Adoption, Part 1

Megilla 13a states: Whoever raises an orphan (boy or girl) in his home, the pasuk considers it as if he gave birth to them. A very similar statement is also found in Sanhedrin 19b. A slightly different formulation is found in Kesuvos 50a, which states: "Praiseworthy are the guardians of justice who perform righteousness (tzedaka) at all times (Tehillim 106)...Said R. Shmuel bar Nachmani, this refers to one who raises an orphan (boy or girl) in his home and marries them off."

Several Biblical personalities were adopted or were praised for adopting a child. These include:

• Osnas bas Poti Fera, who was married to Yosef, was adopted by Potifar/Poti Fera and his wife, and she was the daughter of Dina from Sh'chem (Tosfos al Hatorah to Breishis 41:45). Because Poti Fera adopted her she was called bas Poti Fera.
• Bilha was represented in Yosef's dream as his mother because she raised him after Rachel died (see Rashi, Breishis 37:10).
• Serach bas Asher was Asher's wife's daughter, but he fully adopted her. See Ramban & Yonasan ben Uziel, Bamidbar 26:46. (Daas Zekanim there has a lot of difficulty with that explanation. And see Haksav Vehakabala, Breishis 46:17. Tosfos, Pesachim 54a s.v. Eileh argues on the Ramban and says that one may not call his wife's son his son.)
• I heard that Yair ben Menashe was adopted by someone from Menashe, but he really was from shevet Yehudah (based on ibn Ezra, Bamidbar 32:41), but this is not conclusive.
• Moshe Rabbeinu was raised by Basya bas Paroh after she found him floating in the river.
• Esther was adopted by her uncle Mordechai after her parents died (Megilla 13a).
  

Sanhedrin 19b lists more examples.

Does one fulfill perya verivya (procreation) by adopting a child? Most poskim say no. However a very famous R' Shlomo Kulger in Chachmas Shlomo (See Shulchan Aruch E"H 1) states: "I have had a doubt whether one who raises an orphan, if this is considered a fulfilment of perya verivya, since Chazal said whoever raises an orphan (boy or girl) in his home, the pasuk considers it as if he gave birth to them, if so one may suggest that it is like perya verivya, or, nevertheless, it's not like actually giving birth to the child. It seems to depend on an argument between Derisha and Taz on Y"D 242, that Drisha holds wherever the gemara says "ke'ilu" (as it does by adoption), the compared situation is not exactly identical to its analogy, and Taz argues and says they are exactly identical...." He continues to say to the Taz you do fulfill perya verivya and to Drisha you do not. But if you had children who died but you also adopted and raised orphans, even according to Drisha you will have fulfilled perya verivya - even though they weren't the same children, you did give birth to children and you did raise orphans.

Even if one may not fulfill perya verivya, it still is a very meritorious and wonderful thing to adopt orphans. See, for example, Pischei Teshuva, E"H 154:27 when discussing a couple that had been infertile for 10 years, must the husband divorce his wife, even though she was such a great wife, and one of her praises was that she allowed her husband to raise an orphan and learn with him. (The answer there was that he didn't have to divorce her, but that's not our issue.)

Surrogate Pregnancy (Shvatim as Jews, part 2)

Another explanation to Shimon's "Canaani" wife (Shimon had a son Shaul ben haCanaanis) is that she was Dina. See Rashi, 46:10 and Breishis Rabbah 11. After she was raped by Sh'chem, she refused to leave until Shimon told her that he would marry her. Only then did she leave Sh'chem with her brothers Shimon and Levi. How could Shimon have married Dinah, if they were both children of Leah, and we saw the Rambam lists incest of siblings of the same mother among the laws that bnei Noach must keep? Torah Shleima 46:10 os 68 brings several answers:
1) the only relationship forbidden to bnei Noach was adultery with a married woman, but not incest. This opinion, cited in the name of the Moshav Zekaynim, clearly argues on the Rambam.
2) According to Rabi Akiva, bnei Noach are not forbidden to their sister from the same mother. This is similar to the first answer in substance as well as in the difficulties it presents.
3) Ra"b (Rav Ovadia Bartenura?) "I have not found an answer but I heard that"... the girsa wasn't that Shimon will marry Dinah, it was that Shimon promised her he will marry her off to someone else, possibly one of his sons. (While an aunt is forbidden in Torah law, it isn't prohibited to a ben Noach, and in fact, Moshe Rabbeinu's father Amram was married to his aunt Yocheved.)
4) The main gestation of Dinah was in Rachel's womb. Therefore they were not really siblings from the same mother: Shimon gestated and was delivered from Leah's womb, but Dina was gestated in Rachel's womb and was only delivered from Leah's womb, and thus they do not have the same mother.

This last answer is fascinating. It is mentioned by Tur ha'aruch to 46:10 and 38:2, Targum Yonasan to 30:21, and Daas Zekanim ibid. The even earlier source is the gemara Brachos 60a that Leah didn't want Rachel to have less sons than Bilha and Zilpah, so she davened and Hashem switched the fetuses between Rachel and Leah.

This opinion has a huge impact on the following question: if a woman cannot conceive and uses a donated egg which is implanted, (or any situation of surragacy), is the biological mother - the woman who provided the egg - the halachik mother? There are three main possibilities: that the biological mother (the one who provides the egg) is the mother; the surrogate in whom the baby gestated is the mother even if she is not the biological mother as far as the egg is concerned; and the mother who delivered the baby even if the baby did not gestate [mostly] in her womb.

According to these opinions (that Shimon & Dina were not siblings from the same mother), the woman in whose womb the baby gestated will be the halachik mother. However, many poskim do not pasken this way. For example, Rav Shlomo Goren paskened that the biological mother (of the egg) is the mother. Rav Moshe Feinstein paskened that the mother who delivered the baby is the mother. In Dina's case, her biological mother and the mother in whose womb she developed was the same woman - Rachel. If doctors would take the egg of one woman, implant it to woman 2, then transplant it to a third woman late-term, to Rav Goren the first woman would be the mother, Rav Moshe would probably pasken the third woman was the mother, and to the Daas Zekanim et. al., probably the second woman will be the mother. (Really, maybe the reason for the Daas Zekanim is because the host mother is the same as the biological mother, but from his words, the main issue is that the host mother is the mother, not the biological mother of the egg.)

Shvatim as Jews, part 1

We just saw that the Beis Yosef brought rishonim discussing how was Yosef batel from perya verivya if he didn't have a girl; maybe it was midas chasidus. The bottom line is that the assumption is that Yosef kept all the mitzvos. Which leads to the question: did the shevatim keep the mitzvos? I've previously mentioned the Prashas Drachim by the author of the Mishna Lamelech, who demonstrated from many midrashim that Yosef and his brothers argued about whether they had kedushas yisrael or not: Yosef felt they did, and the brothers felt they did not.

Joel Rich, the audio shiur reviewer at Hirhurim, sent me a source that Yosef kept Shabbos: Eliyahu Rabbah Parsha 7 s.v. Baruch. I can add two sources: the Drisha from the above discussion - Yosef kept the entire Torah, and the Daas Zekanim Parshas Naso (Bamidbar 7:48 - Yosef kept Shabbos).

A famous question is who did the shvatim marry? See Pesachim 50a: "'And Yehuda saw there the daughter of a Canaani man.' What is Canaani? If you say literally a Canaanite, is it possible Avraham warned Yitzchak [against marrying a Canaanite], Yitzchak also warned Yaakov, and Yehuda will go marry a Canaanite? Rather, Rabi Shimon ben Lakish said it is a merchant." Ramban quotes this on Breishis 38:2. He also mentions a midrash that all the shvatim were born with twin sisters, and they married a shevet from another mother (because to marry the daughter of your mother is an isur of arayos for Bnei Noach, see Rambam, Melachim 9:5. Note that this would be an isur for a Yisrael.) This is also brought by Tur Ha'aruch on that pasuk. Ibn Ezra says they married women from Aram, Mitzrayim, Edom and Midyan, but not Canaan, except for Shimon, and that is seen from Breishis 46:10 - Shaul Ben HaCanaanis. (But from Rashi to 50:17, it seems more than one married a Canaanis.) A question on the ibn Ezra is that putting the issue of who is Jewish aside, the Torah forbade marrying people from Mitzrayim. Even though the reason did not yet apply - because they oppressed us when we were their slaves, the fact of the avos keeping the Torah was absolute and did not depend on the reasons for the mitzvos; we see Avraham had matzos and Yitzchak ate korban pesach, and the exodus from Mitzrayim had not happened! So why should they have married mitzriyos? For whatever reason, marrying a Canaanite must be worse than marrying a mitzris, whether it was due to the fact that Avraham said "from the Canaanim among whom we live, but they didn't live with mitzriyos, or for some other reason.

Tashmish During Famine

A bit of an unusual issue from the parsha. Rashi on Parshas Noach 7:7 & 8:16 says that tashmish was asur during the mabul. The first Rashi says because the world was in trouble. Rashi on Mikeitz 41:50 - Yosef had two sons before the famine - is the source that tashmish is asur during famine. This last Rashi is from Taanis 11a. Rambam brings it in Taanis 3:8. If someone wasn't mekayem piryah v'rivyah this halacha doesn't apply to them. Even if someone already was mekayem perya verivya, shouldn't they have to fulfill onah? Yes - see Beis Yosef O"C 574. Shulchan Aruch mentions this halacha in 2 places: O"C 240:12 regarding famine (Rama adds any other trouble like famine, and his source is the Yerushalmi) and the second place is O"C 574, also for famine.

There is an interesting B"Y in 574 about Yocheved bas Levi being born bein hachomos - as the family of Yaakov reached Egypt. Tosfos asks: But that was during a famine, so how could she have been conceived? Either she was conceived from Leil tevilah (Drisha assumes the shevatim also kept the mitzvos); or Levi didn't have daughters so he wasn't mekayem pv"r yet. The difficulty with that answer is why didn't Yosef try to have a girl even though it was during a famine? Maybe Yosef did some midas chasidus. A third answer is maybe because they knew they had food so tashmish wasn't asur. We'd ask the same question about Yosef - there was food? So Yosef did a midas chasidus. My next question is, if it was midas chasidus, the Rambam shouldn't bring this halacha at all, because he doesn't pasken midos chasidus. Yet he does pasken this halacha? So Rambam would say it's not a midas chasidus.) B"Y says at end it's only asmachta.

Now, what about during recession? Should tashmish be asur? Probably not. Interestingly, this
point seems to be a machlokes between political democrats (refrain) & conservatives (don't refrain) from January - see this editorial from Wall Street Journal. But another report suggests the increased workforce did cause the recession. Is recession a lagging indicator that the birthrate is too high? I don't know if the poskim had an economy like ours in mind when a halacha like this was said.

First Anniversary

One year ago today I opened this blog and wrote my first post. Events of this week demonstrate the importance of issues related to kedushas yisrael. Between the UK High Court decision prohibiting a frum school from denying admission to a student who is not halachikly Jewish (in other words, the court said the school must admit this student even though he is not Jewish) and the sudden shakeup at EJF, we must continue to understand the many halachik issues that may crop up and be prepared to defend the Halacha.

Kiddushin 41a - Asur Lekadesh Isha ad sheyirena

The Gemara (41) says one may not be mikadeish a woman until you see her. Rambam paskens this Halacha in two places: Ishus 3:19 and Isurei Biah 21:3. Raavad there also says if you don't know what you're looking for, bring an am haaretz with, so he can tell you if she looks good. Shabbos 53b brings a story where a woman was so tzanua that she was missing an arm and her husband never realized it because she was so tzanua. R' Moshe Feinstein in Dibros Moshe there (43:10) discusses maybe it was kiddushei ta'us, and also why wasn't the man praised for being so tzanu'a that he never noticed. But it is strange that she should be praised when the Halacha mandates the husband to see her and see that there are no gross misfigurations.

Rashi, Breishis 12:11 mentions that Avraham didn't realize how beautiful Sarah was until they went down to Egypt. Rashi's source is Tanchuma Lech Lecha 5. The Gemara (Bava Basra 58a; Tosfos Megilla 15a s.v. Arba also discusses this) also says that Sarah was one of the four most beautiful women who ever lived. The question is, how could Avraham have married Sarah if he didn't see her, for if he would have see her he would have known how beautiful she was!

This is the question of Maharsha, Bava Basra 16a as pointed out by Gilyon Hashas here on Kiddushin 41. Maharsha answers that Avraham did see Sarah before they got married. However, he hadn't looked at closely since that time, until he saw her reflection in Egypt. He thought she wouldn't look so beautiful at that point, many years after their wedding. But when Rashi says he noticed how beautiful she was, it was a surprise to Avraham that she was still so beautiful so many years later.

E"H 55:1 / Parshas Vayetzei

The Gaon Maharil Diskin zt"l explained the pasuk in Vayeitzei "And they (seven years) were in his (Yaakov's) eyes like a few days, in his love for her (Rachel)" (29:20) based on the Haghos Mordechai at the beginning of Kesuvos and the Rama (E"H 55:1 in the name of the Kol Bo) that an engaged couple cannot live in the same house before their marriage, lest they come to dislike each other because they are always seeing each other. Therefore the Torah emphasizes here the sanctity of Yaakov, even though he lived for seven years in the same house as Rachel before their marriage, his love did not change (diminish) and they were in his eyes like only a few days, and this is because of his great sanctity, that he was fully sanctified to Hashem.
--quoted in Har Tzvi al haTorah, collected from sayings of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank zt"l

Or it could have been that Yaakov was out of the house so often with the flocks that he didn't see Rachel so often.

Guide to Chodosh

The updated Chodosh guide:

chodoshguide2009pt2

The first version (includes introduction not included in the updated guide):

chodoshguide2009pt1

A Call for Jerusalem

A version of this dvar torah was delivered two weeks ago:

Recently there were two articles on Jpost about why youth under age 35 are not supportive of Israel, one wishing for what we'll call a return to traditional Zionist values, and one arguing that the Israeli government is immoral and thus supporting it is unwarranted.

My opinions vary greatly from Mizrachi, but I do consider myself a strong supporter of Zion. I wish to use the last of the Sheva Dinichemta, the Haftorah of Nitzavim (Yeshaya 61:10-63:9), to demonstrate that we owe our allegiance to Israel.

62:1 For the sake of Zion I will not be silent, and for Jerusalem I will not be quiet....

The importance of Yerushalayim to us I discussed (HERE and HERE). But there is an emotional connection, not easily verbalized. It is the heart and the brain of the Jewish people.

62:6 On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen all day and all night, they will never be silent....

When the government of the State of Israel defends its citizens from bodily harm from rockets or anything else, it is only doing what it must do. (The only question might be what took them so long to do it.) We pray for our coreligionists under attack. We visit their communities to give them chizuk. And if we do not -- we have betrayed our brothers and sisters. We must not leave our watch posts, thereby endangering our brothers and sisters....

