The Parsha starts off with the Halacha: If someone went out to war and sees a woman there that he desires, he may take her home. and after a month of mourning for her "parents" he still deires her, he can marry her

Rashi quotes the talmud that they only allowed it to apease the evil inclanation. This is a , since when does the Torah permit something just to apease the evil inclanation? With that logic you can permit all sins in the world.

The Second : That Rashi cont. and says that eventualy you'll end up hating her and will have a rebelious son from her. Once the Torah permitted it, why would one get punished for this act?

I have a way to this, but I first like to hear from the community if they have any answers.

I think the answer is depended on Tosfos in eiruvin 41B that states that even though someone can get to a point that he's not able to overcome his evil inclanation (Yetzer Haro), but he can avoid getting to that stage. It's only after giving into the Yetzer that at some point it becomes imposible to fight.

A Jew can live in an insalated envirement, and is sheilded to the temptations of the world. Now, the Torah forces him to go to war and be open to these temptations that he wouldn't be otherwise, thus having been put in a place of temptation, the Yetzer haro might be stronger than he can handle. So the Torah gives him an option to marry her in a permitted way, to give him "bread in his basket" i.e. it gives him a time to think it over and have a choice. But the Torah realy wants you not to marry her, so if you do you are punished. The permission was only given to help make the choice of dropping her easier

The question I would ask on that is ,since the person knows that the Torah does not want him to marry her,there is no choice in the first place,so what has been gained?

once it's not a definite NO, and technicaly the Torah does permit it, there is an amount that he doesn't have to panic and choose no right away, gives him time to think the whole thing over and not to make an impulsive decision

Well, it seems that if it says to give her some time to grieve her parents then perhaps you'll take that time to think about your choice of marrying her too.

The basic question is just b/c the Torah "allows" it, so why should there be adverse consequences (e.g ben sorer, etc.) this parsha is near and dear to my heart (my bar mitzvah parsha) perhaps we don't neccesarily need to do everything the Torah allows - halacha is frequently stated as a range of conduct beginning with what one "can" do with a progression towards what one "should" do (that is why the Shulchan Aruch ends frequently with "v'tov l'hachmir" or "tavo alav b'racha" - As we get older we can stay up past our bedtimes but then the better question is should we? I believe this is what the Ramban is referring to in "kedoshim tih'yu" thsat its entirely possible to become a m'nuval birshus HaTorah even with things that are "allowed" so too with eishes y'fas to-ar

I think there is a distinction to be made here.
The Ramban means that a permissable act can be taken and turned into something forbidden. For instance it is permitted to drink wine,but it is not permitted to drink to the point one becomes a drunk. It is permitted to eat but not to become a glutton. However the Torah permits the act of Yefas Toar itself, so thus the question as to why there should be a punishment remains

I'm coming to this discussion rather late but all commentaries I've seen on this subject have the sense that Torah is doing a balancing act, but only tell one side of the story.

If we presume that this is not an obligatory war, then the rights of this woman, in the field, are almost non-existent. She is an enemy goy. The fastest way to extend to this woman the same rights as a Jewish woman is exactly what the Torah is doing. But, at the same time it is discouraging the Jewish soldier from marrying her. It's a fine line but at the end of the day it's really a pekuach nefesh scenario for both people. The price the woman pays, for saving her life, gaining Jewish citizenship and gaining a Jewish woman's rights, is the possibility of sleeping with the colonel (and there are many goyish women who would sleep with the colonel for nothing) and looking ugly for a few weeks.

Without any rights, until someone violates yichud with her, no one has proprietary responsibility over her. I'm not even sure she has the rights of a Jewish slave, at this point. That makes her vulnerable. The price that a Jewish soldier pays is marrying her but Torah goes into convolutions to avoid the marriage.

This appears to be one of the most compassionate laws in Torah.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
The Parsha starts off with the Halacha: If someone went out to war and sees a woman there that he desires, he may take her home. and after a month of mourning for her "parents" he still deires her, he can marry her

Rashi quotes the talmud that they only allowed it to apease the evil inclanation. This is a , since when does the Torah permit something just to apease the evil inclanation? With that logic you can permit all sins in the world.

The way I heard it was that we see from this Din that in regard to all other Mitzvos we are able to withstand the Yetzer Hora, otherwise the Torah would have made other exceptions.

In a life and death situation...like war....the soldier is allowed to eat treif to survive. The woman who does not have any rights, in the field, is not only vulnerable but she poses a moral issue to the rest of the soldiers. Having sex with one man establishes proprietary interest and resolves both problems. My take on Rashi is that it appeases the yetser hara of the entire troop....not just the colonel. For this reason, it's a small price to pay for both parties.

quote:

The way I heard it was that we see from this Din that in regard to all other Mitzvos we are able to withstand the Yetzer Hora, otherwise the Torah would have made other exceptions.

That's a nice thought, thank you.

Surprized that no one brought the gemara, that the torah does not forbid things absolutely. The Yetzer Harah is apparently extremely strong in situations where you give an absolute no. The examples given are: You can't marry your brother wife, but you can do yibum (obligation to marry the brother's wife if he dies without children), you can't eat pig but you can eat Shavut, a fish which taste like pig.
What we don't do is accomadate rishaim (evil people). This is the tosephot question in Makot on why would there be more refuge cities in certain area because the people are more violent. The torah temimah answers that it is not they were more violent, just more hot-headed. You needed more cities because they responded more quickly and there was less time for the manslaughter to get to a refuge city.

Aryeh Shore

Excellent point, and coincidentally I was learning that Gemarah yesterday (the 2nd Seder Chaburah is learning Chulin and we’re up to 109b, the Sugya of udders, I have a test on it on Sunday) and I was thinking about it. The Gemarah even uses Yafas to’ar as an example as a Heter to marrying a Goyta.

But I must disagree with P’shat in that Gemarah. If it’s true that the Torah is giving a way for Reshaim to have there pleasures with Heter, it would make them all available. There are some that are available, like the imitation pork and unkosher bird from fish and udders. But a Yibum is a very uncommon event (don’t know anyone that it happened too) and so is Yifas Toar (ditto .) Also, why would someone want necessarily a Heter of Goyta, married woman or brother’ wife more than other woman. I think the point is to show the amount of Efshar (That someone’s attitude is that the Aveiros aren’t disgusting and I can partake in them, but Hashem commanded us not to..)

Well it is something like pat bsalo (one knows that somewhere he has bread to eat) so his yetzer harah is diminished.

Yibum:
Yibum is the obligation to marry one's brother wife if he dies without children. If one does not wish to do so, one does chalitza, throwing a shoe. Askenazic and sephardic jews differ radically in their approach. Askenazim poskin it is better to do chalitza while the sephardim poskin it is better to yibum.
The recorded yibumim in the bible are Yehuda, the son of Yaakov and Boaz and Ruth. Although there is a lot of discussion in the Talmud and Rishonim, I don't know of actual cases. The german jews had a prenuptial agreement for the brothers to sign (I know someone who has one from his grandfather) that they would agree to chalitza without any coercion or extortion. The last case I am familiar with was R. Ovadiah Yosef had a situation in Egypt where he recommended yibum. The Yeminites jews in Rechovot did practice Yibum in the 1950's.

A "new" problem in chaliza is what foot to use. We generally say that one using his main foot which is usually the right foot. However, the Minchat Yitchak, when he was in England after the war, had to deal with that in the army everyone goes left, right, left, right and this becomes a source of confusion. R. Ovadiah had the same problem as in the gymnasia in Egypt, they also practiced marching.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

The recorded yibumim in the bible are Yehuda, the son of Yaakov and Boaz and Ruth.

Was Yehuda eligible to serve in this role before the fact? Would he have been preferable to his youngest son when he told Tamar to wait until his son was older?

The commentary in Megillas Rus indicates that eventhough there was a shoe incident by Ploni that it was not chalitza, and I am not sure with Boaz its yibum. From how distant a relative can it be yibum?

There is another commentary in Gemara Kiddushin, toward the beginning, within the first 10 pages or so, which discusses "maamar"... a rabbinically enacted process by which potential redeemers send in a gift to indicate their willingness to perform yibum.

That commentary also discusses something to the effect that only brothers who lived in the same house are potential redeemers, and they are to be asked in order of their birth.

I think a maamar performs another function. From a software perspective I see aspects of concurrency and priority queuing to the maamar, and also wonder if the first priority shouldn't be a brother who is closest in age.

If the oldest brother is not willing to perform yibum, but would only be willing to perform chalitza, if he performs chalitza then she is free to marry anyone, and if she were permitted to marry another brother, it would then be a regular marriage, not yibum.

It seems that the brothers are thus supposed to work it out among themselves to see if any will be willing to perform yibum, and only if none are willing to perform yibum, do they offer chalitza.

Yibum seems to have priority over chalitza.

quote:

A "new" problem in chaliza is what foot to use.

Is there any question about who's foot to use?

By the type of kinyan where an item such as a pen is exchanged to signify another acquisition, such as land being purchased, I understad there is dispute whether the pen gets transfered in the direction of the money payment, or of the land being purchased. And I think it can work either way.

When a Jew buys something from at another Jew's store I understand that actually there are two different kinyan transactions going on... one that they are exchanging money, and the other that they are exchanging the item purchased.

So perhaps if this is the same thing by acquiring land, as long as one of the kinyan transactions is represented by the pen or other object, that is sufficient to represent both?

Are yibum and chalitza being performed today?

The Mishna in Sota 2a states that a Sota who has undergone kinui and setira but has not arrived at the Mikdash for the drinking ceremony, cannot undergo yibum if her husband dies childless, but she also cannot remarry without chalitza. Is chalitza a sort of "get" from the childless marriage to the deceased husband. If so, how is that handled today.

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
Are yibum and chalitza being performed today?

Yes. One of my Rebbeim told us, that during one year, he had taken a previous class of his to a Chalitzah. I remember while learning Yevamos, there was a Chalitzah shoe that was made for this purpose and was brought into class as part of show and tell.

Chaliza is done today on a regular basis. Unfortunately it can and is used for extortion similar to the get. Since the mitzvah needs to be a mitzvah and most people aren't capable of understanding this, Rabbinical courts today insist on chalitza. If the woman marries without chalitza, she is married. The courts will sometimes allow this if the brother is in a country where he can not do it. We have many Shutim dealing with if the brother is a musmad (a convert to another religion). These questions were common after the expulsion from Spain since it wasn't clear if the brother remaining in Spain really converted or if he was faking it till he could get out.

The right foot in chalitza is the same debate one has with tefillin, if you are left handed, do you put the tefillin on your left or right hand. What if you are ambidexterous? The way to test for right footness is to ask the man to kick the wall. If he uses his right foot he is right footed. Complicated schemes to fit every ones view exist, but as Rav Weiss points out, most people coming to do Chalitza, haven't the slightest idea what is happening and if you start with all sorts of chumras, the person will be so confused the exercise will be invalid. This is one of my favorite examples of being so machmir (strict) that you are being makel (being lenient).
Back in the 1940s, sex without marriage was looked down on in England. A lot of soldiers met a girl and quickly got married before going overseas. I think they ran out of wedding dresses sometime in 1943. In any event, there were a lot of newly widowed brides without children and the Bet Din had a lot to do.

Aryeh Shore