3
  • The Halacha follows Rabbi Yehoshua that a Mamzer is only if one marries an Erva that is Chayav Kares.

  • The Halacha follows the opinion that the descendants of a non-Jew living with a Jewess are Kosher Jews and not Mamzerim.

Now, there are opinions arguing both points. Rabbi Akiva says that anyone who's a result of an intimacy which violates a simple negative commandment is also a Kares. There are a few opinions (in Yevamos) which hold that the descendant of a non-Jew with a Jewess are Mamzerim.

Now, someone offers a Shidduch to my friend. Would it be Halachically acceptable to advise him not to marry those people, despite the Gemara/Rishonim/Shulchan Aruch clearly permitting them, as perhaps Mashiach would come, a Sanhedrin would reconvene, and perhaps rule like Rabbi Akiva/The other opinions.

What about if there was a piece of Chelev about which there was a debate, and the Halacha got ruled that it's Kosher. Is it still acceptable to not eat it (and to tell others not to), as perhaps the sages Gemara made a mistake, and when Moshiach would come and a Sanhedrin would be restored we would all have to bring a Korban Chatas (note, I'm assuming most Jews didn't eat this particular cut of meat so there would be no Par Helem Davar Shel Tzibbur).

  • I found the Piskei Teshuva (10) in here where he says that to be Machmir on something the Amoraim were not is Apikorsus. Yet, Lechora, why can't we just say that I'm "hedging my bets" so to say, as a Sanhedrin could re-open any case any time and undo any previous legislation. – Shmuel Brin Jul 13 '15 at 7:13
  • 1
    For the record, he actually he says it's "like" Apikorsus. הוי כמו אפיקורסות ויצא שכרו בהפסדו. (And he seems to bring dissenting opinions.) – Danny Schoemann Jul 13 '15 at 8:47
  • part of your question has to do with hilchot lashon hara. it may be assur even if it's not the best thing to marry such a person – ray Jul 13 '15 at 11:16
  • A man can reject any shidduch he wants for any reason, no? Now whether that rejection is taken seriously/well, that is a different subject. – ezra Nov 16 '17 at 18:45
6
  1. Rabbi Eliezer spent the latter years of his life in Cheirem because he refused to accept a "majority" opinion that disagreed with his own.

  2. In case you think that is doesn't apply to be "strict on yourself only", there's an incident in Mishnah (Brachot 1:3) about Rabbi Tarfon who endangered himself to "lie down" to say the night-time K'riyat Shema. His colleagues said to him: you deserved to have something happen to you, because that is the rejected opinion of Beis Shammai and the halacha follows Beis Hillel (who state that "When you lie down" refers to the time of the night-time Kriyas Shema and not the bodily position).

In your case the accepted halachic opinion is that the descendent of a male non-Jew and a female Jew is fully Jewish and not a Mamzer (although I think if a female, a Kohen may be prohibited from marrying them, but they have extra restrictions anyway).

There are acceptable times to be extra machmir. The halacha is that during Sukkot, certain foods can be eaten outside the Sukkah yet in the Mishna we read about certain Rabbis who were stricter and asked "take it to the Sukkah" when offered such food. Rabban Gamliel would even only drink water in the Sukkah. (This however is not an issue of status of the food but simply a preference on the way they carry themselves. Your issues were on the status of a person with regards to marrying and with regards a piece of fat as to whether it is Cheilev when the accepted opinion is that it is Shamein. Nobody will force you to eat it but you shouldn't say it's Cheilev).

  • 1
    it's permitted but in this case could still be considered a pegam – ray Jul 13 '15 at 11:12
  • 1
    Rabbi Eliezer was lenient. Can one be strict? – Shmuel Brin Jul 14 '15 at 5:18
3

There is a question that is similar to yours:

If a drop of milk falls into a pot of meat and there is 60 times more meat than the drop then the food is mutar.The question is, is it assur to throw out the food since one is uncomfortable to eat something which milk fell into even though it is 100 percent mutar or one cant be machmir on wasting mutar food? The Pri Toar holds that one may be machmir on himself and not eat the food. However, the Toras Ha'asham holds very strongly that since the Torah said it is permitted one should eat it and not throw it out. Similarly, the Darchai Tshuva brings the Bnei Yisachar and Shla'ah that also say that one should eat it and there is no midas chasidus not to eat it rather it is a mitzvah to eat it. With this he explains the Chazal "גדול הנהנה מיגיע כפו יותר מירא שמים" that a person that legitimately works to find a proper heter for something and eats it is greater then one who has yiras shamaim and does not eat it.

1

I just wanted to add to what has already been said.

Hazal actually tell us when it is praiseworthy to go beyond what is required. They do this with the phrase "harei zeh meshubahh (הרי זה משובח) - Behold, [to do] this [action beyond what is technically required] is praiseworthy."

Beyond instances where this is stated, as has been highlighted in the other answers, Hazal frowned upon such actions and - to add one more source - it states in the Talmudh Yerushalmi, Masekheth Shabbath 1:2 (7a) the following:

wa-thani hhizqiyyah kol mi shehu patur min ha-davar wa-`osehu niqra hedyot.

Translation:

"Hhizqiyyah taught, 'Everyone who is halakhically exempt from something, but does it anyway is an idiot.'"

And just by way of appeal to common sense, if everyone were "mahhmir" against pisqei halakhah, imagine how erratic the Jewish world would be. And ultimately, treating people who are not - le-fi ha-din - mamzerim as though they are, or those who are not - le-fi ha-din - eating hhelev as though they are can and will only lead to sinath hhinam (baseless hatred/rejection).

Indeed, such ideas already popular among certain haredi groups have done this very thing, for they treat good religious Jews who are not `avaryanim as though they are because of their "humroth."

Kol tuv.

  • 1
    @Fred - I maligned no one. I stated facts without needless ad hominem. The fact is that "certain haredi groups" [not all] act this way. And it is only haredim who hate because of "hhumroth" - never have we heard of Dati Leumi or MO groups acting this way. It is a sad fact, but still a fact. And I mentioned it to illustrate mt point. Kol tuv. – user3342 Jul 14 '15 at 13:05
  • 1
    No such "groups" exist, to the best of my knowledge. There are (at most) scattered individuals with this mindset, and they do not constitute a "group." And these scattered individuals have diverse religious backgrounds and persuasions; one person might favor a stringency in הלכות שבת, another in הלכות צדקה, another in הלכות תפילה, another might be stringent in opposing people who study in kollel, another might be stringent on wearing תכלת, and yet another person might be stringent against praying at gravesites... – Fred Jul 14 '15 at 17:32
  • 1
    I disagree based on a great deal of personal experience. The idea that it is scattered individuals and not a systemic problem on the haredi world is just simply untrue. And while human problems do exist wherever humans are found. The sub-groups I mentioned do not have these issues in common with the haredi community. They just don't. – user3342 Jul 14 '15 at 18:55
  • 1
    Except for the fact that I am not referring here to general "castigation" of others on the part of any group. I am referring to sinath hhinam being expressed by haredi groups due to the fact that the Jewish groups they are hating do not subscribe to their "hhumroth". That is all I said and there was no vitriol included. All it would take to prove my statement is to cite two groups (the miut of "groups") that act in this fashion. Then my statements would be simple fact and yours would be needlessly argumentative. Would you like me to? – user3342 Jul 14 '15 at 20:17
  • 2
    Although of course you could find legitimate of examples of individuals exhibiting sinath hhinam in either direction (though I question the examples you provided), the point is that the nebulous remarks about certain haredi groups are both irrelevant to the question in the OP and also unfair and one-sided. – Fred Jul 14 '15 at 21:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .