Rav Gedalya Felder in Nachalas Tzvi I p. 115 brings a strange shita: the Raavan on Yevamos 45 says: "Hilchesa, a goy and eved haba al bas yisrael, bein pnuyah bein eishes ish havlad kasher. Vehani mili be'ones, aval beratzon lo b'eishes ish, aval pnuyah afilu beratzon." Then he discusses Rav Mari bar Rachel. It is on p. 242b in the standard Raavan. This Raavan is very difficult because no Gemara makes such a distinction between goy haba al pnuyah and goy haba al eishes ish.
I think we can understand this shita. First of all, there is a very important machlokes rishonim about the proper girsa in the gemara about "goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael" if the girsa is "havlad mamzer" or "havlad kasher." (Most rishonim who say havlad kasher say there is a psul in the child, but the term kasher is used to mean 'not a mamzer.') The second thing to keep in mind is the halacha of Shvuya. (See Kesuvos 3b and 26b). A married woman who was captive can return to her husband, because even if she was raped, a rape does not disqualify her from her husband, but the wife of a kohen may not return to her husband because rape makes her a zona and thus asura l'kohen. For pnuyos it depends if they may still eat trumah (if they are kohanim) or if they can marry a kohen (no). But a married woman who committed adultery cannot return to her husband (nor can she return to the adulterer; there is a halacha kesheim she'asurah lebaal, kach asurah le'boel).
It seems the Raavan had the girsa "goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad mamazer. He also holds there is mamzeirus from a non-Jewish father, but mamzeirus (at least in this case) happens where the woman becomes asurah libaalah (note: there are cases where there is mamzeirus but no isur to the husband, like rape). Hence it's only mamzer to an eishes ish biratzon.
Why might Raavan hold mamzeirus is possible with a non-Jewish man and a Jewish woman? There is a chakira - what causes mamzeirus? Is it the forbidden act, or incompatible yichus of a married woman with a strange man? When a non-Jewish man is involved it is difficult to say there is incompatible yichus, but we can discuss the isur of the act. Tosfos Yevamos 16b s.v. kasavar holds it's not asur midioraissa, but I've discussed that to many opinions there is an isur dioraissa. If Raavan holds that the forbidden act causes mamzeirus, and like Rambam that cohabitation with a non-Jew is an isur dioraissa or even chiyuvei kareis, there might be mamzeirus. (There is a big Machlokes Rabbeinu Tam & Rivam in Tos, Kesuvos 3b & Sanhedrin 74b about bi'as goy, very huge topic, I can't discuss it now).
This chakira I heard from my rebbi shlit"a when he discussed artificial insemination; he feels the two sides to the chakira correspond to the two explanations the Rambam gives in Moreh Nevuchim (III:49) for mamzeirus.
Let's make another chakira: does the non-Jewish father have no yichus in regard to his Jewish child, or do we say the mother's yichus eclipses this non-Jewish father's small yichus?) From Bechoros 47, Levi Pasul mikrei, he has some pgam from the father, so there must be at least a little yichus from the father. But we can make another chakira: does the pgam come from the little Yichus from his non-Jewish father, or is it that because he has no yichus at all of mishpachas av, and that itself is a pgam? In other words, if goy haba al bas yisrael havlad pagum - commonly we say the pgam is that the daughter is asurah to a kohen. But is there any psul to the son? Recall the machlokes Ran/Rambam about daughter of ger & yisraelis. Ran says without mishpachas av is there nothing. Or we can say there's some type of nebulous category (which one amora calls khal geirim), which we call "pgam."
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query haba. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query haba. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
69a Akum Sheba al bas Yisrael, Part 2 - Rashi's shita
See Tosfos 75b s.v. v'Rabi Yishmael. (I already mentioned this shita in my very first post.) Rashi 68b s.v. leima - havlad mamzer and we don't say he's a goy. Implication is, if we say havlad kasher (which is what we do say) the vlad is a goy and if he converts he's kosher. Some (Maharsha 75b s.v. v'Rabi Yishmael) ask that Rashi contradicts
himself because on 76a s.v. u'parchinan he says goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad kasher, ela shifcha vladah eved, which implies the child with a Jewish mother is Jewish, and does not need geirus. Rashi also seems to contradict himself on 70 s.v. kol that Herod probably did not marry Jewish wives. That implies had he married Jewish wives, his children (he was an eved) would be full Jews. But Rashi holds goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad kosher but needs geirus! But the answer is a non-Jewish father is worse than an eved father. See Shaar Hamelech, Issurei Biah 15:3, and Rav Moshe Soloveichik zt"l in Chiddushei Hagram Halevi Issurei Biah 15:3. A non-Jewish father
passes on his psul of non-Jew to the child. But an eved has no yichus (pedigree) so he has no psul to pass on. So When Rashi says goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havald kasher but needs geirus, he only means goy haba. But eved sheba is completely Jewish and needs no geirus. This shita is also brought in Piskei Tosfos, Asara Yuchsin, 142.
Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt"l explained that Rashi doesn't mean - in the case of goy haba - the child is a goy. The child is Jewish, but he has a psul kahal (he's not allowed to enter the community), but that psul is removed with tevila. It is similar to a ger who had kabalas mitzvos, milah and tevila but didn't bring his korban (in the time of the mikdash) that he is Jewish but may not marry a Jewish woman until he brings his korban, according to Shita Mekubetzes, Kerisus 9a. (See Perach Mateh Aharon, Milah 1:7. The application to this Rashi is not in that piece, but he said it in shiur on Bava Basra.)
An almost identical explanation like Rav Ahron was offered by Rav Itzele Ponovicher in Zecher Yitzchak, siman 4. His thesis is that all aspects of gerus - milah, tevila and korban - are to purify the ger from his previous state of non-Jewishness. He then says with this we can explain [Rashi's shita] that the child is Jewish but needs tevila because he has the psul of goy, that the psul is the psul of both of the parents, but the yichus is after the mother... He is a full Yisrael but needs tevila to marry a bas yisrael....
himself because on 76a s.v. u'parchinan he says goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad kasher, ela shifcha vladah eved, which implies the child with a Jewish mother is Jewish, and does not need geirus. Rashi also seems to contradict himself on 70 s.v. kol that Herod probably did not marry Jewish wives. That implies had he married Jewish wives, his children (he was an eved) would be full Jews. But Rashi holds goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad kosher but needs geirus! But the answer is a non-Jewish father is worse than an eved father. See Shaar Hamelech, Issurei Biah 15:3, and Rav Moshe Soloveichik zt"l in Chiddushei Hagram Halevi Issurei Biah 15:3. A non-Jewish father
passes on his psul of non-Jew to the child. But an eved has no yichus (pedigree) so he has no psul to pass on. So When Rashi says goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havald kasher but needs geirus, he only means goy haba. But eved sheba is completely Jewish and needs no geirus. This shita is also brought in Piskei Tosfos, Asara Yuchsin, 142.
Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt"l explained that Rashi doesn't mean - in the case of goy haba - the child is a goy. The child is Jewish, but he has a psul kahal (he's not allowed to enter the community), but that psul is removed with tevila. It is similar to a ger who had kabalas mitzvos, milah and tevila but didn't bring his korban (in the time of the mikdash) that he is Jewish but may not marry a Jewish woman until he brings his korban, according to Shita Mekubetzes, Kerisus 9a. (See Perach Mateh Aharon, Milah 1:7. The application to this Rashi is not in that piece, but he said it in shiur on Bava Basra.)
An almost identical explanation like Rav Ahron was offered by Rav Itzele Ponovicher in Zecher Yitzchak, siman 4. His thesis is that all aspects of gerus - milah, tevila and korban - are to purify the ger from his previous state of non-Jewishness. He then says with this we can explain [Rashi's shita] that the child is Jewish but needs tevila because he has the psul of goy, that the psul is the psul of both of the parents, but the yichus is after the mother... He is a full Yisrael but needs tevila to marry a bas yisrael....
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Siyum Hashas, Nida 73a
תנא דבי אליהו כל השונה הלכות בכל יום מובטח לו שהוא בן העולם הבא שנאמר (חבקוק ג) הליכות עולם לו אל תקרי הליכות אלא הלכות:
What is so important of being "shoneh halachos" every day? Learning Mishna Brura Yomis? And why is the reward so great - assured of being a ben Olam haba?
Now, Shoneh means recite Torah Shebal Peh - see Shabbos first perek ( & Tana D'Vei Eliyahu Perek 15) See end of my post here). So I think the pshat is Shoneh Halachos means "study halachos l'Moshe Misinai" because they are Torah Shebal Peh, and studying it every day shows a lot of dedication. So if you are very dedicated to studying these Halachos LeMoshe Misinai, which are absolute Torah Shebal Peh, you are committing to Torah min Hashmayim and Mesorah, so the reward is Olam Haba, which is something that only exists because of the Mesorah - Olam Haba is not in Torah shebiksav. That is why this is the reward.
What is so important of being "shoneh halachos" every day? Learning Mishna Brura Yomis? And why is the reward so great - assured of being a ben Olam haba?
Now, Shoneh means recite Torah Shebal Peh - see Shabbos first perek ( & Tana D'Vei Eliyahu Perek 15) See end of my post here). So I think the pshat is Shoneh Halachos means "study halachos l'Moshe Misinai" because they are Torah Shebal Peh, and studying it every day shows a lot of dedication. So if you are very dedicated to studying these Halachos LeMoshe Misinai, which are absolute Torah Shebal Peh, you are committing to Torah min Hashmayim and Mesorah, so the reward is Olam Haba, which is something that only exists because of the Mesorah - Olam Haba is not in Torah shebiksav. That is why this is the reward.
Friday, December 19, 2008
He'aros on Daf 70-72a
- Maalin metrumah leyuchsin - I hope to discuss this when we reach Daf 76 about the 4 mothers. (Update: here.)
- Mishpacha shenitm'ah nitm'ah. As Rambam brings in the end of Hil. Melachim, Bnei Yisrael will be sorted into shevatim, but if a mamzer was incorporated into a family, he will remain there and Mishpacha shenitm'ah nitm'ah. The gemara does not say this, but see Rashi in Tehillim 87:6 : "In the future, when G-d will judge the nations, He will count the Jews who were swallowed up among them and those coerced among them and He will remove them [the Jews] from them [the non-Jews] and He will say 'this was born from those of Zion' and He will choose them for Himself. And this is what Yeshaia says (66)...and where is this said? 'The Hidden ones are [known] to G-d' (Devarim 29)." (Assist to my father who saw this in note in Stone Chumash.)
- 71a The 4 letter Name. See Griz (Brisker Rav) on Parshas Shemos: See Rashi that we learn of 2 names, the written name and the pronounced name. The written name is part of Torah Shebichsav, and the pronounced name is part of Torah Shebal Peh which is transmitted from generation to generation. That is why the pasuk says "My Name" which is the written name "forever" and by "my rememberance" which is the pronounced name, says "from generation to generation," which is transmitted that way like Torah Shebal Peh. We can also explain this based on Psachim 50, what does the pasuk mean when it says "on that day G-d will be One and His name One," that leolam haba the pronounced name will be the same as the written name. That's why by "My name" which is the written name, it says "forever," - even leolam haba it will be [the written name], but by "my rememberance" which is the pronounced name, it says "from generation to generation,"- only in olam hazeh it will be pronbounced this way but it will not be pronounced this way in Olam Haba.
And see Gr"a in Kol Eliyahu on Naso by Birkas Kohanim - Sifri says the Kohanim bless [the people] in the Mikdash as it says "vesamu es shmi." How do we know they bless outside the mikdash? "Bechol makom asher azkir es shmi..." And it is perplexing. We can explain that it is known that in the Mikdash they would pronounce the Name as it is written and that is called "My Name," but outside the Mikdash we only use the kinuy (roughly translated as nickname) and that's only a zeicher to the Name, and that's the pasuk in Shemos "Ze zichri liolam" (see Griz above). This is the explanation of the Sifri: "vesamu es shmi" is only in the mikdash, where the name is pronounced as it is written, and outside the mikdas from "Bechol makom asher azkir es shmi..." azkir is only a zikaron to the name, not the real name.
There is a famous Rogatchover on the pasuk at the end of Beshalach - Ki yad al kes kah, the midrash says "My Name is not complete nor is my Throne complete while Amalek survives" (kes instead of kiseh, and Kah instead of regular shem Hashem) - it's a little similar to the Brisjer Rav's second explanation ,that the name will be different leasid lavo. - 71b. Zeiri carried Rabi Yochanan over the water, and Rabi Yochanan tried to marry off his daughter to Zeiri. This is interesting - see Bava Metzia 84a how Rabi Yochanan and Reish Lakish jumped over a river and Rabi Yochanan got Reish Lakish to return to the Torah and he would let Reish Lakish marry his sister, and then Rabi Yochanan had to carry Reish Lakish back over the water. It's strange how both stories with Rabi Yochanan, and the marriage of his sister & daughter involve someone being carried over water. Maybe it is symbolic and not merely literal.
The wives of our patriarchs Yitzchak and Yaakov, Rivka and Rachel, were found by the local well. I explained this significance based on the distinction between a mikva, a pool of 40 saah of water, and a maayan, a natural spring which also grants tahara, but does not require a minimum amount of water. Why not? A maayan is connected to all of the waters of the earth - much more than 40 saah - through underground channels. A mikva is a self-supporting pool, so it needs a minimum shiur. Somehow, I think the wells here represent a maayan and show that there was a connection between Yitzchak and Rivka, and between Yaakov and Rachel. (I'm not sure if wells back then were dug and they collected rain, or they were like artesian wells or holes that hit an underground spring. I think it was the latter, because during the dispute with Avimelech, Yitzchak's servants told him "we found water." So it must be they dug looking for a spring.) - 72a What do Talmidei Chachamim look like? Malachei Hashareis. See Chagiga 15b explain the pasuk in Malachi "ki malach Hashem Tzevakos hu." It seems a rebbi must have a purity of spirit and purity of action like a malach, who fulfills G-d's will without question.
- Up Next: Next week (Happy Chanukah!) I hope to discuss the end of the Chashmonaim and Hordus (Herod), which will include the Gemara "Kol de'amar mibeis Chashmonaim ana, avda hu." I will discuss the story of Yanai (daf 66a) as explained by Maharsha in great detail and bring applications of Maharsha's explanation to other Halachik topics.
I hope to also post about freeing a slave "hameshachreir avdo over ba'asei."
Maybe from Yanai I will discuss Srarah (for Yanai and Aggripas- Sotah end of Ch. 7). Stay tuned.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Prohibition of Intermarriage (Daf 68b), with Chanukah & Parsha Message
Some basic sources of "Lo Tischaten":
See Sanhedrin 81b regarding "Kanaim Pogim Bo." Rambam in Hil. Issurei Biah (ibid) and in Perush Hamishna Sanhedrin Chapter 9 says if one was not nifga during the act, he gets Kares. This would be for the act itself, even without a marriage. I saw Kehati, Mishna Megilla 4:9, brings Rashi, that to imply boel aramis is chayav kareis is a non-Halachik thought. (My words in the Kehati; I did not see this Rashi inside.) UPDATE 4/14/10: Rashi, Megilla 25a s.v. ha'omer says if you translate the psuk of mizaracha lo sitein le'haavir lamolech as "don't have relations with a non-Jewish woman, becuase that child will serve avodah zarah" is changing the meaning of the pasuk, and giving kares to a ba al hakusis etc. We see Rashi holds haba al hakusis does not get kareis, not like the Rambam. However, Maharsha ibid. brings the Aruch who says the reverse of Rashi: the pshat of that pasuk is that haba al hakusis does get kareis, and if you say th epasuk deals with bringing your child as a human sacrifice, that is perverting the Torah. Furthermore, Targum Yonasan on Vayikra 18:21 explains the pasuk like the Aruch. The Aruch and Targum Yonasan, then, argue on Rashi and agree with Rambam. And, if you look at the context of the psukim, the Aruch & Targum Yonasan make more sense because all the psukim before it and after it discuss sexual sins. According to their explanation, this pasuk also deals with a sexual sin. However, according to Rashi, this pasuk deals with avodah zarah, and seems out of place.
There are definitely Rabbinic prohibitions against any sexual contact with a non-Jew, even outside wedlock. Gemara in Kiddushin 81 (lo tovah hashmu'a), Brachos 58a & Taanis 24b discuss that malkus dirabanan were administered for it.
Explanation of Lo Tischaten from an unexpected viewpoint:
Radak Melachim I 11:2 - "As it says 'v'Lo tischaten bam, do not give your daughter to his son and do not take his daughter for your son' even though this was said for the seven nations, it also applies to the other nations but because they were coming to their [the seven nation's] land, the pasuk warned against them. But if you will turn them to the Jewish religion it would not be prohibited if they converted sincerely and not because of fearor love. This matter is a dispute in the words of our sages as we wrote earlier (3:1)."
Radak Melachim I 3:1 "..."[A]nd that which is written 'lo tischaten bam' some of our sages say that only refers to them while they are gentiles but if they convert they are permitted. And some say while they are gentiles there is no marriage (chittun) and marriage is not relevant. And similarly it is written 'lo tischaten bam' because they were converts (megayri - I don't understand his tense) and Shlomo converted the daughter of Paroh. And to the one that they did not accept converts in the days of David and Shlomo because of the excessive love he had for her the pasuk calls it as if it was marriage..."
To be continued - esp. Tosfos about Ki Yasir (Kiddushin 68).
UPDATE: I've come across old notes which give the following revelation: Rav Aharon Soloveichik said that the Be'er Hagolah quotes R' Shaul Murtira, the Av Beis Din of Amsterdam (who put Spinoza in Cherem) that the Rabanan in Avodah Zarah 36 who argue on Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai and say that Lo Tischaten applies to members of the Seven Nations who converted (like the Tur paskens) - that's only to say that there is no punishment of Malkos for marrying a non-Jew who is not a member of the 7 nations, but such a marriage is asur midioraissa even according to the chachamim. I believe Rav Aharon is making reference to Siman 16 Be'er Hagolah 4, but it is not so explicit.
Connection to Parsha: In Vayishlach, Shechem raped Dinah and wanted to marry her. It is clear from the pesukim that her brothers would no let this happen because "nevalah asah biyisrael..." (To Brisker Rav it may only have been dirabanan based on Avodah Zarah 36.) In Vayeishev there is a discussion if the shevatim really married Canaanites as the simple reading of the pasuk implies by Yehudah. Ramban says it is inconceivable that they married Canaanites, so he translates Cannanite here as a merchant. (On a divergent note, I believe that the Brisker Rav says Yitzchak commanded Yaakov to not marry a Cannanite but did not similarly instruct Esav because Yaakov received Birkas Avraham. None of the shevatim received birkas Avraham, so maybe they were not prohibited from marrying Canaanite women. [The status of the Avos before Matan Torah is very interesting and there is ample Halachik literature on this topic but it is not relevant here.])
Message for Chanukah: Unlike Purim where Haman wished to kill all Jews, the Yevanim on Chanukah had a different goal - destroy the Jewish people spiritually, as they wanted us to offer pigs as korbanos, and to end the observances of tahars hamishpacha and Shabbos. They wanted to change the religion just a little bit, but the result of such a change is no longer Judaism. Much more recently, reshaim declared that their branches of religion accept "patrilineal descent." While its implications on Torah-true Judaism would seem to be minimal, when we recall the "Baal Teshuvah movement" in our time, people who identify as Jews because their father is Jewish, or even if their mother had a non-Halachik conversion, may very well enter our communities. After this, well-intentioned people try to find a husband or wife to this person. How could they do this when they don't know the family? It is a grave sin to marry a non-Jew, even if the person was thought to be Jewish. We will discuss this on daf 76 in great detail; in fact, this is my sole motivation for this blog. Those people who try to marry off these people without checking into their background, or those who ignore the background (yes, there are people like that) are little different from the Yevanim who tried to destroy our religion. About them the words of the Ri in Tosfos (Kiddushin 71a) apply: geirim are disturbing to the Jewish people like a rash (sapachas) - because they are not meyuchas, and the shechina only dwells on meyuchas families. There is no problem of marrying a ger, but it is a problem on many levels when "frum rabbis" try to arrange matches where one side is not halachikly Jewish.
- Chinuch 427
- Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos Negative 52, Yad Issurei Biah Chapter 12
- Avoda Zarah 36b, Yevamos 76a, Sanhedrin 82a, Kiddushin 68b
- A good discussion on this topic may be found in Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich's Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Volume II Chapter XIII.
