https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+mamzer+and+shifcha+katz+rjj+
Kiddushin (69a) MISHNAH. Rav Tarfon said: mamzerim can be purified, How? If a MAMZER MARRIES A BONDMAID, HER SON IS A SLAVE; IF HE IS FREED, IT IS FOUND THAT THE SON IS A FREE MAN. R. ELIEZER SAID: BEHOLD, HE IS A SLAVE, A MAMZER. GEMARA. The Scholars propounded: Does Rav Tarfon say thus at the very outset, or only if it is already done? — Come and hear: The Sages said to Rav Tarfon: You have purified the males, but you have not purified the females. Now, if you say that he means at the very outset, let a mamzereth too be married to a slave? — A slave has no paternity.Come and hear: For Rav Simlai's host was a mamzer, and Rav. Simlai said to him, ‘Had I known you earlier, I would have removed the stigma from your sons.’ Now, if you say that. Rav Tarfon 's device is at the very outset, it is well: but if you say, only when already done, what is it that he could advise him? — He would have advised him by saying to him, ‘Go and steal, and then be sold as a Hebrew slave.’ Were there then Hebrew slaves in Rav Simlai's time? Surely a Master said: The institution of a Hebrew slave is practised only when Jubilee is practised? Hence it surely follows that Rav Tarfon means at the very outset. This proves it. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as Rav Tarfon.\
Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 4:20) If a mamzer cohabits with a non-Jewish woman, the offspring is considered a non-Jew. If he converts, he is a full Jew. If a mamzer cohabits with a maid-servant the offspring is a slave. If he is freed, he is a free Jew. Therefore a mamzer may wed, as a matter of first resort, a maidservant who has accepted Jewish observance and has immersed in the mikva for the sake of slavery, so that his offspring may be permitted after they are freed and they may marry a Jewish woman.
- מחותנו החותם באהבה וידידות נאמנה. י"ד סיון תשכ"ה.
- שו"ת חלקת יעקב אבן העזר סימן כג
יא) קיצור הדברים דיש הרבה צדדים להיתרא לישא נכרית ולגיירה לשם שפחה בכדי לטהר את בניו, וכמובן שהוא ידור עמה בלי חופו"ק דהא בשפחה אין קידושין תופסין, והוולדות שיוולדו יצטרך לשחררם, ונוסח שטר שיחרור מבואר בעה"ש סי' רס"ז ס"ק קל"א וכמובן שזה צריך להיעשות ע"י בי"ד בני תורה ורבנים.ואף מי שירצה לפקפק בזה ולמצא קצת נדנוד איסור שזאת לא מקרי שפחה, וכידוע שכל אחד יש לו שכלו והבנתו בלימוד תוה"ק, ולא יתנאה לפניו מה שכתבתי להיתר ברור, בכל אופן עדיף טפי מלישא נכרית ממש בלי טבילה וקבלת מצוה שזה ודאי אסור משום נשג"ז ובדרך חתנות אף מן התורה, וכמבואר בהרמב"ם ושו"ע, ולישא גיורת או ממזרת הבנים יהיו ודאי ממזרים, והרי בחצי עבד וחצי בן חורין בגיטין מ"א דכפינן לי' לרבי' לעשותו בן חורין ומפסידין לו דמיו, וגם לעבור על העשה של לעולם בהם תעבודו, וכבתוס' שם ע"ב ד"ה כופין דהיכי דלא פשע אמרינן לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חברך, אף על גב דיש לו עצה לישא ממזרת וכבתוס' שם ע"א ואמר ר"ת דאין זו תקנה להרבות ממזרים בישראל, כל שכן בני"ד דלהמחמיר היותר גדול בדינא דד"מ, בכל אופן לא הוי רק איסורא דרבנן לדעת הבי"ש אע"ז סי' כ"ח וסייעתי' דד"מ אינו רק דרבנן ומיקרא איסורא זוטא דהא אפי' איסור תורה העשה דלעולם בהם תעבודו אנו מתירין בכדי שלא לרבות ממזרים, א"כ כש"כ איסור דרבנן דלא הוי רק איסורא זוטא, ומצינו בשבת ד' ונפסק להלכה בסי' רנ"ד סע' ו' דאם נתן הפת בשבת מותר לו לרדות בשבת ואומרים לו לעשות איסורא זוטא בכדי שלא יבא לידי איסור חמור, ואפי' היכי דפשע, ובאחרים רק היכי דלא פשע, אם כן בני"ד דלא פשע דאמרינן אפילו לאחרים לעשות איסורא זוטא בכדי שלא להרבות ממזרים א"כ כש"כ לו לעצמו. כמה חתרו רבנים שבכל דור להתיר בנות ישראל שלא ישארו עגונות, וסמכו כמה פעמים אף על דברי יחידים עי' בי"ש סי' י"ז ס"ק מ"ז, וכש"כ כשהדבר נוגע רק לדד"מ דיש הרבה שיטות להקל והרבה סברות להקל אף להמחמירין, וגם אין עצה אחרת, ודאי דיש לסמוך ולהקל, וכמבואר בגמרא כתובות ס"ד ב' דצערא דגברא קשה מדאיתתא ושלא יבוא לידי עברות חמורות. דא ודאי שבארץ ישראל הדבר קילא הרבה יותר בענין דד"מ ולא ארצה להאריך בזה. מובן מאליו, שרב יחידי אין לו רשות ליתן הוראה בענין תמוה לרבים עד שיסכימו עמו גדולי בעלי הוראה שבדור, ולא באתי רק לחוות דעתי העני' בענין חמור הלזה.
It was my understanding that Even Kana'ani only applied during Yovel times, yet Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer had non-jewish slaves?
ReplyDeletewhat did Chelkat Yaakov say?...
ReplyDeletethat it is possible to become a shifcha nowadays and for a mamzer to purify his offspring through his union with her, in the end he was not
ReplyDeletewilling to advise people to act upon his theoretical ruling.
wrong!
ReplyDeleteEncyclopedia Judaica
Opinions are divided among modern scholars whether and to what extent slavery was practiced in post-biblical times. There is repeated mention of Tebi, the slave of Rabban Gamaliel (Ber. 2:7; Pes. 7:2; Suk. 2:1), and a freed slave formerly belonging to Tobiah the physician (RH 1:7) is also mentioned. In amoraic sources there are reports of cases of men selling themselves into slavery as gladiators (Git. 46b–47a), apparently from dire necessity (TJ, Git. 4:9). There is a strong talmudic tradition to the effect that all bondage of Hebrew slaves had ceased with the cessation of jubilee years (Git. 65a; Kid. 69a; Ar. 29a; Maim. Yad, Avadim 2:10), which would mean that from the period of the Second Temple the practice of slavery was at any rate confined to non-Hebrew slaves.
You're confusing Eved Ivri with Eved Kna'ani.
ReplyDeleteEved Ivri only applied during the time when the laws of Yovel were in effect (Rambam, Avadim, 1:10).
However, we do not find such an exception with regard to the laws of Eved Kna'ani. Indeed, the Rabbinical Responsa (Rishonim, Achronim) are replete with discussions from contemporary life, regarding various practical questions which came up.
These laws even found their way into the Mishnah Berurah (304:26), who posits, that that servants, for whom their masters pay the "slave tax", are considered to be owned by their masters (not employees), for all purposes, including the stringency, that they can't perform forbidden forms of labor on Shabbos, but also the leniency, that they can marry a Mamzer or Mamzeres.
People could use his ruling even without him advising them to do so.
ReplyDelete“Conversion: Joining a Religion or Joining a Nation? Rav Goren versus most rabbinical authorities” No. No to “Goren simply held that national identity is more important than religious observance.” Rav Goren, as did Nehemia, placed religious observance above all: “At that time they read to the people from the Book of Moses; and it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite might ever enter the congregation of God since they did not meet Israel with bread and water and hired Balaam against them to curse them; but our God turned the curse into a blessing. When they had heard the Teaching התורה they separated all the alien admixture from Israel.” (Nehemia 13:1-3).
ReplyDeleteHertz Chumash p. 555 “It is evident that if the Critical account of the origin and promulgation of the so-called priestly code is accepted, it is necessary to attribute deliberate fraud to Ezra. The Critics do not feel this moral difficulty, because the avowed object of many of the Critics has for a long time been to ‘deprive Israel of its halo’, and to degrade its saints and heroes. But even those who do not recoil from attributing fraud to the sacred writers should weigh the sheer improbability of the introduction of a new code in the manner put forward by the Critical theory....Thus, on the theory of the Critics, tithes of corn, oil, and cattle for the support of the Levitical order had never before been heard of; yet the people submit to the new burdens without dissent. The Book of Nehemia shows that there was a strongly disaffected party and a religiously faithless party in Jerusalem; yet no one raises a doubt.”
The Court of Appeals tells me April 1, 2021: “Mo. No. 2021-54 Susan Aranoff, Respondent, v. Gerald Aranoff, Appellant. Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the June 25, 2014 Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie, appellant having previously moved in the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal (24 NY3d 934 [2014]) from the same Appellate Division order from which he currently seeks leave to appeal (see Selinger v Selinger, 90 NY2d 842 [1997]);...”
In Selinger v Selinger the dispute is only money, e.g. “ By deeding the house to defendant, plaintiff memorialized in writing a gift to his wife pursuant to the clear terms of the prenuptial agreement, and accordingly, the proceeds from the sale of the house, totaling approximately $3.4 million and placed in defendant's Wachovia account, are her separate property.”
My dispute in Aranoff v Aranoff is deliberate fraud, e.g. “Inquest August 2013: THE COURT: What he says here, my main reason is that I already divorced Susan February 17th, 1993. That was a religious divorce. MS. SERLIN: It was a religious divorce in Israel without participation or knowledge of my client. THE COURT: Right. There were no issues involving equitable distribution? MS. SERLIN: There is a marital residence. That is the one and only issue. The separation agreement that they entered into, and there is a separation before, gives exclusive possession to my client. THE COURT: What does it say as far as equitable distribution of that?”
Good KA keeps books of Rabbi Goren, as does my Bnei Brak shul along with books of Rabbi Druckman and Rabbi Eliezer Melamed. The anti-Zionists like to smear Zionist rabbis for no good reason. The anti-Bibi smear Netanyahu for no good reason. Did the anti-Trump have good reason for all their smearing of Trump?
Yes!
ReplyDeleteI am certain that "Jews bring back slavery" would not raise any eyebrows when it appears on the front page of the newspaper. I'm also sure that the same fine men who decline (as as their Torah-True right) to divorce their wives because reasons won't also happen not to free their maidservant/wife once they're too old to produce any more children.
ReplyDelete