom tov so not to offend the visiting ruler? That's been documented.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever benefit from heter isska? A loan, mortgage, credit card etc? Ribis is a serious aveira.
ReplyDeleteDo you think all halachic and all statements are written down?
ReplyDeleteIf so, why are so many shiurim transcribed by students later on, in the form of books?
Or, where are all the books of shiurim given by great rosh yeshivas? They do not exist.
So that is proof that an anonymous minority opinion is valid?!
ReplyDeleteThat is relevant to what?
ReplyDeleteYou are not aware of the many written and published discussions by well known rabbis?!
ReplyDeleteIt is proof that not everything is written into a teshuva.
ReplyDeleteWas he meisit. To aveira? Or did he know that there is a halachic method, where he can be lenient in certain cases? Nobody today, especially in your worldview, would accept such an approach.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed . For the needs of the kahal, we can override a Torah prohibition.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the suggestion is rakeffet's, not mine.
ReplyDeleteI think it is funny that armchair critics here are asking the listeners to provide sources for each point made in lectures they've heard. That is the job of the lecturer, duhh.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joe-biden-urges-western-allies-to-bring-back-isis-families-held-in-syria-sng77cngg
ReplyDeleteBiden - "bring back Isis mamzerim"
If I must say myself, I'm intimately familiar with the finer points of Halacha, and I NEVER heard of any proposed workaround to permit someone to marry a "shiksa", as slim as his matrimonial prospects might be.
ReplyDeleteMamzerim don’t have a separate Torah, and the prohibition of marriage with a non-Jewish woman, applies equally to the Mamzer, the same at it applies to the regular Jew.
The mere fact that you draw a comparison to “Hetter Isska”, thereby suggesting that there might also be a possibility of “Hetter SHIKSA”, serves to underscore your fundamental ignorance of BOTH topics.
The Halachic mechanism for Hetter Isska” is one, where in lieu of a loan, which carries with it a prohibition of Ribbis, a legal business investment is created, in which profits are permitted to be paid to the investing partner. Since in fact, there is no legal loan here, and the Torah’s prohibition which applies to loans, is irrelevant here.
In “Hetter SHIKSA” you seek to take a bona fide “shiksa”, and a bona fide Jew, and to blatantly IGNORE the prohibition of marrying a non-Jewish woman, and encourage them to live in sin together. The only way this could work, would be if you could demonstrate that for some reason, the Jew isn’t really Jewish, or the “shiksa” isn’t really a “shiksa”. Otherwise you’re merely inciting people to sin, which in itself is a sin, on the part of the person giving the advice.
NO ONE has license to tamper with the Torah, not even Roshei Kollelim!
ReplyDeleteHalacha isn't established by anecdotal legends, which don't offer explanations for the legal mechanisms involved.
Since you don't understand a word of what i have said, then your halachic knowledge is worthless.
ReplyDeleteIt is not as though you have a hearing impediment, and can claim you didn't hear what i said, you deliberately falsify my words - based on your misplaced kanaus.
a) the so called heter for the mamzer was not MINE. i never claimed it was mine. It was not Rakeffet's - unless he was twisting his story . he said it was a rosh yeshiva in New york. get it? Perhaps not.
b) despite your claims to know all halacha - I find it hard to beleive you are a posek. If you were, then presumably you would have a chiyuv to state in whose name you are speaking. Why would you have halachic authority and yet remain anonymous?
I wrote "In Halacha, there are leniencies and heterim. So, for example, heter isska. No, that's no typo , it's not heter shiksa."
If you want the intricacies of what happened in that case, you know the address - Arnold Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff. Rosh Kollel of Gruss Kollel in Jerusalem.
"NO ONE has license to tamper with the Torah, not even Roshei Kollelim"
ReplyDeletehe protesteth too much! Just a couple of inches above this coment, you are talking about Heter Iska, and how it helps to tamper with the Torah, to sidestep the issur of ribis. The foundation of the heter is fictitious. there is no partnership or sharing of profits. It is simply a means to tamper with the Torah, nobody gives a damn about the alelged partnership - it is totally fictitious!
source sheet: https://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=512658
ReplyDeletesource sheet from different lecture
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yutorah.org/download.cfm?materialID=512658
the story is told in this shiur and he says it ws halacha le maaseh in Torah vodaas when he was a student there
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/709543/rabbi-dr-aaron-rakeffet-rothkoff/2000-02-06-shifcha-canaanit-mamzerut-rav-ovadya-yosef-february-6-2000/
was done in Torah vodaas, via mechaism of shifchut
ReplyDeletehe tells the story here as well
https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/709543/rabbi-dr-aaron-rakeffet-rothkoff/2000-02-06-shifcha-canaanit-mamzerut-rav-ovadya-yosef-february-6-2000/
Marry italian etc.
https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/709543/rabbi-dr-aaron-rakeffet-rothkoff/2000-02-06-shifcha-canaanit-mamzerut-rav-ovadya-yosef-february-6-2000/
ReplyDeletecheck the sources here
Seems you are not as familiar with the Halacha as you proclaim
ReplyDeletehttps://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yutorah.org%2Fdownload.cfm%3FmaterialID%3D512658%3Aagu2FaWgGqxnBCQIJlfnX_JGHqI&cuid=3025274
Isn't it almost impossible for an actual halachic mamzer to be born? To accomplish that you'd need a Jewish married woman to give birth after having not seen her halachic husband for 12 months or longer. Anything short of that would mean the child is NOT a mamzer halachicly.
ReplyDeletethat is not what the article you cited is about!
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden urges western allies to bring back Isis families held in Syria
The Biden administration has urged America’s western allies to repatriate foreign fighters and their families from Syria, warning that the violent, squalid camps are spawning a new generation of extremists.
nonsense repeated is still nonsense.
ReplyDeletePlease provide a clear public statement said by a recognized halachic expert
It's a parody of what he said.
ReplyDeleteHe has mercy for the cruel.
No true Scotsman fallacy
ReplyDeleteyour "parody" is inaccurate
ReplyDeleteNot a reliable source!
ReplyDeleteSo you believe everything he says?
ReplyDeleteInstead of citing irrelevant material
ReplyDeletePlease cite a recognized posek who makes such a claim!
Because I added the expletive "mamzerim".
ReplyDeleteNo true Scotsman fallacy.
ReplyDeleteSince he insulated you publicly, I can understand why you are broiges with him.
My only crime was that I stated what I heard. I brought hard proof. of that fact, if you cast aspersions on your nemesis, it doesn't erase what he said.
Why should I only believe everything that you say?
ReplyDeleteThe claim was made by a rav who teaches in Jerusalem, and has written many biographies of gedolim. You don't accept his psak, but that probably applies to a large number of rabbis.
ReplyDeleteYou would presumably reject most of what is taught in yeshivas, as that would also not pass your test.
Stop with your inability to find even one authoritative psak
ReplyDeleteyou simply failed to produce a decent source. Your lame excuse that you were simply repeating the claim made by someone else is not an excuse - just admit that there is no authority that makes such a claim!
ReplyDeletebecause you misrepresented what the article said
ReplyDeleteLike I said before - you are challenging the listeners to provide evidence of what the lecturers proclaim. Just think that over. According to you, I would need to discard 90% of what I have ever heard from rabbonim of various stripes.
ReplyDeleteShow me a psak that requires me to do that?
ReplyDeleteIsis wives. You think they were not involved in killing?
ReplyDeleteSo you reject the Rif, and the Ran?
ReplyDeleteThat is the source I cited. Nobody can force you to rely on it.
ReplyDeleteA) if a mamzer intermarries, children are not Jewish - fact.
ReplyDeleteB) a non Jew is not subject to mamzerus. Fact.
C) whether or not this is permissible, the children can convert back to Judaism - and mamzerus is washed.
