Yom Ha'atzma'ut

My Rebbi zt"l had an interesting psak: if one sings only the first stanza of Hatikva, one must replace the word chofshi with kadosh. As I understood it, singing the first stanza alone is a very secular song. Replacing chofshi with kadosh gives the first stanza religious content. (In fact, I think he held "chofshi" had antireligious connotations.) But religious ideas are found several times throughout the complete Hatikva - 9 stanzas.

April 15th

April 15th is the anniversary of the day Rabbi Meyer Juzint was liberated from Bergen-Belsen. In his own words:

The Miracle in the Most Glorious Day of my Liberation
Bergen-Belsen 1945
I was liberated, Be’ezras Hashem, from the hands of the murderers on April 15, 1945 at 4:00 pm through the English army that came to occupy the camp of the murderers. This day will always be engraved on my memory, heart and soul. To describe that day exactly one needs not a human pen but a heavenly pen....

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

A Ger Katan Situation

Igros Moshe E"H IV:26
11 Av 5734 (1974) in the Camp of Mesivta of Staten Island near Ellenville
To my dear, honored Rabbi Moshe Friedman, Rabbi and Av Beis Din of Indianapolis
(part c)

And regarding the matter of the day school which was founded by bnei Torah and yerei Shamayim, and the principal and the teachers are all fearful [of G-d] and shleimim, and they were informed (maybe: it was known) that many of the students are [born] to non-Jewish women who converted by Reform and Conservative [groups] which has no legal standing, and it is impossible to remove them from the school for they [the teachers] would lose their livelihood, it is difficult for me to say definitively when it relates to their livelihood when it is a great test for something that is not discussed by the poskim, and because of that we do not know the intricate laws in this matter. Even though they consider themselves to be Jewish and they attend a school to learn about Judaism because it is the Jewish way, there is no prohibition. It is also possible because the teacher teaches primarily to kosher Jews there is no prohibition when also some non-Jewish children also learn at the same time, and that which Tosfos state in the name of Rabbeinu Elchanan (Chagigah 13a) that there is a prohibition of "lifnei iver" because a non-Jew is prohibited to learn Torah, perhaps on their young children there is no prohibition; also, the prohibition is not for a Gentile who "learns" Torah, but who is "engrossed", perhaps it does not refer to what a teacher teaches young children. Therefore it is very difficult to say that they must leave their livelihoods, even though it if the most fitting thing to do. If they would, the school would close and all of the children, including the Jewish ones, would go to public schools where they will learn kefirah, so it is much better to remain in their positions so the school will continue to operate. Also, if they leave their positions, [and the school does not close down] they will be replaced by minim and kofrim and they will teach the Jewish children kefirah chas veshalom, which is something we cannot allow. But there is a fix: convert the children. They do not need to accept the mitzvos (because they are minors) and convert them according to the decision of the Beis din, and it is a merit to them, because they already learn in a religious school under teachers who fear G-d, it is possible [or even likely; "matzui"] they will grow up keeping the Torah, even though it is a doubt if it is a complete merit. And even if they do not grow up to keep the Torah, it is a merit becuase sinners of Israel do have kedushas Yisrael, and the mitzvos they do are mitzvos, and aveiros they transgress are like shogeg, so it is a merit, rather than they remain non-Jews. And I think the baalei batim will agree to this. Even the children above bar and bat mitzvah age, if they are told they need to convert, they will certainly agree, and this is what you must try to do, and it goes withuot saying to present this issue in a nice, pleasant and respectful way so they will follow this [plan].

73a Safek Mamzer

When we have a doubt (safek) in a dioraissa, we must act strictly. For example, if you can't remember if you said kriyas shma, you must repeat it. However, for a safek dirabanan we act leniently. For example, brachos are midirabana (though Ramban holds Birchas Hatorah is midioraissa) so if you forgot if you made a bracha, or if it is uncertqain if you need to make a bracha in a certain case, you do not make the bracha. That which we act strictly for a safeik dioraissa, is that itself midioraissa, or do we only treat it lechumra midirabanan? Rashba says it is midioraissa, but that Rambam holds it's only midabanan.

The Rashba says that Rambam's source is this Gemara: A safek mamzer is midioraissa allowed to enter the khal, but midirabana is not permitted. Rambam cites this in Issurei Biah 15:21. Rashba assumes that because safeik mamzer is mutar, all safek midioraissa cases are mutar midoraissa. Rashba argues and feels that Safek mamzer is an exception, and that's why there is a gzeiras hakasuv to allow safek mamzer in the khal. (The teshuvas Harambam that Rashba cites is nebulous - I am not aware that we have such a teshuva by the Rambam.)

Rambam in Tumas Mes 9:12 also discusses safek dioraissa lekula. Raavad asks that normally we say safeik dioraissa lechumra [like Rashba]. See Kesef Mishna there (who says Raavad seems to contradict himself in Kilayim 10:27), quoting from Ran Kiddushin 15b in Rif pages.

See Shev Shmaitsa Shaar 1 for more discussion about safeik dioraissa.

75b Kusim - Geirus shelo lishma

I know I said I would not discuss geirus issues, but I can't help myself. Here are 2 Geirus things:

1) The following clip (in Yiddish with English subtitles) has a hilarious example of converting for an ulterior motive. It's not for a job or to marry a Jewish person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jG6B9Pt_ug

2) Addendum A in So Strange My Path: The story of a former Catholic Priest, by Abraham Carmel (the former Father Kenneth C. Cox), published by MBY Foundation, 1960 has some very intersting facts about Conversions in England in 1959(!). It is eerie how much of it applies today. This selection is extracted "from David Pela's article "The Chief Rabbi's Court", which appeared in the Jewish Chronicle, London, July 10, 1959."

"Probably the most difficult problem facing the Beth Din...is proselytisation. In many cases the applicant is married, or is about to marry a Jew who is anxious for the sake of the children or parents, to secure the admission of his non-Jewish partner into Judaism. The Beth Din is frankly alarmed at the high incidence of intermarriage, and applicants for conversion are automatically discouraged. (The current rate of intermarriage is unknown, but in 1953 was estimated to be between ten and twelve per cent. The figure for the provinces are believed to be particularly high.) What is certain is that the number of applications for proselytization [unsure why a z here and an s in first sentence -ShasDaf] have increased in the past three years. Applications in 1958 totalled 137 (of whom 21 were admitted) and in 1957 they were 121 (9 admitted) and the previous year 120 (23 admitted)....

"What is the Beth Din's attitude to these application? This is what the Chief Rabbi says: 'We are slow in dealing with these cases. Not many are admitted. We must be sure of their moral and social bona fides before dealing with the religious situation. We must be sure the applicant is one who really wants to become a Jew. We do not close the door, but we accept only those who convince us that they will genuinely adhere to Judaism. There has been no change in policy in recent years. We handle each application with care and a great sense of responsibility. We must think in terms of the kehilla (community).' In general, according to the Beth Din, there is a big gap between the Court's requirements and applicants. In most cases, it says, there is no genuine desire for conversion, and, in this connection, the Dayanim (5 'Eccleciastical Assesors' to the Chief Rabbi) emphasize that where mixed marriages break down the proselyte partner almost invariably abandons Judaism.

"But the Beth Din insists that it treats each case on its merits and hears every applicant (last year 315 interviews were granted in proselytization cases...Special consideration, say the Dayanim, is given to children of mixed marriages, and they claim, the Court goes out of its way to help these youngsters. If it is satisfied that such children are brought up in an Orthodox atmosphere it will give them priority....But as has been indicated, the Beth Din is strongly against proselytization. They regard this and intermarriage as among the great Jewish social problems of our time. Their attitude is: 'If the community will not support us on this issue, it will undermine all the Jewish communities in Europe, where the situation - regarding intermarriage - is much worse. The community is not aware of the gravity of the problem....We are not too rigid....Intermarriage is the greatest evil. Who gains from encouraging it? Frequently the parents of both partners are against it. The marriages often break down because the partners come from different religions.'"

I searched and searched for the original of this article, and the best I came up with was searching http://archive.thejc.com/search/jcs.jsp# for the keyword "proselytisation" for the year 1959. Here is a partial screenshot:

Π and Other Precise Measurements in Halacha

Π (pi) is an irrational number 3.14159... and it never ends. There is discussion in the literature (I haven't read any of it) whether 22/7 (=3.14285...) was the value of pi used by the Ancient Israelites and Greeks, which is not mathematically too close to the actual value.

There are at least two halachos in which Π plays an important role (excluding astronomy): Sukkah and Tefillin. In Sukkah the issue is the area of a [round] sukkah, and in Menachos the discussion is what is square, because our tefillin must be square. Recall the Pythagorean theorem which states that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, that is the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the sides. That means that the length of the hypotenuse equals the square root of a^2+b^2. For a right triangle where the sides are 1 amah (or any unit), the hypotenuse equals the square root of 2=1.414. Critics claim, because the Gemara (Sukkah 8a; see also Shulchan Aruch O"C 32:39 from Menachos 35a) says that this hypotenuse equals 1.4 amos ("an amah and a fifth of an amah") that Chazal had an imprecise value of irrational numbers such as the square root of 2 and pi.

Dr. David Medved in his book "Hidden Light: Science Secrets of the Bible" quotes sources that Chazal had an extremely accurate measurement of pi; so accurate, in fact, that a more accurate value was not found for another 1000 years. While the vort he quotes, dealing with the word kav in Melachim and Divrei Hayamim, seems to be a cute vort but not pshat, I am willing to agree that Chazal may have had an accurate value, but they publicized a less accurate but far simpler value to use in calculations when needed.

Several prominent Torah personalities, such as Harav Chaim Zimmerman zt"l held that Chazal knew all scientific discoveries that would ever be found. Some of Rav Chaim Zimmerman's ideas on this topic might be found in his book "Torah and Reason," which I have not read, but I heard his views from several of his talmidim. (Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, in his famous essay on aggadah, found at the beginning of Ein Yaakov clearly disagrees with this view and says Chazal could have made mistakes in science.)

I believe I can prove that Chazal made use of less accurate values even when they knew of more accurate values, to keep things simple. When calculating the tekufos, the solar seasons, we have two values: the tekufa of Shmuel and the tekufa of Rav Adda. Shmuel holds (Eruvin 56a) each season lasts 91 days and 7.5 hours. Rav Adda holds the tekufa is 1 1/8 minutes shorter than Shmuel's tekufa. (See Rabbi J. David Bleich, "Bircas Hachammah," 1st edition, ArtScroll, p.49 for the calculation). It is a very involved calculation, especially compared to Shmuel's calculation.

Rav Bleich writes:
"This does not mean that Shmuel must have been ignorant of Rav Adda's method of calculation. Despite acceptance of Hillel's calendar based upon the divergent calculations of Rav Adda, Shmuel is depicted in the Gemara, Brachos 58b, as being familiar with the "paths of the sky" as he was with the alleys of his own city of Nehardea. It may be assumed that Shmuel adopted a simpler method of calculation in order to avoid the necessity of manipulating fractions. This is noted by so early an authority as R. Abraham Ibn Ezra who states in Sefer haIbbur, p. 8, that the tekufah of Shmuel is not the true tekufa, and, moreover, that Shmuel knew his announced calculations to be imprecise. Nevertheless, Shmuel chose a close approximation because of the difficulty which most people have in working in fractions. The same explanation is also advanced by the 17th-century Sephardic scholar, R. David Nieto in his Kuzari Sheni, Vikuach Chamishi, no. 146."

I feel they held people could use easy fractions like 2/5 and 1/4, but uglier fractions were more difficult to use.

Rav Bleich then brings another interesting and very logical possibility in regard to the use of Shmuel's tekufa in the calendar, but it is not so relevent to the simpler value of pi.

Adar Fun

As we are in the last day of Adar, I have a humorous post to share.



I cooked an old family recipe from me Bubby. You can see it on the right.

I invited guests - the MacGraggers. They posed for a picture, here:










This year we don't have to worry about that serious shailah of what if March 17th falls on a Friday? There's a heter for that:
==================================
Corned beef gets blessing for St. Pat's
==================================
Chicago Tribune (IL)-March 16, 2006
Author: Manya A. Brachear, Tribune staff reporter.

Tipping his red hat to Chicago's Irish Catholic heritage, Cardinal Francis George has again taken action to resolve a St. Patrick's Day dilemma:

Every few years, the holiday falls on a Friday during Lent, when consuming meat is traditionally forbidden. But what would St. Patrick's Day be without corned beef and cabbage?

So George has declared an exception that permits his flock to eat meat on Friday. At least 76 other U.S. bishops reportedly have granted similar dispensations, including Joliet Bishop Joseph Imesch.

While eating meat on a lenten Friday isn't a mortal sin, many look to the church for guidance before bending the rule.

"So many of the oldest Irish are faithful to the sacrifice the faith asks them to make," said Rev. Dan Brandt, pastor of Nativity of Our Lord parish in Bridgeport, where Celtic crosses are etched into the doors and walls and the pews are filled with O'Malleys, O'Donnells and Slatterys. "They need to hear a dispensation has been granted before they keep their tradition."

Both George and Imesch have asked Catholics who choose to eat meat on Friday to substitute another act of penance or abstain on a different day.

"Fridays during Lent are days of discipline," Brandt said. "We try to do something to remind ourselves of the excess in which we live."

Though there are no official records, the archbishop of Chicago has granted the dispensation as far back as anyone with the archdiocese can remember. The last time was in 2000.

The dispensation applies only to parishioners within the archdiocese. Catholics traveling outside the boundaries would seek permission from the bishop of their destination diocese or abstain from meat as usual.

Technically, Catholics could take advantage of the one-day dispensation to indulge in other meaty delicacies, whether fried chicken, pigs' feet or steak. In fact, the cardinal also granted a dispensation to the Young Irish Fellowship's annual banquet last Friday where chefs prepared filet mignon.

Still, Brandt said the St. Patrick's Day dispensation was meant to recognize a time-honored Irish-American tradition--not to give Catholics in the Chicago area a "get out of jail free" card.

"The spirit of the dispensation was in keeping with Irish roots, so those for whom it is a tradition to eat corned beef and cabbage on Friday can go ahead and do it," said Brandt.

Brandt also said it's important to keep the act of penance in perspective, saying that any good deed or act of self-denial can serve the same purpose as abstaining from meat, which in reality is not much to ask.

"Crab cakes, tuna melts--it's really no great sacrifice," Brandt said. "It makes us mindful perhaps that we are a country of excess. It helps us relate to those who aren't so fortunate."

Before the Vatican II Council in the 1960s, Roman Catholics were prohibited from eating meat every Friday. The council recommended that the abstention be limited to Fridays during Lent instead.

Some theologians say a bishop's dispensation is not strictly required for a Catholic to eat meat on the holiday--that believers can make an exception if circumstances call for it. Others say there are rules and only local bishops have the authority to bend them.

Few seem to object to making an exception for St. Patrick. Even Bill Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League, commended George's decision.

"It's one of the church's manmade rules having nothing to with dogma," Donohue said. "It would be imprudent for Cardinal George not to cede to this reality that corned beef and cabbage and green beer are the staples to an Irishman's diet on St. Patrick's Day."

In Ireland, where the holiday is considered more a day to lift a saint up rather than let the hair down, dispensations are routinely granted, according to the Irish consulate in Chicago.

Corned beef is more of an Irish-American tradition, and Catholics in Ireland would be more likely to indulge in boiled bacon, said Rev. Tom Reynolds, an Irish-born priest who helps run the Missionary Society of St. Columbine in Rogers Park.

"St. Patrick would take to drink in heaven if he thought we weren't eating meat on his feast day," Reynolds joshed.

But since his arrival, Reynolds added, he has developed a taste for corned beef.

"I was delighted when I came to the states and tasted it for the first time," he said. "I can't imagine not eating corned beef on St. Patrick's Day."

St. Patrick is best known as the man who converted Ireland to Christianity. Born in Scotland in 387, Patrick was made a bishop by the pope and dispatched from Rome to Ireland as a missionary. Using the three leaves and single stem of the shamrock, Patrick illustrated the concept of the trinity--"even as there are three leaves on this one stem so there are three persons in one God."

For many Americans, Irish and otherwise, the holiday has evolved into an excuse to celebrate the onset of spring with parades, a platter of corned beef and a pitcher of green beer.

For that reason, Brandt said, he will still be making a sacrifice this Friday. "I gave up beer for Lent," he said. "I'd rather drink beer than eat corned beef any day of the week."

