Talk:Mamzer

Who modern view

I removed a personal opinion of the meaning of "mamzer' as being; "A mamzer in modern Jewish culture is someone who is either born out of adultery by a married Jewish woman and a Jewish man who is not her husband". This is not a Jewish viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B110:D6D1:2C33:2DAD:98A5:D4A8 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation and links needed

I've copy-edited this. Judging by the citations given, this is probably taken from somewhere in particular. I'll presume that it is a source old enough not to be a copyright issue, but that source should be cited in its own right. Also, in the citations given, could someone who is more of a scholar of Judaism than I please provide appropriate links for Yevamos, Kiddushin, Shulchan Aruch, and Even Haezer? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't read Hebrew. Some questions:

Is the Hebrew article ממזר strictly about the Halakhic usage? If so, it should interwiki here and vice versa, not to Illegitimacy.

Is the Hebrew article partly about the Halakhic usage and partly about the more common notion of illegitimacy? If so, it should probably stay where it is in interwiki terms; we should incorporate any material it has that we lack, and should probably point to it in the external links (not just as an interwiki, I think) with an explanation that it covers both meanings. We could interwiki to it from this article, as well, but it probably should not link back.

Is the Hebrew article strictly about the more common notion of illegitimacy? If so, it should stay where it is in interwiki terms, and there is no need to reference it here.

Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew article is indeed about the halachic meaning as is this article. jnothman ^talk 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm the recent anonymous uncited changes and additions? And I'd still really like to see a source cited. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reinserted the convert thing, the source being Kidushin 5:1 - mamzerim, converts, freed slaves, netinim etc can all marry each other. Frikle 10:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In the article: "a convert": meaning a convert away from Judaism, I presume, but I don't presume strongly enough to edit it myself. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a convert away from Judaism. And yet, to my understanding a convert has no laws different from others. I would like to see sources on this, and so I have taken it out until I do. I also would like to see sources on the "also transitions into Israeli society" remark, particularly as this cannot have come from Maimonides or the Shulchan Arukh sources cited. I'll read over the Hebrew article (slowly) to see if it mentions these things. jnothman ^talk 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, the Hebrew Wikipedia article didn't mention either of these facts. jnothman ^talk 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

changes

I have added a lot to this article. all of it is based on the hebrew. I did not translate the origin of the word or marriage with karrites.Jon513 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done mate. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

forever or ten generation

the Shulkhan Arukh: Even HaEzer 4:1 states clearly the mamzer status is forever. If you can read Hebrew this is the text

ממזרים ונתינים אסורים איסור עולם עד סוף כל הדורות, בין זכרים בין נקבות.

If there are any sources to ten generation I would love to see them. It is possible that ten generation is euphemism for forever. Jon513 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Source on 10 generations: Torah. From Devarim/Deuteronomy parsha Ki-Seitzei (chap 23) pasuk/sentence 3: לֹא-יָבֹא מַמְזֵר, בִּקְהַל יְהוָה: גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי, לֹא-יָבֹא לוֹ בִּקְהַל יְהוָה. {ס} "A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even one from the 10th generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem." AYM (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. According to the rambam this means forever:

Rambam הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק טו:א  :

ואחד זכרים ואחד נקבות, אסורין לעולם--שנאמר "גם דור עשירי, לא יבוא" (שם), כלומר לעולם.

I cannot find any source which interpret this literally - but if they are they should be included. Jon513 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

unclear sentence; article

"The woman herself is not believed to turn her children into mamzerim." - It is ambiguous, please reword. --Zero^talk 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

would "a mother is not believed to turn her childrend into mamzerim" be clearer. If a woman says my son (or daughter) is the product of an extramateral affair, or the product of an incestious relationship, we don't believe her. Feel free to edit the article in any way that makes it clearer. Jon513 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

story about an Israeli Court

Story about Israeli court case: [1]. --Zero^talk 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting story. I don't think it adds anything though. Jon513 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified discussion of this article. The article simply reported that an Israeli religious court held that a child born 8 months and 2 weeks after a divorce was the child of the former husband and not the child of the wife's lover. I've also provided more NPOV language for the section on Israeli law, including presenting advocacy for change as opinion rather than fact. I've also added a paragraph pointing out that Israeli courts' implementation of mamzer law, as the article describes it, simply means that Israeli courts, in dealing with a married or recently divorced couple, resolve paternity claims in favor of the husband's paternity and generally ignore paternity claims and evidence of third parties. This effect makes Israeli law very similar to that of many other countries, including the United States, whose courts similarly don't look favorably on claims that when a child is born to a couple married at the time, someone other than the husband is the father. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of laws of just this sort in 1989, and I cite the case. The claims by Israeli advocates that Israeli law ignores basic human rights etc. etc. should have some counterbalance, and the fact that many other countries including the U.S. have laws with essentially the same effect (and also have advocates on the left disagreeing with them for many of the same reasons as Israel's advocates on the left), and courts in other countries have held they don't violate human rights, should give discussion of the matter some balance.--24.91.183.35 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this problem still exists in 2022, as reported in Jerusam Post [2] Citation: "[...] last week [...] a woman anonymously presented her own run-in with the 300-day rule, in which her son was listed as being the child of her ex-husband, an abusive man with a long history of mental health issues who had for years refused to give her a divorce. Knowing he is not her son’s father, she cannot sue him for child support, but the biological father of the child was also never required to pay child support as he was not recognized as the boy’s parent." -- Wassermaus (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Momzer / Mamzer?

I recently came across a stub page for "Momzer" which has been made little progress since being created in April, and which actually included the word "mamzer" (though originally unlinked) once near the end. Is there a difference, or is this just a case of a particularly extensive typo? --Arvedui 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected it here. Jon513 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not so much a typo as someone not knowing that there is a standard transliteration. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence

New user Lobbuss (welcome!) removed the sentence:

However, most poskim dispute this ruling.

In regards to to Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum ruling that children born to a married woman artificially inseminated with the sperm of a man that is not her husband are mamzerim. I copied the line for the Hebrew wikipedia when I translated it some time ago [3]. While of course the Hebrew wikipedia cannot be used as a source, in this case I see no reason to doubt it. In fact it seems to me that Rabbi Teitelbaum ruling is quite extreme and not saying that he is a minority would be distorting the facts. Perhaps a {{cite}} or a {{fact}} should be used. I am not prepared to sift through all the posekim but perhaps someone else is. Jon513 12:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe a source is required for the claim that "most poskim" dispute Rabbi Teitelbaum's ruling given that the ruling itself is sourced. I'm adding the maintenance tag to the question as you suggested since this is an appropriate way to handle the situation. However. I believe the editor who removed the sentence has a legitimate point and is acting appropriately within the WP:RS policy. A source really is needed for a claim contradicting a sourced POV, particularly an assertion that it's a minority or otherwise dubious. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I have a feeling it will stay there for a while. Unless someone gets in the mood to start looking up poskim. It is clear to me that the hebrew quoted Rabbi Teitelbaum in order to show the extremes of halakha not to show a normative view. If the sentence is removed the whole paragraph has to go also. Jon513 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

R' Moshe and Satmar Rov

According to the opinion of Rabbi Moses Feinstein a product of artificial insemination from a mamzer is not a mamzer; there are, however, those that disagree with him.

In a related ruling, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum declared that children born to a married woman artificially inseminated with the sperm of a man that is not her husband are mamzerim. There are poskim who dispute this ruling. [1]

This is unclear. The makhlokos between Reb Moshe and The Satmar Rov was mainly on the point of whether or not artificial insemination from a man not her husband is a mamzer or not. The Satmar Rov held that yes, and Reb Moshe held that not. I think the two sentences should be combined together. Artificial insemination from a mamzer, which Reb Moshe permits, is really an agav orchay (by product) of his shita in the main makhlokos. Also, the bases of the makhlokes is the Ta"z in Yorei Deah 195. Either way, I don't want to edit it without permission, so I'll wait for aproval from the chevra here. If you want me to do it, I'd be happy to; let me know on my talk page Lobbuss 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no chevra that decides what can be written or who can write it. No one owns any article; if you think you can improve an article just go ahead and do it. I only ask that you please cite your sources. And if we think that we can do a better job, we'll change it - that's how wikipedia works. Jon513 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the talk page to Mamzer in relation to your edits. Please discuss your changes first there before changing the article again. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Tagging unsourced material as a background to understand the discussion. Again Welcome. Jon513 12:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no chevra that decides what can be written or who can write it. No one owns any article; if you think you can improve an article just go ahead and do it. I only ask that you please cite your sources. And if we think that we can do a better job, we'll change it - that's how wikipedia works. Jon513 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can I just edit it, or should I ask here first? Lobbuss 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on March 26, removed the phrase "However, most poskim dispute this ruling." without comment. I reinserted it because I believe that it is correct. Shira, correctly, added a {{fact}} to it because she wanted a source. Later I found a source. Now you are talking about doing other changes which I do not object to so long as they are well sourced. Jon513 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

second class citizen?

Redking10 (talk · contribs) changed:

Other than with respect to the laws of marriage and other minor differences a mamzer is a full-fledged Jew. A mamzer is not a second class citizen and is treated with as much respect as other Jews. It is written in the Talmud that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant high priest (Kohen Gadol)".

to

The laws of Deuteronomy deny a mamzer at least one fundamental right; A mamzer cannot marry a non-mamzer Jew. Thus, a mamzer is a permanent second class citizen. That said, it is written in the Talmud that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant high priest (Kohen Gadol)".

I changed it back. Saying that a mamzer is a second class citizen when it is not stated by any of the original sources is POV. It is likewise not accurate to say that widows are second class citizen because they are forbidden to marry the high priest which is ridiculous ("Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise--for if they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry--" Exodus 22:21-22). Also the laws mamzer are stated in even haEzer, and Laws of Forbidden Relations namely chapter that deal exclusively with who can marry whom. Jon513 10:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also just added a source. Jon513 10:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Before I edited the entry, it stated "A mamzer is not a second class citizen." This claim is also not found in the original source material. Hence, by your reasoning, it is POV and should be deleted. However, the original materials do deny mamzerim the right to marry Jews who are not Mamzerim. The American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/31/S0203100.html) defines a second-class citizen as "A person considered inferior in status or rights in comparison with some others." That is a basic definition. Mamzerim do not have full rights, hence they are second-class citizens, even if only in one respect.Redking10 12:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found a source and added it. It is also found in the Gur Aryeh on the verse is Deuteronomy. also "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant high priest (Kohen Gadol)" is pretty explicit original source. It is not correct to say that mamzerim are denied the "right" to marry non-mamzerim any more than non-mamzerim are denied the right to marry them. Would you say that Kohenim are second-class citizen because they are denied the right to marry a divorced woman? Jon513 15:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the source saying that "is not a second class citizen and is treated with as much respect as other Jews." is wishful thinking and POV, it is tryign to promote a positive view of religious practices. Anyone interested will be able to find sources showing that mamzers are ostracised and treated as 2nd class citizens in many more religious and conservative communities, just as "bastards" were in european societies well into the 20th century. Oblivioid (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that expose this viewpoint I would love to see it. We are always open to ways to improve the encyclopedia. As it stands now, it seems to me, that the mishna in hoyayot is pretty explicit in presenting a view that mamzarim were not consider second class citizens in the mishanic times. Jon513 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of mamzer?

According to Shaye D. Cohen, the Mishnah states the the offspring of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish (gentile) father is a mamzer (M. Yevamot 7:5) ("The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law," AJS Review, Spring 1985, p.32). This contradicts what is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.166.54 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That mishnah is according to a minority opinion who says that if a slave or a non-Jew has intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite, the child is a mamzer. The halakhah, however, is that the child is legitimate (see Yev. 45a; ,Kidd. 3:12; see also Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger on that mishnah).

The article presents the current laws of the mamzer and does not present historical opinions that are no longer practiced. This is the common with many articles on halakhah. In general only especially notable historical opinions are noted. Jon513 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.166.54 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Married woman, Nonmarried Gentile.

"The child of a married woman and a Gentile man is not a mamzer. However, the child of a woman who is mamzer is a mamzer regardless of who is the father."

Is this actually true, what's the specific source of this? --CheskiChips (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Shulchan Aruck even haezer 4:19:

A gentile or slave that sleeps with a mamzeret the child is a mammer. If they sleep with a Jewish woman - whether she is unmarried or married, the child is kosher.