See Sanhedrin 81b regarding "Kanaim Pogim Bo." Rambam in Hil. Issurei Biah (ibid) and in Perush Hamishna Sanhedrin Chapter 9 says if one was not nifga during the act, he gets Kares. This would be for the act itself, even without a marriage. I saw Kehati, Mishna Megilla 4:9, brings Rashi, that to imply boel aramis is chayav kareis is a non-Halachik thought. (My words in the Kehati; I did not see this Rashi inside.) UPDATE 4/14/10: Rashi, Megilla 25a s.v. ha'omer says if you translate the psuk of mizaracha lo sitein le'haavir lamolech as "don't have relations with a non-Jewish woman, becuase that child will serve avodah zarah" is changing the meaning of the pasuk, and giving kares to a ba al hakusis etc. We see Rashi holds haba al hakusis does not get kareis, not like the Rambam. However, Maharsha ibid. brings the Aruch who says the reverse of Rashi: the pshat of that pasuk is that haba al hakusis does get kareis, and if you say th epasuk deals with bringing your child as a human sacrifice, that is perverting the Torah. Furthermore, Targum Yonasan on Vayikra 18:21 explains the pasuk like the Aruch. The Aruch and Targum Yonasan, then, argue on Rashi and agree with Rambam. And, if you look at the context of the psukim, the Aruch & Targum Yonasan make more sense because all the psukim before it and after it discuss sexual sins. According to their explanation, this pasuk also deals with a sexual sin. However, according to Rashi, this pasuk deals with avodah zarah, and seems out of place.
There are definitely Rabbinic prohibitions against any sexual contact with a non-Jew, even outside wedlock. Gemara in Kiddushin 81 (lo tovah hashmu'a), Brachos 58a & Taanis 24b discuss that malkus dirabanan were administered for it.
Explanation of Lo Tischaten from an unexpected viewpoint:
Radak Melachim I 11:2 - "As it says 'v'Lo tischaten bam, do not give your daughter to his son and do not take his daughter for your son' even though this was said for the seven nations, it also applies to the other nations but because they were coming to their [the seven nation's] land, the pasuk warned against them. But if you will turn them to the Jewish religion it would not be prohibited if they converted sincerely and not because of fearor love. This matter is a dispute in the words of our sages as we wrote earlier (3:1)."
Radak Melachim I 3:1 "..."[A]nd that which is written 'lo tischaten bam' some of our sages say that only refers to them while they are gentiles but if they convert they are permitted. And some say while they are gentiles there is no marriage (chittun) and marriage is not relevant. And similarly it is written 'lo tischaten bam' because they were converts (megayri - I don't understand his tense) and Shlomo converted the daughter of Paroh. And to the one that they did not accept converts in the days of David and Shlomo because of the excessive love he had for her the pasuk calls it as if it was marriage..."
To be continued - esp. Tosfos about Ki Yasir (Kiddushin 68).
UPDATE: I've come across old notes which give the following revelation: Rav Aharon Soloveichik said that the Be'er Hagolah quotes R' Shaul Murtira, the Av Beis Din of Amsterdam (who put Spinoza in Cherem) that the Rabanan in Avodah Zarah 36 who argue on Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai and say that Lo Tischaten applies to members of the Seven Nations who converted (like the Tur paskens) - that's only to say that there is no punishment of Malkos for marrying a non-Jew who is not a member of the 7 nations, but such a marriage is asur midioraissa even according to the chachamim. I believe Rav Aharon is making reference to Siman 16 Be'er Hagolah 4, but it is not so explicit.
Connection to Parsha: In Vayishlach, Shechem raped Dinah and wanted to marry her. It is clear from the pesukim that her brothers would no let this happen because "nevalah asah biyisrael..." (To Brisker Rav it may only have been dirabanan based on Avodah Zarah 36.) In Vayeishev there is a discussion if the shevatim really married Canaanites as the simple reading of the pasuk implies by Yehudah. Ramban says it is inconceivable that they married Canaanites, so he translates Cannanite here as a merchant. (On a divergent note, I believe that the Brisker Rav says Yitzchak commanded Yaakov to not marry a Cannanite but did not similarly instruct Esav because Yaakov received Birkas Avraham. None of the shevatim received birkas Avraham, so maybe they were not prohibited from marrying Canaanite women. [The status of the Avos before Matan Torah is very interesting and there is ample Halachik literature on this topic but it is not relevant here.])
Message for Chanukah: Unlike Purim where Haman wished to kill all Jews, the Yevanim on Chanukah had a different goal - destroy the Jewish people spiritually, as they wanted us to offer pigs as korbanos, and to end the observances of tahars hamishpacha and Shabbos. They wanted to change the religion just a little bit, but the result of such a change is no longer Judaism. Much more recently, reshaim declared that their branches of religion accept "patrilineal descent." While its implications on Torah-true Judaism would seem to be minimal, when we recall the "Baal Teshuvah movement" in our time, people who identify as Jews because their father is Jewish, or even if their mother had a non-Halachik conversion, may very well enter our communities. After this, well-intentioned people try to find a husband or wife to this person. How could they do this when they don't know the family? It is a grave sin to marry a non-Jew, even if the person was thought to be Jewish. We will discuss this on daf 76 in great detail; in fact, this is my sole motivation for this blog. Those people who try to marry off these people without checking into their background, or those who ignore the background (yes, there are people like that) are little different from the Yevanim who tried to destroy our religion. About them the words of the Ri in Tosfos (Kiddushin 71a) apply: geirim are disturbing to the Jewish people like a rash (sapachas) - because they are not meyuchas, and the shechina only dwells on meyuchas families. There is no problem of marrying a ger, but it is a problem on many levels when "frum rabbis" try to arrange matches where one side is not halachikly Jewish.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Intermarriage (Addendum) & Parshas Acharei-Mos (a week early)
Rashi, Megilla 25a s.v. ha'omer says if you translate the psuk of "mizaracha lo sitein le'haavir lamolech" as "don't have relations with a non-Jewish woman, becuase that child will serve avodah zarah" you change the meaning of the pasuk, and give kares to a ba al hakusis etc. We see Rashi holds haba al hakusis does not get kareis, not like the Rambam. However, Maharsha ibid. brings the Aruch who says the reverse of Rashi: the pshat of that pasuk is that haba al hakusis does get kareis, and if you say the pasuk deals with bringing your child as a human sacrifice, that is perverting the Torah. Furthermore, Targum Yonasan on Vayikra 18:21 explains the pasuk like the Aruch. The Aruch and Targum Yonasan, then, argue on Rashi and agree with Rambam. And, if you look at the context of the psukim, the Aruch & Targum Yonasan make more sense because all the psukim before it and after it discuss sexual sins. According to their explanation, this pasuk also deals with a sexual sin. However, according to Rashi, this pasuk deals with avodah zarah, and seems out of place.
This updates the following post:
http://shasdaf.blogspot.com/2008/12/prohibition-of-intermarriage-daf-68b.html
This updates the following post:
http://shasdaf.blogspot.com/2008/12/prohibition-of-intermarriage-daf-68b.html
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Raavan's Shita
I now see that my answer for the Raavan has some holes, which include:
If the mamzerus comes from the isur of goy, why isn't there mamzeirus from a pnuyah?
Why does the issue of the act making her asurah libaalah play any role here? In other words, why is vlad pnuyah and eishes ish be'ones not a mamzer?
Therefore, I will refine the last post to say a slightly different pshat in the Raavan. The main points are:
1) His girsa is goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad kasher, but he holds that that doesn't apply to 100% of the situations, only 75%; for the remaining 25% he holds it is vlad mamzer.
2) The mamzeirus does not come from the isur of cohabitation with a goy, it comes from the isur of eishes ish! (Bnei Noach are also muzharim on eishes ish). And more specifically, the mamzeirus comes from the woman violating this isur. A pnuyah does not violate the isur of eishes ish because she is not an eishes ish, and be'ones a married woman does not violate the isur.
3) When we say there is no Mamzeirus for a goy, that is for a complete goy. But the Raavan will hold that when the mother is Jewish, the child has enough yichus to have a psul of mamzeirus (somewhat connected to the last paragraph in the previous post).
So: when there is a rape, an eishes ish did not commit any isur, so a child from a goy who raped her will not be a mamzer. Only if she willfully cohabited with the goy will the child be a mamzer. Also, because by definition a pnuyah is not an eishes ish, her child cannot be a mamzer, even beratzon.
If the mamzerus comes from the isur of goy, why isn't there mamzeirus from a pnuyah?
Why does the issue of the act making her asurah libaalah play any role here? In other words, why is vlad pnuyah and eishes ish be'ones not a mamzer?
Therefore, I will refine the last post to say a slightly different pshat in the Raavan. The main points are:
1) His girsa is goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad kasher, but he holds that that doesn't apply to 100% of the situations, only 75%; for the remaining 25% he holds it is vlad mamzer.
2) The mamzeirus does not come from the isur of cohabitation with a goy, it comes from the isur of eishes ish! (Bnei Noach are also muzharim on eishes ish). And more specifically, the mamzeirus comes from the woman violating this isur. A pnuyah does not violate the isur of eishes ish because she is not an eishes ish, and be'ones a married woman does not violate the isur.
3) When we say there is no Mamzeirus for a goy, that is for a complete goy. But the Raavan will hold that when the mother is Jewish, the child has enough yichus to have a psul of mamzeirus (somewhat connected to the last paragraph in the previous post).
So: when there is a rape, an eishes ish did not commit any isur, so a child from a goy who raped her will not be a mamzer. Only if she willfully cohabited with the goy will the child be a mamzer. Also, because by definition a pnuyah is not an eishes ish, her child cannot be a mamzer, even beratzon.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
69a Akum Sheba al bas Yisrael, Part 3 - Rashi's shita continued
I would be remiss if I did not mention the probably most famous explanation in this Rashi, offered by R' Naftoli Trop. He says there are two parts to Yisrael - shem yisrael and kedushas yisrael. Rashi holds this child has shem yisrael from birth, but lacks kedushas yisrael until geirus.
Rabi Akiva Eiger seems to pasken like Rashi, whom he references several times in Kiddushin and Yevamos; for example, see Gilyon Hashas Kiddushin 68b, and in his comments to Yoreh De'ah 266:12, that toRashi's opinion, we would not to bris milah of a goy sheba al bas yisrael on Shabbos, instead we'd push it off to Sunday. This implies he held to Rashi the kid is a full goy, not like Rav Ahron explained. What I don't understand is that in a Teshuva (#91) he says the opinion that the vlad is pagum (i.e., like Shulchan Aruch paskens), it may only be a problem dirabanan, but midioraissa she may marry a kohen. He makes no mention of his strict shita. After looking in Chiddushei R' Akiva Eiger to Yevamos 45 we see he held like Yam Shel Shlomo that goy haba al bas yisrael is only pagum midirabanan. So Rabi Akiva Eiger himself does not pasken like Rashi! He just feels that when Rashi says havlad kasher after geirus, means before geirus the child is a complete non-Jew.
Pischei Teshuva EH 4:1 has a decently sized discussion on this matter using completely different sources (except the Shaar Hamelech), and says this opinion is not accepted l'Halacha. Also see Otzar Haposkim 4:10.
