ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (03/23/85)
> As I had a completely secular education and grew up in completely > religiously non-active family - WHAT IS A MAMZER? Please? Most of what I > read in this newsgroup I can understand, but this one is getting to me. > > Thanks > -- > liz sommers A mamzer is a child of a prohibited union. Something like a bastard. For example, a child resulting from any of the following halachically- prohibited unions would be a mamzer. 2. A married woman and a man other than her husband. 1. A woman whose husband is missing under circumstanes where he cannot be declared dead is a married woman, and if she should later have a 3hild by any other man, the child is a mamzer. 4. A divorced y of the prohibited incestous relationships. 1. a woman who does not receive a legal 'get' from her ex-husband is still considered to be married while the husband still is alive, so she may not remarry. (This is not intended as a complete list.) The following union would NOT produce a mamzer: An unmarried woman and a married or unmarried man, whether or not the woman consented. A mamzer is not permitted many rights, including bar-mitzvah, normal marraige, etc. A mamzer is pretty much a cast-out from the Jewish Community. While the child suffers, the parents also probably share the suffering. So, a couple considering a non-permitted relationship should realize the consequences!! The status of a mamzer cannot, in general, ever be reversed. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (03/23/85)
The previous version got garbled. Sorry. > As I had a completely secular education and grew up in completely > religiously non-active family - WHAT IS A MAMZER? Please? Most of what I > read in this newsgroup I can understand, but this one is getting to me. > > Thanks > -- > liz sommers A mamzer is a child of a prohibited union. Something like a bastard. For example, a child resulting from any of the following halachically- prohibited unions would be a mamzer. 1. A married woman and a man other than her husband. 2. A woman whose husband is missing under circumstances where he cannot be declared dead is a married woman, and if she should later have a child by any other man, the child is a mamzer. 3. Any of the prohibited incestous relationships. 4. A divorced woman who does not receive a legal 'get' from her ex-husband is still considered to be married while the husband still is alive, so she may not remarry. (This is not intended as a complete list.) The following union would NOT produce a mamzer: An unmarried woman and a married or unmarried man, whether or not the woman consented. A mamzer is not permitted many rights, including bar-mitzvah, normal marriage, etc. A mamzer is pretty much a cast-out from the Jewish Community. While the child suffers, the parents also probably share the suffering. So, a couple considering a non-permitted relationship should realize the consequences!! The status of a mamzer cannot, in general, ever be reversed. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (03/24/85)
> As I had a completely secular education and grew up in completely > religiously non-active family - WHAT IS A MAMZER? Please? Most of what I > read in this newsgroup I can understand, but this one is getting to me. A mamzer is a Jew (mother was Jewish) who was born under any of the following conditions: 1) Either the father or the mother was a mamzer. 2) The mother (Jewish) was married halachically to a Jew, and conceived the child from a Jew who was not her husband. (In this case, if the father was a non-Jew the child is NOT a mamzer.) 3) The child was conceived via incest. A child born out of wedlock, or one whose mother did not observe the laws of taharas hamishpacha (which require her to go to mikveh) is NOT a mamzer. The term mamzer is also used perjoratively to refer to people who are not actual mamzerim. A mamzer is only permitted to marry another mamzer or a convert. In either case, the progeny will be mamzerim. This is a severe hardship for the mamzer and his descendants, and a serious concern for the Jewish community. No other sanctions apply to the mamzer. Thus, in the Talmud's words, "A mamzer who is a Talmud Chacham (Torah scholar) is accorded greater respect than a Cohen Godol (High Priest) who is an am ha'aretz (Torah ignoramus)." Many cases concerning mamzerim are found in the halachic responsa. The problem arises most often in cases where a woman was halachically married but failed to obtain a valid get (halachic divorce). This situation occurs frequently nowadays when people obtain civil or non-orthodox divorces. When the Jews returned from exile in Babylonia (during the construction of the Second Temple) the prophet Ezra, who was also a leader in the Sanhedrin, brought all of the mamzerim from Babylonia to assure that they would be monitored and not marry illegally. Halachic authorities try to find loopholes to clear someone of mamzer status. A major strategy is to invalidate the mother's marriage on technical halachic grounds. This is often possible where the mother had been married by a reform ceremony. Even in such cases, however, there is a remote concern that a halachic common-law marriage status might exist despite the invalid ceremony. For this reason, a proper get is often insisted on even to dissolve a reform marriage. There is currently a law on the books in NY State which allows a man or woman to hold back civil divorce proceedings until a get is obtained, on the grounds that there are intervening circumstances which prevent that partner from remarrying. There is at least one precedent on the books where this helped someone receive a get. The constitutionality of the law has not been tested, as yet. In Israel, Jewish marriage and divorce is under jurisdiction of the orhthodox rabbinate. They insist on a valid halachic divorce to forestall the tragic consequences of mamzerus for those who are not yet born. Yitzchok Samet
meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (03/27/85)
In response to Art Kamlet : >A mamzer is not permitted many rights, including bar-mitzvah, >normal marraige, etc. A mamzer is pretty much a cast-out from >the Jewish Community. (1) Bar Mitzvah is not a "right" as you call it. IT JUST IS. By definition, a male becomes bar-mitzvah, a man of the law, one who is required to perform all the mitzvos, at age 13 years and one day old (on his HEBREW birthday). A female becomes a Bas Mitzvah, a woman of the law, etc., at age 12 years and one day old (on her HEBREW birthday). There seems to be a great misconception in today's society (especially America) - a boy is "bar-mitzvahed" at age 13, with all the accompanying trimmings of a great birthday party, at which point he has reached the end of the road in his long trek in becoming a jewish man. He is now a man, and can stop going to the hebrew school (it was boring and a waste of time anyway; just to please my parents and grandparents), can shed himself of all responsibilities as a jewish man. In short, he is grown up and can do (or not do) whatever he wants. This, in fact, is the exact opposite of what it really means to become a "bar mitzvah". The road of Jewish life, with all its trials and tribulations, and all of its responsibilities, is just beginning for this young boy (who has just entered Jewish manhood). (2) It is true that a mamzer is denied certain rights. These basically fall in the category of marriage (i.e., permitted marriage partners). The Torah tells us "Lo yavoh mamzer bikehal HaShem" - a mamzer shall not (is not permitted to) come in the kahal (congregation) of HaShem (Devarim 23:3). A mamzer may not marry a non-mamzer; he/she may only marry their own type. To paraphrase Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchick : the status of a mamzer with respect to marriage is tragic. But we cannot do anything about it. This is what the Torah tells us. asher meth
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (03/27/85)
In article <cbdkc1.917> ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) writes: >>- WHAT IS A MAMZER? > >A mamzer is a child of a prohibited union. Something like a bastard. >For example, a child resulting from any of the following halachically- >prohibited unions would be a mamzer. > >1. A married woman and a man other than her husband. etc. What about if the mother is married, and you are not sure whether or not her husband is the father? Benefit of the doubt? >A mamzer is not permitted many rights, including bar-mitzvah, >normal marriage, etc. A mamzer is pretty much a cast-out from >the Jewish Community. While the child suffers, the parents also >probably share the suffering. So, a couple considering a non-permitted >relationship should realize the consequences!! The status of a mamzer >cannot, in general, ever be reversed. I never met a Jew who I knew was a mamzer, especially not one descended from a long line of mamzerim. Were mamzerim in the "Old Country" effectively prevented from marrying at all, or did they just get lost in the shuffle when immigrating to the U.S.? I vaguely remember hearing of a commandment that if you know of a mamzer who is trying to pass as legitimate in a new city, you are forbidden to expose him. Would someone please give me accurate details about this Halacha, if it does indeed exist? This would mean that, from a pratical standpoint, a mamzer might be able to reverse his status by lying about it. Frank Silbermann
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/27/85)
> > A mamzer is not permitted many rights, including bar-mitzvah, A mamzer, just like any other Jew, is obligated to observe the mitzvot. The obligation starts at the mamzer's 13th birthday, for a boy, and 12 for a girl. I don't know if there is any prohibition against making a party for a mamzer to commemorate the occasion. In general, even if there is no formal party or even if the person ( mamzer or no ) never entered a synogogue, the person would still be obligated to perform the mitzvot once he ( she ) becomes of age. Eliyahu Teitz.
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (03/31/85)
> Suppose a woman has sex before marriage. I have heard opinions > that the act of intercourse between two unmarried people > constitutes a marriage. Is this true? > > If so, then this woman should obtain a GET before she marries > anyone else. If she doesn't get one, then I presume that the > children are mamzerim. Is this so? I bet many such women did not > get a Get, and kept the former liasons secret. : One of the ways in which "a man acquires a woman" is intercourse. But, as I understand it, the man must WANT to "acquire" (marry) the woman. If not, and if there is intercourse, with or without the (unmarried) woman's consent, as I understand it, a marriage has not taken place. Any children would not be mamzerim. (There is another question of the man owing damages, but that is not the issue here.) I'm embarrassed to have to hedge (twice) here, but I don't have the reference for the statement that *intent* to marry must be present for this to be a valid marriage. In practice today, most rabbis will insist that for a marriage to be valid (and to prove intent?) the man must also give his wife a token (a ring) and also a valid marriage contract (ketuba), even though the Talmud allows any one of the three. Now, suppose the woman -- who has not been married to the first man -- later marries another man, without obtaining a get. Is this marriage valid? If so, children of this marriage would not be mamzerim. If what I said above about *intent* is true, then the marriage to the second man is valid. BUT, the first relationship could be viewed as a marriage by some people, and there could be an embarrassing inquiry made as to the facts. To avoid such problems, I think the woman should insist on obtaining a get from the first man. : : > It seems to me that ANY of us may be mamzerim, and not even know it. > Perhaps we should redefine the term to mean any Jew who is KNOWN > to have such a background. Otherwise, the rules are rules unenforceable. : : > Frank Silbermann As someone has already said, we do not go around every day trying to prove that someone is a mamzer. In fact, just about the only time the question would come up is when a couple plans to marry. Then for peace of mind and assurance that the marriage would be valid, an investigation might be made by a couple to whom this question is important. So, even if I weren't concerned enough to investigate when I was about to marry, my children might grow up to be much more concerned (religious?, orthodox?) than I am, and they might discover, heaven forbid, that they (I) are mamzerim! This is the real tragic consequence. For how can any unconcerned Jew know whether his/her children will turn out to be orthodox? You raise another interesting question about a "Jew who is KNOWN..." Can someone explain what evidence or testimony is needed for a bet din to rule that someone is a mamzer? Is it as strong as the personal testimony of two eye witnesses? If so, that would eliminate countless cases which could have resulted from events long, long ago. Or is other evidence acceptable? I would think that a bet din today would try hard to FAIL to find someone to be a mamzer if the original event occurred more than about 2 generations ago. That is, unless the old evidence was simply overpowering, they would not find it to be convincing. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (04/01/85)
[Golem] This is a slight flame. When the question of "mamzer" first came up, I went home and looked through Rabbi Lamm's book "The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage" ( I think that is the correct title) and found about two to three pages on the subject. I didn't feel that I could do justice to the subject by condensing the definition into a few lines, so I waited for someone else to answer. I saw a reasonable definition on the net and left it at that. The only problem was that the person who asked seemed to want just a translation of the Hebrew word "mamzer" which, in English, is "bastard". Enough said. Now, to "What|Who is a mamzer". I read the talmud Kiddushin at least once, and that was no easy chore. Kiddushin explains the rules for valid betrothals, among other things. The sentance that opens up Kiddushin says: "A woman is acquired by writ, intercourse or money". The quote is from memory, but the keyword is acquired which means betrothed which means engaged NOT married! As for my flame, I am getting sick and tired of seeing postings which sound like the author really knows what s/he is talking about but is factually wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but how about doing a little reading, i.e., looking up the facts, before posting something that sounds like the emmis ( truth ). Debate all you want but at least get the basic facts straight first! Hag Sameach, David HaMelech
de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (04/04/85)
> A mamzer is only permitted to marry another mamzer or a convert. > In either case, the progeny will be mamzerim. It had been my understanding that the children of a mamzer and a convert were accepted back into the Jewish community, that the special "yichus" of a convert was enough to overcome mamzerut. Let me also hasten to add that a mamzer was the product of relationships that violated the most sacred of taboos, sex that destroyed the family. Children born out of wedlock were considered no better or worse than those born to married parents, something that the Christian world never did seem to learn. A good and kosher Pesach. David Esan (!moscom!de)
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (04/09/85)
> > A mamzer is only permitted to marry another mamzer or a convert. > > In either case, the progeny will be mamzerim. > > It had been my understanding that the children of a mamzer and a convert were > accepted back into the Jewish community, that the special "yichus" of a > convert was enough to overcome mamzerut. This understanding is incorrect. The mamzerus(th)(t) sticks. But the mamzer is basically (except for marriage) accepted in the community anyway, except that his status is kept known. Thus for instance, there was a custom to hold the bris of a mamzer outdoors, so that people would remember the fact of mamzerus long afterwards. Yitzchok Samet Yitzchok Samet
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (04/09/85)
> > In practice today, most rabbis will insist that for a marriage > to be valid (and to prove intent?) the man must also give his wife > a token (a ring) and also a valid marriage contract (ketuba), > even though the Talmud allows any one of the three. > Sorry to disagee. The rabbis, according to the Talmud, Tractate Kidushin, allow three way to marry a woman. There is a two step processin in mayrrying a woman, kiddushin and nisu'in. Kiddushin is the process in which a woman become prohibitted to men ( after this step she is considered set aside, kadosh ( holy, or separated ), for one man and all others are prohibited. This can be done in one of three ways, giving the woman something of monetary value ( customarily a ring ), by intercourse, or by giving her a legal document ( a shtar as it is know in hebrew ). After this ceremony it was customary, in the times of the Talmud, for the couple to be separated to save money and prepare for the wedding. So the first ceremony is not unlike an engagement, just that today's engagements aren't done as religious rituals. After a year's time the couple would get together again and have the wedding, or nisu'in, where the husband would take his wife to his home and she would be his. Today, we do both ceremonies together. First we have the kiddushin, when the rabbi says the blessings over the wine, under the canopy. Then the husband gives the ring to his wife. After this the rabbi reads the marriage agreement, ketuba. The ketuba was set up as an insurance policy for the wife by the rabbis. What the ketuba basically says is that if the husband should divorce his wife or die, he or his estate would be responsible to pay an amount of money to the woman. The exact amount depends on how much a husbands wants to add to a base figure ( which has been estimated at about $ 15,000 - $ 25,000 ). This is not the document which the rabbis allowed as one of the methods of kiddushin. That is a different document ( and the point of my disagreement ). After this document, the ketuba is read ( and it is used as a filler, to separate between the ceremonies of kiddushin and nisu'in ) the nisu'in starts, with the rabbi again reciting blessings over wine. After these seven blessings, the couple go off to a room by themselves, with the entrance to the room watched by two men to insure that the couple is alone. After the couple emerges from the room they are amrried, since it is assumed that the husband could have had relations with his wife and thereby consummated the marriage. As far as intent is concerned there are a few points to be made. If a couple has relations without intent to be married, and even if there was intent, but the man didn't say anything to the woman ( I seem to recall that the man must make a statement that he wants the woman as a wife before having relations withhu her, although I may be wrong ) then they are not married. Howevver, there is a separate problem if the couple is living together. If they live as a miarried couple even though they have not been married in the way set up then they might be considered married anyway ( which is why most orthodox rabbis require gittin of couples married by non-orthodox rabbis in married in a way that there is a flaw in the ceremony ( if, for instance, the witnesses in front of whom the ceremony was performed were invvalid ). This is a problem that we have today, which could potentially lead to mamzerim. Therefore we must all be careful in our dealings with the other sex to insure that we don't inadverntently mess up future generations. Eliyahu Teitz.