JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Binyamin Yisrael on June 27, 2013, 10:28:20 PM
-
That animal Ariel Sharon did so. Does that make his sons from his second wife mamzerim?
-
That animal Ariel Sharon did so. Does that make his sons from his second wife mamzerim?
My initial reaction is that it is permitted. If the first wife is dead I don't see any reason for this to be forbidden.
Obviously it is forbidden if the mans wife is still alive.
http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5770/achareimos.html
The Reason The Torah Prohibits Marrying Two Sisters
These divrei Torah were adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Tapes on the weekly portion: Tape # 678, Tochacha: Is Ignorance Bliss? Good Shabbos!
Parshas Achrei Mos contains the list of forbidden sexual relationships. Vayikra 18:18 contains the Biblical prohibition for a person to marry his wife's sister. In expressing this prohibition, the Torah uses the word "litzror" [to make a co-wife].
The Ramba"n comments: This verb expresses the reason for this prohibition. Most of the forbidden relations (e.g. -- mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc.) were simply forbidden without stating a reason. However, the Torah does state a reason by a sister-in-law, namely that it is inappropriate to make two sisters into co-wives of the same husband. These two women should ideally love one another. Placing them into a situation of rivalry will inevitably cause those who should have been best of friends to have a hostile relationship with one another.
The Ramba"n continues: The Torah does not state this regarding a daughter or mother of one's wife, because they remain forbidden even after his wife's death (unlike the situation with the sisters, where a sister is permitted to marry her brother-in-law if her sister -- his first wife – dies). The Ramba"n distinguishes between the "ervah" of two sisters and that of other relations. Here the Torah did not forbid the marriage because of "ervah" but because of the social harm it would bring to the sibling relationship, which at any rate is subject to rivalry. To avoid aggravating that natural sibling rivalry to intolerable levels, the Torah forbade a man to simultaneously be married to two sisters. The proof that this prohibition is different than all the others (and that it is not because of "ervah" or "she'er basar" [close relationship] but for some other reason) is the very fact that the prohibition expires upon the death of one of the sisters.
We learn two novel ideas from this Ramba"n.
First, we see from the fact that the Torah includes this prohibition in the chapter of forbidden relationships (arayos) that the Torah treats the matter of causing sisters to hate one another with the same severity as it treats the cardinal sin of arayos.
Second, we see how important it is in the eyes of the Torah for children to get along with one another. The Torah bans two sisters from marrying the same person for the simple reason that the Torah does not want siblings to fight with each other. Whether we are ourselves siblings or whether we are parents who have children who are siblings, we all know that this is indeed a very big challenge.
-
http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=2088
The Torah forbids marrying one’s wife’s sister as long as the wife is alive. Even if one divorces his wife, it is forbidden for him to marry his wife’s sister. This applies even to his wife’s half-sister, regardless of whether they share the same father or the same mother. If one’s wife dies, Heaven forbid, then he may marry her sister.
The Shulhan Aruch (Eben Ha’ezer 15), based on the Mishna in Masechet Yebamot (24), discusses the case of a man who hears that his wife passed away, and then marries her sister. Sometime later, he hears that the wife had actually not died at the time when he married her sister, but has since passed on. In such a case, any children born to the second wife while the first wife was alive have the status of Mamzerim, since they were born from a forbidden relationship. Children born after the first wife had died, however, are ordinary Jews and do not have the status of Mamzerim.
This Halacha should remind us of the complexity and severity of the laws regarding Yihus – ascertaining valid lineage before marrying. As in the case described above, marrying hastily before assuring proper Yihus could have disastrous results, to which we may apply the proverb, “Me’uvat Lo Yuchal Litkon” (“A corrupt deed cannot be corrected” – Kohelet 1:15). One must therefore ascertain before marrying that the marriage is permissible.
Summary: It is forbidden to marry one wife’s sister – even after divorcing the wife – unless the wife dies, Heaven forbid.
-
What if he divorces his wife and she dies after they get divorced? Could he marry her then?
I thought maybe Omri Sharon was a mamzer. I say this because he had a child out of wedlock. If he was a mamzer, he couldn't have married the mother. When I was at Hebrew University in 2001, Omri Sharon's son had his brit at the Hyatt Hotel in French Hill where a few week later, Rechavam Ze'evi, HY"D was murdered by an Arab Muslim Nazi. So I saw all the security near the hotel which is near Mount Scopus during the brit.
-
Summary: It is forbidden to marry one wife’s sister – even after divorcing the wife – unless the wife dies, Heaven forbid.
If one violates this, will their son be a mamzer?
-
If one violates this, will their son be a mamzer?
According to what I found it appears that if the wife legitimately dies a man is permitted to marry her sister. Otherwise any children born of the relationship are considered Mamzers.
-
What if his wife died but they didn't have a Halachic wedding or they were just b/f and g/f?
There are rabbis that rule that a woman who had a Deform wedding but then had a Non-Halachic divorce, can marry another man without a real get and the kids won't be mamzerim. Otherwise we would have a mamzer epidemic with all the Deform weddings that end in Non-Halachic divorces. Deforms don't even have Deform divorces. They just do the civil nonsense.
-
What if his wife died but they didn't have a Halachic wedding or they were just b/f and g/f?
There are rabbis that rule that a woman who had a Deform wedding but then had a Non-Halachic divorce, can marry another man without a real get and the kids won't be mamzerim. Otherwise we would have a mamzer epidemic with all the Deform weddings that end in Non-Halachic divorces. Deforms don't even have Deform divorces. They just do the civil nonsense.
Not only Deformed but CONservative as well are invalid halachically
-
Once I heard that any wedding was real but only Orthodox divorces are real. I thought even civil marriages were real. I've even heard people claim that people that lived together would need a real get. If that was the case, we would have a mamzer crisis in this country as much as we have an intermarriage crisis.
On the other hand, there were some stupid teenagers in Israel that pretended to get married. The boy gave the girl a ring and said "Harei At..." and she accepted the ring. When it was found out that they had sex, the rabbis ruled that since the "wedding" was consummated she would require a Halachic divorce in order to be able to marry anyone else later in life.
-
Yes it is permitted. I actually know of such a case other then Ariel Sharon.
-
This is also the premise of the "Fill The Void" movie. A man's wife during childbirth. His mother in law (desperate to keep the widower husband in Israel with her grandson) suggest that the widower marry his sister-in-law. She is repelled by the notion but ultimately falls in love with him. And she becomes the stepmother of his nephew. In a way, it worked- as her stepson was her own flesh and blood nephew.
It's just a movie, but I too have heard of these cases. I met a man whose wife died and his second wife was her sister. She was raising her own nieces and nephews as her own children.
Definitely not looked upon in the same contexts as yibum. It's completely optional for a man to marry his dead wife's sister.
-
This hebrew article
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet2/14-2.htm
says that it is permitted to marry the sister of the wife after the first wife died
and provides an example in the Talmud of Yosef the Cohain in Moed katan 23a who did so.
Binyamin Yisrael added:
That animal Ariel Sharon did so. Does that make his sons from his second wife mamzerim?
The question you have to answer first was Ariel Sharon halachicly Jewish because if he wasn't the children would have the status of all children born through intermarriage.
-
Edu I heard the same thing from a number of people. I heard Sharon was not halahically Jewish.
Also a "Mamzer" is not defined as someone born out of wedlock. A Mamzer is someone born from certain forbidden relationships (such a incest, or a married women being with someone not her husband).
-
Edu I heard the same thing from a number of people. I heard Sharon was not halahically Jewish.
Also a "Mamzer" is not defined as someone born out of wedlock. A Mamzer is someone born from certain forbidden relationships (such a incest, or a married women being with someone not her husband).
Nobody in this thread suggested Mamzer was anyone other than a person born of a forbidden relationship. Although many commonly mis-represent it as an alternate term for a 'bastard' which means one born out of wedlock.
-
Nobody in this thread suggested Mamzer was anyone other than a person born of a forbidden relationship. Although many commonly mis-represent it as an alternate term for a 'bastard' which means one born out of wedlock.
I thought maybe Omri Sharon was a mamzer. I say this because he had a child out of wedlock.
And Muman their are forbidden relationships that doesn't qualify one a mamzer either. For example (Fill in Male and Female yourself)- a Jew with a non-Jew. A Jew with a Jew but before marriage. AND a Jew and a Jew during marriage but at the time of her menstruation and the period when she is Nidda and forbidden for her husband. It if forbidden to be at that time until she goes to Mikwah BUT a child of that relationship is not a Mamzer either.
-
It if forbidden to be at that time until she goes to Mikwah BUT a child of that relationship is not a Mamzer either.
Interestingly, I just finished listening to a lecture and the speaker did mention the children born to a woman who was niddah at the time of conception. How the children born in this manner tend to be rebellious and predisposed to evil.
-
In the Barbra Stressiand movie Yentl, brought this up in the middle of the film. The only movie she made that I liked.
-
And Muman their are forbidden relationships that doesn't qualify one a mamzer either. For example (Fill in Male and Female yourself)- a Jew with a non-Jew. A Jew with a Jew but before marriage. AND a Jew and a Jew during marriage but at the time of her menstruation and the period when she is Nidda and forbidden for her husband. It if forbidden to be at that time until she goes to Mikwah BUT a child of that relationship is not a Mamzer either.
I don't quite understand what Binyamin was trying to say in that post. The status of Mamzer is given to the children produced from a forbidden relationship. The man and woman who had the child don't get the status of Mamzerim according to my understanding.
I thought maybe Omri Sharon was a mamzer. I say this because he had a child out of wedlock.
So, Binyamin, what did you mean by saying that Omri would be a mamzer because he had a child out of wedlock? Was this a mistake or am I missing something? Or were you trying to say because Ariel (Omris father) may have had a forbidden relationship that would make Omri a mamzer?
-
From Aish.com on 'Who is a Mamzer?':
http://www.aish.com/atr/Who_is_a_Mamzer.html
Who is a Mamzer?
My mother has, unfortunately, been through a number of marriages and other living-together arrangements. This has produced a hodge-podge of children from different fathers. I actually was conceived through an affair that my mother had, and she has never revealed the identity of my biological father. To make a long story short, I was speaking with my friend (who wears a kippah) and he said that I should check out that I may be a mamzer. I remember that my grandma would call someone a "mamzer" as a kind of curse. The Internet didn't help much, because I don't know what information is reliable. Can you please help set things straight?
The Aish Rabbi Replies:
A child is a mamzer if he is the result of relations with a Jewish man, that a Jewish woman is forbidden to marry – e.g. the result of incest, or an adulterous affair.
A child that was born to an unmarried woman, is simply considered a child born out of wedlock, and is not a mamzer. However, if the woman was married at the time of conception, then that is adultery and the child is a mamzer.
A woman must be sure to receive a proper Get if she is being divorced, otherwise she is still considered married and subsequent children are considered as mamzers. It should be stressed that a civil divorce does not sever the marriage from the Jewish point of view. Only a Get can create a proper divorce. (see: www.aish.com/jl/l/m/103423494.html)
A Jew who is a mamzer must keep all the commandments just like any other Jew, but he does have severe limitations regarding whom he can marry.
That's the legal aspect. The philosophical aspect raises the question: Why is the mamzer punished for the parents' mistake? The answer is that adultery (or incest, which also produces a mamzer) is one of the most terrible crimes, and the reality is that while people will sometimes hurt themselves, they will think much more carefully about hurting their children. So this is a deterrent factor.
The soul of a mamzer, for reasons unbeknownst to us mortals, must undergo the limitations of being a mamzer for the purpose of fulfilling his mission in the world. The circumstances that each individual finds himself in are directly related to his unique mission. For some it may be a physical handicap; for others, a metaphysical one. The mamzer is not paying for his parents' iniquities, he is being given a specific challenge for his own growth.
I think the key for you at this point is to try to find out what really happened. The question of whether you are a mamzer depends on a number of things:
1) Was your mother born of a Jewish mother?
2) Was she married to a Jew at the time she had relations your father?
4) If she was married to a Jew, was the original wedding ceremony "kosher" in Jewish law?
5) If yes, was she divorced from her first husband according to Jewish law with a "get," or was it a civil divorce?
As you can see, there are many, many details of Jewish law pertaining to this, and anything said in this email cannot be used to determine a practical application in any specific case. A potentially wrong answer could have serious long-term consequences for the people involved.
Bottom line: If you have any questions about your status, or about that of any particular young woman, you need to speak with a reliable authority in Jewish law. If you tell me what city you're located in, I'll be happy to recommend someone you could contact.
-
Interestingly, I just finished listening to a lecture and the speaker did mention the children born to a woman who was niddah at the time of conception. How the children born in this manner tend to be rebellious and predisposed to evil.
I heard it too but I wouldn't take it too seriously. These are mainly Kabbalistic/Hassidut and in reality no one is predisposed to anything. Yes a women MUST go to the Mikwah after she is Nidda and cannot be with the man during that period but the real damage is mainly on her and the man (punishment of KARET which is very severe) perhaps nothing to do with the child born of such a relationship.
-
Edu I heard the same thing from a number of people. I heard Sharon was not halahically Jewish.
Also a "Mamzer" is not defined as someone born out of wedlock. A Mamzer is someone born from certain forbidden relationships (such a incest, or a married women being with someone not her husband).
I think you have him confused with Rafael Eitan, whose mother was a Sabbatniki Russian. This is the guy that was swept into the sea at the Ashdod Port. Barry Chamish says it was a murder. He's not to be confused with the traitor Rafi Eitan who was the moser that handed over Pollard. Rafi Eitan was from the Pensioners Party. Rafael Eitan was from Tzomet and was a minister under Netanyahu's first government.
-
I think you have him confused with Rafael Eitan, whose mother was a Sabbatniki Russian. This is the guy that was swept into the sea at the Ashdod Port. Barry Chamish says it was a murder. He's not to be confused with the traitor Rafi Eitan who was the moser that handed over Pollard. Rafi Eitan was from the Pensioners Party. Rafael Eitan was from Tzomet and was a minister under Netanyahu's first government.
Different cases and no I know for sure about Sharon and not confused with Eitan.
-
I thought maybe Omri Sharon was a mamzer. I say this because he had a child out of wedlock.
I wrote that because I thought if Omri was a mamzer (Because his father married the sister of his first wife.), he couldn't marry a Jewish woman unless she herself was a mamzera. So I thought being the immoral animal that the Sharons are, he just went with a woman without being married (Like UMM HMM people do.).
-
So other than yibum, a woman is forbidden from marrying her first husband's brother, right?
Let's say a woman has a son from her husband. After she gave birth, her husband dies. If the widow marries his brother, would kids from such a union be mamzerim?
Also, if she got divorced from her husband, if she marries his brother, would the kids be mamzerim?
-
I wrote that because I thought if Omri was a mamzer (Because his father married the sister of his first wife.), he couldn't marry a Jewish woman unless she herself was a mamzera. So I thought being the immoral animal that the Sharons are, he just went with a woman without being married (Like UMM HMM people do.).
If you think about it...if the wedding took place in Israel, the Beis Din would NOT have allowed a marriage that would produce a mamzer. So when Sharon married his dead wife's sister and it was allowed in Israel and recognized under the auspices of the Orthodox religious courts, it would be because it was allowed. Considering the first wife is dead.
As far as your yibbum question. No, a woman who who gave birth to her dead husband's child is forbidden from marrying her brother in law. The entire reason of a yibbum marriage is so that the man's lineage go on. But if the man had already been fruitful, then there is no reason for the marriage to take place and it should not- nor would it be allowed. This is why most communities advocate for the chalitza and completely discourage a yibbum. It is said that "To marry a brother's widow for her beauty was regarded by Abba Saul as equivalent to incest (Yeb. 39b)". To answer your question, Leviticus 18:16 has the prohibition where a man must NOT be with his sister-in-law. It is forbidden and the yibbum is only (technically) supposed to be a matter of duty (which is discouraged because rarely would a man see it as a matter of duty. If there is any attraction and enjoyment of the wife, then there would be a very thin line of incest).
Keep in mind that not every man fits the same requirements for a Yibbum. If the man already had children from another marriage- then his widow is not required to marry her brother in law.
If the dead husband and his brother have different fathers- then the widow would not marry her brother-in-law. If the man or the woman is physically incapable of having children, etc.. etc.. Other type of situations apply.
I would suggest if you want to ask a Rabbi as AskMoses so they can explain it further if you're interested.
-
Aren't we talking about levirate marriages here?
-
Yes, levirate marriage or the yibbum. Also, over mamzerut and also the non-levirate scenario of if a widow who had children can marry her brother-in-law...
-
Aren't we talking about levirate marriages here?
No, Leverite marriage is when a man must marry the wife of his dead brother if he had not had children with her...
http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter24.html
24. Levirate Marriage and Chalitzah - Yibbum ve-Chalitzah
If a man dies childless his oldest brother (on the father's side) is commanded to marry his wife (even though ordinarily marrying a brother's wife is incest), as it says "If brothers live together and one of them dies and has no child the dead man's wife shall not marry an outsider; her brother-in-law shall take her for his wife".1 In principle the brother need not betroth her since she is automatically his, but the sages instituted betrothal in such cases. Once he has married her she is like his wife in all respects.a
If they do not want to marry they must perform the ceremony of chalitzah, as it says "And if the man does not want to take his sister-in-law she shall go up to the elders... and pull his shoe off his foot (chalitzah)... and say `Thus shall be done to the man who will not build his brother's house'".2 Afterwards she is like his divorced wife.b Until they marry or perform chalitzah she is forbidden to marry anyone else, as it says "The dead man's wife shall not marry an outsider".l,c
Sources:
1. Deut. 25:5; see Lev. 18:16 a. 1:1,15; 2:1,6
2. Deut. 25:7-9 b. 1:2,13; 2:10
c. 2:18
-
No, Leverite marriage is when a man must marry the wife of his dead brother if he had not had children with her...
Oh yes, I got confused, we are discussing various terms. Yibbum was discussed but it is not the subject of the thread. The thread itself is about a man marrying his dead wife's sister.
So from a man marrying his dead wife's sister, to mamzerut to Yibbum and chalizah.
-
Israeli heart- You wrote that it is "FORBIDDEN". I would like a source for that. Yes Halitza is to performed in a situation where the brother (of the man who did not have children) refuses to marry her. BUT in the case that she does have a child and the father dies I don't see why it would be FORBIDDEN for her to marry his brother. I wouldn't think it would be normal yet not forbidden and the children would most definitely not be mamzerim.
-
Israeli heart- You wrote that it is "FORBIDDEN". I would like a source for that. Yes Halitza is to performed in a situation where the brother (of the man who did not have children) refuses to marry her. BUT in the case that she does have a child and the father dies I don't see why it would be FORBIDDEN for her to marry his brother. I wouldn't think it would be normal yet not forbidden and the children would most definitely not be mamzerim.
Leviticus 18:16.
Also explained here: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/468337/jewish/Prohibited-Marriages.htm (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/468337/jewish/Prohibited-Marriages.htm)
(e) His sister, half-sister, his full or half-brother’s wife (divorced or widowed) except for Levirate marriage with the widow of a childless brother. and the full or half-sister of his divorced wife in her lifetime.
And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred.
There are cases where a Yibbum is not required. Let's say a man and a woman were married for 50 years and never had kids. Now the widow is 95 years old, and her dead husband's brother is 97. Would there be a Yibbum required? NO. Because she is no longer able to bear children and therefore Yibbum does not apply. Likewise if a woman who can bear children becomes a widow but her brother-in-law had an accident and is known to not be able to sire children, then a Yibbum is not required either (but a chalitza is preformed according to some rulings). If a man died childless, his wife is not required to marry her maternal half-brother, because the brothers do not share the same father. And thus Yibbum is not required.
If a man had Jewish children from a previous relation and then marries a woman but then died while she never had kids, she would not be required to marry her brother-in-law because her dead husband already had children and thus Yibbum would not apply. Furthermore under Leviticus 18:16- she is NOT permitted to marry her brother-in-law anyways.
Please note, that the article from Chabad also talks about how it is prohibited to marry a sister-in-law IF the wife is alive or divorced, as we have discussed in the thread.
I'm not just making it up, I have studied and these are my conclusions based of studies and lectures, just have to gather my sources. In any events, most of my sources for this also are found in the Mishneh Torah, apart from knowing the prohibition in Leviticus. But it would be hard to pin point the exact location of where I get my information. Also, I am uncertain if a brother-in-law and the widow sharing the status of sh'niyot under Rabbinical prohibition carries the same consequences under gillui arayot such as mamzerut would. But searching about it online, I found this as well:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_13339.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_13339.html)
marriage with his brother's widow (except in the case of the levirate widow) or divorced wife: such marriages are punishable by karet (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah, 2:1, 9; Sh. Ar., EH 15:22, 26; 44:6; see also *Levirate Marriage)
Furthermore, in Mishne Torah Chapter 1 Halacha 22:
"If she gives birth [different rules apply]: If the child dies, even on the day it was born, the yavam should divorce her, [give her] a get and perform chalitzah with her. 57 [Only] then, is she permitted to marry another man. If the child lives for 30 days after its birth,58 [the child] is considered to be viable, and there is no need for a divorce, for [relations between the two are forbidden by] a severe prohibition].59
If anything we see that in case of a Yibbum, chalitza and divorce under some situations are extremely prefered, as it says "relations between the two are forbidden by a severe prohibition"
I have also found this as well: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558049/jewish/Yibum-and-Chalitzah.htm (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558049/jewish/Yibum-and-Chalitzah.htm)
Sexual relations between a brother and sister-in-law are forbidden by the Torah unless within the context of the mitzvah of Yibum. For example, if the widow's husband did not die childless, it would be forbidden for them to marry. There is an opinion expressed in the Talmud that if the Levirate couple are intimate with each other and their intention is not to fulfill the mitzvah, rather they are attracted to each other's beauty or personality, then they have transgressed the prohibition against forbidden incestuous relations!
-
"And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred."
Before I read the rest I will stop here (for now) Chalizah is not preferable. It is in the situation where if he refuses he goes through a humiliating procedure where she spitts on his shoes (which was something embarrassing especially back in the day).
-
What if a man has a baby with his brother's widow, and the baby grows up? Are they allowed to continue to be married and have more kids or is it once the baby is born, they are not allowed to stay together?
-
"And, as I noted in my previous message...Yibbum leads to the uncomfortable feeling of being dangerously close to incest because even though the man would be obliged to marry his sister-in-law out of duty, to be attracted to her and want to be with her as a man would desire a woman, it would be LIKE incest. So the Chalizah is preferred."
Before I read the rest I will stop here (for now) Chalizah is not preferable. It is in the situation where if he refuses he goes through a humiliating procedure where she spitts on his shoes (which was something embarrassing especially back in the day).
There is an answer for that too:
As I noted previously- in cases where the brother-in-law and the widow desire to marry because they like each other, desire each other- then they are actually going against the laws of incest. Because the Yibbum must be done for the sake of Heaven. It is like a sacrifice where the man must marry the widow ONLY to bring progeny under the name of his brother. In the past, this was preferred but today it is so rare that people would actually see it this way and not see it as a way of pleasure and love that a Chalitza is preferred. In other words, to avoid two people who do not have the right intentions, it is preferable that they do a Chalizta instead of the Yibbum.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Liturgy_Ritual_and_Custom/Halitzah.shtml?p=1 (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Liturgy_Ritual_and_Custom/Halitzah.shtml?p=1)
In the rabbinic sources the opinion is expressed that while it is clear from the biblical passage that the ideal is for the levir to marry the widow, "nowadays" he should not be allowed do so but must release her through halitzah. The reason for the change is that since levirate marriage involves a man marrying his brother's widow, an act otherwise forbidden, the levir must be motivated solely by his wish to carry out his religious obligation and it can no longer be assumed that the levir's intention is "for the sake of heaven." Another opinion is recorded, however, that levirate marriage has priority over halitzah. The difference of opinion continued for centuries, some Sephardi and Oriental communities following the opinion which prefers levirate marriage to halitzah.
The Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel introduced the law that halitzah is always to be preferred for all Jews in the state, whatever their original practice was. Obviously, once the ban on polygamy had been established, halitzah was the only option in any event where the levir already had a wife.
A woman did have a choice to not accept the brother-in-law as her husband too. So it would have been better that the brother not suffer through the humiliation and force a woman to be in the terrible situation of becoming an agunah? In any events a Beis Din could have intervened and recommended the Chalizah. In fact, in the chapters of the Mishneh Torah, it does speak of times where the judges would recommend or not recommend a yibbum or chalitza:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960622/jewish/Chapter-Four.htm (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960622/jewish/Chapter-Four.htm)
If the appropriate advice is for them to perform yibbum, they advise him2 to perform yibbum.3 If the appropriate advice is for them to perform chalitzah - e.g., she is young and he is older, or she is older and he is young4 - they advise him to perform chalitzah.
For example, would a Yibbum be preferable if the brother in law is 65 years old and the widow is 24 or vice versa? Or if he is a eunuch? Then should a Yibbum be preferable?
-
If you think about it...if the wedding took place in Israel, the Beis Din would NOT have allowed a marriage that would produce a mamzer. So when Sharon married his dead wife's sister and it was allowed in Israel and recognized under the auspices of the Orthodox religious courts, it would be because it was allowed. Considering the first wife is dead.
Maybe they didn't have a real wedding. Sharon also buried his wife on his ranch even though Israeli law requires dead people to be buried in cemeteries. I remember hearing Kahanists say that her body should be moved to a real cemetery because Sharon removed dead bodies from the cemetery in Gush Katif to be re-buried in other cemeteries.
-
What if he divorces his wife and she dies after they get divorced? Could he marry her then?
I thought maybe Omri Sharon was a mamzer. I say this because he had a child out of wedlock. If he was a mamzer, he couldn't have married the mother. When I was at Hebrew University in 2001, Omri Sharon's son had his brit at the Hyatt Hotel in French Hill where a few week later, Rechavam Ze'evi, HY"D was murdered by an Arab Muslim Nazi. So I saw all the security near the hotel which is near Mount Scopus during the brit.
Why don't you ask a rabbi? They usually know the answers to these types of questions.
-
Interestingly, I just finished listening to a lecture and the speaker did mention the children born to a woman who was niddah at the time of conception. How the children born in this manner tend to be rebellious and predisposed to evil.
Based on what proof?
-
So other than yibum, a woman is forbidden from marrying her first husband's brother, right?
Let's say a woman has a son from her husband. After she gave birth, her husband does. If the widow marries his brother, would kids from such a union be mamzerim?
Also, if she got divorced from her husband, if she marries his brother, would the kids be mamzerim?
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at (if anything) but I really encourage you to learn Talmud. You would be in heaven. They ask all of these kind of questions and discuss all the type of rare cases you can think of. Have you tried learning before?
-
Based on what proof?
Well actually, I never said I just came up with it nor am not making any claims. I said that I heard it from my Rabbi from a lecture.
He is available by email, if you want to ask him what proof this is based on then you can ask him here: http://www.divineinformation.com/ (http://www.divineinformation.com/)
He is very nice and is open to answering those who message him, as long as it is a short message- as he gets many emails a day.
He speaks of it here.
He starts talking about niddah laws at: 30:21
He talks about what a horrible sin it is at: 31:15
He talks about children of niddah at: 34:55
He explains the children of niddah/kids of impurity: 39:27 and their souls at: 39:58 and 40:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLG2tzlBhZE
He says there are more examples, maybe you can ask him where you can get these examples.
I don't know if you have heard of the term "bnei niddah" before. Anyways this is merely what I heard in a lecture.
-
Israeli heart, these things are based on false teachings mainly from the Zohar and belief in reincarnation. We don't believe in bad souls vs good souls being born. Every person is born clean. If this somehow motivates couples to go to the mikvah, fine but true motivation should be serving G-D.
About halitza it is mainly apologetics. It is not Halacha to not be attracted to her and in fact it is very wired not to. It would be like saying a homo has an advantage of being a better husband then a normal man to his wife. Also no real bann on polygamy, the rabbanut is a joke.