On Pasuk 63:1, the Gemara (Makkos 12a) says: Reish Lakish said: The officer of Rome will make three errors in the future, as it says, "Who is this coming from Rome, wearing stained clothes, from Batzrah." He erred that the city of refuge is Betzer, and he went to Batzrah; it only serves as a refuge for a shogeg (not on purpose) and he was meizid (on purpose); and he erred that it only is a refuge for men and he is an angel.

What argument can one make that he helps the oppressed by advocating against the genocide in Darfur when his brothers flee to bomb shelters when rockets rain on civilian areas? What good is it when a young woman is reducing her carbon emissions (like a modern incarnation of the pagan worshipers of Gaia) when her sisters are hungry, whether due to a dry winter, or to economic distress? How can you say that the Israeli government is guilty of war crimes when it takes very restrained action to guarantee the safety of its citizens? Your clothes are stained with the blood of your brothers and sisters, and yet you say 'look how hard I'm working to save some underprivileged (by my own measure) group.' Do you remember the rallies on behalf of Soviet Jewry? They were oppressed! Some chickens running around in a field you think is too small and dirty do not need your activism. Their engaging in all types of activism - except on behalf of the hundreds of thousand Israeli Jews in range of Palestinian rockets - endangers the citizens of Israel and all Jews worldwide.

Do these people think Herzl's plan for a Jewish state exists and that it is in Sudan? Who accepts Sudanese refugees - Palestinian Muslims (their co-religionists) or the Jewish State? (We also just saw the Wall Street Journal report that Israel and the US just brought more Jewish refugees from Yemen who have been hiding in their homes for the past few months from pogrom-like violence!) I think 'cognitive dissonance' is just a fancy term for saying 'I'm young and inexperienced and don't understand life, but I don't think it's right.'

When a segment of the Jewish people endangers the rest, and emboldens the enemies of the Jewish people, their punishment is very severe (see Netziv, Haamek She'eilah 142:9). At Chanukah - the fighting between Jew and Jew was worse than between Jew and Yevanim. May we find broad and deep common ground to keep us united.

The haftorah ends (63:9): בְּכָל-צָרָתָם לא (לוֹ) צָר וּמַלְאַךְ פָּנָיו הוֹשִׁיעָם בְּאַהֲבָתוֹ וּבְחֶמְלָתוֹ הוּא גְאָלָם וַיְנַטְּלֵם וַיְנַשְּׂאֵם כָּל-יְמֵי עוֹלָם.
May we merit this again very soon, amen.

Anniversaries of Communism & Terrorism

Besides for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, last week also marked the fifth "yahrzeit" of Yasser Arafat yemach shemo. The holiday of Purim recalls the physical salvation of the Jews in the time of Haman, and Chanukah represents the spiritual salvation of the Jews from the Yevanim. While the Jewish people through history have been pressured with every kind of pressure imaginable, in the past 65 years - only since the end of World War II - terrorism and communism are certainly the most notable manifestations of these traits. It is fitting that these anniversaries fall out so close to each other as they do, though I've never known anyone to connect them. May terrorism be quickly blotted out, and join Marxism-Leninism "in the ash heap of history."

Yizkireim Elokeinu letovah im shar tzadikei olam, veyinkom l'eineinu nikmas dam avadecha hashafuch.

Below is Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby's powerful column after the death of Arafat.

Arafat the monster
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | November 11, 2004 | Boston Globe

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/

Shiurim Given by Harav Moshe Soloveichik

SHIURIM GIVEN BY HARAV MOSHE SOLOVEICHIK

TIME	LOCATION	SHIUR
Sunday Morning 9:45 - 10:45 AM	Cong. Kesser Maariv 4341 W. Golf, Skokie	Halachik topics on the Sedra of the week
Monday - Friday mornings after shacharis (app. 7:45 - 8:45 AM)	Cong. Beth Sholom Ahavas Achim 5665 N. Jersey, Chicago	Presently studying Sugyos concerning Chanukah
Monday - Friday mornings 9:45 - 10:45 AM	Yeshivas Brisk 3000 W. Devon, Chicago	Presently studying fifth Perek of Maseches Brachos
Thursday evenings 7:15 - 8:45 PM	Young Israel of Northbrook 3545 Walters, Northbrook	Hashkafa Shiur on the Sedra of the Week
Shabbos - after Mincha	Cong. Beth Sholom Ahavas Achim 5665 N. Jersey, Chicago	Halachik Topics as applied to Contemporary Issues on the Sedra of the Week
Monthly Shiur in memory of Mr. Sandor Kirsche z"l	Home of Irv and Lynn Shapiro, Skokie For info call: (773) 267-9055	Halachik and Philosophical Topics as Applied to Contemporary Issues

There are additional shiurim at Congregation Beth Sholom Ahavas Achim on Orach Chaim and Yoreh Deah - specifically for those who are studying to receive Semicha

UPDATE: He is now also giving a shiur on Monday evenings at 8:45 pm at Brisk, on the Parsha or holidays.

Isha ubita from adultery

In memory of my great-great grandfather, Harav Yosef Michel Newberger, whose 75th yahrzeit was on Friday.

This is related to a point discussed in the Noda Biyehuda: this man should not have married the daughter of the woman with whom he had an affair, but it's midirabanan so now that he is married and has not repeated the aveira he may remain married to his wife.

I was looking at the gemara related to this din - Yevamos 97a: The mishna says if someone seduced or raped a woman he is allowed to marry her mother, sister or daughter, and it is not a prohibition of isha u'bitah or isha v'achosa. Then the gemara asks a contradiction: one who was leaning from a woman "hanitan min ha'isha"is forbidden with her mother, her daughter and her sister midiraban. How can our mishna say he's allowed to marry her close relative? (Note: hanitan implies they were not married but had a relationship.) The gemara answers he may marry her sister, mother or daughter after she dies. But while she is alive he may not.

The Rambam (Issurei Biah 2:11) paskens this gemara on 97 a bit strangely: One who had illicit relations, her seven relatives do not become prohibited to him. But the chachamim forbade one who committed adultery with a woman, to marry any of her 7 relatives as long as the woman (zonah) is alive. Because the woman (zonah) will visit her relative and he will be alone with her and his heart will desire her and they will come to an aveira. And moreso, even if he was leaning on a woman (nitan al ha'isha) he should not marry one of her relatives until she - the one he leaned on - dies. If he married the relative he does not have to divorce her. Why dies the Rambam list the cases separately? Maybe because the first case is where we knew there was a relationship and the second case is where it's only rumored. Or, the first case is an illicit relationship - maybe with a married woman, and the second case is where it was a permitted relationship (kiddushin would be tofsin) but it was outside of marriage.

I recalled the mishna in Yevamos 24b: one leaning on a servant "nitan al hashifcha" and she was freed; or on a non-Jewish woman and she converted, ho should not marry her, but if he did, he does not have to diverce her. One who leaned on a married woman "hanitan al eishes ish" and her husband sent her away [i.e., divorced her] even though they got married, he must divorce her. Why does 97a say min ha'isha and on 24 it says al hashifcha etc.? I think that on 97 the relationship ended. Still it's asur to marry her relative until she dies. On 24 it's a case where the relationship is ongoing. In fact, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe E"H 27 quotes himself in Dibros Moshe Yevamos (I think it's page 312 - hearos Yevamos perek 2 os 52) that the problem in the cases on daf 24 was that these relationships were rumors, and the subsequent marriage gives validity to the rumors. But where it's known, and it's not a rumor, it is not prohibited to marry the freed shifcha or convert.

Famous Teshuvas Harambam 132 in Pe'er Hador about this nitan al hashifcha; he's matir not because it's really mutar, but because of Takanas Hashavim.

Teshuvos Rabi Akiva Eiger 121 (in Even Haezer) discisses a shaila where a woman claims to have converted with her daughter. The validity of the conversion was in question because it was from a faraway place and was never confirmed; she married a man, there were rumors he was playing around with the daughter, and after the mother died he went around until he found a rav who would marry them (he omitted some details and when that Rav found out all the details he was very upset about it). So he discusses both these issues - the nitan al ha'isha and also isha u'bita in an unusual circumstance.

As always, see those teshuvos inside for the context and exact circumstances discussed.

Parshas Noach - Mesora in Torah Shebiksav

Chumash is Torah Shebiksav. When we speak of Mesora, we mean Torah Sheb'al Peh. Interestingly, there is a Mesora of the proper text of our Sifrei Torah. Unfortunately I do not have time to discuss this is detail; I can only give a brief introduction at this time.

The last Rashi in Parshas Noach (11:32) says that the nun in the word Charan is turned over (think of the nuns around vayehi binso'a in Beha'aloscha; but see Minchas Shai there about how the nun looks). The Minchas Shai asks that none of our sifrei Torah have an inverted nun. Are our sefarim kosher? Short answer: yes. He quotes a Teshuvas HaRashba (meyuchasos LeRamban, 232) quoted by Beis Yosef, Y"D 175 who discusses that there are several instances where a word has (or doesn't have) a yud or vav to make it "malei" but we have drashos in Gemara or Midrash that have the word spelled the other way. Many quote from Kiddushin 30a that we (already in the time of the gemara) are not experts in malei and chaser spellings. (About this, see Tosfos, Shabbos 55b s.v. Maaviram, and Gilyon Hashas there, by Rabi Akiva Eiger, who goes through many cases in Tanach were there is a discrepancy). Note that none of these spellings changes the meaning of the word. An answer which has been suggested to explain these differences have to do with the spellings of words in Ksav Livnai as opposed to their spellings in Ksav Ashuri (which we've used since the time of Ezra. See Sanhedrin 21b-22a, and Tosfos Megilla 2b s.v. ve'od).

The small Koren Tanach in the back has a list of differences between texts; there are three in Chumash. One is in this week's Parsha (9:29): Vayehi Bnei Noach or Vayihyu bnei noach.

There are also minor discrepancies where a parsha (blank space in the Torah, almost like a new paragraph) is different in our Torah versus what the Gemara says: In Lech Lecha - by the Bris Bein Habesarim. Se Tosfos Brachos 7b s.v. Lo haya. (About that, see Tzlach there; Netziv in Harchev Davar Breishis 15:8; also my uncle's friend Leesh showed us that Chadashim gam Yeshanim by R' Yehonasan Steif, and Birkas Yitzchak by R' Yitzchak Bernstein of England in Brachos briefly discuss this issue.) The Koren Tanach also lists a discrepency of whether a parsha is at Vayikra 7:28 or 7:22

Rambam, Sefer Torah 8:4 discusses that there are discrepancies in these matters; many of them are machloksim between Ben Naftali and Ben Asher. Rambam found a Torah fixed by Ben Asher in Egypt and lists the locations of all the parshios based on that Torah in Mishna Torah.

Another point which is probably more minor is the idea of Tagin - little "crownlets" on letters. Rabi Akiva made drashos on letters based on how many tagin they have. Some have none, some have one, and the letters "Shatnez Gatz" have three. See Meiri Kiryas Sefer Maamar 2 Cheilek 1 who only discusses Shatnez Gatz. But there are exception - som have four, and some letters sometimes have more than usual. See Ramban Devarim 27:3, that the tagim were copied from the avanim. (See Griz Stencils Menachos 29b.) The ArtScroll Baal Haturim (Davis edition) goes into some depth about tagim because the Tur sometimes discusses them. See there, Vayikra 23:43 (p. 1257) and footnote 138: Sefer Tagin "lists 55 instances where Kof is embellished with 4 tagin and 74 where the final kof has 4 tagin. Basukos in our pasuk isn't on the list, but basukos in pasuk 42 is...either he had a different text or the Raal Haturim has a different mesorah than Sefer tagin."

Thoughts on this Noda Biyehuda

In memory of my rebbi, Hagaon Harav Ahron ben Hagaon Harav Moshe Halevi Soloveichik zt"l on the 4th day of Sukkos, his eighth yahrtzeit.

Several points in no particular order:

1) Possible nafka mina based on this teshuva: If I know that someone intends to marry someone who is assur to him (or her), even if the issur is not known except to me, must I inform him? (Mamzer shelo noda may be an exception, but that’s midin mamzer shelo yada, not this more general rule discussed here). Probably I must inform the "kosher" person (whether it's a kohen about to marry a zonah or whatever else it may be), but if it's not a known psul, do I have to tell the local beis din? Not sure.

2) Rav Ashi – does he hold mesayei’a is chayav? In the context of this NB, when you leave the shatnez on, you’re mesayei'a by not contorting yourself into a position to remove it. When you remove it, you’re not chayav for the the time it takes to remove it, because in your action of removing it we see you do not want to be wearing shatnez, so you’re not mesayei’a. Why would I say a strange svara like this? This might be better for a Makkos post. Makos 21b (Noda Biyehuda calls it Machlokes Rav Beibo and Rav Ashi – but it is a machlokes Rav Acha brei D'Rav Ikka and Rav Ashi in response to a question posed by Rav Beibo.

My feeling - I don't think I can go through the sugya here, but does the din of mesayei'a apply only to cutting off peyos & beard, or does it apply to all aveiros? I felt, based on Tosfos, Shabbos 93b s.v. Amar Rav Zevid, that mesayaie'a only applies to peyos and beard. Then I saw my rebbi zt"l (whose yahrzeit is today) in his sefer Od Yisrael Yosef Bni Chai (siman 34) discusses the machlokes Shach and Taz in Yoreh Deah 198 about cutting nails for a woman who needs to go to mikva on shabbos or yom tov, mentions the whole Taz (se'if 21) and Shach (in Nekudos Hakesef) there. As Taz holds mesayei'a applies to other aveiros, like Shabbos. Rav Ahron strongly agreed with the Shach, that mesayei'a is only chayav for peyos. And he said the machlokes Shach & Taz is a machlokes Rambam & Raavad.

Rav Ashi is the one who says mesayei'a is chayav even as a nikaf; Rav Ashi in Shabbos 93b gives a proof that mesayei'a ein bo mamash, and Rav Ashi said if you leave the shatnez garment on you're chatav multiple times. In general Rav Ashi holds mesayei'a ein bo mamash except for peyos. Then why for shatnez are you chayav? So it's probably NOT a din in mesayei'a. Maybe the drasha (in Makkos 21 and 4b) "sadcha kilayim lo" applies to wearing shatnez also. But we get back to the question that it's lav she'ein bo maaseh, so why would you be chayav for not removing the shatnez garment? Maybe because in this case Rav Ashi holds mesayei'a is chayav. This is not compelling, but I don't know how else to explain it.

3) "David (i.e., Tehillim) for this matter will strengthen in his heart the love of his Creator." NB seems to hold like Baal Hatanya and not Nefesh Hachaim about torah lishma and tehillim. Baal Hatanya holds Torah Lishma is dveikus, love of Hashem & Torah, and saying Tehillim can lead to this. Rav Chaim of Volozhin in Nefesh Hachaim says Torah Lishma is studying Torah because you like it, for its own sake. Nefesh Hachaim brings a Rosh in Nedarim to support his opinion.

4) "we do not find isur mosif unless another prohibition is added or an obligation" – this is machlokes nosei keilim See Bach, Shach and Taz by basar bchalav (Siman 87) would the issur of basar b'chalav be added onto a piece of treif meat – chaticha naasis neveilah wouldn't apply to mechaber on a piece of treif meat but would apply to basar bechalav. Not sure how that halacha fits with NB.

5) "see Chagiga 9b that an adulterer's sin continues because he cannot rectify it."
Chagiga 9b says arayos is me’uvos lo yuchal liskon because you can never make her muteres l’baalah. It might be considered an isur moshech (a continuous sin) – Rogatchover in Tzofnas Panei’ach, Pinchas (Bamidbar 13, pp. 261-3) says that murder and being boel a non-Jewish woman are isur moshech, that continues on. Could be that arayos of eishes ish is also moshech, it continues, because there is a permanent effect on the woman – she is forbidden to her husband – because of the aveira. (In regard to murder, think of the passuk kol dmei achicha tzoakim when Kayin killed Hevel, Hashem said the voice of the bloods of your brother cry out - bloods for his blood and the blood of his descendants who will not be born now that he was killed.)

6) Is a sin of arayos, like eishes ish, considered bein adam l'chaveiro or bein adam l'makom? NB says eishes ish has two parts, the bein adam lamakom, and bein adam lachaveiro part in that he makes the woman forbidden to her husband (it's a sin against the husband).

Rambam seems to hold arayos is bein adam lamakom. See Hil. Teshuva 2:9 - "Teshuva and Yom Kippur only atone for aveiros bein adam lamakom like someone ate something forbidden or had a forbidden relationship (ba'al b'ilah asurah)." This is probably incest arayos, but Eishes Ish probably also has a bein adam lachaveiro aspect.

Gra in Aderes Eliyahu, Haazinu (Devarim 32:5), says there is a third category of sins - bein adam l'atzmo, and that arayos are part of this group.

Noda Biyehuda - Part 6 (end)

In memory of Rabbi Meyer Juzint, Harav Meir ben Harav Hakadosh Rav Moshe zt"l, whose yahrzeit is on the second day of Sukkos.

That which you mentioned from his hasmadah inlearning, his broken spirit and his watching his speech is a great foundation upon which to rely. He should make an oral vidui to fulfill “and my sin is always before me,” and be remorseful. Now, one must do vidui on a small sin, even a dirabanan. He had a relationship with this woman, so before his marriage he was forbidden to marry her daughteras we see in Yevamos, perek Nosin al haanusah, but now that he is married he does not have to divorce her as is explained by Rambam and Shulchan Aruc E:H 15:33. Since before the wedding he transgressed a dirabanan and need remorse he must distance his mother-in-law from his house; she should not come at all, for if she does, he must divorce his wife according to the Rama there, se’if 27, and certainly he may not live in her house. Chazal said: whomever lives in the house of his in-laws… certainly here where he already stumbled.

Even though I am lenient in fast, etc. for this man, to exempt him without anything is impossible, especially because of the consistency of the sin. Hasmadah in Torah is paramount. He should learn things of substance like mishnayos in great depth with Tosfos Yom Tov, Shas, Poskim, Tanach, and also mussar books – Chovos Halevavos from after Shaar Yichud to the end and the Shla where he does not discuss Kabbalah, and Hilchos Teshuva of the Rambam. He should cling to the songs and praises of King David (i.e., Tehillim) for this matter will strengthen in his heart the love of his Creator. But other prayers and supplications from the past few generations he should distance himself (one line I’m unsure how to translate). At every midnight he should cry on the destruction [of the Mikdash] and for the exile. Since he is a weak man and he learns much Torah he should not fast in the summer, when there is extreme heat like Tamuz, except for Erev Rosh Chodesh, and the rest of the summer he should fast one day a week, except Elul when he should fast 2 or 3 days, according to his strength, and he should fast every day of the Aseres Yemay Teshuva, and in the winter from Cheshvan until Nissan he should fast three days a week, and one of them should be a complete fast of an evening and the following day. He should do this for three consecutive years (corresponding to the three years of his forbidden relationship) and if he consistently wakes at midnight and midnight does not pass and he is till asleep, and if he stands guard until the light of day, and not necessarily standing, but sitting is okay, as long as he does not “batel”his Torah learning and Tehillim from midnight, then he can lighten his load a little from the fasts and fast only twice a week in the winter.

More acts of penitence – you already mentioned that he does not sleep on a bed at all, and it is sufficient. He should distance himself from laughter (schok – probably includes joking around) – he shouldn’t for three years; what place does happiness have while he mourns for his sin. He should not look at women. These whole three years during the week he should not drink wine of any type of a warming drink except tea with sugar and sometimes a little coffee. On his wife’s onah night he may drink these drinks and I will not tell him what his onah is; he is not allowed to steal his wife’s onah, and it depends on his temperament and nature, and he should choose the middle path and he should not be too strict with what is permitted to him, and Chazal have said “the left [hand] pushes away and the right draws near.” And he should to tevilah for keri. After the end of three years in the second three years he fast Monday and Thursday in the winter and for the summer he should do like the first three years, and in the second three years he may sleep on a bed if he wishes, and according to his strength (if he is well enough to have a rough bed, he should have that and not a more comfortable bed). For the rest of his life he should fast once a week in winter and in the summer erev Rosh Chodesh to fulfill “my sin is always opposite me” and between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur he should fats every day (except Erev Yom Kippur – Ed.).

You mentioned he is wealthy, so he should give a lot of tzedaka. And how good it will be if he follows the teshuva set out by the Rokeach [in this matter of charity]. I currently do not have the Rokeiach to to look, but he should see the fasts for eishes ish, and maybe also for niddah because he wasn’t careful about her niddah days [if he was already being boel an eishes ish]. He should multiply the number [of fasts] three times according to the Kneh Chachma and the total days he should redeem with tzedaka according to the calculation of S”A O”C 334 each day is 12 coins, should be 18 coins according to the Magen Avraham’s calculation (34) in the name of Terumas Hadeshen, and he should distribute it to tzedaka if possible without his wife’s instruction, and still he should fulfill the fasting I arranged, “and may the Merciful One forgive the sin” and turn from his sin and be forgiven.

That which I said he should also fast for Nida, the prohibition of nida comes over the prohibition of a married woman because it is an issur mosif, since the nida becomes prohibited to her husband. That is only if their first adultery was when she was a nida- then he also violated nida, even though [the prohibition of] being a married woman came first, still it is an isur mosif, but if the first adultery was when she was not a nida, then immediately she became forbidden to her husband because of her infidelity, then when she became a nida, the isur nida does not come at all, because nida is not an isur mosif to anybody, because she’s forbidden to everyone because she is married, and now she’s even prohibited to her husband because of her infidelity, and even though the prohibition of nida is stricter that her being unfaithful in that nida carries a punishment of kares, a prohibition does not cover another prohibiton (ein issur chal al issur), not even a strict issur on a less strict one unless it is issur kolel or issur mosif. Then if they committed a second act of adultery when she is a nida, he is only liable for eishes ish and not nida. To suggest that nida is issur mosif since it takes effect on an unfaithful woman, even though we are impure for the dead, there is a difference in halacha to also be a nida in regard to imparting tumah upon your chair – my heart does not agree with that because in all of shas we do not find isur mosif unless another prohibition is added or an obligation (like another punishment) but through method of transmitting tumah is not an issur or obligation to be considered isur mosif. And to say that there is an additional obligation according to the opinion that one who enters the Temple mount today in a state of tumah receives Kares, for kedushas mikdash never left, and if isur nidda is added for that it should be added also here, for adultery – I don’t know of any source that nidda is another obligation when she enters har habayis, because there is already a liability of kareis for entering the mikdash in a state of tumas mes. And I saw in the sefer Kaftor Vaferach a question why don’t we offer the daily and mussaf korbanos and all communal sacrifices and korban pesach nowadays [after the destruction] because we pasken we may bring korbanos in the absence of the Beis Hamikdash (note: the opinion that one may enter har habayis today does not agree with this)? He answered since we don’t have a kohen meyuchas. But we know of kohanim meyuchasim, we could bering a korban pesach, this woman on pesach may enter the courtyard of the Mikdash and eat the korban pesach in a state of tumas mes, now that she is a nida, a prohibition was added in regard to pesach, so let the prohibition be added in regard to adultery? This depends on the opinion that the kedushas mikdash did not end, I doubt this and the matter needs investigation.

That was to teach for another situation such as where the huband was accidentally (shogeg) obligated for coming to the mikdash in a state of impurity, in that case we say one prohibition does not cover another prohibition. But for repentance, he is certainly obligated to repent for all prohibition he violated, even if ein isur chal al isur. For more sins he is considered a bigger rasha. This is a machlokes tanaim Rabi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon in Yevamos 32b … the difference is to bury him among complete reshaim. So even if he only receives one punishment because of ein isur chal al isur, his evilness is increased because of the additional prohibition to bury him among completely evil people, so he must doe teshuva for it. Tosfos there s.v. bein writes that Rabi Shimon holds even if this act includes two prohibitions, since he is only punished for one of them he is not burined among completely evil people, to Rabi Shimon his evilness was not increased due to the second prohibition, then he would only need teshuva for the first sin, and to Rabi Yose he must do teshuva for both, and in a machlokes Rabi Shimon and Rabi Yosi the halacha follows Rabi Yosi.

This is the end of the teshuva.