[Avodah] A Mamzer Marrying a Shifchah

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 9/02/2012 3:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Rashi, Maharshal, Rashbam, Ran, the SA, the Rama and the Shakh all hold
>> that such an issur exists,

> You have yet to show where they say so.

No, I just sent a link to a summary of an article by RMJBroyde, including
a link to the article, which has mar'eh meqomos. See RMJB at
<http://www.shmadigital.com/shma/200912?pg=3#pg2>.

You made a similar denial back then, and you replied:
> I got sick of beating my head against a wall.  None of the sources
> were on topic...

To which I wrote:
> Let's see, in the post to which you're replying, I mention Rashi's
> obligation to follow all secular laws that are legislated in fulfillment
> of the 7 mitzvos, the Maharshal's obligation to follow those that make
> for an ordered society, the Rashbam saying DDD means following any
> gov't that rules by the concent of the governed, the Rashba (and the
> BY who cites him) that DDD includes conducting a Jewish investigation
> of a crime on behalf of the civil authorities -- who are responsible
> for any punishment, and the Maharam Shick saying that DDD obligates
> one to turn in a woman suspected of killing her husband even if halakhah
> doesn't call for her death and her guilt hasn't even been determined
> yet.

In addition, in the past we discussed RHSchachter's article (URL in
following quote). And that ran me to frustation as well:
>>            Rashi doesn't mention the idea of turning them in; the only
>> options R Tarfon considered were hiding them or not hiding them.  Rashi
>> merely explains why, if they were guilty, he would not want to save them,
>> and Tosfos explains that he was afraid that if he hid them and they
>> turned out to be guilty he'd be putting himself in danger.

> That's Tosafos, not Rashi. Rashi doesn't give a pragmatic reason, he
> gives a halachic one. RHS points out that this indicates a machloqes
> between them.

> And it's RHS who says that Rashi would consider it an obligation,
> not I. See <http://download.yutorah.org/1981/1053/735655.pdf> pg 120
> (18th pg in the pdf) - 122. You take on R' Uzziel, RHS and R' Broyde
> without any fear of being wrong. As I said above, it strikes me that
> you're wiggling a peshat into Rashi that was neither ever given before
> nor fits the words. Perhaps the reason why debating this feels like
> you're banging your head against the wall is because indeed, you're
> trying to support the unsupportable.

The bottom line is that what many poseqim, including RMJB and RHS,
consider obvious, you simply deny without argument. We drilled down
into Rashi in particular (since both RHS and RMJB discuss it), and you
simply presented an idiosyncratic interpretation that I do not see in
the Rashi. But more importantly since you're denying the existence of
an issur, not making a historical claim, lemaaseh isn't used by anyone
I know who actually pasqens halakhah lemaaseh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
micha at aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger