[net.religion.jewish] What is is/not a mamzer?

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