It think all of the laws in the law section can be sourced directly from the shulchan aruch. Jon513 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I am confused on what it's saying. Is it saying that if the woman was married to a Jew...and then has relations with a gentile...the child is not a mamzer? Which is the first way I took it when reading it...which doesn't seem right. Or is it saying if the gentile was 'bastardized' in the Christian sense, the child can still only acquire its status from the mother? I'll look at it more closely and consider making revision for clarification.--CheskiChips (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dereisa source for this I believe is in this weeks Torah portion, EMOR. --CheskiChips (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is saying that a jewish woman that is married to a jewish man that has relations with a gentile the offspring is not a mamzer. In halaha there is no status of mamzer for a gentile. Jon513 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"A Kohen can become defiled for a close relative who dies even if the deceased is a mamzer" As a non Jew this sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Could someone reword it? Richerman (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A kohen is a Jewish male claiming descendent from Moses's brother Aaron through the male line. A kohen still functions as a priest in certain respects in contemporary traditional Judiam. One of these respects is that a contemporary kohen remains subject to a number of Biblical injunctions on the conduct of priests. One of these is an injunction against priests coming into contact with a dead body (Leviticus 21:1-2). This injunction prevents a contemporary kohen from attending most funerals. Leviticus 21:2 provides exceptions for the funerals of certain near relatives, which still apply. If one of these relatives had mamzer status, a kohen could still attend the funeral. Best, --24.91.183.35 (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Manzer

Some consider this word as an equivalent of public woman, a prostitute, and this can be the reason why the Bible states that Mamzer descendency is excluded from cult until the seventh generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.39.20 (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If, as some sources claim, mamzer status lasts indefinitely and not just for several generations, why haven't they expanded to become the majority of the Jewish people? PatGallacher (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Children born of a married woman's adultery"

Quote from the above section: "A child born of a married woman's adultery is a mamzer. The child of a single woman and a man she could lawfully have married is not a mamzer (Shulchan Aruch E. H. 4.) It is irrelevant if the man is married or not. If one of the parents is not Jewish the child is not a mamzer."

The first sentence is open, without qualification. Three sentences later we find that there is the qualification that both parents must be Jewish. The structure of the sentences could be improved so that the reader is not initially misled. I suggest the following for the first sentence: "A child born of a married Jewish woman's adultery with a Jewish man is a mamzer." The other sentences stay as they are and thus the final sentence emphasizes the Jewish parents criterion. Akld guy (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought Jewishness passed from the mother after the Romans dispersed the Jews from Israel. I presumed it was to avoid/ignore mamzers. Knowing human nature it appears virtually 100% of any population would be mamzers in a few generations. If a mamzer only marry a nonJew, then soon they population of Israel would have been nonmarriable. There must have been a lot of pressure to avoid branding someone a mamzer - I suspect a lot of mamzers were snuck through. Mathematically I suspect there are no Jews left today. 2601:181:8301:4510:2C98:65EA:A621:4494 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mamzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213175757/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/nevins_concurringmamzerut.pdf to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/nevins_concurringmamzerut.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825071433/http://www.acri.org.il/hebrew-acri/engine/story.asp?id=290 to http://www.acri.org.il/hebrew-acri/engine/story.asp?id=290

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Jewish View on Illegitimacy

Simeon of Timnah is noted for saying: "A bastard is anyone who is born from an [illegal] union for which his parents are liable to kareth", and which teaching comes to exclude a single parent who gave birth to a child outside of wedlock, and whose child is often wrongly called "bastard" under common law. This teaching has been conveyed by later rabbis in their Codes of Jewish Law, such as by the great rabbi and philosopher, Maimonides (Mishne Torah). It is common knowledge and is taught as such in the Yeshivas.

References

---Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Prostitutes

I'd say in the Bible, the term 'prostitute' refers to gentile, pagan women, who worshiped idols of other cultures, and not exactly 'strumpets'; 'prostitution' means mostly 'idolatry'; thus the 'mamzer' can be interpreted both as born from an strumpet, or from a pagan woman, I'd endorse the first, form the hard punishment of being excluded for ten generations from the religious assembly. Bible is definitive: jews are kids born from a jewish woman. When one of patriarchs meets a relative, 'disguised in a prostitute dress', this referred probably to a woman wearing dresses from another culture, another religion. The only case I remember of an 'official dress' for strumpets was in the times of Felipe 2, king of Spain, or around these days, when only strumpets were allowed wearing clothes with cleavage. Blessings + — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.56.7 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory sentences citing the same source

The "Halakhic Definitions" section currently contains the following two sentences, one in its first and one in its last paragraph, both of which cite the exact same source:

According to the Shulchan Aruch, a mamzer can only be produced by two Jews.

However, the child of a female mamzer and a non-Jewish man is a mamzer.

The article is of high importance and the subject matter is extremely far outside of my expertise or comfort zone, so I have not edited the section, but the sentences as they currently stand are blatantly contradictory. I would appreciate attention from a topic expert.

Thepsyborg (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Thepsyborg (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References