Sotah 053

A Mamzer is a person who was born of parents who were prohibited from marrying each other by Torah law. For this reason translations such as "bastard" and "illegitimate" are misleading. In western law a bastard is a person whose parents did not happen to be married at the time of his birth. A Mamzer [or Mamzeret] is a person whose parents were prohibited by Torah law from marrying at the time of conception: i.e. the parents could not have married even if they had wanted to.

The usual cause of mamzerut is adultery by the woman: if a woman was halakhically married at the time she was impregnated by a man who was not her halakhic husband the fetus is a mamzer even if subsequently the parents succeed in regulating their relationship. This is why it is so imperative that a civil divorce be accompanied by an halakhic divorce. This is also why great luminaries of the Jewish Theological Seminary (rabbis Louis Epstein and Saul Lieberman in particular) broached innovations into the text of the Ketubah in order to reduce the number of situations in which a marriage could be terminated by the non-Jewish civil authorities but still be 'alive and kicking' according to halakhah. (It goes without saying, that our discussions here are purely theoretic: cases of suspected mamzerut, in particular, should be referred to a qualified and sympathetic rabbi – who will probably discover that there was nothing to worry about in the first place.)

The non-adulterous union of a Kohen with a woman who is nevertheless prohibited him by Torah law for other reasons, does not cause mamzerut. (Many Conservative rabbis today consider the restrictions on the marriageability of a Kohen to be obsolete, and they have substantial halakhic reasons to support their opinion. In any case, this has nothing to do with mamzerut.)

23:
All the women described in the latter part of our present mishnah have one thing in common: their relationship with the man concerned is prohibited by Torah law. A High Priest may not marry a widow, a divorcee may not marry an ordinary priest, a mamzeret may not marry an ordinary Jewish man and an ordinary Jewish woman may not marry a mamzer. However, even though these marriages are prohibited by Torah law that does not invalidate the Kiddushin: if any of these marriages do take place they are valid and require a divorce [Get Pitturin] to end them. In other words they are an illegal marriage, not an invalid one. It is for this reason that in all cases these women are excused from drinking the 'cursing waters' if accused of infidelity by their husbands, nor do they collect their Ketubah.

24:
This last term, Ketubah, was discussed by us for many weeks when we studied Tractate Kiddushin. In brief: the Ketubah is a Deed in which the husband makes financial undertakings as regards the economic security of his wife – monies that will become available to her in the event of his predeceasing her or divorcing her. If a woman brings about the termination of her marriage by her own act she is not entitled to the money in her Ketubah. The illegality of their union in all the cases mentioned in our present mishnah is sufficient to invalidate the woman's claim on the money in her Ketubah.

Recently we have had cause to mention the the difference between the institution of slavery in Israel as compared to the western world. Meir Noach writes:

My Talmud class read in Ketubot that the Eved Kena'ani of a Kohen who runs away may still eat of Terumah. The law that a runaway slave may not be returned is the biggest difference between Israel and the rest of the world. However I have also read that Rabban Gamliel was glad when he knocked out the eye of his Eved Kena'ani, Tabi, (not on purpose), for he said, "Now I can set him free." (For the Sages had taught it was best not to free an Eved Kena'ani.) However they asked if there where 2 witnesses. When the answer was 'no' they told him all he had to do was pay a fine. Tabi was the famous servant who when told to buy some good meat bought a tongue, when told to buy bad meat bought a tongue because when controlled nothing is better but when it does evil nothing is worst!

I respond:

A 'slave' who may eat of his master's sacred food; a 'slave' who may not be restored to his master if he succeeds in escaping; a 'slave' who must be manumitted if physically harmed by his master; a 'slave' who is entitled to receive a fine from his master… As slavery is understood in the western world these things are just not imaginable! I stand by my original claim: slavery, as usually understood by us, was not practiced in Israel.