Edyos (8:7): Eliyahu will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. [Eliyahu will only distance those who are publicly known to be tainted but were forcibly intermingled among the Jewish People,and all those presumed to not be mamzerim but in fact are, he will let their status remain- Bertinoro].
Will there be a kohen gadol with urim v thumim? Perhaps with that oracle, tribal genealogy can be resumed.
ReplyDeleteThere is a way to end inherited mamzeirus, isn't there? If I remember correctly, it involves marrying the mamzer to a free slave or something like that?
ReplyDeleteBe careful what you say here, they will skewer you!
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteIf a "mamzer" marries a FREED "Shifcha Kena'anis", their offspring will still be "mamzerim", just like if a mamzer has children from a normal Jewish woman.
The proposed solution would be to somehow buy a "Shifcha Kena'anis" in this day and age (which is illegal, in most parts of the world), and live with her. The resulting offspring; would be considered his own SLAVES, which has the prerogative to free from bondage. These freed kids, would now be fully Jewish, but don't count, Halachically, as his own children, and therefore the "mamzer" blemish isn’t passed down to them.
This proposed solution, would not work in a parallel case of female "mamzeres”. If a “mamzeres” lives with an "eved kena'ani", the dominant pedigree is the woman’s, and the "mamzer" blemish is passed down to her child.
So Israel would have to figure out some way to legalize limited slavery for women and not experience a huge backlash from the rest of the planet....
ReplyDeleteIn today's progressive liberal generation, that would be a near impossibility.
ReplyDeleteThe word "slavery" triggers very strong reactions in people, and the Israeli government, which is so sensitive about world opinion, would never condone legalizing slavery for women, even if would help a few “mamzerim”. The optics of such a move, and the negative PR which would be generated, isn’t worth the price, to the State of Israel.
It's a wonder to me, that the nations of the world haven't yet cancelled the Bible, and made it illegal to own or sell one; due to the fact that the Bible condones certain forms of slavery.
Also, even if the legal hurdle is somehow surmounted, nevertheless, given the militant feminism, which is so pervasive in the world today; the odds of a normal non-Jewish woman; agreeing to become a "slave" to a Jew; is next to nil.
Our slavery has nothing to do with the slavery of the nations, eg America. We protect our slaves, and even release them, and it is their choice whether they want to stay or go.
ReplyDeleteIt is another form of kinyan.
Rabbi Rakeffet gives a shiur on this topic, though he is persona non grata on this blog.
Can be in occupied territory, or in no Man's land, eg meah shearim, where they don't recognise israeli /zionist ribbonut (or rabbanut, for that matter).
ReplyDeletestop with the nonsense!
ReplyDeleteRabbi Rakefet is not persona non grata on this blog
He is known to make misstatements about halacha including misreading Igros Moshe regarding nullifying marriage
The slavery of עבד כנעני, was very similar to American slavery. Indeed, historically, there were Jewish plantation owners, whose slaves had the Halachic status of עבדים כנעניים, and their descendants, who never received a גט שחרור, are still technically עבדים כנעניים.
ReplyDeleteThere is no obligation, whatsoever, to release an עבד כנעני.
He is acquired property, and becomes part of the estate, which is passed on as an inheritance to the mater's children (Vayikra 25:46)
To the contrary, some posit, that there is a prohibition against doing so, based on the verse לעולם בהם תעבודו (ibid., Gittin 38b).
Once an עבד כנעני is emancipated, the master can order the former slave to leave his premises, even if the former slave desires to continue to stay on.
That's why an African American would not like to be a shifcha.
ReplyDeleteUm, first of all, the comment was a joke.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I wonder if it's possible to structure an employment contract to de facto create an Eved Cana'ani. I mean, the Torah's protections for the slave are not a maximum so the contract could recognize unliteral termination of employment if the owner maims him but also still gives him the right to sue for damages in civil court and keep the owner liable to criminal charges under civil law, for example.
If someone gets a job delivering for Amazon, or driving uber, it is worse than eved canani. You don't even have a contract with those jobs. you get young ladies with university degrees waiting on tables or working at supermarket checkouts.
ReplyDeleteSo being a shifcha canani is not such a rough deal, for an Italian lady who doesn't like the Rocky way of life.
It’s an interesting proposition, but I don't think, that the employment contract you propose; would create the Halachic status of Eved Cana'ani.
ReplyDeleteAn Eved is a merely chattel, and has no personal autonomy. Once he becomes an Eved, he ceases to exist as a legal entity of a person. He is a “thing”, owned by his master. [
Also, if he sued his owner, there would not be any mechanism for the Eved to receive any compensation from the owner, because any financial benefit that the Eved generates; always reverts to the owner. Stipulating otherwise, might carry with it, a fatal flaw of מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה, which is a Halacha, that contracts that run contrary to Torah law, can’t be formed, and any such stipulations are null and void.
Where there's a will, there's a lawyer. I agree that in most civilized countries, no contract could be written up to deprive the potential Eved of certain rights and freedoms. One wonders if Israeli law could accommodate that in special circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, the impractical solution is to conduct the transaction in a country where slavery is legal (sadly, those still exist)
The average non-Jewish woman would have to be crazy, to go along with such a contract, where she's deprived of ALL personal autonomy, is OWNED by this Jewish man, and is now obligated to keep all the mitzvos of the Torah.
ReplyDeleteRemember, if she merely wants to be a Jewess, she can simply convert to Judaism, and doesn't need to become a SLAVE to do so.
Yes, but as a slave she can skip the years of learning and doesn't have to convince a beis din of her sincerity.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but at what personal price?
ReplyDeleteSo that she can become some Mamzer's sex slave?
you see, you have disdain for mazeirim, who are not allowed to enter the Jewish community.
ReplyDeleteIf she ain't happy, she can walk out, and sue for modern day slavery.
The assumption would be that it would be a time limited thing - she becomes a slave and a few days later is "liberated".
ReplyDeleteIf the Mamzer emancipates her, that would defeat the entire purpose of this arrangement, which is to be able produce children whose pedigree is not tainted by the Mamzer blemish.
ReplyDeleteIf a "mamzer" has children with a FREED "Shifcha Kena'anis", their offspring will still be "mamzerim", just like if a mamzer has children from a normal Jewish woman.
Therefore, in order for this to work, the woman must remain a "shifcha", until she is definitely past childbearing age. Depending on her current age, this could even be several DECADES (age 18-45).
I didn't make up the Laws, which Hashem put in His Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe Mishna (Horiyos 3:8) posits: "A ‘mamzer’ who is learned in Torah, precedes a Kohen Gadol (high priest)”.
that's true
ReplyDeletebut a mamzer will be shunned. No Shadchan or anyone else will want anything to do with them. the Talmud in Kiddushin 73a makes the presumption that if a child is abandoned by his mother, and found alive, he could not have been a mamzer - a fate worse than death. So the chazakah is that the child is kasher / Jewish.
it is actually a terrible fate, if you dare to think about it.
Your arrogance knows no bounds, since you apparently consider yourself an arbitrator over the actions of Ezra and Nehemia, and your Royal Highness has decided that they made a "mistake".
ReplyDeleteIsraelReader has disdain for mamzerim trying to enter the Jewish Community?
What does that even mean?
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.
Due to the Torah's restrictions, no Shadchan has much to offer a Mamzer, but Mamzerim can still shine in the Beit Midrash, and achieve high levels of proficiency in Torah.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that Jesus' lack of matrimony, was due to the dubious circumstances surrounding his conception?
If he was in fact conceived from a Roman soldier, that would make him a Mamzer, and practically unable to marry according to Jewish law. That would have led to sexual repression, and a very frustrated dude.
Not necessarily a mistake.
ReplyDeleteI have one of Rav Goren's books where he mentions this issue, and asks why didn't they convert the foreign wives? the answer he gives is that they didn't want to convert.
So it seems tha these wives were idolaters, and didn't want leave their idols. The difficult part is the children, having to put them away too.
Is the intermarriage of those days the same as today? These were the 7 nations, and their abominations. Whether the aboiminations of today's intermarriage are as severe, i cannot say. It is usually secular abomination, not idolatry.
I have no idea about Yashka, and whether that explanation was accurate, or if it would make him mamzer.
ReplyDeleteI don't even know if he really existed , there is scant historical evidence, and the Yeshua in the Talmud was from 100 years earlier.
First time i heard you mention sexual repression. If there was such fellow, he would have used his considerable influence and twisting the law to satisfy his taaives.
The mamzer does not have a good lot. A female mamzer is even worse off, as the eved cannani would not affect her offsprin'g mamzerus.
ReplyDeleteEven after she's past her child bearing years she'd have to remain his slave in order for them to be able to continue an intimate relationship.
ReplyDeleteThere should be no reason precluding a woman today halachicly becoming a shifcha knaanis. Secular laws proscribing slavery don't preclude her becoming a shifcha if the proper Halacha is followed in making her a shifcha.
ReplyDeleteTorah thought this week’s parsha Shimini
ReplyDelete“And the swine---although it has true hoofs, with the hoofs cleft through, it does not chew the cud, it is unclean unto you.” (Leviticus 11:7)
ויקרא פרשת שמיני פרק יא פסוק ז
וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא וְשֹׁסַע שֶׁסַע פַּרְסָה וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא יִגָּר טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
Chullin 59a
“But there might well be other species similar to the swine? That should not enter your mind. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: It is written: “And the swine---although it has true hoofs, with the hoofs cleft through, it does not chew the cud, it is unclean unto you.” (Leviticus 11:7). The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that parts the hoof and is unclean except the swine. Therefore the verse particularly stated it.”
Amazing midrash:
מדרש הגדול ויקרא פרשת שמיני פרק יא פסוק ז
ואת החזיר. תנו רבנן מעשה ששלחה מלכות קצרה לרבנן אמרה להם שלחו לנו מכם קסילופניס אחד נתישבה סנהדרין על דעתה אמרו כמה נירות וכמה פניסין מאירין למלכות כמה אבנים טובות ומרגליות יש להן והן מבקשין ממנו פניס אחד דומה שאין מבקשין אלא מי שמאיר להן פנים בהלכה מה עשו שלחו להן ר' מאיר ולמה נקרא שמו מאיר שהוא מאיר פנים בהלכה ובחכמה. וכיון שנכנס לרומי שאלוניה בני רומי אמרו ליה למה נקרא שם חזיר חזיר אמר להן שהוא עתיד לחזור אמרו לו דייך מאיר אין כל חדש תחת השמש (קהלת א, ט).
This midrash says that in the future the pig will chew the cud just like goats and cows and we’ll be able to its meat as we eat goat and cow meat! Fantastic. Though King Solomon says “Only that shall happened Which has happened, Only that occur Which has occurred; There is nothing new beneath the sun!” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Why were Ezra and Nehemia so fired up on foreign wives? Thanks KA that Rabbi Goren discusses this question. My theory. Not a mistake of Ezra and Nehemia. Ezra and Nehemia didn’t want foreign workers in the homes of Jews. Ezra and Nehemia saw enemies everywhere. Hertz Chumash p. 556: “He [Ezra] then set about the work of reformation; he called upon the nobles and people to put away their strange wives. They answer with a loud voice ‘As thou hast said, so must we do; and they enter upon the covenant, so fateful for the future of Israel and monotheism.” What wonderful good work of Ezra. We owe so much to Ezra and Nehemia.
When I made aliya July 8, 1991, people told me to see Rabbi Goren. I have several of his books. In Beni Brak, in my shul (very Zionistic), we quote him often, along with Rabbi Druckman.
https://t.co/IpMPAf2GPH?hg2U4
ReplyDeleteNope!
ReplyDeleteGoren simply held that national identity is more important than religious observance.
Do you agree with that?
https://en.idi.org.il/articles/26963
That is Halachically incorrect!
ReplyDeleteA Mamzer is permitted to be married to an emancipated Shifcha Kena’anis, just as he is permitted to marry a Giyores (EH 4:22).
I agree that the Mamzer’s lot is not a good one.
ReplyDeleteHowever it isn’t his fault. It’s just due the circumstances of his birth.
His conception happened under spiritually toxic conditions, which conveyed to him a spiritual birth defect, which affected his spiritual DNA so badly, that the defect will forever be passed down to subsequent generations.
have you ever met someone you know to be a mamzer? ( I don't mean the colloquial mamzer, there are plenty of those on every corner.)
ReplyDeleteyou lay this at the feet of RSG, but this was the traditional position in the past generations. the fact that someone wanted to throw their lot in with the oppressed Jewish nation (in exile) was proof of their sincerity, whilst when teaching them, we only taught them a few mitzvot here, and a few there, and they were ready to convert.
ReplyDeleteIn the famous controversy , it was Rav Elyashiv who was lenient on conversion, and RSG that was strict on covnersion (but lenient on mazerus).
Historically, conversions were more lenient, unitl somebody wrote a book saying we need to get strict ( i forget his name).
R Cardozo also argues along such lines - i.e. not only halacha
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/conversion-is-not-about-halacha/
nonsensense!
ReplyDeleteProfessors Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar, in their study of halakhic literature relating to conversion, suggested that the first halakhic authority to equate conversion with total commitment to observe mitzvoth was Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes-and this was not until 1876! [5] Rabbi Schmelkes wrote: "The basic principle with regard to proselytes in our times is to ensure that they truly take upon themselves to perform the central beliefs of religion, the other commandments, and the Sabbath, which is a central principle because a Sabbath desecrator is an idolater. If he undergoes conversion but does not accept upon himself to observe the Sabbath and the commandments, as mandated by religion, he is not a proselyte." He ruled: "If he undergoes conversion and accepts upon himself the yoke of the commandments, while in his heart he does not intend to perform them-it is the heart that God wants and [therefore] he has not become a proselyte."[6]
ReplyDeleteRav Schmelkes
https://www.jewishideas.org/article/conversion-judaism-halakha-hashkafa-and-historic-challenge
You again are simply repeating secular Zionist talking points and ignoring halachic reality
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.koltorah.org/halachah/the-geirut-controversy-part-two-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter%3fformat=amp
ReplyDeleteRav jachter....
Yes, the strict approach is larger, but Rav Hoffman was lenient, so not everything begins and ends with Goren.
Wow! So you want to cherry pick minority views that are irrelevant to halacha?!
ReplyDeleteSo there is more than one lenient view besides Rav Goren
Who besides you cares?
Conclusion of Rav Jachter
The consensus opinion amongst Poskim is that Kabbalat Mitzvot is an indispensable component of Geirut. Hence, the GPS document introduced by the RCA should not be considered as a “new stringency” but rather reflecting the mainstream Halachic approach endorsed by the consensus of Poskim of the past hundred years. GPS simply creates a system which supports converts who are sincerely committed to Torah life in their quest to have their conversions recognized by mainstream Orthodox rabbis throughout the world. Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik do not recognize the conversions of those rabbis who convert individuals who clearly will not observe Torah, on the one hand. However, on the other hand they do not condemn these rabbis as flagrant sinners since they have some basis in Halachah for their actions.
Wow. So you reject Rav Moshe, who was limmud zchut on minority opinion rabbis?
ReplyDeleteNo one is rejecting Rav Moshe just twisted mangling of what he says
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, at least two.
ReplyDeleteBoth were ba'alei teshuva, whose mothers had previously been married in Orthodox ceremonies, and they subsequently remarried without receiving a Get.
very sad
ReplyDeletehow did they solve their marriage problem?
"
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah Mod The_Original_Bored_Lawyer • 5 years ago
The
lack of meaning of the convert saying he would keep the mitzvos was a
result from the fact that Jews were no longer forced to live in a
homogenous community of observant Jews from the early 1800's
see Heichal Yitzchok EH 1 20:6; 21:3
It also appears In Rav Breisch Chelkas Yaakov 1:14
See also Chilkas Yaakov 1:13
And I think the first one to state this was Beis Yitzchok Y.D. 2:100:9 "
An individual posek does not need to follow the majority view if he does not sit with them. If he has reasons for lenience, then he can exercise that lenience. In Rav Hoffman's case, he saw it as a stricture against intermarriage, and a way to obviate it.
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly the view of the gemora, rishonim and Shulchan Aruch - It was not made up 150 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI prefer not to discuss it.
ReplyDeleteII forgot to add this one to my personal list, which unfortunately, now counts three definite Mamzerim (along with several others that I know of, who might be considered “safek mamzerim”).
ReplyDeleteI know this from a first-hand source, and it has also been publicized here:
http://mamzeralert.blogspot.com/2019/08/menachem-mendel-feller-declared.html
And you are quite happy to publicize these, but not the others
ReplyDelete