I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they
are your children or not.
Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >>
Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do
with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between
parents and child
<<particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans
*involuntary* servitude.
RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea
of shifcha today is ridiculous
What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage?
Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less.
Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus,
just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other
things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have
nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or
life expectancy"?!
:> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they
:> are your children or not.
:
:> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*.
:
: Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage...
I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and
their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly?
: It might have nothing to do
: with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between
: parents and child.
Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion.
I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his
parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA,
some kind of genetic parentage is involved.
At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion):
: RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea
: of shifcha today is ridiculous
I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any
case...
When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and
shevuyim?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically
since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina
demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the
assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here.
As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting
it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov
for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews.
In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a
parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves
the family.
One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and
insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein
paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights
to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right
to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the
biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help
of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing.
Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew
the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a
father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not
worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur)
The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit
shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father.
When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he
did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut
: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting
: it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov
: for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews.
This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan
shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must
be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims
of mamzeirus.
I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a
metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage
is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not
the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the
person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his
biological state and making him subject to the strictures.
It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his
father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa,
only a definite mamzer is assur.)
Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to
hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of
whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud,
although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father
handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av.
An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he
taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good
and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing.
This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different
opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong.
I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might
be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not
even to his mother(!) let alone his father.
RET:
Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to
do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections
between parents and child
RZS:
What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage?
Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less.
Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts.
The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very
strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic
categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then
immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility
of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very
fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically,
Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten
halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability
a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had
in mind.
In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have
to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child.
Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry.
When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino
mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child
of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child;
there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is
the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of
yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna.
Saul Mashbaum
In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em
from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father
rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment
the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he
does teshuva
others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while
he is alive
see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The
Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai
that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva
R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash
Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once
Terach handed him over to Nimrod.
R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved
(metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and
establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who
actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the
decisions and not the biological parent who is not around.
I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out
notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested
A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any
mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and
had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the
first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no
contact with his daughter
A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an
invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the
kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all.
He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father?
Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had
with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself
listed as the father of the bride
The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the
mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies.
Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her
up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the
dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of
the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no
right to have his name listed on the invitation.
The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the
father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The
daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin
Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he
also needs to participate in buying an apartment.
R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in
order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not
alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the
biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be
"be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live
with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride.
His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely.
Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me
The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that
the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies.
In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not
to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him
on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later.
Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her
up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the
dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father
of the bride.
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).
Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to
have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked
that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter
returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz
they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also
needs to participate in buying an apartment.
Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can
money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father
how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over
the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the
father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is
making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person
who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses
that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there
would be no shidduch.
It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and
her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after
all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding,
if only he is willing to do so.
R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological
father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the
biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but
when he is alive the biological father is listed.
I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the
father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is
that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive
father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised
an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children.
I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.)
Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable
whether the biological father is or is not alive?
R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in
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.
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.
: see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The
: Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai
: that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva
See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail.
The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive,
saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent
fter their petirah.
The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is
not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo.
And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent
with the Tur's position.
:-)BBii!
-Micha