Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 60

Tue, 24 May 2016

• 1. how to fix a mamzer (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: rights of adopted parents (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Chametz and Matzah (Akiva Miller)
• 4. modim (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Establishing the Yichus of a baby (Marty Bluke)
• 6. how to fix a mamzer (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: modim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: rights of adopted parents (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: rights of adopted parents (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Establishing the Yichus of a baby (Simon Montagu)

I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim)
from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick

As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it
because of dina demalchuta
Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them
disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is
conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to
allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be
done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate.

He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b
and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't
live more than 12 months


> I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original.  I expect that the
> original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is
> inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by
> the father, but not in this case). 

I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the
original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written
when one can check it yourself

The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah"
bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not
the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who
should be listed as the father in the invitation

> I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the
> father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same!

Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei
taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel
mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo

I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my
interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on
his knowledge what 2 major poskim state.

-- 
Eli Turkel

The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they
have actually raised has a functional expression among many
halakhists:[9]<http:/
/www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm#_ftn9>
==============================================
My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards
to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps
it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for
childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish
adoptions)?  I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder
how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160522/4b4c3f15/attachment-0001.htm>

Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can
fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not
to chimutz, but to sirchon.?

This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The
gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3:

> Lo sochal alav chametz
> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos

> Do not eat chametz with it
> For seven days you will eat matzos

Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases.
After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef,"
would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar
definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save
any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah
Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just
one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is
called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.)

So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions
from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk,
when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view,
there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more
clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe
juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for
us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39:

> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos
> Ki lo chametz
> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah

> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza
> Because it did not become chametz
> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay

Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become
chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could*
become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point.

How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical
narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my
argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the
cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become
chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one
is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the
other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked
later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which
is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become
chametz."

But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the
definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this
pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be
mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And
R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos?
But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does
anyone know of anything like this?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160522/122a6639/attachment-0001.htm>

The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years
his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years
and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara
literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim)

I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar)
that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim.
First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in
techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend
11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in
techiyat hamettim.

What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down
bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder,
chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large
percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor"
halacha.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160524/a62fe159/attachment-0001.htm>

The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to
baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of
a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara
states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen,
which is the son of the Levi, etc.

The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is
a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because
it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses).

This brings up the some obvious questions:
1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not
around during childbirth so how was there any yichus?
2. When was this takana made?
3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters?
There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years
women gave birth with no men present.
4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies
are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160524/3398f53b/attachment-0001.htm>

By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future
status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an
article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to
see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original.
This is not a continuation of the previous discussion.

The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo)
mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The
gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose.

Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur
le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek
mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain
mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from
safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed.
Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today.

The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and
so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can
the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The
Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the
rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when
the Moshiach comes they will be pasul.
So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one
time heter allowing known mamzerim.

To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the
achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews.
Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between
families.

During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is
that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of
taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is
consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as
a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160524/ac32e531/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar)
: that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim.
...
: What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down
: bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder,
: chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large
: percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor"
: halacha.

Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about...

Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a
description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but
isn't moved by them.

And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be
the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up --
after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable
at techiyas hameisim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: see
: http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/

: and especially
: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721

: In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even
: greater...

The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am
presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av
va'eim.

Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav.

But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos
of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply?

Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there
still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein
that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father.

I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to
the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would
treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being.

: children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises
: him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful
: for this is also greater.

Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about
adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it
right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to
become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child
and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself
into the future, fine.

But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei
chessed.

And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy.
It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's
shalsheles.




On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
:                                     I never found much written about the
: meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times
: influenced the decisions.

I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done
subconsciously.

The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq
rules.

And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based
on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever
fully exclude the mood of their era.

So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the
discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity
to halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

> Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav.

> But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos
> of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply?

I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt.
First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and
not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive
parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not
the genetic parents.
In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc
including the wedding.

As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida)
that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod.
Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham.

Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah
to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else.
I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov
but he stressed
In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even
greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their
children

Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly
no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov.

> Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there
> still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein
> that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >>

I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva
of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha.
I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of
mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say
kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the
child and presumably an abusive parent.

I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for
an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is
not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong
psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish
which are only derabbanan

> I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to
> the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would
> treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being.

again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies
> are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies?
>

I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets
literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery
room.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160524/0f0fc0b3/attachment.htm>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)