Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!ask From: ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: What is a mamzer? Message-ID: <927@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Sun, 31-Mar-85 01:35:55 EST Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.927 Posted: Sun Mar 31 01:35:55 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Apr-85 03:02:16 EST Reply-To: ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 65 > 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? > > 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. : One of the ways in which "a man acquires a woman" is intercourse. But, as I understand it, the man must WANT to "acquire" (marry) the woman. If not, and if there is intercourse, with or without the (unmarried) woman's consent, as I understand it, a marriage has not taken place. Any children would not be mamzerim. (There is another question of the man owing damages, but that is not the issue here.) I'm embarrassed to have to hedge (twice) here, but I don't have the reference for the statement that *intent* to marry must be present for this to be a valid marriage. In practice today, most rabbis will insist that for a marriage to be valid (and to prove intent?) the man must also give his wife a token (a ring) and also a valid marriage contract (ketuba), even though the Talmud allows any one of the three. Now, suppose the woman -- who has not been married to the first man -- later marries another man, without obtaining a get. Is this marriage valid? If so, children of this marriage would not be mamzerim. If what I said above about *intent* is true, then the marriage to the second man is valid. BUT, the first relationship could be viewed as a marriage by some people, and there could be an embarrassing inquiry made as to the facts. To avoid such problems, I think the woman should insist on obtaining a get from the first man. : : > 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. : : > Frank Silbermann As someone has already said, we do not go around every day trying to prove that someone is a mamzer. In fact, just about the only time the question would come up is when a couple plans to marry. Then for peace of mind and assurance that the marriage would be valid, an investigation might be made by a couple to whom this question is important. So, even if I weren't concerned enough to investigate when I was about to marry, my children might grow up to be much more concerned (religious?, orthodox?) than I am, and they might discover, heaven forbid, that they (I) are mamzerim! This is the real tragic consequence. For how can any unconcerned Jew know whether his/her children will turn out to be orthodox? You raise another interesting question about a "Jew who is KNOWN..." Can someone explain what evidence or testimony is needed for a bet din to rule that someone is a mamzer? Is it as strong as the personal testimony of two eye witnesses? If so, that would eliminate countless cases which could have resulted from events long, long ago. Or is other evidence acceptable? I would think that a bet din today would try hard to FAIL to find someone to be a mamzer if the original event occurred more than about 2 generations ago. That is, unless the old evidence was simply overpowering, they would not find it to be convincing. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask