Parshas Ki Seitzei - kesher av uvno

Parshas Ki Seitzei - the bond between father and child

מיכאל ריטש

The bond between father and child, via the mother

דברים כא(טו) כִּי־תִֽהְיֶיןְְָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים הָֽאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָֽאַחַת שְֹנוּאָה וְיָֽלְדוּ־לוֹ כו‘ וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָֽה. כו‘ (טז) לֹא יוּכַל לְבַכֵּר אֶת־בֶּן־הָאֲהוּבָה עַל־פְּנֵי בֶן־הַשְּׂנוּאָה הַבְּכֹֽר. כו‘

D’varim 21(15-16): “If a man has two wives, one beloved and one disliked, and they give birth for him... with the first-born son to the disliked wife... He is not able to make the son of the beloved wife the first-born over the son of the disliked wife...”

“The son of the beloved wife”. He wants to make her son the first-born because of his love for her, and to distance the son of the one he dislikes.

The Ramban on “pilegesh” (concubine), Breishis 25(6): “It could be that even B’nei Noach, when they marry according to their law through cohabitation, that they had the custom to write a dowry/kesubah. But when one wanted to have a pilegesh, and send her away whenever they wanted, and that her children should not inherit his property, he would not write her anything.” He relates the connection to the children to the connection with the wife.

(See also the sugya of כתובת בנין דכרין in Kesobos 52b.)

In straight halacha we see this idea as well. Kiddushin 68b on a non-Jewish wife:

כי תהיין לאיש כו‘ וילדו לו, כל היכא דקרינן ביה כי תהיינה ־ קרינן ביה וילדו לו, וכל היכא דלא קרינן ביה כי תהיינה ־ לא קרינן ביה וילדו לו.

‘ “When a man has two wives... and they give birth for him” - whenever we say “has wives [=can marry]”, we say “give birth for him”, and whenever we don’t say “marry” [i.e., marriage doesn’t happen halachically], we don’t say “give birth for him” [i.e., the children are not considered his].’

66b there in the mishnah:

כל מקום שיש קידושין ואין עבירה ־ הולד הולך אחר הזכר כו‘ וכל מקום שיש קידושין ויש עבירה ־ הולד הולך אחר הפגום כו‘ וכל מי שאין לה עליו קידושין אבל יש לה על אחרים קידושין ־ הולד ממזר כו‘ וכל מי שאין לה לא עליו ולא על אחרים קידושין ־ הולד כמותה כו‘.

“Any time kiddushin is possible with no aveirah involved, the child follows the yichus of the father [completely]... Any time there is kiddushin but there is an aveirah, the child inherits the flaws in yichus of both parents... Any time kiddushin is not possible with him, but the woman is capable of kiddushin with others [such as a close relative of his], the child is a mamzer [but is still halachically his child]... Any time kiddushin is not possible for her at all [a non-Jewess or a female slave], the child just has her status [and is not considered his child at all].”

Yevamos 22b:

בת אשת אביך מאי עביד ליה? מיבעי ליה מי שיש לו אישות לאביך בה, פרט לאחותו משפחה ועובדת כוכבים כו‘ ואימא פרט לאחותו מאנוסה כו‘ ואימא פרט לחייבי לאוין כו‘ ואימא פרט לחייבי כריתות כו‘

“How do we use the posuk ‘daughter of the wife of your father’ [since your sister is forbidden from a different source]? For someone who is capable of marriage with your father, as opposed to a female slave or non-Jewess... But maybe it’s as opposed to a Jewess that he just wasn’t married to?... Maybe it’s as opposed to a Jewess that he is forbidden to by a negative commandment?... Maybe it’s as opposed to a Jewess that he is forbidden to by a commandment that carries kareis (excision)?...”

See how the gemara proceeds one level after another, more and more halachic distance between the parents, till it finds just the right situation where the child is not called his sister any more. She is not “the daughter of the wife of your father”; that is, his sister via the bond between their parents.

More subtle forms of distancing are also recognized in the gemara. Nedarim 20b:

ברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי, אמר רבי לוי אלו בני תשע מדות כו‘ בני אימה, בני אנוסה, בני שנואה, בני נידוי כו‘.

“ ‘Those who rebel and sin against me’; R’ Levi says, these are the children from the ‘nine midos’: when she was afraid of him, when she was forced, when she was hated, when he or she was excommunicated...” All are cases of distance between the husband and wife at the time of their relations. The result is that the child is a little bit distanced from the father’s yichus (see the gemara there at the top of the page).

It seems to me that this is the meaning of the verses about geirushin later in our parsha:

כד(א) אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר.

D’varim 24(1): “If [his wife] does not find favor in his eyes, for he found in her ערות דבר”. See Gittin 90a; we don’t hold like Beis Shammai that the only acceptable reason for divorce is ערות דבר, that she has become halachically forbidden to him. He may divorce even if they are not getting along. But then why is it mentioned in the verse at all? Perhaps him not liking her is also a somewhat watered-down version of “ערות דבר”. ערוה means that the bond between them is blocked until kiddushin is impossible. Here the bond is blocked, but at a lower level.

We have seen a number of places where the relationship, the yichus, between the father and child is dependent on the relationship between the father and the mother. Maybe a partial explanation:

The child is actually created by the mother. “Energy” and “form” (כח וצורה) come from the father, and the materials and creation from the mother. [See Ramban on Vayikra 12(2) for various opinions on this from the ancients.] The mother becomes a כלי for the father’s creation of his child, so to speak “in his image”.

To the extent that the wife is close to her husband, to that extent she is able to become a כלי on his behalf - and the child will have his yichus. But if there is distancing between them, she cannot become his כלי very well, and then the child is not in his image, not related to him.

(שוב ראיתי רש“י על תהלים כז(י) כִּי־אָבִי וְאִמִּי עֲזָבוּנִי כו‘, פירש“י בשעת תשמיש להנאתן נתכוונו, כיון שגמרו הנאתן זה הופך פניו אילך וזו הופכת פניה אילך עכ“ל. ולכאורה א“א להבין זה לפירוש אבי ואמי עזבוני אלא כמש“כ.)

Using this idea, I want to suggest understanding of two related topics.

1) טעמא דקרא על ברית מילה. שפירש“י בכל מקום שערלה היא דבר שעוטם ומכסה. אבל מעולם לא פירש מה עטם ומה כיסה. ואולי ר“ל איזה דבר רוחני. אבל אפשר שהערלה עוטם הדביקות והקשר הראוי בין איש לאשתו בשעת מעשה. וממילא מובן שאיש ערל נכרתה, דהיינו מבניו. ועיין דעות בכרת של ערל אם היא בעוה“ז או בעוה“ב, כסף משנה על השגת הראב“ד ריש הלכות מילה, ולא באתי רק להעיר.

2) Shmiras Shabbos and building the mishkan. Chazal connected them very strongly: melachos on Shabbos are exactly those that were used in building the mishkan. But creating a child is also called בנין בית, building a house. And just as a woman becomes a כלי to her husband in creating a child from her body, so too Israel was commanded to create a בית for Hashem from themselves, from their נדיבות לבם (generosity) and חכמת לבם (inspiration), their property and their labor. The bayis would still be part of them, but it also would be a place for his shechinah to dwell. Because they were connected, that would include them too, as it says, ושכנתי בתוכם (I shall dwell amongst them).

Therefore, when Hashem came and commanded Israel to build him a home, in his name, he commanded them to keep Shabbos in making it. When he created the world and formed it, he did melacha for six days and rested on the seventh. So when Israel came to be his כלי, to do melacha on his behalf, they had to create as he created, to be shomrei Shabbos as well. Only then would the work created be נתייחס to him and his shechinah. If Israel had not become hisכלי, even if they built a house, it could not be his house, and his shechinah would not dwell there.

Ammon and Moav, Yibum, and Mashiach

כג(ד) לֹֽא־יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמֽוֹאָבִי כו‘ עַד־עוֹלָֽם. (ה) עַל־דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹֽא־קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵֽאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם וַֽאֲשֶׁר שָֹכַר עָלֶיךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָם בֶּן־בְּעוֹר כו‘.

D’varim 23(4-5): “An Ammoni or a Moavi may not marry [into Israel]... for ever. Because they did not come out to greet you with bread and water, on your way in leaving Mitzrayim; and because they hired Bil’am ben B’or against you...”

See Yevamos 76b for the chachamim’s argument with Doeg Hadomi, ‘ “It is the way of men to go out, and not the way of women.” “The men should have greeted the men, and the women the women.”... “כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה - A princess receives her glory inside.” ’ So this law applies only to the men and not the women.

We may wonder: Is this just the way the story happened, and the women were saved from the prohibition because of this circumstance - even though they presumably have the same bad characteristics as the men? Shouldn’t we rather say that the נסיון they were given by Hashem was exact and precise, and that therefore this disqualifying midah must only apply to the men?

And if we do say that the women don’t have this bad midah, do we further say that it doesn’t exist for them at all (as, for instance, some genetic traits that are tied to the Y chromosome)? Or do we say that they have it as well - but for them it isn’t bad?

Most remarkable, it would seem that this midah is essential for building Malchus Beis David and for Mashiach, through Rus Hamoavia and Naamah Ha’amonis.

But what is this midah/characteristic that we are discussing, anyhow?

The Ramban explains the sin of Ammon and Moav:

והנראה אלי כי הכתוב הרחיק שני האחים האלה שהיו גמולי חסד מאברהם, שהציל אביהם ואמם מן החרב והשבי ובזכותו שלחם השם מתוך ההפכה. והיו חייבין לעשות טובה עם ישראל, והם עשו עמהם רעה כו‘

“It would appear to me that the Torah distances these two brother-nations, who were recipients of kindness from Avraham who saved their father and mother from the sword and captivity, and in whose merit Hashem sent them out from the overturning of Sedom. And they were obligated to turn around and do kindness for Israel, and instead they did evil...”

It is clear from the Ramban that what they did in particular - not going out with bread and water, hiring Bil’am - were only indicators. Indicators of what?

I have heard some say that the point of the Ramban is that they were punished because they lacked the midah of hakaras hatovah, ingratitude. But see his further words there:

ועל דרך הפשט טעם לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם, כאומר אע"פ שהם בני משפחתכם ואברהם אביכם אהב את אביהם כאח לו יונק שדי אמו, לא תהיו אתם לו כאחים דורשי שלום וטובה, כי הם הפרו ברית אחוה ותהיה מופרת לעולם כו‘ והעניש את בניו בחטאם שלא ידבקו בישראל.

“The simple p’shat for the prohibition of seeking their welfare: even though they were family and Avraham Avinu loved their father like a full-fledged brother, they didn’t behave like brothers, they didn’t seek our welfare. They nullified the covenant of brotherhood and it is nullifed forever... Their children are punished for their sin by not being able to join Israel.”

The Ramban says that the basic sin was nullifying our brotherhood. At that time Israel was leaving the Midbar after forty years. The nation had changed completely; it was now the Am Hashem. And Israel was rejoining the world community of nations. At that time, every nation had to decide how to relate to Hashem and his nation.

Ammon and Moav didn’t recall the brotherhood that had been; they wanted nothing to do with Israel’s new status; they only wanted to distance us. If they were afraid to war against us, they still weren’t going to do us any kindness, and they tried to curse us from a distance. Therefore they, who should have been the very closest nations, are now forever unable to draw close to us.

בראשית לח(ח) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה לְאוֹנָן בֹּא אֶל־אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ וְיַבֵּם אֹתָהּ וְהָקֵם זֶרַע לְאָחִֽיךָ. (ט) וַיֵּדַע אוֹנָן כִּי לֹּא לוֹ יִהְיֶה הַזָּרַע כו‘. ופירש“י הקם זרע. הבן יקרא על שם המת.

Breishis 38(8-9): “Yehudah said to Onan, Come to your sister-in-law and do yibum, and raise up offspring for your brother. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his...” (Rashi - the child is called after the dead brother) See Ramban who questions this. In any case, the source is from this week’s parsha:

דברים כה(ו) וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד יָקוּם עַל־שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת וְלֹֽא־יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ מִיִּשְֹרָאֵֽל.

D’varim 25(6): “The first-born child that will be born will ‘establish’ on the name of his dead brother, and his name shall not be erased from Israel.”

Surprisingly, here even Rashi explains like the Ramban there:

והיה הבכור, גדול האחים הוא מייבם אותה. אשר תלד, פרט לאילונית שאינה יולדת. יקום על שם אחיו, זה שייבם את אשתו, יטול נחלת המת בנכסי אביו ע“ש.

(Rashi - “The first-born”: that’s the oldest of the brothers, he is the one to do yibum. “That will be born”: this excludes a woman who cannot give birth. “Establishes the name of his brother”: the one who does yibum, inherits his dead brother from their father’s inheritance.)

This is all from the gemara in Yevamos 24a, which comments: “Even though in the entire Torah a verse does not leave its simple meaning, here the drasha removes the simple meaning entirely.”

It seems like an astonishing thing: why here alone in the whole Torah?

Earlier, I brought a number of pieces of evidence that the connection between a father and child is dependent on the connection between the father and the mother. The more the connection between them, the more the child can be miyuchas after the father.

But the reverse is true as well. A child can strengthen a connection between a husband and wife.

בראשית ב(כד) וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָֹר אֶחָֽד. ופירש“י לבשר אחד, הולד נוצר על ידי שניהם.

Breishis 2(24): “He shall cleave to his wife, and they will be one flesh.” (Rashi - one flesh: the child is created through both of them)

The two parts of the verse fit together: They had a temporary connection. But through a child their connection becomes permanent.

וז“ש חז“ל (חגיגה ט:) שאם נולד ממזר מיקרי מעוות לא יוכל לתקון. שביאת עבירה דבר עראי היא ואפשר בתשובה. אבל אם נולד ממזר, הרי נעשית העבירה קבועה.

וע‘ יבמות נו• בת ישראל פקחת שנתארסה לכהן פקח, ולא הספיק לכונסה עד שנתחרש, אינה אוכלת [שא“א לכונסה אח“כ], נולד לה בן, אוכלת [שעתה נעשית קשר גמור] ע“ש. ואין לומר שהבן הוא המאכיל בתרומה ולא הקשר לאב, שפשוט בכל הגמרא התם שבעלה הוא עיקר המאכיל, שהיא אוכלת אפילו ע“י בן בתו ישראל או ממזר, כל שעל ידיהם נתקיים קשר עם הבעל.

The Rabbeinu Bachya says that it causes pain to the dead man that his wife and all his property should leave to a stranger. Yibum does chesed for the dead husband, brings his connection to the wife back to life.

Before Matan Torah, they had marriage through cohabitation but no kiddushin. If a man died with no children, in order that his wife shouldn’t leave the family she would do yibum with a brother (or relative). And by means of the child that would be born and represent the dead man - that is, the child that would be somewhat his - the bond with his wife would be strengthened again.

But after Matan Torah, where there is kiddushin, an actual child is not needed. Even a slight relationship like תחילת ביאה or העראה is enough to complete the relationship and strengthen it (Yevamos perek 6). And the child doesn’t need to be in place of the dead brother; the older brother who marries the yevama and inherits his property will “represent” his brother in the relationship.

It comes out that the drasha of the gemara changes the reading of the verse from the simple meaning before Matan Torah, to its more subtle manifestation that is only possible once there is kiddushin.

כה(ז) וְאִם־לֹא יַחְפֹּץ הָאִישׁ לָקַחַת אֶת־יְבִמְתּוֹ וְעָֽלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה כו‘ (ח) וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו וְעָמַד וְאָמַר לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּֽהּ. (ט) וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ כו‘ וְחָֽלְצָה נַֽעֲלוֹ כו‘ וְיָֽרְקָה בְּפָנָיו וְעָֽנְתָה וְאָמְרָה כָּכָה יֵֽעָשֶֹה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹֽא־יִבְנֶה אֶת־בֵּית אָחִֽיו. (י) וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּֽעַל.

D’varim 25(7-10): “If the man does not want to marry the yevama, she goes to the court... They speak to him, and he still stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to marry her.’ Then the yevama draws near... draws off his shoe... spits before him and cries out, ‘Thus shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house!’ And his name will then be called in Israel, the house of the removed shoe.”

The woman is clearly the active party in this story. She demands, she brings him to court. Why?

Don’t say that it’s because she needs a shidduch. The Torah has already said, “She may not marry outside to another man...” She’s all ready and able to marry someone else.

Boaz said this to Rus as well (Rus 3(10)): “You did not go after the young men, poor or rich.” She had plenty of opportunities.

Don’t try to answer that, still, now she’s stuck because of the yavam; her goal is או פטור או יבם “either do yibum or let me go”. This is also not true - read the verses. She is upset when the yavam refuses. She spits in front of him, and she curses him.

So too with Yehudah and Tamar, and with Rus toward Boaz - the yevama is the one who is pushing for yibum.

Yibum is called בנין בית - building his house. ביתו - that’s אשתו, his wife; she is the חפצא of the mitzvah of yibum. During her husband’s life, she strove to build his house in every way, including trying to bring him children. Now that he is dead, all that she worked for is going lost ח"ו. Therefore, she is the one who wants to try further - by a different means - in order to make her husband’s house and all her labors succeed in the end.

The brother, on the other hand, probably has a wife already. Even if he doesn’t, she was a zivug to his brother, not to him. He doesn’t see a gain to his own house, and he knows “that the children won’t be [entirely] his”. As Ploni Almoni said (Rus 4(6)) “lest I destroy my own inheritance”. He will only be willing to do yibum if he is mochel on his own interests, and acts lishmah for the sake of his brother.

But yibum is a mitzvah of הקב"ה, and that is what Hashem wants of him now. So if he does yibum he will be blessed, as we find with Yehudah and with Boaz. And if he refuses, he has to accept a curse from the woman; he has harmed the house that he wanted to safeguard (בית חלוץ הנעל). And so Ploni Almoni has lost his name. עצת ה‘ היא תקום. [The Rishonim discuss if the yevama does those things to him in a case where yibum is not allowed.]

It seems to me that the nature of women is more suited for yibum than men. A man is called זכר; he sees the past and the future, sees the whole panorama in the present. A woman in general (דעתן קלה) is more focused on the present.

Yevamos 116a says if a woman says to her husband גירשיני, that’s not a sign of a quarrel - they all do that! She sees the present, and at a time of minor quarrel, only sees the quarrel and thinks that all is lost. Her husband should not panic. He needs to take a longer view, and to strengthen the marriage, knowing that everything changes and this is only temporary. And soon afterwards the couple will be בשלום again.

But on the other hand, if the man cannot see the possibility of success in the future, his despair and depression can be much more profound than hers. At times like that, it is the wife’s job to keep hoping, to strengthen her husband, to help him feel that things can get better even when we can’t see how right now.

Here it is the woman who pushes for yibum, who clings to hope for her family. The brother has already given up, already mourned for his dead brother, is ready to move on. It makes sense, really: if Hashem didn’t want to build his brother’s family in his lifetime, why would he build it later? But the wife doesn’t listen to arguments.

This was the midah of Rus. She didn’t listen to people (like Naomi) who told her to give up. She stayed with her, still trying to save her family. And in the end she succeeded.

And this was the idea of the נשים צדקניות, the righteous women who saved our nation in Mitzrayim. The men had given up; the women never would.

The daughters of Lot had this midah as well. We would have said, It’s very important to raise up a family. But if you are stuck in a cave in the wilderness with no one but your father, obviously it is impossible and very inappropriate, and you have to wait! The daughters of Lot didn’t listen to arguments. They went to build their houses, even there. The event was evil and repulsive, but that same midah can be valuable as well. Never give up.

At this point we may be able בס"ד to understand the midah of Ammon and Moav, apparently bad for men and good for women. All nations had to face a major turning point at that time: the nation of Hashem would be among them. Serving Hashem would be the new way to success in this world and the next. Ammon and Moav refused to accept it; they wanted to keep living their physical lives, didn’t want to deal with Hashem and his nation. All they wanted of Israel was that they should leave their neighborhood as soon as possible.

A male convert from Ammon and Moav needs to nullify his own nationhood within his new nation of Israel. He must become part of a new nation, one where he will not be central at all. He will need to be happy being a זנב לאריות, no more ראש לשועלים. This is what it means, “the men should have come first to greet them”. Ammon and Moav weren’t willing to accept change.

But a female convert is different. She does not come in with her family; she comes in to join someone else’s family. She could enter right into the center of Israel, Rus with Boaz, Rachav with Yehoshua. And once she’s there, her midah will be infinitely valuable; she will guard her husband’s house against any despair. “כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה - A princess receives her glory inside.”

We need this midah very badly, the midah of yibum. Yibum was involved in building the house of Yehudah, Malchus Beis David and Shlomo, and Mashiach. Did our nation fail? Try again, try a different way. That’s the secret of Mashiach. Never listen to councils of despair; hope, even when you can’t see how it can work. In the end, Israel will succeed, בב"א. The נשים צדקניות have it right.