Or Sameiach (IB 15:3) views the matter from a slightly different perspective. He says there are shitos which differentiate between thegoy or eved being boel a pnuyah, or an eishes ish Shulchan Aruch paskens they are the same). If the din applies to a pnuyah only, that the child is kosher, we see the mother's status is involved: this unmarried mother does not produce a mamzer (an unmarried woman could produce a mamzer through a case of incest, but that's not our case). But for a married woman the child would be a mamzer because the woman's status of married means this relationship was adulterous and the child is thus a mamzer. However, to the opinion (like which we pasken) that it doesn't matter if the mother is unmarried or married,the child is not a mamzer, we see the paternity is important. Non-Jews have no mamzeirus. Since this child is not a mamzer, the father's non-Jewish status must be passed down to the child in some way.
Rabi Akiva Eiger seems to pasken like Rashi, whom he references several times in Kiddushin and Yevamos; for example, see Gilyon Hashas Kiddushin 68b, and in his comments to Yoreh De'ah 266:12, that toRashi's opinion, we would not to bris milah of a goy sheba al bas yisrael on Shabbos, instead we'd push it off to Sunday. This implies he held to Rashi the kid is a full goy, not like Rav Ahron explained. What I don't understand is that in a Teshuva (#91) he says the opinion that the vlad is pagum (i.e., like Shulchan Aruch paskens), it may only be a problem dirabanan, but midioraissa she may marry a kohen. He makes no mention of his strict shita. After looking in Chiddushei R' Akiva Eiger to Yevamos 45 we see he held like Yam Shel Shlomo that goy haba al bas yisrael is only pagum midirabanan. So Rabi Akiva Eiger himself does not pasken like Rashi! He just feels that when Rashi says havlad kasher after geirus, means before geirus the child is a complete non-Jew.
Pischei Teshuva EH 4:1 has a decently sized discussion on this matter using completely different sources (except the Shaar Hamelech), and says this opinion is not accepted l'Halacha. Also see Otzar Haposkim 4:10.
Or Sameiach (IB 15:3) views the matter from a slightly different perspective. He says there are shitos which differentiate between thegoy or eved being boel a pnuyah, or an eishes ish Shulchan Aruch paskens they are the same). If the din applies to a pnuyah only, that the child is kosher, we see the mother's status is involved: this unmarried mother does not produce a mamzer (an unmarried woman could produce a mamzer through a case of incest, but that's not our case). But for a married woman the child would be a mamzer because the woman's status of married means this relationship was adulterous and the child is thus a mamzer. However, to the opinion (like which we pasken) that it doesn't matter if the mother is unmarried or married,the child is not a mamzer, we see the paternity is important. Non-Jews have no mamzeirus. Since this child is not a mamzer, the father's non-Jewish status must be passed down to the child in some way.
Monday, June 15, 2009
69a Daughter of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man or Eved to marry a Kohen
Yevamos 45a says vehilchisa goy v'eved haba al bas yisrael havlad kasher - that it is not a mamzer. But is this child completely kosher, or if it is a girl, is she unfit to marry a kohen?
There are three main opinions on this matter. Many rishonim pasken she may not marry a kohen. This gemara which says havlad kasher means she is not a mamzeres, but she is not completely kosher either, as Ravina says on daf 23a. For example, see Rosh, Yevamos 4:30.
Rif 15a holds the matter is a safek (doubt) if the daughter may marry a kohen.
Rambam (Issurei Biah 15:3) holds the daughter of such a union is completely kosher and she may marry a kohen. The Rambam just says kasher, but Beis Yosef EH 4 says since that's all the Rambam writes, he just means completely kosher. And everyone (except Mishna Lamelech) understands the Rambam this way.
Shulchan Aruch EH 4:19 says like the first opinion we mentioned: If [a non-Jew or eved] had relations with a Jewish woman, whether she was married [to a Jewish man] or unmarried, the child is kasher (see the context, that it means non a mamzer) but is pagum (unfit) for a kohen. This SA is a repeatition of how he paskened in 4:5. Beis Shmuel 2 says since the Rambam says she's mutar, and the Rif has a safek, if this daughter married a kohen we would not force them to divorce, and the children would be safek chalalim. This is based on the famous principle that the Mechaber usually paskens like the majority of the opinions of the Rosh, Rif and Rambam, and here each holds a separate way. However, Be'er Hagolah explains that according to the Shulchan Aruch, we would force them to divorce, and their children would be chalalim.
There are three main opinions on this matter. Many rishonim pasken she may not marry a kohen. This gemara which says havlad kasher means she is not a mamzeres, but she is not completely kosher either, as Ravina says on daf 23a. For example, see Rosh, Yevamos 4:30.
Rif 15a holds the matter is a safek (doubt) if the daughter may marry a kohen.
Rambam (Issurei Biah 15:3) holds the daughter of such a union is completely kosher and she may marry a kohen. The Rambam just says kasher, but Beis Yosef EH 4 says since that's all the Rambam writes, he just means completely kosher. And everyone (except Mishna Lamelech) understands the Rambam this way.
