samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (04/02/85)
This posting is to clear up a few incorrect statements about mamzerim and to respond to some related questions. After doing some reading in Shulchan Aruch and responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein (widely regarded as today's foremost halachic authority) it is amazing how many nuances, details, and potential loopholes are involved in individual questions of mamzerus. If a practical question arises, no one should rely on anything written here, or on anything less than an individual ruling from a competent posek (halachic authority). > What about if the mother is married, and you are not sure whether or > not her husband is the father? Benefit of the doubt? You may or may not have grounds to suspect mamzerus in the first place. A background of the family history can be presented to a competent Rav. Rumor is not not necessarily reliable, but it can obligate you to investigate further. If it turns out that there are a solid grounds for doubt, you cannot automatically assume benefit of the doubt. The Rav has to consider many details. The conditions surrounding the mother's marriage, to whom it was, what he and she believed about marriage and Judaism, whether there were two kosher witnesses (fully Torah observant male Jews who are not relatives, of each other or the couple, and are not interested parties) - at the ceremony or to the fact that they lived together afterwards, what the ceremony was, the nature of the evidence, testimony, etc. may all be significant. >A mamzer is not permitted many rights, including bar-mitzvah,... >A mamzer is pretty much a cast-out from the Jewish Community. I believe that this is incorrect. Is there any source for this? The Talmud says that a mamzer who is a Torah scholar is accorded greater honor than a Cohen Gadol (High Priest) who is a Torah ignoramus. The only restriction I ever heard of was concerning marriage. > 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.? An interesting question. The Talmud in the first perek of yevamos says that in the absence of any specific information concerning mamzerus, the halacha allows us to presume that someone is from the majority of people who are not mamzerim. If a situation arose where most people from a given region were mamzerim we might have a serious problem. > 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 practical > standpoint, a mamzer might be able to reverse his status by lying > about it. This sounds like a misquote. A mamzer is subject to a specific commandment not to enter the k'hal, and is presumably forbidden to knowingly marry someone who is forbidden. Perhaps the original quote referred to someone who had been suspected of being a mamzer but cleared on the basis of inadequate evidence. In that case, it might be wrong to dredge up the past episode. > 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? Technically speaking, the Torah allows for an act of intercourse as a means of making a kinyan (legal ceremony) for marriage purposes. Normally, this is an improper (but binding) marriage ceremony. The classic means of marital kinyan is giving a ring to the woman. But there are and were places where Jewish marriage was forbidden. The Talmud therefore considers what would be if it were known by two kosher witnesses that two people were living together as man and woman. It concludes that we presume beyond doubt that someone does not have intercourse for immoral (i.e. extra-marital) purposes. This would mean that if there are two kosher witnesses to a such a situation, the couple would be married. Later authorities point out that such a blanket presumption would not apply everywhere, e.g., not to a Jew who is non Torah-observant, or not even to an otherwise observant Jew who is suspected of having relations with a nidah (a nidah is a woman who requires immersion in a mikveh before being permitted to have intercourse). Rav Henkin, z"l, however, held that this consideration might possibly apply to some Jews who were married by a civil ceremony, and advised people to be safe and and obtain a valid get for divorce. Rav Moshe Feinstein mentions this view as a safety measure. He also differentiates between a civil ceremony and a reform ceremony. In the former case, the couple know that they didn't have a Jewish marriage and might conceivably have in mind to make a marriage kinyan during the first intercourse. However, in the case of a reform ceremony, Reb Moshe says that they relied on the "rabbi" for a Jewish ceremony and had nothing in mind later on. In most cases, Reb Moshe invalidates the reform ceremony on technical grounds, since many or all of the essential conditions for a valid marriage kinyan (as discussed in one entire volume of the Talmud) are lacking. The result is that many mamzerus problems are solved by invalidating the original marriage. Conceivably, a common-law marriage might be established if, say, a couple lived in a place where there were no Kosher witnesses and Jewish marriages were prohibited, and later moved to Boro Park or Yerushalayim. > 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. In general, this is not a problem, as explained above. It never hurts to ask a Rav, however. > Or, suppose someone is descended from a convert. The "convert" > may actually be a Jew before the conversion (descended from a > Jewish woman generations in the past along a completely > maternal line). Who would know? And that original Jewish > woman may have been a Mamzer. This would mean that the > "conversion ceremony" was invalid (the "convert" was already a > Jew). Thus this covert could be a Mamzer! 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. The halacha follows complicated rules which allow us to assume certain status in the absence of proof to the contrary. In many cases we are permitted to ignore such vague possibilities. In other cases we are obligated to investigate. I am not qualified to go into detail in this issue but I do know that we don't have to suspect everyone. > By the way, in the discussions of the Ethiopians, I heard > mention of a "token conversion" to remove "any suspicions" of > Mamzurut. Is this not a contradiction to the statement that > this condition cannot be "cured"? The token conversions could not remove suspicions of mamzerus if there were any. As far as I know, mamzerus was not generally suspected. The purpose of the ceremony you heard about was to assure that the Ethiopians would be accepted as full-fledged Jews without anyone being able to raise doubt. I know of similar cases in America, where, for instance, the conversion of someone's mother was not clearly valid. In that case, the daughter went through a token conversion (for safety's sake) but, unlike a convert, was permitted to marry a Cohen. Yitzchok Samet