Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 084

Wednesday, September 28 2005

• Re: Lot's daughters (from areivim)
• RE: Fwd [Aspaqlaria] Qedushas Beis HaKenesses
• re: how to proceed
• Re: Midrash
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel (Avodah V15 #83)
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel (Avodah V15 #83)
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel (Avodah V15 #83)
• Re: Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel (Avodah V15 #83)
• Halakhah and emotions
• Re: Halakhah and emotions
• times for slichos
• Chofetz Chaim - Inyone Deyomeh
• [Aspaqlaria] Thoughts for Aseres Yemei Teshuvah
• Re: how to proceed
• Rosh Hashana Vort "Order In The (High) Court"
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• Re: how to proceed
• A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe

We have been discussing on areivim a passage in the introduction to IM
cheleck 8. (Thanks to RTK for her time and effort in translating the
passage in question) There, a story is told of Bnot Lot who appear
to someone in a dream and defend the names they gave to the children
they conceived by their father. The names, particularly Moav, which
emphasizes the incestruous relationship, on the face of it show a blatant
lack of modesty. Bnot Lot explained that the names were given to avoid
the misconception that they were impregnated not by a human being,
but by the Divine.

The concept, central to the story, that it is important to emphasize the
human parentage of biblical personalities appears in RSRH's commentary
on the Torah.

In a somwhat puzzling passage, the Torah in Shmot 6:14-27 commences
a genealogy, describes the families of Reuven, Shimon, and Levi, and
then stops! It is clear from the context and the concluding verses
that the point of the passage is to provide the family background
of Moshe and Aharon. RSRH points out that the intention of the Torah
is to "first of all establish their parentage and relationships, so
that for all time their absolutely human origin,and the absoluteley
ordinary human nature of their beings should be firmly established"
(I. Levy translation, 6:14). RSRH goes on expand this concept, noting
with irony that subsequently in history, a Jew with uncertain parentage
was ascribed divine parentage by adherents.

Saul Mashbaum   

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org] 
>   When a Jew talks during davening in a shul in America,
>   A shul in Netzarim is set aflame.

> That's a lesson I took from this Elul. The feelings generated from
> pictures of the fires and celebrations made me realize something. I care
> a lot more about the sanctity of a synagogue and all that it stands for
> than what I follow through in action.

I'd take Micha's musings on a literal and symbolic basis. We should
be more concerned with our tfilot and the kedushat bet haknesset, We
should then think about the extra chapter of psalms we say all month -
when David hamelech has one request "to sit in the house of Hashem all
the days of my life" (= bet haknesst). I don't recall who I heard this
from, but it's pretty obvious that David lived a very eventful life,
quite a bit of which was not physically in the bet Hashem. Rather his
prayer was that he carry out all his activities as if he were in the bet
Hashem (HKB"Hs presence). Our prayers, our learning and our mitvot should
change us so that all our activities are carried out in this manner.

Ketivah Vchatimah Tova,
Joel Rich

R' Gershon Seif wrote:
>First he would touch his shoes and then he would wash. ... But I never saw
>any Rosh Yeshiva or any FFB doing or considering such a thing..

The FFB's in my family do this after they have washed & said Asher Yotzar,
and are now going to wash for Netilas Yodayim for bread. Scratching the
head is another alternative used by the more discreet.

>Can someone guide me to a concise listing of midrashei halacha and agada,
>their authors and approximate dates of composition (relative to the dates
>of composition of the Mishna and Gemara, that is)? English preferred.

R. Menachem Kasher's Sarei Ha-Elef has an extremely comprehensive list of
midrashim and their publication/manuscripts. He does not always include
authorship and never includes date of composition.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

Fri, 23 Sep 2005 R. David Riceman <driceman@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>>     I share the [CD] impairment,... but 
>> the Rambam, in mentioning the return of an object bitvius ayin, uses the 
>> ter "talmid chacham" in G'zeilah Vaveidah 14:12.

> Frankel has "talmid hachamim" there. In his variant readings he says
> that's the reading in Yemenite manuscripts, though other manuscripts and
> printed editions have "talmid hacham". He adds about "talmid hachamim":
> "vchen derech rabeinu lichtov b'chol makom".

Don't have the time to elaborate, but I am CD-empowered, and my search
came up with 72 times (many in Hilchos Talmud Torah) that the Rambam
uses the term "talmid chacham." This is of course in our versions, and it
would be interesting to see each if instance is corrected by Rav Frankel
to "talmid hachamim." In any case, it seems the Rambam uses "Chacham"
and "Talmid Chacham[im]" interchangeably, even in the same halacha (in
out editions--will have to investigate Rav Frankel's). I attempted to
see if he is simply duplicating the term used in the Gemora he happends
to be referencing, but that doesn't work either. For example, he uses
"talmid chacham" where the Gemora uses "zaken"!

Tsorich Iyun.

Zvi Lampel 

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> I still fail to see
> this in the Rambam. His description of "Talmud" is: "yavin veyasqil
> acharis hadavar meireishiso, yotzei midavar ledavar, veyidmeh davar
> ledavar..." So far, this to mean sounds like lomdus.

I hope to find time to write a detailed post later this week. In the
meantime see R. Shneur Zalman's H. Talmud Torah, chapter 2, Kuntress
Aharon, note 1.

David Riceman 

Thu, 22 Sep 2005 Rabbi Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> posted:
> The Rambam must have already been a doctor by then. Because it's not
> too long after his brother's petirah that the Rambam got one of the most
> prestigious gigs in medicine.

But the Rambam states in the letter (upon which this information about
the brotherly relationship is based) that because his brother dealt with
the business, he was able to sit securely, studying Talmud, Bible and
Dikduk. No mention of medicine as a study, nor of medicine as a practice.

Rabbi Turkel and I have finally found a point of agreement, and then
comes Rabbi Berger to dispute it <g>!

Zvi Lampel

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>

> Don't have the time to elaborate, but I am CD-empowered, and my search
> came up with 72 times (many in Hilchos Talmud Torah) that the Rambam
> uses the term "talmid chacham." This is of course in our versions, and it
> would be interesting to see each if instance is corrected by Rav Frankel
> to "talmid hachamim."

It would be too exhausting to do all of them, but perhaps you could select 
five at random and check.

> In any case, it seems the Rambam uses "Chacham"
> and "Talmid Chacham[im]" interchangeably, even in the same halacha

See Yad Malachi, Klallei HaRambam #3:"kol divrei haRambam hem b'sachlis 
hadiyuk, v'yesh l'dakdek ul'falpel bidvarav kaasher tuchal l'dakdek b'gmara 
atzmah".   Perhaps you could give us a couple of counterexamples.

> (in
> out editions--will have to investigate Rav Frankel's). I attempted to
> see if he is simply duplicating the term used in the Gemora he happends
> to be referencing, but that doesn't work either. For example, he uses
> "talmid chacham" where the Gemora uses "zaken"!

> Tsorich Iyun.

David Riceman 

From: David Riceman
> From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>

>> Don't have the time to elaborate, but I am CD-empowered, and my search
>> came up with 72 times (many in Hilchos Talmud Torah) that the Rambam
>> uses the term "talmid chacham." This is of course in our versions, and it
>> would be interesting to see each if instance is corrected by Rav Frankel
>> to "talmid hachamim."

> It would be too exhausting to do all of them, but perhaps you could select 
> five at random and check.

Bli nedder, but give me time. 

>> In any case, it seems the Rambam uses "Chacham"
>> and "Talmid Chacham[im]" interchangeably, even in the same halacha

> See Yad Malachi, Klallei HaRambam #3:"kol divrei haRambam hem b'sachlis 
> hadiyuk, v'yesh l'dakdek ul'falpel bidvarav kaasher tuchal l'dakdek b'gmara 
> atzmah".   Perhaps you could give us a couple of counterexamples.

Adaraba. I am a true believer in Rambam's precision. (I even believe he
used possesive forms correctly, as in "li, v'lo, u'l'acheirim--but more
on that another time.) I was frustrated that I could not figure out the
key to this problem. (It doesn't seem to have concerned any of the nossei
kaylim ibid.) Bli nedder, I'll provide some examples, but it should be
easy enough to find in Hilchos Talmud Torah, where he speaks of honoring
"talmid[ei] chacham[im], and in the same halacha refers to the honoree
as a "chacham." (If I thought the Rambam was into the sort of thing,
I would make a point that he uses the term [in our editions] of "talmid
chacham" 72 times--72, as in the Sanhedrin! But I don't think so.)

>> (in
>> our editions--will have to investigate Rav Frankel's). I attempted to
>> see if he is simply duplicating the term used in the Gemora he happends
>> to be referencing, but that doesn't work either. For example, he uses
>> "talmid chacham" where the Gemora uses "zaken"!

>> Tsorich Iyun.

Zvi Lampel

Akiva Atwood wrote on Areivim:
>> I don't know about "supposed to" but I can tell you that I certainly DO
>> feel revulsion at the thought of eating bunnies, snakes, monkeys, ...
>> and many other non-kosher animals

> ... And IIRC the gemara says we're supposed to say "I'd love to eat X --
> it looks delicious -- but HaShem said not to eat it, so I won't"

WRT chuqim, is in the Rambam (8 Peraqim, pereq 6), but I doubt the
gemara said it, because I believe this is where Mussar diverges from the
Rambam. (Whereas diverging from Shas is an unrealistic assumption.) I
don't know of a source that would extend the idea to include mitzvos
sichliyos. If you could understand the mitzvah (which takes us from our
case), you're expected to align your personality to it.

According to Mussar, the fact that something is assur is indicative
that the desire behind it is destructive, and one should be working
to reduce that desire. I do not believe there is a choq vs mitzvos
sichliyos distinction. In RYSalanter's language, WRT chuqim, the Rambam
is promoting qibbush hayeitzer -- the ability to act correctly despite
the yeitzer. However, in his machshavah, qibbush hayeitzer is a step
on the way to tiqun hayeitzer -- correcting the yeitzer so that it's in
line with proper behavior.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> WRT chuqim, is in the Rambam (8 Peraqim, pereq 6), but I doubt the
> emara said it, because I believe this is where Mussar diverges from
> he Rambam. (Whereas diverging from Shas is an unrealistic assumption.)

It's in the Safra in K'doshim, on the pasuk "Va'avdil eschem min ha'amim
lih'yos li" (20:26), and is quoted there by Rashi.

As for the taste being repulsive, the g'mara in Chulin 109b states that
for every issur, there is a permissible corresponding experience (with
b'sar chazir specifically mentioned as having a permitted counterpart).

EMT

[Reduced by myself from a long link to an entry The Jewish Worker
blog. -mi]
<http://tinyurl.com/cehte>
various opinions on the propriety of slichos at times other than
chatzos or before amud hashachar. apparantly halacha doesnt address
any exhaustion related issues [ maybe earlier doros never got tired].
with davening times no later than 0530, i basically anticipate yearly
exhaustion for one month a year.....

The weekly Torah sheet 'Alim Litrufah' last week featured the Chofetz
Chaim [whose yohrzeit is 24th Elul].

It brings a nice pshat from him on the gemara Erchin 10b
"Sifrei Chaim vesifrei meisim pesuchim lefonov".

He asks, bishloma, Sifrei Chaim, are open, to record the past year's
mitzvos and aveiros and to work out reward or punishment, but what is
the purpose of having 'Sifrei Meisim' open?
They are all dead and gone and no longer do mitzvos or aveiros?

The CC explains, that there are actually 2 types of mitzvos.
The personal one [eg Shabbos, Sukka, Tefillin etc] for which one earns a
reward - and often even a great reward, but it is a 'oncer '- ie, when
you do the mitzvah you are rewarded for it - but it has no 'follow-on'
rewards.

OTOH, there are other mitzvos, for which a person can receive continuing
sechar - as time goes on - even well after his has passed on from
this world.

He gives a moshol of someone who welcomes an orphan into his home and
gives him/her a chinuch of Torah and mitzvos and later this orphan himself
establishes a bayis neeman beyisroel, the adoptive parents will then
reap the rewards for the 2nd and further generations - even if they are
no longer be'almo hodein.
[I can think of a few members of this list who fit that category.]

