Possible mamzer and issues with community

ally

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 7:38 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

The whole point is that we do NOT interrogate the husband in beit din, because we do not want to be in a situation where we would have to declare a child to be a mamzer.

The woman starts out with chezkat kashrut, a chazakah (a default) of having acted properly. Unless proven otherwise, she retains that status. That is because of a principle called hashta d'me'ikara: halachic status stays the way it was originally unless there is evidence that it has changed. And if her status is kosher, then her child cannot be a mamzer.

Of course there are some cases where if there was an investigation, something would turn up and the chazakah would be overridden by evidence. The point is that for issues of possible mamzerut and also in other situations, normative practice within the Orthodox world is NOT to investigate.

Hillary, I don't know how long your DH has been studying these halachot, but my question is whether he has been learning them to apply them in practice. There are many sources that are not mutually compatible, as the posts of SixOfWands and cowardly amother ginger have demonstrated. Normative practice, from everything that I have heard, is as SixOfWands said.

(For the record, in case anyone is wondering, no, I have no experience or connection to any chashash of mamzerut.)

In the case of uncircumventable proof, it is my understanding that the beis din will also look for ways to invalidate the original marriage before declaring a mamzer.

ally

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 7:39 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

It is not obvious to me, unless it is Motek. Is it?

Me neither. But I would bet that amother is from a community where women do not learn the development of Halacha from the sources.

Last edited by ally on Wed, Dec 14 2016, 7:40 pm; edited 2 times in total

Chocoholic

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 7:49 pm

ally wrote:

In the case of uncircumventable proof, it is my understanding that the beis din will also look for ways to invalidate the original marriage before declaring a mamzer.

A Beth Din will bend over backwards and walk on their hands to do whatever it can to not declare a child a mamzer.

amother

Ginger

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:11 pm

ally wrote:

Me neither. But I would bet that amother is from a community where women do not learn the development of Halacha from the sources.

I am actually the only one (aside from Hillary who gave a very clear explanation) who gave any sources on the topic.
The rest of you are just giving sources like 'it can't be', 'it doesn't make sense to me'.
Halacha is clearly on my side, I'm sorry you find it so hard to believe in it.

amother

Ginger

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:13 pm

oliveoil wrote:

It's pretty obvious who she is.

Ginger - note that your views are no more popular and your tone no more palatable as amother.

I'm not trying to be popular.
I'm sticking up for the Torah on a so-called frum website where women twist halacha to fit their agenda.

amother

Ginger

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:19 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

The source she quoted was not a source.
It was an article written by a YU student, not a Rav.
Hillary is correct in her explanation.
- I don't care what names you call me.

amother

Black

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:22 pm

amother wrote:

I'm not trying to be popular.
I'm sticking up for the Torah on a so-called frum website where women twist halacha to fit their agenda.

We couldn't possibly pasken on the baby's status as a mamzer based on this thread.

And I think we all agree that what the wife did in this situation was very, very wrong.

ally

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:22 pm

amother wrote:

No. Posters were trying to explain that it is a big leap to jump from a statement of the Rambam (let alone the Gemara!) to practically declaring an individual person a mamzer.

amother

Black

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:23 pm

myself wrote:

I haven't been following all along but... regardless of what they said, there are no eidim.

Could be wrong, but I thought eidim were only relevant to determining an isha sota, ie whether the woman should be put to death. Not the child's status.

amother

Ginger

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:41 pm

ally wrote:

No. Posters were trying to explain that it is a big leap to jump from a statement of the Rambam (let alone the Gemara!) to practically declaring an individual person a mamzer.

Actually, you haven't been following.
The argument is whether a husband is neaman or whether witnesses are required.
And the halacha we pasken is that the husband's word is enough.
You don't have to like my sources though I'm still waiting for one from 'your side'.
If he and the wife had s-x within three months before she became pregnant then it won't be clear cut. If they didn't then it is.

No-one is paskening this story (if it did or didn't happen) but you can't argue with the halacha of the husband being considered a nemean.

amother

Honeydew

Wed, Dec 14 2016, 8:48 pm

amother wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if this is what the Karaites were like.
While in those times they went by the tanach alone and disregarded everything else, today some people seem to hold onto certain interpretations of halacha and ignorance the rest, even though we don't pasken straight from such sources. A full picture is necessary. Ask any Rav.
So sad how we are going back in time to the dark cold ages. Pun intended.