Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 085

Friday, September 30 2005

• Re: A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• Re: A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• Re: A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• Re: A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• Fish and Meat
• Re: Fish and Meat
• yom kippur vs tisha ba-av
• selichot
• "Some ONE Will Not Forget Shabbos M'vorchim This Shabbos"
• Re: A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• re: a sheilah worthy of R. Moshe
• Re: A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe
• Re: A Shailah Worthy of R. Moshe

In  Avodah V15 #84 dated 9/28/2005 _RHM_ (mailto:owner-avodah@RHM)  writes:
>>If the younger brother were to God forbid become a Kiteiah, Chalitzah
would then be impossible and there would then be a rare but modern day
requirement of an act of Yivum. If for some reason the truth wouldn't
come out, this "act" wouldn't really be Yivum at all but a Bias Issur. He
would be Oveir on the Issur of Eishas Ach.<<

IY"H the guy having surgery will recover and will have children

but meanwhile, I do not understand this paragraph

If the truth does not come out, and the younger brother does an act of
[unnecessary] chalitza, where is there any biah involved? Whether the
truth comes out or doesn't come out, whether chalitza is done or not,
I just don't see where there is any biah here or any question of
eishes ach.

I am also wondering whether there are people alive today who actually
knew the older son's real father and were eyewitnesses to the whole aguna
story. If not -- if the only people who know the truth heard it second
hand -- then who knows for sure what the "truth" is? In that case,
no one has any obligation to say a word, IMO. What is the proof there
was ever another father other than the father the man knew growing up?
Leave it alone. Just my two cents.

If there /are/ living witnesses then you have a real shailah.

BTW it occurs to me that a beis din might keep records, even after
decades.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

R' Harry Maryles:
> The following is a true story and in need of some serious consideration
> by Poskim. I have been aware of this situation for a long time but the
> implications of it were recently made very clear.
<BIG snip>

I'm no R' Moshe, but why can't the older brother give a get al t'nai to
his wife to take affect kodem misah? IIRC it's a sugya in Gittin...

KT,
MYG

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's the problem. The older son is married and childless. He recently
> had some serious life saving surgery. If he were to Chas V'Shalom die,
> as far as the younger married Charedi brother is concerned, that would
> leave his brother's wife a Yevamah which would require him to give a
> Chalitza to his brother's surviving wife.
> Of course in reality that isn't the case because Yivum is not required
> except of brothers of the same father. They were brothers only through
> the mother leaving her an Ervah to a surviving brother.

I don't see the problem. Why can't he be told that his mother had
been married and widowed before she married his father, that his older
brother was from her first husband, and that he was never told because
his parents didn't think he had to know? That is the truth, after all.
Why does he have to know all the details of exactly how his mother came
to be declared a widow? How are those details relevant? If they were
kept secret so long, surely they can be kept secret forever.

And of course, if the older brother has enough advance notice of his
impending death, he can arrange to divorce his wife just before it
happens, to spare her the chalitzah.

> If God forbid something like this happens, I suppose there is no real
> problem with a fake Chalitza. But the truth would probably come out
> and ruin this family's life.

Why would it be more likely to come out in the case of a fake chalitzah
than otherwise? Who would need to be told, who doesn't already know?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> If the younger brother were to God forbid become a Kiteiah, Chalitzah
>> would then be impossible and there would then be a rare but modern day
>> requirement of an act of Yivum. If for some reason the truth wouldn't
>> come out, this "act" wouldn't really be Yivum at all but a Bias Issur. He
>> would be Oveir on the Issur of Eishas  Ach.

> IY"H the guy having surgery will recover and will have children

Unlikely. This is a long term happy marriage. Both husband and wife are
close to sixty years old. The only possible way it could happen would
be if they divorce or she dies and he marries a woman young ebough to
bear children. And even that scenario assumes the fertility problem was
with her and not with him. That is unclear. But either way his having
children is highly unlikely at this point.

> but meanwhile, I do not understand this paragraph

> If the truth does not come out, and the younger brother does an act of
> [unnecessary] chalitza, where is there any biah involved? Whether the
> truth comes out or doesn't come out, whether chalitza is done or not, I
> just don't see where there is any biah here or any question of eishes ach.

A Kitei'ah is an amputee. If the Yavam has Chas V'Shalom had his feet
amputated, then Chalitza becomes a physical impossibilty. In such
cases, the act of Yivum must take place. That involves Biah. Since he
is not a brother from the father (ie they have different fathers) he
is not really a Yavam, hence the Issur of Eishes Ach. If the truth
somehow does not come out, this could happen.

> I am also wondering whether there are people alive today who actually knew  
> the older son's real father and were eyewitnesses to the whole aguna  story.

There are. But they were quite young. The patriarch/uncle's children
were there at the time but they were barely into their teens, I don't
know that they were actual witnesses to any documents at the time.

> If not -- if the only people who know the truth heard it second hand
> -- then who knows for sure what the "truth" is? In that case, no one
> has any obligation to say a word, IMO. What is the proof there was
> ever another father other than the father the man knew growing up?
> Leave it alone. Just my two cents.

> If there /are/ living witnesses then you have a real shailah.  

As I said, there are. The principles themselves (i.e. the two brother's
parents)and the two children of the uncle/patriarch. It is possible,
I suppose that the parents retained the letter and can produce it as
proof. But they were so determined to keep the truth from their children
that it would not be unreasonable to assume any documents relating to
the issue were destroyed.

This is one of those curious situations where many people know the story
but not the potential Yivum. He is clueless to this day. As to the truth
of the story: a) the parents have revealed the truth to their older son
and, b) there is a videotape of the patriarch/uncle relating the entire
story in detail.

> BTW it occurs to me that a beis din might keep records, even after 
> decades.

It's possible. I suppose that will be tried in the event of the older
brother's untimely death. But if there isn't...?

As of now, my view is that we should let sleeping dogs lie. The upheaval
this family would go through would be almost impossible to endure. But
if the above scenario happens, the upheaval will be even more sudden
and more traumtic.

HM

Quoting  Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Remember that his mother was an Agunah and was given a special Heter to
> marry based on circumstantial evidence and Misiach B'Fi Tumo evidence...
>                    Without the Heter he would have the status of Mamzer or
> at least Safek Mamzer. This is one of the reasons that he wasn't, to this
> day, told the story of his parents... to spare him the grief. Of course
> the Heter wasn't questionable as it was given by the Beis Din Tzedek of
> Jeruslaem. But still the circumstances at least SEEM to be murky.

> Here's the problem. The older son is married and childless. He recently
> had some serious life saving surgery. If he were to Chas V'Shalom die,
> as far as the younger married Charedi brother is concerned, that would
> leave his brother's wife a Yevamah...

> If God forbid something like this happens, I suppose there is no real
> problem with a fake Chalitza. But the truth would probably come out
> and ruin this family's life. The Chashad Mamzer would overwhelm them
> and their children would in effect be shunned for fear of Mamzeirus....

Note that Rav Ovadyah Yosef in Yabiat Omer (vol 8 Yoreh Deah siman 32)
discusses a case where a woman prior to becoming frum became pregnant and
had had an abortion. Then she became frum and married a charedi yeshiva
bochur. In the fulness of time, she gave birth to a boy, and the husband
was getting all geared up to do a pidyon haben. However, as you may
know, a pidyon haben cannot be carried out if there has been a previous
miscarriage by the wife, which would include what had happened here.
She had never told the husband about the previous abortion, and obviously
did not want to. The problem was the issur of bracha l'atala that the
husband would make at the pidyon haben.

Rav Ovadiah discusses the halacha of kovod habriyos and ruled that it was
applicable here. The problem for Rav Ovadiah is that while according to
many if not most Ashkenazim a bracha l'vatala is only an issur d'rabbanan,
and so could clearly be pushed aside for kovod habriyos, the Shulchan
Aruch that Rav Ovadiah follows takes the view that it is a d'orisa, which
forced Rav Ovadiah to get into a discussion of the machlokus between
the Rambam and the Rosh as to whether kavod habriyos was sufficient to
allow one not to telling somebody they are over on a dorisa. However,
notwithstanding that, Rav Ovadiah ruled leniently, ie that the husband
need not be told, because of the distress that this would cuase.

There are certain parallels to the case here which might seem to allow a
chalitza even where none was warranted and might allow for the witholding
of information even where it has halachic ramifications.

However, it seems to me that the before we rush in to judge on this basis,
the situation needs further analysis. And it seems to me that there are
in fact two different pieces of information here that have been withheld
from the second brother:

a) his older brother is in fact only his half-brother; and
b) his mother was an aguna.

Now while there is a certain linkage between the two, I do not see why
there is a necessary connection and why revealing the one *necessarily*
involves revealing the other. As it happened the mother was an aguna,
but would the situation have been any different if, say, the father of
the older brother had been mugged before everybody's eyes and there was
no safek about it?

I suspect it would still have been likely that the cousin would have
married the mother. AND, and this is the critical bit, such a marriage
would still have been in violation of the halacha because of the halachic
requirement that a woman wait to remarry until it is clear that she is
not preganant, and if pregnant, to wait two years after the birth of a
child, precisely so the parentage of the child is clear and the safety
of the child is assured.

On the other hand, a marriage of this nature is valid bideved and does
not put a pgam on the later born children.

So my suggestion is that the older brother tell the younger brother in
confidence that in fact they are half brothers, that his mother married
the younger brother's father when she was pregnant with the older brother
after the death of the older brother's father, and just omit to mention
that there was any safek about the father's death, something the younger
brother just does not need to know. And he can quite comfortably explain
that he is telling him this so that, if he were to die without leaving
children, the younger brother would know that yibum/chaliza is not needed.
After that he should tell his wife (if she does not know) that he is
only the half brother of the other brother, and that, it seems to me,
is the sum total of the people who need to be informed and the sum total
of the information that needs to be relayed.

And that way we do not get into fake chalitza ceremonies and any yibum
scenarios, not does there need to be any red herring mamzerus issues
raised.

My thoughts anyway, for what they are worth.

Regards
Chana

Chana Luntz <Heather_Luntz@onetel.com> wrote:

> Note that Rav Ovadyah Yosef in Yabiat Omer (vol 8 Yoreh Deah siman 32) 
> discusses a case where a woman prior to becoming frum became pregnant
> and had had an abortion...
...
> The problem (is) that Rav Ovadiah follows (the) view that (a Bracha
> L'Vatalah) is a d'orisa, ...Rav Ovadiah ruled leniently, ie that the
> husband need not be told, because of the distress that this would cuase.

> There are certain parallels to the case here which might seem to allow a
> chalitza even where none was warranted and might allow for the witholding
> of information even where it has halachic ramifications.

I don't think there is any Halachic issue with doing a fake Chalitza.
The issue for me is that the facts will come out when the Beis Din
starts investigating the facts of the case. The assumption will be that
a Chalotza is required. Far too many people know ther story for it to
remain hidden.

> I do not see why there is a necessary connection and why revealing the
> one *necessarily* involves revealing the other.

There is no need. But as I said, too many people know about it. I
don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the BD will find out
the truth. And this will change their loves forever.

> As it happened the mother was an aguna, but would the situation have
> been any different if, say, the father of the older brother had been
> mugged before everybody's eyes and there was no safek about it?

In your sscenario she would not have been an Agunah, Her first husband
would be dead... for all to witness.

> I suspect it would still have been likely that the cousin would have
> married the mother. AND, and this is the critical bit, such a marriage
> would still have been in violation of the halacha because of the halachic
> requirement that a woman wait to remarry until it is clear that she is
> not preganant, and if pregnant, to wait two years after the birth of a
> child, precisely so the parentage of the child is clear and the safety
> of the child is assured.

Two years? I don't think so. The waiting period before marrying the
second husband to detrmine which of the 2 husbands is the father is three
months after death. And the waiting period to see if the child has a Din
of a Nefel is 30 days post-partum whcih is why we wait 30 days to have a
Pidyon HaBen. It is a sode issue how this impacts on the uncle/patriarch's
obligation to do a Chalitza himself, but in any case the child obviously
survived. So the question is moot. Besides the uncle/patriarch never made
a move without the aid of a Posek in matters like this, so there could
not have been an issue. Also, just because there is a waiting period of
three months, that doesn't mean the Kiddushin isn't valid if it precedes
the 3 months. Such a Kiddsuhin is valid, as you yourself later point out .

> So my suggestion is that the older brother tell the younger brother in
> confidence that in fact they are half brothers, that his mother married
> the younger brother's father when she was pregnant with the older brother
> after the death of the older brother's father, and just omit to mention
> that there was any safek about the father's death, something the younger
> brother just does not need to know.

Easier said then done. There is tremendous parental pressure not to reveal
the truth. There is amost a 60 year history of secrecy about it. And far
too many people know the whole truth for it not to come out. In fact,
I'm suprised the younger brother hasn't found out the truth yet!

I don't think this is going to happen. I'm afraid that if, God forbid
something happens to the older brother, THAT(!) is when the truth will
come out and it won't be pretty.

HM

We all know that one may not eat at a table with meat and milk on it. We
also all know that chamira sakanta mei'isura. We also know that eating
fish and meat together is a sakana. If so, why do people eat at tables
that have fish and meat together? Just about every Kiddush seems to have
herring and cholent.

I'm posting both to Areivim and to Avodah: To Areivim about the prevalent
custom ("My shul only has egg kichels at the kiddush!"), and to Avodah
for a halachic analysis.

KT,
MYG

"Moshe Y. Gluck" <mslatfatf@access4less.net> wrote:
> We all know that one may not eat at a table with meat and milk on it. We
> also all know that chamira sakanta mei'isura. We also know that eating fish
> and meat together is a sakana. If so, why do people eat at tables that have
> fish and meat together? Just about every Kiddush seems to have herring and
> cholent. 

The Issur of milk and meat on the same table is in the SA. While it
is true that chamira sakanta mei'isura, the Issur is not the same.
One can have fish after meat, if one rinses his mouth with a drink and
eats a piece of bread in between. If there were a problem with serving
meat at the same table as fish, how could anyone ever eat Gefilte Fish
at the same table as meat is served in what is a typical Shabbos meal
in most people's homes?

HM

In today's selichot (ashkenaz) we mourn the loss of the bet hamikdash and
the antonement we got through the sacrifices that is no longer available.
On Yom kippur after the avodah there is (ashkenaz) again the famous
piyut of mareh cohen with a similar theme.

However, in the tisha ba-av selichot there is almost no mention of the
loss of korbanot and kapparah because of the destruction of the Temple
why?

--
Eli Turkel

> various opinions on the propriety of slichos at times other than
> chatzos or before amud hashachar. apparantly halacha doesnt address
> any exhaustion related issues...

Since many minyanim for selichot start after sunrise the question arises
what to do about tallit and teffilin. As above this is rarely discussed
since the assumption is for an early morning selichot.
In practice I see three groups of minhagim
1. No tallit and tefillin as if it were very early
2. Tallit but no tefillin (its not schaharit) - like chazan
3. tallit & tefillin

Anyone with more sources?

--
Eli Turkel

The Alter Rebbe related: When I was in Mezritch I heard from my Rebbe,
the Maggid, in the name of the Baal Shem Tov: The seventh month (Tishrei),
first of the months of the year, is blessed by God Himself on Shabbat
mevarchim of Elul. With this power, Israel blesses the other months
eleven times a year (or 12 in a leap year).

Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If God forbid something like this happens, I suppose there is no real
>> problem with a fake Chalitza. But the truth would probably come out
>> and ruin this family's life.

> Why would it be more likely to come out in the case of a fake chalitzah
> than otherwise? Who would need to be told, who doesn't already know?

Becaus of a convergence of two facts:

a)Because too many people already know all the details. 

b)In cases of Yivum, I presume the BD does its level best to find out
all the facts of the case so as to avoid being Over on Issurei Biah that
could result should Chalitza not be possible.

HM

In the aftermath of WWII, there were many instances of agunos who were
given heterim to remarry. I am unaware of anyone of the children of such
women having trouble with shidduchim. Indeed, given that the halacha in
such circumstances is that she is permitted to remarry, anyone refusing a
shidduch because of safek mamzerus is refusing to accept a psak halacha
of the Mishna, g'mara and all poskim; it is such a person who should
not be a desirable mechutan.

However, if the world has taken frumkeit to the point of krumkeit,
why does he have to be told about his mother's having been an agunah?
Why can't he simply be told that his mother's first husband was killed,
with no mention of the "murky" circumstances?

EMT

Quoting Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>:
>> There are certain parallels to the case here which might seem to allow a
>> chalitza even where none was warranted and might allow for the witholding of
>> information even where it has halachic ramifications.

> I don't think there is any Halachic issue with doing a fake Chalitza.

I am not sure I totally share your confidence that there are no
halachic issues about doing a fake chalitza. For example, what if the
wife subsequently wanted to marry a cohen? On the other hand, there
are clearly other issues to be balanced into that equation (and kovod
habriyos might be one of them).

> The issue for me is that the facts will come out when the Beis Din
> starts investigating the facts of the case. The assumption will be
> that a Chalotza is required. Far too many people know ther story for
> it to remain hidden.

I don't really understand why you think a beis din is going to go
investigating unless they are told by some interfering busybody to
investigate. If the brother and the wife come to them for chalitza,
I imagine they will do chalitza, if the brother and the wife do not
believe chalitza is necessary, then they will not go to beis din and no
beis din will be involved. And people who know the story as you have
relayed it will therefore also know no chalitza is necessary, and those
who do not and who assume chalitza is necessary, can just as readily be
led to assume that chalitza has been done (especially if the parties
say that everything necessary to allow remarriage has been done).
Chalitza is very rarely done in a public forum.

>> I do not see why there is
>> a necessary connection and why revealing the one *necessarily*involves
>> revealing the other.

> There is no need. But as I said, too many people know about it. I
> don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the BD will find out
> the truth. And this will change their loves forever.

Only if somebody pushes a BD to investigate.

>> As it happened the mother was an aguna, but would the situation have
>> been any different if, say, the father of the older brother had been
>> mugged before everybody's eyes and there was no safek about it?

> In your sscenario she would not have been an Agunah, Her first
> husband would be dead... for all to witness.

Precisely. But if for some reason the couple had then decided to hide the
fact that the older child was from the dead husband, the situation vis
a vis chalitza would be no different. There is no reason, just because
one child turns out to be the half brother, rather than the full brother
of the other, to assume that the mother was an aguna. I therefore don't
see why anybody told the one fact would have any more reason to find
out the other than if they had not been told the first fact.

It is of course always entirely possible that some interfering busybody
will take it upon himself or herself to tell the younger brother certain
facts of life, but that could always occur.

>>  because of the halachic requirement that a
>> woman wait to remarry until it is clear that she is not preganant, and if
>> pregnant, to wait two years after the birth of a child, precisely so the
>> parentage of the child is clear and the safety of the child is
>> assured.

> Two years? I don't think so. The waiting period before marrying the
> second husband to detrmine which of the 2 husbands is the father is
> three months after death.

No, the required period that a woman must wait after death or divorce
before remarrying is 90 days, in order to determine that she is in fact
*not* pregnant (Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer, siman 13, si'if 1). But if
she is in fact pregnant or nursing a live child, there is a gezera of
the chachamim that a remarriage cannot take place until 24 months after
the birth (same siman, si'if 11). If she does in fact marry during the
period, he is put in nidui until he divorces her, but can (if not a cohen)
remarry her after the 24 month period (see si'if 12).

> Also, just
> because there is a waiting period of three months, that doesn't mean
> the Kiddushin isn't valid if it precedes the 3 months. Such a
> Kiddsuhin is valid, as you yourself later point out .

Yes, in both cases it is merely a violation of a d'rabbanan. I imagine
it is possible that a Posek of stature held in the particular case in
question that, perhaps because of the war, this halacha could be breached
(the gezera is clearly enacted to protect the child in question, and maybe
if there were eg pikuach nefesh considerations that led one to conclude
that marriage was necessary, that could be considered to mitigate against
fulfilment of the gezera). But clearly the basis of any such judgement
has been lost to history.

> Easier said then done. There is tremendous parental pressure not to
> reveal the truth. There is amost a 60 year history of secrecy about
> it.

But that is why I suggested an older brother/younger brother communication
in confidence, there is no need for the parents to know that that
has occurred. But if in fact it is true that they are half brothers,
it may be appropriate for the younger brother to know that.

However, this is all based on the facts as you have presented them being
the true facts. The other alternative, of course, is that in fact
the older brother really is the full brother of the younger brother,
conceived prior to wedlock, but presumably (given the halachic involvement
and permission to marry) post death of the first husband (whether known
at the time of conception or not). In that case an early marriage would
be understandable, and in fact chalitza would be required. If there is
any remote chance that these are the real facts then chalitza should be
done on the offchance.

However, I don't think any of this is something that anybody outside the
family will know or need to know. If the older brother is convinced that
he is really a half brother, it might be appropriate to tell the younger
brother that fact, but only that fact, in confidence. I don't see why
it is anybody else's business, neither to invoke beis din nor to go talk
to beis din. And most betei dinim, I would have said, know better than
to go rooting around in matters they are not requested to get involved in.

> And far too many people know the whole truth for it not to come
> out. In fact, I'm suprised the younger brother hasn't found out the
> truth yet!

And yet according to you, he hasn't.

> I don't think this is going to happen. I'm afraid that if, God forbid
> something happens to the older brother, THAT(!) is when the truth
> will come out and it won't be pretty.

Only if some of these "too many people" takes it upon himself to get involved
and tell people things about other people's lives.  That, it seems to me, is
the only real shialah, and I suspect that one does not need to be Rav Moshe to
answer it.

Regards
Chana

Chana Luntz <Heather_Luntz@onetel.com> wrote:
> But if she is in fact pregnant or nursing a live child, there is a gezera
> of the chachamim that a remarriage cannot take place until 24 months
> after the birth (same siman, si'if 11). If she does in fact marry
> during the period, he is put in nidui until he divorces her, but can
> (if not a cohen) remarry her after the 24 month period (see si'if 12).

OK. I stand corrected. As usual your expertise (and willingness to
look things up, which is one of my weaknesses)... humbles me.

> I imagine it is possible that a Posek of stature held in the particular
> case in question that, perhaps because of the war, this halacha could be
> breached (the gezera is clearly enacted to protect the child in question,
> and maybe if there were eg pikuach nefesh considerations that led one
> to conclude that marriage was necessary, that could be considered to
> mitigate against fulfilment of the gezera). But clearly the basis of
> any such judgement has been lost to history.

I am virually certain taht the couple did not wait 2 years. At the
same time I don't believe that... if that is the Halacha in the SA
...any Rav would have been M'Sader Kiddushin, even it it is only a
D'Rabbanan. I wonder if any of the Rabbanim on this list can clarify
this Halacha. How is it observed today? What is the procedure WRT  to
advising couples to wait 2 years in such cases before they can get
married?

> ...all based on the facts as you have presented them being the true facts.
> The other alternative, of course, is that in fact the older brother really
> is the full brother of the younger brother, conceived prior to wedlock,
> but presumably (given the halachic involvement and permission to marry)
> post death of the first husband (whether known at the time of conception
> or not). In that case an early marriage would be understandable, and
> in fact chalitza would be required. If there is any remote chance that
> these are the real facts then chalitza should be done on the offchance.

I do not believe there is any chance that the younger brother is of the
same father. There is a videotape of the uncle/patriarch going over in
minute detail the entire story. The entire rest of his extended family
knows the story. The only one kept in the dark, amazingly, is the younger
half brother. Trust me. He does not know.

> If the older brother is convinced that he is really a half brother,
> it might be appropriate to tell the younger brother that fact, but only
> that fact, in confidence.

Everyone thinks it is appropriate except their parents. It should have
been revealed from the very beginning. It wasn't. And as time went by it
became increasingly difficult to tell them, as you might imagine. This
is a loving family and the older brother will not violate the wishes of
the parents not to divulge the truth.

> most betei dinim, I would have said, know better than to go rooting
> around in matters they are not requested to get involved in.

The likihood of this coming out is very great if for no other reason than
so many people know about it. Add to that that BD will want to determine
the facts about who is realted to who and whether it requires a Chalitza
or not, there will be some degree of investigation. Hence there should
be a mild explosion in this family's life if the Shaila ever comes up.

Also, even though the circumstnce of such is highly unlikely here, there
are cases where Yivum is actually carried out. If this were to happen,
there is no way that it could since there is no actual Yavam or Yevamah
and there is a clear Ervah that would be violated if the Maaseh Yivum
would take place.

> if some of these "too many people" takes it upon himself to get involved
> and tell people things about other people's lives.  That, it seems to me, is
> the only real shialah, and I suspect that one does not need to be Rav Moshe
> to answer it.

I think you are right about that. I don't think the Chalitza/Yivum issue
here is really one that requires a Psak from R. Moshe. The Halachos of
Yivum and Chalitza that would apply here seem pretty clear. But it is
still a problem that requires great wisdom on the best way to proceed
so that the least amount of psychological damage would occur and to how
to handle the fallout from the sudden revelation of these facts in his
communtiy. What a Posek of R. Moshe's stature could accomplish would be
to eliminate any Chashash Mamzer through a clear statement of confidence
in that Heter Agunah.

HM

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]