And the CC adds, should that orphan - or one of his offspring - one day
become a RY and have talmidim [and talmidei talmidim], the rewards will
keep on multiplying.
In fact the CC says that just like the Rambam gets sechar every time
someone learns from his seforim - even today, so will the adoptive
parents continue to be rewarded.

And that is why the sifei meisim have to be updated every RH, to ensure
that all the merit of their mitzvos which accumulated over the year are
credited to their account.

And, says the CC, it works exactly the same the other way.
If someone writes or publishes sifrei minus etc, for which of course he
receives an onesh, every time someone reads it - even years after his
passing - he will have additional 'debits' posted in his 'book' for
further attention...

SBA 

I collected some of my entries relevent to Teshuvah, Rosh haShanah,
Aseres Yemei Teshuvah and Yom Kippur (including the previous blog entry)
into a single PDF <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf>.

I hope you find it of interest.

This case illustrates the need for the concept "halakhah ve'eiin morin
kein" on two levels.

1- The case is one where personal issues can be the difference between
issur veheter. There is no way to teach a general rule. This point was
made (in different words) by RSC and others.

2- It's also a pesaq about which is the lesser of evils. By saying that
choice X is less bad than Y, one will inadertantly make X more acceptable
than it already is in the minds and mores of the masses. Therefore, one
can't promulgate the pesaq in public without doing serious damage. It
should only be said quietly to someone who would consider only X and Y
as their choices.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
micha@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

A man sat before R. Mordechai of Nadvorna before Rosh Hashanah and
nervously asked to be dismissed. The tzaddik asked: "Why the hurry?"

"I am the Chazan and must look into the Machzor to put my prayers
in order."

"The Machzor is the same as last year. It would be better to look into
your deeds and put yourself in order!" said R. Mordechai.

rw

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:30:31PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: RMB would have us believe that due to the incomprehensibility of pre-chet
: time, anything goes. This "time" can represent six days and simultaneously
: be six millienium and 15 billion years. He states "Perhaps my question
: is a ra'ayah to REED's position that the Ramban holds that the 6 days
: of bereishis, while being 6 literal days are both that time is far more
: complex than we're able to perceive. After all, if the same duration can
: be 6 days and the subsequent 6 millenia, can't they also be the previous
: 15 billion years?" (August 8, 2004)

I too must sigh, as you're repeating a misunderstanding of my words that
I have since explained twice.

You seem to think that there are only two possible positions, and since
we disagree, I must be among those who see scientific results in the
words of mesorah.

Rather, I'm saying that ma'aseh bereishis is incomprehensible. That means
that I do /not/ believe that science can get to the bottom of it -- any
more than reading the Torah will allow us to reach the bottom of it.
I am willing to entertain the possibility that contempory theory is a
meaningful oversimplification of what did happen. Something that Someone
who could understand the history would say, "that's right, in a way",
but only "in a way". I therefore have no reason to dismiss the verious
dating methods as wrong, merely as measuring something I don't understand,
and therefore won't read too much into them.

: OTOH, I propose that the above interpretation is entirely incoherent, as
: RMB himself seems to admit above ("I consider that incomprehensible. Don't
: you?")...

That's just a silly word-game. Are you interested in finging emes, or
scoring points? I wrote that the interpretation is coherent, it's time
during ma'aseh bereishis (and even my use of the word "during") that
we can't comprehend.

:                            Since we cannot know what incomprehensible
: time means, how can we possibly assert that it existed much less say
: that it represents pre and post eitz hadaas time?

Your argument must be flawed. After all, we can and do assert that Hashem
exists, even though all we can comprehend about Him are the boundries
of what is incomprehensible.

: I submit that the following translation of the pertinent paragraphs of the
: maamar...

They are not the pertinent paragraphs of the maamar. And in fact, you
do not seem to recall its conclusion, as you later write:
:> REED also uses the mashal of looking at a map through a hole to show
:> that we don't understand what time really is.

: While I was composing this e-mail, your response to my e-mail came in
: wherein you described your "map theory" in more detail. Thus I will
: treat your above comment when I respond to your most recent e-mail to me.

It's not my "map theory", it's REED's mashal. According to R' Dessler,
Adam's experience of time was to see from one end of the world to the
other -- all of it "at once" (for want of better language). Whereas our
consciousness is more like a hole in a peice of paper, that is moved
around over the map; we experience time as a sequence of "cities".

R' Dessler is explicit, both outright and reinforced by a mashal, that
Adam qodem hacheit did not experience a flow of time. It's actually
placed to be the maskanah.

In order to do so, he first had to show that time's flow is subjective,
and not part of time-in-and-of-itself. That's where your quotes of pg
150 par. 3-5 come in:
: Michtav Me'Eliyaha Chelek Beis pg. 150 Third paragraph
: "[The passage of] time is felt to man in relation to the [frequency of]
: new impressions that he receives [i.e. experiences]. To the extent that
: the quantity of new impressions increases, [in direct proportion] man
: will feel the time as longer...
: Fifth Paragraph
: "Before Adam's sin, all [of mankind's] awareness of [his own] freewill was
: focused entirely on one point [whether to eat from the eitz hadaas or not]
: and only in it [this point] was there the possibility of experiencing
: a new impression. Other than this [one point] Adam's life was connected
: to the truth [in the sense that his life was lived] within a perception
: that there was really nothing outside of the truth. A [life which is
: experienced by a] connectedness such as this does not allow room for
: change and renewal [of impressions] at all....

"No change or renewal"... No time.

: First of all, if pre chet time has no flow to it, how can you use
: it as an explanation to reconcile a flow of 15 billion pre chet
: years? ...

Since flow is imposed by the observer, different observers can perceive
different flows. I therefore can't rule out that whatever perspective
scientists measure from, which REED describes (in the igeres) as being
overly chomer, the measurements would produce a third number.

: Second of all, since you concede that this pre chet time is
: incomprehensible, the only way you know it exists is because you claim
: that R' Dessler learns peshat in the Ramban that way. The problem is that
: the Ramban only says that the six days correspond to the six millennia,
: nothing more. Since you admit that the mechanism by which this connection
: is accomplished is incomprehensible, how do you know that it would work
: when applied to 15 billion years too?

Again, my point isn't that it /would/ work, but that it /could/ work --
"in a way". If the mesorah does not assert anything in contradiction to
scientific conclusions, I have no reason to dismiss them out of hand.

But still, R' Dessler's take on the Ramban's position presumes a true
nature of time (sans our perception), and therefore pre-cheit time,
is something neither you nor I can comprehend. With or without the 15
billion years, REED is asserting incomprehensibility.

And R' Dessler says as much -- that because we can't understand what the
6 days are/were, we should instead focus on what we can learn about what
they mean.

So, between the two, we get an incomprehensible non-flowing time that
the Torah describes as 6 days but we also know doesn't rule out it also
being something else (in some way we can't comprehend).

Which is why I question your focus on R' Dessler's proof that time flow
is subjective as being the relevent part of the maamar.

: Third of all, you are ignoring a fundamental issue when it comes to
: scientists. They claim that the universe testifies that 15 billion actual
: years have elapsed in the evolution of the universe. They claim to have
: evidence that vast periods of time have elapsed in the unfolding of
: the universe. By chalking it up to pre-chet non-time, you still have
: a "surprise" because it contradicts what scientists say...

As above, they're imposing the duration by choosing which "direction"
to measure.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On 9/25/05, Rivka S <rivkas@thejnet.com> wrote:
> R' Gershon Seif wrote:
>>First he would touch his shoes and then he would wash. ... But I never saw
>>any Rosh Yeshiva or any FFB doing or considering such a thing..

> The FFB's in my family do this after they have washed & said Asher Yotzar,
> and are now going to wash for Netilas Yodayim for bread. Scratching the
> head is another alternative used by the more discreet.

I asked R' Shlomo Miller about this. He is of the opinion that touching
your shoes just so that you have to wash your hands causes a bracha
she'eina tzricha. He holds that there is no reason to wash with a kos
after going to the bathroom and that that is how you can make an asher
yatzer before hamotzi.

-Ezra

The following is a true story and in need of some serious consideration
by Poskim. I have been aware of this situation for a long time but the
implications of it were recently made very clear.

I hope I didn't... but I may have made reference to this in the past.
In any case the identities of the individuals involved are not going to
be revealed, only their circumstances. I ask that no one copy or forward
this post to anyone outside the Avodah list.

In 1945 Europe just after the Russian army liberated this particular
area from the Nazis, there was a family of survivors who had begun to
put their lives back together. There were two brothers and a cousin.
One of the brothers survived with his wife. The other brother lost his
wife to the Nazis.

After a short time the married brother decided to take a trip across the
border to buy merchandise where it could be obtained relatively cheaply,
then return and sell it on the black market. So, he left his brother,
cousin, and his pregnant wife behind and went on his "business trip". He
was expected to return after only a few days, but instead weeks went by
...even months and he was never heard from.

Meanwhile the cousin had started showing interest in his cousin's
wife. The remaining brother who had been looked upon as a somewhat
patriarchal figure amongst the family saw this happening and realized
that this budding relationship was not going to stand still and before
long it would turn to romance and then... who knows what. This woman
was an Agunah.

He went to the local Posek who said that this was too great of a problem
for him to resolve by himself and was instructed to write a Shaila to the
Beis Din Tzedek of Jerusalem, which he did immediately. After a while he
had received a letter from the Beis Din instructing him to put an ad in
as many newspapers of the area as he could asking if anyone saw or knew
what happened to a man fitting the description of the missing brother.

Sure enough they received a letter shortly thereafter stating what they
had all suspected. The brother was indeed seen by those people. He was
mugged and killed by thugs who had stolen the merchandise he had gotten
to sell on the black market. The remaining brother then sent a letter to
that effect to the Beis Din in Jerusalem and shortly thereafter received
a letter Matiring that Agunah: "Mutar Lach, Mutar Lach, Mutar Lach".

But the story doesn't end there. Recall that I said the woman was pregnant
by her first husband. The cousin married her and they both decided that
it would be best never to tell the child, a boy, the circumstances of
the marriage. He acted like a father to him in every sense of the word
and does so to this day. Meanwhile they had a second child together. The
two boys grew up quite happily neither of them the wiser. About 20 years
ago for reasons still not clear to me the older brother was told about
his real father. He asked a Shaila and was told to consider the death
of his father to be a "Shmua R'Choka and he observed Shiva for about
an hour (IIRC). Meanwhile the younger brother to this day does not know
that this brother is only his half brother. More importantly he doesn't
know the story of his parents.

Remember that his mother was an Agunah and was given a special Heter to
marry based on circumstantial evidence and Misiach B'Fi Tumo evidence. The
younger brother is currently a member of a very Charedi community and has
over ten children. Without the Heter he would have the status of Mamzer or
at least Safek Mamzer. This is one of the reasons that he wasn't, to this
day, told the story of his parents... to spare him the grief. Of course
the Heter wasn't questionable as it was given by the Beis Din Tzedek of
Jeruslaem. But still the circumstances at least SEEM to be murky.

Here's the problem. The older son is married and childless. He recently
had some serious life saving surgery. If he were to Chas V'Shalom die,
as far as the younger married Charedi brother is concerned, that would
leave his brother's wife a Yevamah which would require him to give a
Chalitza to his brother's surviving wife.

Of course in reality that isn't the case because Yivum is not required
except of brothers of the same father. They were brothers only through
the mother leaving her an Ervah to a surviving brother.

If God forbid something like this happens, I suppose there is no real
problem with a fake Chalitza. But the truth would probably come out
and ruin this family's life. The Chashad Mamzer would overwhelm them
and their children would in effect be shunned for fear of Mamzeirus.
There is no documentation that I am aware of giving testimony of the
Heter Aguna she received. And the uncle (brother of the Agunah's original
husband) has since passed away making his testimony impossible.

If the younger brother were to God forbid become a Kiteiah, Chalitzah
would then be impossible and there would then be a rare but modern day
requirement of an act of Yivum. If for some reason the truth wouldn't
come out, this "act" wouldn't really be Yivum at all but a Bias Issur. He
would be Oveir on the Issur of Eishas Ach.

As I said this is an actual case, not something I made up. I know the
people involved.

As of this moment, there is no pressing issue. But the issue could come
up quite suddenly and because of the recent surgery it was brought to my
attention. What is the best course of action to be taken with this family?

HM

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]