These are facts - do you dispute any of them?
D) my other claim was that I heard the lecture mentioning an incident, and a mechanism. You disputed my statement. I brought proof of my statement. Now you are changing your goalposts.
Stop changing your goalposts.
Trump as well!
ReplyDelete"The US, which had a far smaller number of citizens travel to Syria, has repatriated 28 Americans; 12 adults and 16 children. Ten of the adults have been prosecuted for terrorist offences.
The Trump administration repeatedly lobbied allies to repatriate their citizens, but without success: about 700 Europeans remain in the camps."
Did you read the sources i posted?
ReplyDeleteClick-bait.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant to the discussion; which is about the alleged "Heter Shiksa" for a maze, given by a phantom "rosh yeshiva".
Click-bait. Totally irrelevant to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe average Italian "shiksa", who the phantom "rosh yeshiva" allegedly recommended, is not a "Shifcha Cana'anis".
If you peddle a story by Rakeffet, then you should be able to explain the halachic explanation behind the legend. Otherwise it has no Halachic value.
ReplyDeleteSo you're moving the goal posts; from average Italian "shiksa", to "Shifcha Kena'anis".
ReplyDeleteYou are falsifying what I said.
ReplyDeleteI said heter isska not heter shiksa. The only time I used phrase heter shiksa was in the negative. Ironically. You turn it into a positive. See Rambam letter on resurrection, how the xtians turn shema yisrael into a trinitararian (not Rastafarian) source! You are doing the same with my not heter.
To you or. me, shiksa. To the mamzer she is designated a shifcha. Canaanite. Countries your earlier claim a bast@rd -mamzer is not forbidden to take the shifcha. Hence does not have the same restrictions as the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteBut thank you for at least reading the sources. And comprehending.
Where did I give a heter shiksa? You admitted that what I said is true.
ReplyDeleteI made 2 statements:
1). If. X , then y. You agreed with this. You just pointed out that X is forbidden. Where did I give a heter?
If I say there is not an alligator in my garden does that make anyone an alligator?
2) I then told the story that I heard in the lecture. The mechanism was not elaborated in my comment.
To you or me, or our sons when of marriagable age, it's assur to marry a shifcha cnanit. Not so the mamzer.
Perhaps I should have clarified the distinction between the 2 cases.
But the effect of a mamzer committing the lav of a regular shiksa , whether Italian or Swedish, is the end of his mamzerus.
Many people do that without being mamzerim. Many people wear Shatnez without intermarriage. These are facts. The fact does not give a heter shatnez or a heter shiksa.
OH-
ReplyDeleteAre you disputing the veracity of the story told by the rabbi Arnold rothko? Or are you disputing the validity of the mechanism described therein? Or are you disputing the comments that I made?
The effect of any Jewish man whether legitimate or illegitimate marrying a non Jewish woman would be that his children would no longer be illegitimate but they would also no longer be Jewish.
However if these children are converted to Judaism they will become Jewish but they will not be illegitimate hence the future marriage prospects will not be restricted to only other illegitimate people.
The shifcha is a mechanism 2 free the mamzer. According to the rabbi's testimony this actually did occur in the said yeshiva. I have no reason to disbelieve him as he is widely respected and is a prolific author and biographer of great gedolim.
Ribbis Alert
ReplyDeletehttps://agudah.org/alert-regarding-ribbis-issue-in-buying-used-cars/
You didn't intend to use "Heter Shiksa" in the negative, but the fact is, that in the context of the tale that you’re peddling, it very aptly describes the alleged "heter" to marry a "shiksa". So for lack of a better label, I've decided to borrow the term.
ReplyDeleteYou're now adding details to the alleged tale, which you didn't state before.
ReplyDeleteIf a “mamzer”, on his own, went and lived with a “shiksa”, his children are Goyim.
ReplyDeleteIf they happen to convert, they will not carry the blemish of “mamzer”.
I merely questioned if the phantom, unnamed "rosh yeshiva", recommended/incited his student to “lechatchila” sin with a "shiksa"?
it is not worth arguing with a serial perverter like you, you twist everything , misrepresent what I say, and and make straw man arguments..
ReplyDeleteYou never mentioned the “shifcha” element, nor did you describe any halachic mechanism. You merely quoted the phantom rabbi as advising, that since he can’t marry a Jewess, he should therefore marry an Italian non-Jewess. Such advice, in the form that you presented it, constitutes “incitement to sin”.
ReplyDeletewhat is an alleged tale? is it a tale, or allegedly a tale? If the alelgation is corect, is it still only a tale?
ReplyDeleteI see - next time i will reproduce the entire shiur with sources notes as well. Actually, i did that, but DT doesn't care to check any of it.
ReplyDeleteYou can put lipstick on a pig...
ReplyDeleteThat aptly describes the alleged "heter" to marry a "shiksa".
From YU website
ReplyDeleteRabbi Rakefet said that we don't push off a Brit even if people will violate Shabbos to get there. He references a teshuva of Rav Ovadiah Yosef. In fact, Rav Ovadiah rules that we should make a "fence" and push it off. I quote [in part]:
שו"ת יביע אומר חלק י - אורח חיים סימן לב
משא"כ בזמנינו דאחסור דרי, וקרוב לודאי שיבאו בהמוניהם ע"י חילול שבת, אין הכי נמי יש לגדור גדר ולמנוע חילולי שבת ע"י דחיית המילה ליום ראשון. וכן ראיתי בשו"ת שבט הלוי ח"א בסוף הספר בהגהותיו לאו"ח (סי' שלא) שכתב וז"ל: נשאלתי כי בעו"ה שכיח היום במילה בשבת שהמשפחה אינם שומרים שבת ונגרם ע"י המילה חילול שבת, והשבתי, שנ"ל שמעיקר הדין אם יודעים בודאי שע"י המילה באים לידי חילול שבת ח"ו, מוטב לדחות המילה למחר דהרי אפילו להביא איזמל לצורך מילה אין מחללין ודוחין המילה, מכ"ש חילול שבת ע"י הצילומים וכיו"ב שעושים בשעת סעודה, או נהיגה ברכב, ה' ישמרנו, בודאי שצריך לדחות המילה למחר. ע"כ. וכ"כ עוד בשו"ת שבט הלוי ח"ד (סי' קלד אות ד). ע"ש.
this is what you said "Children born to a male "mamzer"; by a women who isn't Jewish, are
ReplyDeleteconsidered non-Jews. If the children convert, they are considered
converts, and have no Halachic relationship with their biological
father."
so you are giving a heter?
You claim that Rakeffet told a tale, about a phantom rabbi, who, Rakeffet alleges, advised a mamzer to marry a straight out shiksa.
ReplyDeleteI can believe your claim that you heard Rakeffet tell some sort of tale about a phantom rabbi and a mamzer, but I have no way of confirming, if you accurately reported what Rakeffet actually said, or if Rakeffet himself accurately reported the tale.
However since the tale, as reported, raises serious Halachic questions, I choose not to believe it, since a tale that a legitimate rabbi gave such illegitimate advice, constitutes Lashon Hara.
I checked the notes that you posted, but there was no mention there about a Heter for a mamzer to marry a non-shifcha shiksa, which you initially seemed to claim.
ReplyDeleteNote, a שפחה כנענית is NOT a shiksa. She is a woman, who is obligated in most Mitzvos, but happens to be owned by a Yehudi, and enslaved to him.
I'm sorry, but you are motzi shem ra, and falsifying what Rakeffet says.
ReplyDeleteRakeffet is correctly quoting says according to the psak of Rav Yosef, adding it was a takkanah for the community that is required. He continues to cite Rav Moshe who said we don't push off the milah.
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/925331/rabbi-dr-aaron-rakeffet-rothkoff/a-brit-on-shabbos-/
(we had this discussion a while back, when my Rebbe Rav Milevsky ztl had said in Mexico they had the same problem with Barmtizvas - but he asked poskim who told him to continue with the barmitzvah on Shabbat and not change to sunday).
So now we have to restate your allegation - as you have just demonstrated, that Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn is not reliable.
A שפחה כנענית is NOT a shiksa.
ReplyDeleteShe is a woman, who is obligated in most Mitzvos, but happens to be owned by a Yehudi, and enslaved to him.
Is she jewish or non jewish?
ReplyDeleteIs she permitted to a single jewish man to marry? The answer, according to how R' Rakkefet teaches it, is that she is not permitted today.
listen to the lecture, though there is not much Chol hamoed left.
ReplyDeletei can only state what he says in the lecture - i was not party to the incident.
Having said that , a few years ago, when Rav Dovid Eidensohn was commenting here, he was critical of Rav Moshe on his heterim , eg for secular /reform marriages. He said rav Moshe was wrong.
And Satmar rebbe attacked rav moseh for his artificial sperm donor psak, as did Rav Yom Tov Shwartz. They were giants in Torah - and they didn't like Rav Moshe's style.
You make these little calculations and arrive at your own conclusion, but this is just speculation on your part.
Look at the post where DT falsely attacks , and misrepresents what Rakeffet said about putting of a bris - when in fact Rakeffet accurately cited Rav Ovadia Yosef.
shiksa is the word you introduced to this conversation, I don't use the word that often.
ReplyDeleteThere are at least 2 issues which you are conflating:
My initial comment was a factual one - and did not refer to Rakeffet. Nor did it in any way say it was mutar halacha l'maaseh. i said that a mamzer [male] who marries a non jewish woman will extinguish his mazerut status once and for all - and the cost will be that he has to convert his children back to judaism.
The 2nd comment was the reference to the Rakeffet shiur - and here i did not specify the halachic mechanism. I then located the shiur - which was possibly a 2nd one, not the original I heard.
Here he elucidates the halachic mechanism - which you rightly say, I did not elucidate. but he does mention the italian woman, for the 2 reasons i said. a) they are darker so look more Jewish than the blonde bimboes in Texas. b) they take care of their families.
The heter was in order to free the mamzer - the mechanism was shifcha cananit. I didn't mention the mechanism - i publicly apologise for that - I think possibly when i heard it in anothe rof shiurim, it was mentioned in passing , but the topic may have been slightly different.
Good of you to check the notes, and by inference, concede that a mamzer can take the shifcha cnanit, and wash his pgam from the offspring.
ReplyDeleteA real shiksa _ by your definition - also has to keep some mitzvos.
It's actually a good loophole.
Pity there isn't one for mamzeret.
You can convert a straight out shiksa into a shifcha. I'm not going to name the heter. It's just about structuring the contract. That's why I brought the heter iska in the first place - it's a totally fictional workaround, to get out of the ribbit.
ReplyDeleteDid Rakeffet state explicitly, that the unnamed phantom rosh yeshiva told his student to marry an Italian SHIFCHA; or is the shifcha part, your embellishment, in light of my strident critique?
ReplyDeleteListen to it for yourself. You don't believe anything I say anyways.
ReplyDeleteI never questioned the heter of a mamzer to live with a shifcha. The question is only, whether or not such a reality exists in our days. This point is actually debated by some contemporary Poskim, and is beyond the scope of this discussion
ReplyDeleteA regular shiksa, only has to keep the seven Noahide mitzvos, whereas a shifcha needs to keep most of the mitzvos that Yehudim keep, including the laws of Niddah.
The so-called shifcha “loophole”, only serves as a kosher sexual outlet, for the mamzer. However the resulting children don't count, Halachically, as his own children, and they are not Halachically related to him.
They are therefore not mamzerim.
ReplyDeleteSo it's not only a sexual outlet. Duh.
The notes to the lecture are about freeing or tihur of mamzer.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking, Italian eshes yefat toar, in Brooklyn, is generally free, since you can't acquire slaves. So that's the starting point. But he explicitly says the mechanism is shifcha cananis, . It was my original brief comment that left this part out.
Unfortunately, there several scenarios where there “mamzerim” are born, even in this day and age.
ReplyDelete1. The woman was married in a Halachic marriage, but she never bothered to receive a Get at the time of her civil divorce, or any other time subsequently. This woman is still an “eishes ish”, and any children she has from other men will be “mamzerim”.
2. The woman was married in a Halachic marriage, and she coerced her husband to give her a Get, in ways that are not sanctioned by Halacha. Such a “Get” is a worthless document, and does not achieve a Halachic divorce. The woman remains an “eishes ish”, and any children she has from other men will be “mamzerim”.
3. If a woman was married in a Conservative or reform ceremony, and present at the ceremony, were two religious Jews, who were not related to the bride or groom, and witnessed the ceremony, then there are Halachic authorities who still require the woman to receive a Get if she wants to dissolve her marriage. If she has any children from other men, without having received a Get, these children will be considered “mamzerim”.
4. The woman was married in a civil marriage, but lived in a religious Jewish neighborhood, where she and her husband were known as man and wife. Some Halachic authorities posit that their religious neighbors serve as passive witnesses to their marriage, and the woman is considered an “eishes ish”. According to these authorities, the woman is still an “eishes ish”, even though they weren’t married by a rabbi, and in the event they want to part their ways, the woman needs a Get. If she has any children from other men, without having received a Get, these children will be considered “mamzerim”.
You. said. Mamzer and kosher Jews have same issur towards non Jews. But that's incorrect - RAR says that shifcha is forbidden to regular Jews today, but permitted to mamzeirim.
ReplyDeleteNo lechatchila Hetter exists for this from me, or from any posek. I was referring to a pure b'dieved case, where post facto, we need to evaluate the status of such children.
ReplyDeleteI'm giving u a taste of your own medicine.
ReplyDeleteif you accept what i said - i.e. that
ReplyDeletenot all halachic and all Torah statements get written down- then there are a large body of halachic and Torah ideas and statements that are valid, but not accessible to those who were not privy to it. An example is in the Brisker tradition, where none of them wrote anything down, but later on their students did according to their recolelctions.
so your pronouncements are as authoritative as anything said in the name of the Brisker Rav?1
ReplyDeleteWow. That's a bit of a stretch.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wonder whether there were gemaras on the solitary mishnayot. Did chazal have a tradition but not put it to paper?
So does raising this point suggest I claim authority of chazal? Nope. It doesn't.
You keep equating a shifcha with non-Jews
ReplyDeleteAvadim and Shfachos aren't regular non-Jews.
Non Jews only have to keep the seven Noahide mitzvos, whereas Avadim need to keep most of the mitzvos that Yehudim keep.
So you left out the most crucial piece of information, upon which the entire Heter is based on.
ReplyDeleteGood point
ReplyDeleteNice. You also missed out one point. Based on RAR's story - one wouldn't expect to find a regular shifcha cnanit in new York. (Unless they had sweatshops in those day s)
ReplyDeleteSo he had to look for a regular bat Noach.
I'm just looking back at what I did write , and what I wrote was that he should find an Italian woman.
ReplyDeleteI didn't specify her religious status.
Since this comment has caused so much Uproar I will endeavour to be more accurate when I make these comments so that nobody should assume I'm giving a psak.
Unless specified, an Italian woman is just that, a plain non-Jew, who is forbidden to a Mamzer.
ReplyDeleteYou missed the obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe first step in this process was finding what you call a shicsa. Plain Jane shicsa.
There is no slave market in USA (slaves are long gone).
Shifcha was the loophole - like other loopholes we used to solve problems. Isska, shemitta, prozbul etc.