-
Israeli heart, these things are based on false teachings mainly from the Zohar and belief in reincarnation. We don't believe in bad souls vs good souls being born. Every person is born clean. If this somehow motivates couples to go to the mikvah, fine but true motivation should be serving G-D.
About halitza it is mainly apologetics. It is not Halacha to not be attracted to her and in fact it is very wired not to. It would be like saying a homo has an advantage of being a better husband then a normal man to his wife. Also no real bann on polygamy, the rabbanut is a joke.
Tag,
This is simply your opinion concerning the Zohar. The Zohar is considered a major source for a lot of Chassidus and I consider it an insult that you disrespect it such without even understanding it. You call it 'false teaching' which is completely false in itself. You have never studied it and know nothing other than the lies spread by the mitnagdim.
I can supply sources even other than from the Zohar, explicitly from the Talmud which devestate your argument. Indeed the Talmud in several places suggest that there are influences which can affect a soul toward good or evil. And the Zohar takes the Talmud and looks a level deeper in the Sod (Hidden meaning of the Torah).
Your malignment of the Zohar does nothing but expose your bias.
I believe Rabbi Mizrachi is correct, and so many other Rabbis who teach the deeper meaning of the Torah. You don't have to believe it, but certainly don't call something false if you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_156.html
Shabbat Page 156A
It was recorded in R. Joshua b. Levi's notebook: He who [is born] on the first day of the week [Sunday] shall be a man without one [thing] in him — What does 'without one [thing] in him' mean? Shall we say, without one virtue?16 Surely R. Ashi said: I was born on the first day of the week! Hence it must surely mean, one vice. But Surely R. Ashi said: I and Dimi b. Kakuzta were born on the first day of the week: I am a king17 and he is the captain of thieves!18 — Rather it means either completely virtuous or completely wicked.19 [What is the reason? Because light and darkness were created on that day.]20 He who is born on the second day of the week will be bad-tempered — What is the reason? Because the waters were divided thereon.21 He who is born on the third day of the week will be wealthy and unchaste. What is the reason? Because herbs were created thereon.22 He who is born on the fourth day of the week will be wise and of a retentive memory.23 What is the reason? Because the luminaries were suspended [thereon] — He who is born on the fifth day of the week will practise benevolence. What is the reason? Because the fishes and birds were created thereon.24 He who is born on the eve of the Sabbath will be a seeker. R. Nahman b. Isaac commented: A seeker after good deeds.25 He who is born on the Sabbath will die on the Sabbath, because the great day of the Sabbath was desecrated on his account. Raba son of R. Shila observed: And he shall be called a great and holy man.26
R. Hanina said to then, [his disciples]: Go out and tell the son of Levi, Not the constellation of the day but that of the hour is the determining influence. He who is born under the constellation of the sun27 will be a distinguished28 man: he will eat and drink of his own and his secrets will lie uncovered; if a thief, he will have no success. He who is born under Venus will be wealthy and unchaste [immoral]. What is the reason? Because fire was created therein.29 He who is born under Mercury will be of a retentive memory and wise. What is the reason? Because it [Mercury] is the sun's scribe. He who is born under the Moon will be a man to suffer evil, building and demolishing, demolishing and building. eating and drinking that which is not his and his secrets will remain hidden: if a thief, he will be successful.30 He who is born under Saturn will be a man whose plans will be frustrated.31 Others say: All [nefarious] designs against him will be frustrated. He who is born under Zedek [Jupiter] will be a right-doing man [zadkan] R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Right-doing in good deeds.32 He who is born under Mars will be a shedder of blood. R. Ashi observed: Either a surgeon, a thief, a slaughterer, or a circumciser. Rabbah said: I was born under Mars.33 Abaye retorted: You too inflict punishment and kill.34
-
http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_16.html
Niddah 16b
R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25 What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'.26 The night is thus set aside27 for conception but the day is not set aside for conception. Resh Lakish stated: [The proof is] from here: But he that despiseth His ways28 shall die.29 As to Resh Lakish, how does he expound R. Johanan's text?26 — He requires it for the same exposition as that made by R. Hanina b. Papa. For R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop? Shall it produce a strong man or a weak man, a wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man?' Whereas 'wicked man' or 'righteous one' he does not mention, in agreement with the view of R. Hanina. For R. Hanina stated: Everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of God, as it is said, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear etc.30 And R. Johanan?31 — If that were the only meaning,32 Scripture should have written,33 'A man-child is brought forth'34 why then was it stated, 'was brought forth a man-child'?35 To indicate that the night36 is set aside for conception36 but the day is not set aside for conception. As to R. Johanan how does he expound the text of Resh Lakish?29 — He requires it for [an application to the same types] as those described in the Book of Ben Sira:37 'There are three [types] that I hate, yea, four that I do not love: A Scholar38 who frequents wine-shops39 [or, as others say, a scholar that is a gossip],40 a person who sets up a college in the high parts of a town,41 one who holds the membrum when making water and one who enters his friend's house suddenly'.42 R. Johanan observed:43 Even his own house.
R. Simeon b. Yohai observed: There are four [types]44 which the Holy One, blessed be He, hates, and as for me, I do not love them: The man who enters his house suddenly and much more so [if he so enters] his friend's house, the man who holds the membrum when he makes water,
http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_17.html
Niddah 17a
the man who when naked makes water in front of his bed, and the man who has intercourse in the presence of any living creature. 'Even', said Rab Judah to Samuel, 'in the presence of mice?' 'Shinena',1 the other replied, 'no; but [the reference is to] a house like that of So and so where they have intercourse in the presence of their men-servants and maidservants.2 But what was the exposition they made? — Abide ye here with3 the ass,4 implies: peoples that are like an ass. Rabbah son of R. Huna used to chase away the wasps from his curtained bed.5 Abaye drove away the flies.6 Rabba7 chased away the mosquitoes.6
R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, There are five things which [cause the man] who does them to forfeit his life and his blood is upon his own head: Eating8 peeled garlic, a peeled onion or a peeled egg, or drinking diluted liquids that9 were kept over night; spending a night in a graveyard; removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare; and blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse.
'Eating peeled garlic etc.' Even though they are deposited in a basket and tied up and sealed, an evil spirit rests upon them. This, however, has been said only where their roots or peel did not remain10 with them, but if their roots or peel remained with them there can be no objection.11
'And drinking diluted liquids that were kept over night'. Rab Judah citing Samuel explained: This applies only where they were kept over night in a metal vessel. R. Papa stated: Vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal. So also said R. Johanan: This applies only where they were kept in a metal vessel; and vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal.
'Spending a night in a graveyard', in order that a spirit of uncleanness may rest upon him.12 [This should not be done] since in consequence he might sometimes be exposed to danger.
'Removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare'. [This is dangerous] because a pregnant woman passing over them would miscarry. This, however, has been said only of a case where one removes them with a pair of scissors. Furthermore, this has been said only of a case where one removes the nails of both hands and feet. Furthermore, this has been said only in the case where one did not cut anything immediately after cutting them but if something was cut immediately after they were cut there can be no danger.13 This, however, is not [to be relied upon]. One should be on his guard in all the cases mentioned.14
Our Rabbis taught: Three things have been said about the disposal of nails: He who burns them is a pious man, he who buries them is a righteous man, and he who throws them away is a wicked man.15
'And blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse'. [This should be avoided] because a Master said: If a man has intercourse immediately after being bled, he will have feeble16 children; and if intercourse took place after both husband and wife have been bled, they will have children afflicted with ra'athan.17 Rab18 stated: This has been said only in the case where nothing was tasted after the bleeding but if something was tasted after it there can be no harm.19
R. Hisda ruled: A man is forbidden to perform his marital duty in the day-time, for it is said, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.20 But what is the proof? — Abaye replied: He might observe something repulsive in her and she would thereby become loathsome to him.
R. Huna said, Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time. Raba said, But in21 a dark house this is permitted; and a scholar22 may darken a room with his cloak and perform his marital duty. [But] we have learnt, OR SHE MUST PERFORM IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP? — Read: SHE MUST examine IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP.
Come and hear: Although [the Sages] have said, He who has intercourse in the light of a lamp is loathsome [etc.]?23 — Read: He who examines his bed24 in the light of a lamp is loathsome.25
Come and hear: And the people of the house of Monobaz26 did three things, and on account of these they were honourably mentioned: They performed their marital duties in the day-time, they examined their beds with cotton,27 and they observed the rules of uncleanness and cleanness in the case of snow. At all events, was it not here stated, 'They performed their marital duties in the day-time'? Read: They examined their beds in the day-time. This may also be supported by logical argument. For if one were to imagine [that the reading is] 'performed their marital duties', would they have been 'honourably mentioned'? — Yes, indeed;28 because owing to the prevalence29 of sleep30 she is likely to become repulsive to him.
-
Tag,
This is simply your opinion concerning the Zohar. The Zohar is considered a major source for a lot of Chassidus and I consider it an insult that you disrespect it such without even understanding it. You call it 'false teaching' which is completely false in itself. You have never studied it and know nothing other than the lies spread by the mitnagdim.
I can supply sources even other than from the Zohar, explicitly from the Talmud which devestate your argument. Indeed the Talmud in several places suggest that there are influences which can affect a soul toward good or evil. And the Zohar takes the Talmud and looks a level deeper in the Sod (Hidden meaning of the Torah).
Your malignment of the Zohar does nothing but expose your bias.
I believe Rabbi Mizrachi is correct, and so many other Rabbis who teach the deeper meaning of the Torah. You don't have to believe it, but certainly don't call something false if you have no idea what you are talking about.
And you know that I havn't studied or believed these things at once based on what? You know me?
The Talmudh actually says that a person should die the way he was born (free of sin). Those who say people are born with evil or other such things actually reminds me more of xtianity which believes that a person is born with "sin" and thus destined to hell (unless they accepted yoshka of course).
The "gilgulists" are promoting non-sense about the way people are born and die etc. Its an easy way of explaining the world for example a child born with a handicap, of-course he is just a "reincarned" soul that has to make some sort of correction. How convenient of them to explain away all these serious issues.
-
And you know that I havn't studied or believed these things at once based on what? You know me?
The Talmudh actually says that a person should die the way he was born (free of sin). Those who say people are born with evil or other such things actually reminds me more of xtianity which believes that a person is born with "sin" and thus destined to hell (unless they accepted yoshka of course).
The "gilgulists" are promoting non-sense about the way people are born and die etc. Its an easy way of explaining the world for example a child born with a handicap, of-course he is just a "reincarned" soul that has to make some sort of correction. How convenient of them to explain away all these serious issues.
Then it seems to me that you did not learn the lessons which are taught about the Talmud. The Talmud is not telling us anything like Christianity. It is telling us that we are placed in a physical world with various pre-dispositions towards things and despite this we are able to overcome them. We are not helpless pawns in this game, yet we are not all created with the same character traits or ratzon/wills. We have differences which are as plain to see as the noses on our faces. Some are ugly and some are attractive, some are smart and others not so smart. There certainly are reasons we are given the challenges we have. We are all expected to overcome these pre-dispositions and this is why the Torah is so important to help rectify the world.
I don't know why you have such a reaction to basic kabbalistic ideas which are the source of the deep meaning of Torah. I am not judging you but in my experience with you it seems you reject a good amount of the Talmud which clearly discusses these topics.
-
Muman- you know your either slow and hard of reading or your just deceiving yourself and others. No 2 ways about it. Where did I ever say anything against the Talmudh? The Talmudh is not the zohar and the Talmudh doesn't discuss or support the idea of "reincarnation". You want to believe in it, fine it is your problem but don't twist things and claim things that aren't even said or written.
-
http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id77.html
http://jtf.org/forum/index.php?topic=63722.0
-
Muman- you know your either slow and hard of reading or your just deceiving yourself and others. No 2 ways about it. Where did I ever say anything against the Talmudh? The Talmudh is not the zohar and the Talmudh doesn't discuss or support the idea of "reincarnation". You want to believe in it, fine it is your problem but don't twist things and claim things that aren't even said or written.
Hmmm... It seems you have made this an argument about gilgulim, which is not what I was addressing with the Talmud. I was addressing the concept that people can and are born with certain inclinations.
We don't believe in bad souls vs good souls being born. Every person is born clean.
What you said here contradicts clearly several portions (some of which I reproduced above) of the Talmud which discuss how certain souls are affected by actions and thoughts in this world.
The discussion of gilgulim is an entirely different discussion and I believe I have brought the sources for this belief. It is not something which was just made up and people blindly accepted, the sources go back to sources other than the Zohar (you know there are other Kabbalistic sources than Zohar). Nobody has ever said that one must accept these beliefs, as they constituted a part of Torah known as Sod (The deep insight).
I am sure you have heard this explanation of PaRDeS...
http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5764/yisro.html
In other words, Tosfos is explaining, these four rabbis meditated on one of the Names of G-d to intellectually transcend levels of Torah consciousness, to which the word "Pardes" alludes. Indeed, though the word itself means "orchard" (and is the Hebrew source of the English word "paradise" because the original paradise, Gan Aiden, was an orchard), the four letters are in fact the first letters of four other words: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod.
As it is well known, Torah can be learned on four distinct levels: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod (literally: Simple, Hint, Exegetical, and Mystery). This means that a Torah concept, like reality, has many levels of meaning, from the simple to the most sublime.
In fact, these four levels of learning also correspond to four areas of Torah learning: Mikrah (Chumash), Mishnah, Talmud, and Kabbalah, respectively. Thus, "entering" Pardes is also a process of going from one area of Torah learning to a higher one, from Pshat to Remez, to Drush, and finally to Sod.
Another way of looking at these four levels is as layers, concentric spheres that overlap each other like layers of an onion. Pshat represents the most outer, obvious layer, while Sod represents the most hidden, inner, and essential layer. In fact, Sod, being the most inner layer, is said to be enclothed by Drush, which is enclothed by Remez, all of which are enclothed by the most outer layer, Pshat.
Anyway I hope you realize that I am not desiring any conflict with you, just that I ask you to avoid rushing to calling these things 'false belief' or at least state in your "informed" opinion it is not the correct belief. I am willing to work together to bring about the truth in Torah, but bold attacks on an entire portion of Jewish belief (Chassidus) I will protest.
-
Fair enough, everyone has their own beiefs. I have personally never met an Orthodox rabbi who would say that something in the Zohar is a lie or nonsense. I think Rabbis go through yyears of study and the Zohar is one of the books they have to master. Not to mention the thin line of calling the author of the Zohar a false teacher, who would dare say it?
I happen to believe in the gilgul. Anyways, have a good Shabbos.
-
Not to mention the thin line of calling the author of the Zohar a false teacher, who would dare say it?
For example the Yaabetz (among others). The Hatam Sofer (of who'm "Orthodox Judaism" is said to be from, meaning the same people who claim to be Orthodox trace their "Orthodoxy" to the Hattam Sofer) and others as well.
-
Good points.
You have heard of Rabbi Bar-Hayim right? From Machon Shilo. I believe he proposes calling "Orthodox Judaism" Halahic Judaism (at least according to the WikiPedia page about him).
Since the term "Orthodox Judaism" came about in response to the other movements such as reform. Before that Judaism was just Judaism. I happen to agree with him, though it would be virtually impossible to change anything now since people group Judaism as "reform" "masorti/conservative" and "Orthodox". I happen to feel... "reform" and "conservatives" have their own ideas, they can call themselves whatever they want, but Judaism...the same one Moshe Rabbeinu brought us, that King David followed that the Prophets followed...THAT is real Judaism. My friend actually told me he went to a religious forum at his college and there were three men speaking on behalf of Judaism. One reform, one conservative and one Haredi. The reform man said "I am rabbi so and so and I am a Reform Jew" the other man said "I am rabbi so and so and I am a Conservative Jew" lastly, the religious rabbi said (with a pleasant smile under his black hat) "I am rabbi so and so, and I am a Jew".
Your point just reminded me of that because I had recently heard about calling Judaism "Halahic Judaism" and then you mentioned people who claim their Orthodoxy to the Hattam Sofer.
I'm sorry I've gone off topic.
-
Or Torah Judaism.
-
Or Torah Judaism.
Yes, Torah Judaism. I like to use that, Halahic Judaism too.
-
Israeliheart since you mentioned Rav Bar-Hayim and mentioned reincarnation earlier, check this out by him on reincarnation.
http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-ask-the-rav/31-general/404-is-reincarnation-a-jewish-belief-
-
Also (a lot can be said on the Zohar) but here for the lazy and those who do not like to read. Watch this short video for starters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeQmzJjGts
-
Tag,
I was already aware of everything which Rabbi Wein said in this video and it still doesn't prove anything. These discussions have been held for 100s of years and at this point, as Rabbi Wein admitted himself, the Zohar has become an integral part of much of Judaism today. As one who considers himself a Chassidic Jew I attribute Holiness to the Zohar and the derivative writings on the topics expounded within. So too does the Sephardic community attribute Holiness to the Zohar.
There are various opinions on the topic and yet this will not change the situation. From what little Zohar I have directly studied I cannot find anything which does not compute with the Tanach and Talmud.
-
That's fine, I don't have to agree with Rabbi Ber-Hayim on everything. I love to hear him speak. But Rabbi Mizrachi is my rabbi, whom I have met in person. Whom I have listened in person and whom I have received guidance from. I personally accept the Gilgul. True, I tend to lean more to Chassidut as well. Though he is not Chassidic, I attend a shul where the rabbi and his family are Chassidic.
I admire the sages who have made a study of this as well. "Measure for measure" as it is said.
-
I have stupid question? How many souls would there be if G-d keeps creating souls? I thought that there was a certain number of soul that make it to heaven? I'm pretty sure it says somewhere that Ezekiel will come back. Also Flavius Josephus recorded that the Pharisees and Essenes believed in reincarnation...
-
I have stupid question? How many souls would there be if G-d keeps creating souls? I thought that there was a certain number of soul that make it to heaven? I'm pretty sure it says somewhere that Ezekiel will come back. Also Flavius Josephus recorded that the Pharisees and Essenes believed in reincarnation...
???
1) As many as G-D allows their to be. If G-D is limitless why would their be any issues with the number of souls (or people) created and living? Just like their are now 7 Billion people (or something like that).
2) No "limit". Its not like buying tickets that can get sold out. If everyone is righteous then great if very few then very few.
3) Come back in the Resurrection? Correct, although I don't know anywhere where it singles him out. Nothing to do with "reincarnation"
4) I am almost sure he did not record such a thing, certainly not the "Pharisees" which means Torah Judaism. I would like the quoting for such a claim. This idea didn't even circulate among Jews at that time ~2,000 years ago.
-
???
1) As many as G-D allows their to be. If G-D is limitless why would their be any issues with the number of souls (or people) created and living? Just like their are now 7 Billion people (or something like that).
2) No "limit". Its not like buying tickets that can get sold out. If everyone is righteous then great if very few then very few.
3) Come back in the Resurrection? Correct, although I don't know anywhere where it singles him out. Nothing to do with "reincarnation"
4) I am almost sure he did not record such a thing, certainly not the "Pharisees" which means Torah Judaism. I would like the quoting for such a claim. This idea didn't even circulate among Jews at that time ~2,000 years ago.
Tag,
Indeed there is a belief that there are 600,000 Male Jewish souls which are the root souls of the entire Jewish nation. It is these souls which constitute the sparks of the Jewish souls alive today.
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380372/jewish/600000-Souls-600000-Letters.htm
The word "Israel" can be read as an acronym for "Yesh Shishim Ribo Otiot LaTorah", meaning: "There are six hundred thousand letters in the Torah". Therefore, Israel did not leave Egypt until there were six hundred thousand of them, in order for each soul to be "supported" by one letter in the Torah, as we have written in a number of places.
We see that G-d overlooks many serious sins but He does not overlook negligence in Torah study, as is written, "Why was the land lost? G-d has said, 'Because of their forsaking My Torah.'" (Jeremiah 9:11-12) Even though they transgressed all of the sins, G-d only accused them of negligence in Torah study. As our Sages have said regarding the verse "the voice is the voice of Jacob": (Gen. 27:22) when the voice is the voice of Jacob, that is, of Torah study, then the hands are not the those of Esau, that is, the forces of evil are powerless. But when the voice is not that of Jacob, then the hands are that of Esau and the forces of impurity dominate. Our Sages likewise explained that the reason that "Amalek came and fought with Israel at Refidim" (Ex. 17:18) was that their hands had slackened from the Torah. [This is derived from the word "Refidim" which has as its root the Hebrew word "rafa", meaning "slackening".]
Since the name "Israel" alludes to the fact that the number of letters in the Torah corresponds to the number of souls, it follows that when the Jewish People come to count their souls [take a census], the accuser comes and accuses them saying, "Master of the universe, didn't Israel only reach this size population in order to match the number of letters in the Torah which are hinted at in their name? And now they are negligent in [the Torah]!" This becomes the substance of the accusation. Israel…should awaken their fear of Heaven in order to repair their souls and spirits…
Furthermore, the word "negef", meaning "a scourge", has the same numerological value as 'Satan', the Angel of Destruction, short two. ["Negef" equals 133, while "Samael" equals 131.] The missing two allude to the two Torahs (Oral and Written). When Israel are lax in the two Torahs, two powers are added to those of the forces of evil, and it becomes "negef", a scourge, and afflicts them, G-d forbid.
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48924507.html
Each time the people are counted, the result is 600,000, more or less; in fact, the number 600,000 has become a descriptive term for the totality of the Jewish people. On a mystical level, the number 600,000 is identified with the number of souls comprising the Nation of Israel. The Talmud teaches that the arrival of the Messiah will transpire when all these souls are "complete."
The son of David will not come until all the souls in the body are complete. (Yevamot 62a)
In fact, the source goes even further, implying that the Nation of Israel is one body with 600,000 parts. That poses one obvious problem: virtually every generation from the Exodus onward outnumbers 600,000, yet this number is still used to describe the totality of the Jewish people.
Even in the desert there were more than 600,000 people; there, the number 600,000 refers to the number of men between the ages of 20 and 60. All others were not included in the tally. Are we to assume that others -- men over 60 or under 20, or women -- were of no significance?
The Zohar carries this numeric parallel even further, stating that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah which are meant to parallel the 600,000 souls. (See Zohar Hadash Shir HaShirim 74d.)
Another mystical source, the Migaleh Amukot, expands on this idea:
Every one of Israel has for his soul one letter of the 600,000 letters of the Torah ... Indeed, Israel is an acronym for yesh shishim ribo otiyot laTorah, "there are 600,000 letters in the Torah." (Section 186)
One difficulty which arises with these teachings is the fact that when the letters of the Torah are counted, there are found to be only 304,805, only slightly more than half of the number we expected to find. One way of resolving this contradiction would be to cite another mystical tradition which is found in the introduction to the Ramban's Commentary to the Torah (for the actual source see Yerushalmi Shkalim 6:1) which refers to a primordial Torah which preceded the creation of the world which was written in black and white fire.
The number of souls has nothing to do with a limitation on G-d but rather a part of the creation.
And there is a Talmudic source for the statement that Pinchas is Elijah, who is a prophet and an angel (Elijah the prophet never died).
http://www.bethisraelct.org/page.asp?pageID=%7B482EEFA0-3BC3-46CD-AC59-4F88AABB91DE%7D&displayAll=1
Pinchas and Elijah the Prophet
Question:
There is a midrash that states that Pinchas and Elijah the Prophet are the same person. What is the meaning of this?
Answer:
The same soul descended to the world twice -- once in the body of Pinchas and once in the body of Elijah.
According to the Midrash, Pinchas and Elijah the Prophet are the same person. The simplest meaning is that the same soul descended to the world twice -- once in the body of Pinchas and once in the body of Elijah.
The same statement can be found in a number of places in Midrash. What is interesting is that "Pinchas is Elijah" and "Elijah is Pinchas" are written interchangeably. When Pinchas is being discussed, the Midrash says that Pinchas is Elijah. When Elijah is being discussed, the Midrash says that Elijah is Pinchas.
Since Elijah the Prophet lived hundreds of years after Pinchas, it would apparently make more sense to say that "Elijah is Pinchas", and not the reverse. After all, Pinchas lived before Elijah, and was Pinchas before he was Elijah.
According to an explanation in the Zohar, the soul of Elijah was actually created during the Six Days of Creation. He has existed ever since as an angel, but on occasion, he descends to the world in human form, born of a mother and father.
This is why the Midrash sometimes uses the phrase "Pinchas is Elijah", even though Pinchas was born first. The essence, the soul of Elijah existed before Pinchas was born.
Elijah and Pinchas led similar lives and their paths complement each other. Pinchas is a symbol of zealousness for G-d and His commandments. He displayed self-sacrifice to prevent G-d's name from being desecrated. Elijah the Prophet is a guest at every circumcision, to witness the Jewish People imprint their bond with G-d in their flesh.
Through our single-minded commitment to fulfilling G-d's will, as epitomized by the deeds of Pinchas and Elijah, we will merit the ultimate Redemption, which will be heralded by Elijah the Prophet, who is Pinchas.
(Bereishis 1:20. Yalkut Simoni, Pinchas. Zohar, 3:15,1. Igrot Kodesh, vol. III, p. 160. Likutei Sichot vol II, p. 343.)
So Tag, it seems it is not so clear as you suggest it is. Unless you disregard a lot of sources, both Talmudic and Kabbalistic (not only Zohar).
-
Dude I glanced through it, all from the Talmud they mentioned was some ideas and then they injected their own beliefs into it. Most of the quotes I saw was from the Zohar. Bring me clear quotes from the Talmudh. I dont want to read article after article you bring only to find extremely short things NOT having to do what I even discussed or asked.
-
Elijah is who I meant. Isn't Elijah suppose to come before the Messiah? Doesn't the Messiah need to be here before the dead can be resurrected? How would Elijah get here?
-
Elijah is who I meant. Isn't Elijah suppose to come before the Messiah? Doesn't the Messiah need to be here before the dead can be resurrected? How would Elijah get here?
Elijah never died....
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/84902/jewish/What-is-Prophecy.htm
Does prophecy exist today?
The era of prophecy officially came to an end some 23 centuries ago. The last generation of prophets were those who began to prophecy before the First Holy Temple was destroyed in 423 BCE, though a number of that generation survived the 70-year Babylonian exile and lived to see the building of the Second Temple. Most famously, Ezekiel prophesied in Babylonia, and three prophets, Chaggai, Zachariah and Malachi, were members of the "Great Assembly" that led the people in the first years of the return from Babylon. Mordechai and Esther were also members of the long-lived generation that mourned the destruction of the First Temple and witnessed the building of the second. With the demise of that generation, "prophecy departed from Israel."
Nevertheless, the principle that "G-d communicates to mankind through prophecy" remains a foundation of the Jewish faith. A lesser form of prophecy, known as ruach hakodesh (divine inspiration), remains the province of the tzaddikim, the righteous men and women of all generations. According to tradition, one of the greatest prophets, Elijah, never died, and will herald the coming of the Moshiach. Moshiach himself is a prophet ("approaching the prophecy of Moses" according to Maimonides), and in the messianic era, prophecy will become a universal phenomenon -- in the words of the prophet Joel, "And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophecy; your elders shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions." And in a letter to the Jews of Yemen, Maimonides recounts an age-old tradition that "shortly before the messianic era, prophecy will return to the Jewish people."
-
Yes, Torah Judaism. I like to use that, Halahic Judaism too.
Or real Judaism. Or just plain Judaism. If something is not Torah or Halachic, it can't be Judaism.
-
Or real Judaism. Or just plain Judaism. If something is not Torah or Halachic, it can't be Judaism.
Or else Authentic Judaism.
-
The REAL thing....
-
Or as Rav Kahane said: The Authentic Jewish Idea,
http://www.jewtube.info/2010/10/jewish-idea-of-rabbi-rav-meir-kahane.html