Shulchan Aruch EH 4:19 says like the first opinion we mentioned: If [a non-Jew or eved] had relations with a Jewish woman, whether she was married [to a Jewish man] or unmarried, the child is kasher (see the context, that it means non a mamzer) but is pagum (unfit) for a kohen. This SA is a repeatition of how he paskened in 4:5. Beis Shmuel 2 says since the Rambam says she's mutar, and the Rif has a safek, if this daughter married a kohen we would not force them to divorce, and the children would be safek chalalim. This is based on the famous principle that the Mechaber usually paskens like the majority of the opinions of the Rosh, Rif and Rambam, and here each holds a separate way. However, Be'er Hagolah explains that according to the Shulchan Aruch, we would force them to divorce, and their children would be chalalim.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Pilegesh, Part 4
Pre-marital relations
In the text of the birkas eirusin (see Kesubos 7) we say "v'asar lanu es ha'arusos," that conjugal relations are forbidden between a man and his betrothed (i.e., the ring was given but they didn't have chupah & sheva brachos yet. That stage is called both kiddushin and nesuin; I'll use those terms interchangably). Nearly all rishonim explain this to mean it's prohibited midirabnan. (See Rambam that even one who was mekadesh with biah is asur lavo aleha again before chuppa.) However, the Shita Mikubetzes (Kesubos 7b s.v. vz"l haRashba) brings the Raavad (personally, I'm not sure if this is the same Raavad as the Hasagos Haraavad, based on his comment at the beginning of hilchos Ishus) that when we say "v'asar lanu es ha'arusos," it means she is forbidden midioraissa. How can this be explained? My Rebbi Rav Ahron zt"l explained that first of all, the Raavad held like Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon in Tosfos Kiddushin 10a s.v. Kol that "ki yikach ish isha" is referring to nisuin, not eirusin. And second of all, the Raavad agrees with the Rambam (SHM Lo Sasaseh 355) that it is asur midioraissa to have conjugal relations with a woman without chuppa v'kiddushin, and basically the Raavad holds it's an issur aseh (the positive commandment not to have relations makes it prohibited, but lav haba miclal asei, asei - see Rambam SHM Shoresh 6). Thus conjugal relations before chuppa has taken place, even between a betrothed couple, is assur midioraissa according to the Raavad. Ramban, in a teshuva (284) says "v'asar lanu es haarusos" tells us it's only prohibited for a marriage without bracha. But without a marriage, you don't need a bracha. (Does this lead logically to R' Henkin's position [stay tuned for that]?)
Once we're on the topic of birchas erusin, why is the text of the bracha "mekadesh es amo yisrael al yidei chuppa v'kiddushin," if kiddushin (eirusin) takes place before the chuppa? (Note: the Mishna Lamelech says that the Rambam holds chuppa may take place before kiddushin. This is a daas yachid [less than a minority opinion].) Rav Moshe Soloveichik zt"l (son of R' Chaim) answered that this Bracha was instituted with the historical facts of marriage in mind (Hil. Ishis 1:1 & 4): before matan torah, there was only chuppa. No other type of marriage existed. After matan Torah, the kiddushin, our halachik framework of marriage was created, hence the bracha lists chuppa before kiddushin, because the institution of chuppa existed before the institution of kiddushin.
In the text of the birkas eirusin (see Kesubos 7) we say "v'asar lanu es ha'arusos," that conjugal relations are forbidden between a man and his betrothed (i.e., the ring was given but they didn't have chupah & sheva brachos yet. That stage is called both kiddushin and nesuin; I'll use those terms interchangably). Nearly all rishonim explain this to mean it's prohibited midirabnan. (See Rambam that even one who was mekadesh with biah is asur lavo aleha again before chuppa.) However, the Shita Mikubetzes (Kesubos 7b s.v. vz"l haRashba) brings the Raavad (personally, I'm not sure if this is the same Raavad as the Hasagos Haraavad, based on his comment at the beginning of hilchos Ishus) that when we say "v'asar lanu es ha'arusos," it means she is forbidden midioraissa. How can this be explained? My Rebbi Rav Ahron zt"l explained that first of all, the Raavad held like Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon in Tosfos Kiddushin 10a s.v. Kol that "ki yikach ish isha" is referring to nisuin, not eirusin. And second of all, the Raavad agrees with the Rambam (SHM Lo Sasaseh 355) that it is asur midioraissa to have conjugal relations with a woman without chuppa v'kiddushin, and basically the Raavad holds it's an issur aseh (the positive commandment not to have relations makes it prohibited, but lav haba miclal asei, asei - see Rambam SHM Shoresh 6). Thus conjugal relations before chuppa has taken place, even between a betrothed couple, is assur midioraissa according to the Raavad. Ramban, in a teshuva (284) says "v'asar lanu es haarusos" tells us it's only prohibited for a marriage without bracha. But without a marriage, you don't need a bracha. (Does this lead logically to R' Henkin's position [stay tuned for that]?)
Once we're on the topic of birchas erusin, why is the text of the bracha "mekadesh es amo yisrael al yidei chuppa v'kiddushin," if kiddushin (eirusin) takes place before the chuppa? (Note: the Mishna Lamelech says that the Rambam holds chuppa may take place before kiddushin. This is a daas yachid [less than a minority opinion].) Rav Moshe Soloveichik zt"l (son of R' Chaim) answered that this Bracha was instituted with the historical facts of marriage in mind (Hil. Ishis 1:1 & 4): before matan torah, there was only chuppa. No other type of marriage existed. After matan Torah, the kiddushin, our halachik framework of marriage was created, hence the bracha lists chuppa before kiddushin, because the institution of chuppa existed before the institution of kiddushin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