Rev. Jim Donovan, pastor of Our Lady of Loretto parish in Hometown, sees nothing wrong with a little revelry, as long as the reason behind it is remembered.

"We're celebrating our faith. We get so far away from why we're doing things," Donovan said. "It's more than just a party. It's about our faith and identity as a Christian people."

"In the grand scheme of things, one day every other year is not that big of a deal," he said of the cardinal's dispensation.

Even Christ liked to live it up at times, Donovan said. "What would Jesus say? He turned the water into wine."
----------

דרשו ה' בהמצאו

I See Him
by Dr. Samuel Soloveichik zt"l (1908-1966)

I see Him in a sick's recovery
In a scientific discovery.
I see Him in creative tension,
Realization, materialization, and invention.

I see Him in the voice of our Tano'im,
In the discussion of the Amoraim.
I see Him in the Rishonim's debate,
And in my ancestor's faith.

I see Him in my mother's devotion,
In a little girl's emotion.
I see Him in Beethoven's inspiration
And in a doctor's devotion.

I see Him in a gale's soar,
In the sea's mighty roar.
I see Him in heaven's silence
And in nature's thundering violence.

I see Him in Jewish History,
Highly complex and full of mystery.
I see the Great Sire,
Even in Treblinka's and Oswiecim's fire.

On a rainy day I see Him on the cloud's roof,
Cold, far distant, aloof.
And on a warm day, in prayer I see Him clear,
Glorious, majestic and yet close and near.

I see G-d the Universe Creator,
In science, the innovator.
I see G-d the Great Judge,
in human misery and grudge.

I believe in the uniqueness of our religion and race,
I believe in the righteousness of our case.
When I see the weak's survival,
I am sure of the Messiah's ultimate arrival.

I believe that all people are of one stock,
Yet I am aware that I am of the minority block.
A lost sheep of Jacob's flock,
And G-d is my fortress and rock.

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.

69a Akum Sheba al bas Yisrael, Part 4 - Raavan's shita

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."

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.

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....

Click here for Part 1

Updated Guide to Chodosh

This is the third edition of the Chodosh guide. It is usually the last update of the season.

chodoshguide2009pt3

Mamzer & Mishpachas Av

The Mishna, Kiddushin 66b, states: "Whenever kiddushin would not take effect between she and he, but she would have kiddushin with another man, the offspring is a mamzer. What case is this? This is one who came upon one of the arayos in the Torah." That the offspring is a mamzer requires further elaboration: does the fatehr's lineage still exist (and if the father was a kohen, the offspring will be a kohen mamzer) or does the mamzerus uproot the mishpachas av?

Koveitz He'aros 44:2 says: "In Shu"t HaRashba...without the Rashba we could have said another thing regarding that which a mamzer does not have kehuna - the psul removes him from from the kedushas kahal, it certainly removes him from the status of kohen....and we see this in Gittin 59 and Tosefta Yevamos 8:1 a female Levi who was held captive.... It is simple from this that mamzeirus removes the mishpachas av.

This is also implied in Mishna Brurah 135:30: "Even if they know their father is a Levi, we must suspect that their father married a mamzeres or nesina and disqualified his children from the kedushas Leviyah, and as a mamzer he reads from the Torah (i.e., gets an aliya) like any other Yisrael.

Chidushei Hagram Halevi (p. 54) s.v. Yevamos 87 says: the din that the offspring follows the psul of either of them is only a status of psul. The offspring of a regular Yisrael and an Egyptian convert is in the khal Yosrael and not in khal geirim, because his family is his father's mishpachas av. Only, he also has a status of psul of Mitzri...

This is also the shita of Rav Chaim, Isurei Biah 15:9.

See Tosfos Kiddushin 68b s.v. vladah kimosah: He explains the question of the gemara that how do we know the vlad of a non-Jewish woman follows her - "what is the source that the offspring is like her, that it will not be called his offspring for anything, not even his son but [a son who is] a mamzer...." According to Koveitz He'aros, if mamzeirus removes mishpachas av, what is Tosfos saying? We see Tosfos holds like Rav Moshe and Rav Chaim that the offspring is a mamzer and has mishpachas av. But the son of a non-Jewish woman will not be considered the Jewish father's son at all.

--Heard from Rav Chaim Ilson