[Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer

[Zev Sero via Avodah]

On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't
> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it.

Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar
Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon.

The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt
http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah
Kamoha) seems to disagree.



On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha:
>> "How do you know that?  The Torah says your children from a nochris are not
>> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?"

> The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children
> are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The
> Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with
> the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks
> nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten
> bam)


The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours.
The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with
their status.   It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her,
and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's
property.  QED.  That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to
exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not,
but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that
of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.)

But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from
the pasuk that says they are not your children.  That pasuk doesn't *say*
that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish
parent what else could they be?

The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it
says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and
thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you.
(Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children,
if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them
not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them
not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother
will teach them to serve it.)  By saying that this is not something you
should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your
children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of
your business.


On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote:
> RZS answer is not true.

And your proof is?




-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
zev at sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis