quote:

Originally posted by rob:
Could we apply this principle to say that a gentile man with children who converts has in fact already fulfilled his mitzvah of procreation at some level?

We don't need to; it's already been discussed in the Gemara, Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch and its commentators.

The Shulchan Aruch writes in Even HaEzer Siman 1:7 that if a non-Jew had children (i.e. a son and a daughter) when he wasn't Jewish and then he AND THE CHILDREN converted, then he has fulfilled his Mitzvah of fathering children.

The Beis Shmuel (a major commentator on Even HaEzer) explains that this so even though we have the principle that a non-Jew who converts is like a new-born baby (and therefore has no relations whatsoever).

The Beis Shmuel also brings other opinions (Tosefos and Maharil) that EVEN IF THE CHILDREN DON'T CONVERT, he has still fulfilled his Mitzvha.

Whichever opinion one holds by, they are both a "Chiddush", a novel interpretation of the Halacha. A non-Jew has only 7 Mitzvos and fathering children (P'ru uR'vu) is not one of them. And yet we say that this person fiulfilled a Mitzvah while he wasn't even Jewish and when he had no obligation to do so.

1. I think he is asking how can jewish law applies to a non-jew, that is ירך אמו and say that the fetus is part of the mother.
Since it applies to cows, then it is an expression of reality not halacha.
2. It is correct that many authorities make Pilpullim on ירך אמן and that many variations are possible. However, for discussions of A.I. and pundakim (surrogate mothers), most authorities assume ירך אמו .
3. It is correct that a convert waits three months before getting married so we can differentiate between conceive in קדושה or not. However, I am unaware that there is a prohibition of a pregnant woman converting and the that is the discussion in the gemara.
4. Alpha beta ben sirah
Well the alphabet itself may be very ancient, but the extraneous material mocking David, Saul and Jeremiah seem to be anti-jewish, if not some sort of sick parody. The extraneous material is dated to 6th to 8th century. It is obviously not from Ben Sirah as his geneology is clearly outlined in the Wisdom of Ben Sira which is from about 6th century BCE and is quoted as scripture in the talmud. The Alpha Beta was apparently unknown to the rishonim and the first mention is by the Bach (18th century) who saw a manuscript that someone showed him.

Aryeh Shore

B"H
Aryeh,

You wrote: "Alpha Beta de Ben-Sira -
Well the alphabet itself may be very ancient, but the extraneous material mocking David, Saul and Jeremiah seem to be anti-jewish..."

I have a copy of a Yemenite manuscript of this book at home, appended to a copy of "Pirke Rebbi Eliezer." From what I've read of it, I see nothing mocking about King David or Saul, although I might have overlooked something. Could you please explain to me what you meant by "mocking?"

As for Jeremiah and what happened to him in the bath house, and whether or not this is an accurate account of what happened to him, how are we to judge? Can we say that because of this ancient narrative about his daughter becoming pregnant by her father - as strange as it might sound - that it cannot be true?

David

Lets say that many of the stories in Ben Sira alephbet can not be repeated in polite company.

No you can not get pregnant in the bathtub.

We have the authentic book of the Wisdom of Ben Sirah from the second temple which has no such geneology.

As for the halalchic value of the book see:
שו"ת ציץ אליעזר, ח"ט, סי', נ"א, שער ד', פרק א' ; וב"הרפואה והיהדות", ע. יעקובוביץ; ירושלים, תשכ"ו, עמ' 234.

As for unacceptable stories, I was referring to stories like this.

מדוע אין לשור שער בחוטמו. בן סירא השיב לו שיהושע היה שמן, וכשרכב על בהמות שונות כשסבב את יריחו, נפלו כל אלו תחתיו ומתו. רק השור הצליח להחזיק מעמד תחתיו. על כן הוא נישק אותו בחוטמו, ומאז אין לו שם שיער.



Cheers,

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
No you can not get pregnant in the bathtub.

I'm sure you're right, but why then do (for example) the Beis Shmuel and Chelkas Mechokek on Even HaEzer Siman 1 refer to such a thing. Did they lack proper medical knowledge?

B"H
Dear Aryeh,

You said: "Let's say that many of the stories in Ben Sira alphabet cannot be repeated in polite company."

Still, this does not make it untrue. By like example, many of the stories in the Talmud cannot be repeated in "polite" company - for instance, the laws about Niddah, or what Ham did to his father, etc. Yet, we still study the Talmud, and accept it, and we judge therein every man's opinion by his own merits.

The book, "Alpha Beta L'ben Sira," had received as an oral tradition that three men were born in the manner aforescribed - Ben-Sira, Rav Pappa and Rav Zera - all from their mothers visiting the bath house. The same book goes on to heap lavish praises upon Rav Pappa and Rav Zera, on account of their righteousness. We also find in it anecdotes on the Queen of Sheba'a epic visit to King Solomon; a description of the trees in Nebuchadnezar's garden, and certain imprecations used agaist the "evil eye," &c. In my opinion, the book is a well-spring of Jewish wisdom.

As for the book, "Wisdom of Ben-Sira," I have compared the extant copies of the original with those abstracts mentioned in our Talmud. Of all of the abstracts written in the Talmud, they are only a paraphrase of the original texts found at Massada. You will not find in the Talmud an exact rendering of what is written in the original. Not that it matters, of course. We accept what the Rabbis have explained to us as Ben-Sira's intention. Still, we ought to remember that Ben-Sira momentous work on "wisdom" was NOT numbered in the twenty-four canonical books of our Hebrew Bible.It is as any other external book employed by the Sages.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Quote "Since one may not nullify Issurim, forbidden substances, in the fiurst instance, how can the Beis Din convert this woman while she is pregnant?"

I think that by the woman becoming a Geyores is not a problem, since you’re allowed to Mevatel an Issur if your main reason for such an action is for a different reason. Over here, the main reason for the conversion is her, not her fetus.

Second of all, over here the fetus is already null to the mother’s body, so in essence you’re not doing anything to the child, but rather only to the mother.

In the case of implanting an egg, you’re taking a non jewish fetus and now implanting L’Chatchila into a Jewish body in order that it should annul itself to the body to make it Jewish. So this problem remains unobsolved from A.L’s first answer.

Quote "2. It is correct that many authorities make Pilpullim on ירך אמן and that many variations are possible. However, for discussions of A.I. and pundakim (surrogate mothers), most authorities assume ירך אמו ."

Who are most authorities?

Furthermore, I don’t think this Shaila depends on Yerech Imo. The Halacha of Yerech Imo is whatever happens to the mother is as it happened to the child. If the mother is Nirbeh, so is the child. If the mother gore, so did the child. If the mother converted and went to the Mikvah, so does the child. But it doesn’t mean that the child always retain the Dininm and essence of the mother. This is evident from that we don’t say the child has the same Halacha as the mother if it was conceived after the action that caused the mother to have a certain Din. If the mother is a Nirbeh, and then conceives, the child is completely Kosher, since it’s Zeh V’Zeh Gorem. We don’t say that the child automatically becomes the same status as the mother.

We see in Gitin 23b that someone can free the fetus and not the mother like the one thay says it’s Yerech Imo, so we see the child can have a different status than the mother and we don’t say that it becomes annuled to it.

Quote "The Shulchan Aruch writes in Even HaEzer Siman 1:7 that if a non-Jew had children (i.e. a son and a daughter) when he wasn't Jewish and then he AND THE CHILDREN converted, then he has fulfilled his Mitzvah of fathering children.

The Beis Shmuel (a major commentator on Even HaEzer) explains that this so even though we have the principle that a non-Jew who converts is like a newborn baby (and therefore has no relations whatsoever).

The Beis Shmuel also brings other opinions (Tosefos and Maharil) that EVEN IF THE CHILDREN DON'T CONVERT, he has still fulfilled his Mitzvha.

Whichever opinion one holds by, they are both a "Chiddush", a novel interpretation of the Halacha. A non-Jew has only 7 Mitzvos and fathering children (P'ru uR'vu) is not one of them. And yet we say that this person fiulfilled a Mitzvah while he wasn't even Jewish and when he had no obligation to do so."

Thank you R’ Yisrael for presenting an opening to write a Chidush that I had on this.

There are 2 aspects to a person, the soul (Neshama) which includes the person’s personality etc. Then there is the physical body. Hands, feets limbs, organs etc.

When we say a Ger that converts us like a new born baby, this is in regards to his soul, that he’s considered a new personality and soul. But his body always remains the same. (Any Ger can testify that he didn’t need any skin grafts or organ transplants when they became a Ger J )

This would answer the differentiation made in Tosfos in Sanhedrin 71b D"H Ben. That a Ger that have done things wring when he was a Goy, if it’s something that is punishable from heaven, we consider him as a new born, and he’s exempt. If it’s a punishment from Beis Din, so in the right condition where the punishment doesn’t change from before the Geirus or afterwards (to the Chumrah side) then BD meets out the punishment.

According to my explanation, that since the punishment from heaven is on the soul (V’Nichrisu Hanefesh) so there is a new soul, so the old punishment was never on this soul. But since the punishment of BD is on the body, and the body never changes, so the punishment remains.

Therefore, by Pru Urivu, it depends on the body to reproduce, so it’s a Din on the body. Since this body has already reproduced, then he fulfilled the Mitzvah. (It would seem the Mitzvah is to have children and not only beget, thus he’s not Yoitzeh if they died.)

Quote "Originally posted by laurence shore:
No you can not get pregnant in the bathtub.



I'm sure you're right, but why then do (for example) the Beis Shmuel and Chelkas Mechokek on Even HaEzer Siman 1 refer to such a thing. Did they lack proper medical knowledge?"

Not to mention the Gemarah in Chagigah 14b also says of the possibility of a woman getting pregnant from the bathhouse. Thus a pregnant virgin we suspect that she got pregnant that way rather than saying that someone impregnate her regularly without braking the membrane.

The gemara in yevamot not withstanding,
you can't get pregnant in a bathtub or in a swimming pool (popular newstory about fourty years ago). I think we have already discussed the various approaches to passages in the Talmud which seem to contradict scientific observations in our time. Briefly, nature has changed (certainly demonstrable for the time of menarachy), the Rabbis were addressing a problem which was described by others and they had to give the halacha, we don't understand or do we follow any of the medicinal treatments in the talmud (Gaonim).

I don't think I can say anything more about the alphabeta of ben sira. There is a big difference in legal discussions or even midrashim about someone's mother in the gemara than a book written in a parady form and seems to relish in scatological details. Recent research indicates that the rishonim who were acquainted with it, read it as a parody.

That the gemara doesn't quote ben sirach correctly (and it is considered scripture דכתיב in the gemara)is nothing to all the misquotes of the tanach in the babli (I think the gra counted 16) and the yerushalmi (Let's just say the last five I encountered were all incorrect.) Rashi is incomprehenible at times if you assume he had the same punctiation as we do e.g. חטאת לעמך in this weeks parsha.

The wisdom of ben sirach generally available is the greek translation. The original Hebrew was only found in the Cairo geniza a hundred years ago and is not generally available. I believe it does correspond to the quotes in our gemara.

Aryeh Shore